[ Page 423 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination Act (Bill No. 2) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 423

An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967 (Bill No. 18). Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Introduction and first reading — 423

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 423

Mrs. Webster — 430

Mr. Steves — 435

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 439

Ms. Young I — 444

Motions No. 3 (Mr. Smith). Request for correspondence on B.C. port facilities to be filed with the House — 447

No. 5 (Mr. Williams). Establishment of British Columbia medical care centre for children in Vietnam — 448

Reports Annual return (1972) under section 53 of the Administration Act — 455

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I would like the House to join with me in welcoming to the galleries today a very large group of ladies and men from the Parent-Teacher Associations of British Columbia. They have come from all over the province and we're delighted. This is their sixth annual visit to the Legislature and I hope you'll join with me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, it may have passed by your steely heart, but today is Valentine's Day. While I don't have the privilege of previous years of thanking the Premier for a bouquet, I would like to thank the Members for this. It says, "Won't you be our valentine, Pat?" and it's from "the hordes." I thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I'm really still the Second Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. We've got to have a new system of designating Members. I can't keep up.

MS. BROWN: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of social studies students from Kitsilano high school who are studying government. I gather they have read it in the books and now they would like to see it in action. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ippen.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, as well as PTA day, it's student day. Among the students, there's a group from Nanaimo sponsored by Crown Zellerbach, represented by Bob Porter, and their teacher, Ted Little. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House also — it is students day indeed — a group of grade 11 and 12 students from Burnaby North Secondary School.

MR. SPEAKER: If it isn't chauvinistic of me, I'd like all the ladies in the House to be my valentine. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
DETERMINATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 2 intituled An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 2 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SECURITIES ACT, 1967

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 18 intituled An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 18 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I've already had my share of welcoming people but I did want to take this occasion to also welcome to the gallery someone who sat through my first maiden speech and helped me get through the nervous experience, and is here today to help me get through my first full speech as Minister — my husband, who is up in the gallery.

I'm also very pleased to have the chance to thank the Premier, as I've always had before in the past when I was on the other side, for his little valentine gifts to us. I hope he appreciates the one he got — the one you received also. I know you did. It also gives me a chance to wish everyone happy Valentine's Day.

[ Page 424 ]

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to take my place in this debate because it gives me the opportunity for the first time to stand up and take part in a budget debate in which the budget has been produced by the first democratic socialist Government in British Columbia.

I also feel that as Minister of Education it is incumbent upon me to speak primarily and chiefly today on my department because I do feel that all new Ministers have a responsibility to talk to the House in their first major speech on what's going on in their department, what the major directions are, what the Minister's own personal thoughts and ideas are on those directions, and what has taken place.

I don't intend, in this particular discussion and debate today, to elaborate at this time on the rationale for the educational budget expenditures. This will be done when the educational estimates come up.

I have stated before assuming office that, in my opinion, a philosophy and direction for education must always take priority before you enunciate a financial policy. May I say that this, I believe, was one of the greatest errors and weaknesses of the former government. As far as education goes, they produced the educational policies in exactly the reverse manner. The financial aspects were the ones which apparently set the educational philosophy.

The portfolio of Minister of Education which I have assumed must certainly be one of the most challenging and the most all-embracing portfolios in our whole government. It's challenging because, of course, education deals primarily and firstly with people, and people of all ages. I think that this is one of the most important things that I, as Minister, and those who are working with me to create new policies for education, must always remember. We must always remember that it is the child, the student and the adult involved in the educational process who must always come first and must be given our fullest consideration at all times.

For you know, Mr. Speaker, I have found since assuming office in such a large department, with the highest provincial expenditure of any department of the whole government, that there is a tendency to become bogged down in organization and structure.

This, I believe, has been a great failing of education in the past because the children of our province have been made to fit the structure, instead of the structure serving the child's needs.

There are some very exciting and very relevant educational experiences going on right now in the classrooms of our province. Right at this moment, as we all sit here, there are some very, very fascinating, exciting experiments going on.

There are teachers out there who are doing wonderful things with the students and students are becoming really involved in the learning process. But it is unfortunately in my opinion, more the exception than the rule. Therefore I feel that as Minister it is my responsibility and one of my greatest challenges to try and provide for all those out there who are consumers of the educational process — a really meaningful learning experience — for all our citizens. What we surely want to encourage for all citizens, young and old, is a great thirst and a continuing thirst for education.

Although of course there are basic subject matters which must be taught and provided for in our school system — we all agree upon that I know — I for one feel very strongly that the school also has the responsibility to provide an environment which will produce citizens who can go out into this world with the ability to adapt — with the ability to adapt to a very exciting but sometimes very frightening world. A world which is changing all the time — changing constantly around us. This is what makes the educational process such a challenge.

We must provide our students with adaptability. But most important of all we must provide these young people who are put in the charge of our school system with a confidence within themselves. Then they will indeed by and large, be able to meet the many problems which adulthood brings to all of us.

I have always believed that a school system must at all times encourage everyone to develop their full potential, no matter what that may be. And above all — and this is something that I have always tried to emphasize when I have had the opportunity to speak to teachers — above all we must never let any of our students feel that he or she is a failure. A student may fail a subject but that does not mean they are a failure. Unfortunately too many of our students in our system today, because they have not been able to cope with some of the rigid areas of the school life they are in, have felt they are failures and this is one of the reasons we have dropouts.

Also, may I say, Mr. Speaker, our correctional institutions, our mental institutions are full of people today who feel that they are failures — that they have been unable to cope with life and all its stresses and strains because of their own sense of inadequacy.

I do not know how many of you — if I can divert for just a moment — saw "W5" on television the other night. I found it one of the most distressing programmes I've ever seen from — not that there was anything wrong with the production — but the content was absolutely shocking. Yet I think that we needed to be shocked, those of us who saw it. Apparently in the city of Toronto, they have discovered a chain where men are going down to the bus depots and picking up young boys — 14 and under —

[ Page 425 ]

who have run away from home and they are using these boys for acts of sexual perversion and selling them.

This happened in the city of Toronto — it could be happening in any city in this province. Why I am bringing this up is — not only was I shocked with how base human nature can become when they can use young boys in this manner — but the thing that bothered me most of all, frankly, was that they followed this very tragic case of one young boy, under 14, who was picked up at the bus depot — and I wouldn't want to go into the gory details of what happened to that young boy here. I think you would find it most distressful. But the fact is, they found out that that young boy had left home — had run away from home. And do you know why, Mr. Speaker? He had left home because he had failed mathematics and he was afraid to go home and face his parents. Which certainly made me stop and think — we better start looking at our school system. How many children are dropping out of this system because they feel they are failures? I don't blame just the schools — we need to educate parents also.

I do not say that the school alone can solve all these problems, Mr. Speaker, certainly we can't expect education alone to be the answer. That is why I am so pleased that for the first time — one of the very first things that happened when we took office — was that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and myself, got together and decided that so many of our services for children were crossing over and there was so much redundancy. There were so many areas that the three Ministers knew nothing about. Then we added up the total sum of money that has been spent on children services, which was tremendous, and we really questioned — were we really getting out of this the true benefits for the children. So the three Ministers are meeting constantly. We have a sub-committee working so that we can co-ordinate all services for children in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what should be the objectives of education in this province? You know, I alone as Minister am not the one who should be setting these objectives in isolation in my office. That is why I am appointing two commissions on education; one on post-secondary and one on public schools. These two commissions will have only one chairman, Mr. Speaker, whose name will be announced in two weeks. I am selecting only one chairman because I feel very strongly that education must always be a flowing, continuous process. We must look at education from pre-school, kindergarten — right through to the university level, That's why I think it is essential to have one co-ordinating commissioner giving overall direction to both of the commissions, although each one of them will certainly will have diverse roles in many areas.

I have been asked by many people what are the terms of reference of these commissions? What are they going to do? Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to keep these commissions very flexible in terms of reference. I do not want to see a group of people hired by the government, appointed and working for six months and then producing one big, large volume of documentation of what they consider to be the objectives of education in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to see living commissions. I want these commissions to report to me weekly. I want to see them get out into the community, into the province. I want to see them create dialogue with the citizens of our province. In other words, I want to see these commissions acting as a true catalyst to get people talking about education — students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. We want to hear how they feel about education today. We want assistance in the new directions which I feel we must take in education in this province.

Now these commissions certainly will have long-range policies and they will have middle-range policies and they will also have immediate policies to enact. In other words, if these commissions report to me that they see something out there in the educational world that should be changed and can be changed for the benefit of all those involved, then so be it. I am willing to see that whenever possible, needed changes take place without undue delay.

I have announced previously that the post-secondary commission will be looking at terms of reference for revision of the University Act and possibly a complete new Community College Act, which as you know, does not now exist. Certainly there must be structural revisions made and recommendations will be forthcoming from the commission. However, the commission must also concern itself with the role of the universities and the colleges in meeting the needs not only of their students within their structures, but also of the communities in which they serve.

I would like to tell the House that since assuming office, I have received literally hundreds upon hundreds of letters from people all across this province — young and old. It's amazing. They range from people in their eighties to students 10 years old telling me they don't like their P.E. teacher and can I do something about it. When you read their letters, you see there maybe is something there that should be changed — but then again I can't just accept one letter and say, "yes, change that teacher." We have to make these young people understand that they must first of all try and talk it out with their own teacher and their own school. Then of course, we hope the commission will look into it if we find these type of letters still coming in after new recommendations have taken place.

[ Page 426 ]

So these people have been writing in day by day expressing their hopes and desires for much needed changes in our educational process. You know, I am delighted to receive this openness and this communication. All these ideas — we have them all on file — will be turned over to our commissions. Some of the people who have written in, I am sure, will be called in for consultation. There are so many people out there that I know can give valuable assistance to our commission.

Mr. Speaker, I have initiated a number of policies since coming into office, which I felt were essential and needed to be acted upon. But before I list these, so that it can be quite clear just how many we are embarked on at this time and where we are going, I would like to announce today one policy — and this is the first opportunity I have had to announce it here in the House at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot as Minister of Education in all consciousness, preside over a school system which condones and permits the use of corporal punishment on the children in the schools of British Columbia.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we want to reduce acts of violence in our community and in the world, we must eliminate acts of violence in our schools. If we want to develop future generations into more humane people, we must practice more humanity ourselves.

Now, not for one moment do I suggest that educators should condone acting-out behavior, if that's what you want to call it, of students. I was a teacher myself, and I know that sometimes it can be pretty difficult in a classroom. But let me tell you I used to strap when I was 18, in my first country school. As a matter of fact, I tried to strap a boy who was 6 feet tall. And it didn't work. Anyway….

AN HON. MEMBER: You should strap them here.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That is not the reason — because I've failed — that I'm bringing this in, I can assure you.

I also want to point out another example that happened to me when I was 18, in my country school. I had a little boy about 10. I just simply couldn't control him. Couldn't control him. So, I did what I'd been taught to do in my teacher training. I brought out the strap, and I strapped him. Do you know, the next day that little boy just repeated the same behavior. So something clicked. This strapping isn't going to work with this boy. In fact, I soon began to realize that strapping does not work.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why the Speaker gave it up. (Laughter).

HON. MRS. DAILLY: So, I just wanted to tell you what happened. I thought, well, the next step to do as a teacher is to go up and visit the parents. So I remember going up a very dark lane at night with my flashlight — to tell you how old I am, I just had gas lights, and gas lamps in…. (Laughter). Anyway, I remember walking into this farm place. I thought I would just have a real heart to heart talk with the father and mother about the problems I was having with their little boy. So I went in and I explained to the parents I just simply couldn't control this boy; and perhaps if we sat down together we could find out what was wrong.

I had no sooner made that statement than the father, who was about 6-foot-2 — or at least he appeared that to me — went to the wall and took down a large belt that looked about four inches thick and said, "this is the way you handle him." And he proceeded to beat the boy. I had to intervene as well as I could to stop it. It certainly made me realize that here was a boy, that I was brutalizing in school, who was being brutalized at home. And we have many cases of this. Unfortunately the ones that are being strapped often do come from situations like this.

I do suggest however that, in removing corporal punishment, I do know that there are going to be teachers and parents out there who are probably going to be upset. But, as I say, I feel so strongly about this. And I feel as Minister I cannot preside over these acts of violence in our school system.

Also, I want to point out that research results have shown more and more that if we can treat children, with their individual differences, and care for them in an individual manner — and here is our challenge to provide this — if we can give them the opportunity to exert self-discipline, very little or no corporal punishment at all should be needed.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm announcing that section 14 of the Public Schools Act regulations will be struck out by order-in-council on Friday and the following will be substituted:

The discipline in every school shall be similar to that of a kind, firm and judicious parent but shall not include corporal punishment. No teacher shall administer corporal punishment in the public schools of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass on to the matter of kindergartens. I've already announced there will be legislation forthcoming this session. But I do think I should explain some background to it, although we'll have a chance to talk about it when the legislation comes up.

As you know, basically the legislation will mean that all school boards must provide kindergarten services. This does not make it mandatory for all children to go to kindergarten. We realize, particularly in the northern areas, it's going to be difficult to try to produce a viable kindergarten setup. I simply want to state now that my department is aware of the problems that we face here. That is why there will be regulations forthcoming which we hope

[ Page 427 ]

will make it feasible to provide some delivery of service to all children, so that they can have this very vital pre-school year.

At the moment, kindergartens are in 59 school districts in the province in 481 schools. They're not available in 16 school districts. Even where they are, there is a great need to extend them. I think one of the most important things about kindergartens, Mr. Speaker, is: not only is it an essential year for children before they enter grade one but, if we had kindergartens all across the province, our people who are involved in special services would also be able to go in and find out the child who needs help — who may have special disabilities, and who may have emotional problems, which develop at a very early age. The earlier we can catch them, so much the better for giving them help. Kindergartens must be included, and every child in this province must have the opportunity to go.

Now, I'd like to talk about some general curriculum changes that have taken place. I'm sure the Public School Commission will have much to say to us on what's going on out there in curriculum, and what changes perhaps should be made to fit the needs of our young people. However, some changes have taken place already which you might find of interest. First of all, I'm sure you're all aware there's been a general move towards decentralization of curriculum authority so that local boards and teachers have room to provide for their own local requirements.

