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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 287 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

in addition to joining with the welcomes I would like to draw attention

to the honourable Members that a telegram has been dispatched to Miss

Karen Magnusson expressing, on behalf of the Province, our

congratulations at her outstanding victory in winning the North

American Figure Skating Championship and wishing her the very best of

success in the World Championship. (Applause.)

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the course of the last year there has been quite a number of

matters touching on health services which have caught the eye of the

public. Some of these have been brought to the attention of this House

by honourable Members, others not. In any event, there are, perhaps,

four or five that I might mention as being worthy of discussion here.

I'll deal first of all with these and the following in this order.

I'd like to talk about the question of small hospitals and the

construction of these, the matter of rubella, German measles as it's

sometimes called. I'd like to touch upon abortions, the question of the

staffing of Pearson Hospital, a few remarks on drug abuse, hospital

construction and so on. Later on, I'd like to turn very briefly to the

principles of sound financial management as these are reflected in the

Budget which we're now debating.

Turning first to the matter that has been raised by one of the

honourable Members across the way and touching on the proposal to

provide a hospital in the Clearwater area, I'd like to deal with this

under two headings. First of all, the wisdom of such policy and,

secondly, touching upon the matter of what some people have said and

others have been alleged to have said, and some of the matters that

have been repeated by Members of this House as well as members of the

media.

First of all, not long ago, at the last meeting of the Ministers of

Health of the Provinces of Canada, it was common ground by all those

present that, in the present state of our knowledge of medical matters,

matters of hospital care, that it was not practical, except in very

remote parts of Canada, to operate hospitals with less than 50 beds.

Some of the members, who were at that meeting, suggested that we should

follow the European policy and, perhaps, not have hospitals under 200

or 300 beds in number. I don't think that that's practical in this

country, but certainly, 50 beds is a reasonable minimum for any

hospital. Now, this is not a policy that was established originally by

this Province but it was one which arose out of debate and common

consent by all the Ministers and, of course, has been supported

wholeheartedly by the Medical Associations of Canada.

The question is, then, in British Columbia, where and under what

circumstances we ought to authorize and encourage the development of

hospitals of 10, 15, 20 beds and so on? I think the answer, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of what the Health Ministers have suggested and

as we are advised by the medical profession, that, except in those very

remote parts of British Columbia where there are, obviously, difficult

transportation problems, particularly in the wintertime, these ought

not to be encouraged. Now the question is whether Clearwater is one of

those places where we ought to have a hospital? It is common ground

that the number of people involved and the population there, at the

best, would not warrant more than a hospital of 10 or 15 beds. The

driving distance from Clearwater and environs to Kamloops, where

there's a very fine hospital, is something around an hour and a half or

two hours, and on a very good road, I might say.

Not long ago, at the time that a by-law was being proposed for the

Thompson-Nicola Regional District, the Government had occasion to wire

the district and point out to them that it was most anxious that there

be included in that by-law, provision for some facility at Clearwater.

We had in mind, at that time, that we should have what is sometimes

called a diagnostic and treatment centre. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker,

this kind of programme can be described as a hospital without

in-patient beds and without dietary facilities but with things such as

radiology services, laboratory, clinical equipment, a well-equipped

operating room for handling emergencies and so on. Generally speaking,

you would have those aspects of a hospital without the intention of

having in-patient services or dietary. Having that in mind, we

encouraged them, the regional district, to provide in their by-law an

amount of a quarter of a million dollars for this purpose, not only at

Clearwater, but at other places within the area. I might say in

passing, that this matter didn't come to the fore in British Columbia

for the first time. As a matter of fact, probably the best example of

this public issue arose in Saskatchewan, where the Government of the

day under the leadership of the then CCF Party, I think, in good

conscience, established a number of so-called cottage hospitals in the

five- and ten-bed range. Unfortunately, these have not received public

acceptance and now, in the past few years, the Government of that

Province, as had already been commenced before that, began phasing

these out.

I think that the original impetus which closed these hospitals was

recognized and commenced by the Government of that day, namely the CCF

Government and I'm not quarrelling with them on that point. I think

that they made an honest effort to try these. They didn't work and they

began changing their policy. On December 6, 1969, a by-law was passed

in the Thompson-Nicola Regional Hospital District in the amount of

$2,240,000 and, included in that, as I say, was a quarter of a million

dollars for provision of hospital facilities at Clearwater. Since then,

I have authorized the incorporation of a hospital society and they're

prepared to proceed. Now, I would not trouble you, Mr. Speaker, in

taking up your time in reading a letter that I sent to the Hospital

Board, except that the principles enunciated in this letter will apply

not only to Clearwater but to many, many other communities across this

Province where they are, in good faith, seeking some kind of medical

hospital facility. I'd like to read to you, sir, an excerpt from my

letter to Mr. Harwood, the Chairman of the Wells Gray Hospital

Committee. This is October 23, 1970. "Dear Mr. Harwood: The Deputy

Minister of Hospital Insurance has reported to me on his visit to

Clearwater. Consideration has been given also to the proposals advanced

by your committee in support of the establishment of a hospital

facility with provision for in-patient care. In this regard I wish to

make it quite clear that the Department of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance has not, on any previous occasion, concurred in

[ Page 288 ]

any planning for in-patient hospitals service at

Clearwater. The question of the most suitable arrangement of services

for a community such as yours has been the subject of a great deal of

study, during the course of which the advice of the British Columbia

Medical Association was sought. The Association supports the proposal

of diagnostic and treatment centres in which space is provided for

ambulatory patients." And then I go on a little further, Mr. Speaker.

On the basis of the advice that I've received, I told them that the

establishment of an in-patient hospital facility cannot be supported

and, furthermore, would be contrary to good medical and surgical

practice to enter into an arrangement under which there would be an

in-patient facility with visiting surgeons coming in from a distance to

perform surgery. I hope that, Mr. Speaker, will give you a little of

the background and the reasons why we're not able to concur in the

ambition of the people in that area for what is, sometimes, referred to

as an in-patient hospital.

Now, since that time, I have, by a subsequent letter, authorized the

development of plans for a diagnostic and treatment centre in

Clearwater and I've also provided that, since public funds would be

involved, the project should go to public tender. More recently, we

have approved the appointment of an architect and it is my expectation

that he will be in the Clearwater area within the next few days.

Turning next to a matter that was raised by one of the honourable

Members across the way, and it was, I think, brought up at the same

time that he was referring to what he considered to be a regretful

decline in the atmosphere associated with the activities and business

of this House.

I'm going to read now a short excerpt from one of the newspapers,

which I think will describe the background against which a number of

letters will be reported. "Barrie Clark, Vancouver-Seymour, told the

Legislature Loffmark had allegedly written to Dr. Regehr and accused

him of playing politics." I'm sure that the honourable Member didn't

say that and I'll accept his word for it. I'm only reporting here, Mr.

Speaker, what the newspaper said about him and, if it's wrong, he has

my sympathy. This is what the newspaper also reports.

AN HON. MEMBER: I said the Minister was reported as saying certain things. There were no letters mentioned.

MR. LOFFMARK: I accept. I will now proceed to report a little

bit more on what the newspaper had to say. "Clark claimed Loffmark had

threatened to investigate Dr. Regehr's professional qualifications if

he didn't allow the hospital issue to drop." Now, it may well be that

that Member was misquoted. Here is how a gentleman deals with those

matters. I'm going to quote Dr. McClure. Dr. McClure is the Registrar

of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of British

Columbia. Here's what he said, and he's writing to me, "I'm writing to

you in regard to statements attributed to you published in the Kamloops

Daily Sentinel and the story

on a certain page. The statement attributed to you was quoted as

follows, 'Mr. Loffmark accused Dr. Regehr of playing some sort of game

and said that if he didn't stop he was going to look into the doctor's

medical competency and see about lifting his license."' But you'll

notice that he didn't go rushing on to the floor of the House or to the

press. He gave me the courtesy of writing me a letter (interruption) .

Yes, he sent me a note. "I appreciate that you are under no obligation

to explain." A few days later, I won't trouble you with all of the

letter but, if any of the Members are interested enough, they can have

a copy of it at their convenience.

This is my letter to Dr. McClure. You'll notice that, so far, the

injured person, if there ever was one, Dr. Regehr, has not been a party

to any of these complaints (interruption) . My friend, you're always right, but it's always on the second time. That's one time too late.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about you? You're never right.

MR. LOFFMARK: Steady, my friend, steady. We'll come to you, later. You're way down the list, though, so take your turn.

This is my answer to Dr. McClure. "At the meeting mentioned, Dr.

Regehr proceeded to cite a number of instances in which he felt, as a

doctor, he could give adequate care in a hospital of the size of 10 to

20 beds, for which he and representatives of the local Hospital Board

had been pressing. The fair inference from his words was that he, as a

doctor, was better able to judge such matters than the Minister, who

was a layman. I did not at that meeting mention nor do I now take any

objection, on principle, to a doctor expressing his views on medical

matters or, for that matter, on any subject." But I did make other

points. I made the foregoing points to Dr. Regehr. "Further," I said,

"I would take up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the

British Columbia Medical Association," as I do now, "the question of

whether a doctor is free to draw the Minister of Health into a public

debate, during which the Minister is expected to defend the policy

approved or recommended by either your College or the British Columbia

Medical Association and accepted by this Department, in good faith,

without that doctor assuming a responsibility for making known to all

his hearers the official position of his professional associates?" (Interruption) .

At no time, have I ever suggested or said that I was going to look

into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Regehr, at the meeting mentioned above, said

that he felt the policy statement in the Minister's letter was an

adverse reflection on his medical competency and, at that moment, I

assured him, in specific words, that neither the policy statement nor

my objections to his words were, in any way, to be taken as a

reflection on his professional competency. This latter assurance to Dr.

Regehr was given to him in the presence of four other people. I say, in

the final paragraph of the letter, "You will readily see that there is

not much point in my consulting either the College of Physicians and

Surgeons or the British Columbia Medical Association on any matter of

health care policy if, at a later time, I find myself defending a

policy which your College or the Medical Association has endorsed

against an individual doctor who allows the impression to go abroad

that he is speaking for all doctors or that he, as a doctor, is a

better judge of medical matters than a Minister of Health who may not

have medical qualifications."

Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to hear the answer which I then

received from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They are writing

to me and the words are as follows: "Reference your letter of December

27th regarding Dr. Regehr. The Council, at their last meeting, reviewed

your letter and certainly agree that any doctor quoted by the news

media should make it very clear whether the opinions that he gives are

his own or whether he is speaking as a representative of the medical

profession or one of its branches. The Council of the College was

reassured by your denial of any threat to

[ Page 289 ]

Dr. Regehr's license to practice medicine."

Now, I might say that, as far as Dr. Regehr was concerned and as far

as I was concerned, that closed the matter. I might say that Dr. Regehr

did participate in this debate subsequent to this exchange of

correspondence. I might say that he did me the courtesy of saying that,

"These are my own views and they are not the views, necessarily, of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons." (Interruption.)

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, at no

time, did Dr. Regehr ever say publicly or make any objection publicly.

