1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 469 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, the Honourable W.K. Kiernan made a Government

statement of policy regarding Sunday passes on British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority buses and the establishment of regional transit

boards.

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): The statement is in two

parts, Mr. Speaker. The Government has requested that Hydro reconsider

the question of the 50 cent Sunday passes with the view to

reinstatement of theSun day pass at an early date. The Government feels

that this Sunday pass is of great importance to people on limited

incomes and that a special case can be made on their behalf, Mr.

Speaker.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to transit in the two

metropolitan areas of our Province. The Government is prepared to

endorse and facilitate the establishment of regional transit boards for

the Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver metropolitan regions, if

this meets with the wishes and cooperation of the municipal governments

of these areas. The Provincial Government guarantees a continuing

subsidy of not less than $2 million, annually, from the Provincial

Treasury in support of these urban transit operations. British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority will continue as the operational and

administrative body, unless otherwise determined by mutual agreement at

some future date. The Hydro Authority will continue to subsidize the

transit operations of the two metropolitan areas from its other

earnings at a level equal to the subsidy provided in the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1971.

The regional transit boards, if established, will have full

participation rights in terms of determining policy as to fares,

extensions or limitations of services and related matters, provided the

municipalities of the regions served, will share equally with the

Provincial Government the deficits arising from transit operations in

the metropolitan areas. The deficits to be shared will be determined by

deducting from the audited annual costs of the urban transit operations

in each of the two areas, deducting all of the following: all revenue

received by the transit operation, as determined by audit; the $2

million Government subsidy, as provided in the estimates before the

House; and the contribution made by Hydro to urban transit from its

other earnings, as determined by audit for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1971.

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

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, replying to the

Minister's statement, in two parts: first of all, we welcome the first

statement. We regret that, along with theSun day pass, the cutback on

some hours of service has not been restored. Not only does the shortage

of the pass work a hardship on the working poor but there is a hardship

of transportation in the early hours of the morning for those people

who have janitorial jobs and other marginal incomes to keep a family

going. Those hours in the morning, when nurses must come home from the

hospital, and those people, who work 24-hour shifts must have

transportation, still do not have their problems solved.

On the second item, Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. We have the

opportunity in this House to discuss through the Throne Debate and the

Budget Debate, in a thorough manner, long-range transit problems and

solutions, and the Government has found it necessary to respond only on

the basis of a crisis, and that it has initiated, rather than spell out

clearly to the House and to the people of this Province, just exactly

where we are going in the transit business. (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I would just answer this, Mr. Speaker, by saying

to the Minister, whom we gave leave to give this statement, and I'll

complete my statement by saying this, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, if you want us to intelligently debate the matter of transit

on a regional basis, then I ask the Government, in all conscience and

responsibility, to lay the matter before a committee of this House with

all the accounts of Hydro so that we can study the problem properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The House gave leave to the

Minister to make a statement on public policy. This is not a matter of

debate at this particular time.

The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to ask a question of the Minister, if I may, that he would clarify a

point for us? The question is simply this. Will there be included in

the transit operation, whose financial statements will be turned over

to the metropolitan authority should they decide to participate, the

freight operation which also works within municipal boundaries and

which returns a very generous profit to the B.C. Hydro….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …because this question is absolutely essential

for deciding whether or not this will be a profitmaking or a

profit-losing operation. I just want to… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Education.

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

[ Page 470 ]

while I intend to devote most of my address this

afternoon to education, this will be the only opportunity I'll have to

speak on behalf of the people of the Rossland-Trail riding. Just as the

economy of Canada slowed down last year, the economy of the

Rossland-Trail riding noticeably slowed down. That doesn't mean to say

that nothing was going on in the riding.

During the year I had the opportunity, for example, on behalf of my

colleague the Honourable Ralph Loffmark, to officially open the 50-bed

extended care unit and the 24-bed psychiatric unit at the Trail

Regional Hospital. These additions involve an expenditure of $2 1/2

million and they fill a much needed gap in our hospital facilities in

the Trail area. This hospital can compare favourably with any in the

Province.

During the year 1970, as well, there was a major addition to the

Senior Secondary School in Trail in library facilities; there was also

a brand new school constructed in Fruitvale — the Beaver Valley Junior

Secondary School — which I had the pleasure of opening just a week ago

and which cost just under a million dollars to construct.

We also have in our area a very energetic group known as the

Kootenay Industrial Development Association. They worked tirelessly,

during the past year, to try to attract new industries to our area but

up to now they've had very little success. I hope that the

municipalities of our area will continue to support this kind of group

in their endeavours. At the present time, there is a wood component

company that's announced they would be building a plant in Trail. This

application is being held up in Ottawa, but I hope that this venture

will be able to get off the ground shortly.

While 1970 was a difficult year for our riding, I'm hopeful that

1971 will be much more progressive. I was happy, indeed, to be able to

announce recently the construction of a new school for mines in the

Rossland area I originally began working on this project when I was

Minister of Mines. I'm convinced that the mining industry will continue

to grow in the Province of British Columbia and, in time to come, that

it will jostle the forest industry as the number one revenue producer

in the Province. I think it's fortunate, indeed, for our Province that

we had such a buoyant mining industry last year, because otherwise our

economy would have suffered even further. With the development of this

school for miners, my understanding is that the industry may require as

many as 3,000 trained miners in the next few years. In prior years, the

industry was able to obtain these skilled miners from other parts of

Canada and from other countries, but these miners are no longer so

easily available. It seems to us, therefore, that it was an appropriate

time that a mining school be launched. I'm hoping it will commence on

April 1, with an initial class of 40. As the school gains in experience

and, contingent upon the demands, the number of students likely will be

increased. They will be taught open-pit mining, underground mining,

blasting techniques and the operation and the maintenance of mining

equipment. The Mining Association of British Columbia has volunteered

its complete cooperation and, in fact, will be obtaining a good amount

of mining equipment which will be available for this school. The

financing is being undertaken by Manpower and I'm very appreciative of

its great assistance in this project.

During the last year, the Murphy Creek

section of the

Trail-Castlegar Highway was completed and I was recently able to

announce that the Department of Highways will be shortly calling for

tenders on the Blueberry Creek

section of this highway. As soon as the

contract is let, work will commence on this important

section of

highway.

I share in the Premier's optimism, shown in his Budget, for the

economy of the Province and I expect and I hope that some of this

improvement will show up in the Rossland-Trail riding this coming year.

Regarding the education portfolio, I'd like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that our educational system in British Columbia has now been

in operation for almost a hundred years. As a matter of fact, the

Annual Report I tabled with the Legislature, this year, was the 99th

Annual Report of the Department of Education. You'll notice that the

basic principles upon which the system in British Columbia was founded

have endured through the years, although many changes have taken place

as our Province grew and as society became more complex.

Education must undergo a constant process of change in order to be

relevant to the times in which we live and to face the problems which

lie ahead of us. These changes should be brought about by an

evolutionary process. Our laws and regulations are sufficiently

flexible to allow the system to grow and to allow for developments.

Indeed, we encourage principals and teachers to implement new

innovations at the school level, as long as they remain within the

framework of the changing laws which govern the operation of the

system. We do not necessarily agree that change is good, simply for the

sake of change because, I'm told, damage can be caused by those who

implement change on the wholesale basis, without regard for the

possible effects it may have on the pupils.

For example, several years ago, I had the opportunity of appearing

before OECD in Paris and, at that time, the United States educational

authorities were pointing out that, when you make a change in the

educational system, it takes something like five to seven years before

you can see the actual effects of the change on the educational system.

If it is wrong and if you have made an error, it has a substantial

damaging effect on the pupils who have gone through this experience.

For example, a few years ago, there was a major revolution in the

area of teaching arithmetic and mathematics. Studies and research

indicated that the teaching of that day was not proving effective and

the subject matter of courses was sadly out of date for the scientific

age. Revisions in programmes began to introduce what was often referred

to as "new mathematics." It was felt that the children should be

exposed to the latest ideas in the world of mathematics and in the

theories and laws of science so that they would be able to operate in

this area more effectively. The changes that resulted were quite

marked, and proved difficult for parents to understand — some, at

least, found that they could no longer assist their children with their

homework — me included. These ideas and proposed changes were genuinely

accepted. In this Province, as in many other educational jurisdictions,

they were supported by the authorities and they received some trial

use, which indicated that the new programmes did develop a greater

degree of interest and enthusiasm to what was thought, up to that time,

to be a very dry and dull subject and a very unpleasant one to learn.

However, as in the case of all revisions, it was necessary to undertake

a reassessment of this programme and, as a result of the surveys by our

department of our research branch, they indicate that, while there have

been some gains in the aspects of learning arithmetic, there would

appear to have been a decline in certain other skills, such as

multiplying, dividing or computing. Our department is now at work

undertaking further revisions to ensure that

[ Page 471 ]

appropriate emphasis will be placed upon learning

and maintaining the basic, fundamental skills which everyone is

expected to possess.

I think that it is necessary to take stock of new developments, from

time to time, to assess them in the light of the best evidence that's

available. There are times when we must ask if these changes are

justified, in terms of the contribution they make to the improvement of

education for the pupil. Are they justified in terms of the time and

the energies they demand from the teachers and in terms of the

expenditure of public funds? I think it can be expected, in the future,

that the Department of Education, in consultation with local school

districts, will be taking a very critical took at some of these

innovations. It can also be expected that local authorities, who have

the right to approve such innovation, will be requiring an accounting

of them.

I'm especially pleased to see that more and more of the school

boards are making their school facilities available for community use.

I know that the PTA has been pushing very hard for this programme,

especially during the last year. I think that the school plants have

tremendous potential for the promotion of a community spirit and I,

personally, feel that, in a school district where the classrooms, the

libraries and the gymnasia have been open to the public, the taxpayers

of that area are far more likely to approve of capital referenda.

Talking about the school buildings themselves, I think that Members,

if they have gone through a school recently, will realize that there's

been a great change taking place in school construction in the Province

today. Instead of the old honeycomb-type building, with its permanent

interior walls, with which most of us are familiar, many British

Columbians will find, if they go and take a look at some of the modern

schools that are being constructed, a protective outer shell inside of

which we have wall partitions that can be moved from place to place so

that you can expand or you can reduce the size of classrooms. The

wiring, the heating, the lighting and the ventilation services in these

types of buildings are overhead so that they're out of the way, where

they're easily accessible for inspection and repairs or overhaul. This

new approach to school construction has been brought about largely in

response to suggestions from teachers, principals and the educators

that the classroom space belongs more properly to those using the

school itself. Through the construction of a number of open-space

schools, supported by these steel posts and beams, it was soon realized

that it would be even more economical, in the long run, to continue

with this type of construction. Since these walls are easily movable

it's no longer necessary to bring in wrecking crews with jack hammers

and crowbars to demolish the old walls. The services now are overhead

so it's no longer necessary to bring in tradesmen, plumbers and

electrical men, when the wall is moved, to move these services.

I think I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not bring to your

attention and the attention of the Members, the good work of school

boards in keeping the older type of building up to date and

functioning. In the course of my visits to the schools, this last year,

I was very much impressed by the imagination shown in reconstructing

and renovating some of these buildings. I would like to particularly

single out the School Board of New Westminster because, in this area,

it has done a great deal of work in maintaining its old buildings and

they've been maintained with scrupulous care.