Here are two interesting examples of this: air navigation in Abbotsford and Indian studies in the Queen Charlotte Islands. The Abbotsford course takes advantage of technical knowledge and facilities in the area to provide a course which is of particular interest to students in that area. The Indian studies course in the Queen Charlottes has been developed in cooperation with the Indians of the area, who are also involved in the actual presentation of the course. Now, this course is open to both Indian and non-Indian students. And it gives an overview of the whole Canadian scene to provide perspective; but focuses on the cultures, history and contemporary situation of Northwest Canada.

There is another area which I wish to speak on where there are changes being made. That's in family living and sex education.

Another vital area of policy change in this. You know, Mr. Speaker, the former government gave very little encouragement — in fact they gave none, really — to the development of this very important aspect of our curriculum. Any programmes which took place came because of the initiative of the local group, with no leadership from this past government at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As a matter of fact, since I've come into office boards are surfacing — they're actually surfacing now — and telling me about the fine programmes they are ready to go on, which they were afraid to use under the past administration. Mr. Speaker, I consider it my responsibility as Minister to give encouragement and leadership in developing these programmes. And I'd advise the school boards that are working on these programmes now and have just been waiting for some sanction, to go ahead and use them. Because, I want to emphasize, before saying that to them, I felt I had a responsibility, certainly, to check on the type of programme. I find that the programmes which are out there have been brought about by cooperation between teachers, parents and the school boards. That's the way we want to go.

Now, the Public School Commission and the curriculum division will be examining these programmes with a view to the whole system having an opportunity for a good family living and sex education programme throughout our system, right from the beginning right through.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another area in curriculum that I want to discuss is the matter of the French language in our schools. I'm sure that everyone in this room, particularly those who are parents and have seen their children struggle through some of our language programmes, would want to see all our children develop facility in languages — particularly in our second official language. You know, federal funds have been available for some time to help with the teaching of French in the public schools of this province. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that these funds, which were provided by Canada specifically for the teaching of French, were not used by the former government for this purpose. They were put into consolidated revenue.

You know, I think this was a shameful, shameful thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you right now that these funds are in the hands of the Department of Education and are going to be used for the purpose of French teaching. Those funds are now going to be available to school boards who apply for a support grant to provide for additional learning in the teaching of French. We will approve grants for tapes, television shows, student trips, in-service training, immersion projects, or almost anything that will help students to learn French.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We can discuss that in the estimates.

The other area that I think the House might find interesting to hear about, with reference to curriculum and what's going on in public school sector: in 1974 all government exams will be abolished. Graduation will now be determined in 1974 on the school's

[ Page 428 ]

own assessment of the student. Now, this will mean much cooperation and consultation with all out post-secondary institutions, so that we can enable a smooth transfer of students from high school to post-secondary centres of learning.

This is the only way I feel we can move, Mr. Speaker, if we're talking about decentralization of curriculum, if we're talking about local involvement by teachers, parents and students in programming.

Scholarship examinations, of course, will still be available for those who wish to write them. In the 1973-74 year those examinations will be made available twice annually, in January and in June — this is for the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) who wrote me a letter on this particular problem, and I appreciate it — rather than in June only. They will also be available so that students who have summer work can write them and still be able to take part in their summer work.

I have also authorized in principle, Mr. Speaker, a system whereby adults who have not graduated from secondary school may qualify for senior secondary school equivalency diplomas. I'll explain that now.

It's recognized that through work and other experiences there are many adult non-graduates who have acquired skills and knowledge at or above the secondary school-leaving level. These persons now will be able to earn secondary school equivalency — and this is for the Hon. Member to my right — by challenging a battery of five standardized tests. It simply means that you're not any longer going to have to say, "I'm barred from going on. I don't have my grade 12." There'll be a set exam that you can write.

This should be helpful in overcoming the disadvantage of the lack of recognized, formal, secondary education, which presently can be preventing many of these people from qualifying for job promotions, new employment opportunities or admission to other training or educational institutions.

Another policy which will be going into effect in 1974 will be the institution of a set spring vacation at the end of March, which means it no longer will be tied in with Easter. I think most parents and students will be pleased to see this because, as you know, it's a long stretch from January through and sometimes Easter comes very late. Then there's only a couple of more months and they're out of school. This way we're going to set a standard time for a spring vacation.

I've had a number of students write to me, when they've heard about this, and they say: "Oh, that's great, but how about making it a month long?" That's the only problem.

Now in special education, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks that the Committee for Children, consisting of the three ministers — Health, Education and Welfare — are working very closely. Our whole special education policy in our department is tied in with this committee, because we realize that a Department of Education cannot provide all these special services in isolation.

Together we examine and we integrate requests for assistance and we consider suggestions for the formation of new services.

In its next phase, the Committee for Children will evaluate the range and efficiency of services being delivered to all children and will suggest ways in which present facilities and services could be changed or added to.

One great problem we have, of course, is finding personnel. We were discussing this this morning with the Parent-Teachers Federation, who are very aware of the need for improvement in special education. What we have to do is find the personnel, particularly speech therapists, et cetera, who can get into our schools or the community centres and help these children.

There are at this time some very promising experiments going on in the province following this integrated policy, but it's our responsibility — the three Ministers — to see that every encouragement is given to expanding these co-ordinated services throughout the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just briefly on native Indian education. I wonder how many of us are aware that at the present time only 40 native Indians are enrolled in our British Columbia universities, out of a total of status and non-status Indian population of some 100,000 in British Columbia. Surely those figures alone point out to us that somewhere education for the native Indian child has sadly failed.

We have a great responsibility and a great challenge here to do something positive in the whole field of Indian education. However, I want to stress the great importance that any moves that we make in this direction — my department or any other department that's involved — must always be done in consultation with the native Indian groups themselves.

To this end I'd like to announce that in April a native Indian will be appointed to a permanent position in the Department of Education as Director of Indian Education.

Also, since November, 1972, personnel of our department have been working very closely with native Indian representatives to find the best means of improving the educational opportunities for native children.

Out of this cooperation we hope to see changes in the curriculum — to make the curriculum more relevant to Indian children.

Our department right now is supporting the University of British Columbia in sending a group of teachers for practice teaching to the Queen Charlotte Islands, to teach in the schools there, which contain a large number of Indian children, and to spend time

[ Page 429 ]

living in the homes of the Indian people.

At all times we must maintain close cooperation between the Indian parents and the schools their children attend. This is so vital.

Mr. Speaker, the next subject I want to just comment on is the subject of transportation. If anything has presented problems to me since I came into office, it's transportation problems. It certainly points out to me there has to be a whole overall review of transportation policies by our government — and particularly as it applies to the busing of school children.

However, we have taken one step — it's just a small step. But when I came into office and found these ridiculous situations where children were being left standing in the cold because they weren't within the 3-mile limit and being passed up — some little children left with frozen fingers — I simply said, "Well, look, we have to do something immediately to stop this."

You see, we do get bogged down with these regulations. The regulations had said 3 miles and that was it.

So what we've done is work out rather a complicated formula — I don't want to go into it now. But the point of it is that it's based on the temperature in the different areas of the province. Special allowances — and I can elaborate on this during the estimates — have been allowed to school boards. Extra moneys in effect have been granted so that they will be able to include picking up these children who don't live within that necessary limit.

In other words, we believe in giving autonomy to the local school boards really to make the final decision. But naturally we have the responsibility to assist them with the funding.

In educational television, one advantage we have from the former government, Mr. Speaker, is that they left such a vacuum in the area of educational television that we have no mistakes to correct. We can start afresh. So it's great. We have a wide-open field here. What we want to do is find out what's the best way to go.

So again, here's a subject that's going to have to have a whole lot of consideration given to it. What's the best way for B.C. to enter into this? The Department of Education cannot get into this area in isolation because the whole matter of media and communications concerns other departments also.

However, at the moment the Department of Education is embarking on a small programme — but I think it's a step in the right direction. It's at B.C.I.T., and I suggest that any of you that haven't had a chance to visit that studio go in — it's very interesting.

In this small studio there's a very small TV production crew. This was initiated on a small step by the former government. I certainly say that was done.

The point is — why did it take so long to get going? At least we are moving in that direction.

This is going to have encouragement from our department. Actually what happens at this provincial education media centre is that it has begun to build a library of television tapes, in consultation with the curriculum branch of the department. They are actually making video tapes there, which will be sent out to the schools. And many of the schools are now going to be equipped with a video transmitter.

Planning is also underway to develop tapes for use in the community colleges. I am also pleased to announce that some productions have actually been completed at this studio — which include the insertion of sign language translations for deaf students on several films. We so often forget about this. This unique technique developed in cooperation with Jericho Hill School enables deaf students to obtain full value from the films which were otherwise only partially intelligible to them.

We anticipate this new service will bring students of all ages many ideas, experiences and learning materials which formerly were unavailable. At the same time we do not dispense with the use of film, which still has a great role to play. But I think we have to look at both areas — television and the use of film.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by speaking briefly on post-secondary education. I'd like to turn to the very rapid changes which have occurred in the complexity, scope and expectations of post-secondary education through the past 10 years, which have actually introduced a completely altered social environment. No longer, I'm sure we all agree, should higher education ever be recognized as a special preserve for a chosen few.

Today the term "higher education" — and it includes all studies, be they technical, vocational, general, academic or whatever — continuing education is what we are talking about. Anything which goes on, any educational process which goes on above the K to 12 system, is really post-secondary education.

No longer are we in an era of scarcities. Although university enrolments appear to be leveling off somewhat, post-secondary students still are coming in ever increasing numbers to follow a wide diversity of vocational, technical and other career courses and programmes.

Post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker, belongs to all the people of this province — people of all ages. Therefore in the years ahead I'm sure a number of very significant changes will be forthcoming to ensure that our post-secondary institutions do indeed serve all the people. I realize that some of our post-secondary institutions are moving in this direction, but government has a responsibility to see that that movement is accelerated.

[ Page 430 ]

The financing of post-secondary education, of course, will be of major concern to all involved, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a responsible government must demand greater fiscal responsibility and operational planning than has been demanded from these institutions in the past. I am sure that the commission on post-secondary education will be devoting much of its time in open discussions with all those involved in our universities, because some universities are really moving and making an attempt to involve the community. But as I said, we need to accelerate it. We hope that the commission can talk with those in universities — students, instructors, faculty and administration — so that together we can produce positive and very much needed changes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the past five months we've made two major changes respecting post-secondary education in the Province.

The first major change was that all capital costs for community colleges would be funded 100 per cent by the Government. I do not want to repeat the sad history of what happened under the previous administration through their insistence on local participation in capital financing, The second major change has been a reorganization within my department, which brought about a separation within the Department of Public School Administration from post-secondary. Consequently we now have a division of post-secondary services, which now operates as an autonomous unit, with the Superintendent of Post-Secondary Education now reporting directly to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, implicit in the study of provisions of post-secondary educational opportunities throughout the province, particularly our sparsely populated areas, is the whole matter of delivery systems. It is not economically feasible and perhaps not even educationally desirable to establish a college campus in every community. However, we do know that it is our responsibility to see that every community receives service in post-secondary. The commission, I am sure, will undertake recommendations for providing post-secondary services in new and innovative ways to all our citizens.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude on this note. All the mechanisms that we now employ to meet the educational needs of our citizens need to be reviewed, all of them. These mechanisms that we're caught up in are absorbing more and more of our energies, more of our teachers' energies and more of the educational dollar. By designing anew our educational structure, we can allow that structure to support the student. We can leave the human energies of our students and our teachers alike to be dedicated to true learning. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), I today have the support of my husband in this assembly. I would like to, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for so generously inviting him as a former MLA to sit on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on tabling your report on the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act with the proposed changes in the rules and proceedings of this assembly. Your committees are to be commended for their fine work in the preparation of this report.

As a former teacher, Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to be able to greet the many delegates from the Parent-Teacher organizations across British Columbia who are in the gallery today. We owe them a debt of gratitude and respect, dating back 50 years or more for the work of the PTA's in this Province.

During the depression and war years, they provided funds for extra sports equipment, for library books, for extra equipment in the science rooms and the home economics rooms. In many of the elementary schools, they also provided milk or hot soup free for the little children in grades 1, 2 and 3, to supplement their lunches.

Today they continue to work as a liaison between the home and school. It's therefore not surprising that where PTA's are active, the parents continue to understand what their children are being taught in the classroom.

Though the fund raising aspect is no longer as important as it used to be, many PTA's still continue in this function to assist schools. For instance, in my constituency of Vancouver South, Sexsmith Elementary School for one example, with a population of 500 children, has a PTA of 150 men and women. I believe this is typical of many of the elementary schools throughout the province. It still provides for the school, through the money it raises, field trips for the children to take, library books and subsidized hot lunches, either milk and soup, or meat and potatoes, at the price of about 20 cents a meal, which is really very generous. All the assistance for the provision of this is voluntary. Last year they provided a trampoline and audio-visual equipment for the school, and this year they're working to provide a P.A. system throughout the school.

The PTA's, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about several things. One of the things that concerns them very deeply is the battered child syndrome. They hope that some action may be able to be taken in relation to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, the PTA members are also disturbed about the continued use of cigarettes and light drugs, mainly barbiturates, among the grade 7 and 8

[ Page 431 ]

students. Several of them have suggested to me that they would like to see a return to the segregation of grade 7, 8 and 9 classes, not to be called Junior Highs, but to be called Senior Elementaries, so that it would give them a little feeling of prestige.

Before I continue on the question of education, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for his first budget, which is very reassuring indeed. It has its critics of course, but none of those to date have been able to criticize it too severely. Allow me to say that it also has the approval of many who have examined it critically.

I wish to quote the leading editorial of Saturday's Victoria Colonist. It says, to quote:

"It is, truly, a 'people' budget — but with a good measure of caution and pragmatism. The increase in spending in the coming year proposed by Premier Barrett as finance minister is, by past standards, tremendous. He plans to spend $267 million more than in the current year. The increase in the last Bennett budget was $151 million, and in the one before that $135 million. But the new government seems to have good grounds to believe that the economy will sustain a $1.72 billion budget with ease. And, apparently, it is not about to frighten business and industry away….

