1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

301 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. McClelland — 301

Mr. Speaker — 301

Inaccuracy of Ministerial statements.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 301

Mr. Speaker — 302

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Public Trustee Act (Bill 34). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 302

Oral questions

ICBC negotiations with auto-body shops. Mr. Curtis — 303

ICBC rates for government vehicles. Mr. Bennett — 303

Remuneration to Paul Sabatino. Mr. McGeer — 303

Minister's advice to constituents re purchase of insurance from MVB. Mr.

Phillips — 303

Changes in ICBC rates. Mrs. Jordan — 304

Closure of Squamish Highway. Mr. L.A. Williams — 304

Amalgamation of greater Victoria municipalities.

Mr. Wallace — 304

Government contribution to "Save the Orpheum Fund."

Mr. Gardom — 305

Agent Sharpe's hiring to ICBC. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 305

Reimbursement to committee chairmen. Mr. Phillips — 305

Agent Sharpe's hiring to ICBC. Mr. McGeer — 306

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 306

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 306

Mr. Schroeder — 314

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 322

Mr. Calder — 326

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 336

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise

a matter of personal privilege with regard to what I consider to be a

breach of conduct by a highly paid official of a public corporation, a

Crown corporation. In the matter of Mr. Gordon Root, Vice-President of

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your point of personal privilege,

before you proceed, appears to have something to do with a matter

outside this chamber. I think before you relate this further you must

examine, I hope, whether what you're asking is to do with some matter

that has taken place in this chamber in which your rights have been any

way infringed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it has; it had to

do with something that happened in this chamber yesterday. And it has

to do with a public official with a Crown corporation of the Province

of British Columbia, who I believe is guilty of misconduct against a

Member of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Province

newspaper, in quotes related to question period in this House

yesterday, the vice-president in charge of public relations for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is quoted as calling a Member

of this assembly "a cheap, two-bit politician." I feel that there's no

cause by any member, particularly in such a highly placed position, of

a public Crown corporation to malign any elected official who is only

attempting to ensure that the public funds of this province are

expended in a correct manner, and that there are no conflicts of

interest among any member of a public body of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the very least I can ask is that the

Minister responsible demand a public apology from the vice-president of

that Crown corporation and, perhaps, because it's such a serious breach

of conduct, such a serious misconduct, that vice-president should be

asked to resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very serious breach of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, before we go on to debate the matter in any

way, I think it is the duty of the Speaker, as I understand it, to examine into

the point that is raised by any Hon. Member, and after careful scrutiny of the

point come to a determination whether it is in his view a matter of privilege

that would require the intervention of the House without further delay. That

is the purpose of the Speaker looking at the issue, because you can always put

a motion on the order paper which in due course may or may not be called at

some time in the future.

The purpose of the Speaker looking at this question is to determine

whether it's of instant priority that should require it to be

considered by the House. Naturally, when anybody raises a point of

order of this kind, or point of privilege, I would like to determine it

accurately in accordance with parliamentary rules and parliamentary

law. So I would reserve the question for study and report back to the

House as expeditiously as possible, if that will satisfy the House for

the moment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point

that did occur in this chamber, and I would like to explain the facts

of this to the House. Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of personal

privilege affecting all Members of this House. During the question

period yesterday, in response to questions by me, two Ministers of the

Crown made statements to this Legislature which are demonstrably

inaccurate. I feel that provision of inaccurate material to this House

by Ministers breaches the privileges of this House and each of its

Members. To be specific, Mr. Speaker, in response to my question, the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said — and

I apologize for the length:

Here are the facts with regard to the appointment of insurance

agents: Approximately 45 agents for one reason or another have dropped out of

Autoplan since obtaining designation last year, leaving a total of 830 private-agency

firms and their staff supplemented by Motor Vehicle Branch and government agents

personnel. While this is a relatively small attrition rate, nevertheless the

Insurance Agents Association of B.C. did express concern to the ICBC board of

directors about it. The board subsequently gave authority to Autoplan's

management, not to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, to appoint new agents,

but only if they were qualified to handle general or automobile insurance as

licensed by E.T. Cantell, Superintendent of Insurance, on the basis of his examinations.

Mr. Speaker, I took this statement to mean the decision was taken

upon recommendation of the Insurance Agents Association. This view was

confirmed when the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in answer

to a question from me said:

When on the recommendations of the Agents Association, which

said that there would not be enough of them to do the job, they came to us at

the end of the year indicating quite clearly they just couldn't handle it,

the ICBC at that time made a decision to expand the number of agents who would

[ Page 302 ]

be qualified.

Mr. Speaker, there can

be no question as to the meaning of these two statements. Both these

statements, unfortunately, are not true. This morning on CJOR, the

President of the Insurance Agents Association of British Columbia, Mr.

Jack Hamilton, was asked by Mr. Webster whether representations to

increase the number of agents had been made to ICBC by the association.

Mr. Hamilton replied: "No, we did not, none whatsoever."

I subsequently

contacted Mr. Hamilton by telephone to confirm this statement. He

confirmed it without reservation. He told me that the Agents

Association had expressed concern to ICBC that 46 agents had dropped

out because they did not think they could handle the heavy ICBC

paperwork load. But Mr. Hamilton said his association does not believe

there are too few agents and had not recommende d expanding the number of ICBC agents.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that two Ministers have made inaccurate

statements to this Legislature. I believe that unless these two

Ministers are willing to withdraw immediately those statements and

apologize to this House, they should be censured for breaching the

privileges of every Member of this House. If they are not prepared to

take that step, I propose to introduce a motion asking that a Select

Committee on Privileges be established and that this question be

referred to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think one of the rules of the House is found

at page 148 and is adopted both by the House in Ottawa and by this

assembly, as it was from the original House of Parliament. It is shown

in Beauchesne at page 148 that a Member must not impugn the accuracy of information conveyed to the House by a Minister.

If you wish to impugn the accuracy of the information supplied to

you, under the rules of the House the proper course is to put a motion

on the order paper where you state what you state to be a fact and

which the House can deal with in proper form at the proper time — and

not during question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I understand by the motion

put last year by the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), no

notice of such a motion is required. I therefore move, seconded by the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), that this

House....

MR. SPEAKER: I quite disagree with your

interpretation of the rule.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In which case, Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to

put it on the order paper, but reading the statement made by the Hon. Attorney-General,

I believe in I'm sorry I don't have the date of that exact statement,

but reading that, it was clear that that motion of his was put on without notice.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is

the type of matter that should be cleared up, as the Ministers

apparently are unwilling to apologize for inaccurate statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a motion.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There is some dispute on that, so the matter goes on the order paper if you wish to pursue it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome three mayors from a lower mainland constituency.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not question period yet. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would like to welcome that Member back to

the House, along with Mayor Tonn of Coquitlam, Mayor Campbell of Port

Coquitlam and Mayor Hall of Port Moody.

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

in the gallery a former MLA of this House, Dr. McDiarmid, who is now a

reformed character practising medicine, and we wish him a welcome to

this House.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in

the gallery today two visitors from the City of Revelstoke, Mr. Fred

Beruschi and his son-in-law, Jim Stewart. I would ask the House to join

me in welcoming them.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have with us today, Mr. Speaker, Mayor Jack Pinder of Powell River. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 34, British Columbia Public Trustee Act , introduced, read a first

[ Page 303 ]

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ICBC NEGOTIATIONS

WITH AUTO-BODY SHOPS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications in regard to ICBC: would the Minister tell

the House what progress has been made to date, or if in fact settlement

has been reached, with the majority of auto-body shops in the province,

to take effect after March 1 this year?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

I'd have to check on the current state. I told you the other day that a

further meeting had taken place, but I've had no further information.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, when are we going to get some

straightforward answers to questions put to this Minister with respect

to ICBC? Every day it's notice, notice, notice!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out to the Hon.

Members that several questions have been asked in this House that I

find are on the order paper. You have to make your mind up whether the

question is urgent and important, or not.

That is not a proper question. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is next.

MR. CURTIS: It's sheer arrogance!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, don't be stupid. I told you I would check. I've had no report since the other day.

ICBC RATES

FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications: have the provincial

government and the ICBC negotiated a rate for provincial government

vehicles?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is my understanding that they have. It's a fleet rate for the whole group. I couldn't tell you what it is.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, Mr. Minister: has the provincial

government then already paid for this insurance, as the public has been

advised to do?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't tell you that, either.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Minister, do you have any figures on how many vehicles are to be insured from the provincial government to ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All government vehicles, I understand.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How many? Who told you that?

REMUNERATION TO PAUL SABATINO

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Would the Minister tell us what will be

the remuneration for the defeated NDP candidate for Point Grey, Mr.

Paul Sabatino, in his newly appointed capacity with the Motor Transport

Carriers' Commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the Member wants to check the

order-in-council which was passed some time ago, it's whatever that

rate was; I couldn't tell you what it is. It is a per diem, and it was

set out in the order-in-council. I think it was last October.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions that relate to matters

of public record are not to be asked in question period. It is a

well-known rule.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question: could the Minister tell

us if there are any defeated NDP candidates that haven't yet been

looked after by the government? (Laughter.)

MINISTER'S ADVICE TO CONSTITUENTS

RE PURCHASE OF INSURANCE FROM MVB

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Another question has

intervened in the meantime, so I'm unable to ask my supplemental

question, so I'll go on with a question in the same vein to the

Minister of Transport and Communications and ICBC. I'd like the

Minister to tell me if it is true that he is advising NDP constituents

to buy their insurance from the Motor Vehicle Branch to save the 9 per

cent commission that has to be paid to the local private individual

agents.

MR. SPEAKER: I am still puzzled how you can ask a question at

large without being sure of the facts yourself that there is a question

there. I think this is something the House has to consider.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I was sure of the facts I

[ Page 304 ]

wouldn't ask the question! I'm asking the Minister if he has advised

these people to buy their insurance from the Motor Vehicle Branch

rather than private agents. I'm seeking information. That's the purpose

of question period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have advised many people to go see their

agent. I may have advised some to go to Motor Vehicles, but I don't

make a practice of telling people. I may have told people to go to the

Motor Vehicle Branch, but not in relation to the 9 per cent. I have

also told people to go see their agents — hundreds of them.

MR. PHILLIPS: But you haven't advised people to buy from the

Motor Vehicle Branch to save the 9 per cent commission that has to be

paid to the private agents.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I may have.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you may have.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I may have told some people, but I have

also advised hundreds of them to go see their agents. It depends on the

circumstances of the individual and the question he puts to me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm sorry. But you may have advised some to

go to the Motor Vehicle Branch to save the commission. That's just what

you said!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's just what I'm trying to clarify, if I heard it properly!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As usual, you didn't have your hearing aid turned up right.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I hope that Hansard isn't changed in the answer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I point out again the need for

the questioner to know what he is talking about when he asks a

question, so that it isn't at large and it is not, in effect,

contradicted as a statement of fact. That's what it says in Beauchesne ,

and I presume it means something.