It would appear to me that there's no magic formula today, no

perfect model, that we can accept in the Province as being a model for

all times in school buildings. The best that can be done, I think, is

to proceed with care and caution to avoid extremes, fads or fashions of

school construction and pay due attention to processes which will

result in the most effective product for the costs involved.

Turning for a moment to our own departmental reorganization, I think

it's vitally important, in our modern age, that departments and

governments are organized to function efficiently and effectively as a

team. It must be possible for departments to respond to needs and new

demands rapidly and effectively. As is the case with many

organizations, it often happens that they become involved in

traditional ways of functioning and, perhaps, the carrying out of

actions, the need for which may long since have disappeared or become

far less important than they once were in comparison with new demands.

So, that, within the last few months, we've completely reorganized the

Department of Education under a new Deputy Minister.

In order to clarify the roles and responsibilities of our senior

staff members and in order to improve our efficiency, we have

structured seven major areas of responsibility: administration in

school relations, instructional services, special education services,

field and inspection services, vocational and technical services,

post-secondary education services, and financial and accounting

services. Under this new organization, headed up by a senior official,

under the general direction of the new deputy, it is expected these

will function as a team in giving advice and in carrying out major

responsibilities. Each of these areas has special and various branches

and offices working specifically in the particular fields, such as

adult education, curriculum or correspondence education. I've also

insisted that the members of this team, the senior members of the

Education Department, get out into the field as much as possible and

travel around the Province and see what the problems are out in the

field.

I'd like to turn for a moment to educational television. I'm pleased

to report that the Department of Education has initiated an

experimental programme concerning the use of educational television.

This new medium, which has untold power to bring the world into the

classroom and provide leading learning experience for children, which

was undreamed of in earlier days, is one of the major challenges we're

facing today in educational planning. While television's potential

value is great, its problems are many and complex. One of these had to

do with the importance of determining standards of equipment and

facilities for the various levels of use of this medium, so that as

this expensive hardware is accumulated, we will have reasonable

assurance that it will fit and suit our future needs and those of the

various school districts.

Regarding this matter, our department, following extensive studies,

which have taken almost a year, has recommended certain standards for

school districts, and locally purchased installation of ETV equipment

will be recognized in light of these standards. It's expected, as a

result of this, that there will be an increase in facilities available

and use made of this medium in the school systems. We have also begun a

pilot project, involving the distribution of ETV programmes through

cablevision, to classes in 12 elementary and secondary schools in the

Penticton School District. Broadcasting began on January 1, with some

200 programmes. It's really on two separate channels, one of which will

be functioning most of the day, and the other channel will be reserved

for retrieval on specific requests and

[ Page 472 ]

at a specific time. We received the approval of the

Federal Radio and Television Commission to be able to use this

programme. We hope to be able to evaluate its use and effectiveness

under the controlled conditions of the school system. It's also

expected that our Department of Education will be receiving the

assistance of BCIT, because over there they have complete facilities

for the development of educational programmes, and we intend to have

them prepare these programmes for use in our ETV programmes in the

schools.

Regarding school districts themselves, I've personally visited most

of the school districts in British Columbia, during the last year, to

meet with the school boards and tour most of the schools. By going

right into the field, it was possible for me to obtain a firsthand

experience regarding the problems which are of concern to the various

boards. On a number of occasions, I've been accompanied by members of

the senior personnel of the Department of Education. I think the school

boards must be complimented for the great work and interest that they

take in education in their various areas and for the fine services

which they are rendering.

During my visits to districts, I became convinced that educational

services could be improved while effecting a saving to the taxpayer if

some of the smaller districts were merged into more economically viable

units.

For example, one area of the Province that I visited, and you can go

from the centre of this area to an outlying portion of the area in one

and a half hour's driving time…in this area, each of the districts,

and there are five of them, is attempting to develop its own resource

centre, each is buying different kinds of bus equipment, each is buying

small quantities of supplies. This area could be served by five

trustees, one secretary-treasurer, one superintendent of education, but

to service this area there are 39 trustees, five secretary-treasurers

and three district superintendents (interruption) . Well, I'd prefer to not identify the area.

I have encouraged trustees, throughout British Columbia, to

carefully scrutinize their operations in the hope that some districts

will consider the possibility of consolidating with their neighbours.

I'm very pleased at the realistic attitude the B.C. School Trustees'

Association has taken towards this matter. There are some instances

where it would be very impracticable to consolidate school districts,

such as the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Speaker, because it's almost

impossible to service this area, other than it being a district of its

own. So, I think that the concept of keeping some small districts

intact is a good idea, when these other considerations are taken under

advisement.

There were 85 school districts in British Columbia, at the time of

my appointment. Since then, with the help of the School Trustees'

Association and individual school boards, we've managed to bring that

number down to 77. I trust that further consolidations will take place

in the coming year.

I'd like to turn now to post-secondary education in the Province. I

think the public of the Province is becoming aware of the tremendous

changes which are taking place in this field. For example, many

students today are asking themselves what they expect of higher

education. Is it merely to broaden one's awareness of the world around

him or is it to provide him with a knowledge which will enable him to

obtain employment upon graduation? There was a time when higher

education in British Columbia simply meant going on to the University

of British Columbia. Those were the days when a university degree was

looked upon as a touchstone to success. Today, however, so many

students are going on to university that a Bachelor of Arts degree can

no longer be looked upon as any kind of guarantee that the graduate

will find a job. Now, it is the person with the best job qualifications

who has the least difficulty in finding employment and, usually, these

qualifications are obtained through some form of career or technical

training.

Nine years ago, you may remember, Dr. John Macdonald, who was then

the president of the University of British Columbia, brought down a

report on higher education. He reported that there was as much as a 40

per cent dropout after the freshman year at university. Obviously, most

of those dropouts had discovered that, for one reason or another, they

were not suited to the academic programme which was offered by the

university. To remedy this situation, it was proposed that a network of

colleges be established in a number of communities throughout the

Province, and that these new institutions should offer technical

programmes as well as academic programmes. The Government adopted these

ideas and set about the task of expanding this Province's

post-secondary programme. The result was that the BCIT opened its doors

in the fall of 1964. The Government also played a very active role in

the creation of colleges. During the 1960's, the Government also

embarked on an ambitious programme of building regional vocational

schools at a number of centres throughout the Province, although the

vocational training programme was not actually a part of Dr.

Macdonald's plan.

Our vocational school enrolment has more than doubled in the past

five years. We had an enrolment of about 36,000 students in 1970,

compared to 17,500 in 1965. We opened a new vocational school in

Victoria in June, 1970, and another one was officially opened at

Terrace in August. Another vocational school is under construction in

Kamloops, and it was recently announced that a vocational school will

be built near Chilliwack to serve the Upper Fraser Valley region.

Even more successful has been the development of our network of

colleges. For example,

whereas there was only one public college in

operation in 1965 — Vancouver City College, with about 2,500 students — there are eight colleges in operation in 1970. They have a total

enrolment of more than 12,000 — that's nearly five times as many

students in the five-year period. Cariboo College at Kamloops and

Douglas College in the Lower Fraser Valley came into operation in the

fall of 1970. About the same time we opened the new Langara Campus at

Vancouver City College. Approval was also given in 1970 for the

establishment of a college, which will come into operation in Victoria

this fall — Camosun.

The popularity of our college programme has been phenomenal and I

think this is because we have taken higher education to the people

instead of requiring the people to come to it and, also, because our

colleges offer technical and career programmes, as well as the

university entrance programme. It is now possible, for example, for

students in the interior of the Province to take their first year of

technical training at a college, before having to go to Burnaby for

their second year at the BCIT.

We are also taking steps today to merge the administration of the

vocational schools with the colleges in those places where it might

prove feasible, with a view to making it easier for students to move

from one stream to another and with a secondary view of improving

administrative efficiency of these facilities. It is now estimated that

85 per cent of the students throughout the Province of British Columbia

are within easy reach of a college, a vocational school or a

university. The statistical returns show that most of the

[ Page 473 ]

students in the colleges and vocational schools are

now taking courses which will enhance their ability to earn a living

upon graduation.

You asked me about the graduates receiving jobs. At the BCIT, Canada

Manpower reports show that 94 per cent of the 1,038 students, who

graduated in June, 1970, had found jobs before the end of last year and

that was in spite of the difficult year. A recent random telephone

survey of 25 of these graduates revealed that only one had changed jobs

and that all 25 were still working in the field for which they had been

trained at the BCIT. It was a similar story the year before: in 1969,

861 students graduated from BCIT and there were more jobs available in

most occupations than there were graduates, and all of the students had

been placed by the end of that year. Several of the students I spoke to

at the graduation ceremonies had had as many as 14 jobs offered to

them. They picked the best out of the 14 jobs. In June, 1968, 563

students graduated from BCIT and only 22 of those had not been placed

by Labour Day. The job placement figure was in the high 90's, by the

end of that year. So, how do you reconcile these figures with those

reports of university graduates having a hard time finding work? In

many cases, I believe, it is because a student taking a technical

course at BCIT or a career programme at one of the colleges is often

better prepared for the type of work which is available in British

Columbia than the student who has taken a liberal arts programme in one

of the universities.

I don't suggest that all students should go to a technical school,

instead of a university, for that would be as one-sided as the

university-oriented situation which Dr. Macdonald sought to overcome in

1962. I would strongly recommend, however, that those students, who are

not sure of what they want to achieve through higher education but are

hopeful of obtaining employment because of their schooling, should take

a second look at what is available at BCIT and in our colleges, before

they go after a university degree. Academic programmes are necessary

for people who want to pursue professions such as medicine, law,

engineering, health services, education or forestry but, for every

professional position in this Province, there are four or five backup

jobs for people trained in technical work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BROTHERS: In view of the fact that we now have a wide

range of post-secondary education facilities there is more opportunity

than ever before in the history of this Province for an individual to

develop his own interests and aptitudes.

In the Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance pointed out that our

achievements in the first century of British Columbia's existence are

closely identified to educational attainments of our citizens.

Therefore, and I'm quoting directly from the Budget Speech, "It is

vital for our future prosperity that the educational system be

encouraged to the utmost of our capabilities." That's why the

Government intends to increase its Department of Education spending by

$35.5 million. This takes us to an all-time high of $398 million. This

increase will provide $14 million for the school district grants, $9

million more in operating grants to the universities, $6.2 million more

for colleges, BCIT and the regional vocational schools, and $1.2

million more for teachers' pensions. The Budget Speech also indicated

that services to the people such as education, health, hospitals,

social improvement and our medical plan, will be given an increase of

$112 million, which represents 83 per cent of this year's total

budgetary increase. With the Provincial homeowner grant being increased

to $170 per household, home-owners will be paying less than 10 per cent

of the actual cost of public education, which is the lowest percentage

in Canada.

I think I should draw to your attention that the cost of education

is rising at a staggering rate. The estimates for the Department of

Education, alone, have risen nearly $127 million in the past three

years. They jumped from $271 million in 1968, to where they are today,

$398 million. I've had charts prepared showing the rising costs of

education, which can be found at the back of my address and I'll send

copies to all the Members.

