1970 Legislative Session: ist Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 477 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (1st-Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, this

being the first occasion when you've been pleased to recognize me, I

welcome this opportunity to join with the other members of the House

who have at one time or other in this debate, and in the preceding

debate, addressed both to you and to your office, Sir, their high

regards. I would also like to add to the expressions of high regard

which have been heard throughout the House in respect of the new

members and, in particular, my running mate from Vancouver South.

There are a number of matters of public concern with which I should

properly deal today, some of them of general interest, others of more

particular concern, and one which I would like to dispose of very

briefly at the beginning, and while it is couched in terms referable to

the Greater Victoria area, it does have ramifications of interest

across the rest of the Province. I am referring now to the question

that has been before the Government the last little while relating to

the re-adjustment of health boundaries in the Greater Victoria area. My

colleague, in his then capacity of Minister of Social Welfare and also

in his capacity of Minister of Municipal Affairs had spent some little

time on this very difficult question of the health boundaries in the

Victoria area and, after having completed what he considered to be the

corporate proceedings associated therewith, had passed the matter to me

to deal with the question of financial arrangements. Out of these

negotiations I have been authorized by the Cabinet to report that it is

the intention of the Government to make a thorough review of the cost

sharing arrangements which presently exist among the various health

units and the Provincial Government. My recollection is that one of the

members from North Vancouver raised this point last year, and I think

that there was a good point involved in it, and it related to the

differences in cost between some of the metropolitan areas and some of

the rural areas.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the problem is this, that when the

cost-sharing arrangements for the health units was developed, the total

cost was running at about one dollar per capita, of which the

municipalities were going to pay about 30 cents per capita, but since

then there have been very rapid increases in costs, of which a

diminishing proportion has been paid by some communities,

whereas other

communities have had to carry an ever increasing load.

It is our intention, after a careful review of these differences, to

introduce a cost-sharing formula which applies across the Province, and

the effects of this will be, I think, that there will be an increase in

costs as applying to some rural areas. I would suspect that in the

Greater Victoria area there will not be significant changes, although

there will be some. There will be a very substantial increase in the

Provincial share as it relates to the health services being brought in

the Greater Vancouver area. I hope that this deals with some of those

issues that were very much in the minds of members of last year.

The implementation in Victoria will be forthwith and we will strike

what we hope is an interim rate, which will be at least sufficient to

maintain the present services at their existing level and then,

thereafter, a permanent rate in conformity with the rate across the

whole Province. I'd mention one aspect of this, and that was that the

local share was fixed at an amount of money instead of percentage.

There was a second complicating problem — and I'll have more to say

about this later — and that was that there has been a continuous

withdrawal of the Federal Government's support under this field. I

think that honourable members ought to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that

whereas the original agreement in which the municipalities and

Provincial Government have always participated in good faith on a

third-third-third basis, now has to be jettisoned for a very simple

reason, and that is that the Federal Government has withdrawn from

these local community health services, so it's likely that when we come

to strike a new rate, that the Provincial share will be at least

doubled, it being understood that this is a natural consequence of the

withdrawal by the Federal Government. I'll say no more about that

matter just now, but we'll come back to it later.

I'd like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to another matter which has been

raised at various times during this and the preceding debate, and this

is on the subject of therapeutic abortions The reason why it should be

a matter of attention to this House is that in the past the law, I

think it may be fair to say, was rather narrow in its application, and

prior to the very recent amendments to the Criminal Code the only

concern that could be in the mind of a doctor at the time that he dealt

with this kind of a problem was the life of the mother. He was not at

that time entitled to consider the health of the mother nor the

financial or economic considerations, or any other of a number of

concerns which might be properly expressed. Now, in the 1969 Session of

the Canadian Parliament, there was a very substantial change in the

laws relating to this subject, and whether they have gone as far as you

personally might have hoped them to go is another matter, and perhaps I

can mention that a little later on. Sufficient to say that the law as

it now stands, with this amendment, permits a doctor under certain

conditions which are very carefully spelled out, to perform, under

properly supervised conditions, the termination of a pregnancy

providing he is satisfied, and other conditions are satisfied. The main

questions that he is now entitled to consider are not only the life of

the mother but also the health of the same person. This means that he

can consider not only the physical well-being of the mother but also

her mental state, and I think that aside from any other question, this

is a step in the right direction.