But I'll tell you who the mischief makers were. They were those people

who left that meeting and proceeded to report this matter, either

falsely or out of context and, certainly, misleading. What price, then,

on the honour of this House if an individual Member chooses to meddle

with some mischief maker and never does the courtesy of enquiring as to

whether this were a fact or not? The honourable Member across the way

had something to say the other day about the decline in the honour of

the House, not only this House, but Parliament, generally. I think that

his point is well taken. I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a

pamphlet called the Canada Month ,

an eminently respectable publication — Canadian. Among other things, of

course, it has a little item in here entitled "Why I Quit the Liberal

Party." Of course, this kind of thing comes up quite often but this one

is of particular interest to you, Mr. Speaker, because of its currency.

Now it is reporting on Mr. Perry Ryan, MP, a very distinguished member

of the Toronto community and he is commenting upon his reasons why he

left the Liberal Party. He starts off by saying, "The governing party

has made quite unnecessary changes that push elected Government MP's to

the margins of influence and debates." Then, a little later on, Perry

Ryan announced in December his refusal to support the present

Government in the House of Commons for three reasons: our desertion of

NATO, not to put too fine a point upon the matter; two, our willingness

to recognize Communist China on terms different from what we promised

in the 1968 Federal election, and I make no comment on either of those

two reasons, but the third one is of particular interest to the Member

from Vancouver-Seymour, because of his desire to have a very high level

of debate in Parliament. The reason why Mr. Ryan left the Liberal Party

he says is, "the downgrading of Parliament and its Members emphasized

by the recent conduct of his colleagues in the Government."

I'd like to turn next to the matter of rubella (interruption) .

Yes, you'll have them. You'll have them later today. But there's other

stuff that we'd like to deal with first. We don't want to take up time

with the filing of letters now. We'll do that later (interruption) . Yes, yes (interruption) .

Last June, for the first time, Mr. Speaker, there became available

in British Columbia a vaccine which was designed to prevent the

infection commonly referred to as German measles or rubella. We already

had, at that time, a serum designed to offer protection in respect of

red measles or rubeola. Today, I'd like to confine myself to remarks

relating to rubella, because it is said, and I think without doubt it

is true, that a number of defective births have been, in the past,

attributable to the infection of the mother during the early months of

pregnancy. At the same time, it was suggested that this Province, as

well as others, ought to embark upon a mass, I use that word because it

was common at the time, a mass inoculation programme. I believe that,

of the Provinces in Canada, at the time that this became available,

Ontario and British Columbia were, probably, the most active in

developing a mass inoculation programme. However, I think it is unwise

to use that expression, because it's misleading in its description, for

the reason that mass immunization is not practical for a number of

reasons which I would like to give you.

First of all, there is quite a number of persons who should not

properly be given this vaccine and these include any person who is

pregnant at the time the vaccine is given. Secondly, persons who have

any severe diseases, such as cancer, leukaemia and the like of that,

patients taking drugs or treatment which lower their resistance to

infections, such as steroids and irritations, also patients with gamma

globulin deficiencies, and patients with allergies of any constituent

of the vaccine being used, for example, in respect of eggs, rabbits,

myosin and the like of that. Finally, in respect to that group, it's

certainly not possible to vaccinate anyone if there's any illness or

fever which would be present at the time of vaccination. Now you'll

notice, there, that there's a list, Mr. Speaker, of about eight

different classes which are not eligible for vaccination but, in

addition to that, of course, there's a very large group of persons who,

for religious or other reasons, decline to participate in this kind of

a programme. So that we begin with the proposition that there is a very

significant group of people in the community who, for one reason or

another, should not or ought not be vaccinated for rubella.

Of course, we should also recognize that, in this day and age of

fast travel by jet, there are many people coming into British Columbia

from the Orient, from Europe, from the United States, South America,

and so on, to say nothing of a great number of people who travel from

this Province elsewhere. So that, while the theory of mass immunization

and, thereby, the depression of this pool of infection among children

is a good one for practical purposes, this has not always been

effective. So we had to think of other ways to deal with this matter.

Of course, at the same time and notwithstanding the very active

advocacy of mass immunization, there are rules and, at the same time, a

considerable amount of doubt which has its origin in statements made by

some of the most prominent virologists in Canada, the United States and

England. Two of, probably, the most prominent is Dr. Enders, who is a

Nobel Prize winner in this field and also Dr. Horstman of Yale, both of

whom have, at various times, expressed doubt, based on their research,

as to the effectiveness of the immunization programme. The main

criticism they had, or the main doubts that they raised, related to the

degree of protection which the inoculation provided. It was said to be

not as potent in its protection as the naturally acquired immunity

through the contamination in the infection.

The point is that, notwithstanding the fact that a broad-scale

inoculation programme was introduced in this Province and pursued with

vigour, here, and in Ontario, the theory behind it has not worked out

in practice as well as it might. However, there is a far more important

and a far more effective first line of defence, which I would like to

take this opportunity to draw, not only to your attention, Mr. Speaker,

but also to the public's. That is that there is a scientific procedure

by which this matter can be determined with a very high degree of

certainty, and I'm referring, now, to what is called the HI testing

programme.

Today, in British Columbia, every expectant mother is advised to

consult her physician with a view to having a blood test taken which

would identify the presence of rubella infection during those very

critical first few months of a

[ Page 290 ]

pregnancy. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the

last year, or seven or eight months, I should say, since the programme

got underway, the Provincial laboratory has detected at least one

hundred cases of infection during this period. I'm told by the doctors

involved that, in practically every case, there has been a therapeutic

abortion performed. It's fair to say that the number of defective

births which we might have expected during that same period has been

reduced by at least one hundred. That's over about a seven-month period

on which we're reporting.

The laboratory tells me that in respect of actual defective births,

they have been able to identify only one where there was an infection

during the period of pregnancy, although they also mentioned that they

are establishing, they hope, an additional laboratory procedure which

will permit them to identify others in the event that they come forward.

Now, in respect of our policy, I think it's fair to say that there

is no firm or uniform opinion as to the best long-term programme. There

will be a National conference on this matter a little later on this

year, and we will rely upon the judgement that we receive from it. We

will continue the programme which we started in 1970 but, certainly at

present, our immunization programme covers us in, probably, the best

way that it's possible either in Canada or, as far as we can see,

Canada or the United States. I might say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that

both rubella and rubeola are now reportable diseases in British

Columbia.

I would like to talk now, Mr. Speaker, about the matter of

abortions, therapeutic abortions. I'd like to talk about, first of all,

the law as it now stands. Secondly, the experience in this Province,

the present criticism of the experience we have and the remedies which,

I think, are practical and which may be acceptable.

First of all, as the law now stands and is to be found in the

Criminal Code of Canada, a therapeutic abortion may be performed only

in the confines of a hospital and only if it is established to the

satisfaction of certain people that there is a risk to the life or

health of the expectant mother. Now, that being the case, the Criminal

Code then goes on to describe how an abortion committee must be

established and the procedure that must be carried out. I might say

that, as I say, the Criminal Code only allows this procedure to be

carried out in either an accredited hospital, which relates, generally

speaking, to large hospitals which have been accredited by the Canadian

system, or one approved by me. To this date, there have been quite a

number of applications by some of our smaller hospitals asking that

they be approved and authorized to carry out therapeutic abortions and

there have been no applications which I have turned down. I have

approved of everyone of them.

When we came to the matter of setting a policy, the only policy that

I established was to ask the doctors of this Province that, when they

considered applications for this procedure, they should deal with them

with sympathy, with compassion and with understanding and I believe,

sir, that they have, in fact, done this. So much so that today, in

Canada, undoubtedly, on a per capita basis there are more abortions per

capita being performed in British Columbia than in any other Province

in Canada and that in the last count, in our last year, the total was

something in excess of 3,000 cases up to December 31.

Now, difficulties. First of all, I think we should recognize that

there is a profound and a sincere difference of opinion as to the

propriety of this type of procedure. I think that is a fact of life

that we must recognize and I think that we must, with sympathy, listen

to the petitions put forward by people who think that the Abortion Law

should be so-called liberalized. I think we should also recognize, too,

that those who have a contrary view are entitled to be heard, to be

considered and their views carefully weighed. I think, too, we must

recognize that there is a natural aversion on the part of the medical

profession and its supporting staff to this kind of operation. This is

a natural and an understandable one because a doctor from the day he

commences his training and from the day that a nurse in training goes

through that little ceremony of carrying the candle and so on, they

devote their lives and their energies to the relief of pain and the

extension of life. Now, these same people are being asked to bring a

life to a close and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, there are

instances, and too many of them I'm sorry to say, where a doctor has

had to make the terrible choice, where he has, on one hand, had to

reach out and help a child born prematurely to breathe, to stimulate

his heart to beat and his body function to perform and, at this very

same time, another foetus in the same state of development, with an

equal chance of life, he is being asked to stop. Now, let us not ever

forget the terrible strain, the emotional strain, that that must put on

a doctor. Let us not, at any time, ever ask him to do something that is

so in conflict, never force him to do something that is so in conflict,

with everything that he has been taught and all his natural instincts.

There are some defects in the laws that now stand and one of them is

manifest in the practice which is developing of what we might call an

undesirable ritual of evidence. All Members in the House are aware of

how this developed in the case of divorces and where the only cause of

action for a divorce, at that time, was adultery. So the charade

developed of one of the parties to a marriage finding his way to a

hotel room, a pre-arranged meeting with some accommodating person and

there simulated evidence being developed and everyone knowing that the

facts were not as the evidence appeared and not as the Court seemed

willing to assume. I see one of the Members across, who is a lawyer,

remembers these well. There were many of them. Simulated… (interruption) .

No name, sir. I think there were many Members on this side of the House

and on that side of the House who protested that kind of simulation of

evidence and it was to that I was referring. I recall many Members of

this House saying that it brought the law into disrepute to make it

necessary to have that simulation of evidence. And this, I disrespect.

Thank you. I think that the same kind of thing might very easily

develop in this area, because it appears now that some abortion

committees are quite willing to rely on evidence, which follows a

pattern not unlike that which developed heretofore. Persons are being

told that the way to supply the evidence for the committee is for the

lady to come in and say that if she must go through with this pregnancy

she shall kill herself. Now she may or may not mean that but, if these

words are uttered, then they seem to supply the evidence, rightly or

wrongly, that this warrants. Now this is a poor, poor way for the law

to develop. I think that we must do something to settle that matter. It

is sometimes said that this matter should be moved out of the Criminal

Code, and I make no comment one way or the other on that. That's a

matter for the Federal Government. I have private views on it and I,

certainly, will undertake to convey to the Federal Government not only

those views, but the views of other people whose views have been

presented to me.

On the question of abortions and so-called abortions on demand, I think we should also remark, Mr. Speaker, that we

[ Page 291 ]

do not have in this Province, or any other

Province, any kind of operations on demand. I see no reason why there

should be an exception made for this or any other surgical procedure,

for the reason that every doctor is well aware of the fact that he has

a responsibility not only to his patient, but to his colleagues and,

when a doctor brings a patient to a hospital and he proposes that there

should be a surgical or medical procedure done, he must have the

acquiescence of his chief of staff. He must have the confidence of his

colleagues on the staff and, this being the case, then he can no more

do an abortion on demand than he can perform an appendectomy on demand.