The Social Credit Government considers this great investment as

essential, in order to prepare our young people of today for the role

they must play tomorrow. We also want to retrain others so that they

will be better able to adjust to the rapid changes which are taking

place in our society.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is carefully

examining many facets of the structure and operation of British

Columbia's educational system, because we want to keep it flexible and

efficient enough to meet the needs of our people. We're keeping our

minds open to new ideas and we are willing to implement the changes

which, we feel, will improve the system. As I said at the beginning of

this address, this is an evolutionary process, which must continue if

we are to fulfill our obligation of helping the citizens of this

Province prepare themselves for the challenges of the fast moving

decade ahead of us. I'm confident that we're moving in the right

direction. I will be supporting this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened, of

course, with a great deal of attention to the previous speaker. I'm not

supporting the Budget, Mr. Speaker, on the strength of the previous

speech, I can tell you that. The figures are interesting and, of

course, the Minister made great use of the kind of large volume of

dollars that is now becoming so familiar. Members of the PTA, who are

in the galleries, of course, will know, because they get cheques from

their husbands, that it doesn't really matter what you spend, but how

you spend it (interruption) .

That's right. I think that the mere quotation of figures, of course,

in the large measure, that we see in the Budget, really doesn't get

down to the essentials of educational problems. We'll go into those in

a second or two.

I want to welcome, as well as the rest of the House, of course, the

members of the PTA, particularly those from my riding, and I want to

say to them that all of us in this House have a concern for education.

I hope to persuade more people in the House to be more concerned with

the areas, such as Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta, which are facing the real

problems in the lower mainland. When you think that the ladies here

from Surrey are facing a $50 million programme in the next six or seven

years, I think the House will share with me that their concern is good

and their concern is real and their concern should be encouraged and,

hopefully, solutions will come from this Chamber.

The Minister said that changes in education might take seven years

to evaluate. One of the main changes in education, of course, took

place two years ago, and that was when we changed the Minister of

Education. I hope the Minister isn't asking for a moratorium on

criticism until

[ Page 474 ]

1975, because he's not going to get it. I don't think he'll be there in 1975, Mr. Speaker (interruption) .

There's that business of figures, again, Mr. Speaker. He gets more

votes every year but his percentage goes down and down and down (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

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

I looked at the PTA brief, of course, as I'm sure all of the Members

did, and there were two or three things in it that I found of

particular interest. I'd like to deal with my views on some of the

interests that the PTA has shown, from time to time, and, of course,

teachers and trustees. They deal with three small points, perhaps,

easily said, but very important, in terms of where education is going.

The first item is the one that was mentioned by the Minister, that

is the co-ordination of public facilities within the educational system

and within the community. Whilst the Minister tells us that great

strides are being taken, in terms of the use of facilities, I find

that. the school boards and the PTA and the teachers don't share that

optimism. They say they're finding difficulty in getting this

co-ordination. The Minister tells us that he's not stopping it. Well,

that's a change from two years ago, when he did stop it. So, now, I

guess we're in that neutral position, where we're neither stopping it

nor encouraging it. I think that what's required in this area of

co-ordination is some simple desire. Perhaps, two or three people, I

think, could sit down with the gentleman that shares the seat to his

right, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to perhaps get to the root of

these problems — the identity of the 50 cent piece out of each dollar

that goes to these constructions, how it can go through the various

supervisory formula, how it can be looked at in terms of the 110 per

cent formula that this Government's fixed the school trustees with.

It's all very well and good to say we're not stopping it, but I'd like

to know what the Department of Education is doing to encourage it. I

think, thereby, lies a field of debate which, no doubt, we will go into

in estimates.

Another point that many people in education have talked about south

of the river, Mr. Speaker, in the lower mainland, is, of course, the

question of fire prevention. I noticed that the brief contains

resolutions regarding protection of schools from fire. Yet, you know,

even to this day, when we have suffered hundreds of thousands of

dollars worth of loss in schools in Surrey and Delta, the Government

won't share the cost of sprinklers in schools. They won't share the

cost of putting in sprinklers to prevent fire, even when they've been

told that the saving in the cost of insurance would probably pay for

those sprinklers over the life of the school.

I think, too, the PTA and, in fact, all members of the community,

and I raised this in the Throne Speech Debate, must be concerned about

the problem of young offenders. I want to just spend a moment or two

talking about this problem. I think the Attorney-General was out of the

House when I spoke about this before, and I want to perhaps get his

attention on this matter, because I'd like to hear him say something

about it in estimates. The Federal Government has before it a bill

dealing with young offenders and I am shocked, I'm disappointed and I'm

apprehensive over what will happen if that bill is passed and if the

legislation contained in that bill goes forward. I want to deal with it

by comparing it, if I may, Mr. Speaker, without raising anybody's

hackles, to some legislation in other countries, particularly the

country of Great Britain. If this bill goes through, and what I'm

really calling for, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General,

is for an involvement of the community, not only M.L.A.s but PTAs,

social agencies and so on, to deal with this problem of young offenders

and to try to get some sense into the current Solicitor-General in

Ottawa.

In the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, no person under the age of 14

years can be charged with an offense. He can't be charged, unless it's

an indictable offense, for some years after reaching the age of 14. In

Canada, if this bill goes through, we can charge 10-year-olds for

simple offenses. Without revealing my background, Mr. Speaker, I would

say that if you can be charged at the age of 10 for some petty theft, I

doubt very much whether there are many people in the community today

that could honestly say they wouldn't have been charged. I don't expect

to get much heckling on this but I think many of us know that we

climbed, at the age of eight, an apple tree and stole an apple. I think

not many of us could put up our hands and say we've not done that. Only

one. One's enough, Mr. Minister, and that's the point. One's enough to

become an offender. A person 10-years-old or over could be charged with

an offense in the Young Offenders Act

and I suppose we can count ourselves fortunate that that Act wasn't

present when we were 10 years of age. Now, in Great Britain, no person

can be charged, unless he's 14 years of age or over and, up to a

certain age, it must be an indictable offense.

I think that we should discuss this, Mr. Attorney-General. I think

we should possibly set up a commission of some kind and get some

intelligence on this whole question to make representations to Ottawa.

It seems to me fair to say that, if this Act does go through, it's an

Act of punishment. It has no emphasis whatsoever on care or

rehabilitation. In the Great Britain statute, it's possible for the

Court to make an order requiring his parent or guardian to enter into

cognizance to take proper care of the child and to exercise proper

control over the child, or it may take a supervisory order or a care

order or a hospital order or a guardianship order. What a comparison

there is between that Act and the Act that's presently in front of us

in Ottawa and the subject that I'd like the House to concern itself

with now.

The British Act concerns itself with care and treatment and ours is

one of punishment, because it simply brands young persons as criminals.

I accept, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have to take it upon ourselves

and let it be our duty to make sure that the observance of law and

order is total in our young community. But I think there's more than

just saying law and order to them. I think our treatment of those who

become maladjusted, who run afoul of these laws…I don't believe, for

instance, in just pushing tough kids around for the sake of pushing

them around. I'm talking about social, moral and spiritual education. I

think many of us are tired of seeing the troublesome kid just going

through the revolving door of social care agencies, of training

schools, of foster homes and then ending up in the prison system, in

the mental hospitals and in the detention homes. We're not using the

resources of our neighbourhood, we're not working with parents, we're

not working with schools, with businessmen, with trade unions and

others to solve this problem of young offenders. I hope, in the spirit

that I'm trying to deliver these few remarks on young offenders, that

we might engage, during the Attorney-General's estimates, in a debate

on this matter, which I think is extremely serious.

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

[ Page 475 ]

British Columbia on young people and that kind of

thing is, by and large, something to be proud of. I commend the

previous Attorney-General for some of the legislation and some of the

draftsmanship that went into some of those statutes, which I know are

quoted in far-off countries as being reasonable pieces of legislation.

I can't pass that commendation on to the current Attorney-General. In

fact, I must condemn — because it's all right building this

legislation, it's all right passing it but, if you don't put any money

into it, if you don't put any people into it, if you don't put any

resources into it, it's meaningless. Now, I know, the Attorney-General

doesn't like me to say that, and I know that he really doesn't like the

situation, but it does seem to me that it's not good enough to be able

to brand this legislation and say this is good legislation, unless we

expend some dollars to effectively transform that legislation into the

solution-producing activities that we've got to have.

The other item on education I'd like to deal with is the family life

programme, Mr. Speaker. I feel that, having been in the educational

system, many years ago, in another country, and having forgotten about

it, but now being brought back to it because my two young children are

in it, I should start to look into more deeply some of the problems in

our schools and some of the problems of just living together. I'm

rather disappointed that the family life programme, which has received

endorsation from many areas and many jurisdictions, doesn't get the

kind of encouragement that it should do here. In my own area, an

experiment was carried on some short while ago in one of the schools,

which was a thoroughgoing success. The children appreciated it, enjoyed

it, communicated, asked questions and kept the thing going for a number

of weeks afterwards. Yet, we don't encourage this, and what we allow is

the kind of controversy to come into it because we use the words, "sex

education" and, somehow, it gets abroad that that's a how-to-do-it

programme, a gymnastic programme, rather than a family life programme.

I'm bothered about that, because that's no way to go about it. That

causes the kind of controversy that we've got to try and downplay. It

is a controversial subject and, by its nature, it's obviously going to

be controversial. There's no uniform parental agreement on this

programme, I know, but then there's no uniform parental agreement on

many school policies. There's no parental agreement on corporal

punishment, there's no parental agreement on religious exercises,

there's no parental agreement on report cards, but that doesn't stop

the establishment of those policies that the school boards and the

Department of Education and the Minister, hopefully, consider to be

good things. So, why don't we endorse this programme and put it into

action? I think the vast majority of parents would welcome the kind of

programme that the Minister knows so well.

The Government's first responsibility surely is to provide

leadership, not to wait until they've got that magic 61 per cent again.

Good heavens, you rule this Province without that kind of majority,

what's holding you back? Parents who are opposed to this programme can

take their kids out of it. The whole question of this family life

programme, as I say, taking it away from this rather stupid idea that

many people have about it, will obviously start to solve some of the

problems that we have mentioned in this House. The Member for Nanaimo,

for instance, talked about drugs. I think we can get into that subject

and I have some more criticism about that. But, do you know what else

is happening in Nanaimo, according to some of these figures, and in

B.C. as well, and across the country, is the incredible spread in

venereal disease. We have probably as good a programme as any, if not

better than most Provinces, in terms of the treatment, and we produce

the highest statistics you can find of diagnosis. The curious thing

about that statistic must mean that we must have more cases. I think

that this programme could do much to start to alleviate that, because

the problem of the disease, which we thought we had licked and beaten

and eliminated some years ago, is now coming out in the lower-age

groups, in the teenagers. So, to just set one's face against the

programme, which we'll call the family life programme…instead, cover

it with some intelligence and some education and this would be doing a

great deal of good.

Lastly, may I deal with the problem of this, when I'm asked and

told, why can't we leave it to the parents? Well, it's with no pleasure

I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think, Mr. Speaker, we cannot leave it to

the parents! It's becoming increasingly obvious today as we look at

society, the changing mores, the changing life patterns, the changing

life styles, that we cannot leave it simply to the parents to be able

to put this information into the young people today. It just doesn't

work that way, it just doesn't work.