On the 'people' side of the budget speech, it may be particularly worthy of note that the biggest increase in departmental estimates is for the rehabilitation and social improvement department at $90,188,809 in additional funds. Likewise, the education department expenditures will rise by nearly a tenth, including increased regular grants to school districts and a 'one-year catch up' on provincial sharing, and also $15 increases in the home-owner grants. The hospital insurance, public and mental health services will all have substantially bigger budgets. Judging by the first of them, there is weight in Premier Barrett's words: 'Our budgets will be prudent, will be tailored to meet the changing times, and will be balanced whenever possible and when in the public interest."'

I support the budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me as a former teacher and wanting to speak on education to follow after our Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). She made an outstanding speech and has given us real content on what she intends to do in her department — so different from what has happened in former years. She has made it clear to us what the new legislation and policies are actually going to be.

I should also like to pass a word of commendation on to the Minister of Education for the efficient way in which she brought back a feeling of normality and confidence in the school system throughout B.C. during her short period in office.

Education is a sensitive field which affects every man, woman and child in the province. The announcement of new starts has been encouraging. So has the granting of added budgetary supplements to restore the confidence in salary negotiations among educational personnel. To assure this confidence, a one year adjustment payment on operating grants to school districts of $12 million has been included.

Mr. Speaker, it is also reassuring to see that the sum of $750,000 has been set aside for research and evaluation. At present, with the changes in our mode of living and technological changes in the fields of science, agriculture and consumerism, many new techniques and methods are being experimented with in a great number of schools throughout this province. Research is of utmost importance if we are going to develop and direct our educational goals into the end of the twentieth century to meet changing needs, technologies and ideologies.

It is also encouraging, Mr. Speaker, to see that community colleges are no longer to be classed and financed under the public school system but will be classed as post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to speak for a few minutes about northern British Columbia. The north is one of our fastest growing regions. I have generally been in agreement with those who have argued that we should not extend our community colleges into universities. However, I do believe that we need a university of the north.

The College of New Caledonia at Prince George could well be expanded to fulfil that function. The Kootenays and Okanagan have Notre Dame University. The Lower Mainland has the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, and Vancouver Island has the University of Victoria. Thus, there is no similar institution in the whole northern area of British Columbia.

Let us consider for a moment the student population of our vast north, extending from Prince Rupert to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and from Williams Lake to the northern reaches of the province. The total student population in elementary and secondary schools in that area is 65,048. Of these, 24,500 are in the secondary grades.

The New Caledonia college has a total student population at present in its first year of 600. That is the year 1971-72.

The 1972 annual report on education had this to say about this college: "Continuing demands by employers for trained personnel has provided employment opportunities for graduates from vocational training. Requests for graduates for dental assisting, practical nursing and the commercial programmes have exceeded the number of students completing training. There have been ample opportunities for graduates from the pre-apprenticeship and trades training courses. Utilization of facilities was at a

[ Page 432 ]

maximum, and several courses were held on weekends to accommodate persons who work because the space in the college was available only at that time."

It states that one general welding course was given from 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. because that was the only time space available for the course.

It also states: "A shortage of skilled workers continues to exist in the area. Forecasts indicate this will continue as the northern half of the province is opened and developed. Demands for training and upgrading will increase and additional facilities will be needed to meet the demands from both people and industry."

Equally exciting reports in the annual report on education come from Dawson Creek Vocational School and from the one at Terrace. All indications point to crowded classrooms, a need for skilled, trained workers and satisfaction with what is being offered. Like Oliver Twist, they want more.

Mr. Speaker, in Terrace, an experimental eight week repair and maintenance construction course was set up for Indians, with the help of the Indian Affairs department. This course was designed to give basic training in the repair and maintenance of home and community equipment for the remote villages. The student body consisted of 20 young native people, one selected from each of 20 villages. The student body of 20 who commenced all remained until the end of the course and, of those, 19 graduated.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker. The story reads the same as you go along. Half of the students at New Caledonia College are enrolled in academic courses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this brings me back to my chief reason for urging a university of the north. As the Minister of Education has said, there are only 40 native Indians at universities in the Province of British Columbia at present. I believe we should promote the opportunity for higher education for our native people.

Mr. Speaker, there is a high percentage of native population throughout the whole of this northern part of our beautiful province, and let no one tell you that they are not every bit as bright as the rest of the population.

Their work in the arts and handicrafts is outstanding. They are excellent guides, trappers and fishermen. As tradesmen, they are much better as high steel riggers than any white men, and they are competent woodsmen.

However, we are still pitifully short of native professionals, lawyers, teachers and nurses and social workers. I was therefore pleased to read of the proposed appointment of George Wilson, a native Indian, by the Minister of Education, as a director of Indian education for B.C. A native of Bella Bella, he has a Bachelor of Education and is a graduate from the University of Victoria. I believe he is the one that the Minister was referring to at the time when she said that they were going to have a director for Indian education fairly soon in this province.

Prince George and district has a population of approximately 75,000 people. I taught in Prince George during the 1940's when that northern city only had a population….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if you would just draw to the House's attention its attendance, out of 35 Members on the Government side, there are only 18 on the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order, Hon. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed with her address.

MRS. WEBSTER: This northern city had only a population of about 2,500. We had quite a number of Indian children then in the schools, but they were inclined to drop out at about grade 8 level or sooner.

During the 1950's, as a provincial inspector, I visited most towns and cities throughout that part of the province. I was greatly impressed by the way all these centres had grown in that short space of about eight years. I was also impressed, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Indian children that were now going on to high school. But somehow, formal education comes to a sudden stop for most of them at the end of grade 10 or grade 12.

If they want to go on to university, it means separation not only from their own culture but also from the north country with which they are familiar, which is their home. It takes a great deal of courage for any young person to enter a huge institution like the University of British Columbia, with its 20,000 students or more, directly on leaving high school. But for an Indian boy or girl, shy and from a small town and a different culture, it is an awesome and frightening experience. He is faced, first of all, with a future of loneliness, the problem of adjustment in having to leave all that is familiar to him, and possibly to live with white folks for the first time in his life.

I suggest in all sincerity that we need a northern university, where many of the programmes could be oriented to the needs of our native people and the problems of the north.

Mr. Speaker, I was greatly impressed by the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) recently when he expressed the importance of a human rights ministry for all people, not only in relation to sex but also the variety of cultures and races in our country, be they white, black, yellow, brown or red. At present there is a barrier preventing our young

[ Page 433 ]

Indians from continuing their education and obtaining the skills and competence assured the rest of the population. It's ephemeral, Mr. Speaker, but it's there nevertheless.

Part of it is related to the distance from educational institutions. This creates a barrier due to the cost factor and also to that of separation from their home background. The other barrier is due to the fact that they cannot identify with the courses offered. We must not allow them to drop out at grade 8 level or even grade 12, for we know that it is impossible for them to compete without adequate education.

Being realistic, I would not expect an immediate development of plans for a university in this area. But I believe in the sincerity of this Government in wanting to provide the young people of the north with similar services as are now being enjoyed in the rest of the province. I would hope, however, that a northern university could be established within five years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to spend a few moments acquainting you with some of the disparities in higher education suffered by women. Dr. Sylvia Ostry, a Deputy Minister in Ottawa, writing for the Women's Bureau in 1966, had this to say: "An interesting observation is the long-run stability of women who are in the professional occupations. In 1901, 15 per cent of the female labour force were in the professional category. The peak was reached in 1921, when 19 per cent of all female workers were professionals, second only to service workers. From 1921 the professional percentage gradually declined to only about 14 per cent in 1951 and recovered slightly to 16 per cent in 1961, and that is the latest figure we have.

"This means that for most of this century, women in the professional category have barely held their own in relation to the tremendous growth in female labour force. The new jobs have by no means all been in the professional sector."

This indicates, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of our tremendous strides in higher education, women have not been able to share equally in the labour market with others in the professions. Canada is far behind western Europe in the employment of women in the medical, dental and pharmaceutical fields. In most European countries, women occupy 20 to 25 per cent or more of these professions, while in Canada only 3 per cent of our dentists are women — that's the figure for 1970. Only 12 to 13 per cent of our doctors and pharmacists — that is the 1964 figure. Twenty per cent of European lawyers are women, compared to approximately 8.7 per cent in Canada in 1968-69.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): You don't want more lawyers, do you?

MRS. WEBSTER: We certainly do.

The recent decision of our Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) to increase the programme of government-subsidized day care centres should give married women greater opportunity to carry on with a career or continue with their education. However, this is not the whole story.

The February issue of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation Newsletter, in an article on the status of women, charged that, "Discrimination against women exists in the policies and attitudes of the Department of Education, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, the local school boards and some individual teachers, and something should be done about it." That is a quote from that particular newsletter.

Mr. Speaker, the teaching profession in B.C., like the other professions, tends to be male-dominated. In the 1940's the women teachers of Vancouver fought for equal pay with men. It was a long hard struggle in which the men feared they would have to take a cut in salary. But when the women got equal pay, there never was any indication that men had to take a cut in salary.

The struggle for parity in other educational areas still goes on. Women have never been encouraged to compete for the higher administrative positions. As a result, there are probably fewer than a dozen women principals and vice-principals in B.C. and very few female department heads. Among the provincial inspectors, Mr. Speaker, except for home economics, I do not believe there is a single woman. Yet many female counselors and other women teachers have proven over and over again their administrative ability is equal to that of their male counterparts.

In Winnipeg the policy of employing women as principals dates back as far as the 1930's. One of Canada's outstanding authorities on education is Sybil Shack, the principal of Isaac Brock Junior High School in Winnipeg. We must let our superior women here also grow in stature.

Mr. Speaker, it augurs well for the women teachers of this province that our present Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is a women and also an outstanding educator and administrator. I know she will be aware of all the inequities that exist and we look forward with hope to her wisdom in dealing with them.

A recent "Report on the Status of Woman" at the University of British Columbia points to areas of discrimination in salaries and salary increments, promotions, percentage of women in each faculty, and the difficulty of women with high post-graduate degrees such as doctorates to obtain positions equivalent to men. The question is not one of competency, Mr. Speaker, nor of standard of educational qualifications, but whether one is male or female. This is not good enough.

[ Page 434 ]

When men and women are the same age, have been at UBC the same number of years, are at the same rank and were appointed at the same rank in the same faculty with the same term contract — men earn $1,740 per annum more than women. In some cases the disparity is even greater than that. This is rank injustice and discrimination.

A review of the report states, "The university punishes women for not being men. Not only are they paid less and kept in the lower ranks, but the university educates fewer women than men and it educates them less." Three days after the findings were announced, President Walter Gage said he was setting up a special committee to consider the report, declaring, "Our aim is to eradicate any inequities in the university's treatment of the female students, staff and faculty members."

Mr. Speaker, I wish him Godspeed. The women of this province and of this assembly will be watching closely to see what the results of the deliberations of that special committee will be.

Reactions to the report have been tremendous. A column in the Vancouver Sun on February 10, 1973, states: "The Board of Governors put the final seal of approval on UBC's first credit courses in women's studies. Although the UBC programme is not scheduled to begin until September, the response has been overwhelming." Enrolment will be limited initially to 85 students, both male and female, in the Faculty of Arts.

Mr. Speaker, the women of this province are on the march and, as the saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." We are looking forward to a new day when all discrimination will be a thing of the past.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn to one or two subjects dealing with my own constituency.

If you own a car you will be aware, as I am, of some of the problems of running it. I believe the main complaint everyone has is the constant rise in the price of gasoline. Mr. Speaker, there are very definite reasons for these price rises. I don't think we can blame it on the individual service stations by any means.

One of the most exasperating problems is that of the type of advertising by the major oil companies. No matter which station you go to you are deluged with give-aways such as tumblers, chinaware, pictures of hockey players, coupons, or a ticket on a hockey or baseball pool. Have you every heard of anyone who really wanted those gimmicks?

Unfortunately, the individual gas stations have no control over this type of advertising. It is forced upon them. Not only do they have to pay for the gimmicks, but the handling also takes time — which costs money to the individual stations. The retailers tell me that they resent this type of promotion as much as the general public does. These should be done away with immediately, Mr. Speaker.

Another reason for the constant rise in gas prices has to do with the unnecessary number of outlets. In my constituency of Vancouver South, there are as many as three service stations at some corners. Not only that, but three or four blocks down the street the pattern is repeated.

These stations are leased out to the managers by the oil companies and are very strictly controlled in all their operations. No only is the market-place swamped with retail outlets, but recently the major oil companies have started to establish a small but effective network of companies owned and operated as retail outlets in competition to their own lessees.

Mr. Speaker, tougher legislation is necessary to control this cut-throat kind of business. There should be legislation too, Mr. Speaker, to control the matter of disparity of prices. There is no reason why gas should cost more in Grand Forks and Prince George than it does in Vancouver and Victoria.

At one time many car drivers could do some of their own repair work. That's not true any more. Most motorists feel lucky if they find a service station where they can get satisfactory repair service from qualified mechanics. There should be legislation brought forward dealing with the compulsory certification of auto mechanics who have passed tradesman's qualifications after taking recognized apprenticeship courses in mechanics.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. WEBSTER: That's right. It would be a benefit not only to the individual motorist but it would also be a benefit to the stations and the operators because they would be guaranteeing satisfaction to the people who deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to refer to one more subject concerning Vancouver South. This is the proposal that the ferry slip for the Vancouver-to-Nanaimo ferries will be moved from Horseshoe Bay to Iona Island. I appreciate the fact that this will relieve the pressure of traffic over the bridges and highways to the North Shore. On the other hand, it will greatly increase pressure on already heavily crowded thoroughfares through Vancouver South.

It will also tax to the limit the bridges already in existence. While the federal Department of Transport is planning a bridge at the foot of Hudson Street to relieve pressure on the Oak Street Bridge to the airport, this bridge will have only four lanes, with none particularly committed to rapid transit.

Mr. Speaker, within the next five years or less this bridge too will be inadequate, and other means will have to be found to transport the public to the ferries and to the airport.

MR. BROUSSON: Get your government to draw

[Page 435 ]

up a plan…

MRS. WEBSTER: I hope the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is aware of the problem that is bound to occur.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in welcoming the representatives of the Parent-Teachers Association here today. I find it rather significant to note that, here on Education Day, the Social Credit Opposition has not so much as put up a speaker on this very important subject. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is the final proof of their lack of sound educational policy.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Whip wouldn't allow us to speak.

MR. STEVES: You're afraid to.

I, too, am a teacher, Mr. Speaker. And due to this lack of policy the Socreds have shown over the past 20 years, this is one of the reasons that I am in politics here today.