CHANGES IN ICBC RATES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope I may have an

answer from the same Minister, the Minister of Transport and

Communications. I would ask him how many changes in rates have been

made since ICBC first made its rate structure public?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that on the order paper?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure whether it is on the order

paper or not, but I would have to take that as notice. If you've been

reading the press reports, they have all been made public.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary to the Minister: do you

anticipate any more rate changes before the March 1 deadline, and are

you going to pay interest on the overpayments made to ICBC on those 48

rate changes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't contemplate any further changes.

With regard to the question of interest, as I recollect I told someone

the other day, I will take a look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Minister of Highways have something he wishes to report back to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No! It's question period.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Maybe we could have a special question period just for ICBC.

CLOSURE OF SQUAMISH HIGHWAY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A question for the Hon. Minister of

Highways: could the Minister indicate whether or not a decision has

been made with respect to scheduling the closure of the Squamish

Highway for redecking?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): There has no decision been made so far.

AMALGAMATION OF

GREATER VICTORIA MUNICIPALITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Has the Minister of Municipal

Affairs or his staff met with elected municipal officials from

Victoria, Oak Bay and Saanich to discuss amalgamation of these three

municipalities?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We met in

the fall, but it also included Sidney, North Saanich, Central Saanich,

Langford, Colwood, View Royal and Esquimalt, discussing possibilities

of future political alignment in the areas. There has been no meeting

this year, and I guess that's about what you wanted to know.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplemental

[ Page 305 ]

question? Will the Minister state whether the

wishes of area residents will be determined by referendum or otherwise

prior to such decisions?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, there will be no referendum. When the decisions are reached, or suggestions made, there will be a vote of the people.

GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION

TO "SAVE THE ORPHEUM FUND"

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Hon. Premier if the government is

intending to contribute to "Save the Orpheum Fund?" And if so, how much?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I thank you for that question and I take it as notice.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the same question to the Minister of Finance? Maybe we'll get a more clear answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have just consulted with the

Minister of Finance, and he informs me that he'll take it as notice as

well. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You two fellows get along too well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've been sleeping together for a long time.

AGENT SHARPE'S

HIRING TO ICBC

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of

Health if he was aware that Mr. Don Sharpe's application for

accreditation as an ICBC agent had been rejected when the Minister made

representations on his behalf to the corporation?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't

particularly aware of anything other than the fact that a good

insurance agent that I'd known for 20 years came and asked me to

recommend him.

What's all this about? What a nonsensical...

Mr. Speaker, that man was a licensed insurance agent for 20 years.

And this man over here suggests that there's something bad about

recommending a man with a good reputation in the business — one

recommendation that I couldn't make for a number of people across the

floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I can't take any imputation from the question because if it were an imputation it would be out of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm serious.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to present a message....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister hold the

message. I have just been informed that there's five minutes left on

the question period and I wouldn't want the Members to be deprived of

this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As I was on my feet when I was so rudely

interrupted, may I ask the Minister of Health whether his previous

answer was, no, he was unaware that Mr. Don Sharpe had been rejected by

ICBC when he, the Minister, made representations on his behalf? Was the

Minister unaware or aware of the rejection?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes or no. Yes or no.

HON. MR. COCKE: Don't give me that "yes or no" stuff over

there. You know, I'm so fed up with that opposition and their smear

tactics, Mr. Speaker. I'll answer the question the way you ask it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, go ahead.

HON. MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is that I can't even remember whether I did or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Just a minute! We were expanding the number

and I would recommend him again and again, just like I told you

yesterday, Mr. Member, and I'll tell that man over there, or anybody

else that wants to jump up on this straw-man, phony issue.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period is only 15 minutes.

REIMBURSEMENT TO COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question

to the Provincial Secretary. In so doing I would like to refer to

order-in-council No. 523, constitution, which has to deal with special

allowances re: reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for the select

standing committees of the Legislative Assembly.

[ Page 306 ]

I understand from phoning your office, Mr. Provincial Secretary,

that part of this was a $500 reimbursement for the chairman of the

agricultural committee, sitting in between sessions. What I would like

to know is: I was under the impression that...

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...the chairmen of select standing committees were to get a $1,000 a year.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've been recognized; what's the matter?

HON. MS. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): He has it. Why is he standing?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member standing on a point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to know if this is a new policy.

HON. MR. KING: He's behind his microphone and the Speaker can't see him.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already recognized this Hon. Member. I can't have two of you being recognized at once.

I'm sorry, Hon. Members; there seems to be a question of who's

holding the floor right now. Proceed with your question, please, and

we'll recognize the Hon. Member for Point Grey following this question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did the Provincial Secretary hear my question? Would the Provincial Secretary outline to me what the policy is?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the

order-in-council refers to the Constitution Act. If the Member reads

the Constitution Act he'll find that he'll be able to satisfy himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Matters that are of public record can be studied in public record.

AGENT SHARPE'S

HIRING TO ICBC

MR. McGEER: I'll ask a different question of a different

Minister related to the subject. I'd like to ask the Minister of

Transport whether he was aware that his executive assistant had also

made representations to the ICBC on behalf of Mr. Donald Sharpe.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was not aware that he made any

recommendation to ICBC with regard to Mr. Sharpe. But I would like to

answer a question that was asked yesterday by the Member for Saanich

and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I'm sorry I couldn't answer it earlier

because it wasn't in my pinks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Was this a matter that...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have notice, yes. The question wasn't in

my pinks and I had to send down and get the question. It had to do with

whether or not ICBC was having a survey to determine approximately how

many motorists have not yet taken out their insurance for the

forthcoming insurance year. I checked this morning and the answer is no.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: The timekeeper says he's on time.

MINERAL ROYALTIES

ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Mineral Royalties Act.

Bill 31 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.

ON THE BUDGET

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

pleased and happy to rise in this debate to the budget, representing

not only the Department of Health but also the constituency of New

Westminster.

I am more than pleased in that I can stand in a House where I can be

proud to be a Member of this side of the House supporting a budget, at

long last, that's for people: no tax increases, Mr. Speaker, but

resource grants for people; elderly citizens rental grants for people;

housing for our citizens; municipal aid — and I think we can talk a

little more about that later — farmers assistance; ferries assistance;

education way up; health services improved as a result of the budget;

more beds, more services and human resources. The really big aspect of

this budget is that aspect that deals with people's problems.

[ Page 307 ]

Sometimes one wonders when one sees some of the antics in this

chamber. I was very proud to be elected to this House. Sometimes,

watching some of the tactics, you wonder whether or not it was all in

vain, until you get to review the things that have been going on since

August, 1972 — where there have been priorities, real priorities.

You know there's a bunch of newcomers over there, Mr. Speaker, that

don't really know what was happening in here. They have an idea. They

got a little of the propaganda and it sold them on a party. But, Mr.

Speaker, this isn't propaganda; this is real stuff that comes out of

this budget. So I am proud that this side of the House recognizes where

the priorities are. And we'll go on recognizing where the priorities

are despite all that carping and rather frivolous things that come even

from those beautiful Liberals from time to time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Give us one.

HON. MR. COCKE: And Ray Eddy, God love him, he was a great man.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right, he still is.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a great deal of discussion of recent days,

months and weeks about the Foulkes Report. Discussion, and I think

that's the key word, discussion, has come out of the fact that there's

been a Foulkes Report and some of the areas that the Foulkes Report

discusses. That's exactly what we wanted to happen. That's why we

called for the report, because people are more interested in health

services, are given an opportunity to broaden their knowledge of health

services — and there will be public discussion for some time to come.

Some people, certainly not many in this House, I'm sure, are

inadvisedly throwing out the baby with the bath water. They see one

particular recommendation that doesn't suit their fancy. They see one

particular area where they feel there's a little bit of doubt, so they

say: "Down with the Foulkes Report. Let's crucify Foulkes or the Health

department or somebody else" — as a result of something that's in there.

I suggest to you that the Foulkes Report, used properly, can do a

great deal for this province in not only informing but in giving us an

opportunity to really get together at the professional level and at the

community level and discuss questions of health. I think on that basis

the report is to my liking because of the fact that it is stimulating

the very kinds of things that I want to see happen in the Province of

B.C.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of reports on the delivery of

health care. Remember there was the Hall Commission report; there was

the Castonguay report; and there was the Hastings report. Each of these

reports had its own thrust and its own contribution. The Foulkes

Report, or the Report on the Health Security for British Columbians,

has provided us with a tremendous amount of important material.

Research has been done and is available to assist us in the

decision-making process. There are seven volumes of back-up material;

seven volumes of material that has come in from professionals, from

community boards, from community groups, from any number of sources —

information that can be invaluable if used properly.

Doctor Foulkes and his staff at present are assembling the

background research material. I believe that it will be a real

treasure, a storehouse of material for the future — a storehouse of

information for us on which to help us base our decisions.

Mr. Speaker, in 1948 a report was presented which finally saw the

light of day in 1952 when it was tabled in the Legislature, this was

the Elliot Report — "Health Services and Facilities in British

Columbia" it was called. That's the last report we've had on delivery

of health care in this province. Since then there have been no reports

on delivery.

I notice as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker — I'm very pleased and

proud that he is in the gallery — the author of this report, one of my

deputies, Dr. Elliot.

Let me tell you a little bit about the Elliot Report. Look at it

today and you'll find it's relatively conservative. But this report was

dubbed the "Mein Kampf"...yes, it was dubbed the "Mein Kampf" of

medicine at that time by a large

section of organized medicine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, if you were around, you would have

dubbed it that. But you weren't, maybe, so therefore it was too early

for you. But the Elliot Report or the "Mein Kampf" was a document that

saw a number of areas and gave a number of recommendations. Some of the

areas recommended for improvements were: an acceleration of

tuberculosis and venereal disease control — shades of 1974; mental

health out-patients clinics — that's developing; a division of

industrial hygiene; psychiatric facilities in general hospitals; an

expansion of certain types of medical-care insurance. That's this kind

of a report.

As a matter of fact, it was recommended, way back then that

pathology and radiology lab work be a provincial responsibility, and

get on with it. But it didn't quite happen that way.

Mr. Speaker, we must handle this new report seriously and let it

lead us to some areas of change. You'll notice we promised, and we

delivered, that the

[ Page 308 ]

report would be delivered as soon as it was read. It wasn't put in someone's safe or dealt with otherwise; it was released.

I think releasing it is in keeping with my pledge to get the people

involved in decisions — get the public involved. I say to the public:

it's your report; it's a public document. Let's get on with the job of

improving health care in the Province of B.C. Change must come. There

has to be more care and there has to be guaranteed quality care for all.