That brings me to the drug question, Mr. Speaker. Last Session I had

a motion that would have seen the Drug Committee revived, seen the

problem explored, again, after two years of so-called activity by the

Department of Education and Health. It died on the Order Paper. Right

now, we're faced, in many areas with simple expulsion from school of

15- and 16-year-old people because of drug offenses. To some school

boards' credit, they're not taking the expulsion route. They're saying

that there's something else we have to do. If the kid is in that much

trouble, what's the point of cutting him off from the only available

professional advice he can get, namely, the school system? But schools

are expelling. Government inaction is obvious and I share the concern

of the Member from Nanaimo, but putting two more policemen on the job

isn't going to solve it. I agree that his conference would start to

solve it and I congratulate anybody who starts that kind of dialogue

going. Hopefully, we will be able to plug into the school system. But

what happened to that research, what happened to that motion? The fact

of the matter is that I suspect the problem has grown, not lessened.

The third item on my educational page, here, deals with athletic

endeavour, and it could be argued that I might be the last person in

the House to talk about it. However, I was an athlete once and I'm

bothered about the kind of thing I see, again, in my area, in the Delta

area and the Coquitlam area. I see sports programmes erected and

failing because of lack of facilities. I see school boards meeting in a

panic on a Thursday night to discuss the condition of their playing

fields and then send the word out and the whole football or soccer

programme is cancelled for the weekend. I see the kind of scrapping

around for playingfields that just boggles the imagination as to why it

should happen in this Province. I see no co-ordination of development

of these programmes. By the way, I see discrimination, too, between

girls and boys. I see lots of programmes for young six; seven; eight-

and nine-year-old boys, but I see no programmes for six; seven; eight-

and nine-year-old girls. The boys can play soccer or hockey. The girls

are told to join the Brownies. It seems to me that that's something we

should be discussing, when we're discussing discrimination. I went

through my research and I looked at the report on special needs and I

looked at the report that was done by the B.C. Teachers' Federation,

regarding the whole athletic programme, and I looked at

[ Page 476 ]

some of the observations made.

The first thing they did was to start to isolate the problems and

they summarized and they said…This is in 1968, the last report we

have and they sent it to the Government for attention. I have seen no

indication, by way of preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, that this has

seen any concrete action. The first point they made was the overloading

of physical education teachers and coaches and the lack of time to both

teach effectively and operate a satisfactory athletic programme. They

observed that there was a lack of properly trained and willing teachers

to assist in the cocurricular athletic programmes. They noted that the

problems concerning transportation and travelling were extreme. They

noted that there was an adequate financing of extracurricular

programmes, exclusive in the main of transportation costs.

I want to just put those problems to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, by

asking him how he can square away any progress in solving that problem,

when you've got a 110 per cent formula? How can you possibly do

anything about solving those programmes, when you're averaging down the

school systems so that they can't spend any more than 110 per cent of

the last average budget? I turn the page and I see some details

regarding what the schools are providing in the way of athletic

programmes. I see in one question, here, regarding the construction and

the use of school and community facilities, through definite

administrative procedures, which provide complexes such as parks,

schools and school community centres, I see that there's no programme

and no response and no activity in over 62 per cent of our school

districts. I see there's a complete absence, to the tune of 67 per

cent, in any administered procedures and policies governing school and

community cooperation. Yet, the Minister, approximately 40 minutes ago,

said that all this was there, all this was there.

I turn the page again. I look at the actual physical plants. Now,

the Minister often talks about bricks and mortar. He talks about the

actual buildings and we've spent so much time in this House and outside

just simply talking about the buildings, and never talking about the

programmes. I see that, if we look at the school sites that are

normally used, varying from 5 to 50 or more acres, there is over 52 per

cent that are less than the present Department of Education standards — less than 52 per cent below your own standards. How are they going to

get out of that hole, with the 110 per cent artificial limit on the

expenditures? I notice in this brief, which is exhaustive and covers

our Province, that it terms as "just sufficient," playing fields. There

was 71 per cent with from fair to no facilities, only 18 per cent with

good facilities and 9 per cent with excellent facilities. The Minister

shakes his head. I don't know whether he's in shock or whether he's

disagreeing with me. But those are the figures that were done in a

report and it's never been discussed by you, Mr. Minister, never once

in all those speeches which you supply to us so beautifully and quickly

and efficiently. I'm sure it's in my box right now. Do you ever mention

any of these things? You make your speeches, Mr. Minister, as though

you were about to cut the ribbon, opening another school, and we listen

to 45 minutes of it, every time you speak.

Mr. Speaker, field areas that are surfaced with materials in order

for the kids to play the games, we find there's more than 50 per cent

that are unsatisfactory. In terms of hard-surfaced areas for kids to

play on — we're talking about badminton, basketball, handball and all

those other games — we find there's 86 per cent at less than the

departmental standards. How can they get out of that hole, with the 110

per cent formula which has been put on by this Government? I say, Mr.

Speaker, until we start to deal with those problems and make sure that

the educational system is completely rounded and not just simply talk

about turning out of vocational schools people who can work, people who

can obey orders, people who can push buttons and pull levers. Until we

talk about that, we're really not doing our job.

The next point I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is on the whole

question of labour-management relations. I want to say that I've

listened in the House, since Opening Day, to a series of charges made

against the trade union movement of this Province that I don't think

we've ever heard before. I don't mind the backbenchers getting uptight

and fighting about the B.C. Federation of Labour and personally

insulting the elected officers of that movement. That's their political

bag and they are in it. I have some objections to the Cabinet Ministers

doing it. You know, most of the charges were frivolous, but there was

one serious charge made by one of the Cabinet Ministers, who was really

upset because the organized trade union movement of this Province had

refused to go to the Mediation Commission. He seemed to single out one

person as having refused to go, showing he really doesn't know his

trade union history, his trade union practice or anything like that.

The B.C. Federation of Labour, for instance, had made a convention

decision, with I don't know how many hundreds of delegates there, that

they weren't going to go to the Mediation Commission. We can judge the

merits of that in some debate. To single out the individual who is

charged with the responsibility, at his peril, of not observing

convention policy, seems to me rather ridiculous. I think the Minister

of Labour should open his sights a little, because who else has said

the same thing, but hasn't got the kind of condemnation from the

Minister of Labour and others? Why? It's that other labour leader, Mr.

Speaker, the Senator. Senator Ed Lawson, what has he said about the

Mediation Commission? He said he's never going to go again, never going

to go again. Is the Minister going to accuse him of being a

rabblerouser, as well? Who else has said he won't go again to the

Mediation Commission? Mayor Tom Campbell. Mayor Tom Campbell has said

he'll never go again. Is the Minister going to accuse him of being a

rabblerouser? What other institution has said the kind of things that

the B.C. Federation of Labour has said about the Mediation Commission?

The Vancouver Sun has

said exactly the same as the B.C. Federation of Labour has said about

the Mediation Commission. Let me quote from a number of these people

and so on. The Teamsters' union head, Senator Lawson, when he went to

the Mediation Commission said, "The Teamsters will never again appear

before the three-man body." Do you want the quotation? I haven't

printed this newspaper. This is the Victoria Times , November 3, 1970. The next one is the Province ,

October 10, 1970, for the Minister. '"I want to make another matter

clear,' Senator Lawson said, 'after we settle the details of this

dispute, the Teamsters will never again appear before the Commission."'

The Province of September 5, 1970, joins the ranks of the B.C.

Federation of Labour by talking about the ineptitude of the B.C.

Mediation Commission chairman, John Parker, when he said in Halifax

that civil servants shouldn't have bargaining rights. The Province

raises the whole question of Mr. Parker's credibility and his worth and

his continued employment as the chairman of the Mediation Commission.

Similarly, the Building Trades Council said the same thing about the

commissioners this time. They set their sights a little lower

[ Page 477 ]

and went after the commissioners, not just the commission. This, again, is the Vancouver Sun

on June 30, 1970. The two leaders of the Building Trades Council, after

negotiations had gone on for a long time, they visited the Mediation

Commission offices for the first time and they were astounded by the

plush surroundings of the Mediation Commission offices on the 2ist

floor of the Board of Trade Building and by the attitude of the three

commissioners. "They were arrogant and superficial," said Mr. O'Reilly.

"My hair stood up when Mr. Parker suggested he could get people off the

streets to mediate our dispute and Mr. Baskin implied that we had been

fooling around for the past three months." No wonder that this

three-man board has been brought into disrepute with that kind of

activity and that kind of foolish statement.

Let us look, now, Mr. Speaker, at the two Annual Reports

that are in front of us from the Mediation Commission. The first one is

the 1969 Report, and the Minister of Labour, when he presented these

reports, made a point of saying that the officers, that is the

mediation officers, as distinct from the mediation commissioners, were

requested more times by trade unions than they were by employers. That

proves nothing. That proves exactly nothing because, in order to

understand this fully, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the Act and

realize that the only way the union can avoid trouble at a later stage

is by getting this application for a mediant officer out of the way at

the beginning of the dispute. That's what we, on this side, have been

saying over and over again — that the three or four or five stages that

are in the labour legislation of this Province just make both sides

recalcitrant and operating not on, "What shall we do on stage one, what

shall we do on stage two," but, "Let's get to stage five as fast as we

can." That's why there were 182 appointments made on the application of

the trade unions in 1969.

Let's look at the actual report that deals with the commissioners.

They had four hearings in that year, Mr. Speaker, that's nearly one

eighth of a million dollars a hearing. The first one was the Board of

Police Commissioners for the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver

Policemen's Union. The results of my investigation, and these are my

investigations, say that the Policemen's Union was unhappy, the Board

of Police Commissioners was noncommittal at the results obtained by

going in front of the commission. The second case — the City of

Vancouver and the Vancouver Firefighters. When it was all over, they

were both unhappy and Mayor Campbell said he'd never go again. The

third one was the Board of Police Commissioners and the city of

Victoria and the Victoria City Policemen's Union. We all know what they

thought about that one. The fourth case, in 1969, was the Imperial Oil

versus, if I may use a legal description, the Oil and Chemical and

Atomic Workers' Union. There, the results were, as predicted by

everybody, that the union was unhappy and Imperial Oil was very happy

indeed.

Another thing about this Mediation Commission Report ,

Mr. Speaker, is that it really doesn't give us any real details about

how the Mediation Office is operated. It's just a cold recital of the

number of disputes that came before it. One of the interesting things I

find is that the mediation commissioners and the officers, as distinct

from in the old days when the Labour Relations Board used to get into a

dispute and try to bring the parties together and try to act as an

encourager, as a messenger from one to the other, and keep the thing

going and keep these collective bargainings going, they sit back, Mr.

Speaker, and they wait for the application to be in writing. Frankly,

that really means that the recalcitrant position that I have mentioned,

hardens up. Stage three, stage four goes past then we're into the kind

of massive confrontation situation that we see ourselves in so often.

I notice in answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, that is now on the

Order Paper, this year, when I asked the Minister of Labour what were

the names, salaries and wages paid and job classifications of every

person employed by the Mediation Commission, that I got pretty well the

same answer that I got last year. I want to go through the list, Mr.