In order to implement this throughout the whole of the Province, I

am sending out today a series of instructions pursuant to the authority

granted to me under the Criminal Code directing the hospitals of this

Province in the way in which they can set up machinery, procedural

machinery, to accommodate women seeking assistance under this head. Now

the procedures, as you may have already noticed, Mr. Speaker, envisage

a committee of three doctors properly qualified and properly accredited

at the hospital concerned, who form a review committee, and it is to

that body that the attending physician presents his application. Upon

the concurrence of the committee and upon the concurrence of the

hospital and, of course, the patient herself, the law permits a

therapeutic termination of a pregnancy to be performed.

Now it is a fact that some hospitals under the old law, and

[ Page 478 ]

indeed under the new law, are already offering this

service. But I think that the significance of what I have to say today

relates more to those women who live in parts of the Province where

this service has not heretofore been available, and I'm hoping that

there will be no prejudice arising in the case of women who live in

remote parts of the Province or where they haven't had, heretofore,

access to hospital facilities. Now the test upon which a hospital will

be designated by me will relate first of all, of course, to the

presence of qualified medical practitioners, also the presence and

concurrence of a properly constituted committee, and thirdly, the

existence of the facilities in the hospital.

Now on that point perhaps I might mention, too, that during the past

year or so there have been a sufficient number of occurrences under

this head to warrant some concern on our part, both in respect to the

procedures and more particularly relating to the theory upon which the

legislation has most recently been advanced. I have made a survey of

six hospitals in the Victoria-Vancouver area, and I might begin by

saying that at least in one or two cases where the hospital has a very

close association with a religious order or a church, it is sometimes

the case where the hospital does not authorize abortions under any

circumstances, However, among those that do, the Vancouver General, you

might be interested to hear, Mr. Speaker, in the period July 1st, 1969

to January 1st, 1970, reports 64 cases of this kind; the Royal

Columbian, 81 during the same period; Burnaby General, 14; the Grace,

15; and the Lions Gate Hospital, 19.

Now the honourable member from North Vancouver–Seymour told the

House something about his own personal experiences arising out of his

activities in private life…. (laughter) and he described to you…. I

hasten to say as a radio announcer — how's that? Now that we have

cleared up what might have been a very unfortunate misunderstanding,

and refer specifically to his activities as a radio announcer and a

discussion on the radio of public problems, raised the question of how

best to inform members of the community about this very difficult

problem. I might say that first of all it's highly desirable that,

wherever possible, the patient be referred to her own family doctor.

There may be occasions, of course, where this is not practical. In this

case it is sometimes possible to refer the same person to a specialist

such as a gynecologist. In some instances, indeed, it has been the

practice in the Vancouver office of the Public Health Department to

talk to people who are raising questions on this subject, and while it

is not the policy of the Public Health Department to examine the

patient or to make any recommendation, it has been our policy to make

available to the person the names of a number of doctors, or to refer

the person to the College of Physicians and Surgeons where they do make

an effort to bring the patient in touch with a properly qualified

doctor.

Now there was one other aspect, though, that the honourable member

raised, and I think it's worthy also of some comment. He talked about

the situation sometimes arising where it seems desirable that the

patient should look to some other country for this kind of help. Now I

think here, and as the member well said, that one should proceed in

this area with a great deal of caution for this reason, that it's not

fair to assume and it's not proper to assume that there's any country

in the world where the termination of pregnancies is permitted as a

merely medical practice. While it is said that the laws are somewhat

different in termination which are just as illegal there as they are

here.