There's also another dimension that has to be very closely monitored

— we must get hold of cost escalation. There are some areas here that I

think are dealt with to some degree. But we, as people, have to discuss

ways and means of doing this. I think that around this we can do it. To

do this, in my view, there has to be a real emphasis on prevention —

and prevention is also documented.

There'll be a real look at alternatives in this department,

especially those alternatives to do with prevention. We've had a lot of

co-operation in this area. Recall last fall I announced in the House —

as a matter of fact I think I spoke about it briefly in the House —

that we had a conference at the Hyatt in Vancouver, or at least in

Richmond. That was a very successful conference. We had 300 people

there from all walks of life — doctors, nurses, teachers — more

teachers I think than any other class of people. But the recreational

people and fitness people, they were all involved, and they were really

involved. You know, if we had had room we could have had 600 or maybe

1,000 people because there was that much interest in that conference.

I was very pleased at the work that developed. We've set up Action

B.C. At the present time we are considering turning over Action B.C. —

that is the responsibility for Action B.C. — to the Provincial

Secretary's department because that way we can bring in the others. If

it's just totally health oriented and health disposed then it might

tend to alienate those other people who are so much a part of

preventive health care.

As well as that, Mr. Speaker, consulting now on medicare, we have an

interprofessional advisory committee, and that profession that is

multi-disciplinary...that committee will give us advice as to how we

can go to enhance prevention, how we go at enhancing nutrition

services, and how we go in enhancing fitness testing, fitness

prescription, et cetera.

Probably some of you know that the Premier has already been through

a programme of fitness testing. Look at him. He played rugby and

despite the fact that Old 30 spent a little time on the ground, I

understand it was one of his best games.

Interjections.

Now that I've lost my cabinet post, I can continue on. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of exciting opportunities for us if we

really want to take advantage of them. But those exciting opportunities

can only come by having the kind of co-operative effort that can only

be built up in confidence by working together with the people at the

grass roots in the community, with the professions and with those

people in the Health department and other government departments. So

we're in a process, Mr. Speaker, of looking very closely at a number of

areas.

One of the areas that's mentioned in the Foulkes Report is the whole question of the reorganization of the Health department.

We are considering the whole question of reorganization. Most of you

know how I felt about reorganization as an opposition critic; most of

you know that I have been discussing it. But just to make sure that

everybody understands what's going on, we have set up a committee. We

don't necessarily agree that you have to go out to the end of the world

to find experts. We've set up a committee under Jim Mainguy, the

Assistant Deputy in Hospital Insurance, and we have the

second-in-charge of each of the departments — that is, the four

departments of the Health Branch. We will be bringing in two or three

other people to represent the wider range of overview. This committee

will be taking a good look at how to reorganize the Health department

to provide a better service to the people of the province.

Why are we looking? Well, we feel that we have to much more closely

coordinate our activities. We do have, after all, those four separate

departments that I've named on so many occasions. But there has to be

this better coordination.

I will have doubts, however, and say very clearly that there has

been much more co-operation and coordination of late, in that during

the last year we have had regular meetings of all of the

representatives of each of the groups, at the Deputy's level and at

other levels so that we can discuss all the common concerns of

health-care delivery. Now we want to go on and we want to find ways of

serving even more efficiently — checking on overlapping service,

checking on ways of providing our community facilities and services,

and checking on ways that we can work more closely.

In the long run we wish to see to it that all health services are

working in unison and, further, that they provide back-ups. Because

there are very close relationships with other government departments,

we want to provide back-ups for other government departments such as

Human Resources, Education, Housing, et cetera. So health has a new

thrust and a new impetus under this government.

I sense, Mr. Speaker, that people approve. That's what I sense when I get out there and talk to them.

[ Page 309 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to discuss just for a moment or two the

area of hospitals. In this area we have continued the priority we set

last year. Last year, you will recall, we rescinded the silly 30 per

cent reduction in government responsibility for wage increases. That

sort of balanced the books; it gave hospitals a chance to actually

budget for a change, and now we can get on with the serious business of

delivering hospital care. I believe, after travelling around the

province as I did, that that was probably one of the best moves we made

last year as far as hospitals were concerned.

This year another serious situation developed out of the agreement.

Do you remember the agreement that was imposed on the hospital

employees union and the B.C. Hospital Association by the late,

lamented, infamous mediation commission? That mediation commission

imposed an agreement which said that anomalies — note that — could be

negotiated during the life of the contract.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what's an anomaly? The anomaly chosen was

male-female wage disparity — an excellent choice, but a tough one to

deal with during the life of the contract. So what happens? Chaos.

So the disparities were growing between the hospitals after the

grievance committees and the arbitration committees met from place to

place; then, compounding the chaos, we got human rights complaints.

They began to grow and grow. So finally I decided to help stave off

complete chaos and so I helped to bring about an across-the-board

reasonable increase for females, which we did, with the promise that

parity would be reached within reasonable time and with studies of job

evaluation procedures. Now, that will become a part of their

negotiations in the future, and I understand that this year it was very

much a part of their negotiations. So that was the reason that we went

that course. I just wanted to make that clear.

The first step we made at that time cost $6 million of hospital

insurance money that was paid to hospitals, but at least we were able

then to certainly establish the thrust towards wage parity in the

male-female situation. Surely, if nothing else, this government

represents fair play and we had to go along with that and we were glad

to.

Well, Mr. Speaker, presently negotiations of the BCHA and the RNABC

are on rocky ground, I understand today from a press report. All I can

say as Minister is that I hope this rocky ground will disappear and

that the problems will resolve themselves in the near future.

I understand also that HEU (the Hospital Employees Union) and the

BCHA have settled their negotiations. I'm not too sure about PARI, the

residents' and interns' group. There is some question, I understand.

During the 1973 fall session we passed the Medical Centre of British Columbia

Act. A board was appointed on November 8, 1973. Planning is proceeding at a

rapid pace. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the job that the people that were

appointed to that board and the people that they have appointed to their task

committees have done.

The Shaughnessy site is to be used as a base for this centre. But

don't forget that the centre is not just for the Shaughnessy site; the

centre is Vancouver General, G.F. Strong and all of the other

facilities that I talked about last fall. But I think that they're

going along very, very well and I believe that by the time Jack

Christensen gets the reports together we'll be in good shape, because I

find that our negotiating teams are very close now to resolving the

major issue with the federal government, and that's the takeover of

Shaughnessy.

One of the stumbling blocks, as some of you know, was the Burnaby

situation — that 198 acres in Burnaby that Burnaby felt should be given

to them for the same price that they sold it for in 1945 or whenever it

was. Well, I got a petition this morning, oddly enough, from Alderman

Stusiak from Burnaby, and it indicated that we'd better help

co-operate. Well, we did; we co-operated to the nth degree in that we

told Ottawa to take the Burnaby deal out of the question and deal

directly with Ottawa. And that's precisely what we did. This is what

Burnaby asked us to do and that's precisely what we did.

So the only asset of the George Darby centre that we're negotiating

for is the actual physical grounds that the George Darby centre sits on

— not the rest of the 198 acres. So I wonder if Alderman Stusiak might

get his mailing address straightened around and send this to Ottawa,

because he's dealing directly with them. So is the Burnaby city

council. This is on their behalf so that's all I wanted to say. But I

thought since I got this petition this morning with 1,000 names on it

that I'd just like to make that point clear.

Just to deal with hospitals a little bit longer, I'd like to suggest

that in 1973 — that's fiscal '73 — payments to hospitals were at a

record level. In the current fiscal year, ending March 31, 1974, we

spent an estimated $268 million on behalf of hospitalized residents of

the province. In the same year we spent $37,046,159 on hospital

construction either underway or complete. So that will increase our

acute bed numbers by 875 and add 526 extended care.

For any of you that think that to put a new bed on line it doesn't

cost money, listen to this. The new service requires an increase of $24

million — not one shot, but each year. That's operating costs. So it

does cost, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace'

s) real concern

over chronic care. He discusses the question intelligently. Mr.

Speaker, let me say to the Member for Oak Bay that it takes time and it

takes local planning as well. You'll notice that there

[ Page 310 ]

are some areas where there's a great deal of chronic care, particularly in extended care — in other areas, very little.

The impetus has to come, we believe, from local initiative.

Therefore, we would be arbitrary if we went over people's heads and

suggested: "No, you don't need that; you need this." You know, one

place where you have to do that is where it's leaning so hard in one

direction, but we hope that we can get areas, districts and so on to go

along in the direction of keeping balanced services. I think in that

regard we're going at a great rate.

Let me give you an example, however. In the Capital Regional

District, there's been real pressure over the last number of years for

extended-care beds. There's been a feeling here that there are a lot of

chronically ill people. I think this is probably right, so it has been

a priority. Therefore, in the last few weeks, as you know, we purchased

our second 75-bed private hospital and we've added another 75 beds,

which means 225 altogether — 75 beds in Saanich. This brings our count

in the Capital Regional District to 861 extended-care beds in this

region.

So, Mr. Speaker, according to the forecast, we need exactly 860-odd

beds for extended care. This will give us an idea; if we don't meet our

needs then we know that our forecasters are forecasting too low. If we

more than meet our needs, we know that our forecasters are forecasting

too high. But in any event, it certainly will give us an idea as to

whether or not the kinds of forecasts we're doing are correct.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as at February 1, 1974, we had 3,184

extended-care beds, compared to 2,773 at the same date last year.

That's an increase of 400. Mr. Speaker, we have another 1,324

extended-care beds either under construction or in various stages of

planning at the present time. Last year, we provided in extended care

over one million days of patient care in extended care — over one

million days. That was an increase — listen to this — an increase of

222,000 patient days over 1972. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest and I

contend very strongly that we're not sitting around fiddling; we're

going full out.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we were dealing with some

intermediate-care pilot projects. Well, the responsibility for those

three intermediate-care facilities has been turned over to BCHIS. We

felt that it was the wrong place to have it in Health Services, by

virtue of the fact that Health Services deals with community work and

BCHIS on the other hand is far more involved in hospitals.

Now these facilities are in Vancouver, Burnaby and Kamloops, and it

will create a number of beds for chronically ill; not extended care —

intermediate care, the next level down — those who require nursing, but

not those who are totally bedridden. BCHIS will manage these units

until they're turned over to the communities.

They're setting up the screening process very similar to the

extended-care screening procedure, so I think that it's going to be a

good opportunity for us to really assess the way to go. Sometimes

you're dealing in the dark. Reading over the old standing committee's

work last year and sort of putting some of the figures that came out of

that work up against some new work that we're doing and actual pilot

projects indicates that we have a fair amount to know and a fair amount

to learn about this whole question of delivering chronic care.