Mr. Speaker, the clearest proof of the determination of our new Government to stick by its election promises is contained in the expenditure increases in the provincial budget. The Government is clearly putting its 1973 money where its 1972 mouth was. We have no less than a $90 million increase in rehabilitation and social improvement spending; a $45 million increase in education spending; a $40 million increase in hospital insurance; a $10 million community recreational fund, and large increases in the budgets of the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This is exactly the kind of emphasis the New Democratic Party promised, and this is the kind of emphasis we are delivering.

At the same time as welcoming this policy, Mr. Speaker, we should remind ourselves that governmental departments are as much a bureaucratic convenience as manifestations of true services to people. While increases in grants to municipalities will inevitably benefit the towns and villages of our province; while boosted education funds will no doubt enhance conditions in our schools; and while funds for community projects will without doubt encourage a new social awareness among our young people, we must never forget that the best services to the people of this province will only come about as a result of a wise combination of municipal, education and community spending.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to remember that, when I was first elected to public office as an alderman in January, 1969, I made a public speech calling on the former provincial government to reform our school system in a way that gave common sense value for money and served a common sense purpose, that everyone — parents, students, teachers, intellectuals, workers, et cetera — could relate to; a way that community, cultural, recreational and educational activities could be developed together for the betterment of all.

Along with many others, we saw clearly then that our public school system is an institution that forms one of the most remarkable anachronisms of our age. While almost everything has changed — even the Social Credit government — the school system has remained essentially unaltered since that great Matthew Arnold worked so hard as one of the world's original public school inspectors a century ago.

I was not alone four years ago — and I suggest to you today that I am still not alone — in believing that our public schools today are perhaps the single most dysfunctional element in our society. There is a vast waste of money, an appalling waste of time — in fact, the desperately valuable time of our young people — and an incredible waste of energy, both among students and the staff. We have wandered vaguely through almost an entire generation of widespread family discord. We have reeled under the most mind-boggling technological innovations — television being not the least of them.

We have enjoyed an unprecedented period of monetary wealth, which has spread out most notably into the pockets of young people and created a veritable youth market unto itself.

Yet throughout, under this entire series of upheavals of our school system, the system has remained a sacred heritage from the past. Why? Because in the past nobody has had the courage or the conviction to make the desperately needed reforms. Just like our Legislature today, which our Government is now taking a fresh look at in the light of the modern world, the schools have been viewed as sacred cows which any administration tampered with at the risk of bringing down the wrath of the gods.

Fortunately, there are encouraging signs. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is appointing two commissions to review post-secondary education and the public school system. We have the highest hopes for these two reform bodies.

Local school boards also are making admirable efforts to integrate their schools with the real live community which surrounds them. In Vancouver, the school board just last month agreed to start virtually from scratch two community schools. One North Vancouver School is working under a clear community oriented policy. In Richmond, we have the new Hugh McNair Secondary School designed to accommodate the community principle. And we have integrated our newest community centre with another school.

[ Page 436 ]

Here in Victoria, the school board is working hard on a totally new community school for Saanich municipality.

These are welcome developments I would suggest, but in the year 1973, we should hardly become too excited with the fact that schools are slowly becoming integrated with their communities. In fact we would be justified in asking why it has been so long in coming and we can point out to some developments that are now long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that this Government's budget is crucially meaningful to the field of education. The budget offers big jumps in spending in just the three fields most closely related to the development of community integrated schools, municipal, educational and community recreation projects.

First, what do we mean by community schools? Aren't all of our schools community schools? Of course they are to some extent. But we cannot labour any longer under the "thank heavens for small miracles" attitude. It is this attitude which has landed us with a seriously dysfunctional school system. We have to have the courage to overhaul our schools so that they serve not only the narrow section of the student community, not only the students themselves as a whole, but everybody.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the newly charged municipal coffers and the newly charged educational coffers can be combined in fact, must be combined to offer facilities under one roof.

I would suggest that it is crazy to have a municipal health centre a mile and a half from a major secondary school. It is crazy to have a public library on a little hill all on its own somewhere. It is crazy to have a town auditorium in the business area far away from a major secondary school; or swimming pools and ice rinks at separate locations in the community where they sit idle during school hours because they are too far away from where the kids are, at school.

On the other hand, it is equally as crazy to have school buildings and classrooms designed and located so they cannot be readily used by the community. These strange oddities of our society result from bureaucratic conveniences, not from a dedication to the betterment of people. One of the very simple, fundamental concepts of the community school is that all important community services should be located under its roof. Or to put it another way — the community school should be under the same roof as the community services and under the control of the community it serves.

Mr. Speaker, I see the community school including not only the items that I have mentioned, such as community recreational facilities, public libraries, health services and auditoriums: but also new innovations such as community video and cable TV production facilities, community meeting rooms, 24-hour day care centres, senior citizens' recreational areas, adventure playgrounds, outdoor passive recreational areas, and perhaps even community movie theatre facilities.

Mr. Speaker, in June of 1969, the B.C. Parent-Teachers Federation report called the Community Concept, stated:

"The overall picture appears to be as follows;

1. As a minimum, school grounds are open to public after school hours.

2. Reciprocal use of community hall and school auditorium, or community swimming pool and school gymnasium is quite widespread, but there is no question of joint ownership, nor in most cases, maintenance.

3. Quite a number of communities follow a definite policy of acquiring recreational land adjacent to school land. The whole area, with facilities installed thereon, is available to both parties at appropriate times.

4. In several cases formally constituted joint planning committees have been set up to the mutual benefit of those concerned. However they come up against a major problem in joint financing.

5. In a very few cases indeed, full scale joint planning, ownership, and operation are found. While the economies resulting from such a system would clearly be of benefit to the small, relatively poor communities, it is in fact the larger and more affluent that actually have them."

The school PTA group went on to say in their report: If the benefits are so great, why is everybody not at level 5? — that's having joint planning and ownership of community schools. To which the answer they found was a lack of resources and know-how. They went on: "As long as the Public Schools Act does not provide for joint financing, the entire burden is going to fall on the community with consequent waste."

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the problem we have faced in my community and most communities throughout B.C. for the past 20 years, and I'm glad it's over. As chairman and member of both Richmond's Recreation Commission and a Joint Community School Planning Committee for the past four years, I've found it extremely frustrating that not only were we not able to jointly plan such facilities for community use, but we were in fact openly discouraged by the previous government to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to this new Government to see that the great new injection of funds is clearly steered in this direction, instead of being channeled off into fragmented bureaucratic enterprises. It is up to our new Government to see that the recreational facilities supported by the $10 million Recreational

[ Page 437 ]

Facilities Fund are located wherever possible on joint community school sites.

It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, to commit ourselves to the policy of uniting community services into a common educational and service and recreational unit. There must be — and will inevitably be — if this policy is followed, a breakdown of the paternalistic hierarchical pecking order within the entire school system. This would be both in the administration and in the everyday teaching spheres., Mr. Speaker, I think that it's excellent that today the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has seen fit to abolish the perverted practice of inflicting strappings on students who, for one reason or another are hard to handle. Strapping and the whole system of institutionalized bullying which it reflects, is a perfect example of how far out of tune with the times our public schools have been. We must see to it that once and for all the pedagogue is banished from the public classrooms of this province.

A new emphasis on making the community school a truly communal resource will in turn change the school teacher of old into a modern type of community worker, a resource person. At one extreme, the knowledgable technician; at the other extreme, the man of the world, the spiritual guru. I would suggest that strapping, thrashing — bullying a mass of facts into modern children who face a world of change, the likes of which we have never known, will end forever.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the meaning of the community school. No longer the ivory tower. No longer the austere report. No longer the horror of failing. No longer the drudgery of dry facts. No longer the false division into grades by age and ability. The community school is a joy to go to. A place where young and old alike are happy to spend their time.

Mr. Speaker, as a part of a community educational system, I would like to go on to place particular emphasis on the development of educational TV. However, at the outset, I would like to point out that I do not regard educational TV as just closed circuit TV within the school, or even just an educational station such as channel 9 or 10. Rather I see the use of television as a self-educating system of communication. That's self-education of the people who participate in production and in viewing.

I hope to see the day when we have a community — and government — owned and controlled cable TV system in this province. If properly set up, this new television network would include the following; A cable TV network link by microwave to almost all B.C. communities; an ETV system, with production facilities that would provide high quality educational programmes for the entire province. Head ends — that's direct inputs where you can produce your own programmes — would be located in the schools and in community centres; or preferably in the community schools that I've just described; and also located in the city hall and other important community meeting points.

Equipment and training resource centres in each community using the facilities of the cable school systems would be developed. Much of this audiovisual equipment already exists in some schools and communities today. Such a system would allow the production of cable TV programmes by students and citizens alike for use in their own communities on local mini-cable circuits, or for province-wide viewing.

As it is possible to have about 90 channels on a cable, this system would allow for numerous channels which would be available to the provincial government, community access for educational TV, and for general community use.

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that on Monday night, on channel 9, the American station, the citizens of Seattle were able to participate in the first televised hearing of their city council. The hearing was about: "Who should own, and who should control cablevision." I am pleased to be able to say that the citizens overwhelmingly declared their support for public ownership and control in that area.

I would like to suggest how this can be done. Initially, this can be done in British Columbia by regulating the existing cable system through the B.C. Telephone Company which the government is already committed to nationalizing. The cable systems are directly dependent upon the telephone company for their survival; they lease the pole space from B.C. Tel to run their cables to the community. By regulating the lease agreements, the government, through the telephone company, can directly influence the cable system and insist that they provide a true service channel for the public.

Eventually, with federal government changes, these systems should be brought under public ownership. In areas where cable companies do not presently exist, the telephone company could install cable at the same time as the new telephone lines. Furthermore, under lease control, the cable could be kept under public and community ownership.

The basis for building a new communications network which will support the educational reform in this province exists. And it can be set up with minimal public expense.

Furthermore, Mr., Speaker, I would like to suggest that if highways and railways were the infra-structure of the "Bennett era", then electronic highways will be the infra-structure of the "socialist era."

Mr. Speaker, while on the topic of education and recreation, I would also like to suggest that the $10 million recreational fund should not just apply to community recreational structures. Unfortunately, recreation in our community and many of the others throughout the province is sometimes getting over organized. Many of the young people are dropping

[ Page 438 ]

out of such activities.

In our community we have embarked upon a joint community and school nature and historical parks programme. Our first such nature park in Richmond saw 18,000 people use it in its first year — last year. We have several other nature parks, including an historical farm site, also being considered. Furthermore, such services provide jobs for people to develop them and people to run them. It is my hope that these and other passive recreational activities might also qualify for this and future grants.

The $750,000 educational research grant and the $5 million fund for provincial research and economic studies will help to fill a very great gap in these areas. Without going into further detail at this time, I would like to put forward the idea that part of a $750,000 educational research grant could be used to start a department or a college of educational research in this province.

I would also like to suggest that the provincial research and economic studies fund could be regarded as a start towards the development of a school of economics here in British Columbia. Such a school designed along similar lines as the London School of Economics in England could not only provide research into standard economic resource use, but also alternative resource management procedures, such as the recycling of waste materials, to slow the depletion of both renewable and non-renewable resources, to help clean up the environment, and to ensure that resource development is geared towards the maximum use and quality of products rather than the maximum profit.

Too long have we allowed for planned obsolescence and the throw-away profit philosophy to dominate our economic system.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to suggest that we start to curb our own wastefulness right here in the Legislature. Every day, six days a week, 55 MLA's receive five newspapers a day for a total of 275 newspapers per day; or 1,650 newspapers per week; or 6,600 per month. This amounts to about 1½ to 2 tons per month for the MLA's alone. Consider the amount of paper products used by all government offices right here in Victoria. The amount must be staggering — possibly as much as one-half to one ton a day.

When one considers a ton of newspaper is equivalent to about 17 trees, it is easy to see that the provincial government alone is responsible for the unnecessary destruction of several thousands of trees every year. Not only that, but collecting and recycling our waste paper from office areas such as this would not cost very much and might even be profitable. For example, a recycling plant in my constituency is paying $12 a ton for waste newsprint.

I would like to suggest that the government should get into the collection and recycling business directly and help preserve some of our resources and help clean up the environment in a positive way.

To start it off, Mr. Speaker, I have brought along some newspapers that I have collected in my office over the past two weeks….

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that for one day?

MR. STEVES: Two weeks. I'm not sure how much it weighs but it feels like about 100 lb.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): What about your letters?

MR. STEVES: I haven't even started on the letters yet. And I would suggest that I am going to be collecting some of this in my office, and for those who are interested, I will be taking it out to the recycling depot in Saanich….

MR. CHABOT: It's a good one.

MR. STEVES: It's not bad. Actually, I was involved in supporting it when it started out. I think that this could be a start and I think we should take it from there and get into the recycling business all the way.

MR. BARNES: Right on.

MR. STEVES: I think that the social, the environmental and even the economic advantages of recycling our resources should be obvious to all.

I'd like to point out here that I've used the words "recycling of resources", not the words "recycling of waste products", because these are our resources that are being thrown away.

I'm pleased to see that the budget speech mentions the possibilities of carrying out recycling programmes. I would like to commend the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on budgeting for a 7 per cent reduction on liquefied petroleum gases and for a similar reduction for natural gas used in the internal combustion engine. Like recycling, I think this will be of extreme benefit to the protection of our environment and our resources.

Opposition Members attacking the 30 per cent increase in petroleum royalties have failed to note that this decrease in taxation on natural gas and on propane gases amounts to more than a 40 per cent decrease on these relatively pollution free fuels. They cry out about a 30 per cent increase but we are actually decreasing this fuel by 40 per cent, and there's a difference for the betterment of the environment of 10 percent.

This is one of the incentives I was talking about in the throne speech debate — incentives to encourage motorists to convert their vehicles to natural gas or

[ Page 439 ]

propane use. I'm pleased to see it introduced.

Natural gas, when used in the automobile, can reduce pollution by 50 to 75 per cent. Even tests by B.C. Hydro using liquid natural gas have proven it. I ask you to imagine what a 50 to 75 per cent reduction in exhaust emissions would mean in the Vancouver area, combined with a crack-down on industrial emissions in that area — the air would be breathable once again.