Speaker, because I think it's rather important. First of all, we deal

with the commissioners: at $42,500; at $40,000 per annum; at $40,000

per annum. Then we have an executive secretary, then we have a

registrar, then we have 8 mediation officers, then we have an

administrative assistant, then we have a secretary, a second secretary,

a clerk, a second clerk, a clerk-stenographer, a second

clerk-stenographer and a switchboard operator. That's the Mediation

Commission. When it was first set up the Minister of Labour here and,

later, Judge Parker and his officers said that the first thing they

were going to do was to hire an economist, so they would know some of

the details and some of the facts around the disputes they're supposed

to investigate. There is still no economist, still no economist hired.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does Judge Parker do?

MR. HALL: Judge Parker, who is available at a moment's

notice, I suppose, acts as all three — commissioner, head of the office

and the economist.

As we look at the report this year, Mr. Speaker, we see the same

kind of thing. Again, the proportion of applications for a mediation

officer is weighted on the side of the trade unions for the reason I've

mentioned. There have been only two cases referred to the Mediation

Commission, Mr. Speaker. The first one was LaFarge Concrete versus the

Budding Material Construction and Fuel Drivers' Union. That's the one

where Senator Lawson said he would never go back to the Commission. The

last one, of course, was the transit strike, which is only just

finalized. We have no exhaustive report here because, of course, we

were present when it was all going on. One question I might ask, of

course, deals with the number of signatures that was on the award — only one signature on the award of the officer. I think that's open to

conjecture. I think we're entitled to conject, as much as we want, as

to why there was only one signature on that report.

Mr. Speaker, the two points I want to make in summation of this

labour-management situation is that the officers that come into the

disputes from the Mediation Commission never bear down on the parties,

never suggest all-night talks, never hold themselves in readiness like

the labour relations officers used to do. The time, when just before a

deadline occurs, whether it's a deadline for the employer or a deadline

for the employee, is the time when the officers should really be

putting the pressure on to keep these people together, to keep them

talking. Never does that happen. The second point is that they never

seem to take the initiative. The trade unions…I researched and talked

to the leaders of some of the trade unions. I've asked them, "How many

times has a mediation officer phoned you up to say, 'Can I be of

assistance, can I help, can I get you together?'" And the answer, Mr.

Speaker, is, "Never, never. They say, 'Send me a letter in writing and

I'll turn up."'

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

[ Page 478 ]

happened over the past year. Frankly, Mr. Speaker,

until we face up to the facts that we're going to have to repeal the

compulsory arbitration

section of our labour statutes, until we've got

a reorganized, truly independent and fully-staffed Mediation

Commission, we're not going to get anywhere. Until we've abolished the

use of ex parte injunctions

in labour disputes, we're never going to get anywhere. The use of

injunctions was defended by this Government on the grounds of violence

— "You've got to keep the violence down." Yet, in the tugboat dispute,

which I agree was Federal in terms of jurisdiction…At the time of the

tugboat dispute, there were more injunctions went against that union

than you could shake a stick at and there wasn't one single case of

violence during the whole of that strike. So the argument about

violence is nonsense and, anyway, as any competent lawyer can tell you,

there's sufficient room in the other statutes to deal with that kind of

problem. Until we get full bargaining rights for civil servants, Mr.

Speaker, and until we can make sure there's legislation to ensure that

changes, technological changes and dislocation and all that kind of

thing are dealt with, properly join the collective bargaining

procedures and are written into the agreements, until that happens

we're not going to see the climate improve.

I, personally, believe that this Government has to take much greater

responsibility for industrial safety. I think that will remove some of

the pressures and some of the problems that frequently come into the

labour-management disputes. I think we should repeal all the

legislation we can, in one fell swoop, that does anything to hinder the

organization of the unorganized.

I would be out of order, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if I dealt with

the current situation at the hospital up the street. Just let me say

this, that had we not got hindersome legislation, that situation

wouldn't exist today. I think, in order to make sure that all the

flim-flam and all the posturing and all the false information and all

the irrelevant facts that come at the time of the dispute are cleaned

out of the way, we have to make sure that we erect some sort of supply

system for both management and labour of acceptable facts. The research

that Justice Nemetz talked about three years ago, which took him 90 per

cent of his time, before he solved the IWA dispute in 1968, the

research he had to do should be done before the event. I think that

until we make sure there is easy access to the research staff and to

data processing and the statistical branch, and, here, we could

probably find something for the Second Member for Victoria to be doing,

if we could possibly get that altogether in one pot and make it

available to both labour and management …

My third point, Mr. Speaker, out of four, deals with a subject I

have dealt with, on occasion, in the House. That is the question of

safety. This year we've seen a slight reduction in the death rate on

our highways whilst, at the same time, the statistics show there's been

an increase in the death rate in the areas that I refer to, time and

time and time again, in this Legislature — that big urban sprawl that

starts in Coquitlam, goes to Surrey and ends up in Delta. The fact of

the matter is that the highway safety in that area is not good. The

fact of the matter is that we're not doing our job in terms of

legislation and inspection and coverage. I wish the Minister of

Commercial Transport were here because I've raised this, as you know,

many times. I found out, talking to the senior civil servants in the

departments involved, that they agree with me that something should be

done. But they say they can't decide who's going to do it. Now, that's

the kind of thing that used to make this Government tick — that you

could decide who was going to do it. If ever there is a sad reflection

it is the fact that, now, you can't decide who is going to do it.

The first thing we have to do, Mr. Minister is this. We have to make

sure that all the commercial vehicles in this Province pass standards.

I'll tell you a story about that, about the famous mobile inspection

places that were built. A very large company, which shall be nameless… (interruption) .

No. I don't think that would be fair…was complimented by a person I

know who is very involved in this road safety programme, because they

had lifted their exhaust stacks on the tops of their trucks another

three feet. He said, "By jingle, why don't they all do that because it

makes so much sense to get the pollution out and get better combustion

in the engine and so on and so forth." The fellow said, "Well, we

didn't do it for that reason at all. We built the smokestack three feet

higher so it wouldn't go through the Government inspection station."

That's unfortunately the kind of attitude around in the trucking

industry. We've got to have hours-of-work legislation. I can tell you,

Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Minister, who is showing an interest, that

there are many truck drivers coming out of Montreal right across the

country and in B.C. who are taking benzedrine to keep awake at the

wheel. If the Attorney-General will check with the detachment on the

401, the 499, let him find out and tell me how many trucks were picked

up by the RCMP in the ditch with the driver asleep. There's only one

reason for that and that's lousy employment practice, forcing the men

to drive nonstop between here and Kamloops, nonstop between here and

Calgary, no breaks, no turn-arounds, no time to rest, bring the truck

back, so on and so forth. The Federal legislation is meaningless,

absolutely meaningless, and is laughed at by all the trucking industry

across the country. We should have testing stations like they do in the

States, we should have the kind of strict legislation they have in the

States, that governs the frequency of inspection, the condition of

these trucks. You know, I don't know how many people realize that, when

the Minister of Commercial Transport the other day was talking about

the commercial vehicles and all the thousands of miles he has, he went

into a learned dissertation about, now, the trucking industry is on two

foot modules. Now, two times two is four, and two times that is eight.

Right, eight feet? An eight foot module in a truck, and we've allowed

by legislation for large trucks and trailers to, now, become over eight

feet wide. If you add the overhang at the side and you add the mirrors

and so on, I can tell you, Mr. Minister, it's impossible for two trucks

to go over the Pattullo Bridge side by side. Impossible for two trucks

to go over the Pattullo Bridge side by side. Our safety inspection on

trucks will cause accidents and I mention again the Pattullo Bridge.

How long ago is it — three months? — when two youngsters were killed on

the Pattullo Bridge when a load fell off — based on two foot modules, I

might add. But, that's not really fair, it was an unsafe load. It seems

to me that unless we do something about…starting off with the

Commercial Transport Division of all the roadusers, we're not going to

get anywhere. The Minister's expert, I can't remember the gentleman's

name, on brakes, he's made a name all across the Province and into the

States. I wish I could remember — the senior man in the Minister's

department. His name has escaped me…Swanson, Mr. Swanson — an expert,

a man I've read about in many magazines, who is probably a real

authority on brakes and he will tell you there hasn't been a single

improvement in the braking system in the commercial vehicle industry

for 30 years. Not one single improvement

[ Page 479 ]

and, yet, day after day, week after week, we accept

larger loads, longer loads, faster loads, heavier loads, and I will

still make my point with the Minister of Commercial Transport that he

will eventually allow three trailers on our highways. I think that,

until we do really stiffen up on this whole question of industrial

safety and road safety, we're not going to get anywhere. I wish I could

perhaps debate in a smaller way, in a more informal way, this question

because, frankly, the death rate, which can be obtained, of truckers in

the Canyon and along the Fraser Highway — I see the Minister listening,

because he's had his accidents on your highway through your area — is

becoming tragic and unnecessary.

I was promised last year…I see I should really finish off on the

Minister of Highways who, I hope, will be with us tomorrow. He promised

last year to do a study in the area along the border, where the heavy

commercial vehicles come in at Blaine, Douglas, and so on, that he'd do

a study of traffic patterns around there. I still have no knowledge of

any study and I still know that, in the areas that are shared between

myself and the Member from Langley, we are seeing 60, 70, 80

thousand-pound vehicles coming through on those roads, around those

farm areas and those narrow lanes. They're breaking down the shoulders.

You know, in my area, Mr. Speaker, we've got intersections, round

schools, at 40 mph. There will be a school at the end of the block,

there will be an intersection, a four-way intersection, a four-way stop

sign, and the speed allowable, on those intersections on 14 ft. of

roadway, is 40 mph. It's no wonder the death rate's going up in Surrey,

it's no wonder.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the question of park

assembly and I'm glad to see the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation here. In the regional districts, and I want to refer my

remarks through you to him, Mr. Speaker, that encompass my area, we

have one of the most exciting possibilities for park development there

is in the lower mainland. It's going to be the safety valve for the

urban push that's coming and that Members, such as the leader of my

Party and the Member for Delta, know about. There was an announcement

two years ago that there would be a park. The various devices were set

up, the letters patent, I suppose, were granted, the administrators

were hired, the municipalities got together, and they all put something

in the pot, and we started to buy and assemble that land. Immediately

you do that, Mr. Speaker, you freeze the value of every single home

that's in that projected park area. You freeze the value and you lock

those people in, because who's going to buy a house in an area that's

designated for a park? Who's going to repair a house in an area that's

designated for a park? Who's going to do anything about their home in

an area that's designated for a park, knowing, as they know, that it's

going to be bought, dealt or expropriated? The money supply is not

available to do the job. The public relations aspect of it I will leave

alone because it has no relevance to this debate or to the Minister,

indeed. We've got the situation, now, where not only has the whole area

been frozen, but there's been an enquiry into the behaviour and the

practices of that regional district. The administrator has resigned.

Allegations have been made against him and I think that it is unfair, I

suppose, to leave this thing in limbo. I'm going to leave that alone.