The one thing I've always said is that I don't think that you could

be really successful in dealing with intermediate care until such time

as you have a good, global, home-care situation in the province. We're

working on that at the same time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one other area in hospitals: you'll be interested

to know that open-heart surgery is no longer a problem. A resident no

longer needs to wait months to be treated. With the expansion of St.

Paul's last year and VGH and the new facilities at the Royal Jubilee

that have just come on stream, we have met the demand.

Mr. Speaker, recently we put together a cancer-control task

committee. That cancer-control task committee is charged with the

responsibility to establish and to advise on the formation of the B.C.

Cancer Control Agency. This is something new. This agency will be

responsible to administer a province-wide cancer-control programme.

It's clear that we need to provide facilities and services that are

necessary to prevent, detect and to treat all forms of cancer as

effectively as modern knowledge, skill and technology makes possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dread disease. We feel that only such an

agency can deal with it — with the people of this province backing them

up.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What about money for research?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the money for research will come

out of this. The money for research, however, will go more toward the

academic areas; although, you'll be interested to know that we're

taking a real good look now at new research that's come out on cancer

screening. One of the things that we have to be very careful of is this

holus-bolus tendency to go down the research alley when a lot of the

research is done, if we'll just get around the country and around the

world looking for new and better ways of handling the situation.

Research is being made available in this very important area and we're

going to be doing some work ourselves right within the agency.

Mr. Speaker, again dealing with hospitals for a moment or two, the

summer student programme was a real success. One of the things that I

was very

[ Page 311 ]

pleased to see, not only in the hospitals, but in Health Services —

I'll be talking about that in a minute — was that the summer student

programme in the hospitals employed 1,000 kids — employed 1,000

students. Their wages totalled $1,300,000. But do you know what it did,

even more importantly? It put 1,000 young people in very close touch

with health care. It might have helped them shape new careers as a

result of getting closer to the delivery of health care. I feel that

that was a very worthwhile programme and, Mr. Speaker, I look forward

to it again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate this. I've said it before and I'll say it

again. I was gratified with the relationship that the department has

with the hospitals now. I'm specially delighted with the volunteer

input that's going on out there: people working selflessly for others

in their communities, doing work gratuitously, but work that's so

important for themselves, their loved ones, their friends and their

whole community. It's nice to visit with those kind of people because

they have such refreshing attitudes. As long as we have that kind of

volunteer effort out there, I'm sure prepared to co-operate.

Well, Mr. Speaker, another area is mental health. We have a mental

health programme that I think is advancing significantly, and

particularly significantly in 1973. In the metropolitan area of

Vancouver, of greater Vancouver, the Metropolitan Board of Health of

greater Vancouver assumed the responsibility to administer the

Vancouver Mental Health Project.

Now the Vancouver Mental Health Project may not sound very important

to some of you, but wait till I get to the figures on Riverview and

some of the other areas of mental health. Then you might begin to

realize just what's happening out there.

It's a community project. This is a project to support chronically

disabled mentally ill people. During the year we've agreed to establish

seven community-care teams in that area. These teams are basically 9 to

10 professional mental health people right out in the community, and

they're supporting those chronically mentally ill people. There will be

new dimensions that will be tagged on, but at the present time it's

working very well and heading in a very much better direction as far as

mental-health care. The purpose is to provide community care as opposed

to institutional care.

At the same time we have three teams in Burnaby backed by a 25-bed

in-patient facility; again, getting it out into the community.

In the Fraser Valley we have a variation where the Riverview

psychiatrists are deployed to the local health centres to augment the

services.

There are the three kinds of services. They're all

community-centred, community-based, and we hope they will do the job

in keeping the institutionalization down to a low.

Our objective, I say again, is, where possible, to provide support

and treatment at the local level. What, Mr. Speaker, could be less

alienating than that?

Our occupancy at the end of the year at Riverview was 2 002. That

shows a drop of some 240. At the end of 1972 at the same time there

were 2,240. We're in the direction and we have to keep going in that

direction, but you can only do it through the community.

In the same year, last year, we added five mental-health centres. We

now have a total of 30, and these are community centres. Just think

about this; just take us back 10 or 15 or 20 years. What happened to a

mentally-ill person in an institution? During this year, we admitted

8,000 to the community centres.

So, Mr. Speaker, we feel this is the dynamic direction: get it away from the institutions.

As a matter of fact, many of the hospitals are really co-operating

with us and putting in their small psychiatric ward. What occurs then

is that you have the support service for the acutely ill for the short

time they need it and then you can get them back into the community

setting where they have the community support.

We also have boarding home programmes. Last year we had 200 boarding

homes and they looked after 1,456 persons under Mental Health Branch

supervision. Two hundred homes; 1,456, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace). Under health services we're full speed ahead. I know

everybody recognizes the seriousness of a diphtheria outbreak. It's not

like the old days when there was a diphtheria outbreak, but it's

certainly a serious enough situation that people should be sure they

have their booster shots and so on. So we're going full speed ahead on

diphtheria immunization. Last year, when the present outbreak first

appeared, we asked people to make sure their immunization and

reinforcing immunization were up-to-date.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): What about the programme for the schools?

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. COCKE: The programme for the schools has been

ongoing. That programme is going full swing and we feel we can take

care of the needs of the total community. So it's there and anybody who

requires something outside the school programme we're just suggesting

can come and get it, We know a few more cases have come to light in the

last couple of days here on the Island.

Dealing in another area, I'd like to deal with home care for a

second. Two levels of home care have been in the past. We're trying to

now amalgamate them. We have our traditional home care which is home

care for the chronically ill. Now, as you know, we're

[ Page 312 ]

increasing throughout the province in another form of home care where we have post-acute home care.

We have a number of other areas that are in it now, but the only

areas which have a full year of experience are Victoria, Kamloops,

Coquitlam and New Westminster. They've had a full year.

During that time, 1,558 patients have been discharged from

acute-care hospitals to this special home-care project. The cost to the

health service for an average of 9.1 days of care for patients was

$101.10 — $101.10 opposed to a hospital cost of $730 per patient.

That's a significant drop, Mr. Speaker, and a significant programme. We

want to continue on.

The $730, if anybody wants to get too technical, would be reduced

because they've lowered the global budget of the hospital if they stay

in, in the chronic stage or, that is, in the rehabilitation stage of an

illness. But in any event, it is significantly reducing the cost of

delivery of care.

We're doing other work in Public Health services. Preventive work

encompasses geriatric clinics. We've got screening processes such as

vision, hearing, blood pressure, glaucoma, urine tests, mobility tests,

and we also provide counselling for nutrition and general health care.

So again, Mr. Speaker, an emphasis on prevention, an emphasis that's so

important.

Now, in health services, last year we employed 697 students. That

697 students, Mr. Speaker, made possible some fantastic projects,

projects which wouldn't otherwise have been available. Again, as I

visited around the province, one of the proudest aspects of each

community health centre was their student programme.

In some areas they were doing one thing, in some areas they were

providing children support, in some areas they were even trapping mice.

That may sound strange to some of you, and I notice the Member for

Peace River laughs. But do you know why they trapped the mice in Trail?

They wanted to follow the food chain for trichinosis. There was a

theory that maybe the bears did eat mice and that's where the

trichinosis was coming from. And it worked out that that was exactly

where it was coming from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Trichinosis in the bears, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Member.

So there were a number of very interesting programmes which went on,

mostly support programmes and mostly programmes we want either to do

again or certainly take a real good look at another time.

I'm sure a number of you would like to know where we're going on

acupuncture. One of my committee members dealing in acupuncture is

going to be one of those sent to China. He is the head of

anesthesiology — I almost didn't make it — at UBC and he's also head of

anesthesiology at VGH (Vancouver General Hospital). He will be going

off one day, as soon as the trip is organized completely, to China to

have a look at acupuncture. We've also had a pilot project clinic,

supervised by doctors, and Dr. Saita is doing the clinical work or the

actual administering of acupuncture. So we hope to be able to set

standards in this area; we hope to be able to let acupuncture take its

proper place in delivery of care in the Province of B.C. as soon as

humanly possible.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we've had other areas I think the House would be

interested in. One is air evacuation. Last year, the armed services

co-operated with us again. In that year they provided 115 mercy

flights. The staff — and I want to underline that word "staff" — are

most co-operative, as I previously informed the House. But the Canadian

government is asking an arm-and-a-leg fee for each of those services.

I'm not particularly enamoured with this situation because I feel the

armed services can do a far, far better job by providing these kind of

services for Canadians at the same time as they're doing their

practising in flying and delivering care, et cetera. So I just don't

see any reason for this arm and a leg.

Over and above that 115 flights last year, remember we bought

Citations. The Citations are rather small but they sure can get in and

out of places. Those Citations last year — and I'm just saying now from

October until the end of December, only three short months — were used

16 times when there was nothing else available. They saved 12 lives; 12

people in B.C. who will continue to survive. Since New Year's, we are

still going on....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): All you get from that side is a "Lear."

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, we get a "Lear" from them and a "Citation" from us.

Mr. Speaker, many of you will note that our jet just a couple of

days ago landed in Terrace to save a two-day-old child. That's the kind

of courage that our people have, that those pilots have. They went in

there to save a two-day-old child and brought her back safely, and that

landing strip is a disgrace — an absolute disgrace.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): There's lots of Ministerial joy-riding, and you know it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Phil has left. Phil has gone long ago.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the coverup that goes on over

there! There's a shadow of the former Phil sitting in the end bench.

You can't be Phil, so why don't you quit trying?

[ Page 313 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're up the Columbia River.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, since the year's end, as

I've said, we've continued to use it, we will go on using it, and we

hope that ways and means are developed to improve this whole ambulance

service in the province.

MR. CHABOT: Are you going to table the log?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, this log will be tabled as usual, Mr. Member. Why do you ask that question?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he wants the floor but he's not going to get it. The people of B.C. want to hear what I have to say, Mr. Member.

Speaking of ambulance service, Mr. Speaker, I'm in the process of

putting together the machinery to implement an ambulance service for

the whole of B.C. The service could not be included in the budget as it

was part of a report, and the planning is just now complete. However,

Dr. Randsford's planning has led us to a position now where I feel

implementation could take place by July of this year. I hope we can go

ahead on this. If there are any objections to it, I would like to hear

them right now or in the immediate future.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go over with you some of the areas

that I think you should understand about this. As I say, it is rather

fresh, but we've got it, we think, taped right down and it is just a

matter of putting the machinery together for implementation and we can

go ahead.

Now the objectives for the two-year period are to establish the

following — let's talk about operations first: 1) All ambulances in the

province coordinated and operating in specified response areas — all

ambulances; 2) A provincial control centre to coordinate intra- and

extra-provincial medical air and long-range medical transportation by

land; 3) all ambulances in major population areas operating under

regional dispatch control; 4) a province-wide, single phone number for

the reception of ambulance calls; 5) an integrated, province-wide radio

communication system for all ambulances.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during this same two-year period we will have an

interim provincial ambulance service headquarters, and we will have a

province-wide supply and service organization for equipment, uniforms,

supplies, vehicles, et cetera. We will also have an elimination of the

practice of direct patient billing by individual ambulance services.