And, Mr. Speaker, propane may be even less polluting than natural gas. In the past few days I have been carrying out some investigations. The propane companies claim that carbon-monoxide emissions may be reduced by up to 85 per cent, and the other by-products of the petroleum gasoline engine are just not even present. The main waste materials coming from propane use are only carbon dioxide and water vapour.

I would suggest that conversion to one of these non-polluting fuels is no idle pipe dream. In Europe, during gasoline shortages in World War II, thousands of cars were converted to this type of gas use. Furthermore, if natural gas conversion proves feasible, we have so much natural gas in this province that we are exporting two-thirds of it to the United States at give-away prices. This amount is 264 billion cubic ft. of gas exported last year. And I would ask: "What better way to use it than right here in B.C. to help clean up our environment?"

While investigating costs, Mr. Speaker, I found that the cost of converting an automobile to propane gas use by Vancouver area companies ranges from $350 to $450 including the propane tank.

They stated that natural gas conversion has not yet been standardized as some people use liquid natural gas in some areas and some use compressed natural gas. They added that natural gas use might require a slightly more expensive double-walled tank. However, Mr. Speaker, as propane and natural gas cars do not require carburetors and fuel pumps, I would suggested that the cost of providing pollution-free cars should be minimal, particularly if it is done during the car manufacturing process. Mileage from natural gas and propane gas is similar to that of the gasoline engine, and engine wear has been determined to be much less.

I would suggest that in addition to the 7 cents reduction that we have already brought about, other incentives might also be provided such as a reduction in the registration fee for converted vehicles — perhaps even a reduction in licensing. A time should be set — perhaps in one or two years — when all new vehicles coming into the province should be pollution-free vehicles, built for gas use and possibly with specialized mufflers for further reduction of pollutants.

To further implement these proposals I would like to suggest that the existing natural gas Crown corporation, Red Star, should be expanded to take over all the existing natural gas wells and transmission pipelines, and enter into the production and distribution of either liquid or compressed natural gas.

Natural gas depots could be set up throughout the province and fleets of government vehicles could be converted to show that we mean business. Initially, perhaps even the buses we now have on order could be built to use liquid natural gas and save the cost of later conversion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when investigating the conversion costs I was advised by one company against converting my car at this time. The reason they gave was that powerful interests are out to stop the legislation to reduce the propane and gas tax. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are also powerful interests representing the people of this province here in this Legislature who will see that this legislation goes through.

Mr. Speaker, for those in the Opposition who decry the fact that we are increasing the royalties on the worst polluter of all, petroleum — a rapidly diminishing non-renewable resource — I say, "For shame! May you soak your head in an oil spill and choke on your own exhaust."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize this is Valentine's Day, so I am going to do my best to see that there will be no mean-mouthing of the official Opposition while I am speaking today.

As a new Member I listened very closely to the budget statement of the Minister of Finance and it seems a reasonable budget to me. Perhaps the House will be surprised to find that I agree with the Attorney General. I think it is a good budget and I am going to support it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This comes as a surprise, does it?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Always full of surprises.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There's been a lot of statements and grumbling from all Opposition Members and several statements in the Press and over the news media, grumbling in many ways about the budget, saying it doesn't do this and it doesn't do that, but really there isn't anything very concrete. It seems to me that the budget was so neatly wrapped up that no handles were left for them to grab hold of and twist on and I like to see this.

[ Page 440 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I think I am going to have to wear my glasses. This furniture must have been set up for the previous Minister from Kamloops.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You like that eh?

There was much reference by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to government enterprise failures in one of our provinces in Canada. I listened to him with interest for quite a long time as he claimed one failure after another. I was very surprised to find out the province he was referring to, because it sounded to me as if he was referring to the performance of the past Liberal government in Newfoundland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There were monumental failures in Newfoundland. Certainly they would compare with some of the ones that were made in Saskatchewan.

I don't think failures are really restricted only to government enterprise. I have heard of quite a few private enterprises failing also. One of the things that annoys me about them is that six months or a year after they have filed bankruptcy they are back in business again under a different name which is something I would like to see our Attorney General's department take a very close look at.

I would like to tell you about one of the industries that they decided to bring into Newfoundland to put the fishermen to work in between seasons. They decided that they were going to put in a plant to make French silk gloves. Now, anyone who is familiar with the fisheries in Newfoundland knows that they fish from dories from the age of 16 on. They set their gear by hand and they haul it by hand. After 15 years or so of this kind of work you know what their hands would look like, and these were the hands they were going to put to work making silk gloves — French silk gloves for ladies to wear. It was one of the most weird projects I have heard of out of many they had planned.

But there was one project they had that was a success. I don't know all the details. I read about it quite a bit in the Press, and I am not sure if it was the government or if government Members were carrying it out. This was the rental of accommodation to the Newfoundland Liquor Commission. This seemed to be very successful. I don't know if they have it straightened out yet down there.

I have a lot of admiration for the Tory Member of Parliament for Bonavista-Twillingate. He must be a "red Tory" because I have listened to him on the television many times and read some of his statements in the papers. He would welcome any industry to his riding and he doesn't care if it is socialist, government, private, free enterprise, any name you want to put on it — they want any kind of an industry they can get.

I have spent quite a lot of time in the Maritimes and I think that they have an attitude toward work that we would be doing ourselves a favour if we adopted in the rest of Canada. If a man is raised in a small village and loses his job he will come to work for instance to St. John's probably for more money, but as soon as a job opens in his home village in many cases he will go back. The money isn't the interest. His surroundings, his friends and family are what motivate him.

To illustrate this I would like to tell a story about a Newfoundlander who was working on a refinery that the company I used to work for was building in Cape Breton. The foreman pulled this man aside one day and said to him, "I want to talk to you for a minute. I hired you a month ago, and every week it's the same — you're here three days. How come?" "Well, boss," he said, "I just can't get by on two."

This is the kind of attitude I think we are going to have to adopt with the increasing automation and with a lot of the hard time-consuming work taken out of modern industry. We are going to have to decide whether we want to work and support a section of our population with our taxes, or whether we are going to work a shorter work week and share the work with the people that need it.

I know I can remember the time when I was a young boy of six or seven years old in Quebec and my father was working 12 hours a day, six days a week. This was finally reduced to 10 hours, finally to 8 hours, finally to the 44 hour week. This was a necessity, I think, because of the hard physical labour involved and the necessity for the people that were doing the work.

But what I am talking about now is the social necessity. We don't have to have a shorter work week because of the health or physical condition of the workmen. We are going to need it as a social necessity to fit our young people into our living today.

So another province that I think the Hon. Member for Oak Bay should have mentioned was Manitoba, because it seems that they had a Tory government there for many, many years.

In the last years before their demise, they were busily trying to give away an enormous section of the province to American pulp interests. They were putting through legislation that was giving money and grants provincially. They were backing federal grants. There was a gift of timber and all the concessions that went with it on the Churchill Falls development. The only thing that saved this situation was the election of the New Democratic Government in the Province

[ Page 441 ]

of Manitoba.

Every effort was made to block the operation of this plant to embarrass the new government. They moved fast enough to put it under trusteeship and bring in the experts that it's operating now and providing employment for the people of the north.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) also mentioned inflation and the possible curbing of union wage demands as a method of curbing this mounting inflation. This is a statement that we're becoming very used to. It doesn't go down any better with familiarity but we still don't like it.

I would like to refer to one of the unions that I know of. It's the tightest closed shop, or one of the tightest closed shops, we have in the nation. They're in every province. In this case it was the Saskatchewan Medical Association, and we have a B.C. Medical Association. They had one of the longest and most disastrous strikes in Saskatchewan's history. The only people that suffered were the people of Saskatchewan.

The strike was against Medicare, which would have guaranteed good, sound, comprehensive medical treatment to all, regardless of income. They said that the doctors would leave the province. No doctor would come and practise under a socialist system such as Medicare. After months and months of problems, the issue was finally settled. There are more doctors per capita in the Province of Saskatchewan than there were then.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, after many years in the labour movement, that the best guarantee of labour peace is some method of profit sharing by the employees with their employer. This could be very difficult, I know, but I feel that it could be worked on a base rate, plus a bonus perhaps, based on the quarterly statement of the company. Now, they would have to start keeping only one set of books because, of course, the figures would have to be checked. But I imagine that for the sake of labour peace, they would be willing to try a system like this.

Now, I fished halibut and salmon from 1952 till 1955 — that's four years — on a share basis: sharing in the operating expenses; sharing in the profit, if any; sharing in the loss, if any. The system that we knew on the boats that I fished on, with the many different what we called "crossings" in the boat, was that when we had the rear crossing or the stern crossing full, the expenses were paid. After that, one-seventh of the value of every fish that came over the side, it was mine. I didn't care if I worked 20 hours a day or 22 hours a day. The hours weren't important. I was sharing in the action.

There are some trades where this could not be done, but the work year for the halibut fisherman is very short, even though his work day is long.

To my knowledge, industrial labour was only offered profit sharing twice in this province. In both cases, it was in companies that were losing money. But I think it would be interesting to hear what employer groups might have to say on this matter of profit sharing, in the search for industrial peace in this province.

There have been many comments made in the last couple of days, of course, on socialism. I imagine they will be made for quite a lot of days to come. I spoke on this free enterprise hang-up last week, but I feel I would like to repeat part of what I say by asking: Where have the independent sawmills gone? Where have the independent grocers gone? Where are the independent salmon seine boat owners and where are the independent ranchers who are Canadian?

There are a few, and there are a few privately-owned businesses, but in most cases it's because some conglomerate has not found a way to merge them together to make an attractive enough profit picture to suit them, so until now they've been left alone.

Most of the good large operating ranches in British Columbia are owned by either Americans individually or on a corporate basis. I don't know why they buy so many of them in some cases. Perhaps for possible tax write-offs in their own country, But some of them are bought by movie actors, I know. They buy ranches like they buy shoes once they start to earn a living. Possibly they're for status symbols. At some Hollywood cocktail party they can casually mention, "Oh yes, I just bought a ranch up in Canada."

But in the meantime, they drive the prices so high that too many ranches are restricted to small 20-to-60-head enterprises that required the owner to work out to make a living. This is free enterprise, and some feel that we as a Government should not interfere. I believe we should interfere, Mr. Speaker. We should interfere to help those Canadian ranchers and would-be Canadian ranchers in any way we can to achieve a way of life that they prize and desire, even if it's at the expense of some of this out-of-country capital.

Coming from the area I do, I'm glad to see there's more money going to the Department of Recreation and Conservation. I feel this has been a sadly neglected department. I particularly like the $1.25 million plus that goes to the fish and wildlife branch.

Maybe there's a possibility now that the new hatchery that's been building so long at Abbotsford will be finished — maybe sooner than we dared hope — and we can look forward to better stocking of our fishing lakes in the interior. I know that there are many fish farmers in British Columbia and they're ready and willing to assist the government by hatching the fertilized eggs and rearing the fish to any size required by the government, all on a contract basis. If the hatchery is built, if it's big enough for the egg production, there are — shall I say — free enterprise fish farmers who will carry on the rest of the work on a contract basis.

[ Page 442 ]

We'd no longer have to import fry and fingerlings from other provinces or the United States. We could raise all our own.

But I know that money is not the total answer. I have hunted in the past and I feel we have to be more strict with our hunting regulations. I feel we must shorten the season and issue fewer game tags. I have heard of cases — I don't know the individuals who are concerned — in Kamloops area a few years back, when it was three tags per hunter, where one man would go out and before the season was half over, would have killed three deer and brought them home. Then he would take his wife down to get a licence and three more tags and take her out on the weekend to get three more. I don't know of one family in Kamloops that could eat six deer in one winter.

To me that's hunting for the sake of hunting or butchering for the sake of butchering. I don't think it has any place in the sport fishing or sport hunting in this province.

I did live for 12 years — and a lot of my family are still there — about 12 miles west of Ottawa. Mostly it's dairy farming country. It's been settled for many, many years — when it was Upper Canada. Fifteen miles from our national capital hunters still get deer during the hunting season. They have a season that's eight days long and one deer per hunter. To my way of thinking there's nothing wrong with a regulation like this. Just this short distance from our national capital, by proper regulation and proper management of the game, there can still be deer taken and deer seen by tourists and drivers during the summer — people out on picnics or on the bank of the river.

If we want deer and moose, and if we want grouse and ducks to hunt for sport and variety of diet, we've got to tighten up the regulations. They're beautiful to see when you take your family out for a drive to the lake, but they're seldom seen now except in very remote areas that are hard to get at.

I see by the budget that the highways department is to get $33.5 million more than before. I'm glad to see the highways Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is here because we can use a little of that money in the Kamloops area, Mr. Minister.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: In meeting people here for the first time — and many of them from my own party — they say, "Oh, you're representing Kamloops. You have a perfect riding then. Everything's been beautifully looked after." Well, friend of mine, it just ain't so. (Laughter.)

We have 26,000 people living on the north side of the Thompson River, and the employment is on the south side. They have to drive across what is a two-lane bridge — actually a one-lane bridge, because there's another access to it and six blocks along one street. It's a permanent bottleneck — and not only cars. This is the only route for the gas and oil trucks for the refinery; it's the only route for the chip trucks, which are like two boxcars hooked together with a truck on the front; and logging trucks coming in from the hills; and buses.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Why did the city develop that shopping centre and city hall right at that bridge?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I think that after some of the comments that have been made on amalgamation that the Hon. Minister of Highways is aware of some of the why's of some of the things that were done in Kamloops, but the rest of the why's none of us will ever know.

This bridge some years ago was impassable for six to seven hours. No one could cross because of a warehouse fire at the south end under an approach. We wondered at the time: What would happen if someone wanted to get to the hospital in an ambulance or an accident situation or sickness. There could be tragedy. Someone could be hurt badly or die. We have to have another way of getting across these waterways.

We can go 14 miles north, of course, and take a current-operated ferry and then come the 14 miles back — but it could be too long. We need about 14 miles of the Yellowhead Highway straightened and upgraded. And since we happen to be on the Yellowhead Highway, I have to commend the previous government for its construction. It's an excellent highway from Heffley Creek to the Alberta border. But there's about 10 miles between the Indian Reserve and Heffley Creek that are crooked, dangerous and badly in need of upgrading. I think, Mr. Speaker, that some of the extra money in highways could be used for this.

