1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

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)

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2885 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Premier's London visit. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2885

Privilege

Clarification of earlier statement. Hon. Mr.

Macdonald — 2885

Routine proceedings

Provincial Court Act (Bill 100). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2885

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act

(Bill 86). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2885

Mr. Bennett — 2888

Mr. Gibson — 2890

Mr. Wallace — 2893

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2896

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2899

Free Public Toilets Act (Bill 90). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2899

Mrs. Webster — 2900

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2900

Mr. Wallace — 2901

Mr. Rolston — 2901

Mr. McClelland — 2901

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2902

Hospital Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 98).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2902

Mr. Wallace — 2903

Hon. Mr. Cocke— 2904

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources estimates

On vote 126.

Mr. Chabot — 2904

Mr. R.A. Williams — 2905

Mr. Chabot — 2905

Mr. R.A. Williams — 2906

Mr. Chabot — 2906

Mr. R.A. Williams — 2907

Mr. Chabot — 2907

Mr. R.A. Williams — 2908

Mr. Chabot — 2908

Mr. R.A. Williams — 2909

Mr. Smith — 2909

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the

House to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

PREMIER'S LONDON VISIT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my office received

a call from Mr. Norman Mailhot referring to an

article in

The Globe and Mail

regarding my visit to London. Mr.

Mailhot is with the External Affairs department. He was most

concerned about the

article and wanted my office to know that

no one in the press had contacted his office. He stated that,

in fact, he would have advised them that External Affairs had

been aware of the trip, as he was so informed when he was in my

office one week ago. Mr. Mailhot is concerned about the good

relations that exist between External Affairs and the

government and he wanted me to pass this on to the House — that

he was aware of the trip one week before the press report was

given.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have

a point of privilege which doesn't directly affect me, except

insofar as I spoke the words into Hansard . As a result,

the wrong person suffered the indignity of being censured by my

words in the House and in the report as it appeared in The

Vancouver Sun . I think the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) will agree.

The

article relates to certain comments made by myself and

it appeared they referred to one Mr. P.B. Smith, the senior

deputy in the office of the rentalsman. Well, those comments

did not refer at all to Mr. Smith. They did refer to another

person about whom the question had been asked. I think it was a

Mr. Whaley. I have the fuller statement here and I'll give it

to the press. I am sure that the matter can be corrected. I

regret that in the newspaper report there was embarrassment to

Mr. Smith.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of

students from Kensington Junior Secondary in North Burnaby.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the people I would

like the House to welcome are not yet in the gallery. They are here on

an exchange visit from Toronto, the Scarlett Heights Collegiate band,

responding to an earlier visit that Oak Bay Junior Secondary paid to

Toronto last year. I would like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

PROVINCIAL COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Court Act.

Bill 100 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is no leave required on

Friday.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I was just informed that it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes. There's a priority motion, of course.

I'm sorry.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if leave is

granted, I'd like to proceed with second reading of Bill

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of

pride that I open the debate on second reading on what has to

be one of the most important bills this government has brought

forward in this House.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to

increase the degree of competition in the province's financial

markets and thereby narrow the spread between borrowing and

lending notes. There should be some reason given why this

government is concerned about narrowing the spread. Mr.

Speaker, I think if anyone makes a simple examination of the

facts related to the banking industry in Canada — and it is an

industry, not a service — you will find some very startling

things happening. For example, Wednesday, May 21, 1975, the

Vancouver Province page 19: "Bank of B.C. Profits Up 178

Per Cent."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're shareholders.

[ Page 2886 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we are a shareholder, but I feel

terrible embarrassed about being a shareholder in an industry

that is usurious and taking money out of the ordinary people's

pockets while creating inflation in their policy.

No one in modern society with basic responsibility of

stabilizing the economy should be placed in the position of

having such negative influence on the natural progression of

economic growth in our society. You cannot justify profit

increases of 179 per cent, then try to rationalize food costs

rising and all other costs rising in our society. Why is it

that we never see the front pages of the newspapers attacking

the banking system? But they'll attack some poor janitor who

wants a few dollars more or some poor cleaning woman and her

family trying to survive and struggle, having to go to the bank

to make loans to provide for, perhaps, the continuing education

of her children, only to have the bank making that kind of

profit. It's wrong, Mr. Speaker. It has been wrong for years,

only it's even worse now.

Why is there such a defence of the system through the Senate

banking committee and the Central Bank of Canada when it's not

using that great social instrument for purposes other than

guaranteeing profits to the wealthy few?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you of all should know,

because of you close association with the Liberal Party, about

Professor Porter's book describing the vertical mosaic and the

power structures in Canada. Those power structures are

interlocking families that have controlled the destiny of this

country for generations — it's interwoven with the Liberal

Party, too.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Alleged inter-association? No, it's more

than that. I think Mr. Porter has gone further than making the

allegation. The Upper Canada — I can't use the word "Mafia"

because they're too genteel for that word — but the Upper

Canada group that have dominated the financial institutions,

the corporate institutions of this country for years….

We ought to know — we've got one of the graduates from

Osgoode Hall ourselves. He's told us all the inside secrets of

what's gone on. (Laughter.)

In Montreal, the Bank of Montreal reported Wednesday that the

balance of its revenues, after provision of income tax, at the first

six months, ending April 30, increased to $41.9 million. They were

$1.23, compared with $33 million, or 98 cents a share a year ago. You

read it backwards. It didn't go down a year ago; it went up from 98

cents a share to $1.23 a share.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): It was up this

year; you can tell by the….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Gardom, give up!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder those independents left the

Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I just want to keep him straight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Toronto-Dominion bank…!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Shhhh! Don't

shout.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you shout and rail and argue when

some poor little working stiff wants a better deal through

trade union activity. You were up here screaming your lungs

out. But when I'm quietly trying to tell the people about the

banking system, he's going: "Shhhh!"

MR. PHILLIPS: I never did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whose side is he on? That's the party that

wants to eliminate the succession taxes on the rich. It's not

bad enough that they have super-profits when they're alive, but

he wants to guarantee them they can take it with them. I never

heard of such a thing, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you, too. Since I made that speech, not one

person who has been involved as the donee of succession duty

has ever written a letter back to this government complaining.

(Laughter.)

The Toronto-Dominion Bank profits go up. That's a campaign

record — not a single complaint.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They agree obviously with the policy

because even our own rules say that abstention means agreement.

Our own House rules say that, so they must agree with the

policy too.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank's profits go up. The Bank of Nova

Scotia's profits have gone up 45 per cent. Edmonton: "Bank

Profits Jump." The Royal Bank of Canada: 31 per cent.

Now why should the ordinary people of this province or, for

that matter, all of this country allow this banking cartel in

effect — because they are, many of them, interlocking with

interest, dominating the small loans field, dominating the

small business field…. The poor fellow who wants to be

[ Page 2887 ]

entrepreneur really doesn't have a chance. Those

great

champions of free enterprise over there; they know very well

there is no free enterprise left, Mr. Speaker. They destroyed

it a long time ago by protecting privilege in the banking

system of this country.

All the consumer credit, the Chargex cards and the push to

have people spend money on those cards, the huge interest rates

on those cards, all of those things have become a way of life,

and they penalize the working poor more than any other

group.

The other reason we want to establish this institution is to

allow British Columbians to use their deposit funds to support

the future economic and social development of the province.

I shall never forget, Mr. Speaker, the time that I sat in

this House and Kaiser Industries first came into the Province

of British Columbia. The great announcement was made by the

former government that some $60 million would be spent to

create a new coal mine in the province. That was ballyhooed by

the former government as a great step forward. Then we

discovered, through a speech from the Minister from the

Kootenays (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) but then a backbencher, that

Kaiser had borrowed $35 million from Canadian banks. They had

used our own money to develop our own resources, and the

profits now are rolling out.

At that time, Mr. Member — just an aside, Mr. Speaker — the

royalty was 10 cents a ton on coal under the former government.

Giveaway. Now that Minister has moved the royalty up to $1.50,

and I'm proud of him trying to get some of the money back that

belongs to the people of this province.

MR. WALLACE: Is that what you've been doing all this time,

Leo?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It should be more.

So what we are trying to do is encourage British Columbians

to have faith in themselves and confidence in themselves. We

don't need to go to eastern Canada; we don't need to reply on

the central banking system. With a little bit of love and

co-operation, we can do things for ourselves, Mr. Speaker. We

should never fear our own human potential. We should never lose

sight of the possibility of becoming masters in our own House

and responsible for our own destiny. That is part of human

dignity and human responsibility.

We also want to improve the balance between loans and deposits among

all regions of the province. We have northern MLAs who are sent down

here to say: "A better share for the north. More regional

representation in terms of economic development." We believe that the

interior, northern and eastern MLAs are absolutely right in asking for

this particular approach. We want most of all to extend credit to low-

and middle-income earners, to farmers and to small businessmen, single

women, native Canadians and others who presently have difficulty

obtaining financial services. Not only do the main banks make huge

profits but they discriminate against customers on a ruthless basis.

Single women, Mr. Speaker, have been discriminated against

for years by the banking system in trying to get mortgages.

Married women, too. When it comes to chattels, a bank is very

chauvinistic. Native Indian people, Mr. Speaker, small

businessmen who won't ever get the help of this big banking

system against the big local customer in town.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to break new

ground, designed to assist our own people with indigenous

desires and drives to develop their own communities with their

own resources. We don't ask for help from anybody; we just want

a chance to do something on our own.

There is a great possibility of having the credit union

movement participate. I gave a press conference shortly after

this bill was introduced, and the response of two of the

opposition groups was predictable. The official opposition, as

I understand it, has said, "No comment." That's wise. They at

least know how to assess the political wind.

But what of the leader of the independent group? No, there

is no leader over there. One of the first independents to go

down the tube, Mr. Speaker, was the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey. You know what he said? Now listen to this: he said that

this was an attempt to take over the credit union movement.

That's what he said. I regret it; I don't like to repeat it.

But he was on television saying that this was an attempt to

take over the credit union movement when, in fact, he knows

very well that this is an opportunity for the credit union

movement to have 10 per cent of the whole new institution, with

no way that we can tell the credit union movement what to do or

not to do. They are free partners, if they wish, to pick up 10

per cent of this operation.