The hospital and his colleagues and doctors don't object to this, they

are parties to it. They must always explain to the hospital and they

must always explain to their medical associates, the basis upon which

they're going to perform this operation, whatever it may be. This is a

protection for the doctor, for the hospital and for the individual

involved. So you see the best we can hope for, the best that we could

ever ask for, is that abortion procedures be handled just the same way

as any other surgical or medical procedure.

Finally, I think I should say something briefly about the matter of

facilities. There are two places in British Columbia where the present

demand for therapeutic abortion is placing an undue burden on

hospitals, and I'm referring now, first of all to the Vancouver General

Hospital and secondly to R.J.H. I'm able to say that, in respect to

V.G.H. I have recently authorized the expenditure of additional amounts

of money to provide facilities for increased services in this respect

and I'm hoping that, with some alterations in certain other hospital

facilities in the community, there will be a very much expanded

facility for this purpose in the Victoria area. In the Vancouver area,

in particular, the Vancouver General Hospital has asked me,

specifically, to do what I could to remove from the normal activities

of that hospital these abortion procedures. I hope that, within a very

short time, we'll be able to make some formal announcements in respect

to the addition of new facilities for this purpose.

I'd like to deal now with the question of the Pearson Hospital.

There was a short period of time, the last while ago, when there was a

number of people who made some assertions, mainly relating to the

number of staff at Pearson Hospital. I think, probably, the best way to

deal with this matter is to explain two or three very short points and

give you the statistics of the number of beds, the number of patients

and the number of staff, and leave you and the public to decide whether

the matter is not being fairly treated.

First of all, I think one should recognize that recruitment at

Pearson Hospital is unique in many ways, and I say this without any

reflection either on the staff seeking employment, or the patients, or

the administration. I'll tell you why. Nursing and looking after

patients at Pearson is a matter of real difficulty through no one's

fault. Not infrequently, we have people who come on to the staff to

work at Pearson only to discover that, notwithstanding their great

desire to be of help, they cannot really cope with the emotional trials

that they're faced with. Not infrequently, they find that they just

can't work there any longer. As I say, this is no reflection on them,

because the emotional problems that they sometimes encounter, sometimes

the involvement that they find themselves caught up in, is just more

than they had bargained for. For example, how does one talk to a young

man of 22 who came to this country a short while ago, full of eagerness

and expectations at finding a place in this community to make his

fortune here, like so many other people before him, only to find

himself, very shortly after that, a victim of an accident, paralyzed

from the neck down, not able to move as much as his little finger and

facing a lifetime in a bed.

Now, there are some people who can care for that man and God bless

them for it, but there are other people who cannot. We should never

suggest that there is anything wrong, anything deficient in them, if

they don't just have the emotional make-up to deal with those very

difficult problems and to talk to that man to explain to him what life

is going to be like and what they can do for him and what they can't

do. So, there always are and there always must be a certain number of

people coming and going from Pearson for this reason.

Never, at any time, to my knowledge, was there any so-called freeze

ever issued from my office in respect to employment at Pearson, at no

time. I say that no time from my office and I'm in charge of this

Department. Now, you listen carefully, that at no time, at no time, did

I ever at anytime say to anyone that there should ever be any freezing

of so-called staff replacements. At any time. Ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the civil servants?

MR. LOFFMARK: I'm only responsible for my Department. I'm the one who gives the orders in this Department (interruption) .

Whatever your views are, you are entitled to them. I'm reporting to

this House, sir. Now, then, here are the facts. There are, at the

present time and there have been for some little time, 247 patients in

Pearson Hospital and these are divided into three main categories: TB,

polio and extended care. Now, of these people, of course, there's a

variation in the nursing service that should be provided for them but,

in total, there have been continuously approximately 328 on the staff.

At the present time, there is one vacancy. That may be too many or too

few for a proper staff and I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to look

across the whole of Canada and look at all hospitals who render this

kind of service. You tell me if they have a better staff ratio than

that. I can find none, sir. Furthermore, one should go down to Pearson,

see the physical layout of the place. I think this is one of the best

hospitals of its kind in the country, sir. Furthermore, it's rather

interesting to test the bona fides of some of the critics who over a

short period of time thought they would ride this hobbyhorse. They

began to talk about how undesirable it is to have patients going around

in pyjamas, that this was their home and they should be up and about.

You'll find that for two or three days they enjoyed that proposition,

of course, behind it all was the theory that they were trying to

develop that the British Columbia Government was being parsimonious in

forcing these people to stay in their beds and go around in pyjamas

when they could have been up. However, Mr. Speaker, they discovered a

couple of days later that over at Shaughnessy Hospital, which is

administered by the Federal Government, the standard dress, not on the

odd day when there was a staff shortage but all the time, year in and

year out, is pyjamas. The theory is if you're sick enough to be in a

hospital you're sick enough to stay in pyjamas. You'll notice that at

that point there was… (interruption) .

Oh, there's nothing stupid about that, my friend. All that demonstrates

is that there was a real lack of bona fides on the part of some of the

members of the media when they started riding that hobbyhorse, only to

discover later on that this was the standard dress in Shaughnessy and

the whole criticism evaporated (interruption) . It is a fact, and

[ Page 292 ]

you know it. I will now move on to another subject.

I won't ask that Member across the way who is protesting, "When he

was last there…." I'd be surprised if he's been there for a year. Now

then… (interruption) .

Now, then, we'll deal next, Mr. Speaker… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. LOFFMARK: One of the major social problems facing people

in this country, as well as the United States, and I dare say mostly

around the world, is the problem of drug abuse. Now in the broadest

terms, Mr. Speaker, drugs which are misused may be classified under

four or five headings. In the first group are those derivatives from

the poppy seed, namely, opium, morphine, laudanum, codeine and heroin.

All of these are euphoric. In the second group, the large group, are

the solvents and the likes, such as glues, lacquers, paint removers and

so on. The third are the hallucinogenics and under this heading come

LSD, acid, and the like. In the fourth are the amphetamines. These of

course are stimulants and go under the name of pep pills, speed,

bennies, bambinos and so on. Then, barbiturates, which are depressants.

These are sometimes called goof-balls, membies, yellow-jackets and the

like of that.

Mr. Speaker, I have not, at any time, ever heard anyone in a degree

of responsibility who was not prepared to acknowledge that the use of

any of these substances either in small, modest or large amounts would

do anything but seriously impair health. Let me give you an idea of

what is involved. In the case of a heroin user, or those who use opium,

laudanum, codeine and so on, their life expectancy, usually, from the

time of addiction, is about 15 years, and to put it rather broadly,

most of them starve to death because of their incapacity to absorb food

and water. In the case of LSD, acid and the hallucinogenics, the life

expectancy of a user of these products is about three years. Make no

mistake about it. A man who uses LSD, a person who uses LSD has a life

expectancy of about three years. A heroin user about fifteen. Now that

will give you an idea. In the case of some of these other ones,

solvents, the life expectancy can be a day if they get a toxic dose.

There is one that I have not mentioned and that is those products

which are manufactured from Indian hemp, the cannabis, which, of

course, produces an intoxicant.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we are going to approach this problem of the

use of marijuana, which is the mildest derivative, I think we should

recognize that it is as difficult to make the use of marijuana legal

and, at the same time, prevent the use of hashish or some of the more

concentrated products, as it is to administer the use of the poppy seed

and, at the same time, control opium, morphine, laudanum, codeine and

heroin. It is administratively impossible to control the poppy seed,

except in one way and that's to nail down all products that are

derivatives of it. As far as we're able to see, the use of cannabis is

in precisely the same field. Make no mistake about it. While there may

be some debate upon the use of marijuana, there is no debate upon the

toxic qualities of hashish or the other concentrates of the same

product.

At this time in our history, there's something of a debate going on

as to whether marijuana ought to be legalized. I say that the first

obstacle that you're going to have to get over is how you're going to

control these other derivatives in the same field. If there's any

doubt, and there seems to be in the minds of the Federal Government

because they've spent a half a million dollars looking into this

already and they propose to spend at least that much more, I wonder how

it's possible for us, logically, in the face of the experience of the

whole world, with sixty countries joined together, pledged to eliminate

the use of marijuana, to not encourage it but to eliminate it. Now why

would they want this? For the very good reason that the people of India

and the people of the Near East, Egypt and so on, have had a long

experience with this drug and, as in Canada and the United States, one

out of every four people in our mental institutions came there as a

result of the abuse of alcohol. An even higher percentage of those

people in the mental institution population of the Near East have had

the cause of their mental health attributed to the use of marijuana and

derivatives such as that.

If one wants to know why and under what circumstances marijuana is a

dangerous substance, one only needs to look at the proceedings of the

United Nations, prior to the time of the entering into this convention,

the intention of which was to outlaw the use of marijuana. At a time

when the whole world is marching one way as the consequence of their

experience, Canada, under its brilliant leadership in some areas, is

marching in the diametrically opposite position and spending a million

dollars to do it.

Let me refer, Mr. Speaker, very briefly to one of the finest

documents that I have seen, and I'm proud to say it's with a great deal

of satisfaction that I refer you to a little precis under the heading,

"The Great Deception" written by H.F. Hoskin, lately the Executive

Director of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation.

Of all the people I have met dealing in this field, there's no one

more sincere than Mr. Hoskin. I would recommend to the attention of

every person in this House and, indeed, every person in this Province,

the words of Mr. Hoskin, who is, probably, as closely associated with

this problem as anyone in this Province. While I will not read all of

it, may I be permitted to read just one paragraph on the first page, in

which he says, with all the emotion he can muster, I believe: "With the

above in mind, one is led logically to the question, what new and

wonderful gift does a small segment of Canadian society propose to

bestow upon our children by legalizing marijuana? The answer, of

course, is that after the most honest and painstaking appraisal of this

phenomenon, all one can determine is the proposal to introduce yet

another intoxicant, yet another hallucinogenic or yet another euphoric

into a society which already ill handles the ones deemed to be

currently medically and socially acceptable. Our inability to cope

effectively with this major medical and social phenomenon is made

increasingly more difficult, not solely because of the deceptions

practiced by those who press for the legal, social use of mood-changing

drugs but by the self-deception of the adolescent drug user and,

unfortunately, by the so far inept performance of the Minister of

National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State. I commend

them." (Applause.)

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding our conviction that the use of these

drugs adds nothing to this community, we must recognize that these, in

fact, do exist and there are people who have come under their

influence. You have already noted, Mr. Speaker, that provision has been

made for the appropriation of $25 million in a trust fund, the income

of which will be available for educational and treatment purposes. I'm

very pleased to report to you, today, sir, that only yesterday I

authorized the incorporation of a new hospital society in Vancouver to

be called the Greater

[ Page 293 ]

Vancouver District Hospital and, while it will have

many other uses, I hope, and it will serve many other purposes, we

expect that one of the major activities carried on in this hospital

will be the rehabilitation of persons who are suffering addiction

either from alcohol or from drugs or from any other substance.

We would expect this hospital to be in the general area of the

Vancouver General Hospital, although it would come under separate

management, and it would be located physically apart from the Vancouver

General. The people associated with it, I think, should be noted by

you, Mr. Speaker, and I would refer, particularly, to Dr. Dick, who is

presently on the staff of the Vancouver General. The incorporation of

this hospital society is the result of the culmination of at least a

year's work on his behalf and I think that he ought to be publicly

recognized for this service.