I think that we can have a different system of highway building than in the past. There's a road that crosses from Little Fort to the Cariboo — and the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is quite familiar with it. It resembles a goat track, it's so narrow and crooked. No truckers will go into the area to haul cattle to the Kamloops auction. They have to go all the way around by Cache Creek. It's very seldom graded and I have been told by some ranchers that when they're driving out at night that they can see their own tail lights on some of the bends, because they're so sharp.

There are resorts being built in there. There are tourists who want to get into the area. Some of them are going into the area now, because you see, the Socreds had a good idea about this road. They put a sign at each end that said, "British Columbia Provincial Highway No. 24," and the tourists believed this, you see. And they're several miles in on this road

[ Page 443 ]

before they realize that the only thing to do is get turned around and come back out.

Now this would be an expensive project. I know it would. And I'm not asking for it to be done tomorrow. But I would like to start in the late spring perhaps.

AN HON. MEMBER: After they finish Yukon.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Education. Well, this is really something, too, for people who think that everything is wonderful in the Kamloops riding.

We have a situation up there where the federal government owned a large piece of land known as the "navy dump", Department of National Defence land — and they sold this land to the provincial government when they needed it no longer. So then Cariboo College was put on this public works land. The Department of Education operates the college; the Department of Public Works owns and operates the grounds; the Public Works does the maintenance work, the janitor work. If they want a new light bulb they have to get in touch with Public Works; the classrooms can't be cleaned at night because the Department of Education doesn't have shift janitors there.

It was hard to believe, but this happened a couple of years ago shortly after the college was first opened. And they wanted a telephone for the bursar. It took five months to get a telephone, because it had to be approved by Public Works down here in Victoria.

They planted grass last spring, because the grounds had never been landscaped. It grew well, but they never cut it. It got hip-deep and dried and turned into a fire hazard.

It is said that when the academic and vocational meld can be completed, then there would be changes made. This was some years ago I heard this. But the academic and vocational changes at that particular college could be made any time. The meld is excellent. The rapport between the academic and the vocational sections of the college couldn't be better.

The college needs enough land, when the changeover is made, to plan for the future.

For some reason or other there seems to have been — I don't know if it's still in existence — an advisory board on courses for vocational or community colleges. They decided in their wisdom last year to cut out the beef production course at a college that's right in the centre of the beef-raising community. If a student wants to take a beef production course now, he has to go to Dawson Creek — with the travel, room and board and extra expenses that it involves — when he is in the centre of the cattle country and has a college in the centre of the cattle country that he lives in. I believe this course should be reinstated.

One thing I was very impressed with in the Department of Education was when they announced the appointment of Chief Charles Draney of the Deadman Creek Indian Band to the Board of Governors of this Cariboo College. He has been active in getting the residential schools removed from his reserve so that the children could be bused to town and take their education with white children that they're going to have to live and work with in the future. He's always been interested in education and I'm certain he is going to do a good job.

Another thing I have to do is talk to him when I go back. He's been re-elected every two years for 10 years. So I think I should get a few lessons from him — talk over my own future with him.

But we haven't only got colleges in the area. We've got quite a few one and two room schools with a teacher teaching from grade 1 to 6, and they are having some problems too. They're quite far out in the country — gravel roads, some without power and have to generate their own — and they're causing quite a few headaches.

We have quite a large riding in Kamloops, but some of the smallest polling districts — 18 voters in a poll. So you hardly have a giant rally after you drive 35 miles over a gravel road to visit a poll with 18 voters.

Health services and hospitalization. Some more money in this area. I'm glad to see that there's several million more, because we've got a real problem with hospital services in the Kamloops area. I don't know all the reasons; I only know a few. But there's been an addition planned to Royal Inland Hospital that's been in the works for five or more years at the present time. Yet nothing has been done to start on the foundations or any of the construction. The problem could be the local board, B.C.H.I.S., the previous Minister, or a combination of both. But the cost of the finished addition seems to go up $1 million per year. So if we wait very much longer, we're not going to be able to afford a hospital at all.

We have a situation where the waiting list for elective surgery varies between 500 and 800 and where some not so serious surgery is being done in the hallways. There's only one access to the hospital from a busy intersection. One overturned truck at the bottom of this hill where the intersection is could block entrance and stop ambulances or any in-and-out traffic. We've got to have second access.

So when people say to me, "Well, you must have a good riding; everything must be well looked after there," as you can see, it isn't. It isn't the correct story. nursing homes of the type that we had in

One thing I would like to see the Department of Health Services in is nursing homes of the type that we had in Ontario for patients who are not seriously sick or who have recovered from an operation and simply need a week or two to mend where they can get care. The greatest problem we have in Kamloops is that every bed operated by B.C.H.I.S. is acute. What we

[ Page 444 ]

need is a plain nursing home where a doctor can be called if required and where a patient can get enough attention for relatively mild illnesses or operation recoveries.

There's been talk about secondary industry. Everyone agrees with the concept and we all know it's badly needed to improve employment. This is why I am looking forward to the carrying out of one of our election pledges: to have the B.C. Development Corporation to develop some of the resources of this province and to process some of the products of the primary industries.

Time is important. Unemployment could rise beyond what it is now for any reason — which we probably would have no control over — but we could provide new work in this manner if we get going quickly enough in this direction.

Why we haven't got secondary industry I'm sure I don't know. There's talk about distance to markets, differentials in freight rates and things of this sort.

I have several friends in the Norwegian community in Kamloops and they have been away from the old country 25 to 30 years. In the last few years some of them have gone home to visit. Many of them were raised on farms. Norway is concentrating very strongly now on grains and cereals rather than dairy products, and importing these from Denmark.

But these friends visited their boyhood farms, and in looking over the farm and the equipment, they find that there were combines being used on Norwegian farms manufactured in Norway. Little Norway, with a population of not 3 million people or just slightly over — it's around that area — can manufacture combines for their own use and export. Up until now we haven't been able to. There's got to be some reason for this.

Something else they report on is that the senior citizens' homes in Norway are not built as the great mausoleums and storage areas for senior citizens. They build them in their villages and towns or in the cities, in their own neighbourhoods, where senior citizens can be with their friends and their old acquaintances.

I support my colleague from Delta (Mr. Liden) in his call for a ministry of fisheries. I know that the federal government spends a lot of money and a lot of effort in the area of fishery management off the coast. They certainly did a creditable job on bringing back the halibut after it had been almost depleted.

What we need is a provincial department of fisheries to supplement the federal programmes and to develop new ones that are relative to British Columbia and by people who are on top of the problem and more aware of what is going on.

There is much expertise that is available. I would like to see it used in this department. This department could probably handle the funds my colleague was talking about to allow fishermen to buy the boats from the companies that they work for or to get new boats built for their use.

Some of the best news to me is the beginning of the land accumulation for land banks. After seeing the unregulated and cancerous growth of the Kamloops area with no planning — a hodge-podge affair of one community leaping over the other with very little space in between — we find that this system won't work. There has to be control; there has to be planning.

I feel that the best way that this can be done is for the Department of Municipal Affairs to buy land and lease it out and get some of the speculators out of the market that have been robbing us for so many years. I say "robbing" quite knowingly because that is what they have been doing.

I hope that very soon our government will follow the example of the Government of Manitoba and go extensively into the public housing field. This was well written up in a well-researched article in the Vancouver Province last year. I wish I had it with me — I could give the date and page and writer — but it's certainly in the files.

They detailed how many units were built and how they were being operated — scattered around the cities. Not only low income housing — someone earning $200 a month would pay $36 a month in rent; someone earning $500 a month would pay $135 in rent. This is the way it should be: a mixture of those who have trouble renting a premise and people who can afford other accommodation, but if this is good enough, will go there.

It doesn't matter if it takes 25 or 30 years to pay it off; it's in the black. The government is the owner. The building is all done by, once again, free enterprise but well-inspected by government inspectors to see that quality comes for the dollars spent. They are staying away from the building of ghettos such has been the result in Vancouver in the Raymur area that I have heard so much about and visited on occasion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we saw today a demonstration of the quality of a cabinet Minister in the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), a person who has expertise from just about every view of education that one can: as a parent, as a teacher, as a member, I believe, of the school board, and as the education critic while in the Opposition and now as the Minister of Education.

I think the things that are being done in the field of education in this province and are going to be done by this Minister are truly remarkable, are innovative, and may set new standards for the whole of Canada.

You know, Mr. Speaker, for many years now I

[ Page 445 ]

have been analyzing the budgets brought down by the previous government. We received some criticism, I believe, from the first speaker of the Opposition the other day that only a very small percentage — nothing remarkable — over what the previous government, percentage-wise, had devoted to education.

Well, in my analysis, over the years, of educational expenditures and budgets, I noticed — and I did this analysis about three years ago — that where the budget may call for 30, 31 or 32 per cent of the total budget to be devoted to education, the actual expenditures were substantially less. As a percentage of total revenues, they were much substantially less than what was budgeted for. So, contrary to what Flip Wilson may say, "What you see ain't always what you get." (Laughter).

Now, this holds true for not only education but for many other social expenditures. I would like to give you some examples. In the 1970-71 budget, the education appropriations were $365.5 million. The actual expenditures were $358.8 million — nearly $7 million was left unspent. In the 1971-72 budget, this appropriation was $398 million and expenditures were $389 million. The saving there was nearly $9 million.

In the matter of health services in the 1970-71 budget, the appropriation was $235 million — $232 million was spent, a saving of about $2.5 million. In the 1971-72 budget, $264 million was appropriated and $260.6 million was spent — another saving of $3.7 million. Totaling that with the previous year's savings in health care of $2.5 million, about $6.2 million was unspent from those beautiful Social Credit budgets.

Mr. Speaker, how many chronic care facilities would that $6.2 million have provided for the elderly of this province?

Mr. Speaker, we have been fed for years on the propaganda — and that's what it was — that this province was debt free. When I read those budgets and public accounts of past years, I simply could not buy it. Fancy phrases like "contingent liabilities" go against my grain. A debt is a debt is a debt. It has to be paid off regardless of what you call it. I'm happy to see that the new Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is willing to call it what it is — "debt".

Now we come to the increase of taxes in the corporate field. Goodness gracious gum drops! How hard done by are these poor corporations: B.C. Forest Products only doubled their profit in 1972; the supermarket chains have reported increased earnings; land development companies have recorded record earnings. It has been a tough year for all of them.

We're not asking for anything more than other provinces — including one run by a Conservative government and one run by a Liberal government — in corporate taxation. B.C. has too long been the happy hunting ground for the corporate rip-off.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in looking over the public accounts of the past two years, I notice that the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was so proud of his saving, especially in the social expenditures, that he had the savings printed in italics so that everyone would see what a good boy he was — saving us money. Mother, pin a rose on me. (Laughter).

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has allocated $10 million to assist in setting up recreational facilities in communities. I think this is a very worthwhile project. But I'd like to ask him to consider funding programmes for some of these facilities. Last year, due to the frugality of the previous Minister of Finance, we had many facilities — particularly in the Vancouver area — such as parks, community centres and swimming pools which could not be utilized during the summer when the kids were out of school, because all funding had been cut off for staffing them. There were no recreational programmes available to them.

Now to my way of thinking, creating summer programmes for existing facilities far outweighs the priority of creating new facilities. There is no point in building a structure to accommodate sporting events and then shutting it down because there's no staff available for supervision and maintenance.

This leads me to a problem that exists in my own riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain — and one which I am sure can be duplicated anywhere in the province. We have young people in their teens — and perhaps you can call them disadvantaged — who are, shall we say, running in gangs. In one particular area I'm thinking about we have managed to get a youth worker to work with these young people. When he came into the situation they were on a destructive course. He began to try to redirect their energies into constructive ways.

He found it very tough going. For instance, as an example, he can get tickets to a hockey game with quite a lot of ease; there's no difficulty getting tickets, particularly from charitable organizations and service clubs. But the kids cannot go. They cannot find 50 cents for the bus fare — to go to the Coliseum and back. So, no hockey game.

They can't go to the ice rink, even if there's ice time for them. No skates. No money for skates.

So, this young man is having trouble at the moment. He is living on a very modest stipend, I might add. He devotes 10, 12, or 14 hours a day to this youth programme, because he is devoted to it. But he has no money, not even petty cash for stamps. So, he has no way of funding some of the projects that he would like to in that particular area.

The Minister of Finance has told us that his is a "cautious" budget; he expects hopefully — and I think he's probably accurate in his assessment — that

[ Page 446 ]

we will have a surplus. I'd like to suggest to the Minister that this would be a good time to think about a winter works programme for the winter of 1973-74. Now is the time to start planning ahead for these problems that we find every single winter.

We can get the federal government to start thinking along these lines too. It is absolutely ridiculous for the federal government to come up with a winter works programme in December — patently ridiculous.

In Manitoba, the provincial government there developed a winter works programme that benefited the whole community, particularly among the construction trades. As you know, construction workers are usually laid off in the winter months. Not much construction goes on at that time. They arranged to pay, at union scale, up to $100 a week to tradesmen to repair the homes of pensioners — to do tile work inside; to do plumbing work; to do renovations this sort of thing. It was the same as they would get on unemployment insurance. But, at the same time, I know these men personally and 99 per cent of them don't want to sit around the house for three and four months. They would much prefer to work.

So, this is something that I would like to see the cabinet look into and start planning now, start thinking about — a winter works programme — so that it can go into gear ahead of time.

We in British Columbia do not live in a vacuum; but sometimes we in these chambers get so insulated we think we do. I'd like to discuss briefly the current international monetary situation and its implications for British Columbia. I think they're grave. The Minister of Finance discussed a bit in his budget about the international monetary situation, the trade problems that the world faces today.

As we all know, Canada is a trading nation and British Columbia is a trading province. This has quite a lot of implications for us. At the present time the United States dollar has been devalued 10 per cent; the German mark remains constant; the Japanese yen is floating. What are the implications for British Columbia in this?

The monetary experts, economic experts, anticipate that the Canadian dollar will float down and remain at par within perhaps 2 to 5 per cent of the American dollar. I hope they're right. I say hopefully, because I believe that the Canadian economy is a little bit stronger than the U.S., and we do have a trade surplus. But we will hope and perhaps pray that such is the case.

The U.S. is preparing trade legislation that's going to affect us. Seventy per cent of this country's trade is done with the U.S. A great deal of our trade in British Columbia is done with the U.S. I'm sure that most Members are aware of Mr. John Connolly and the way he "leaned" on Ottawa during the last monetary crisis — which led up to the Smithsonian Agreement.