Now why the credit union movement? It's because the credit

union movement is a co-operative. The credit union movement

comes out of the bowels of history of this province, when the

struggling trade unionists on Vancouver Island fought the

Dunsmuirs in the coal mines; when the forest barons were using

the itinerant workers in the forest industry; when the

fishermen had to finance their own fishing boats. That's where

the credit union movement came. Those priests in Antigonish,

Nova Scotia, pioneered, on a Christian basis, the first credit

union movement in Nova Scotia. The same tradition spread to

British Columbia, and those common people formed the first

credit union in this province.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest

social histories yet to be written about this province is the

social history of the struggle of those

[ Page 2888 ]

people who came together to form credit union

branches

throughout this whole province. And there's an interesting

parallel. Not only were they pioneers in the independent

socialist party, the Christian socialist movement in this

province, but in the later 1930s, many original Social

Crediters got involved in the credit union movement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's true, because William Aberhart,

the founder of Social Credit, wanted a banking system that

would give the ordinary people a break, and many Social Credit

adherents become part and parcel of that great social and

economic movement to create the credit union movement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I like to remind Social Credit of their

history, especially when they change their position on

succession duties, how much they are denying their own heritage

in what was an original social movement.

The credit union movement is part of the fabric of this

province. There are over 600,000 individual members of that

great co-operative effort, an effort that says: "Let us help

ourselves; let us work together as ordinary people, men and

women, shoulder to shoulder, to bring about a better society

through co-operation in the use of money."

Money is not an end in itself. It is only an assistance to

the community to build itself up and supply succour, love and

some security for its citizens. It should not be an aim in life

itself. That's why this bill is open to the credit union

movement, because their philosophy is exactly the same

philosophy as the early pioneers of this political party who

wanted some social justice through economic control. I will

have much more to say, of course, in the wind-up of this

debate, but I want to say that we have embarked on a major

innovative programme with this bill.

Like Columbia Cellulose, which we purchased and which then became

Can-Cel, we decided to go for the best possible staff and people that

were available in North America to help us make this enterprise work.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams)

put together an outstanding board for Can-Cel, and, unlike other

government enterprises run by the feds, in the first year of operation

of Columbia Cellulose, that Minister brought in a profit to the people

through their own operation of $12 million; the second year, through

his board, $50 million. But then they were only No. 2 when they made

the profit of $50 million. This year, Mr. Speaker, after the first

quarter, their profits are large enough that we're now No. 1.

So in keeping with that deliberate purpose, deliberate

choice, I have today the honour and pleasure of announcing the

first director who will be named to the board of this financial

institution, He is a man who is a past president of the

Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges. He is a former federal

cabinet Minister. He is now professor of economics at McGill

University, and he's agreed to serve on the board of directors

of British Columbia Savings and Trust Corp. — an outstanding

Canadian economist, a man of progressive thinking, a man who

has made a career of serving the Canadian people, Mr. Eric

Kierans.

We will continue to gather those people who have led in

Canadian business and industry and economics, who have a social

conscience, an awareness of social justice. They have shown

their willingness to help this struggling little people's

government carry on pioneering work, like we've done in the

past. And I want to say, as new announcements are made, that we

will add to that board to lead this institution into the finest

social and economic instrument in the finance field ever

created in North America.

I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying to our friends in

New York, because the New York Legislature is now seriously

contemplating a banking bill of their own, that out of this

experience, even though they are free-enterprisers, if New York

state wants help from little British Columbia we'll give them

that help, Mr. Speaker; we'll give them that help.

So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate. I look

forward to a passionate, involved debate of support from every

single Member of this House because they all know that

opposition to this bill would mean support for the old banking

system that really puts profits ahead of people while this bill

puts people ahead of profits. Thank you.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I was quite

pleased to hear the Premier talk about bringing credit to the

people of the province and to provide money at reasonable

rates, but I think one of the greatest disservices that could

be done by this bill is to oversell the service or oversell the

benefits that can be created for the people of this

province.

When this bill was introduced, I can remember the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) alluding to the fact that we

already had 6 per cent mortgages from the credit unions, and,

of course, there was a $100,000 fund. Well, $100,000, as the

Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) knows, will go nowhere to

providing mortgages in this province. Indeed, what we are

talking about is not creating capital or money in British

Columbia; we are talking, if we want to help people, about

subsidizing mortgages. A new savings and trust corporation will

not create money. It will

[ Page 2889 ]

not create money. Money can only be created and the

banking

system can only be solved by the federal government and can

only be solved on the national level.

I would hate the people of this province to have their hopes

raised. (Laughter.) I would hate them to have their hopes

raised falsely and have false expectations such as they had

when the Housing Ministry was created in this province that

created no housing. I would hate to see a similar parallel of

oversell, because we are dealing with what is a very serious

problem. I would also hate to see a competitor for the British

Columbia credit unions which I support and which our party

supports and which I think most British Columbians support.

Now the B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. has a chance to help

the credit unions, not by equity ownership but by providing

capital; not by competition on the retail level in the various

towns but by coming to grips with their most immediate problem,

and that is a lack of funds to lend to their people. The credit

unions in this province right now are the largest customers of

one of the chartered banks of this province. Their problem

isn't one of meeting the needs of people in the community on

their savings; theirs is one of the additional capital needed

to provide more and more service to people.

In reading this savings and trust corporation, if the

Finance Minister and if the government uses it as a vehicle to

raise funds, a vehicle to go to the market to raise funds that

can be utilized by the credit unions through their retail

branches, then they will have done a great service for credit

unions and the people of this province. If the government,

using the credit of this corporation and the credit of the

province to provide this pool of capital can help and

supplement the supply of capital available in the credit

unions, it will be a worthy bill and a worthy institution. But

if it is just another competitor and if they are going to go in

and set up their own retail locations then this is no help to

the credit unions; this is competition.

What built the credit unions in this province was that they

weren't competing with government functions. If we contrast the

credit union growth in the province to that of Alberta where

they had Treasury branches, we find that credit unions grew in

British Columbia and they expanded in British Columbia because

the people themselves developed their own financial saving

institution in which they had control and direction. But in

Alberta where there was a government institution, the credit

union movement did not have this type of growth. They did not

have direction over their own affairs.

Now that we have the credit unions in British Columbia, let's not

destroy them. Let's make this institution available to the people not

as a competitor but as a supplier of capital. Supposing this

institution could go to the open market which the credit unions cannot

because, as we all know, although the credit unions are a major fact of

life in British Columbia, important to the somewhat 600,000 members,

they still do not have the credit rating to go to the open market for

the type of funds they need for additional service — $50 million, $60

million, what-have-you. But this corporation, a savings and trust

corporation, which has the opportunity of raising funds in various

ways, can raise that capital on behalf of them. In providing that

capital to the credit unions of this province at a reasonable rate and

tying it into specific programmes, if, as the Premier says, he is

concerned about certain types of mortgages at certain types of rates,

I'd like to point out that at this time we already have the means in

this province to subsidize mortgages for people in specific categories.

If he wants to extend this service to the credit union, yes,

the B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. is a good idea, and on that

basis we will support it. But if it is to become a competitor

of the credit union, if it is to set up its own branches in

competition with the credit union, then in all conscience, with

our history of commitment to the credit union movement, we

cannot support the bill.

So it's difficult here in second reading, without these

types of assurances that we're not given in introducing the

bill by the Premier, to deal effectively with questions that

must be answered and can be answered in committee.

Right now, the cost of money — and money is suffering

inflation along with goods — is one of the most serious

problems we face. Earlier, when we were talking about

mortgages, we realized that not only housing has doubled. There

are some interesting statistics produced by the B.C. Federation

of Labour in a study of the greater Vancouver area which show

the increasing amount over a 20- or 30-year period of the cost

of money and the end cost of a house. I think all Members of

this House on all sides, Mr. Speaker, are concerned with the

cost of money, which is not productive — in the sense of the

high cost of money being a detriment to our citizens owning a

home of their own.

So if in any way the B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. will help

hold capital in British Columbia and can be used as a vehicle

for raising capital for the credit unions who already provide a

retail service, then, yes, we will support this bill, we must

support this bill and I would urge every Member of this House

to support this bill. But we must have the assurance of the

Premier that this Savings and Trust Corp. will never, ever be a

competitor to the credit union. They have developed an

individual participation that's unparalleled in the financial

industry. It's given people an understanding of their own

financing.

When the Premier, in his black book, talks about people

being intimidated in banks, that's right. But they would be

just as intimidated in a government

[ Page 2890 ]

bank as they would in a chartered bank — perhaps

more so

because there's always the fear of political interference in

loans and collections. But in the credit union, of which they

have felt a part for many years and the people have belonged…they don't

have that feeling of intimidation. They don't

have that feeling of intimidation. So I would hope that the

Savings and Trust Corp. could provide the capital through the

credit union branches. But they don't have to be forced to be a

shareholder. You can be the vehicle that guarantees them a sum

of money to utilize for specific types of mortgages, mortgages

that can meet a social need as well as an economic need in this

province.

And, yes, let's come clean. Don't talk about the B.C.

Savings and Trust Corp. having to make a profit. We're going to

have to subsidize money. If you were going to use the B.C.

Savings and Trust Corp. as a vehicle for deposits of our

citizens, certainly you're going to have to compete for their

capital at an equitable rate, along with the rates paid by the

chartered banks and the savings and trust corporations that are

already here. Now if you borrow at the highest possible rate,

and that's giving our citizens a break, you can't turn around

and lend it for less than you borrowed it. The rate of deposit

is much more than the 6 per cent figure that was tossed around

when this bill was introduced. So what we're really talking

about, Mr. Speaker, in effect, if we're talking of benefits to

people on mortgages, is subsidized mortgages.

The Credit Union could probably tie in through some

government funding on this basis a commitment to meet

particular needs. The $100,000 fund, as I said, went nowhere.

But there is a principle of that type of subsidized money. When

we consider a 6 per cent mortgage at $100,000 being lent out, we

realize that really what we're talking about is a subsidy of 4

per cent if it's 10 per cent money — or $4,000 a year for every

$100,000. And there are specific instances where the government

is subsidizing now.

But when I look at this financial institution, the Savings

Trust Corp., it could be used for so much good or it could be

misused so badly that I think we'll need some assurances in

committee before any Members of this House can make up their

minds clearly as to which direction the Premier wishes to take

this institution and how he wishes to make it serve the people

and how he wishes to work in co-operation with the credit

union.

You know, I mentioned this little brochure the other day. It

says: "A New Financial Institution of British Columbia." It's

quite assuring, after introducing ICBC and the state of the

B.C. Ferries, that in this beautiful black cover it's the only

thing that's in the black in British Columbia today under the

control of the Premier. I hope it will continue to be so.

I don't think we should be talking about a government trying

to make a profit out of money. I think the government should be

there to raise capital, capital for the credit unions, capital

that's unavailable to them now.

There's a second point the Premier mentioned that I would

like some assurances of later on, and that is the use of the

vehicle for raising the funds for any purpose; whether it's

Hydro or the B.C. Rail — or in future.