I'm going to deal with the Greater Vancouver District Hospital. I

hope that as soon as they have held their organizing meeting they will

be making representations to the regional hospital district, to the

city of Vancouver and to the Vancouver General in order to get under

way. We have already encouraged them to engage an architect and he has

informally been looking at sites. He sent in to me, today, a rough

drawing of what he imagines would be a suitable hospital. I've also

talked to the regional district and the city of Vancouver and, from

those informal discussions, I'm very much encouraged that we'll have no

difficulty in raising the capital for the construction. It will be a

multimillion dollar project. It will be financed as to its operations

by the B.C. Hospital Insurance programme and it will be completely

funded as to its operations under the normal hospital insurance

programme.

I turn next to the matter of hospital construction in this Province.

You have already noted, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 there was due for

completion in this Province hospitals to the value of $60 million, with

another $33 million worth of hospitals in the advanced stages of

planning and construction. I only need to recite just a few of these,

such as Prince Rupert — a $5 million project. I'm sure that you will be

pleased that I put that at the head of the list of those that I was to

remind the Members of. Prince George, $7 million; Glendale, $7 million;

the Gorge $3 million; and so on. There's quite a long list and I would

refer the honourable Members to the annual report where these are all

set out in detail.

The number of acute care beds being added amounts to about 2,000,

with the extended care beds under construction, or close to completion,

I think, too, Mr. Speaker, that I should observe that we are

introducing into our general hospitals psychiatric beds, as well as day

care programmes in at least four hospitals, with more to come. We have,

too, a cytology out-patient programme, which is being developed with a

great deal of satisfaction on everyone's side. I think, probably, the

most interesting of these special services must be the renal failure

programme where we are on an out-patient basis, supplying those persons

suffering from kidney ailments with a renal dialysis system. Each one

of these units is worth about $4,000. They're being placed in the homes

of the patients and, to the best of our knowledge, there is no other

programme in America and, certainly, not in Canada, that meets the

dialysis treatment programme being offered at the Vancouver General and

elsewhere.

Finally, in the field of mental health, particularly, I would draw

your attention to two or three items. First of all, the psychiatric

wing at the University Hospital is operating now at capacity. I'm very

pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are very close now

to having an agreement with the Federal Government as to the financing

of the University Health Sciences Hospital. In our judgement, and from

the exchange of correspondence I've had with Mr. Munro, it's likely

that the capital cost of the Health Sciences Hospital will be in the

magnitude of around $40 million, with another $20 odd million for

equipment. It's expected that the confirming letters as to the

cost-sharing will be announced very shortly (interruption) .

No. This is the Health Sciences Hospital. This is the major teaching

hospital. It will have 400 beds, at a construction cost of $40 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's quite a bit of capital money for each bed,

isn't it? That's something like $100,000 a bed. Is that it? Yes,400

beds, $40 million; a $100,000 a bed. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, the

amount of energy, the amount of National money, that will be diverted

into that, both by the Federal Government and ourselves. Incidentally,

Mr. Speaker, it was the expectation that all our negotiations would go

forward on the understanding that the cost would be shared fifty-fifty

between the Federal Government and ourselves. I must say that I'm very

pleased with the progress of these negotiations.

On the subject of intermediate care, a number of honourable Members

have dealt with this matter and I think that it's worthwhile to just

take a minute to say something about this, because not only Members on

our own side but, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition did refer to

what he called chronic care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you not to use that word, "chronic"

care because, in today's language and usage, it's not too descriptive.

The fact is that, today, if we're going to be precise about this we

ought to describe our hospital care as coming under one of the

following headings: acute care, which envisages in-patient services in

an acute care hospital, which is eligible for payment under our

Hospital Insurance programme. Similarly, extended care relates to those

patients who need 24-hour nursing care, although the level of care,

while it's an in-patient hospital, is somewhat lower in standards than

acute care but, in other respects, it's the same and, of course, it's

financed jointly by the Federal and Provincial Governments under our

insurance programme. Extended care is, oftentimes, thought of as

applying to older people but, this, of course, is not so at all, Mr.

Speaker, because we have many, many young people. I mentioned this

young man of 21 who is destined to spend the rest of his life in bed;

he is an extended care case, as are those children whom we have placed

in the Eric Martin Institute. They are very seriously affected

pediatric cases and some of these children are perhaps one, two or

three years old, but they are, no less, extended care cases and are

eligible for benefits, just the same as an older person.

Now, of course, we have rehabilitation and activation units. I don't

need to dwell on those. At the other end of the spectrum, we have, for

the care of older people, senior citizens' housing, which comes under

the administration of my honourable colleague. Now, in between there,

though, there are a number of care institutions, such as private

hospitals, nursing homes, rest homes and the like of that, where there

is presently no adequate, and I use this word advisedly, system of

public financing. There has been a number of proposals put forward and

the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, I'm sure, is as interested as

anyone in this and has spoken eloquently on the subject.

[ Page 294 ]

Dealing with this matter, I think there are a number of things that

should be done. Some of them we can do ourselves and some of them we

will need joint action, including other people. First of all, we think

that it is most desirable that all of the administration of

institutions which, heretofore, have been administered either under my

Department or under the Department of Rehabilitation should be brought

together under one authority. You'll be invited to consider later on,

Mr. Speaker, a bill which will, in effect, bring together the

administration of all of our institutions of this type, public as well

as private. That is step number one, so that we will have a level of

administration, a level of regulation and a set of standards, which are

uniform throughout. We propose to do that at this Session.

The next thing is what can we do to establish a Province-wide or

indeed a Nationwide system of intermediate care, if I may use that

word, or nursing home care, for everybody who is entitled to it? Mr.

Speaker, we've already observed in the Budget that the cost of acute

care hospitalization in this Province, in this coming year, will be

around $205 million, if not more. The total cost, I'm told, of our

Medicare programme from the community's point of view, will be around

$150 million, more or less, and, for that purpose, the Provincial

Government is appropriating, by way of special assistance, an amount of

$70 million to cover this. Now, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, an

undertaking in respect of intermediate care will, in terms of the

dollars involved and the magnitude of the problem, be not unlike the

assumption of a social programme equal to the introduction of Medicare.

The costs will be high. They will put a real strain on all of our

resources and, while we agree with those people who would like to see

the development of an intermediate care, nursing home care programme,

we must recognize that this is a major social and fiscal step. If this

is the case, then, it seems relatively clear that there is no Province

that can undertake this in the way it should be done on the basis of

their own resources; therefore, it is the policy of this Government to

take every measure that we think appropriate to persuade the Federal

Government to participate with us in a cost-shared programme, analogous

to that which is now financing our acute care and our hospital care. It

is not possible, I don't think, and I don't think we should let the

impression go abroad, that a Province could do this on its own. I think

that there are too many ramifications to handle this in any other way

than under our Hospital Insurance programme. At the present time, I'm

in contact with the Ministers of Health in other Provinces, in order

that we shall establish a policy statement in regard to this, which we

propose to submit to the Federal Government. Nothing short of a

shared-cost programme would ever put us in a position where we could

implement this in any meaningful way.

I turn now, and I hope that I won't be too long in this, to deal

very briefly with the subject of hospital operating and the costs

associated therewith. I've already mentioned that this year the budget

will be $205 million and, if you'll look back over the last three years

and notice that, in 1968, Mr. Speaker, the operating cost was $125

million, you will get some idea of the rate at which the cost of

operating hospitals is accelerating. It is accelerating at a rate which

neither this Government nor any other Government in America can stand.

I think that this is plain. One only needs to look at some of the

newspaper clippings. Here's one that reports from England that chaos is

looming over doctors' pay boosts in England. The waiting rooms of

doctors in England are jammed, the waiting lists for hospitals extend

beyond the purvue of any one individual. As a matter of fact, the

National Health Programme in Britain is in a state of collapse and more

and more collective agreements in England are calling for the

introduction of private medical schemes as an alternative to the

national scheme in England. At the present time, there are several

millions of working men in England who come under a private medical

scheme. Why? Because the national scheme in England has been a failure

and there is no better evidence of that than the demand on the part of

the working man of England that he be given better health care than

what the national programme can give. One only needs to look at the

collective agreements to see the matter documented, not in thousands,

but in millions of working men who are thoroughly dissatisfied.

Here's what's happening in the United States. Let me read it.

"Sickness is becoming a luxury in the United States. Medical bills are

the highest in history and they are getting higher everyday. Nowhere

has inflation had a greater impact than on the public's pocket book.

The rise in health costs for the past four years has been nearly two

and a half times as rapid as the rise of living costs. President Nixon

says he foresees a massive crisis within the next two or three years,

unless prompt steps are taken to curb the sharp rise in doctors' fees

and hospital charges." Make no mistake about it, I think, something

will have to be done.

I would like to deal very briefly with the question of why we don't

raise this one dollar a day fee, the provision that we have in our

Hospital Insurance programme. The plain fact is this, Mr. Speaker, that

every time we raise that one dollar a day to a higher figure, the

Federal Government will not participate in the cost-sharing thereof.

So, that what you do, if you increase that dollar a day, you shift that

dollar and every other dollar that you charge that patient, from the

Canadian taxpayer as a whole, on to the back of the patient himself. If

I must make a choice between protecting the patient, if I must make a

choice between that and offending a doctor, or make a choice of where

this tax burden shall fall, the last man who is going to have to pay

this, as far as I'm concerned, is the patient. A man has enough

problems when he's sick, without adding to his bill.

The next thing. I think that there are other ways in which we can

get the couple of dollars a day that is required and I say this, in all

seriousness. We have had documented cases, I'm sorry to say, in

Victoria and Vancouver. I'll give you some illustrations and if there's

any real inefficiency in hospitals, the first people whom we are going

to have to call to account are the doctors. I'm going to be specific on

this and I'll give you some illustrations. We have one that's no more

than 15 days old, in which a young lady in her teens was admitted to a

hospital. She stayed in that hospital for 10 days before she was ever

examined, before she was ever treated and I asked the doctor about this

and he said, "Oh, I made a mistake in the booking." Well, Mr. Speaker,

in that hospital the per diem figure is $60 a day. That was a $600

mistake that that doctor made.

The next thing is that we had a study made of a hospital in the

Greater Victoria area and we had studies made in the Vancouver area. It

was found by the doctors who had made these studies that the worst

offenders in respect of hospital utilization are the doctors. We've had

cases, I'm sorry to say, when a patient could not be discharged on

Friday but was discharged on Monday and, when we ran down his doctor,

we found him on a golf course.

We also had another case in Vancouver of a university professor. Now this one, Mr. Speaker, will test your

[ Page 295 ]

credulity. This gentleman was a professor at one of

our universities over there. He was admitted to the Vancouver General

Hospital and he stayed there at nights. He occupied a bed in the

Vancouver General Psychiatric Ward. He was there for thirteen months

and during the days he went to his university and he taught and he

received his stipend, a very handsome one I might say, but the day that

I enquired into this case, he was discharged. Now, sir, I think we must

be very careful… (interruption) .