You wonder what it might cost. We will be proposing $5 for each

ambulance call. It is going to be difficult, Madam Member, but we feel

that it is absolutely imperative to get an ambulance service going in

this province at the earliest date, and we do have screening devices,

and we will be announcing as we go along. Part of the screening, of

course, is the $5 deterrent fee. As to training, there will be an

ongoing provincial training programme in effect in the Province of B.C.

Then we are going to be setting standards. All personnel will be

qualified to a basic level of training — all personnel. All full-time

ambulance personnel will be qualified to an advanced level. As part of

the standards, as well, we will have part-time personnel in high-volume

areas qualified to an advanced level. Even in the urban areas, if he's

part-time he still has to be qualified up to the advanced level.

All ambulances will be equipped to the standard specified. Standards

will be very definitely dealt with, and they will be equipped to those

standards, and all vehicular standardization will be programmed during

those two years. All ambulances will conform to a specified colour for

identification and there will be other identification standards; and

all personnel....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: What colour would you like? We'll have a contest.

All personnel will be in standard uniform dress.

MR. CHABOT: Green and white.

HON. MR. COCKE: Green and white? We'll take that under advisement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Unfortunate remark. I wouldn't say unkind; it's just unfortunate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: They will be involved, very definitely

involved. They've been co-operating with us on this background work and

they will be involved in many, many areas of training.

Mr. Speaker, under planning we are going to co-operate in programmes

formulated to ensure and extend appropriate levels of first-aid

training as well. We hope to co-operate in this area with the police,

fire and highway patrol people. We also hope to co-operate at the high

school student and teacher level, We also hope to co-operate in helping

to train public transport personnel or make it possible for St. John's

and so on, and other appropriate persons. So this will cover all parts

of the programme of emergency care.

We also will be planning during that period programmes to establish suitably equipped and

[ Page 314 ]

staffed medical aid posts in small communities not served by local

ambulance or physicians. I thought you'd like that. And planning is

substantially complete for anything, so if we have a couple of snags

along the way just remember that we did

Mr. Speaker, it augurs well for the future. We have to hope that we

can get these programmes into force as soon as possible, and I would

predict July, providing all goes well — providing there aren't too many

objections from my colleagues and providing there aren't too many

objections from those across the floor. We'll be listening closely in

the next few days.

As I said, this is a new service. Do you know what happens to a new

service, Mr. Speaker? Just like ICBC, it takes a little courage to do

something new. You know, the way you can make sure that nothing goes

wrong is not to do anything. They know. They were really experienced at

that. You don't have anything go wrong when you don't do anything, so

if we have a couple of snags along the way just remember that we did

something. We did something.

Well, in any case, I hope that we have this going well in the

two-year period. In any event I promise to get emergency service off

the ground as soon as humanly possible.

We will have casualty officers, as there are now in emergency wards.

These are doctors whose specialty is in that area. They are doing work

now in New Westminster and other areas, training paramedical personnel

to do the kind of job that we need done.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting prospect, and I hope that we can get

it all across, as I said, by July. At present, municipalities are

carrying part of this load, and this will be of service to the

municipalities in eliminating their fiscal responsibility.

I'm sure that we have their support for this particular kind of programme.

It is wanted; people want it, municipalities want it and, Mr. Speaker, it is our policy.

We have done so much to reduce the tax load on municipalities, yet

across the floor I hear those empty cries from that group who did so

little. I just can't understand it. And every time something new comes

along it's the same old howl.

There's more straw men been erected in this House in the last 18

months than occurred in the 18 previous years. I say straw men.

Secession, Mr. Speaker — Cariboo will pull out, and so on, called for

by the Socreds, the man sitting for the Cariboo constituency (Mr.

Fraser).

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. If they can't make the law,

they want to break it. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate. Alienating people

from the province is a big price, Mr. Member, to pay for political

gain. It also indicates a lack of concern for the democratic process,

Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're up the Columbia River without a paddle.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mind you, that lack of concern is nothing new. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a great budget. It's a great budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Do you want to talk?

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you call an election right now?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You wouldn't even have a seat. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: I'll tell my constituents — I'll tell them!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're up the Columbia River without a paddle.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to finalize this speech, but I'm going to stand up here until I can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Member, for your confidence.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great budget, one I'm proud to support. It reflects

the new government's concern — a government with courage and a

government with will to serve the needs of the people of the Province

of British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Greetings from Chilliwack! I

bring you greetings from various kinds of people and I have listed them

here, not in the order in which they have sent their greetings, but in

the order in which I could remember them.

I bring you greetings from the lawyers and the judges. (By the way, each of these greetings is weighted.)

I bring you greetings from the loggers.

I bring you greetings from the municipal leaders and from the assessors.

I bring you greetings from the teachers and the school trustees, from the newscasters and the press.

I bring you greetings from the insurance agents and from the automotive retailers.

I bring you greetings from the drivers of

[ Page 315 ]

Chilliwack and the prospectors and the dairy farmers and the fruit

growers and the renters and the home builders and the borrowers and the

camping people and the small businesses and the shopkeepers, the law

enforcement officers, if you please, and the drug squads.

I bring you greetings from the food processors and the students, particularly post-secondary.

I bring you greetings from the Mincome recipients.

I bring you greetings from the intermediate-care patients and I bring you greetings from the retired folk.

Do you want to hear the greeting? It's one word — phrrrrp! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Translate that for Hansard .

MR. SCHROEDER: It comes from the old song, "I'd have wrote you a letter but I couldn't spell phrrrrp! "

AN HON. MEMBER: Next time take your shoes off!

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Now I know why you're not leader.

MR. SCHROEDER: I notice that you're quite a way from leader yourself, friend.

It's no wonder that the people around the province are talking about

dropping out of the province. I almost hate to admit it, but the same

thing is happening in Chilliwack. People are saying: "If it could

happen in Golden, if it can happen in the Peace River country, if it

can happen in Fernie and Cranbrook, why couldn't we, who have a common

boundary with the State of Washington, just take our little group and

move them out of the Province of British Columbia and join the State of

Washington?" I'll tell you, I would discourage any kind of a move like

that.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Now you want to sell the province.

MR. SCHROEDER: You just keep talking, friend, and we'll send you no milk for your Dairy Queens. (Laughter.)

I'd like to commend the speaker who just finished, the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). In my opinion he is one of the Ministers that

is doing a good job. Where he lacks, he certainly can't be blamed for

effort. I think he's putting out 100 per cent, and I think the whole

House will stand together in commending the Minister of Health for a

good job. That's sincere, that's serious.

There's only one problem and that is that I wish that in the budget

he would have given us some indication of what he's going to do about

intermediate care. I know that we've been talking about intermediate

care for weeks and for months, and I know that it's been a problem. I

know that it's been too slow. Let me tell you the truth — it was too

slow under the Socreds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SCHROEDER: But let me tell you something else — it's even

slower under the present administration. I would love to have seen some

indication that we are going to get started on the business of

intermediate care.

If every Member of this House had had the opportunity to travel with

the committee on health around the province and to see the concern

among the people who are what we call grass roots but I call them the

people who are doing the job out there — the public health nurses and

the people who are running the nursing homes. I wish we all could have

seen the concern that they have concerning chronic care and

intermediate care, I'm sure that our budget would have reflected some

kind of a start, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

At least when we look at the budget and the budget indicates to us

that there's going to be something like a $400 million surplus this

year, certainly we could have had a token, we could have had an

indication that this government who says they're concerned about people

would be concerned about the sick people, and we could have had an

indication that intermediate care at least was in the incubator,

Let's take a look at the budget. What is economically wrong with the

budget? We could talk individually about priorities, and we'd be here

for months and years talking about priorities, because every Member who

is seated here has a different list of priorities as far as government

expenditure is concerned. Therefore we could never seek or hope to

agree. The priorities are not the question. These are left to what we

call political decisions. They are questions of distribution.

But where is the problem in this budget? The problem is simply here:

we're working on a taxation base of $2.6 billion, we're working on an

expenditure forecast of $2.2 billion and that means there is a surplus

of taxation over expenditure of $400 million, and it's too much.

Just go by the simple rule, and it's a physical rule, that you must

return as much as you take out or you create a vacuum. Mr. Speaker,

that's exactly what's happening in British Columbia today: we are

creating a vacuum. The greatest economist of them all clearly indicated

at one time that 10 per cent is the tolerable limit for surpluses. This

administration has exceeded

[ Page 316 ]

this by a multiple of two and the people of this province will

rebel. I suggest to you that you're doing a foolish thing to continue

on this kind of a programme.

Increased expenditures, yes. I listened to the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) when he brought the budget to us and he hailed long

and loudly how many extra dollars were being spent in this division,

and in this division, and in this division. All of it is commendable,

Mr. Minister. However, the difference between what you said and what is

the fact is simply the difference between two words, and they are

"allocation" and "allotment." In your allocation, yes, your dollars

went up in each division, but in your allotment, the percentage went

down.

This, I say, is where the people get caught in the bite, in logger's

language. They are giving by taxation dollars more than they are

receiving in services, and they are living in a vacuum, and they will

rebel.

I listened to the Minister of Finance as he talked about the

resources of our province, how they belong to the people and how all

the people under this administration are going to benefit equitably

under the socialist philosophy. This is their philosophy: "The

resources belong to everybody and we're going to spread it around."

There's only one problem with that philosophy — you've got to have

something to spread around before you start spreading it.

MR. CUMMINGS: You spread it!

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm starting. You get out of the way, buddy! Wait till it hits the fan.

You've got to have something to spread before you start spreading it

around. You've got to create something, and without having created

anything you don't have anything to spread around. But in order to

create it, you've got to have capital.

The socialist doesn't believe in capital, so under the socialist

philosophy nothing is created to spread around. We have to wait until

something is there before it's going to happen. The socialist doesn't

live that way. He is like a leech, or as we called them — the people

that were swimming in the little ponds out in the Prairies when I was

out there — bloodsuckers. We called them bloodsuckers. They act like

parasites.

As a matter of fact, the socialist philosophy is a parasite

philosophy and only operates after capital has created something. They

pounce on it, they cripple it, they suck the life out of it. Let me ask

you, if you want to make a contribution to society and a contribution

to our economy, why don't you go out there and build something? Why

don't you create your own lumber mills and your own pulp mills? Why do

you wait until someone has come in with risk capital after the losses.

After the losses have been experienced, then you come in; you want to

take over. Beautiful, beautiful!