During his estimates I asked the Premier if he ever thought

of saving commissions by setting up their own financial

corporation of British Columbia. In all reality, this has a

possibility. But I would think, in dealing in the types of

money it would have to raise, over and above what we have in

British Columbia…. Let's remember that B.C. is a net

importer of capital. Our money is not flowing out of this

province through the chartered banks. I am just as much

concerned about them as anyone else, but let's remember that

they are lending more in this province than is being deposited

in their banks in deposits.

This province will continue to need a lot of capital. To

attract that capital we will need confidence: the confidence of

the people, the confidence of the people who will lend capital

to this province; and we will need the confidence of the credit

unions with which this bill is meant to function.

I urge the House to support this bill on that basis. We will

support it if the Premier, during committee or at the close of

this debate, can give us the assurances that, indeed, it will

help them to expand and grow and will provide that pool of

sorely needed capital they are short at this particular

time.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, may I

just have the courtesy of welcoming our friends from Ontario,

now that they are in the gallery, the Scarlet Heights

Collegiate Band from Toronto.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is that the

big blue band?

MR. WALLACE: The big red band. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it is just shocking when a

bill of this importance — at least the Premier says it is

important — is introduced in this House with so little

explanation.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): What do you

know about it?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister of Public Works, we don't know

anything about it yet from that Premier.

[ Page 2891 ]

We haven't had much of a description at all. He

didn't tell

us anything.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You read the bill.

Mr. GIBSON: I read the bill, Mr. Premier, and the bill

doesn't tell us much either. It is a blank-cheque bill, isn't

it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, there you go again. Same old speech:

blank-cheque, awesome powers, heavy, and state socialism. Get

'em all over at once.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if he knows the speech so well, why

doesn't he pay some attention to it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because it is a phony speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh. Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: It is not a phony speech, Mr. Speaker. It has a

lot of truth to it. It is a phony government, that's what it

is. It is a government that is so worrisome in the troubled

times we live in, trying to find a road map to what this

government is going to do. From time to time I have recourse….

Interjections.

MR, GIBSON: There is another road map, my friends. It is

Alice in Wonderland . From time

to time, Mr. Speaker, I

have recourse to Alice in Wonderland .

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): David in

Blunderland .

MR. GIBSON: Do you know what the Premier is doing this

morning? He is doing what Lewis Carroll describes so

successfully in "The Hunting of the Snark." Mr. Speaker, the

Premier is out hunting snarks.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You better duck.

MR. GIBSON: When he gets into trouble, he sets up a straw

man, he waves his arms, he says: Those bogeymen! Those horrible

bankers, the corporate elite of Canada — this is what is

depressing the poor people of British Columbia! It's all a

snark hunt. He is going to explain all the ills of this

province by some evil snark.

For example, this morning we read the unhappy announcement that

Dominion Bridge is closing down in British Columbia, and there are 200

jobs gone. Just like that. Do you know why they closed down, Mr.

Speaker? Because there is no investment in the forest industry and the

mining industry, they had to close down and lose 200 jobs. The Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) didn't tell us about that in

his estimates yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it now.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier is not grappling with the real

problems of this province which are the loss of jobs, the loss

of investments, 100,000 people out of work, all of those things

to which I know he doesn't pay too much attention because he

says we talk about them too much. So he is off on a snark

hunt.

I just want to read a couple of verses here because they

include a reference to a banker, and we now have a banker in

British Columbia — across the floor of this House.

The crew was complete: it included a Boots,

A maker of bonnets and hoods,

— he is not in his seat today —

A barrister brought to arrange their

disputes,

— who is also not in his seat —

And a broker to value their goods,

A billiard-marker whose skill was immense,

Who might have one more than his share,

— you can pick that one out of his cabinet —

But a banker engaged at enormous expense

Had the whole of their cash in his care.

Just one more verse past the banker, because I will

ask you

to guess who this is, too.

There was also a beaver that paced on

the deck,

Or would sit making lace in the bow,

And had often, the bellman said,

Saved them from wreck,

Though none of the sailors knew how.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've been reading about Trudeau's

cabinet.

MR, GIBSON: No, indeed, Mr. Premier. I am reading about your

cabinet. And now your cabinet, Mr. Premier, has a banker. The

banker, as they are setting out on this quest, says later:

The banker suggested and offered for

hire

On moderate terms or for sale

Two excellent policies, one against fire

And one against damage from hail.

That is actually offered by the Minister of

Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think you've gone over everybody's

head.

MR. GIBSON: I hope it hasn't gone over your head, Mr.

Premier.

[ Page 2892 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not likely.

MR. GIBSON: Because you've been out huntin' snarks

again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is there a cure of the snarks?

MR. GIBSON: You haven't given us anything today other than a

lot of empty rhetoric. Maybe at committee stage you will give

us some more; maybe at closing debate you will give us some

more.

I was shocked to hear him say that he had a lot more to say

on closing second reading. That's obvious, because he had

nothing to say in opening second reading. But he might have

done this House the courtesy of saying it at this time.

The Premier just mentioned Mr. Eric Kierans, across the

floor of the House. I would ask him if the engagement of Mr.

Kierans as a director of this bank means that this bank will

make no loans to mining. Is that what it means? The Premier

doesn't respond to that one. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Eric Kiernans, in a report he did for the Manitoba

government, has shown less understanding of mining than perhaps

any other individual person in this country. It's clear that

one thing the savings and trust institution isn't for, is to

help the mining industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Liberal cause.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You really attack each other, don't

you?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier mentioned that this

bank would make loans to various kinds of people around this

province. That's a very good thing. The Premier mentioned the

credit unions and what a good job they were doing — they have

600,000 members. Is the Premier suggesting for a minute that

the credit unions don't make loans to the ordinary people of

this province, that the credit unions don't make loans to the

native people of this province, that the credit unions don't

make loans to the single women and married women?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't have the capital.

MR. GIBSON: They're the third largest banking institution in

this province, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They need more help.

MR. GIBSON: They need more help. Are you going to help them

or are you going to hinder them? Why didn't you just pass

legislation to give the credit unions greater access to

funds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've already done that, the first couple

of days.

MR. GIBSON: Why do you figure that you have to get in on the

act, too? What has the Government of British Columbia got to

bring to the people of British Columbia through this

institution that isn't already provided?

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier can give a good answer to that

question, I'll support this bill, but he hasn't given that

answer yet. Would this institution, to any great extent, be a

fiscal agent for the government? If it is a fiscal agent for

the government, how much money is this institution going to

save in the raising of government funds? A specific and

important question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier hasn't touched on

it. It's supposed to be one of the important functions of this

institution and he hasn't touched on it.

What about low-cost loans? Is this institution going to

borrow money at market rates, and lend it out at below market

rates? That is what I would interpret as being low-cost loans.

If that's the case, we have to turn to another verse in Lewis

Carroll from "The Gardener's Song."

He thought he saw a banker's clerk

Descending from the

bus.

He looked again and found it was"

A hippopotamus.

If this should stay to dine," he said,

"There won't

be much for us."

Will there be much for the people of this province if we

have another ICBC in terms of ability to lose money? Will the

Premier say in closing second reading that this institution of

his will never lose money — and he'll write that into the Act?

If it starts to lose money he'll close it down. Or does he plan

to subsidize it from the public treasury? I think it's fair

that we should know that. The Premier hasn't said anything

about that. He says banks make enormous profits; maybe he's

planning on making enormous profits himself, because the

Premier thinks he's a great businessman, one of the pre-eminent

businessmen in the Province of British Columbia. He's shaking

his head with modesty. All right, then — he thinks his Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is a

great businessman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a humble financier. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: The Premier implied that our current system of

banking isn't making capital available to small free

enterprise, and is therefore driving free enterprise out of

this province. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what's driving free

enterprise out of this province — it's that government. Unless

he gives us some justification for it, this is another step

[ Page 2893 ]

in that direction. It's another piece in the jigsaw

puzzle

of comprehensive governmental control over British Columbia.

Just one more piece in the jigsaw puzzle, Mr. Speaker, unless

there's some foundation laid for it, which there hasn't

been.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned in

passing the political possibilities of an institution of this

kind. Will the Premier address himself to that in closing

second reading? Will the Premier say that there will be no

coercion exercised on any Crown corporation, on any person or

group under the thumb of the government in one way or another,

be it forest companies or whatever — there will be no coercion

on them to deal in particular ways with this institution?

Would the Premier guarantee that to this House? Will the

Premier also say why, when the Province of British Columbia had

a 10 per cent share of the Bank of British Columbia, already a

good equity in a banking operation — and perhaps we need more,

but we had that — he let that go back to Toronto to eastern

ownership by the non-exercise of our rights in the Bank of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's another private bank.

MR. GIBSON: And then, just a month after that, he deplored

the fact that that block had gone back to Toronto.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was no way we could control the

bank. It's federal legislation. I tried to get it at WEOC and

the Prime Minister slapped his gavel and said: "That's it." You

belong to the same party.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Premier, through the government the people

of British Columbia had a substantially larger piece of that

Bank of British Columbia than they have now. The difference has

gone back to Toronto. It has left British Columbian ownership.

And I say that it's not good enough for the Premier to airily

dismiss that and say that that's a federal-controlled

bank so British Columbia shouldn't have any part of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it not federally controlled?

MR. GIBSON: Of course it's a federally controlled bank. It's

a federally chartered bank, and we had a piece of it — the people of

British Columbia through the government. And that piece was owned here

in B.C. Now

you've been buying shares in the B.C. Telephone Company. Isn't

that a federally controlled company, Mr. Premier, a federally

regulated company?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It shouldn't be, but it is.

MR. GIBSON: It shouldn't be, but it is. And you are buying

shares in it. So let's not use that kind of smokescreen.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: This Act has possibilities. It also has great

dangers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhhh! Here comes the waffling party.

MR. GIBSON: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The Premier

said: "Here comes the waffle party."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, the waffling party.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Waffle himself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for it or against it?

MR. GIBSON: Sure, another step in the waffle — this bill

right here today. Am I for or against it! How can I tell until

you tell us what it is? How can I tell until you tell us what

it is?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How can I tell until I feel how the wind

is blowing?

MR. GIBSON: Let's hear what you have to say. Mr. Speaker, I

say it is just not good enough that the Premier and Minister of

Finance of this province stands up in this House, gives us no

details, asks us for a blank cheque and asks us to pass second

reading on this bill. I want to hear a lot more about it. We

will be examining it further in committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: We make no hesitation in our speech on this

bill that we will support it. Perhaps that's my problem in

politics; I can already hear the people of British Columbia

saying: "That guy Scott Wallace is sucked in so easily. He

takes everything at face value and thinks that everybody is

well-meaning and straightforward."

The position, as I see it, in this bill is that anyone would

have to be out of their minds to read the intent of this bill

and stand up and vote and speak against it. The goals of this

bill, surely, have to be

[ Page 2894 ]

sound, reasonable, perhaps over-ambitious. But how

anyone

can read the goals of the bill and discuss the principle of

this bill and suggest that anybody be against it, I can't

understand that.