Thirteen months and the only time they ever saw him was between eight

o'clock at night and nine o'clock the next morning. After he had had

his breakfast, he got in his car and drove off to the university and

taught all day. Will you believe it? It's a fact.

Finally, on that, the B.C. Hospital Association was invited to

consider this matter as to whether they ought to increase the dollar a

day coinsurance. The matter was rejected by the B.C. Hospital

Association Convention. One of the questions, of course, that will

arise will be what are the prospects for additional money for the

hospitals? I would say that they are good. But I have a little

difficulty, sometimes, in dealing with the criticisms across the way,

particularly those from the Members on the Liberal benches over there.

I think one of the things that you should understand over there is that

this matter has been very thoroughly dealt with by the Honourable Mr.

Munro. The newspapers, although you can't always rely on them, I think,

in this case, they give a pretty good idea of what Mr. Munro's thinking

is. You'll see here that they have these hospital clamps to hold. It

starts off like this, "Doctors, hospitals and other components of the

health system who are outraged over spending cutbacks will have to deal

with forces far more formidable than those of the British Columbia

Government, Health Minister John Munro says. He indicated this last

week in Vernon that there is a unanimous concern about the ever-rising

cost of hospitalization and these must be curbed, not increased." I

think that what he's really saying there and I don't quarrel with him

on that, is that we're going to have to introduce into our hospital

system a very, very, high degree of efficiency if we're going to avoid

the calamitous experience which has been so common in the United States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I'm going to wind up very

quickly by dealing with two or three items which relate specifically to

this debate on the subject of financing. I'd like to deal very quickly

first of all with two or three matters that were raised by the

Honourable the Leader of the Liberals in which he referred to the, as

he said it, the British Columbia Government's propensity to avoid the

market like the plague. He's quite right about that, you know, that the

Government of British Columbia has not gone out onto the market, has

not used the very valuable credit of this Province, in order to fill

the coffers of those people, who are lending at unconscionable rates,

only made possible by a fiscal policy which is marked "Made in Ottawa."

Now, I'll come back to that in a minute but, before I do that, I'd like

to refer very briefly also to the transportation policies that have

been referred to by the Liberal Member across the way, yesterday.

I would remind you, of course, that the Liberals over there were

very much against the development of Roberts Bank until it became a

reality and then, of course, they made an about-face. Isn't that right?

The chief opponent to the development of Roberts Bank was the

Honourable Member, Mr. Davis, who, of course, when it became a feasible

thing couldn't jump on the bandwagon fast enough. If you want to know

something about the Liberal transportation policy and if you want to

look at the monument in British Columbia, which testifies to the

imagination of the Liberal Party, I'm going to ask you to cast your eye

upon that monstrosity of a railway crossing at the Second Narrows in

the city of Vancouver. Now, let's see if we can't identify those people

who are responsible for the development of that architectural

monstrosity, as I said. Who was it that was responsible for the

building of that railway bridge over there which is a 1908 Mechano set

design? Who were the elected representatives on the North Shore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals, that's right. Who was the MP at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A Liberal.

MR. LOFFMARK: He was a Liberal. Who was the Member in the Federal Government who was on the Burnaby side at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A Liberal.

MR. LOFFMARK: It was a Liberal. Who managed the National Harbour Board at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals, that's right. Who ran and controlled the CNR at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals. Mr. Speaker, we searched for

somebody that we could blame besides the Liberals but, as far as we

could find, it was the Canadian Government under a Liberal leadership.

It was the National Harbour Board under the direction of the Liberals.

It was the Canadian National Railway under the direction of the

Liberals, and all the Members over there were Liberals. Look at that

bridge.

Let's talk about the fiscal policy. I think we should take a minute

to really define the differences between this Government and those

people who seek to supply their own basis of administration. We had a

play budget by the Liberals yesterday, but, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing

with a real Budget. A real Budget that was developed over a number of

years of sound administration and, if you want to see the real issues

in respect of this Budget, you only need to look to the words of the

honourable Member across the way, who, yesterday talked about a fiscal

policy that leaned against the business trends of the day. That, Mr.

Speaker, is a laic way of describing Keynesian theory. Here's what's

involved in the Keynesian theory and the Federal Government down in

Ottawa is in the grips of that kind of thinking. I'll tell you what it

is. It's a theory that you can regulate an economy by regulating the

supply of money, the supply of credit and controlling the banks. That's

what it means and the implicit proposition is that you can depress

economic activity by turning the economic and credit screws of a

country. That is precisely what the Federal Government has done, that

is precisely the kind of advocacy that we heard from the Liberal Member

across the way, yesterday. If you don't believe me, look at the

headlines in the papers, "Ottawa

[ Page 296 ]

keeps control over money and credit. The Federal

Government staked a claim yesterday on the major instruments of the

economic policy. They also insist that they have control of the banks."

There's no question, Mr. Speaker, but that the present programme that

has caused all the unemployment in Canada, is

an act of deliberation on

the part of the Federal Government of this country. They claim to have

the exclusive power over credit. They claim to have exclusive power

over employment. They claim to have exclusive power over our banking

system. They say they will use those to defeat inflation. What they

have done is to precipitate this country into mass unemployment.

What you really have is a statement and a policy which give, as far

as the Liberal administration in Ottawa is concerned, two alternatives.

Their economic thinking can be defined in those ways. There are really

only two alternatives that the Liberals offer us. Here is what they

are: you can either have unemployment and depression, or you can have

inflation, and those are the two alternatives being offered, today.

Here they are being defended by the Federal Government. This,

precisely, is the problem. If you want a short analysis of the defects

in that Member's Micky Mouse budget, I'll tell you how easy it is to

identify it. I think that it's fair to say that, over the last 15 or 20

years, there hasn't been a Liberal Government, or for that matter a

Conservative Government in Canada, that hasn't produced a series of

budgets under which, at least, 15 per cent of their total revenue has

been allocated to direct debt charges. In the Federal Government,

today, one and one half billion dollars is the charge for interest.

Now, I say that, if there had been in this Province the same kind of

administration, neither better nor worse than the Liberal Governments

of the last 15 or 20 years, out of our budget of $1.3 billion, anywhere

from $150 to $200 million would be the direct debt charge against the

people of this Province.

There, in a nutshell, is the record of fiscal management on the part

of the Liberals. One and one half billion dollars. Yes, it is the ABC

formula. You only have to look at the Federal Government budget today — one and one half billion dollars of direct interest debt charges. Do

you know how much that would buy, Mr. Speaker? That would build one new

community hospital in Canada every day, 365 days of the year. That's

the basis of that burden.

I've tested your patience unduly. For the rest of this day and

henceforth we'll continue to consider this Budget. Make no mistake, Mr.

Speaker, the values that are represented in this Budget, the

effectiveness with which the economic problems of this country are

being dealt with and, certainly, of this Province, will be measured now

and in the future with that very easy comparison between that heavy,

heavy charge, the deadweight debt, and all the economic advantages of

this Province, measured by a series of years of fiscal management of

the highest order, something which, Mr. Speaker, is the envy of this

country. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I was very

interested in the previous speaker and his remarks. You know, this is

the twenty-second time I've got up to debate in the Budget Debate and I

feel quite honoured. I noticed that the Honourable the Minister of

Health told us that the small hospital did not meet public approval.

Well, we've got a small hospital in Michel. It's a very small hospital.

I believe there's only seven beds in it…

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. NIMSICK: …only seven beds in that hospital and I think they've done a marvellous job and I hope….

AN HON. MEMBER: What hospital?

MR. NIMSICK: The Michel Hospital, and it took care of many of

the worst accidents that happened in the Province in that area. I hope

that, when you are considering hospitals, you will consider one for the

Sparwood area because there are 55 miles that people have to travel to

Fernie Hospital. I think that is a ridiculous situation to look ahead

to.

Now the Honourable the Minister spoke about intermediate care. Here

we have a Province that is supposed to be one of the wealthiest

Provinces in Canada and we contribute to other Provinces that are not

so well off. I think it is a reflection on this wealthy Province to say

that we cannot give hospital intermediate care to our elderly citizens.

Regardless of whether the Federal Government comes along or not, I

think we should go ahead with this scheme. I appreciate the fact that

the Honourable the Minister is a little worried about the costs of

health care. He was speaking about the doctors. Well, the Honourable

Member for Yale-Lillooet gave you a solution last year but I haven't

heard any more about it from you (interruption) .

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the honourable Member's talking about

but, in regard to this, we've got to develop preventative medicine in

the Province of British Columbia if we're going to solve the problems

of health costs and give the same service and better service than we're

giving today.

There's one question before the Honourable the Minister goes that

I'd like to deal with and one on which I placed a bill on the Order

Paper last year, dealing with the restrictive clauses in doctors'

agreements. At that time, I was dealing with the case of Dr. Stanton

who was banished from practicing in Cranbrook. He couldn't practice

within ten miles of Cranbrook. He is at the present time in the

Kimberley Hospital. I did ask him last year what would happen if there

were an emergency and he had to go to the Cranbrook Hospital to

operate? Would he be taken up for contempt of Court? He didn't answer

that one. But the bill that I placed on the Order Paper might not be

the one that the Government wants. I know that a bill that's placed on

the Order Paper by an Opposition Member is not going to receive a great

deal of consideration and that's why I'm asking the Honourable the

Minister to give consideration of this, at this time, because, last

summer, I had another case where a doctor in Fernie was only an

employee of a clinic, only an employee, and when he left that

employment, this was the clause that he had to stand by: "The

assistant," this is just to be an assistant, "will not for a period of

five years after the termination of his employment carry on either

alone or in partnership with any other person or persons nor act as an

assistant to any person or persons carrying on or about to carry on the

practice of physician, surgeon or general medical practitioner in the

city of Fernie or within ten miles from the Post Office thereof, and

will for every breach of the stipulations contained in this clause pay

to the principals the sum of $5,000 as liquidated damages and it is

especially intended by the parties hereto that the said sum of $5,000

shall be deemed to be ascertained a demerit for the every such breach

without proof by the principals or either of them

[ Page 297 ]

of any actual damage or the amount thereof."

This doctor, Mr. Speaker and the Honourable the Minister, for all

intents and purposes, was banished from practicing in Fernie because he

left his employment. I don't know whether he left it voluntarily or

they didn't need him but he couldn't go down and set up an office down

the street. I say that you people who claim to believe in free

enterprise, I don't think a clinic is much value if they're afraid of

competition down the street. This doctor didn't want to leave the area

that he was practicing in. He liked the Crowsnest area so he went to

Michel (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, he went to Michel to practice

there. That's 21 miles away from Fernie. Then he's presented with

another agreement and this is another clause in this agreement: "The

associate will not for a period of five years after the termination of

his employment carry on either alone or in partnership with any other

person or persons nor act as an associate to any person or persons

carrying on or about to carry on a practice of a physician, a surgeon

or general medical practitioner in the town of Michel or within 20

miles from the town of Michel." He's fined for any break of that. Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Honourable the Minister, this doctor who is

practicing in Michel now doesn't want to leave the area. He likes the

area. If he doesn't continue with the doctor he's with there he'd be

banished from the whole area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why doesn't he start on his own?

MR. NIMSICK: Because he can't start on his own there. They won't let him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to get a job.