There's also another way in which this same problem can be tackled,

and this relates, of course, to the problem of controlling the number

of people who go to increase our population. I don't need to remind

you, Mr. Speaker, of the concern that's being expressed on all sides

throughout the world on the almost appalling rate at which the

population of the world is increasing. During the course of the time

that this House is in session today and until tomorrow, there will be

added to the population of the world something like a net increase of

150,000 people — and that's a good sized city — and as the days tick

on, 150,000 each and every day. I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that the

problem won't be brought home to us with great force in the future,

much more so than it has in the past, for this reason, that during the

last two or three hundred years North America, as a safety valve for

the population of the world, has been the prime relief, but now that

the North American continent is filling up, as an escape hatch for an

over-populated world it is no longer available. With that, I think the

biologists and so on who make a study of this have a genuine concern

for this ever-mounting pressure.

Now in British Columbia we have done two other things which we think

ought to commend themselves to the public, and I'd like to report to

you on them at this time. The first one is that under the Public Health

Department there's been a very substantial amount of what we call

genetic counseling, and through the cooperation of the Vital Statistics

Department and also the Public Health Department we have had many

occasions to advise individuals, families, or young people getting

married, that the risks of having children in their particular case,

who had some physical or mental defect, were very great. Having

persuaded them to this we have put them at the top of the list of

persons for whom adoption would be considered, and in a great number of

cases they have adopted children and started off on very happy and

well-adjusted family life. I think, too, that it's worth reporting that

there is developing in medical science a considerable skill in being

able to identify physical and mental handicaps prior to birth, and by

testing of chromosomes and so on in that pre-natal period, it is

possible to identify these natal defects and, in some instances, these

have become the basic consideration upon which the abortion committees

in hospitals have proceeded.

Now I'd like to turn next, Mr. Speaker…. I see the Whip here is

giving me quiet signals that he has a tight

schedule to maintain

(laughter)….

Mr. Speaker, an examination of the Budget for the last three years

will readily show that the operating costs of hospitals have, first of

all, in 1968 been budgeted at $125,000,000. Subsequent reporting of

disbursements show that the actual cost of operating hospitals was

$137,000,000 in that year. In 1969, our Budget was $150,000,000 and

we've already said that we expect to spend around $160,000,000. Now I

don't see how it's possible to accuse the Minister of Finance of

under-estimating in a situation like that, where you have probably the

best example of over-expenditures — in one case of $12,000,000 and in

another case of $10,000,000.

This year we're budgeting for $175,000.000. Now this, Mr. Speaker,

is an increase of 15 per cent, and I might point out to you that

practically all of that increase is taken up under two headings. First

of all, new bed capacity, and increases in wages and salaries, by far

the largest portion of that 15 per cent. Now if this is the case, Mr.

Speaker, I think that this is an appropriate time to indicate that

there must be

[ Page 479 ]

a very neat balance and a steady hand in the

bringing of hospital and medical care, in times when the inflationary

spiral is proceeding at the rate it is.

There are certain things, of course, that we can't hold up. Hospital

construction presently underway amounts to about $41,000,000. We also

have in very advanced stages of planning an additional $25,000,000

worth of construction. In line with that, of course, as I mentioned at

another debate, the hospital service last year published a set of

standard plans for extended care construction. I'm very pleased to

report, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the last year these standard

plans have received a great deal of attention, not only in Canada among

the professions and the hospital operational people, but in a number of

publications, and we have had very favourable reports on this both in

Canadian publications and throughout the United States. We've had a

great number of inquiries, not only from Canada but from our American

friends hoping to make use of these.

Also, on the same subject, we have increased the equipment allowance

for hospitals from 30 cents to 40 cents, which in effect has added

about $400,000 to the operating budgets of hospitals during this year.

My colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the honourable the

Provincial Secretary and also my predecessor in office, spent a great

deal of time bringing together the Regional Districts and introducing

regional hospitalization and district government. I might say and

report, particularly to my two colleagues, that that system is working

very well indeed and, without exception, the Regional Districts are to

be commended for the way in which they have identified the problems

within their own areas, and have translated those into administrative

action.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile, too, to note very briefly, Mr.