The idea is to make money and loans available more readily

to people who presently have difficulty in obtaining credit.

The whole question of trying to retain some of our own money in

the province and to use deposits for some of the social and

economic goals: I can't see anything wrong with that. I do know

there is a question that everyone in this province will be

asking and questioning, and that is not the goals of this bill

but the means whereby these goals are to be sought, and the

efficiency or inefficiency with which the new financial

institution will function. I think that that's a fair area on

which anybody on this side of the House could ask questions and

be less than confident that they know the answer.

We have examples by this government already that it starts

out with excellent intentions to correct a situation it

believes to be economically or socially false or

unsatisfactory, and, in seeking some well-motivated goals,

lands up with some very undesirable results. I have to think

specifically of all the glorious motivation behind ICBC and all

the comparisons — I couldn't help but think of it this morning

when the Premier introduced a bill — about how today's

introduction paralleled the introduction to the ICBC bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you destroy ICBC?

MR. WALLACE: When he introduced the ICBC bill, the contrast

with the wicked insurance companies was very similar to his

comparison today with the wicked banks. They were all making

too much money. The position that the Minister of Finance took

at that time was that the government monopoly plan would

provide cheaper insurance and, of course, it would not be

subsidized from general revenue or from the general

taxpayer.

Well, we now know that in the first year it's lost $34 million, and

it is being subsidized. So when I say that I cannot with any kind of

common sense, in my view, oppose the goals of this bill, I think on

this side of the House we're entitled to be a little apprehensive about

the implementation of the bill and the means by which this government

will proceed to achieve the goals that are so admirable. I don't think

it's at all unfair or unreasonable to draw this comparison between the

automobile insurance legislation as it was aimed and motivated to

function, and look at the result one year later, and to compare the

Minister's speech today in introducing this bill on the financial

institution; and for each one of us on this side of the House and

perhaps each person in British Columbia to say to himself: "Well, he

started off on car insurance with much the same idea — that the little

man should get the cheapest possible car insurance." Of course, in the

case of the car insurance, he didn't even discuss the competitive

element because, of course, car insurance became a government monopoly.

At any rate, I think that comparison is worth drawing.

The Minister, in introducing second reading, spoke very

critically of bank profits as being excessive and the practice

of the bank to be usurious. I'd hope that in winding up this

debate the Minister of Finance will give us some indication as

to what his attitude will be or what the government policy will

be toward this financial institution making a profit. If his

answer is, "Yes, it will make a profit," the obvious

questions are how much and who's going to decide what is a fair

profit and what's a usurious profit. These are rather relative

terms. Some people think 10 per cent is a good profit; others

don't think it's worth it unless you make 18 or 24 or whatever.

I think this is something that we should know.

I found some of the Minister's comments a little

contradictory on the introduction of second reading. He started

off by pointing out that the profits on the Bank of B.C. were

up, I think, 178 per cent, as I recall the figure. He went on a

little later to talk about Can-Cel. The main reason he felt

obligated to praise and mention Can-Cel was that it had now

become No. 1 as the profit leader in the forest industry.

So one has to ask what this new institution's policy will be

toward profit and the decision as to what a reasonable and fair

profit would be. I would certainly have to ask the other

obvious question: if this financial institution is to make

loans available at rates lower than can be obtained elsewhere,

and this institution, thank God, can't manufacture money like

the federal government manufactures money, but, on the other

hand, it can't possibly lend out money at a cheaper rate than

it obtains the money in the first place…. That brings us

back to the whole question of subsidies. As I say, we've

already been around the race track once with this government in

the glorious plan that was going to provide a cheaper type of

service without subsidies.

The Minister smiles. Now you're not going to try to tell me

you're not subsidizing ICBC. But you're going to subsidize this

new financial institution. As far as providing lower income

earners with assistance I'm not sure that I'm that concerned if

they are somewhat subsidized. All I want is to know if that's

the way this financial institution will function.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not prepared to say that that's the

policy because we are trying to state facts in the past that

would now lead us to question

[ Page 2895 ]

whether the same is going to happen with this

particular

financial adventure as has happened with ICBC. If you'd been

listening, Mr. Minister, I said a moment ago that I'm not

personally opposed to the idea of providing some subsidies for

such basic human needs as housing, nutrition, putting food on

the table, all clothing and all shelter, the basic essentials

for human beings. This society, through this financial

institution, should to some degree subsidize low-interest

loans. I'm not concerned about that. What I'm saying is that

the reason the people of B.C. are probably apprehensive and

that the opposition Members are apprehensive is that this

government doesn't keep its word.

It said there wouldn't be subsidies for automobile

insurance. One year later there are. My very firm opposition to

that lies in the fact that I don't consider automobile

insurance to be anywhere in the same league as housing,

shelter, food, clothing, health care, education and all the

basic human needs in our complicated society today. I just

reject completely the abuse of taxpayers' money to subsidize a

non-essential.

Here in this bill we're certainly talking about, elements in

the daily living of each citizen of B.C., which are a far cry

from whether or not you can afford to drive a Datsun or a

Cadillac or what you drive, and have in part the cost of

insuring that vehicle paid by the general….

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Wide-ranging.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it certainly is wide-ranging, Mr. Member.

There's nothing more wide-ranging or of wider importance to any

individual than access to capital and access to borrowing. I

doubt if there's any one of us sitting in this chamber that

doesn't have some debt somewhere on a mortgage, on a home, on a

loan at the bank, or we owe Eaton's for three months of

spending or whatever. Anybody who might seek to minimize the

importance of the subject we're dealing with would indeed be

unaware of the importance of this bill.

To that degree, I hope the Minister will mention with some

detail in winding up second reading the point I raised about

subsidy. Is there any clear plan as to how far the policy will

be to go in providing subsidy?

The Minister mentioned the credit union involvement. Again,

I found some of his remarks a little contradictory. He took

great pains to mention that in the earlier history of the

credit union there was involvement by Social Crediters. I

always thought they indulged in funny money, the Social

Crediters. I'm wondering if the Minister was implying that

there's an element of funny money in the Social Credit

movement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That came later….

MR. WALLACE: Well, anyway, it seemed to me rather a strange

point the Minister was trying to make. Maybe he was just trying

in his usual very clever political fashion to try and persuade

the Social Credit opposition to support this bill.

Some of the comments regarding the credit union involvement

appeared in print in the newspapers after the bill was

introduced. One of the headings here says: "Credit Unions

Pondering the Barrett Plan." It seems to me that if this were

such an attractive institution for the credit unions, and

presumably the Minister of Finance has had long discussions

with the credit unions prior to introducing this bill, it just

makes me ask another question: why are the credit unions

somewhat hesitant to go along with what the Minister describes

as being an excellent opportunity for them to have better

access to larger funding?

I notice Mr. George May, who is the general manager of the

B.C. Central Credit Union, said that he would envision that on

the lending side the government institution would restrict

itself to mortgages, homeowner grants and other government

programmes, and leave the personal loan field to the credit

unions. It's too bad the Minister of Finance has just left the

chamber. Perhaps the House Leader could make note, because I

think this is a very important question. Oh, the Minister's

back in the House.

The Minister would perhaps answer the comment made by the

general manager, Mr. May, who said that he felt that on the

lending side the government would stick to mortgages and

homeowner grants and so on, and leave the personal loan field

to the credit unions. The Minister in introducing the bill this

morning mentioned quite strongly and forcefully that one of the

main functions and goals of the bank would be to provide fair

and non-discriminatory loans to single women, to native Indians

and to other underprivileged groups. I'm wondering if he could

give us a little more detail perhaps when he winds up the bill

in relation to the comment of Mr. May.

Perhaps also the hesitancy of the credit unions may be the

fear that once they get into some kind of an arrangement with

the government…. Are they going to be a participant or are

they going to be swallowed up in the course of time? This, I

think, would have to be another important element.

The other two points I would like just to mention is the

fact that since this government has become more and more widely

involved in the business and private sector of the community,

more and more people would want to wonder if political

influence and interference could be a factor in the manner in

which this bank functions. Once again, there's no easier way

that you could squeeze anybody in this life that we live than

by squeezing them in relation

[ Page 2896 ]

either to their income or their debts. It would

seem to me

that we would want some complete assurance.

If the Minister sincerely believes the intent of the bank as

he outlined it today, it should not be difficult, in winding up

the bill, to give a complete assurance that in no way would

there be the risk or the vehicle for political interference and

pressure on consumers using the services of this financial

institution.

The last point that I think can be made is that the real

problem will lie in the regulations which are related to this

bill. The regulations are always the part of the legislation

which the opposition Members, or the government Members for

that matter, find out after the event. I wonder if the Minister

of Finance could outline the degree to which some of these

questions asked by all three opposition parties can be answered

now, or will they only be answered when we finally are

presented with the regulations attached to the bill?

Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is

the kind of bill which is well worth supporting, even though

some of the information that I think we could quite rightly

have expected to be available in the bill is not available and,

in fact, will only appear when we see the regulations to the

bill. But on that basis I am certainly pleased and satisfied

that the goals outlined in the bill are very worthy of support.

I just hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, and

later on in committee, many of the questions which the

opposition parties have asked will be answered.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is interesting to compare the

day of the introduction of this bill with the day that the

insurance legislation was introduced in this House. The

government is now presenting to the people of British Columbia

another one of its building blocks in economic reform for

British Columbia. I was startled a few moments ago that there

were only seven government backbenchers and only two cabinet

Ministers in the House. It seems to me that there is some lack

of overwhelming support for what the Minister of Finance is

doing here. Oh, they'll all turn up for the vote. There's no

question about that.

I guess, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the government learned from their

experience with the insurance legislation just how to handle things in

the House. When the insurance legislation was introduced, we had a

lengthy exposition by the Minister who had the carriage of that

legislation on just precisely what the government's plans were and how

they proposed to carry them out. We even got some guarantees. Well, now

they have learned. They created a monstrous economic blunder with ICBC,

and they don't like to be reminded of some of the things that were said

during those happy days of debate. Quite obviously the Minister of

Finance is holding the same view today.

I was frankly disappointed with the remarks of the Minister

of Finance in opening this debate. If the Savings and Trust

Corp. of British Columbia is to be as important to the people

and economy of British Columbia as the Minister would lead us

to believe, I would have thought that he would have provided to

the House a most careful analysis of what it is the government

has in mind and the way in which this corporation will be used

as the vehicle for carrying out policies which this government

believes are necessary for the province and the institution of

programmes throughout all of its regions.

But we didn't have that. Instead we had a glowing praise for

the credit union movement — no one disagrees about that — and

nothing else. Oh, we had criticism of those mean old banks,

those terrible financial institutions.