MR. NIMSICK: They won't let him. This clause in the

agreement, because he happened to be an employee there. He didn't sign

this one and neither did Dr. Stanton in Cranbrook sign it. They didn't

sign it. They had a court case over it and they banished Dr. Stanton

from the Cranbrook area. I say that this is wrong. It is difficult

enough to get doctors to go to a small place. That doctor who left

Fernie and went to Michel, they haven't got all the facilities in

Michel and sometimes they have to take an operation to Fernie. They

wouldn't even let him scrub for the other doctor in Fernie, for the

head doctor that went down from Michel. He couldn't even scrub for him

in the Fernie Hospital. I think that this is a violation of human

rights. These doctors are given the right to practice by the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and I think that they should have the right to

practice any place in the Province of British Columbia and… (interruption) , and they haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have.

MR. NIMSICK: They haven't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Honourable Member from Columbia that Dr. Stanton cannot set up in Cranbrook.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. NIMSICK: Because he was banished from Cranbrook by this agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he sign it?

MR. NIMSICK: No he didn't. He is bound by it because the Court said so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: The Court said that he was bound by it. I gave you this agreement. You know the court case that went on with Dr. Stanton.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister said he was going to

look into it two years ago. He was going to look into it last year. Now

I ask you again to look into it and let's solve this problem. Let's get

back on the track and give these people back their human rights.

Just because a Member of the Opposition brings it up, don't think

that it's… This could happen to any area in the Province, when you find

it in Cranbrook, when you find it in Fernie, when you find it in

Michel. With this agreement and with this Court case that went on with

Stanton they could banish them all there from the area. Now I don't

think that that's human rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can do it on a verbal agreement, too, and still be….

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, that's right. That's why Dr. Stanton was convicted because… (interruption) .

Well, he wasn't convicted but he was made to hold to the agreement,

even if he didn't sign it, because they said that it was on the

agreement and he knew it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal a few minutes with Regional

Districts. In the first place, for quite a number of years now, since

Regional Districts were set up in the Province of British Columbia, in

a Province the size of British Columbia, when you set up Regional

Districts, they have to be very large. It's only a matter of degree

whether they are Provincial or whether they are Regional Districts. In

my area, when you consider representatives from Radium and Kimberley

deciding what's going on down in the Michel-Natal area, I think the

Regional Districts are really beyond the sense of a community affair.

They're a little beyond that sense. Now, at the time the Regional

Districts were set up, I was a little fearful about what might happen

or what the purpose was. It sounded reasonable and, at that time, I

warned this Government that they were setting up a fourth level of

Government in Canada, a third level Government in the Province of

British Columbia. I think it's time now, after all these years, for

this Government to re-examine the Regional District concept, because I

wonder, a Province the size of British Columbia with so many open

spaces and thinly populated areas with only two million people in it. I

wonder whether we can afford the luxury of a Regional Government,

another level of Government in the Province of British Columbia.

Let me tell you and let me warn the people that, in 10 or 15 years,

these Regional District governments are going to be a very costly

affair to the taxpayers in the area. At that time, they said they had

no real power and they have't too much power yet. They're only a child

of the Provincial Govern-

[ Page 298 ]

ment. I said, at that time, too, maybe the Regional

government was being set up so that the Provincial Government could act

as a clearinghouse and pass on a buck-passing affair so that they could

pass on those things that were politically nasty to handle and let the

Regional District look after them rather than the Provincial

Government. Then when anything happens, they could blame the Regional

District.

To give you an example, one of these problems was the relocation of

Natal-Michel, which was mooted here in 1964, when the Premier got up

and, in a grandiose style, told us that he was going to beautify the

eastern entrance to the Province of British Columbia and that he was

going to have Natal-Michel relocated to Sparwood, without any cost to

the citizens of Natal-Michel. He went on to say he was doing this to

beautify the eastern entrance. Well, I've come to the conclusion that

that time was the very time that the negotiations were going on between

Kaiser and CNI and I rather believe that the Kaiser coming in hinged on

whether Natal-Michel would be moved or not. I don't think it was

beautifying the eastern entrance because the minute they got the people

to agree to go along with their relocation then the Government opted

out and turned it over to the Regional District to look after.

I think they're going to be a costly form of government for the

Province of British Columbia. The relocation of Natal-Michel went along

with the Regional District. I don't know whether there was a deadline

set up at the time this grandiose scheme was proposed or not but,

anyway, last summer at the time they bought a lot of the homes from

these people, they let them rent them back. They said that they

wouldn't have to move unless they provided suitable accommodation for

them. Last summer they came to them and gave them eviction notices,

told them the time had come when they had to move. The only alternative

those people had was to move to a $20,000 home in Sparwood or a $180 a

month apartment. Some of those people were within one year or two years

of having their pension. There was no public housing scheme developed

by this Government which there should have been. They laid the blame on

the local people for not developing a public housing scheme, but I say

it was the responsibility of this Government. They should have

developed the public housing scheme because it was their baby — the

relocation of Natal-Michel. I think it was a disgraceful act for the

Regional District to have to give these people eviction notices.

The eviction was to take place September 30 and I will say that the

Honourable the Minister, probably, intervened on this a little bit but,

nevertheless, they went ahead with the eviction notices to Court. The

Judge, in his wisdom, of course, said, "Well we'll leave them there

till next year." They're still there, these people that are in these

places, and there's no provision made yet for them to move. They made

provision for senior citizens, but these people were not in the senior

citizen class. Now, in addition to this, we have a large number of

people there who own businesses, who have homes. They're not satisfied

with what the Regional District offered them — $6,000 for a

four-bedroom home, with full basement and fence and garage — $6,000,

that included the lot, when they have to go over to Sparwood and the

lot itself is $2,000 and the home will cost them $20,000 besides. These

people rebelled and now they've got expropriation proceedings against

them. They say that it's all going to be cleaned up by the middle of

this year. I'm sure they will get more than what they were offered by

the Regional District but I don't think it was necessary to put these

people, who have felt the brunt of the ups and downs of our economic

system over the years, through the frustrations that they've been

forced to go through during this time. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this

was wrong. You've still got an opportunity to redeem the Government, I

think, because I still think you should set up a public housing scheme

in Sparwood. A public housing scheme it should be.

Another thing that the Provincial Government has passed on to the

Regional Districts and the property owners in the Regional Districts is

other costs, costs that rightfully belong to the Provincial Government.

Looking after garbage in the rural areas, this was done by the Highways

Department for years, looking after garbage dumps by the Highways

Department, paid for out of the consolidated revenues. Last year, you

turned it over to the Regional District. They didn't act very fast. The

Highways Department opted out and I know places, such as Jaffray where

they didn't have a garbage dump, where the people had to get rid of

their own garbage. To get a garbage dump, they've been proceeding on it

for a whole year now. They still haven't got the garbage dump at

Jaffray. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extra added cost taken off

the Provincial Government and placed on the property of the people in

the local area.

Zoning is another nasty issue that was given over to the Regional

District. I'm not opposed to zoning, mark my words, I'm not opposed to

zoning, but I don't think it's proper to use a place, such as the Elk

Valley, as a pilot plan for the whole Province. I've talked many times

about a land use programme in the Province of British Columbia, in the

Fraser Valley where we're subdividing and industrially subdividing that

fine agricultural land when we shouldn't be doing it. It should remain

as farmland. There is a place where you should have started, not in the

Elk Valley, way up there where you have a lot of people who have been

living there for 40 and 50 years. The geographical situation is not

like the Fraser Valley. The Regional District brought in, that a

person, if they wanted to subdivide, could do so in not less than 80

acres, in certain instances. Now this is a pretty difficult task when

some of the plots of land are less than 80 acres. When a farmer wants

to give his son a piece of land, he can't do that under the 80 acres

and if a person doesn't want 80 acres to farm on, what's the good of it

to him, anyway (interruption) .

It's proceeding slowly. The people, I will say, put up enough

opposition to it that it didn't go through, and I'll thank you, again,

too, for not letting it go through. I don't think that this is the way

to pilot a land use programme. Let's make it Province-wide. Let's have

a land use programme Province-wide and then these people will not feel

that they're being unfairly dealt with, compared to the people living

in another area. I say that this is one of the nasty problems that,

probably, the Department thought they would find out how it would work

in this area.

Pollution is another question that they turn over to the Regional

District, in some instances, but they don't know what to do with it.

The election of officers of a Regional District, I don't think is too

democratic (interruption) .

I've got your diagram here and I noticed that a person is elected in

a municipality to serve that municipality and then he is appointed by

the municipality to serve on the Regional Board. I think all members

should be elected, if you're going to have a Regional Board. I don't

think any one member should have two or three votes. This is exactly

what they have. This is not democratic for one member to have two or

[ Page 299 ]

three votes (interruption) .

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where such a stupid remark came from. You

say that I'm wrong. There's a guy who was put out by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. What are you talking about? (Interruption.)

Yes, they should elect their representative on the Regional District exactly as your own municipality.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the Members please address the Chair (interruption) . Order.

MR. NIMSICK: His first loyalty when he's elected as a

municipal alderman is to the municipality and I say that he should be

elected to be a representative of the Regional District.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. NIMSICK: The people….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He doesn't trust the people.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the Honourable the

Minister to carefully re-examine the regional idea because, I'm sure,

that as time goes on, as it builds up and the administration cost

builds up, it's going to be a terrific weight on the people throughout

the areas. A terrific financial burden on them because the costs are

piling up and in 10 or 15 years it's going to be more costly than your

municipal government (interruption) . Certainly, I would, but I know where they'd be filed. With you, I guess (interruption) . You've got access to the tape.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it right out of Hansard .

MR. NIMSICK: It's on Hansard now. I don't write my speeches out in longhand, so I haven't got it written out for you (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal a little bit with taxes. Some years ago we passed

an act, here, Assessment Equalization . The purpose of that Assessment Equalization Act

was to equalize assessments throughout the Province. I've got a whole

sheaf of letters here from people in my area complaining about the

enormous increase in assessments. On investigating, I find that the

increases are mostly on the small farmer, on the small home-owner, on

the small landowner. But the huge landowners are left to go scot free.

I will just go over some of these large ones, just to give you an idea

of what it is. Here is one — 6,044 acres right along the highway and

very choice land. In 1968, the assessment on 6,044 acres was $23,105.

In 1969, it went down to $18,480, about $3 an acre assessment on that

land. In 1970, it went back to $19,960 about $3.50 or $3.25 assessment

on that 6,000 acres.

Then we go to the Crowsnest Industries and see what kind of an

assessment they get on their large holdings. Here is 249 acres, $10 an

acre; 1,709 acres, $5.50 an acre; 1,382 acres, $7 an acre; 1,974 acres,

$10 an acre; 9,983, $5 an acre; 85,157 acres, $4.50 an acre; 117,000,

$4.50 an acre. This is the Crowsnest Industries: 727 acres, $4.50 an

acre; 9,970 acres, $4.50 an acre; and all the way down. Some of it down

to 6,400 acres at $2 an acre. None of it over $8 an acre. Then we go on

to the Kaiser Holdings: 27,042, $4 an acre; 12,000 acres, $4 an acre;

and then we come back to out in Meadowbrook, just outside of Kimberley,

where I get all the letters from, and what do we find? We find that, in

1969, for 40 acres, $315, which is $8 per acre; in 1970, that jumped to

$125 per acre, a 1,600 per cent increase for bush land, the same kind

of land, in many cases, as the CNI or the other people are paying only

$4 an acre. I have letters here from people there — "Last year our

taxes on 40 acres of land with nothing but trees and seepage on it went

from $6.48 to $280.39." Another 40 acres with a house and nothing more

done to it, the taxes went up from $188 to $542.