I would hope to see the federal government and the federal wing of our party be very firm in its trade negotiations with the United States at this time because I do not believe the United States is really in any position to get tough with anybody. I honestly believe that they're not.

They need us worse than we need them. B.C. is in a good position, in my estimation, as we have products that they want and are not able to produce themselves. I can see the U.S. perhaps putting trade restrictions on manufactured goods. Naturally they don't want to import the manufactured goods we make. But they want our natural resources. They want our wood products. They want our gas and our oil.

I believe we need to diversify our trade patterns. And I am very, very happy to see that the Minister of Finance and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) go hand-in-hand to Europe to secure, as he puts it, "our traditional market." I would like to see energies put forth to expand our markets in the European Economic Community. I think we're in a very good position inasmuch as we do have products to offer — forestry products, I'm thinking of right off hand — that they can use.

In the monetary situation, if presumably the Canadian dollar drifts down 8 or 9 per cent, we will have a trade advantage there in relationship to European currencies.

The European community stuck together this time; they didn't go all over the lot. They all stuck together. The run was against the mark. The mark held fast. The other currencies remained steadfast, stayed with the mark, and forced the United States to do the devaluation.

I would like to also urge more vigorous trade research in the Pacific Rim countries, particularly with Japan. In the matter of Japan, we quite obviously are in no position to be exporting manufactured goods. I believe we have some expertise in pollution control that they're going to need desperately. They've already discovered that. This is one area I think we can expand on.

There again, the yen is floating and it will float upward. They anticipate a 14 per cent upward float of the yen, so this would put us in a very good trading position in my opinion.

As I said, I would like to see more research done in these countries. Just a small example of this. You may find this amusing but to me it is an example that perhaps we're overlooking.

In a Pacific Rim study that was done by the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce that I read that the Minister of that department (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) sent me, I noted that the Japanese are extremely fond of frozen and canned fruit juices. When I think of that, I think of,

[ Page 447 ]

the Okanagan apples. I believe that is an area that could be explored. Maybe they don't like apple juice, I don't know. But the possibility exists that they might like it and I think we ought to investigate it. We might be able to build up a very good trade position that would help the B.C. fruit industry and would satisfy a market need of Japan.

The point I would like to make — and I think we must not forget that we do not live in a vacuum in British Columbia — is that we are a part of the world community and sometimes we must look outside of the borders of our provinces to worldwide trends. I would urge the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to enlarge their research facilities to seek out viable markets for our produce abroad. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Calder moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we move to motions and adjourned debates on motions.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3. The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

Excuse me, Hon. Members. I heard a statement just now from the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to the effect: "Call them all out of order." I may say….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I mishear that?

MR. CHABOT: You misheard that. I said that they could be called out of order. That is, not in the order they appear in on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. Well, that's only with the consent of the House that they can be called out of order. The rule is, on private Members' day they are called in the order of precedence on the order paper. Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), motion No. 3 standing to my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it we are agreed that we second motions still.

MR. SMITH: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the motion, the motion reads that we desire "all correspondence, communications, document, and maps between all departments of the Federal and Provincial Governments, any official of the British Columbia Railway, any official of the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and any person, with respect to the proposed port facility at Squamish, or any other location in Howe Sound, or at Prince Rupert, be filed with this House."

The reason, Mr. Speaker, that the official Opposition would like to have the benefit of this information filed with the House is fairly obvious. This whole matter of port development on the west coast, whether it be Prince Rupert, whether it be Squamish or whether it be Britannia Beach or anywhere within the Howe Sound area, is of very great importance to all of us. It is particularly important to the northern part of British Columbia which I personally represent, or part of it. It certainly has an effect on northern development because, when we talk about markets for export purposes and for future development of any type of resource that is available in that country, we're going to talk about ports.

There's a feeling in the north that unless the decision is made on the basis of the best information available, the decision could be of a very political nature and that northern development could become the ham in the sandwich which would be very detrimental in the long run to the development of our part of the country.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have no intentions of becoming the unwilling recipients of the type of development that could be detrimental to us. Particularly, we have no intentions of supporting that point of view or agreeing with it when we've not had available to us, as Members of this House, and as the general public if they request it, all the information that is presently being accumulated and is available to the cabinet benches of this province.

There's been a great deal of controversy about development. It's been the subject of newspaper editorials throughout the lower mainland newspapers, of — shall we say — brief skirmishes between the provincial government, the Hon. Premier and the federal government, the Hon. Jack Davis, on many matters affecting the development of ports in British Columbia.

I, as a Member, have no objection to the Premier of the province and the Hon. Mr. Davis skirmishing if they desire to do that on these matters. If they want to play politics with that, that's their prerogative.

But I do think that if we are to make a judgment based on sound economics, based upon the ecological problems that are involved, every Member of this House is entitled to all the information that may be available before that judgment is made and that decision is made.

That is the reason that we put the motion on the

[ Page 448 ]

order paper, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that the Premier as well as the Members of his cabinet benches will agree that if all the information is available, then we talk and we debate on an informed basis, rather than have only part of the information available to us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this motion but I have to express a little bit of shock — not feigned shock, but real shock — that this motion is appearing on the order paper. That Member was a Member from the north in the previous government. Most of the communication took place at that time. Is he saying that he wasn't made aware of the communication, that the northern Members didn't know it was going on, that he had to wait for a change of government before he got the material that he's looking for?

Why, I have no objection to the Member being informed after he's been in the dark all those years he's sat with Social Credit, and if it takes the Government to enlighten them, we will. In terms of….

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): All the reports.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the reports; well, I'm not the previous Government. If we table everything…everything will be tabled. In my 12 years in this House not one motion that tabled papers was ever accepted by the previous Government. We accept the motion, with the traditional proviso — that if the federal government agrees, and I am sure they will — then every single document, piece of correspondence, map, communication, memo, everything that's been kept hidden by the previous Government will come on the table here in this parliament.

So, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn this debate to give me time to write the federal government. I will write them tomorrow or the next day — by the end of this week the letter will go to Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phone.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …or phone, or send a letter. As soon as I get approval, as they have asked us for approval in revealing other documents of the federal House that formerly didn't get approval from the provincial government — and every request that I've had from Ottawa, I've given that approval — if they give the approval then I'll come back into the House and table it.

So, I ask for adjournment of this motion until I get the approval from Ottawa.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Put the return address on it. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard a motion to adjourn the debate….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm not speaking against the adjournment.

Would the Hon. Premier also advise us if he has any indication from Ottawa of a refusal to allow these documents to be tabled?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I haven't asked them. I don't know their opinion. But I don't expect that they would say….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. I'll give you the answer. If they say yes, I'll table it; if they say no, I'll say they said no.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 5 standing on the order paper; the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) motion No. 5 standing in my name on the order paper, as follows:

"In the opinion of the Legislature, the Government of British Columbia should give consideration to building, staffing and maintaining a medical facility for the rehabilitation, care and development of children in Vietnam."

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, it was with unanimous glee and satisfaction that the Members of this House were advised by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on opening day of the then imminent resolution, or opportunity for resolution, of the conflict in Vietnam. We have all watched with great interest and with high emotion the events which have taken place since that day.

I have said this before, and Members of this House have heard me say publicly, that there have been many thousands of words written and spoken about the tragedy of that war which has been carried on in Indochina, and it has been a matter of regret to many of us as private citizens in this country that the cessation of hostilities has been so long delayed.

It is possible to criticize other nations of this world for their participation in that conflict. I think that no one will ever forget the tragic lesson which the events of these past years in Indochina have so clearly portrayed to us all — the devastation, the waste, the loss of life, the complete and utter tragedy and futility of attempting to resolve whatever differences there may be by resort to armed conflict.

[ Page 449 ]

While none of us will ever easily forget those events, we still have a responsibility to concern ourselves with the rehabilitation of those countries and of those peoples who have been the victims of such tragic devastation.

And so, remembering as we do the lesson, I think we must nonetheless move forward in every way that we possibly can to restoring those lands and those peoples to the condition which we would, if we were in their position, wish to have for the future of their lives.

No one knows the full extent of the loss of life and the injury to men, women and children as a consequence of this conflict. But there is some evidence as to the extent of that devastation.

A series of articles were written in the Christian Science Monitor through the latter part of January and February, and I just want to refer briefly to some of these articles. If Members of the House have not had the opportunity of reading them, I wish that they would take the opportunity.

It deals with Vietnam's children. I would like to read just a few brief paragraphs from the first of five articles, by Daniel Sutherland.

The article reads:

"When you first meet a Vietnamese, his opening questions are likely to deal with children. 'Do you have a family? How many children do you have? To the Vietnamese, children are gifts from Heaven; the more of them the better. The couple without children is to be pitied indeed.

"Through his children a Vietnamese expects to find immortality, continuity for the family name. All wars have taken their tolls of children, but the Vietnam war has been particularly cruel — a long war without frontlines where any village could suddenly become a battlefield. A war where modern weapons have often done more damage to the innocent than to the enemy. The records of provincial hospitals, which can only tell part of the story, show that several years ago civilian casualties greatly outnumbered those of the Saigon government army. Civilian casualties reached peaks following the Communist Tet offensive of 1968 and the spring offensive of last year.

"But while the hospital records can indicate trends and high points such as these, no one knows what the total casualties have been; much less how many children have been killed. Many never even made it to the hospitals. It is estimated by U.S. experts, however, that more than 700,000 children have lost one or both parents in the war; thousands of children — no one knows how many — have been maimed. Of the estimated 7 million Vietnamese who have been refugees at one time or another, at least half have been children. In some refugee camps as many as 70 per cent of the refugees are under 14 years of age. The war has lasted so long that many children in the rural areas have known nothing but war."

We in this province, debating as we are the affairs of this province today, have many problems. But I suggest to you that the problems that face us today in British Columbia pale into insignificance when compared with the problems which face the children of Vietnam.

Therefore, when we are considering reconstruction; when we are considering the extent of the obligation and the responsibility which we in this country and on this continent may have as a result of this conflict — of this devastation and waste — we should, at a time dealing with budgets of this province, be prepared to carve out of the wealth which we have some small measure of moneys, by which these blameless children can be afforded the opportunity of being restored from the ravages of war.

It may be that they have not been injured physically; it may even be that they have not been injured mentally; but they are in desperate need. While actions are being taken by other governments leading to the rehabilitation, redevelopment, and restoration of the country and of the people of Vietnam and its economy, I think that the least we can do is to give the most serious consideration to the establishment of a facility to help the children of Vietnam.

Today's issue of the Vancouver Sun carries a story that the United States pledges aid to Hanoi. There is a war reconstruction commission to be set up and it will also be concerned with the development of economic ties with North Vietnam. I suggest that in our approach to our obligations that we do not differentiate between North and South Vietnam.

I think we should give our consideration only to the children from wherever they may come. I would like to think that the Government and the people of the Province of British Columbia could establish a facility in Vietnam to which any child may come, north or south. A real haven in their country, if it is to remain divided. A haven in their country carved out by the people of British Columbia — where no question is asked of a child save, "what help do you need?" That is the only question that we should ever ask.

It is easy to provide moneys. I suggest that we should not do that. It is easy to build a building. I suggest that we should not do that alone. It is easy to staff a building. I suggest we should not do that alone. It is easy to maintain facilities and we should not do that alone. I suggest that we should build, we should staff continually and maintain continually this facility so that year after year there will be the recognition by the people of Vietnam of the deep concern and regret that we have — and at the same time, a continuing reminder to all British Columbians,

[ Page 450 ]

and indeed to all Canadians, that never again should one nation so interfere in the affairs of another that such a facility for children should need to be constructed.

I think it is particularly fitting that we choose a hospital or medical type facility. There are some outstanding examples in the world of philanthropic endeavours involving medical institutions. We have all heard of great work that has been done by the Rockefeller Foundation over the years. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if you look carefully at what that institution has done — those facilities in the field of medical care and research, that they have provided stand at the top, the top measure of the performance of that institute.

They established many years ago a hospital in Peking and it is an outstanding medical facility. They established in our own country, in Montreal, a neurological institute which is outstanding in the world. And if the Rockefeller Institute is ever to be remembered for one thing, it will be for the assistance it has given to medical care and research. Therefore I think that while repaying in part, the most tiniest part, our debt to these people, we can at the same time provide the living memorial from which we too will gain some benefit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak in this debate — in support of my colleague's motion. I feel that in a disaster such as all mankind has regretted in Vietnam, we all share a certain responsibility, all of us. It is not a question of pointing fingers and blame at other people and suggesting that blame lies elsewhere. All of humanity shares the blame for such disasters and similarly….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I wonder if the mover of the motion would send it up to me. I don't seem to have it on my desk. Oh, the clerks have it, thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have an opportunity here to display the fraternity of man in a way, in a little way. The fact that we are all, everywhere, concerned about trying to rectify some of the damage done, the losses caused, and the human misery that resulted. Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned to you the five articles on children in Vietnam in the Christian Science Monitor. I urge all Members, as he did, to read them. They are pretty moving articles. The newspaper man concerned, Mr. Sutherland, does show that there are things we can do.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would like your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the practice is for seconders to speak — but that Member is not the seconder of the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I am awfully sorry. I took it that you were. I didn't have the motion in front of me. It is supposed to be sent to the Speaker and the only one who has priority after the mover is the seconder. I would ask in view of that circumstance if the Hon. Member would give way to a Member of the Government who wished to speak next — since the seconder did not wish to speak. All right, it is just that I feel that we did not conform to the rules that the motion come to the Speaker before entering into the debate. In any case certainly I'll not disturb you if you wish to proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I reserve my right to continue this, I had only a couple of minutes left.

MR. SPEAKER: By all means proceed then. Nobody objects.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is little, Mr. Speaker that can be added. There is no need for descriptions of the disaster. Everybody knows them. I would just like to try and deal quickly with the practical. I am very pleased the Government has been kind enough to allow a motion, which obviously might lead to some future expenditure, to be at least discussed to this point. I don't think we should concern ourselves about difficulties on that.