Sure, they can be criticized. The Government of British

Columbia should be bending its very best efforts to impress

upon the national government the need for some changes in the

regulation of chartered banks to overcome some of the

inadequacies the Minister pointed out. But that's not what we

had — just that they were mean old banks charging usurious

lending rates. If the Minister of Finance is concerned about

usurious lending rates, why doesn't he introduce legislation to

prohibit them in this province? That's within his

authority.

No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill, nothing. I

listened to what the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had to

say, and I was quite surprised. If the government wants to

table a declaration of the rights of borrowers, let them go

ahead and do so. They should turn this particular problem over

to the Berger commission. The Berger commission could bring in

a report dealing with the freedoms of borrowers. Maybe that

would satisfy the Member for Oak Bay.

Aside from some very worthwhile goals which are set out,

this legislation is nothing more than an empty structure, an

empty shell. Any competent law student could have closed his

office door, used the facilities of any number of precedent

manuals and produced this bill. It's just a framework, a

skeleton. The Minister hasn't taken the time during the opening

of this debate to put any flesh on that skeleton so the people

of British Columbia can look at it and decide whether or not

it's to be something they can respect, or a beast that they

will wish they could destroy.

The Minister talked profits and banks. Of course the

Minister of Finance is opposed to profits. It's a dirty

word.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Reasonable profits.

[ Page 2897 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Dewdney says "reasonable

profits." But then it all depends on who defines what

"reasonable" is. It's like the rule of equity of which the

Speaker is an ardent student. The Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) wouldn't even know what the word

meant. But the Speaker does. And he will recognize that the

rules in equity were as long as the chancellor's foot. That's

what reasonable is, Mr. Member for Dewdney.

MR. ROLSTON: The cost of living, too.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. Now the Member for Dewdney

has hit upon a most important phrase — the cost of living. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that an essential part of

the cost of living for almost every citizen in this province is

the cost of borrowing money.

When you are talking about a savings and trust corporation,

or any financial institution of this kind, you have to

recognize that you are talking about a commodity which is

commonly traded, namely, money. There's no mystery about it.

It's a commodity that is traded. The people who have it and who

put it into savings, are seeking the best possible return they

can on the moneys they put into commerce, into savings

accounts. Therefore all one has to see, with what is happening

today with banks and with trust companies, is that they are

competing for the savings of the people. They are offering the

people every possible consideration and even a bonus to bring

their money in and deposit it. It's a commodity. Even

differences in interest rates are sometimes not enough. They

offer bonuses of television sets and everything else, if you

will just bring in your money and deposit it.

Once the money has been deposited, then that same

institution has an obligation, if it's not going to fail, to

lend that money at rates which will enable it to pay the cost

of its own borrowing and to conduct its operations.

What is happening in Canada today is that there is a

reluctance on the part of people who have money to deposit to

place those moneys in the hands of these lending institutions

for sufficient time to support the mortgage-lending which is

carried on. This is one of the reasons today that mortgage

funds are drying up, just one of the reasons. Trust companies

who play a major role in home mortgage financing in British

Columbia are finding it increasingly difficult to have their

depositors place in their hands moneys for long enough periods

of time for the trust companies to embark upon any logical

mortgage lending programme.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): That's

because of inflation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right, Mr. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain. But it's all part of inflation. You

see, there is no simple answer.

What is happening is that the lending institutions, the

trust companies — to which we all go, or our constituents go to

borrow moneys for the purposes of constructing homes — are now

having to search for other means in order to compensate for the

unwillingness of the people with the money to put it in their

hands and lend for lengthy periods of time. So they are now

talking about short-term mortgages of a year,

variable-interest-rate mortgages — all the techniques of trying

to overcome the fact that there is no certainty of the

availability of funds because the person who has money in times

of inflation does not wish to deposit those moneys on the

long-term basis at fixed interest rates. He wants to be liquid,

and the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain understands

that problem.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. The Member for Dewdney says

that, certainly, he is buying gold and buying real estate

because he is looking for something which will retain its

value. But the dollars that he is prepared to take to his bank,

to his trust company or to the savings and trust corporation or

to the credit union, he's not prepared to commit those dollars

for long periods of time at fixed interest rates. Therefore it

is extremely difficult for those institutions to turn around

and lend those moneys back out again for long periods of time

at fixed interest rates. That's what the B.C. Savings and Trust

Corp. is going to have to do. It certainly can't take the money

in, pay high interest rates and lend it out at low interest

rates. There lies tragedy; there lies loss, unless there's

subsidization.

Now if there's to be subsidization, why isn't it spelled out

in the bill? Is this the kind of an animal that we're creating?

Are we going to subsidize it? If we are, the Minister of

Finance has an obligation to tell this House and the people of

this province at this stage that that is his intention. You

cannot take in your money at high interest rates and lend it

out at low interest rates. That's simple business sense — something, of

course, which hasn't bothered the Minister of

Finance of this province very much for the last couple of

years, The Minister says he's going to use credit unions. This is

not going to be the death knell of credit unions, he says.

Credit unions are in exactly the same position as any of our

other financial institutions. They, too, have to bargain for

the funds which they in turn make available to their own

members. The central bank concept is certainly involved, but

that's the whole process. They take in their money and they

lend it out to their members, and that's the way they

[ Page 2898 ]

have to function.

If the government is going to get into the business and

compete, and somehow or other say to some segments of the

community: "Oh, well, we'll pay you a higher interest rate than

the credit unions will pay," who's going to go to the

credit unions? On the other hand, if the government is prepared

to say to the borrowers in our province, "We'll lend you money

at lower rates than the credit union," who's going to go

to the credit unions — until the credit union is forced to drop

its lending rates to compete. Not the death knell of credit

unions?

Let the Minister of Finance spell it out clearly in this

legislation that he's not going to borrow high and lend low,

and then force the credit unions into competition, which their

own membership does not want.

I must comment about the other opportunity that has been

given credit unions. Credit unions are going to have the right

to buy 10 per cent of this wonderful corporation. But, you

know, that Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) and the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), when

speaking, said: "Who wants to be a minority shareholder?" "Ever

been a minority shareholder?" is what he said. I ask the credit

unions and the Minister of Finance: do you want to be a

minority shareholder at 10 percent?

The Minister of Finance didn't want to be a 10 per cent

minority shareholder of the Bank of B.C. He didn't want to be a

10 per cent shareholder of B.C. Tel. No, we're going to extend

this great opportunity to the credit unions. Get in for 10 per

cent.

Even a 10 per cent minority shareholding position is

sometimes very valuable, if it's a profit-making institution.

But that's a dirty word. Those terrible chartered banks are

profit-making institutions. Shame on them. We're not going to

have any of that profit-making institution in British Columbia.

So what's the sense of having the right to be a minority

shareholder — 10 per cent of an institution that's not going to

make a profit?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's going to take the money in at high

interest rates and lend it out at low interest rates. It's

going to make sure we don't make a profit, and we're going to

subsidize it. Well, son of Icky-Bicky.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right. I would think it would

be very interesting if the savings and trust corporation were going to

manage the financial affairs of ICBC. If they're good enough to do

that, maybe they could take over the management of the financial

affairs of the entire province. If there has been one area in which

this government, this Minister of Finance, has been an absolute failure

it is in the matter of fiscal management. And yet we're going to have

the savings and trust corporation.

There's one other aspect of this that gives me great

concern. It's a question of whether we're going to have a

profit-making institution or not. It's a question of whether

there's the possibility of loss in the operation of this

corporation, similar to what we've experienced with ICBC.

One thing about the Canadian banking system that has made it

unique in the world is its stability and its security. Banks in

the United States of America have and today still are failing.

People have to have real concern in the United States of

America and the other countries of the world where they put

their dollars, their savings. They have to be concerned about

the security of those financial institutions. They are subject

to serious fluctuations in the world economy. Banks in Germany,

banks in Switzerland, banks in Italy all have failed, with

major financial loss to the people who have placed their trust

and faith in those institutions. Mr. Speaker, this has not been

the case in Canada. This has not been the case in Canada; and

it is not the case because of careful regulation and control of

the banking system under the legislation of the national

government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look carefully in this legislation,

you find that the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia

is not subject to the control and regulation similar to that of

the chartered banks. As a matter of fact, you will find that it

is not subject to many of the provisions, a vast number of the

provisions, of the Companies Act of this province. It is not

subject to the provisions of the Trust Companies Act of this

province. There is nothing in this bill giving any assurance to

the Members of this House or to the people of British Columbia

that this Savings and Trust Corp. to which the government will

invite the people to deposit their savings…. There is

nothing to ensure that this organization, this corporation,

will be subject to independent regulation, control and

examination — independent of government, independent of the

board of the corporation. It is not even to be subject to the

regulation and control required of trust companies.

You recall what happened in this province a few years ago

when the government failed to exercise its authority in the

control and regulation of one of our trust companies, and I

refer to Commonwealth Trust. When the government failed to do

what it should have done with regard to that company, it failed

with disastrous consequences. Where is the regulation and

control of this Savings and Trust Corp?

When I look at what has happened with ICBC, when we hear all

the rumours about B.C. Rail, when we find that the open

government promised to us by

[ Page 2899 ]

the NDP is nothing more than a sham, I cannot

support this

legislation unless there is written into it iron-clad

guarantees with regard to examination, regulation and

control.

HON. D. G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was

pleased to hear the Minister of Finance, the Premier, open

debate on this bill, indicating how important it was to the

people of British Columbia. We recognize the fact, and all of

us have said this at times — it might be at a cocktail party,

or it might be on the job, in the coffee room or in the lunch

room on the job — that the Rocky Mountain barrier, those

mountains that stand between the east and the west, so to

speak, even divide the most western province from its other

westerly neighbours. Sometimes we feel that that shield, that

Rocky Mountain barrier, makes us the forgotten people in the

whole area of finance.

I spent most of my career, Mr. Speaker, in the life

insurance industry. One of the things that most of us in that

industry felt, because it was very close to finance….

Remember that the life insurance industry carries a great load

of the financing, particularly from the lending standpoint, of

Canada. Most of us watched what was happening to the financial

institutions of the country, and their bias was toward the

east. I know that even if I were in the east I could make some

very strong statements with respect to the way that the

Canadian economy has been sold out. I'm not suggesting for one

second that what we have before us is the means of buying it

back. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a help in that regard and can

form a greater bulwark for B.C. to make some of its own

financial decisions.

The last speaker was talking about the ICBC in terms of

somewhat disrespect. Mr. Speaker, one of the bulwarks of B.C.

has been ICBC. Two hundred million dollars of our money has

been kept in this province just because of the fact that ICBC

was there. Some people make the statement that the only reason

ICBC was set up was to provide low-rate car insurance. Of

course that was one of the reasons for the people in British

Columbia, and 85 per cent of them wanted it. Now, Mr. Speaker,

the people in this province are delighted because of the fact

that ours is a stronger economy today because of the fact that

that extra $200 million is here to do what is needed for this

province.