Just outside of Cranbrook last year, a pensioner, living on 10 acres of land, his taxes went up about 800 per cent (interruption) .

Last year, it was around $800. I think something should be done in

these cases especially where people are on fixed incomes. You're trying

to drive them out of their homes. The Honourable the Premier said the

other day that we want to see everybody have a home. Why doesn't he

live up to that then and he can carry it out? It's only a small home,

but, to jump that amount of taxes, it forced them to sell to the land

manipulators — five acres of it. They, probably, will have to sell the

rest because, outside right around Cranbrook and Cranbrook is a

fast-growing area, the land speculators are there to grab onto anything

that they can get hold of. I think that this resolution that was passed

by the Union of B.C. Municipalities which says and I'll quote:

"Municipal councils continue to show concern for problems faced by

elderly home-owners, retired on a limited fixed income, with respect to

the ever-increasing property tax burden on their homes. The

difficulties are increased for that group of citizens whose finances

are such that they are eligible for the guaranteed income supplements,

yet who wish to continue to live in the home which they have strived

most of their lives to establish rather than move to unfamiliar

tax-supported surroundings. We, therefore, once more, press the

Government of British Columbia, most vigorously for action in devising

some form of optional and effective tax relief for the group of elderly

citizens. We reiterate our willingness to work in any way with the

Government in seeking the solution."

I would ask the Government to do something in regard to that case

and also in regard to the discrimination that is going on between the

large landowners and the small ones. The CPR has plenty of land in that

area. I don't know what their assessments are, but I take it that they

are around $4.50. CNI is assessed at $4.50. When Sparwood wanted to buy

the land from them, what did they ask? $200. When Fernie wanted to buy

land from them, it was $300 for land that is assessed that CNI,

probably, has not paid much taxes on over the years. If we're going to

up these taxes, I think that the taxes on the small home-owners have

gone out of bounds altogether. When it goes up 700 or 800 per cent, it

is a big jump. To think that these other people are getting away with

practically nothing and holding huge tracts of land, without doing

anything with it, it's not fair. This is some place where the

Provincial Government, if they wanted to…. They're talking about

ability to pay, they're talking about wanting more income, and they're

talking about that they want to give a home-owner grant to these people

with homes. But, on the other hand, they're taking it right back when

they increase the assessments to the extent that they increase these

assessments. They're taking it right back, giving it with one hand and

taking it back with the other. I know that's a good political gimmick,

but let's be just in dealing with the people concerned.

[ Page 300 ]

Another policy of the Government with which I disagree and that is

their policy in regards to lotteries, bingo and small raffles. The

little people are penalized. We've got the horse races, we've got the

stock market, we've got gambling in the higher echelon of our society.

Why should the little people be denied the right to have the pleasure

of going to a bingo game at night or sitting in their own home and

playing a bingo game on TV? Why should they be denied this right when

you don't deny the others the right? The Government went out skelping

for more money and even these raffles they've taxed them or licensed

them, in all instances. The Lions Club of Kimberley has, for years, run

a TV bingo and they built the Pioneer Home from the income that they

received from the bingos — this is a senior citizens' home. I'd like to

read a letter that was sent to Premier Bennett in regards to the

question of bingos. "Dear Mr. Bennett:"….

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. NIMSICK: January 30, 1971. "This letter is written with

the hope that you will find time in your busy

schedule to give it some

personal consideration. The subject is one of great concern to a good

many citizens of our Province. The subject of which I write is that of

recent legislation banning TV, radio and newspaper bingos. As an active

member of the Kimberley Lions Club, I can honestly say that this

legislation is a tremendous blow to our club's fundraising activities,

as Lions Clubs are totally service clubs. Our aim is to better the lot

of our fellow man. The services accomplished by the Kimberley Lions

Club up to now have been greatly needed and appreciated by our fellow

citizens. We have raised considerable amounts of money over the past

years and have accomplished projects, such as the ambulance purchase,

heart machine purchase, which I might add has added to the life of more

than one of our citizens, and our greatest accomplishment is the

building of a Pioneer Lodge. It is our hope this year to begin with the

addition of 16 more units to this project, our contribution to the

Centennial Year."

Now I know that you made some changes in the TV bingos, in regard to

making them pay at least 25 per cent of the gross, but the 25 and 35

per cent of the gross is the wrong way to attack this problem. If you

want to make sure that these amounts of money are given to the charity

causes for which they're run, I say that it should be on the net, a

higher percentage on the net rather than forcing people…the Cranbrook

bingo went in the hole because they had to pay 35 per cent to charity.

Don't forget that these bingos that are being run, these small ones,

raffles and that, these are local people trying to do things that maybe

the Provincial Government would have to do if they didn't do them. The

Provincial Government may have to foot the bill if they didn't do them.

They get, I suppose, a certain amount of pleasure and a certain amount

of good feeling out of working for other people. And who attends the

bingo games? It's mostly elderly people, who have got lots of time on

their hands, and they go to a bingo game just for an evening of

pleasure. I don't think for $2 they could find pleasure any cheaper.

But You're still operating on the gross and I think that this is going

to stop a lot of them. I just got the regulations two days ago and

they've got to give 25 per cent of the gross on TV bingos or newspaper

bingos, and 35 per cent on the other lotteries. Now, I say, that it is

fine to make regulations but let's make it on the net. Let's make a

higher percentage. If you want to make 80 or 90 per cent on the net, I

don't care, but on the net is far better than on the gross (interruption) . That's on the gross but many of these don't pay for themselves (interruption) .

Yes, that's right. All right, let's make it on the net and then they'll

have to go to charity. This way, of making it on the gross, they could

get away with more money into other courses than it would be necessary.

I say that we should take another good look at this question of

lotteries.

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation or

whatever it is, he should get up and speak once in a while here in the

House rather than going down to Ottawa, and definitely state in this

House what he thinks. If he thinks that the welfare recipient should

pay income tax, he should state that right in this House here, not down

at Ottawa (interruption) . But he should tell us when he comes back. He should give us a report on it and he hasn't been up on his feet yet.

Now, dealing with highways and this is a question that you can deal

with in jobs. I'd like to leave this — I'd like the Minister to be in.

Maybe I'll deal with another question first. I'm going to deal with

pollution.

You know, this Government has, in their Speech from the Throne and

all the rest of it, shown a lot of worries about pollution, about

ecology and all the rest of it. Over the years that I've been here, I

think it's just been giving a lot of lip service to pollution. They

have set up a Pollution Control Board, up until this time, as a sort of

a clearinghouse for an application to pollute, not not to pollute but

an application to pollute. As I have said before, the RDK is in quite a

dilemma over pollution, because the Pollution Board, when they receive

an application, where do they send it to? They send it back to the

Regional District and they ask the Regional District if they've got any

objections. The Regional District hasn't got the machinery to look

after pollution. They haven't got the research to look after pollution.

This should be the Provincial Government. The Pollution Board should

have all this at their fingertips. Before they ever advertise in the Gazette

asking people whether they've got any objections or whether it's going

to interfere with them or not, they should decide beforehand whether

it's going to pollute or not. I think the Regional Districts, if

they've got a pollution problem, should be able to go to the Pollution

Board. I don't think that the Regional Districts should have to go to

the expense of hiring an expert to figure out pollution and that's what

they're going to do up there — another expense on the local taxpayer.

They're going to hire an expert to advise the Pollution Board. What a

foolish thing that would be, when the Pollution Board is supposed to be

set up with all the data for looking after it. Kaiser Coal — they've

got several applications in; Fording has got applications in; Scurry

Rainbow will have applications in; CNI will have applications in, all

to pollute the Elk River. I notice, according to the Chairman of the

Pollution Board, he stated that, if a third company wishes to establish

itself along the river, the other two companies would have to reduce

the strength of their effluent so that, even with the new discharge the

water quality would not be further downgraded. Now, I'm not quite so

naive, Mr. Speaker, to think that, if Kaiser has been given the right

to pollute to a certain degree and along comes Fording and puts in an

application to pollute the same river, that you're going to go back to

Kaiser and stop them from running their pollutants into the river. I

don't think that this is feasible and what's going to happen when all

these outfits, such as CNI, Scurry Rainbow, all make applications to

pollute the Elk River? Where is the Elk River going to go? It will be

going down as a polluted river. I say

[ Page 301 ]

there should be no pollution going into these

rivers, no pollution at all, because there's ways and means with our

technological advances, today, to stop all pollution if we want to stop

it from going into the river. They can recycle the water, they've got

lots of methods to do it. It's only because it's a cost item and it

interferes with the profits that they will not do it.

Then you've got Port Hardy, where you allowed the mines to run their

sludge into the water. Now, you've got an application from a party to

flood the Slocan or to pollute the Slocan Lake. On January 2, 1971, the

Daily News carried an application by the Semiahmoo Enterprises for a permit under the Pollution Control Act

to dump effluent from lead-zinc ore into the Slocan Lake. The whole

world is crying for pure, fresh water but still this firm is filing an

application to pollute one of the very few unpolluted rivers in the

world. The proposed treatment of the waste to be applied before

discharge is as follows: it is Semiahmoo's intention to run a six-inch

line from the bank into approximately 50 feet of water, 150 feet

offshore, to settle tailings on the lake bottom. I ask you what kind of

treatment is this? This is not a treatment before discharge, this is

the discharge of the pure waste. If this permit is granted to this

company, what is to stop other mining firms from obtaining permits?

Well, there's nothing to stop them, because you gave a mining firm on

Buttle Lake a permit to pollute Buttle Lake, you've given the Utah

Mines the right to pollute and now I suppose you're going to give these

people. Sure, the Semiahmoo Enterprises Ltd. states that they would

dump only 25,000 gallons of waste for 24 hours but, over the years,

this waste will build up and the water will be unfit for human

consumption. The entire Slocan Valley depends on this water for

domestic use, for irrigation purposes and for recreation. If this

permit is granted, think of all those people who, in time, would be

affected by this polluted water. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources, I hope he doesn't grant this permit to pollute the Slocan

Lake.

I've got a letter here from a resident of Slocan, R.H. Cunningham,

and this is what he says: "Dear Sir: I am writing with regard to an

advertisement that appeared in the Nelson Daily News .

This advertisement was inserted by the Semiahmoo Enterprises Ltd. of

15240 5th Avenue, White Rock, B.C. It is notice of application for a

permit from the Pollution Control Board to discharge effluent from a

lead zinc operation into the Slocan Lake at Silverton, B.C. I would

like to make the following protest against the granting of any such

permit. First, I believe the material to be discharged constitutes a

form of pollution of a serious nature. Second, I believe that the

quantity to be discharged, approximately 1,000 gallons per hour, is

sufficient to pollute the entire Slocan water system." I say to you,

Mr. Speaker, that this is using the Pollution Control Board as a means

of granting the right to pollute.