Why don't you build your own pipelines, if you're interested in

pipelines? Why do you wait until one is built — after the blood, sweat,

and tears; after the risk has been taken; after there have been no

guarantees, my friend? After it's operative, then you want to come and

you want to take over.

Let me ask you, Mr. Insurance Man: why didn't you create your own

insurance corporation? Why did you have to put out of business the ones

that existed? If your system was so all-fired hot, it would have lasted

in the competition, wouldn't it? Why didn't you, if you were going to

make a contribution to society and to the economy, build your own

insurance corporation?

If you want to get into the housing business, why don't you start

your own construction firms? No, you wait until you see one that's

productive; you wait until you see one that has some expertise; you

wait until you see one that's got a good track record; and then you

pounce on it and you cripple it, and you take over. That's the

socialist philosophy. And that's the kind of philosophy that has caused

the oldest of socialist countries to drag its feet, to be behind. Let

me talk to you about housing a little later on.

Let me ask you, gentlemen, through you, Mr. Speaker, where you were

in 1952 when British Columbia was nothing. Where were you when we were

poorer than Nova Scotia?

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): We were resource rich.

MR. SCHROEDER: Where were you when we were poorer than Nova

Scotia? We didn't know we owned mineral and petroleum resources. We

didn't know we were rich. As a matter of fact, we didn't even have the

roads to go find out if we were rich. We didn't have them — now tell

the truth. We didn't have them.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): And that's a fact.

MR. SCHROEDER: An indication of this is given in an incident

that happened back when there were still steamships. A little old man

had come to the new country, to the Americas, to make his million and

it didn't happen, and all he had left was enough to buy a boat ticket

back to Britain whence he had come. He bought his ticket and that's all

the money he had. He didn't have two cents to rub together.

He got on the boat. He took with him a few sandwiches and a few

baked things that someone had given him. He went all the way across on

the boat; those were the days when it took 10 and 12 days to go. All

the way over he'd be eating on the dry crumbs, on the dried bread,

never realizing that when

[ Page 317 ]

he bought his ticket he had already paid for the same things that they were eating in the dining room.

This is what was happening in 1952. Where were the socialists then?

They weren't out there. I didn't see any cheques signed by a man named

Strachan, who was ready to risk some capital to find out whether we had

any resources in the north. What did we need? We needed some capitalist

(that ugly word) to enter the search, and we had to offer him a fair

return.

Now that we're rich, it's easy to say we're giving our resources

away. Now you want to take over what you never knew you had. After the

risks, after the losses, after the fact, you want to take over.

Your acquisition of businesses, by the way, is not too commendable.

It's sort of a kill-the-goose programme. It's a packrat selection. You

just take what you can get, whatever looks good at the time. And the

grand-daddy of them all is the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.

A. Williams). You'd better believe it.

You say 31 cents per unit for natural gas. That was the wellhead

price. "It was a giveaway," they said. Fine and dandy to talk about

giveaway now that there's something at the wellhead. But in 1952 how

much was there at the wellhead, Mr. Member? Zilch. There was nothing

there, my friend. You didn't even know it was under the ground. Who was

going to dig the wells? I didn't see you out there.

Who was going to dig the wells? Who was going to spend the millions

with no guarantee? I'll tell you who it was: private industry were the

ones that risked their necks. And there had to be an equitable return

guaranteed to the investors so that we could know that the resource was

there. If we hadn't made the guarantee, we wouldn't know today that we

owned any gas.

Today the very investment programme that built British Columbia is being curtailed, along with some of the other freedoms.

Let me ask what the prospect is for the freedoms of the working man

in British Columbia. Under the free enterprise system he's got every

freedom in the world. He's got the freedom to withhold his services if

he wishes. He's got the freedom to organize; he's got the freedom not

to organize if he chooses. You'd better believe it. Read your history,

friend.

Under free enterprise he had all of these freedoms. Wait until the

government is the employer. Wait until we've got over here what we have

in some other socialist countries. Wait until you've taken over enough

industries until the employer directly is the government; then what

freedoms will the labouring man have? What kind of freedoms will he

have? Will he have the freedom then to withhold his labour? It's not so

in a socialist country. They say, "We want you to produce so many board

feet of lumber in one day. If you don't produce you go to a place called Siberia." I wonder where we will have Siberia in British Columbia?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Mineral Resources): Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: Do you think that will be the northwest up there?

Let's look into the budget on some specifics — in the area of

municipal affairs. It's an area where the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) wanted us to pin a medal on him because he had given a per

capita increase of $2 per head to the municipalities, when the whole

world knew, including the Minister of Finance, that the increase in

costs of operation, even if we were to underestimate them, would be at

least 10 per cent higher than they were the year before.

Now 10 per cent of $32, which was the per capita grant as of last

year, simply stated, is $3 per head. That's just the increase in the

cost of doing the same thing. Somewhere between $3 and $4 is what the

grant should have been just to keep pace. But the grant was only $2 per

capita and now, lo and behold, the municipalities are going to have to

find places to pull in the strings and offer fewer services rather than

more.

This is from a government who says they are concerned about people,

the individual people, the small people, the people in British Columbia

who need transportation and who had a hope, under a proper allotment to

the municipalities, of at least creating some kind of a transit system

out there in the rural country.

Now I've had to come up with some kind of an idea whereby

transportation could be provided. I'd like to ask this government

whether they would do this:

We have in our area a number of school buses that are not being used

for any other purpose but to transport children to school morning and

evening. I would like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) to work together with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly). Since the drivers are organized and you have to pay them a

minimum of four hours for each shift that they come in, why not give

them four hours of work at least?

Let's use the school buses in the morning to haul the school

children. After they are finished, let's take one trip throughout the

constituency for people who are aged, people who live more than three

or four miles from the shops, who have no way of transportation and who

are waiting for some kind of public transit.

Why not use those buses? Have them make one complete trip, come in

before lunch, give the folk a chance to do their shopping, to go to the

doctors, to pay their bills, make one more trip about 2 o'clock, one

trip around the constituency, and then come and

[ Page 318 ]

pick up the children from school.

It seems to me that there's a method here that might not cost too

many dollars whereby we could have transit away out there on the

floodplains. I think it's a good plan and I would like to suggest that

the government consider this kind of a plan.

I know that the Minister of Education looks favourably upon this

plan because she talked to us last session about a greater use of

school buildings for public purposes and, certainly, school buses for

public purposes.

I want to commend the Minister of Finance. He did a good thing. He

took away 5 per cent of the cost that the municipalities formerly had

to bear for diking, and he has placed the cost upon the provincial

purse, where it belongs in the first place. But he had the courage to

do it. My constituency is going to benefit from it, and I want to thank

him publicly. When he does well, I think we ought to say he does well.

What has the budget done for agriculture? I wonder what the budget has done for agriculture.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll get you for that.

There is a meeting at this very hour in the Evergreen Hall in

Chilliwack where the dairy farmers have come together to discuss this

farm credit assistance plan which the administration brought in last

session.

They're concerned that they are asked to commit themselves, Mr.

Member, for a five-year period of production with no guarantee of

return. You're locked in for five years when you sign the little deal

that says you want to get in on the premium-type, farm assistance plan.

Five years — no guarantee.

You're also locked into this kind of a programme: you are

responsible for the fulfilment of the five-year plan, and you are

responsible even though you may wish to transfer the farm or the milk

quota you possess to the next person. You have to be certain that the

contract which you have signed originally is fulfilled in its full

five-year term. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous, and the farmers are

up in arms.

There's another meeting in Abbotsford tonight, and if I can catch a

plane sometime out of here, sometime after I have finished my speech, I

want to be there and bring the House a first-hand report of what the

farmers have to say regarding the farm credit assistance plan.

It seems like some kind of a deal, Mr. Minister of Water, some kind

of a plan whereby the farmer, when he can afford it, puts something in

to a fund whereby sometime a little later on, if his returns are not

great enough, he can get back what he originally put in.

The government is going to be very, very gracious and they're going

to make a contribution as well which, by and large, is only interest on

the money that the farmer had to put in in the first place. This is the

kind of an assistance plan for which he wants to get locked in for five

years? It's another kind of one of these phony, phony subsidy things. I

want to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, who's not in the House,

that what really needs to be done to the dairy industry is for the

dairy industry to make milk production a desirable thing.

For the past many years we've had a milk production formula in the

province. The milk production formula had in it a stabilizing factor

whereby only a 10 per cent increase was allowable in any one given

year. As long as we had a stable economy, the thing worked beautifully.

It held up the price of the milk if the economy happened to sag. It

held steady the price of milk if the economy tended to rise.

Over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, the economy has taken off like

a helium balloon — straight up. The cost of production increase —

rather than being 10 per cent or an understandable and a bearable

amount — the increase has climbed to something like 89 per cent for the

dairy farmer, and the formula doesn't work. The formula was brought in

by the previous administration. Let's face it, under our present day

economy the formula can't work. What's the logical thing to do, Mr.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)? We've got to repeal the

formula, put together one that works, give the farmer a fair return for

his product, and he'll be happy.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Won't the socialist cows produce more milk?

MR. SCHROEDER: Do socialist cows produce...? (Laughter.) All

the socialist cows I saw were all seceding, and the last I saw they

were heading for Lethbridge. (Laughter.)

What has the budget done for the cost of housing? The Premier smiled

when he suggested that part of the answer of the cost of housing was

going to be taken up in a $30-per-year renters' grant. Why didn't he

say it over five years? It would have sounded more good. If you had

multiplied $30 by five, it would have sounded like $150; at least it

would have sounded like something was going to happen. But let's take

it by the month, the way you and I pay our rent: $30 a year, $2.50 a

month — not even enough to cover the increase of the cost of fuel. And

this is supposed to help in the cost of housing? Big deal; big deal!

What about the assessments that are going to be passed on? I know,

Mr. Speaker, that this is a motion that's on the order paper and I

don't want to discuss

[ Page 319 ]

the motion. Was it repealed?

What about the extra costs that the assessments are going to pass

on? Do you suppose for one moment that the man who owns a home and who

rents it out to another individual and who rents it out at a price

which barely covers the cost of repairs and the cost of investment —

are you trying to tell me that this man is going to absorb the

additional costs of fuel and assessment increases? I beg to differ with

anyone who believes that way. Of course, the socialist mind doesn't

conceive of this because they don't have any houses to rent out. They

don't even own the one they're in, by and large. As a result, they

wouldn't understand.

There's one man who tried to get into it, and he's the Minister of

Lands, Forest and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He found out

that the only way he could make a buck was to put his family to work in

repairs. He had a granny painting a fence. He's a granny hater.

According to the budget, they say that the answer to the housing

problem is to go into multiple housing or row housing or zero-line

housing. I wish that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) would

just do a little short course in the study of humanities. He would know

that the occurrence of neuroses in human beings varies directly as the

proximity each to the other. The closer you put us together, the more

we hate each other.