What will happen as a result of this new financial

institution for this province? It will also just work that same

kind of hardship on those New York and Bay Street people who

over the years have not been able to see over the Rocky

Mountain obstruction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that everyone in the House, after giving

thought to this very fine piece of legislation proposed, will think it

over over the weekend. I therefore move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are going to turn now to

second reading of one or two bills and, depending on the time

here, if we can before 1 o'clock, we would move on to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Second reading

of Bill 90.

FREE PUBLIC TOILETS ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 90, the bill intituled

Free Public Toilets Act, has been received by the people in

this province with a great deal of enthusiasm. Mr. Speaker,

they are flushed with pride.

MR. ROLSTON: That should be Bob Williams' bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: I would like to comment after the bill was

introduced a few days ago on the handling of the bill by one of

the television stations, CBC. I thought that was an imaginative

piece of work. I think it caught the kind of feeling that was

out there regarding this whole question of free public

toilets.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bill is from the majority movement.

HON. MR. COCKE: In all my life, Mr. Speaker, I have never

found anyone who was particularly enthusiastic about going into

a public building and finding, for want of a dime or a nickel

as it used to be — or 1 cent in Australia in places, I

understand — having been found short, they have to crawl under a

door. We feel in this government that people should have the

right to the convenience that should be provided free for the

people of B.C. in public places.

I notice there have been some comments from people who

indicate there would be a possibility that this might lead to

unclean facilities. I don't buy that concept. Just for warning

for anyone who might feel that way who owns public premises,

the Health department will be watching that aspect.

As I said before, this is a very popular bill, particularly

with the women of this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Stand up for women's rights.

HON. MR. COCKE: We have stood up for women's rights in this

parliament since 1972, and we will continue to stand up for

women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see to it that no one believes

the rumours that have been spread recently

[ Page 2900 ]

that we plan to nationalize the toilet facilities

of British

Columbia. No, we don't. But we plan to make them available to

British Columbians.

MR. WALLACE: Nothing's freer than free!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) is quoting a very old quote. I'm not going to put it

on Hansard because it has

been said so often in this

House that I'm sure one more time might affect the quality of

the dome.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that everyone will co-operate. I

particularly hope that if there is any discussion with respect

to the MOT using their federal clout to keep pay toilets in the

airports, then I hope that the federal government will co-operate and

see to it that in British Columbia, in any

event, they will abide by the rules of this province. I

therefore move second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I am very

happy that the Minister of Health has introduced this bill; I

am heartily in support of it. Let me say to start with that I

received from the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) a little

notice out of the paper saying that pay toilets are now being

outlawed in Nevada: "Governor Mike O'Callaghan Tuesday" — that's May 27

— "signed a bill outlawing the only pay toilets

in a public building in Nevada. The measure bans pay toilets in

all government buildings. The only one in the state is in the

women's restroom in Reno International Airport." So that's

another blow for women's liberation. Here we have another one

right here.

Interjection.

MRS. WEBSTER: Certainly, I'm flushed with success. Thank you

for the expression.

These are only little ways of nibbling at getting equal

rights for women, for doing away with discrimination, but I

think that this is a very, very important one right here. Why

should women have to be prepared to have dimes in their pockets

for being able to go to a public washroom? As a matter of fact,

after I first introduced the suggestion of it at the time that

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) brought in the bill

in regards to the status of men and women amendment Act, you

would be surprised at the number of Members who have come up to

me and asked me if I needed an extra dime. Fortunately for us,

in this building there is no such thing as a pay toilet.

I am looking forward now to seeing third reading and

enactment of this legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we're happy that

the Second Member for Vancouver South spoke second in this bill

and surprised, indeed, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke), who seems to have adopted this particular piece of

legislation, didn't perhaps allow her to introduce the bill as

a private Member's bill and make history by having this come

forward as a private Member's bill. Certainly in this House she

was the one who advocated it, and she deserves full credit for

this bill. I would like to make sure that no one is under any

misapprehensions that the Minister of Health thought this up on

his own. The Member for Vancouver South deserves a full measure

of credit for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points on principle which

I think are important in this piece of legislation. I would

like to refer you in particular to the origins of the bill and

the insidious type of legislation this is bringing in, at least

in the view of one person who was quoted in the Colonist

on the 30th of this month. Quoting from the

Colonist :

"Robert Stambach, sales manager for Nik-O-Lok Co., the

biggest operator in the pay toilet field, said in a news dispatch from

the firm's Indianapolis headquarters that anti–pay toilet legislation

is an aftermath from the Watergate scandals."

We went on to say: "This onslaught of legislation,

(referring to the laws being passed or considered in many

American states) is because of the Liberals. That's all."

Well, I don't think it was all because of the Liberals, unless,

of course, the Hon. Member would like to share our Liberal

sentiments in this.

"Stambach said most free toilet legislation has

resulted

from pressure by feminist groups." Well, I am not sure that he

is right. Certainly, he has vested interests in making sure

those locks — most efficient locks I understand they are — stay

on the doors.

We certainly welcome this particular measure. Indeed, I

believe I was the second speaker after the Hon. Member for

Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) when she first proposed this,

and my party and I endorsed her views. It's an indication of

the government going down the drain, of course, that they now

try and introduce popular measures such as this one. This,

perhaps, will outrank many of their other measures in terms of

impact upon the public.

There are other legislatures considering similar

legislation. In Oklahoma, apparently, the state senate has just

passed a bill where anybody installing a pay toilet in Oklahoma

could face a fine up to $1,000 or a year in jail. I am glad

there is not this prohibitive measure in this particular piece

of legislation. That sounds a little stiff — $1,000 dollars to

violate their so-called open-john bill. I might add, the vote

on that was 44 to 0. So, clearly, across the continent there is

strong support for this measure.

I would certainly endorse the Second Member for

[ Page 2901 ]

Vancouver South and a bill whose parentage is in no

question — it's the Second Member for Vancouver South's, but apparently

one which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) at least

claims fraternity to.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a Scotsman who likes to look

after his pennies, I think this is an excellent bill. It's one

of the anti-inflationary bills that this government has brought

in. You might even call it a deflationary bill, too.

(Laughter.) I think it makes a lot of sense.

Of course, as a Scotsman, the other reason I am so

interested in the bill isn't only that it saves money, but it

has preventive medical aspects to it as well. I am sure the

House knows, Mr. Speaker, that the originators of the limbo

dance were Scotsmen who, in fact, learned the dance by being

the ones most able to get under the door. So there is a lot of

Scottish history tied up in this bill. (Laughter.)

Since the Minister is dedicated to preventive medicine and

keeping people fit and agile, I think this might be one of the

disadvantages of this bill — that a lot of people who formerly

got this kind of exercise might now neglect to seek

alternatives. But it does show that this government is

continuing to pursue equal rights for women. I am not sure that

this is a right the women will stand up for, but it's another

right which I think they are entitled to.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was also asking

me, as a person who formerly talked about unity — a person who

formerly, if you want to be very precise, talked about the

unity movement — if this particular bill had anything to do

with the majority movement. I think it was the Attorney-General

who asked that question. I am sure it hasn't, because I

discussed it with the Minister earlier and the intent is very

clear and pure, I am sure.

I think, perhaps, the last point, and less jocular, is the

fact that I think there is a possibility that there might be a

deterioration of standards in the maintenance of some

facilities, not all by any means. But statements have been made

publicly since the bill was introduced that the revenue derived

from the existing pay toilets is used as a means of paying for

the upkeep of the facilities. I am sure the Minister will keep

a very careful check on this. I think it is just one of the

possible dangers. But, apart from that, I see nothing but good

from this bill, and we strongly support it.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, nobody has wondered whether this

bill was really constitutional. In reading the BNA Act,

section

92(16), it says that the occlusive powers of the provincial

legislatures are generally all matters of a merely local or

private nature in the province. So I am sure that this….

MR. WALLACE: Well, what's more private than this?

MR. ROLSTON: Nothing. Nothing could be more private. Nothing

could be more comfortable and sacred than this exercise and

this part of our lives. So I am sure it is constitutional and I

am sure that the MOT in the airports — I find it an especially

annoying place, the Vancouver International Airport — will see

their way to see that the federal toilets apply to Bill 90. 1

think that this is a very small but practical step.

It's not just a coincidence that it's International Women's

Year. The only two letters I received were from women in my

riding who commended the legislation and felt that this really

was a small step forward.

I suppose some of us are too cheap to actually spend a dime. I

remember several times just waiting until someone came out. Sometimes

when it's a dime, we will wait to see if we can find a parking space

for our car where there is still some time left, or whether there is

somebody coming out of the toilet chamber, and we can slip back in.

This, I think, may be a majority movement bill, as the

Attorney-General says, where everybody can stand up and support

it. I think it should be commended.

I certainly appreciate the preliminary work that my

colleague from Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) did in initially

promoting it, and commend her. I assume it will be passed in

second reading by you all.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wish to say that we, too, support

this bill. It is an important measure in the elimination of

discrimination in British Columbia. The honourable gentleman

who sells the pay toilets was a little mistaken in his comments

in the paper this morning. It wasn't the Watergate scandal that

caused this bill — it was the water closet scandal that caused

it. I am very happy that the Member for Vancouver South can now

end her picket of the downtown bus depot in Vancouver.

I think we only have to go a little further with this bill

and make sure that we start encouraging, whether by legislation

or something else, the provision of facilities in major

downtown areas, in communities and in major centres, which so

far seem very reluctant to provide those facilities.

There have been a lot of strange jokes about this bill, but

it is a serious bill. The only thing I would like to say to the

Minister is that we also need to end that discrimination that

he talked about yesterday with regard to the extra costs for

toilet facilities on the Princess Marguerite. The Minister

attempted to get out from under that one by saying that it was

because she crossed the international border, the 49th

parallel. I would just ask the Minister whether or not everyone

on board will get a refund if they take

[ Page 2902 ]

advantage of those facilities before we hit the

49th

parallel.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly support this bill.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Behind every Watergate

there is a mill house. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the Member

for Vancouver South for her ideas in this matter. I want to

thank the rest of the House for their support.

I wasn't at all surprised this morning when I noticed the

comments from the president of the corporation down in the

States that provides these facilities, these locks that seem to

always work.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that maybe there has been some good

come out of pay toilets. I learned from one of my colleagues

that he learned to dance standing in front of a toilet door

with only eight cents in his pocket. But other than that very

small good that has come out of this area, none that I can see

presents itself.

I alluded to the deterioration of standards earlier.