Should I say, the results of that enquiry and the enquiry, itself, by

the company retained by the regional district has, of course, got

everybody in the area even more excited than they were before. They are

now told that the budget for 1971 is already spent, has already been

committed. They're told that the boundaries of the park will remain

unchanged but there are areas with a priority, that areas east of one

particular street will not be touched for at least five years. They're

told that the area adjoining that particular arbitrary boundary is of

low priority and they're told the rest will be purchased. I think they

are entitled to know a little bit more than that, Mr. Speaker. I think

they're entitled to know where the money has gone, how it's been

assembled, what the values were, what the prices were that were paid,

how much money is likely to be coming in. I think that the report of

the investigation into the Fraser-Burrard Regional Park District should

be made public, with the possible exception, and I'll bow to the

Attorney-General's wisdom in this, with the possible exception of some

of the personal things that must have gone on in that enquiry.

The fact is that, as I see it, and there's only $400,000 in the

Budget, I think, Mr. Minister, for regional park development of which,

obviously, our area will only get a share, there's nowhere near enough

money to do the job. I say "you" meaning the authorities and, as the

Minister looks after the Regional Parks Act

as far as this House is concerned, there wasn't enough money to do it

in the first place. So, what we've done is we've really starved those

people out. They are people who have pioneered that area, people with

five acres, with ten acres, people with registered feed lots, people

growing a bit of hay, people with a nice house in the modern way. We've

effectively frozen those people in. I'm reminded of the irresponsible

remark that was made by a senior alderman in the city of Vancouver when

the debate about the mill rate for regional park districts came up.

Alderman Broome, and Alderman Broome has never been one of my favourite

aldermen, said, "Why should we increase this mill rate to buy parks for

other municipalities? Why should we increase this mill rate to buy

parks for other municipalities?" showing he just doesn't understand the

whole concept, and showing, too, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has done an awful job of explaining things to him. I think we should,

Mr. Speaker, at this Session of the House, pass legislation to make it

mandatory for every single municipality within the regional district to

accept the mill rate. Why should there be freeloaders? Why should a

municipality, knowing full well that its citizens and its population

are going to use these parks, are going to go there, why shouldn't they

pay that half of a mill rate? I want to put in a plea, Mr. Speaker,

finally, if I may, skirting the rules of the House, for some of the $15

million that the Minister may have, if the bill goes through, in order

to rescue the situation in the Tynehead regional park in that Tynehead

district. It's going to be a very small percentage of all the money the

Minister's got and I think that the least the Minister can do, knowing

the complete breakdown and the fact that this district is really in a

crisis situation, the least he can do is, perhaps, give me the nod over

the floor of the House, sometime in the next week, and say that this

area will be looked after. This area is going to serve, not only

Vancouver, not only Burnaby, not only Delta, but Coquitlam and Surrey

in a way that no other park could possibly serve.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing, may I say that these four issues that

I've dealt with today, namely education, labour relations, safety and

park assembly, all have a direct effect and a very direct effect on

Surrey and its neighbouring ridings and municipalities? The areas, Mr.

Speaker, of Coquitlam, Surrey and Delta are the fastest growing in the

Province, the fastest growing in the Province. Surrey and its

neighbour, Coquitlam, have welfare problems that, I think it can safely

be said, exceed the kind of problems there are in

[ Page 480 ]

many of the other areas. All of them have got

educational problems. The educational thrust and growth and demands in

the Surrey-Delta-Coquitlam area are greater than anywhere else in the

Province. We're on shifts, Mr. Speaker, we're on shifts in most of the

areas. Our school building programme just staggers the imagination,

staggers the imagination. The co-ordination the Minister talks about

does not appear to be there. The shortage of land in the northern part

and the western part of my friend's riding, obviously, means that if

schools are going to be build we're going to be expropriating

five-year-old property. We've all got transportation problems. I've sat

in this House, now, five times, five Sessions, and listened to the

Leader of my Party talk about the transportation problems in his

riding. I remember when he incurred the wrath of the Chair, Mr.

Speaker, by talking about busses. I think that, again, the

Delta-Coquitlam-Surrey area has got to receive greater attention from

this Government.

The area south of the river, that is the Delta and the Surrey area,

have got more problems about rights-of-way, about access and the

planning problems of developing railways and highways than any other

area in the Province. I could produce a figure, which I haven't got in

front of me, of the thousands of acres that have been lost to those two

municipalities because of the most casual and careless development

programmes by either this Government or its Crown agencies. They've all

reached the stage where housing developments are now looked at with a

jaundiced eye by the municipal council. I could tell you, quite

honestly, Mr. Speaker, that if a housing project comes to Surrey, the

municipal council will look twice at it, because the mathematical

formula and mix of the various criteria that go to provide the tax

dollars to run our municipalities have reached the breaking point in

the Surrey-Coquitlam-Delta area.

They are all looking, Mr. Speaker, for some facts behind the figures

of this Budget and, frankly, I see that, in those huge urban areas,

those facts aren't there behind those figures. This Government,

unfortunately, doesn't even seem able to notice that they are problems.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): This Budget, Mr.

Speaker, is a recordbreaker. I'd say it's a testimonial that, once

again, this Cabinet has come through with their old battle colours,

which are fantasy and fallacy and they're asking B.C. to believe, once

again, that so much is being given, so little is being taxed and there

is no debt. We find, throughout the total Budget, a gross

underestimation of revenues and a failure to adequately reveal the true

story of the ever-increasing debt in this Province, which is something

that I intend to speak upon at some length this afternoon. The two

taxes, once again, just socking it to the little guy and the hotel tax

is just another swift kick to the municipalities because, although

they're going to generate it, Mr. Speaker, they will never ever see it.

It won't be labelled for tourism. It won't be used to promote the

tourist industry, but it will just fall into general revenue and be

sloughed off into another fund for another dam. Quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I back the Liberal budget head and shoulders and toenail to

forelock over yours (interruption) .

The B.C. Liberal budget. It's very nice to see this Minister back in

his seat, because he's one of the more popular Ministers in this House;

as we all know, and I see that he's been given special distinction in

this issue of the Budget. As a matter of fact, a picture, a picture for

the first time! That's quite something. You'll find at the very back

page, in front of the Parliament Buildings, there are two Tally-Ho's. I

would say that they somewhat signify what this Minister's dynamic new

policies are in his department — he's still running a tally-ho

department, but using two rather than one. Maybe that's an improvement.

Now, there hasn't been a peep from the Government in the Budget, Mr.

Speaker, about how our taxes have increased over the years and not a

peep as to how much our debt has increased. The people of the Province

should know this almighty load, so I have compiled some figures here.

I'm using some figures from 1960 to 1970 and these are the people's

burden. I suppose you could say that the people's burden in British

Columbia is the Social Credit Government. This is the people's burden,

insofar as these taxes are concerned: in 1960 the people of B.C. paid

$370 million; in 1961, $387; 1962, $419 million; 1963, $447; 1964,

$483; it's up, up and away, all the way, Mr. Speaker; 1965, $543; 1966,

$656; 1967, $731; 1968, $814 million; 1969, $968 million; and 1970,

$1,179 million worth of taxes. Now, on the basis… (interruption) .

Yes, I'll give you a copy of them. On the basis of this Budget of

$1,300 million, the tax increase, from 1960 to the present time, is 351

per cent in the Province of B.C. That's the tax increase from $370

million, on the basis of your present Budget of $1,300 million. What

you are actually going to collect, this year, from the poor old B.C.

taxpayer is $1,400 million and that will mean that your actual

percentage increase, over the period 1960 to 1971, is a 380 per cent

increase in taxes to the people in this Province.

Now, someone is going to say what about the population. All right

what about the population? The population increase over that period of

time was 36 per cent, a population increase of 36 per cent and a tax

increase of 380 per cent. I can say one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the

B.C. taxpayer has, surely, got an unbelievably strong back.

Now, I'd like to have a word or two about this gibble-gabble about

no debt. That's absolute guff, guff, guff. I've got another graph here

of the guaranteed account. It is fuddy-duddy, my friend. I agree, it's

fuddy-duddy Social Credit bookkeeping. In 1952, the guaranteed accounts

of this Government were $270 million (interruption) .

I can come to that in a moment or two, my friend. In 1960, going from

1952 to 1960, there are $601 million; 1961, guaranteed accounts,

$1,265; 1962, $1,364 — I won't read all of these to you — 1965, $1,458

million of guaranteed accounts; 1967, $1,947 million; 1968, $2,094

million; 1969, $2,250 million; 1970, $2,431 million, or an increase in

these per capita debts, which I'm going to give you in half a second,

from 1952 to 1970, of 900 per cent. That has been the increase in per

capita debt in this Province from 1952 to 1970. The increase over the

period from 1960 until 1970 is 400 per cent, up four times in the

ten-year period, up nine times since this Government took over.

What about this, insofar as each individual citizen, every man,

woman, boy and girl in B.C., is concerned? Here's what you carried in

1952, as your per capita debt, $232; 1960, $374; 1961, $772; 1962 and

1963, $822; 1964, $789; 1965, $870; 1966, $1,034; 1967, $1,025; 1969,

$1,067: 1970, $1,111. That's the per capita debt in 1970. It's up nine

times what it was in 1952, four times what it was in 1960, and these

people have the unmitigated gall to say that there is no Provincial

debt in this Province which is absolute 100 per

[ Page 481 ]

cent tommyrot.

It's very interesting, also, to see what portion of these guaranteed

accounts, that I've been telling you about, is Hydro and PGE. It's

truly staggering. I won't read all of them but if the Members would

like copies I'll be more than delighted to send them to them. This,

again, is from the period 1960 to 1970. In 1961, we find Hydro owing

guaranteed accounts — these are the accounts that the Province of

British Columbia guarantees for Hydro — $811 million; the PGE, $117

million. Now, my friends, listen to this, 1970, the guaranteed account

of Hydro, $1,760 million; the guaranteed account for PGE, $171 million.

This means that, over the 10-year period, the indebtedness of Hydro has

doubled and the PGE is up nearly 50 per cent, which is truly staggering.

From all of this, you can determine one thing — that the Premier is

a publicist, the likes of whom we've never ever seen before. There was

a very learned editorialist in British Columbia, many years ago, who

used to work for the Province .

His name is Jim Butterfield and he said, "It doesn't take long for a

fallacy handled by a determined publicist to almost become in the minds

of the people a divine revelation." That's been the gospel of this

Government. I say it's high time that this so-called divine revelation

came right down to earth. In four years, Mr. Speaker, its guaranteed

debt is up about $500 million. In four years, we now owe $2,431

million, of that figure, $1,930 million is Hydro and PGE, and our per

capita responsibility is $1,111 each.

My friend, the First Member from Burrard asked me what about assets

and here's a word or two about that. You don't hear too many Government

figures in this, either. Our debt is about nine times as great as it

was when Social Credit took over, but our fixed assets have only

increased about six times, from $188 million to $1,262 million. The

figures are in your books. You just look them up, my friend, and read

them. Stop looking to the stars for guidance. Just get the figures out

of the books.