It's evident in this House. The closer we get together, the more

problems we have with each other. I want you to know that the province

of British Columbia needs all the sanity it can muster. Why add to the

problem by asking people to live beside each other and on top of each

other so that they hardly have room to breathe?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I got as far away as I could, Harvey.

MR. SCHROEDER: You did, did you? (Laughter.) Good line. He says he got as far away as he could.

What has the budget to say about reduction in direct taxation? The

first step was taken, and I think it's commendable: the removal of

school taxes from property. Twenty per cent per year over a period of

five years and we should have school taxes removed entirely from

private and personal property.

But let me ask: in this first year what is the actual result of this

action? The assessment increases, by and large, are 10 per cent, even

if you're under the umbrella of protection. On a home with taxes of

$500, which is a modest home — the mill rate stays the same — the tax

increase is $50 for the year. If the reduction that is caused by

removing school taxes is 20 per cent of the school tax portion, the

reduction is only $30. That means that the net increase or decrease

still hangs on the wrong side of the ledger and the poor homeowner is

asked to pay an additional $20 of taxes this year.

So that which was lauded in this House as being of some assistance

to the taxpayer, when you add A and B together, lo and behold, the

taxpayer is left paying more again.

Indirect taxation: we haven't even talked about it. Who gets it in

the head for the fuel increases? The renter does. Who gets it in the

head for tax increases? The renter does. Tax increases on apartment

buildings are always reflected in the amount of rent that is paid,

whether it's a lease or a monthly rent. I want you to know that

indirect taxation eats up all of the benefits that are given by this

budget and it would have been better if it was left the way it was.

Mincome. Has the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) arrived in the House?

The minimum income for every person in British Columbia aged 65 or

over is $213.85. They should be clapping on their desks; they sure did

when it was announced. Let's take a look at how $213.85 actually

developed.

We started with a base two years ago of $190....

AN HON. MEMBER: $139!

MR. SCHROEDER: It was $190 by the same means test, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on now.

MR. SCHROEDER: Let's tell it like it is. Don't give me any of this shabby socialist stuff.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: It was $190 by the same criteria and this is

what happened. In the two years since the $190 base we have had

inflation, particularly in food costs and clothing costs which are the

major two things these elderly people are concerned about. We have had

increases on one year of 10 per cent and in the second year of 14 per

cent.

Now take your pencils out: $190, add 10 per cent inflationary costs

for the first year ($190 plus, roughly, $20) will give you $210. That

is what it should have been just to cover inflation.

The second year inflation was even worse wonder who was responsible

— 14 per cent. Add 14 per cent to the top of $210 and you have got to

add $30, making the total which every old age pensioner should be

receiving not one penny less than $240.

What are we actually giving them? $213.85.

I want you to know that we've got a province full of elderly people

who once again, because of this budget, have been asked to try and grab

the purse strings and pull them a little tighter again when there is

nothing in the purse to try to hold. Nothing.

[ Page 320 ]

I call on this government to again review Mincome. And why don't you

do what was suggested in this House by some of our Members away back

two years ago: why don't you, make it at least $250 and then give them

an annual increase equal to the amount of inflation? These are the dear

people who built this province; these are the dear people who deserve

our help when they can't help themselves. I believe this is the least

we can do because today we are farther behind than when we started.

I want to commend the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) on

the Pharmacare thing. It's a good plan; it's a good plan. It was

overdue and I'm glad he brought it here.

Let me ask him: where is the denticare plan? I'd like the Minister

of Human Resources in collaboration with the Minister of Health to take

a look at the denticare problem. I've had families who have called me

and I've been to their homes to discuss the problem with them. Their

dental bills are higher than their medical bills even if there were no

medical plan. Something needs to be done.

Let me just use my own case as an instance. I have four people who

live with me at my house. They have their dental checkups right on

time. When the people call, they say it's time for Little Red and the

little ones to come in for their checkup.

Here you go; here comes the checkup. The dentist has the cleaning;

he has the X-rays which he says are necessary. Before a penny's worth

of work is done on the teeth, we've got a $24 bill for every mouth.

Since there are four mouths it is a total of $96 that old Harv has got

to squeeze out of someplace before there is any dental work done.

I think the whole House will agree that the cost of dentistry has

reached ridiculous proportions. You can't tell me that the dentist

himself is to blame. He has got to put in equipment; he has got to put

in the X-ray lab; he has to hire help; his costs are increasing. I know

there is not a dentist in British Columbia who is hurting as far as

income is concerned but I want to say this: we cannot lay the full

blame at the doorstep of the dentist. We need to work out some kind of

a plan whereby dentistry and dental care can be put under a plan

similar to the health-care plan we have.

Another thing I would like this government to consider is assistance

by way of income for widows who are under the age of 65. These are the

dear souls, some of them young — 30, 35, any age — whose husbands or

whose wives have left them. They become widows or widowers. In either

case it's the same problem: left with a family, left with costs of

operation that haven't decreased one iota just because one of the

partners has gone. The house rent is still the same; the light bill is

still as big; the heating bill is just as large; the automobile payment

hasn't got any smaller. As a result, here is one wage earner where

there used to two having to do the job of both father and mother

because children are usually involved.

I want you to know that the federal government has not done its

share in caring for these people. Since they haven't, why don't we, who

are concerned about individuals like this, look into a programme or a

plan whereby assistance can be given to these widows where they can

stay with their families who need them. Give them the income that they

need so at least they can keep the household together. The details

could be worked out and there would be some politics involved. But at

least let's give these widows a hope that their life can be fulfilled

now that one of the members of the marriage has gone, not to return.

It's different from a divorce; these are gone never to return,

needless to say. There's not a hope of them making up the income that

has been lost. I think we as society owe them this.

I talked at length about education when I was on my feet last time.

I think I'll just make a few statements in conclusion. I would like to

call on this government to do these things:

I would like them to place enough funds in the education budget I

speak on behalf of the Minister of Education now so that at least we

can maintain the status quo in education expenditure.

Education spending has decreased from 30 per cent two years ago to

28 per cent and now to 25-plus per cent. Class sizes in some areas are

as high as 35 students to one teacher. This is in Surrey. This is

intolerable when you think in terms of a budget which allows for a $400

million surplus.

I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has done what

she could when she was visiting the Treasury benches to be sure that

her portfolio was amply cared for. I have enough confidence in her to

believe this happened.

However, I would like to ask the government to reconsider the amount

of money in the education budget. Make sure we can at least maintain

the level of education we had before.

Stop playing games with the trustees. Don't say to the trustees,

come to us with your hat in your hand. If you can prove to us that your

expenditures are so-and-so, perhaps we can find a little money

somewhere in the surplus funds so we can cover the cost of your

operations.

I say, return authority to the teachers. I ask on behalf of dozens

of teachers who have contacted me. Return the strap to the classroom.

The last thing I'd like to request is to stop dragging your feet on

post-secondary education. Know enough to do what you know to do. Build

the colleges which everybody knew we needed before. If the location

didn't suit you just right, if the land or lot wasn't big enough, if it

happened to have been on the flood plain and you don't like flood

plains — the Lord will bless you anyhow — build the cotton-picking

college so the kids can go to school.

[ Page 321 ]

I wanted to talk a bit about insurance but the Minister is away.

I'll hold off until I stand again. I'd like to ask the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) — he's not here either — what has happened to

the Kilgard-Straiton highway? Long before this government came to power

there was money designated for the restructure of the Kilgard-Straiton

road. The road was falling into the crevices and into the holes left by

the mining of clay by the Kilgard clay and brick factory. The whole

road had to be relocated.

Money was allotted to the tune of something like $325,000 for the

study. The new road was gazetted and surveyed. They were given

assurance they were going to have their road. The old road was

condemned. The school buses cannot go up there. These here people who

live on the top cannot comfortably or safely even take their supplies

to their area.

The problem was taken up with the then Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) who is now the Minister of Transport and Communications.

He gave every assurance that the road was going to be constructed.

There was some haggling to do with a $5,000-a-year allotment for the

maintenance of a service road at the bottom of the hill which was left

as the responsibility of the municipality. For the sake of a little

hassle about the maintenance of an access road, which automatically

should belong to the Department of Highways, the road still does not

exist. That means for two years these people — who have a provincial

park at the top of the hill and whose visitors also use a condemned

road — are still waiting for the Kilgard-Straiton Road. When I asked

the Minister about this in the House he didn't even know where

Kilgard-Straiton is. In other words, the dear man has never looked at

the plan.

What has happened to the mail, the letters and the petitions? It's a sad case.

I've noticed, Mr. Speaker, some new words are emerging as the new

government gets a little more comfortable in its chairs. The word we've

noticed is this word "repatriation." Have you noticed it, Mr. Member?

Repatriation. They say it with a fantastic smile on their face like

they brought something brand new into the province.

As I understand the word "repatriation," unless there is some

realignment as far as provincial boundaries are concerned, repatriation

is an impossibility. But they talk about having brought more land, more

parkland back into the province. Can you understand this? What are they

repatriating?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cariboo.

MR. SCHROEDER: Cariboo. I've heard other words being used in

this chamber, and some of these words, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) — I'm glad you have not resorted to using them — but these are

the words: "irresponsibility," the word "misinterpreted," the word

"error," the word "absconded," and the words "concealed" and

"withholding." These are words used by a government which seems to be

trying to protect itself from something.

It was the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who said, "The

trustees are acting irresponsibly," when actually the word

"irresponsibly" should more aptly be applied to the Minister of

Education.

Now, by some strange coincidence, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) said the assessors had "misinterpreted" the regulations of

Bill 71. "Misinterpreted." I have a problem. How come all the assessors

misinterpreted it the same way?

MR. FRASER: Poor public service. Shame on you!

MR. SCHROEDER: I think rather than label the word

"misinterpretation" on the assessors, it would aptly be placed upon the

Minister of Finance who misinterpreted the bill for the assessors.

I wonder if the word "error," which the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) used to describe the actions

of his department, shouldn't more aptly be pinned on the Minister

himself.

I'm wondering if the word "absconded," which the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) used to describe his

ICBC.... I beg your pardon?

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: He said "absconded." Of course, he withdrew.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took it back.

MR. SCHROEDER: He didn't mean it. But I'm wondering if it

shouldn't be more aptly applied to that Minister for what he did to the

insurance industry in British Columbia, because this is precisely what

he did with it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SCHROEDER: There is another word, Mr. Minister of Health,

which I think is being heard the length and breadth of British Columbia

— and it is a word I'd love to hear come from the Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) sooner than we expect. The word is "election."

[ Page 322 ]

I tell you, call an election now and let the people speak. Then

we'll know where these words just used should actually be applied —

"irresponsibility," "misinterpretation," "absconded." Let's put the

words where they belong.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

I want to thank the Hon. Member for Chilliwack for a very sensitive speech.