As far as the provision of facilities, let us just think

about that for a second. All the small restaurants, the

mom-and-pop restaurants, the little hamburger stands and so on,

have to provide facilities, and they provide free and clean

facilities in most instances. Service stations — free and clean

facilities. Small businesses are expected to. But somehow or

another over the years in big businesses, major hotels, the

airport terminals, and the like, it has been anticipated that

you will have to pay. But you don't have to pay at the small

restaurant, et cetera. So there has been a discriminatory

aspect to the whole question.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move second reading of this

bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I won't ask for a division,

despite the fact that my colleague felt that he had heard a

no.

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot hear him if he is not in his seat.

Bill 90, Free Public Toilets Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 98,

Hospital Insurance Amendment Act.

HOSPITAL INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 98 makes some changes to

the Hospital Insurance Act. There are a number of amendments here and I

will just very quickly go through those amendments so that they are

understood.

In the first place, the definition of beneficiary or

qualified person needs updating because it currently refers to

premium payments which ceased to be made in April, 1954. This

change ties in with another

section of the bill which also

dealt with premium payments.

The bill goes on to delete the "outpatient clinic" term.

That was put into the Act many, many years ago. It is being

replaced by "diagnostic and treatment centre," the term

that we have been using for a number of years. 'We wanted to

get one term to describe one situation.

You will notice that in the past in hospitals, for instance,

you call the diagnostic treatment centre aspect the outpatient

clinic. But in a local health centre you call it a diagnostic

and treatment centre. We want the terms to be the same because

they represent the same thing. So that's just clearing that

up.

Definitions of "family" and "head of family" are being

deleted because they are no longer needed in the Act, Mr.

Speaker. Generally speaking, a person's eligibility is

individually determined on his or her residence in the

province. For instance, if a man's wife and children move to

British Columbia six months after he does, they have to undergo

the standard waiting period and therefore will not become

eligible in B.C. until six months after the man does.

If a family moves to B.C. from another province, the other

provincial plan will continue to cover the wife and children as

long as they live there and during the waiting period in

B.C.

Also the definition of "premium" is being deleted for

reasons that I have set out already. There is no premium any

longer, and hasn't been for many years in hospital

insurance.

Then, Mr. Speaker, in

section 2 of this bill we are also

making changes. The words that we are adding here to

section 6

are necessary to make it clear that the regulations may

authorize the Minister to define different categories of

outpatient care, to specify the types of treatment or

diagnostic services that are provided.

This is important in the regulations dealing with outpatient

benefits, distinguishing between the different outpatient services. For

instance, there is psychiatric care; there is outpatient rehabilitation

care. It is necessary to permit a large hospital to provide a wider

range of services than those authorized for a small hospital which is

not as well equipped and which doesn't have as wide a range of medical

specialists on its medical staff. So, really, what we are doing here is

giving an opportunity to

[ Page 2903 ]

distinguish between different services.

The bill goes on, Mr. Speaker, to deal with premium payments

by the Minister of Finance on behalf of B.C. residents. Now

that's being repealed. That was left in a way as a gimmick. It

was introduced in 1954 when the requirements for the payment of

premiums by individuals was discontinued in B.C., the reason

being that in the mid-'50s a person could claim income tax

exemption in respect of large hospital bills paid on his behalf

by a hospital plan. As long as he was paying a premium on such

payments this payment was made and he got income tax relief.

Therefore

section 7 in the old Act was there to maintain that

fiction so that the premiums were being paid on behalf of the

residents of B.C. so that they could, if they were

hospitalized, send those hospital bills in on their income tax.

But that no longer is the case because the type of income tax

exemption was cancelled by the federal government, and that

happened at the time of cost-sharing with the

federal-provincial hospital insurance agreement.

The bill goes on, Mr. Speaker, to enact in place of the old

section 7 a new

section 7. I can describe it by saying that it

sometimes happens that a brother or a sister of a patient who

is donating a vital organ, such as a kidney, is not a B.C.

resident. In such cases it is deemed necessary and advisable to

be able to pay the donor's hospital costs for the removal of

the vital organ. There are relatively few cases in B.C., but it

is not deemed equitable that the patient or the donor should

have to pay the donor's hospital costs.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other sections, purely

housekeeping sections in this bill. There is a new clause that

is being added to make it clear that the provincial

government's share of debt costs, which is required under the

Regional Hospital Districts Act, should be paid under the

Hospital Insurance Act.

There is also a new clause being inserted to make it clear

that the per diem remuneration of travelling expenses for

members of the medical appeal board, established under the

Hospital Act, can be paid under the Hospital Insurance Act.

Remember the other day we described some changes that we were

bringing about in the Hospital Act to sort of update that

medical appeal board, and here we are providing for the funding

of that board.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this bill is an excellent piece

of housekeeping legislation to keep our statutes in line with

contemporary situations, and I therefore move second

reading.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I would agree that there are obviously many

housekeeping elements in the bill, and there are only two aspects I

would just like to comment on.

In defining categories of outpatient care and specifying

what services will be provided, I wonder if the Minister could

explain to what degree — and maybe I'm anticipating events in

September — this amendment is intended to help in this whole

business of getting more federal cost-sharing for services

outside the strict confines of the hospital building.

I can recall a few years ago when the words "outpatient

services" were just not acceptable to the federal government in

terms of being justified in cost-sharing. So in typical

fashion, by just changing the wording without changing the

intent, we started what was called "day-care surgery,"

which to all intents and purposes is an out-patient service.

The patient comes in in the morning, has the operation and goes

home in the afternoon. But the federal government took the very

rigid position that they would not share the cost of outpatient

services, so instead of calling it out-patient services we had

to call it something else.

This is the absolute farce of federal-provincial politics so

much of the time. You achieve the same goal and the same

intent, but you sometimes have to use different words or play

games or bring it under the Canada Assistance Act, or under

another Minister. You have to fiddle around, when in point of

fact the end result turns out to be the same. In my view, the

federal government should indeed be doing much more. I just

wonder if this particular amendment will help in the

negotiations in September by making

definitions in such a way

that they're acceptable to the federal people.

The only other comment I would make is in relation to the

organ transplant situation. The Minister quite rightly says

that there aren't that many transplants in British Columbia at

the present time. But I know that it's a tremendous realm in

the future. The government and the former government also

should take credit for at least having become involved in

legislation to cover the whole field of tissue transplants. I'm

rather pleased that the government is continuing to become

aware of the fact, while it's not a big segment of the Health

Minister's responsibilities at the moment, that the whole field

of organ transplant in the future is going to be both a benefit

and a real problem to any Health Minister. The costs are going

to be just fantastic. Nevertheless it's like every other

advance in science or technology or medicine. We surely

shouldn't deny people the human benefits simply because we have

difficulty either in the financing or the administering.

It only makes sense that if a donor of a kidney is outside

the province and giving life or sustaining life for someone

else, twin, relative or otherwise…that they shouldn't be

penalized by donating that kidney. Of course, it goes without

saying that if the kidney transplant is successful, then the

department is spared

[ Page 2904 ]

the continuing cost of dialysis for the next 10 or

20 years

or whatever.

So this bill is a little more than housekeeping. There are

at least two excellent principles in the bill, and I support it

strongly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear those

words from the Member for Oak Bay. I certainly recognize the

fact that this has been going on for a long, long time. I think

it's unfortunate. By this I meant his whole question of

definition — change of definition in order to attract more or

sharing, or change the definition in order to obviate the

necessity of providing a service. That's the other side of the

coin.

The actual defining of the outpatient care, however, was not

to move in on the feds in any way. We want them to accept a new

principle in this regard. The new principle that we want them

to accept is the fact that outpatient care, now called

diagnostic and treatment, out of the hospital or in the

hospital on a day-care basis should be part of the whole

formula. We also feel that we should go a lot further than

that, as you know, including home care.

Really what we're doing here is just to more clearly define

so that people can understand the relationship of what was

formerly outpatient care, so that the community programmes

match the hospital programmes and we know that the same thing

is being done. But then, of course, we're breaking it down to

some extent in that we're defining some of their particulars in

these areas such as, for instance, outpatient rehabilitative

care. That clearly defines what's happening under that

programme. That would most likely be occupational therapy or

physiotherapy or something along that line — where, on the

other hand, outpatient psychiatric service again is clearly

defined.

So, Mr. Speaker, the other area with respect to tissue

transplant: I must say that we are certainly backing that

service in every way we can. But I do agree with the Member for

Oak Bay in that we're dealing here with the last-dollar

syndrome to be sure.

For instance, you have to make up your mind, thinking in

terms of a heart transplant or other tissue transplant that

might be very, very costly. It might very well be anywhere from

$40,000 to $100,000. You have to think in terms of how many

other lives can be saved if, in fact, that kind of work is not

done. These kinds of decisions are going to have to be made in

the future very, very carefully. Also, we have to think in

terms of a great deal more emphasis on prevention.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading

of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 98, Hospital Insurance Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

permit debate in Committee of Supply for this sitting.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 126: Minister's office: $150,833 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We can't pass this vote

that quickly. There are lots of questions to be asked. The

unexpected estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) have appeared.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Mon ami, vous vous souvenez que je parle le

francais. Vous parlez seulement que l'anglais aujourd'hui.

During the estimates of the Department of Housing, Mr.

Chairman, I asked some questions of the Minister. At the time

his last response to me was that I should look to the Minister

of Lands for the reply — you know, during the estimates of the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). It had to do with the

water system at Burns Lake, where in the community they have a

large, government-funded forestry complex coming on stream.

There is apparently a unique situation developing at Burns Lake

relative to a subsidy of the water system, unique in the fact

that this kind of subsidy is not available to other communities

in the Province of British Columbia.

In correspondence between Mr. Chatterton and Mr. Begg, the

Deputy Minister of Housing, in March — a copy went to your

department through Mr. Pearson — the Department of Housing was

suggesting that there was a required subsidy of between

$300,000 and $350,000 in that community, not necessarily

attributable to the on-site or off-site provision of services

to a trailer pad in the housing complex the Department of

Housing is establishing in that community. There's been a bit

of talk in this correspondence dealing with the possibility of

the

[ Page 2905 ]

Department of Lands purchasing land to justify this unique

form of subsidy for a municipality, which is apparently not

available to other municipalities.

I am wondering whether the Minister could tell me whether

internally within the confines of his department there has been

this kind of — not shell game exactly — manipulation to ensure

that a subsidy is made available to that municipality because

of additional water system costs. I doubt very much if the

money's been given directly to the municipality of Burns Lake,

but could the Minister tell me whether there has been some kind

of financial output from his department which he might be

reluctant to call a subsidy but which in fact is a subsidy to a

municipality which appears to be not available to any other

municipality in the province?