Last year, if Hydro had a net profit, and it did, some years

ago…last year, I think it had a net profit of $9.28 million. Well,

let's just for fun, make that an even $10 million. If we use that net

profit on annual calculation to repay the capital debt of Hydro — and I

would like all of the Members to take exceptional comfort from this — it will only take another 176 years to pay off Hydro's debt — another

176 years — 2147 A.D. However, last year, we find there was a deficit

in Hydro of $408,000. So, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is mortgaged

right into perpetuity and make no mistake of that. The Member from

Cowichan-Malahat gave us some very interesting figures about the

interest rates of Hydro and I have forgotten what you said — it was per

individual… (interruption) .

Thirty cents in every bill head. OK. Now the interest, alone, of Hydro,

last year, on its debt charges, are $97.7 million, $14.7 million on

construction, and the total interest that this Hydro has to pay is

$112.4 million, every year. Little wonder that we hear from the lady

Member over there saying, "Keep the lights on all night." I tell you,

if we had a night as long as the night of Rip Van Winkle, we'd never

find enough money to take care of this interest, Mr. Speaker. And you

wonder, and you wonder, and you wonder why we want a close look at your

books. The second Member from Vancouver Centre, and I'm delighted to

see that not only is he here but his very charming wife is up in the

balcony, too. I'm a great man in the field of matrimonial relations,

you understand that. He said, however, "Everything's OK with Hydro, you

know there's an audit." But, Mr. Speaker, auditors add up figures and

they see they balance and that's their responsibility. They don't

inform the public of the worthiness, or otherwise, of the financial

policy or of a contract. Then the Member from Langley woke up and he

said a few words, too. He said, "Fellows, there's no need to look at

the books, because if mistakes were made the public would ask questions

and the elected representatives would raise issues." I say so they

should, Mr. Speaker, it's not only their right, it's their

responsibility.

If we had an Auditor-General, we'd do the same thing. Make

no mistake of that. But, Mr. Speaker, public money is public money from

the start to the finish and that's our position in this side of the

House. It's the people's throughout, and the complete lack of capacity

and the complete lack of philosophy of this Government to either

understand, appreciate or carry that fact into practice, Mr. Speaker,

will spell its eventual downfall. Make no mistake about that, because

the people are demanding a look at the books. The fact that they're not

allowed to see them is straight, unadulterated nonsense. I would

suggest to the Government never to ever forget the words of Lord Acton,

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I say that the

B.C. Hydro needs to be reminded that its only association with power is

to sell the hydro-electric variety to the people and not to dictate to

them, as it has re the transit cuts, as it has re the rate raises, as

it has re the expropriation procedures and as it has, in its present

attempt, to slough off the transit losses on to the cities in this

Province.

Now, I want to say a couple of words about the Minister's statement,

this afternoon. He's asking Hydro to reconsider the continuance of

Sunday bus passes. Of course, they should. Who quarrels with that? No

one. The Leader of the Liberal Party said, in his speech, he said,

"Free bus passes for all of our pioneers, all people over 71 in this

Province," and to that we subscribe. The Minister's statement raises

peculiar questions to me, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see why the Government

has to bring its arm against Hydro in regard to this, because it

amounts to a vote of nonconfidence in the directors of B.C. Hydro — and

two of those are in this House, the two Ministers in this House. The

lead dust twins. Those two Ministers brought in this measure. Those two

Ministers, as directors of B.C. Hydro, ordered that the Sunday bus

passes be cancelled, a few days ago, and, now, we have them coming in

here and reversing. That's a consistency of about zero, Mr. Speaker, a

consistency of zero. The second point that the Minister raised saying,

here, "…the regional board, " so forth and so forth, "provided

the municipalities of the regions served will share equally with the

Provincial Government the deficits arising from transit operations in

the metropolitan areas." That offering is ominous. If I may quote a

little Latin, with a little license, Terneo Hydro Donna Ferrentes

— I fear Hydro when bearing gifts. I think Government and Hydro are

just looking for a partner to share in a loss, and an amountable loss,

which is totally uncertain, and this offer, itself, is even like the

sword of Damocles hanging over these municipalities. Because, Mr.

Speaker, if they complain about cutbacks, if they complain about rate

increases, if they complain about rotten service, all of which would be

at the order of management…Who is management? The Directors of B.C.

Hydro, and where next do we find them, wearing the next hat? The

Ministers of the Crown in this House. So, if the municipalities

complained about these cutbacks, or complained about these rates, or

complained about the rotten service, you know what they

[ Page 482 ]

could be told to do — the other thing. "If you don't like it, wait

in the rain, wait in the rain." I'd like to tell these Little Red

Riding-hood municipalities that they had better check these big molars

of Grandma Hydro and this offer as carefully as they possibly can. They

should be entitled to the fullest disclosure of each and every fact. In

the committee of this House, today, Members were not allowed to

investigate the use of the Government's $2 million subsidy to Hydro.

They were not permitted to call the head of the Transit Authority as a

witness. Is Hydro going to make full disclosure to the municipalities?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not.

MR. GARDOM: Is Hydro, Mr. Speaker, going to let the

municipalities ask full 100 per cent questions about the $2 million

Government subsidy? Are the municipalities going to be permitted to ask

those questions of Hydro? Are the municipalities, Mr. Speaker,

going to be permitted to have the head of the Transit Authority of

Hydro called in front of them? I ask you, are they? What's the answer

from Hydro going to be? No, again, I suppose. No, again?

(Interruption.) Audited statements, my foot. The municipalities will

want to ask questions, Mr. Member, and you know that, and they should

be entitled to. There were audited statements of Commonwealth Trust,

weren't there? We remember that. What we've got here, this suggestion,

this afternoon, of the Minister is an unloading to municipalities of

increases and they won't know what it's going to be. I say it's just

another attempt of this Government and of B.C. Hydro to fuddle duddle

the municipalities.

In the Premier's speech, Mr. Speaker, of February 8, 1963, the

Budget of 1963, he made very prophetic statements and he quoted a

speech that Gladstone gave, a long time ago, on April 25, 1887. The

Premier said this, "Seventy-five years ago, the Right Honourable W.E.

Gladstone emphasized that sound public finance principles include

economy, a balanced single budget in each year and .redemption of

debt." I say that's good logic, but I read the actual speech of Mr.

Gladstone. I see in that speech that he also said that his principle

was, "…that revenue and expenditures should balance together,

year by year, provided the balance to the credit side is obtained by

legitimate means," and I emphasize those words, "providing this

balance is obtained by legitimate means." Gladstone also said that he

was not prepared to admit that the reduction of a tax by the

appropriation of another public fund is a proceeding which ought to be

approved." Mr. Speaker, this would apply just as properly to the

loading of public debt onto Crown corporations and then saying it was

not a public debt. So, since the Premier bought Gladstone, I rather

wonder why he didn't buy him the whole way because, in no way, Mr.

Speaker, would Gladstone have ever agreed that the sloughing off of a

debt by flogging it into just another public authority is any kind of a

proceeding, which quoting Gladstone, ought to be approved or, again

quoting him, ought to be effecting a balance by legitimate means. I

say, Mr. Speaker, that we should have in this Province a committee of

accountants and tax experts struck, who are independent of Government,

and have them delve into the financial and fiscal maze that the Premier

has constructed and that this committee should be empowered to

recommend to the Legislature accounting procedures which will truly and

correctly and openly reflect the total financial operation and status

of this Government. The public is entitled to a better set of books and

ones that are clear and certain and incapable of political distortion.

Secondly, I'd ask for an Auditor-General to independently check on

Government spending; for example, the preposterous, unwarranted and

expensive Government propaganda supporting Social Credit candidates in

the last election. Thirdly, I'd ask for an open-file policy and an end

to the secret life in B.C.

Another topic I'd like to say a few words about is the per capita

grant. I do wish…is he there? No, he isn't…the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Do you know where he is, Mr. Whip? (Interruption.)

No, not particularly. It's not likely to make much impression upon him

in any event, unfortunately. We think it should. However, Mr. Speaker,

as faithfully as the swallows return to Capistrano each year, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs flies into the municipalities and he

gives them the bird about their expenses. He's got a great assortment

of frenetic phrases. He accuses them of things, such as not having

their houses in order, or being crybabies, or profligate spenders, and

so forth and so on. Now, we find last year in his monumental talk that

he gave in this House — I believe during the Budget Address and, in any

event, it's found on page 122 of our Hansard — he came forth with a

very amazing statistic of a few local governments, whose names he

refused to reveal and whose administrative costs he said had increased

60 per cent for the period of 1964 to 1968.

However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not mention at that time

that, over the same span, the same five-year span, the Provincial

Government's administrative costs rose by more than 80 per cent, from

$9.9 million to $18.1 million and that, in his very own department, the

cost of administration climbed 125 per cent, over the same period of

time. So there you've got comparisons that are apples to apples, but

they don't seem to be the ones that the Minister likes. I think we've

got to put things into perspective and, most of all, by permitting the

revenues of the municipalities to at least keep pace with the

Provincial Government and not have them always placed in the position

of poor little Oliver coming to the table of the Almighty asking for

some soup. It's mighty thin gruel as it is.

Last year, the per capita grant was increased from $27 to $30 on the

basis of estimated revenues of $1,165 million. This year, your Budget

is about $1,300 million. But, as we earlier indicated, it is much more

likely to come in at $1,400 million. In short, it means this, Mr.

Speaker, the Provincial Government will have about 11 to 12 per cent

increase in estimated or actual revenues this fiscal period over last,

yet, it still leaves the municipalities holding the line at $30 per

capita grant and that's totally unrealistic. Now, in order to provide a

little bit of equity in this thing, because there's no way that these

municipalities can tighten their belts anymore without buckling their

backbones, we've got to put in a provision so that they may keep pace

with the times and not always have to run the gauntlet one year late.

I'm requesting the Government, and I do wish that one of these

Cabinet Ministers would convey it to the Minister, or backbencher, if

he has the gumption so to do, the suggestion that you bring in

legislation that will ensure that the per capita grant will increase or

decrease, for that matter, as the Provincial revenues increase or

decrease. This year, your revenues are up about 11 to 12 per cent, as

I've said, so your per capita grant should increase by a like

percentage, say, another $3, for round figures, up to $33. Now, this

would give them a greater opportunity for better budgeting and any

effective form of long-range planning.

[ Page 483 ]

I want to say a couple of words about an ombudsman. We know that

bureaucracy…pretty well all governments this day in time are

staggering. There are more Crown agencies and boards and committees and

commissions and departments and organs of government than ever before.

Parkinsonism, we've got running absolutely wild. It is now next to

impossible for a citizen to find his way through the labyrinths of

rules and regulations. My request is for technical law reform, but I'm

making the request, unfortunately, in the feeling that it will never

ever be accepted by this Government because it would interfere with the

almost totally unfettered powers that this Cabinet has in the rather

amazing and secret domain that they exist within, behind the green door

of their little Cabinet room. As I said before, the good life, my foot,

Mr. Speaker. What's practiced in this Province is the secret life.

We need better relations between the public and the power of the

State, and right at patient level and for the man in the street. He's

got to have, at least, one place where he can go for a helping hand and

where his problem won't be shelved and it won't be shoved under the rug

but it will be investigated, with a view to solution, with power to

correct, or even circumvent, if necessary, the terrific might of a

Minister of the Crown. An ombudsman would be able to do that by report

and democratic disclosure to all of the representatives of the people

which is this Legislature.