His comments were certainly well thought out; they reveal an inquiring mind.

He has become the Horatio Alger of this House; our own little resident Horatio

Alger.

He said: "Where were we in 1973 when the province was

underdeveloped, when there was nothing here, when there were no

resources? What did we do to bring these things about? Where were we,"

he asked, "when other people were signing the cheques, paying the

payrolls, hiring and firing?"

I'll tell you where we were, and I'll tell everyone in this House.

We were the miners. We were the ones who built the railroads and drove

the spikes. We were the ones who were just as much the backbone of the

development of this province as the others were, Mr. Member. Just as

much. Didn't we help build the province too?

I did not have the opportunity to drive any spikes for the CPR or the CNR, but my grandfather did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here in the House.

HON. MR. LAUK: He worked on the railroad, and I worked in the

mills as a young man and so did many Members on all sides of the House.

We were all building this province together.

The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) mentions intermediate

care. He said he had a fantastic discovery when he was on a committee

going throughout the province: he found there was a need for

intermediate care.

Where were the committees under the previous administration? What

enabled that Member to find out about these things? The committees that

discovered these problems were set up for the purpose of discovering

these problems by this government. That's why he's in such a position

today to know there is a need. And this government is working

tirelessly, Mr. Speaker, to solve these problems.

He also mentioned density. He said there are more neurotics living

closely together here than any other place. Well, I take exception to

that, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I'm any more or less neurotic than the

Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know that because Dr. Ray Parkinson told me, and he's not biased.

The West End is one of the most highly densely populated areas in

the world. People live there by and large because they choose to and

because they like to, because it is a good way of life for them. I

wouldn't pretend to come in this House and insult the members of

Chilliwack for choosing a rural background; but I take exception to the

Hon. Member when he insults the members of my constituency, who are

good people and who have made a choice to live in a high-density

situation in an urban surrounding.

Just one more comment on the Hon. Member's speech, Mr. Speaker,

before getting into that short but great speech I have prepared for

this House. (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member stands up and he buttons and unbuttons his coat and

talks to us about Mincome. "It's only $213; that's all." Who forgets

the headline that brought this government to power? Who forgets:

"Socreds kill $200 for old-age pensioners." Neither he nor I were

sitting in this House in those days, Mr. Speaker, but I'll tell you one

thing: that's one of the reasons I chose this party and sat on this

side. What's his responsibility and excuse for choosing that side?

AN HON. MEMBER: He thought they would win. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: Probably little more than that.

I want to talk as the MLA for Vancouver Centre, the Second Member

for Vancouver Centre. Yes, the Second, and proud of it. The Hon. First

Member (Mr. Barnes) and myself have argued for many programmes, but

there are some people sitting in this House older than I who remember

Vancouver some many years ago when it was just a provincial town.

As a young boy living in Kitsilano, I remember that most of

Kitsilano and the West End were dotted simply by houses. There were no

apartment blocks — maybe two or three storeys high in certain selected

patches. I can remember horse-drawn milk wagons and so on.

Pardon me for reminiscing. I'm not that old; I'm not as old as the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to remember all of the

horse-and-buggy days. Maybe that's one of the reasons I don't have

horse-and-buggy ideas like the Hon. Members on the opposite side.

East Pender had all kinds of interesting shops. It was a quiet

little provincial town. Streetcars clanged down the street and turned

around at the Kitsilano turn-around to take people to work. It was a

nice life.

When the new Member, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson), made some very sensitive and considerate remarks

yesterday about growth, I recalled as I listened to him about

[ Page 323 ]

those days, about the values of those days, the lifestyle, the time

we had to adjust to change. It occurred to me that it was a very great

pity that yesterday could not be today and tomorrow.

But yesterday is not today and it never will be again. We have

different problems, we have different solutions to those problems and,

thank God, a different government to meet those problems.

MR. PHILLIPS: Policy, we want to know your policy!

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll get to my policy in a moment, Mr. Member.

I'm talking now about my riding of which I am very greatly proud, as

I'm sure you are of yours. In a moment, we'll discuss economic

development.

The highrises and so on which have developed in the West End which

I've just described as high density. The skyscrapers over the years,

whirring into the night, have built up great buildings and brought an

increase in population which has caused many, many problems.

Congestion, traffic problems requiring more services, more parking

lots, more freeways.

What has happened to this city I remember as a boy? It's no longer a

sleepy provincial town. A town has become a city with more people, a

city that seemed for many years under the Social Credit administration

and under the former city councils of the day to be a city built for

automobiles and not for people.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against automobiles?

HON. MR. LAUK: The cries for relief from the city seem to

have gone unheard in Victoria, Mr. Speaker, The cries for relief were

never heard. The only thing the previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

wished to bring about for this city was a 55-storey monument to his own

ego.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and myself

used that as one of the major issues in our campaign in August, 1972,

and the people of Vancouver spoke on that issue. They could not be

bought by a 55-storey monument; they were not bought; and they won't be

again.

The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) has worked

tirelessly and in full co-operation with the city council to bring

about a planned- and people-use for Blocks 5 1, 6 I and 71 in contrast

to the high-handed, arrogant, dictatorial way in which the 55-storey

tower was to be built, without consultation with the city, without any

kind of consultation with the people living in the area, with no

traffic-engineering studies and deliberately misleading the people as

to what the cost of that tower was.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't say that in the House.

HON. MR. LAUK: It took investigation on the part of the two

candidates in that riding for the NDP to bring about the truth that it

would cost over $120 million.

But anyway, those days are gone. Instead, this government is

providing the City of Vancouver with one of the most beautiful showcase

developments anywhere in the world.

MR. PHILLIPS: Trees on the roof tops.

HON. MR. LAUK: There will be open spaces for the people of

the City of Vancouver, there will be facilities which can be used by

all the citizens. There'll be something which even the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) could be justly proud of, for he can come

down from his riding and use those facilities instead of this

monolithic tower that has absolutely no significance to the people.

What about transit? For years we've been crying about transit and

now finally this government is sitting down and working out a solution.

Certainly it takes time and certainly there are problems preventing a

solution, but the problem was apparent many, many years ago as Liberal

and NDP Members of this House raised the issue time and again. The

people of Vancouver were being choked by traffic congestion. It was

clear public transit was an issue eight to nine years ago, but no

answer from Victoria. There will be answers now.

The third crossing was a solution, but a bad solution. The third

crossing is a mistake because the very thing we're trying to solve in

terms of public transit will be created by a third crossing for

automobile traffic.

I'm reminded, when the issue first came up, that Len Norris, the

cartoonist for the Vancouver Sun, drew three bridges across the First

Narrows. All of them were clogged with traffic. Two engineers were

standing at the base of Lions Gate and said: "What will it be: a second

storey to the Lions Gate or a tunnel?"

That is what has happened all over this continent. The freeway

system, the extra crossing, the extra lane of traffic is congested as

soon as the last foot is paved, creating more and more access for

automobile users when, in fact, what is needed are different solutions

to traffic problems lying within public transit. We can't escape that

tremendous treadmill of the freeway system which the major cities of

the United States are now abandoning.

It is interesting that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) raised the issue of ferry traffic. I think that's a very

interesting suggestion. It has been considered before. That suggestion

about ferry traffic is interesting and has

[ Page 324 ]

been used before. The ferry system in one of the cities of Australia

uses it extensively and very successfully. It's Sydney. Sydney is the

place where they built the $16 million-to-$150 million opera house. But

in any event, it works there. An interesting suggestion, Mr. Member.

For many, many years, the members of the NDP have argued in the City

of Vancouver for some form of social justice in the skid-road area of

our city. We are now reaching the threshold of that situation. It must

be faced and it will be faced. I have spoken with the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and it is my understanding that this

province will move to have the area specially designated under the new

federal Act for some action there soon.

In False Creek we are making every effort to relocate industry from

False Creek to other areas outside of the Burrard Peninsula so that the

city in co-operation with the provincial and federal governments can

develop a region that is liveable for the people of that city. They

have a right to a good life too, Mr. Speaker, all of them. We propose

that the development proceed and that the development with respect to

the Chinatown area also proceed.

In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the Chinese cultural

centre and other related developments in that corner of False Creek

which would make it another showcase for the world to see: a giant

pagoda dug out of the False Creek area with restaurants and Chinese

junks, housing and commercial areas, to make it a people's city again,

to reclaim it from the automobile. The government is committed to those

concepts.

Finally, with respect to the riding, I look at the many, many years

that renters have gone without any kind of recognition from the

government in Victoria. If it wasn't for the work of another Vancouver

MLA — and I give credit where credit is due. Herb Capozzi was one of

the former Members in this House representing my riding who argued for

renters' grants so they could share in this province, so they could be

recognized as people who contributed to society but who were for 20

years shoved into the background and ignored.

All right, it's not enough perhaps, but it's a start and it's a darn good start. I'm proud we have achieved it.

The people of the City of Vancouver now have good reason to be proud

of something other than just the mountains and the sea. They know that

in Victoria they have a voice. They know their problems will receive a

hearing. They know this government is open and ready, willing and able

to help solve those problems.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, yesterday will never be today, but what I

see about the City of Vancouver is a bright tomorrow. I think that

tomorrow the City of Vancouver will become one of the capitals of the

world, a city that will be a jewel among the cities of the world. And

that's the dream I have for that beautiful city and the people in it.

Now in June, 1973, much to the delight of the opposition benches, I

was appointed as Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce. I, of course, received accolades....

MR. PHILLIPS: And in June of 1974 you're going to start to work.

HON. MR. LAUK: I received accolades and praise from all kinds

of Members. I even had a private complimentary chat with the good

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). He knows deep in his heart

that I'm the right man for the job, and that's why he's sitting here

today, because he enjoys my speeches, Mr. Speaker. He delights in them.

He knows that they're good speeches.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now I want you to start taking notes, Mr. Member.

The history of this province is a very interesting one in terms of

economic development. Certainly there was individualism in

entrepreneurship of which all of us can be justly proud and in which, I

repeat, all of us were participants. It was a primary resource

extraction industry and, again, giving credit where credit is due —

although I don't agree with the way in which it is done — the power

development on the Columbia and the Peace at the time they were made

took vision and courage on the part of the previous administration.

I think their business practices were unfortunate, and I think the

province is paying unduly for those mistakes now. But the Hydro

development at that time was essential, as we can see by hindsight, and

I will pay that tribute to the opposition.

We've arrived at a stage now, however, Mr. Speaker, where various

important decisions must be made. We're coming to grips with some very

fundamental problems in terms of economic growth. We have

hydro-electric power, we have primary resources, we have wealth, and we

have the fastest growing labour force in Canada. On the other hand we

have our lifestyles, we have our environment, we have the very reason

that a great many of us choose to live in this province; that is

endange