It appears that you have to have a government-oriented

forestry complex underway before you can get this kind of

assistance from a government department in the form of an

indirect subsidy. I wonder if the Minister would tell me if

there has been any financial contribution from the Department

of Lands, or the Department of Forests, or the Department of

Water Resources, either to the municipality of Burns Lake, or

whether there has been some kind of financial arrangements

between your department and the Department of Housing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, of course we are very

proud of the government participation in the Babine Forest

Products enterprise.

MR. CHABOT: What about Rim? Are you proud of Rim?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's unprecedented in the history of

this province, having a minority equity through a corporation

that the government owns now 82 per cent of and 8 per cent

equity with the Indian and non-status people of that region.

It's unprecedented in terms of new employment for local people

with new industrial development.

Of course there has been full co-operation with the village

council at Burns Lake on a considerable scale. There's the

community development organization for the Indian people;

there's the native development corporation, which is a great

success and which is continuing its own entrepreneurial

activities in related native enterprises in the region. It's a

great success, unique, and something that could have been done

22 years ago but for the lack for foresight of a former

government.

Insofar as the community is concerned, of course there are unique

growth problems where this kind of great activity in the industrial

sector is taking place. So there have been co-operative arrangements

with the Ministry of Housing and with the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. We have been involved in land assembly projects in the Burns

Lake area jointly with these two departments. There has been aid with

respect to water utilities in that area in relation to those land

assembly projects.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no, no. Beyond that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That seems to me to be eminently

reasonable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister conveniently avoided

the questions that I put to him. He went on to relate to us the

great success story of Babine Forest Products. I am not

suggesting that it won't be because the government has the

economic clout and ability to manipulate stumpage costs, et

cetera, in that part of the world to the detriment of many of

the other sawmills in the area. We remember full well what

happened to Rim Forest Products and the kind of punitive

stumpage rates that the government imposed on them

vis-à-vis what they were allowing stumpage for their own

corporation, the 79 per cent-owned corporation of Can-Cel.

The Minister talked about co-operative arrangements; he

talked about the additional costs related to the

government-oriented land development up there. But I'm talking

about additional water system financial aid beyond the on-site

off-site additional costs that were generated by the

development in that community. Maybe I should read the letter

to the Minister regarding the Burns Lake water system. It reads

as such, dated March 12, 1975:

"Hon. Lorne Nicolson had indicated to me" — this is

George

Chatterton, the associate Deputy Minister writing — "that there

were some funds available in the estimates of the Department of

Lands for land services. These funds must be used before the

end of the fiscal year. Normally the funds are available,

providing the invoices are submitted before the end of

April.

"In contacting Mr. Norman Pearson, Associate Deputy

Minister

of Lands, it appears that the proposal is that of the

Department of Lands who have purchased some of the lots in the

existing subdivision which we have already serviced."

Has the Department of Lands purchased any of those lots that

were already serviced by the Department of Housing?

"In effect The Department of Lands is reimbursed costs

for

our costs for servicing. In turn, these lots will be given to

the Department of Lands, which presumably they would dispose of

by way of 99-year cash leases. The funds we would receive would

be used by the Department of Housing to subsidize the water

system of the Village of Burns Lake. The

[ Page 2906 ]

required subsidy is reported to be in the order of $300,000

to $350,000."

The Minister of Housing suggested that there had been no

subsidy. There had been normal costs of servicing the lands in

Burns Lake — the on-site off-site costs of servicing. In

relationship to the subsidy which is mentioned in this

memorandum from the Department of Housing, the Minister

suggested that I talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources.

I want to know whether there has been a precedent

established here, whether there is a new, on-going programme

for assistance to municipalities in this province. Or is the

programme a unique one to the community of Burns Lake because

the government has equity in a forestry complex in that

community? It's a really simple question. We want to know

whether there's going to be fairness of distribution of

taxpayers' dollars in this province or is the largess only

going to be spread to the communities that have a

government-oriented, government-dominated forestry complex

within their confines?

He goes on:

"It is my view that it is not the function of the

Department

of Housing to subsidize water systems in any municipality." I

agree with that. "We would carry the normal off-site costs that

could be attributable to our own development."

I don't think the Minister was listening to that particular

paragraph or that particular sentence. That sentence reads

again, Mr. Chairman — it's the Department of Housing speaking

now:

"We would carry the normal off-site costs that could

attributable to our own development and we would be quite

prepared to do this for our proposed housing subdivision and

mobile home park at Burns Lake. As a matter of expediency it

might be possible for the Department of Housing to advance

these funds on an interim basis. But I believe some other

agency of government must provide the subsidy for the village

water system."

They're picking up the off-site, on-site costs of servicing

that land, be it for the trailer pads, for the housing complex,

state-owned lots or anything else of that description.

AN HON. MEMBER: Apartments, too.

MR. CHABOT: State-owned apartments, the Minister says.

"Mr. Pearson did indicate to me that the Department of

Lands might be prepared to finance part of the off-site services for a

proposed development in Burns Lake. The Department of Lands would have

to receive a number of lots in proportion to their financial

contribution."

Now they have already suggested that they are prepared to

meet the additional costs on the off-site.

Has the Minister made any financial contribution to the

community of Burns Lake beyond the normal financial

responsibilities of servicing a new subdivision, be it on-site

or off-site, and, if so, to what extent? Has the Department of

Lands purchased from the Department of Housing any lots or

trailer pads for which the funds might have been turned over to

the municipality or turned over to face up to the additional

costs of that municipality, which is apparently not available

to other non-government oriented forestry complex

communities?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. The

government is looking at similar situations where there are

non-government entities, or non-equity entities, in terms of

government involvement. Of course, as the Hon. Member knows,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), in terms

of his historic work in sharing gas revenues with the

municipalities of British Columbia, is looking at aid

programmes with respect to water distribution systems.

MR. CHABOT: Just one short additional question. The Minister

has said: "Yes, there has been a subsidy to the community of

Burns Lake."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Contribution.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, he wants to call it a contribution.

Contribution is all right with me. The Minister wants to play

around with words. It's a subsidy, according to the Department

of Housing.

HON. Mr. LAUK: What's wrong with that?

MR. CHABOT: What's wrong with that? The Minister of Economic

Development, who with his government is basically responsible

for the closing down of Dominion Bridge — and 350 jobs are lost

in British Columbia…. Now I am not suggesting that there is

anything wrong with a subsidy for a water system within the

community of Burns Lake. But I want to see equity and fair

distribution of the tax dollars within this province, I don't

want to see preferential treatment to a community in which the

government has the forestry investment complex. I want to see

every other community in this province entitled to the same

kind of contribution on the per capita basis that was given to

the community of Burns Lake.

Now the Minister has suggested that there is going to be

assistance in the future. Is there going to be legislation

regarding financial assistance for water

[ Page 2907 ]

systems in this province? The Minister said there is. Is

there going to be legislation dealing with that in this

session? Or is this a one-shot subsidy for the community of

Burns Lake which is not available to the other communities? Now

will the Minister tell me, once and for all, what was your

contribution or your subsidy? What was the total amount of the

subsidy to the community of Burns Lake? Oh, the Minister has

amnesia, selective amnesia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no, settle down your seagull and we

will discuss the matter. Yes, there were funds within our

department…

MR. CHABOT: How much?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: …that had not been used with respect

to other land development projects that we could handle under

the vote. So we worked with the other departments. Shocking! I

guess it never happened in Social Credit days. Maybe the

Minister of Lands never used to co-operate. There never was a

Minister of Housing under your administration. So there is co-operation

with the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHABOT: State-owned housing! State-owned!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am sure that the people who will be

moving into Burns Lake when this major industrial complex moves

ahead, again ahead of schedule, will be pleased that there is

such involvement by government as working in terms of

developing trailer courts and seeing to it that there are

subdivisions and seeing to it that there are utilities and

services and seeing to it that there is rental accommodation

and facilities in the town. In the old days your governments

left it all up to the big companies, with no involvement of the

local village and the local elected people, no involvement of a

housing administration at the provincial level. Everything was

a company-town orientation. We have changed that. If that's

what you stand for and if that's what you are asking for, then

get your seagull up and try and sell it around the

province.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister gets all heated up

over nothing, really. He talks about company-oriented towns.

What do you think you're going to have in Burns Lake? A

government-oriented and a great government-dominated community,

that's what it is. You are going to have state-owned

apartments, state-owned trailer parks….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Are you against it?

MR. CHABOT: Well, certainly I am against it. I am against the

state owning all the land.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Do you want to debate in Burns Lake?

MR. CHABOT: What difference is there between a company-dominated town and a government-dominated community, such as

you have in Burns Lake?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ask the mayor about it.

MR. CHABOT: State-owned housing.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: People — that's where my philosophy and yours

differs. I believe in the right of the individual to own his

own home and the land it sits on as well. You don't Mr.

Minister. That Minister has the gall to say that all their

programmes are ahead of schedule. Look at the railcar

manufacturing plant in Squamish.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was ahead of schedule.

MR. CHABOT: About 15 months behind.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was ahead of schedule.

MR. CHABOT: It was ahead of the mixed up Minister over there

who should resign from the board. That's for sure.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on.

MR. CHABOT: It was supposed to open January 1, 1974. It

rolled out its first car on May 27, 1975, at an additional cost

of 60 per cent to the taxpayers of this province. Some progress

in Squamish! Some ahead of

schedule in that community, I'll

tell you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to vote 126?

MR. CHABOT: I'm just making a parallel to the Minister

suggesting that everything the government undertakes is ahead

of schedule, when I know full well that it is not.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Would you ask the

Minister to return to his own desk?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point is well taken

by the Member for North Peace River. I would ask the Hon.

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to restrain

himself and if he wishes to speak, to speak from his own

seat.

[ Page 2908 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members allow the Member for

Columbia River to continue with his remarks?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

bringing a little bit of order and decorum to this House.

The Minister recently said, yes, there is a financial

contribution, a subsidy to the community of Burns Lake. Yes,

there has been a….

Now I think I have the right to ask the Minister — not 67

times necessarily — but as an elected representative, the

watchdog of the taxpayers' dollars, I have a right to find out

just what kind of contribution has been made by that department

to the community of Burns Lake, relative to the additional

costs imposed on that community because of a forestry complex

being established in that community.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) even told me to

ask the Minister of Lands. "He has the answer." I'm asking you,

Mr. Minister, what is the answer? How much of a subsidy have

you given to the community of Burns Lake, and which you are

denying to other communities in this province?

Could the Minister tell me, very simply? I must have the

answer. The Minister of Housing, from his statements, I

understand he said: "Ask the Minister of Lands. He has the

answers." Now I want to know what kind of a subsidy was given

to the community of Burns Lake, regarding its water system,

that is not available to other communities in this province. If

it was given to the community of Burns Lake, will there be a

per capita allocation on the same basis to other municipalities

of this province?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated,

there was funding provided by the Depar