Mr. Speaker, when they put the ads in the Gazette , they always put them in this way, and I quote from the ad in the Gazette .

"This application is to be filed with the Director of Pollution

Control, Parliament Buildings, Victoria. Any person whose rights would

be affected in accordance with the Act may, within 30 days of the date

of the application or within the 30 days of the date of the publication

in the British Columbia Gazette

or in a newspaper or where service is required within 30 days of a

serving of a copy of the application, file with the director an

objection in writing to the granting of a permit stating how he is

affected."

I don't think that people living in the area should have to state

that it's going to pollute the area. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is

a job for the Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board is

the one that should be deciding whether it's a pollutant or not. I

think that the International Pulp Workers had a good idea. I went to

try and find out if I could get the monitoring of the pollution on the

Kootenay River. But they told me nobody could have it except the

Department and the company. I think that this is not a proper method to

take. I think anyone should have the right to the monitoring record of

a company such as a pulp mill. They do their own monitoring I

understand.

We've got a pollution control expert supposed to be up there at the

present time and he was the one I asked for access to the monitoring

records. He told me that I'd have to write to Victoria, that it wasn't

open to the public. This, I don't think, is the proper attitude to

take. I think that the International Pulp Workers had a good suggestion

when they suggested that a committee of the workers, in conjunction

with the company, should have a pollution committee to see that the

pollution controls are looked after. To me, it's not fair to the public

that are getting pollution-minded, to allow the pollution to go on the

way that we are doing at the present time. I noticed this morning,

according to the radio, that there's going to be a hearing on the

Skagit Valley flooding in Seattle. I'd like to urge this Government to

have representation at that Skagit Valley hearing. I'd like to urge

this Government to pass a resolution here telling them that we're not

happy about the flooding of the Skagit Valley. If this were done, maybe

we could retrieve some of the mistakes that have been made.

In regards to highways and this is a question, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier spoke on about providing jobs. He was up in my area at election

time and we've got a

section of road that has been asked for ever since

1960 — the highway from Fort Steele Junction to the overpass at

Cranbrook. He promised that tenders would be called right away. Well,

I'm still waiting for tenders to be called on this

section of the

highway for the relocation of this section. But it hasn't been done yet

and I would like to urge this Government to fulfil this promise. Then

there's the Van Horne by-pass and the Kimberley Highway needs to be

upstaged, in accordance with the highways today. The Kimberley Highway

between Cranbrook and Kimberley was built in 1949 and I think it is

time that it was upstaged to be modernized, somewhat. I'd like to see

the Minister get up and speak on what he's doing about the Rose Pass. (Interruption).

Well, the candidate for the Social Credit Party said he was going to

have it finished in a year. That's right. He said he was going to have

it finished in a year, if he got elected. I didn't expect it would be

finished even then and I don't expect it to be finished in a year,

while I'm here. But I do like to know. They tell me there's some work

going on at the Rose Pass and I'd like to know what is being done. The

road from Fort Steele to the fish hatchery — we spend millions of

dollars on the fish hatchery and we have a very poor road to that other

great tourist attraction, Fort Steele. I think that we should have a

paved highway from Fort Steele to the fish hatchery.

Now, getting over into the area of my friend, the Minister of

Highways, and the Honourable Member for Rossland-Trail, I think the

Champion Lakes cut-off should be gone ahead with, immediately. I don't

think we should be playing politics with the Champion Lakes cut-off.

This would shorten the distance considerably between the eastern part

of the

[ Page 302 ]

Province and Vancouver. If people want to go into

Trail or Nelson, they'll go into Trail or Nelson, but we don't have to

force them to go in there. We don't have to force the trailer trucks

and the big equipment to wind their way through Trail or through Nelson

in order to continue on the highway. I'm sure, what the Minister said

last year was a political issue, is a political issue, and if we're

going to build highways on politics, then, it's time we took the

highways out of the political sphere and turned them over to a highways

commission.

Another point I'd like to say and that is in regards to our ferries.

You know, the distance from the ticket office to the ferries is a long

way and many times there are elderly people, people that are sick and

crippled. I think there should be some kind of a shuttle service

between the ticket office and the ferry. It would give somebody work

and it would help out a lot of people. I'm telling you that, when you

watch those people having to walk a distance, some of those elderly

people, it's pretty tough.

In regards to parks, now that the Honourable the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation is here, I think there should be a trailer

and a camping park right near Fort Steele. In the evenings, when the

tourists are at Fort Steele there are hundreds of trailers and campers

on the parking lot and I feel that this attraction would boomerang if

we would only have a trailer camp right close to the park. People could

come in there in the evening, set up their camp, and then visit the

Fort Steele Historical Centre. Here, again, a place where you could

give a job, and that is a shuttle service from the parking lot, either

by the railroad or some method in keeping with the historical idea of

Fort Steele to take people around there, people who are too old to walk

that distance. You could do this by giving somebody a job to handle it

or it could be a concession to somebody, if they would do it.

I would like to ask the Honourable the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation and also the Minister of Forestry that they will go ahead

with the Top of the World wilderness park. I know it's in the hands of

the Land Use Committee at the present time, but the people who are

logging in that area are pushing roads as fast as they can. They may

have been stopped since, I don't know, but they tell me they're pushing

a road right through. I think that if we allow them to go right through

with that road, we're going to destroy this place as a wilderness park.

I would like the Minister to find out if the roads are going into that

area, at the present time, while it's in kind of sub judice with the Land Use Committee.

Now, I'm going to deal a few minutes with the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

As I told you before, I've listened to, I believe it is, 22 budgets and

all I can say about most of them is — tedious and repetitious. Tedious

and repetitious for 22 times!

I listened, today, about the high interest rates that we pay in the

Federal Government but, I wonder, who pays the interest on the two and

one-third billion dollars of contingent liabilities that we owe (interruption) .

This, to me… don't forget the contingent liability doesn't only cover

hydro, it covers schools, it covers quite a few sins, and… (interruption) .

Well, they are sins, by the fact that they're omitted from the regular

Budget. The people of this Province are not allowed access to see

what's going on within the books (interruption) .

They haven't got the right to examine them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that

this is wrong, The taxes on schools, payments for electricity and

hospitals, student aid loans and all this that you pay on that

contingent liability at 6 per cent, will be $140 million a year. And

who pays it?

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayer.

MR. NIMSICK: Just because you don't pay it out of the

Treasury, as you say, the people pay it. The people pay it on their

light bill, they pay it on their municipal taxes, they pay it on

different taxes throughout this Province. Even to class the student aid

loans as a contingent liability to me is wrong. One hundred and

forty-four million dollars. I listened to the Honourable the Minister

of Health state what the interest that was paid by the Federal

Government would do in building hospitals. This $144 million that's

owed by the Provincial Government, actually owed by the Provincial

Government, $144 million interest a year, because it's a contingent

liability and guaranteed by the Provincial Government…. The only thing

that you have done is transferred the payments of this interest from

the Treasury to the people out there, as an increased tax on the people

throughout the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the books.

MR. NIMSICK: This isn't done, according to the ability to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're hiding these facts. You know what it is. Bring in the Hydro books.

MR. NIMSICK: "The emphasis and Provincial policies in this

Budget will be two-fold," the Premier said. "One, on the creation of

additional jobs and, two, the maintenance of high standard in

education, hospital and medical care and social services."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Just one moment. What is your point of order?

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): From time to time the Members

opposite request that the Government side table their position with

respect to the statistics. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Member to

table his statistics in the normal way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member has made the request and I'm sure it will be noted.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm reading this out of the Budget Speech. He

can get it out of there. I don't have to table the Budget Speech. The

Premier has done that and he's not only tabled it in the Province of

British Columbia but he tabled it down in Ottawa. He told everybody

that….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: A further point of order. The Member has used

statistics here this afternoon and I'm sure that the House is entitled

to the benefit… (interruption) the Member is entitled to offer to

table them and if he wishes to refuse that's fine. I'm sure the Member

will table his material, will you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister's comments have been noted.

MR. NIMSICK: I don't have to have them written down, Mr. Speaker, to tell them what the interest on a contingent

[ Page 303 ]

liability would be.

In another place in the Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable

the Premier stated: "The British Columbia tax structure adheres closely

to the principle of ability to pay. For example, as the personal income

tax increases at a faster rate the higher the income. Many tax

exemptions are allowed…" here and there — an annual home-owner

grant.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why he put that in there,

but I think it was to cover up the increase in taxes that he had in

mind at the time that he read that out. I'm sure that the increase in

taxes that the Premier spoke about the other day in regard to gasoline,

in regard to tobacco and cigarettes, in regard to hotel and motel, that

they're not all on ability to pay. In other words, you're saying that a

poor person shouldn't smoke, but it's all right for the rich to smoke.

That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's all right for a

rich person to run a car and pay the extra amount, but it's not all

right for a poor person. It isn't according to the ability to pay. It's

hitting the little person and the only thing the old age pensioner has,

in many cases, to pass the time away is to have a smoke. Many of

them… (interruption) and to place the taxes in this way, I think it is

taxing the little fellow…not according to ability to pay. You can see

that in regards to the fuel tax. You don't tax the big trailer trucks

the same as…you increased them 2 cents on diesel fuel when you

increased 2 cents on the gasoline fuel (interruption) . Listen, when we

want to stop people from smoking, I don't think you should tax it.

Taxing it only deprives the little man but it doesn't deprive the big

man.

Mr. Speaker, "British Columbia has been offered a $35 million loan

by the Federal Government to finance job creating projects. The

a number of occasions as to the need for low-interest loans to

municipalities for essential local projects. While the loan fund has

been accepted completely for our municipalities, I do not consider

loans at Canada Pension Plan interest rates as low-interest loans."

Now, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Provincial Government…they've

got a large surplus, they've built it up over the years, why don't they

loan the municipalities who are their children, why don't they loan the

municipalities loans at lower interest rates for job creating? Why do

we always have to run to the Federal Government and ask them for the

money? They're big, bad boys because they don't give it to the

municipality at no interest. The municipalities are not the children of

the Federal Government. They're the children of a Provincial Government

and, yet, you pile up these reserves and you make these piggy banks and

everything else, so that you can use the money for other purposes.

That's all it is. If you want to treat the municipalities in this way

you start showing the Federal Government up. Show them what you're

doing in regards to municipalities and in regards to making jobs for

the people. But you don't do it (interruption) .

I'm not talking about contingencies — straight loans to the municipalities — that's not a contingent liability.

Then, in another place, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Premier

stated: "The Federal White Paper on social security published last fall

proposes some progressive action in income maintenance but is far

removed from British Columbia's repeated suggestion of a guaranteed

annual income." To me, Mr. Speaker, the acceptance of a guaranteed

annual income under the capitalist system will be nothing short of a

glorified welfare system. To accept, as a fact of life, that some

people will never be given a chance to make their contribution to

society is morally wrong and I cannot accept such a stand. We pinch in

the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the police force. We say to these

people, "After you work 25 years, you have made your contribution to

society and we'll give you a pension." Why can't we do that with the

other people? With the industrial workers, the people who serve us. Why

not everyone? Give them a guaranteed income of pension at 45 or 50

years. Either it be voluntary — there's many people that are square

pegs in rou