Some Members will say the law is available, but the law can't do the

job, Mr. Speaker, and the Courts can't, because in B.C. It's only the

Government who has judicial rights against the citizen and there's

absolutely no reciprocity. To the public of B.C., as far as the

Government is concerned, the doors of the Courts are clanged shut. They

have no right to sue their Government; it's verboten and it amounts to

judicial emasculation. That's what we've got practiced and perpetuated

in this Province. Why'? What's the reason for this'? Well, the only

answer that I can come up with, is it must be by virtue of the primary

dedication to political survivalism because there's no business reason,

there's no legal reason, there's no ethical reason, there's no valid

reason of any description, whatsoever, to support any position to the

contrary. If I'm wrong and, yes, I'd be more than pleased to eat these

words, and I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it will be the best

delicacy I would ever have had. If this Cabinet would like to come on,

like knights in shining armour, and say, "OK. We'll stand the test,"

I'm prepared to retract each and every one of these statements. They

have not done it for 19 years and I don't think they will ever do it,

because their policy is that in the Court of Cecil I, they should

remain isolated from the legal process, forever.

Mr. Speaker, it's this kind of arrogant and distant and erosive

attitude that causes so many of the criticisms of democracy in the

world today, because you cannot isolate a Government from the people.

There aren't any more of those kinds of islands and that's a fact.

Without the law, there is an even more desperate need in this Province

for an ombudsman, a man who could temper the heavy hand of the abuse of

ministerial discretion and who could alleviate maladministration and

hack through the bureaucratic jungles.

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

MR. GARDOM: It's been, in my view, a specious and

weak-sistered argument, too often raised in this Chamber, that the

function of an ombudsman can be best carried out by the traditional

approach through a Member of this Assembly. In many cases, Mr. Speaker,

the expertise is not there. Government is more complex and interwoven

than it ever was before and, also, this Cabinet will not furnish

information, it won't open its files so that no Member is able ever to

crack the secrecy cult. The job of the Commissioner of Grievances in

B.C. should be to protect the citizen against inefficiency and errors

and arrogance and abuse. I call for one in this Province right now,

complaints to be made informally and without expense to the

complainant. The office should be one of high stature and its banner

impartiality. There would be security of tenure, power to fully report

and not just to administration but to this Parliament, as well. His job

would be to recommend and to advise and to bear the problems and

propose solutions.

There's a wealth of precedence and, as most Members know, the title

initially came into being in Sweden in 1713. In 1809, in Sweden, the

ombudsman was instructed to supervise the observance of statutes and

regulations by the courts and public officials. In 1917, one was

established in Finland in 1953, Denmark — he had wider authority there

and he was instructed and authorized to keep himself informed when

ministers, civil servants and all other persons, acting in the service

of the State, except judges, committed mistakes or acts of negligence

in the performance of their duties. Next came Norway, in 1958, which I

hope would, at least, stir the metal of the Attorney-General, but so

far it hasn't. The first ombudsman in the Commonwealth was in New

Zealand, in 1962, and his job was to investigate either by complaint to

him, or on his own motion, any decision or recommendation made or any

act done or omitted to be done. In any case, what it boils down to is

this, Mr. Speaker, if there were something wrong, he had the power to

find a solution and report the opinion to the appropriate department

and, if nothing was done there, he could report to Cabinet, or report

to the Prime Minister and, if nothing was done there, he could report

to the Legislature. So there, you see, you've got a check and a

balance. Now, in North America, the first jurisdiction to create the

office was Nassau County in New York, in 1966. Hawaii came along in

1967, as did Britain. It is very interesting to note that Britain was

so hot with the idea that they appointed their ombudsman even before

the bill was approved by their Parliament, which is a procedure I don't

entirely agree with, but they certainly deemed it was very, very

necessary in a quick period of time, there.

In Canada, we've had a number of resolutions and private Members'

Bills introduced in various Legislatures. Mine, for example, in 1969,

but legislation did not become enacted, in Canada, until 1967, when New

Brunswick and Alberta came along the line and, in 1968, we find Quebec

following and, in 1970, Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speaker…. (interruption).

I'm sorry. When was your bill, honourable Member'!

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

MR. GARDOM: About five or six years ago. The Honourable

Member from Burnaby-Edmonds would like a line that he had a bill. I

think he deserves great credit for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commissioner for Grievances.

MR. GARDOM: Commissioner for Grievances — good credit to you,

sir. But the concept of ombudsman is spreading like wildfire and one

writer said it's like ombudsmania. You find it in many States in the

United States,

[ Page 484 ]

today, Mr. Speaker. Michigan, Colorado, to name a couple, and

California and in others it's under consideration. It's in Western

Europe, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the emerging countries, Guiana,

Mauritius. It's in India. Israel has a State Controller, who's taken on

the job and, in modified form, you'll find it in the cities, in the

universities, in the newspapers, even — the Province newspaper's action

line is a form of an ombudsman — and even stores. In each case, both

at the legislative level and at the other levels that I'm talking

about, the function of this individual is to go ahead and put the

finger in the dike of the general awareness of the part of society,

which has become so much more highly integrated and complicated that

we've just got to have this kind of a troubleshooter and this kind of a

check and balance.

I'd like to say a couple of words, before closing, about the

Canadian Statutes and the way that they are modelled, because I would

like all Members to exert every possible influence that they can upon

what they call the Government of this Province, which is the Cabinet,

to see that this measure becomes a reality in this Province. In the

four Canadian Statutes, I think they all take the obvious decision and

the correct one, that the job has to be filled by a person with a sense

of fair play and intelligence and, certainly, the courage of his

personal convictions. He's likened almost to a Supreme Court Judge and

he's got somewhat similar powers of examination. He can summons

witnesses and he can subpoena documents. He can proceed on complaint

from anyone or again on his own motion. And — a very important thing,

he's also entitled to proceed, following a reference from the

Legislature or from a Committee of the House, and he's got an almost

unlimited capacity to examine and report. He has the responsibility to

request that an omission be rectified, that a decision be cancelled or

varied, and that a practice be altered and that the law be

reconsidered. He has also got the right, Mr. Speaker, and this is a

very important one, I think, for this Province, that reasons have got

to be given for any departmental action. We find all sorts of

departments in this Province doing all sorts of wild and wonderful

things, without furnishing any reasons whatsoever. Still, in the four

Canadian Statutes, if there's no response by this report to a

department head or to a Cabinet Minister, then, he can report to the

Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and/or to the Legislature.

Now, this step, Mr. Speaker, is not one towards the socialization of

government, but it's absolutely to the contrary, for its function is to

shore up the position of the individual and protect individual

freedoms. The essential features are the ones that I have mentioned:

independence, non-partisanship, the capacity to do the job, the

ability to search out the answers, the capacity to report. In one word,

it's insurance — it's insurance — a great insurance policy for openness

and fairness and for impartiality. I say this, Mr. Speaker, if this

Legislature has any dedication, whatsoever, to find any solution to the

problems of the bureaucratic process, then, it should support this

measure and I intend to introduce, at the next appropriate sitting of

this House, a resolution to that effect.

As my final topic, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say a few words,

as did

the last Member and I much enjoyed his speech, that part of his speech

in which he discussed the problems of the roadways in our Province…

We have run into one fact, today, and that is that driving is no

longer a right in B.C., it's a privilege. A person's got to follow the

laws of the road or be kept off it. This calls for three things on the

part of the Government. It calls for leadership, it calls for a

programme to increase the road capabilities of the individual, and it

calls for enforcement of the law. We arc a mobile society. Our

car-person ratio stands at about nearly one to two, one million cars to

two million people. The facts are absolutely conclusive. We don't have

to have any more evidence to convince us that roadway-to-graveyard has

got to stop because there's some really ghastly figures. For 1970, 557

deaths. The figures for 1970 are not yet complete, but there's one that

is. For the first nine months of last year, we had 15,700 injuries for

the first nine months, alone, and for the first nine months, there were

$30.5 million of property damage in this Province. So, I can say that,

despite the activities of some very, very conscientious civil servants,

and here I would very much like to commend the Superintendent of

Motor-Vehicles. Despite the activities of interested citizens, this

Government is still a country mile from effectively checking this

grizzly toll of social damage.

I say we've got to do this and I've got six points here. First of

all we have got to have compulsory driver training in all our high

schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. GARDOM: This should be a well-documented course, with as

much audiovisual aid as possible, and it should cover motor-vehicle

condition and repair, it should cover traffic rules and safety, it

should cover road worthiness and accident causes and consequences, and

advanced and practical courses could be phased in as electives. I think

the police would be delighted to help with something like this and the

students could hear firsthand from traffic officers and coroners, too,

for that matter, as guest lecturers, of the terrible consequences of

highway violence. I think that we have got to bring home to the driver,

as is brought home to the other people in these vocations, the

frightful aftermath of bad driving.

Dealing with compulsory driver training for youngsters, California

was the pathfinder and there, if driver trainer courses are not taken,

licenses are not issued until age 18, otherwise 16. Now, in 1969, in

this House, we passed an amendment to the Motor-Vehicle Act ,

section

2d and it said, "Except with the consent of the Superintendent of Motor

Vehicles, no person under the age of 18 years may drive a motor-vehicle

unless he is certified under a driver training programme approved by

the superintendent to be qualified to drive a motor-vehicle."

Honourable Members, still this isn't proclaimed and, to me, that's

straight 100 per cent dereliction of Cabinet duty. This is a package

that should be put into effect when the students return to school in

September of this year.

Secondly, for the more interested students and adults, as well, and,

certainly, the chronic drivers and the problem drivers, the defensive

driving course, which is a good one, should be programmed into every

community in the Province. The teachers could handle this on a

part-time basis, because all of the statistics point to the driver

being the effective cause of the bulk of the accidents and there's

money in the bank to train him. But, to date, our attack has been

absolutely tailpiped backwards.

Another thing that is very needful here is compulsory, and I

emphasize the word, "compulsory" — Province-wide motor-vehicle

inspection and testing. Now, fine and dandy. We've got it in Victoria.

We've got it in Vancouver. We've got it in Richmond, and I gather

there's some talk of it going into New Westminster and Burnaby but,

this is where it comes to a fullstop. Now, this can easily be done

throughout the whole

[ Page 485 ]

of the communities of B.C., Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to build

these enormous and expensive public structures to do it. You could use

the existing public structures at off-peak times; for example, schools

or fire halls or community centres, or programme this thing into local

garages. We've got to have more mobile testing units. To think that

we've only got one, single, solitary, mobile testing unit in a Province

of this size is absolutely ridiculous, and with its affluence. They

cost about $25,000 and more should be purchased immediately.

Here's a startling figure — of the 114,000 cars inspected in the

Vancouver, Victoria and Richmond stations, 37 per cent of them were

rejected; therefore, on the basis of one million cars, you can project

that over 370,000 of them are not roadworthy. That's one out of every

three. One out of every three cars in B.C. is not roadworthy and we

don't have Province-wide compulsory motor-vehicle inspection and

testing! That's roadside roulette in my view, Mr. Speaker, and it's the

type of thing I do not like one darn bit. You know, the one unit that

did tootle around the Province, it only received cars on a voluntary

basis.