We have precedents previous to this — of the Manitoba Government in particular — the government of Duff Roblin taking a major part in external aid programmes. We have the agency of the federal government, the Canadian International Development Agency, which can assist us in co-ordinating in this area. We have the precedent established by our own government in B.C. aiding with foodstuffs in cases of disasters abroad. And as my colleague reminded me the promise in the very fine statement yesterday by the Provincial Secretary regarding Iceland. So there is no need for us to quibble on legalisms as to whether or not this is the best thing for us to do under our rules. I think it is time for us simply to accept an excellent proposal. The Government, I am sure, will be able to find a means of implementing it and I most strongly urge the House to support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I say right from the outset that the Government intends to accept the motion. I don't want to get into a quibble about words with my good friend from West Vancouver, but we are not

[ Page 451 ]

specifically and clearly committed to that which is in the motion in detail about a medical facility for the rehabilitation, care, and development for children in Vietnam.

May I say I agree with just about everything you say and you said it very, very well. Already the committee that looks into these things has had a direct request from the Red Cross and is looking into it. I say that by way of information — not by way of substitution.

On January 16 of this year before the session opened and about the time that the terrible Vietnam conflict seemed to be coming to an end — a very good friend of mine and an old acquaintance of many of the people on this side of the House, John Pedersen, a constituent of the Member for Mackenzie, (Mr. Lockstead), wrote to the Premier in almost the same words that we find on the order paper in your name regarding a school or a hospital. He, upon reply from the Premier in an affirmative way, then wrote to me pointing out he had a letter from our leader and offered his services as an individual to give up that which he is doing now to go there as a tradesman and do some of the kind of things that you say. So I think that we can all say, without any question at all about it, that this is the kind of thing we should do.

Names like Bethune, names like Chester Ronning — Canadian names that are revered and respected in that part of the world. The idea to use the word memorial is one I think which brings to mind to the Canadian fact — the Canadian presence in a meaningful way.

At the same time I think I should, by way of information so that the debate — indeed I welcome more contributions through debate — by way of information may I tell you that, without prescribing in any way the amount of money that we may consider, let us just deal with one item where we could find some revenue. That is in the fund that was set up entitled, "Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund." To underscore the kind of things that the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was talking about: in this year, and we're only part way into it, for disaster purposes we've already made two contributions. For rehabilitative work and agricultural work we've already spent, in the last month alone, a considerable portion of the spin-off from that fund.

We've sent to New Guinea. We've sent to Nicaragua. At the end of last year we sent to Fiji and Nicaragua. And, of course, in September we actually did send money to Vietnam for relief goods and medical supplies in the sum of $10,000. Not, I suggest, a sum sufficient. I have no remarks to make, quantitative, about that.

I think that the Government should do something like that. It's because the Government, the cabinet, have discussed this and discussed our measures — I remember the statement made by the Deputy Premier during the Christmas time about some of these disasters — that we accept this motion. We are pleased to perhaps make it on this day — on this very day which has something to do with love and affection and looking after the hopes and aspirations of other people. So in that spirit, we certainly accept it. I will, if any Members require for purposes of their own information, make available these figures that come out of this disaster fund, and I might possibly want to table them in the House. I'll look into that tomorrow or sometime. But certainly we welcome that.

The committee, as I say, is already studying one programme. But perhaps what we should do — and here let me come to my final remarks — we should perhaps be in touch, not only with out federal authorities who know a great deal about what's going on there: not only with the Canadian element of the three-nation peace keeping or supervisory group, but we should be in touch with the governments of the areas concerned.

I particularly welcome the fact that you do not preclude any area of that devastated land. I suppose that means talking to people we may not agree with, people we may not like — but that's their business, not ours. I think on that basis, and I see the Member nodding, that we can certainly come to full agreement.

So in summation, Mr. Speaker, the Government is pleased to accept the principle of this thing, and now we should get on with the job.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be very brief. The Conservative Party strongly supports the motion. I would like to comment personally that I notice that bringing the motion on early in the session is another demonstration of what I believe to be the sincerity of the socialist Government to reform, not the rules perhaps, but in spirit to give us the opportunity to debate motions which, regardless of the cynical comments I hear on the right, I would suggest —

AN HON. MEMBER: Far right, far right.

MR. WALLACE: On the far right. (Laughter). We used to donate these motions about half an hour before the Lieutenant Governor came to prorogue the House. That is a fact. But, Mr. Speaker, if I can just say that I think the Canadian efforts in Vietnam, long before we finally reached the truce situation, were commendable; and Canada has assumed a role in world affairs of which every Canadian, including ex-Scotsmen, can be proud. I think that I am including the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) also.

[ Page 452 ]

I unfortunately missed much of what the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said. I was out of the House. But I gather from further comments that he would like the Canadian identity to be preserved in the actions we take. I accept the Government suggestion also, that they not necessarily accept literally the wording of the motion in terms of the particular facility.

I think the House would surely realize that it is the spirit behind this motion which is the integral thing we're debating. I, for my own part, would hope, or pass on the comment, that personnel is so often more important than money or even material things when you're trying to build from scratch. When we've seen some of the films of the territory which has been so devastated, I think that all we would suggest from our side of the House is that, when the plans are finalized, we put the priority on personnel. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the news that the Government is willing to participate in this scheme. As most of you realize in the House, from previous remarks that I have made, I have been very involved in attempting to stop that war in Vietnam for a number of years. I certainly welcome what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has indicated as the wishes of the Government at this time.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), when he was making his remarks concerning the resolution itself, stated that we have a debt. He hoped that we in this province can help to pay that debt that the people everywhere owe to the people of Vietnam. I support his feelings about this, and I would sincerely hope that the federal government as well will participate in paying this debt to Vietnam.

It is my strong feeling that the federal government over the years has not accepted the kind of responsibility that it should have taken in dealing with this whole question of the war in Vietnam. I feel that the federal government has not played the part that I, as an individual in this country, would have like to have seen done. I have not heard from the federal government, at any time that I have written to them, a satisfactory response to many of the questions that kept occurring to me.

Why, I kept asking, were we still making profit from that war in Vietnam? Why were we still selling $300 million worth of arms to the United States when that was going on? Why? The answer that I got back was that they, the federal government, could not determine which was war material and which wasn't. But there were other countries that were able to do this, and I'm sorry that the federal government was not able to do that when that war was going on.

I'm sorry to bring a note of bitterness into this, but I feel quite strongly about it, having been involved for so long. How many times did we hear, for instance, the federal government — the Minister of External Affairs — raise his voice in protest against the war and what was happening there during all those years? Why, during all that time, were we still carrying on research into chemical biological warfare at places like Suffield and Shirley Bay in Ontario, and sharing that information with the United States?

How much publicity, or how much attempt was made by the federal government to indicate to the people of Canada which were the companies that were profiteering from the war material? Which companies were selling us goods in our homes and at the same time making huge profits out of the material that was made to kill the people in Vietnam?

Not even the organizations which so many Canadians were donating to in an attempt to pay that debt that so many of us were feeling — not even the organization the "Canadian Aid for Vietnam Civilians" — was permitted to be tax deductible by the federal government, because they felt it didn't qualify.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members, I can't resist the temptation to stand up here. I've been in this House for a long time. I think of how many times we have placed resolutions on the order paper denouncing the war in Vietnam, and how many times those resolutions were amended to make no sense at all as far as condemning the war in Vietnam.

The government of that day were afraid to stand up to say anything that might be detrimental to the United States — rather than advise them. It's a little twinge of conscience today to think that we're willing to help out. I'm very glad that we're willing to help out in restoring some of these people. But you'll never be able to pay the debt. Those children that have no arms and no legs — you'll never be able to pay the debt. And neither will the United States ever be able to pay the debt for the suffering that they placed upon those people in Vietnam. They're not paying the debt today of the people that are dying now when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. They're still dying from that.

Long after we have left this Legislature and other people take our places, these people will still be suffering. It gives Canadians a twinge of conscience that we have a debt to pay because, as the Hon. Member just

[ Page 453 ]

stated, our trade with the United States has been indirectly assisting the war in Vietnam to a great extent.

While we realize that this war has gone on a long time, I hope some Members who could have supported the condemnation of this war because the savagery of this war knew no limit. We saw that at Christmas time when they bombed for the last time the northern part of Vietnam.

While we know that the people in Vietnam committed a lot of atrocities among themselves, there is one thing that we should have done: we should have left the people, many years ago, to decide their own course they were going to take in the future of Vietnam and left out the interference by other nations. The United States and, indirectly Canada. was interfering with what was happening in Vietnam.

I hope that we will not have to pass or move resolutions condemning any nation for the tactics that they use throughout the world. As I said before, I couldn't help but stand up because I remembered all the resolutions that we placed before this House and how many Members resented those resolutions and amended them to where they were of little value in condemning the war.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I am really pleased today to be able to stand here in support of this resolution. As many of you know, I too have been involved in the peace movement and have spoken out for many years against this war.

I would like to refer a report to you put out by Professor S.J. Noumoff of the Department of Political Science from McGill University. It's called, "How to Make a Killing." The report indicates that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Canada, awarded more than $458 million between 1967 and 1971 to 154 companies in Canada producing war materials for the United States government. It says that the federal government supported selected development programmes and paid half the cost of modernizing plant equipment in support of establishment of production components and materials designed for use by the U.S. forces in Indochina.

The report says that 45 of the 154 companies were American owned and these American-owned companies received 40 per cent of the money granted by the Canadian government. The majority of the contracts were for transport aircraft; aircraft like Beaver, Otter, and Okanagan helicopters. Also for aircraft components, electronic navigation and communication equipment, marine equipment, vehicle components and spare parts.

And in a catalogue prepared for the sale of war materials from Canada, they even list shrouds.

Professor Noumoff said his researchers sent out 778 questionnaires to companies asking them if they received contracts from the Pentagon. They received 205 replies and 73 companies acknowledged receiving U.S. defence department contracts.

The report says that four companies denied receiving such contracts although the Pentagon said they had. It says the four companies were Canadian General Electric, North American Rockwell, Westinghouse Canada Limited, and Okanagan Helicopters Limited.

Canadian universities also were among the foreign universities and non-profit institutions that received grants from the Pentagon for research under the Department of Defence budget from the United States government.

McGill University received $19,420 for basic scientific research from the Pentagon, the report says, compared to a $55,725 grant in 1967. The University of Toronto: $45,658 in 1971, down $164,000 since 1967. UBC received an $83,000 grant in 1971 for defence research, development, testing and evaluation.

Over the years we have seen a flow of war materials to the United States amounting to about $300 million a year from Canada, and a flow of about $5 million a year of Department of Defence so-called "research funds" coming to Canadian universities. We have seen our resources being sent abroad to be rained down in the form of Canadian nickel which lined the bombs which were dropped in the carpet bombing in Vietnam; bombs used for the needless slaughter of men, women and children.

We also find that Canadian hospitals and medical corps may have been used as intelligence networks and that Canadians on the International Control Commission may have been spies for the Pentagon as shown in the Pentagon Papers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have allowed a wide-ranging debate because I think we are all indulging in apparently an attack of conscience. Consequently you can range pretty wide when you are busy absolving yourself.

But it seems to me that is going far beyond the relevance of the question before the House, which is that we, "give consideration to building, staffing, and maintaining a medical facility for the rehabilitation, care, and development of children in Vietnam." What the Pentagon did or did not do really isn't relevant to the proceedings of this House.

I would ask you all to bear it in mind after a few passing allusions to our guilt.

MR. STEVES: That's fine, Mr. Speaker. I was finished anyway with the Pentagon.

In summing up, I would like to say that I am pleased that, even though this government was not

[Page 454 ]

responsible directly for the flow of war materials to the United States and for the problems that I have outlined, that at least one government in Canada is standing up and saying that we are willing to try and do at least this token bit to restore what we have done so much to destroy in this country. I would hope that this word gets to our federal government in Ottawa and that they too will take the same kind of action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say at the outset that we, the Social Credit Party, would like to support this motion. May I also say that I see it as a fantastic opportunity for us to stand together as a House, unanimous, on a motion that has to do with sympathy towards the children of Vietnam.

I also see that this should not be a motion upon which any of us should try to seek any personal justification for any remarks that we have made in days before today. I don't think that any of us should try to claim any political achievement marks for things that we have said or have done or have not done.

Regardless of how many resolutions have been placed before this House and regardless of how many of those have been amended in days gone by, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, let's stand together today as a House, unanimous, and let's move on this motion as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I'm glad to see, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Credit had the new Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) say those words.

I'm not content to just let this motion pass unanimously without some comment about the previous 10 or 12 years that almost every Member on this side of the House has been associated with the anti-war movement. It's a good motion and I appreciate the considerate remarks of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

I know particularly that the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was involved in Indochina — and I know I'm not breaching any confidence in saying that I know of his frustration at the war that went on for so many years.

I don't wish to be unkind or vindictive, but I will say this: Where were the persons of the stature of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) in the year after year that the men, women and children marched in silence on the streets of Vancouver and in every other city in North America protesting this war? If men of that stature — and I say this not in any bitterness; I'm saying this as a lesson for some future time — if men of that stature had stood up against the war, maybe, just maybe, it might have ended sooner.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's hard for old habits to die in adults; but we're dealing here with the motion reflecting children. I don't think that pious remarks from our side or that side are really relevant in this debate — although I suppose it satisfied us in terms of memories; when we reach a certain age memories become more predominant — rather than looking to the future. I have my memories about what happened and the memory of my own feelings and everything else; but I just have to honestly say, "Thank God it's over." And I'm happy for that.

The motion here is not for us in this House, in my opinion. The motion is not so much for the grown-ups in British Columbia. This motion in my opinion — and the reason I am supporting it along with other reasons — is a motion for the children of British Columbia. They come to this chamber and they go back to their schools and they say, "What have you ever done over there? What ever happens?" Nothing symbolizes our whole parliamentary democracy when they come on a one-day visit.

Then once in a while something rare and unusual has an opportunity to happen — like this motion. So, on behalf of the children of this province I think it's fair to, say that we accept this motion and on their behalf we hope to send a gift to other children in the world — and not pass it on with any of our hang-ups of memories of the past that brought the situation; because we'll still have those — but this is just a clean future gift on behalf of the children of British Columbia to the children of a very unfortunate country. Let's just pass it on that basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall files answers to question.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in reference to a question asked by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) I would ask leave of the House, rather than tabling the question in written form, to table it as a return. With leave of the House I'll do that.

Leave granted.

[ Page 455 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett files the annual return for the calendar year 1972 submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, R.S.B.C.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.