Speaker, the fact that today the cost to the public of operating our

hospitals in this Province runs from about $30 to $55 a day; with one

exception, the hospitals come within that operating range. One only has

to look at two things in the United States — first of all, the very

high degree of social unrest and uncertainty that accompanies life in

the United States today, and the almost unbelievably high cost

associated with hospital and medical care. Care which is being

delivered to a patient in British Columbia at a community cost of about

$45 or $50 and one dollar to the individual patient, is costing, for

those who can afford it, in the United States anywhere from $100 to

$300 a day, and I doubt very much if it's possible to get any hospital

care in the United States today comparable to what is being given in

our community hospitals for less than $100 a day. Now is there any

wonder that there is an ever-increasing degree of concern among the

people of the United States over the stability they can expect to see

in the future?

I think that we must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to

maintain the present costs, as I say, of around $30 to $40 or $50, with

normal increments for wage increases that are well earned, that if we

are going to deal with all of the people in our community, we must not

allow ourselves to get into the great difficulty that the Americans are

in. They tell us that it's almost impossible to bring in a broadly

based medical or hospital scheme in the United States, and I think it's

fair to say that in the United States today that the only people who

are getting adequate care are the very rich and the very poor, and that

the great group of people in between are somewhat less than well looked

after.

Now I don't think that we can match the highest level of care in the

United States, because for those that are able to pay $300 a day, they

will get a high level of care. But if we are going to bring care to all

the people in our community, if we're going to maintain the kind of

ratio care that my honourable colleague talked about yesterday, with 99

per cent of our people covered under medical care, and all of our

residents covered for hospitals, we must use a degree of restraint, we

must use a degree of intelligence to bring a level of care that is

fair, that is equitable, and that reaches everyone.

Of course I need say no more on that except this, that it will all

turn upon our ability to pay, it will depend on how well we maintain

our economy. This is the reason why we're building dams, this is the

reason why we're building railroads, so that the money will be

available for a fair distribution throughout the whole of our community.

I want to deal very briefly with two or three other items here.

First of all, one in respect of the question of increasing the per diem

charge to a patient from one to three dollars, or any other figure. I

agree that these suggestions, often times emanating from the medical

profession, are put forward in good faith. There are a number of cases,

of course, where in some provinces these have been implemented. Aside

from the substantive issue of whether it is fair or unfair to charge a

sick person a dollar or more, there is one problem that I am faced with

which puts me in a position where I am very reluctant to advise the

Cabinet to embark on such a policy, and that's this. That is, that the

Federal Government would not share in such a cost, and so that if we

increase the per diem figure from one dollar to three dollars, what it

would do would be to relieve the Federal Government of 50 per cent of

whatever that figure was, and I don't think that I am in a position to

advise the Government to take that step.

Now, the next point is the question of progressive care, and I think

this is one that deserves a great deal of attention and one on which I

hope to be spending a lot of time with my two associates on the

Government side, the honourable member from Oak Bay and the honourable

member from Alberni. They have both been proponents of the progressive

care hospital programme, and I am thoroughly in agreement with them. In

order to implement this kind of a programme I am very pleased to say

that we have two of these kinds of projects under way right now, one

which we have approved at the St. Joseph's, and another one which we

hope to implement over in the Vancouver area before very long, and

following closely along with that will be two or three others of the

same type.

Now there's another aspect to this, and that is in respect of what

we might call ambulatory, or as they sometimes say in Scotland, what is

it, ambulatory. But in any event, a diagnostic and treatment centre,

and I'm very pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have already

taken steps to get one of these under way at Houston. We hope that by

spring break-up which will be coming very soon, apparently, in the

north, there will be an ambulatory diagnostic and treatment centre

under construction at Houston, and we hope that that will be the pilot

model for a whole series of these in other parts of the Province. I

think, too, that it might be worth noting in passing that I propose to

invite the Regional District to join with me in examining the question

of increasing the present $51,000,000 by-law in the Greater Vancouver

area for two purposes. One, to bring in ambulatory, diagnostic, and

treatment facilities at the Children's Hospital at 59th, and also to

develop a very special kind of extended care hospital facility for some

teenage persons suffering from serious physical handicaps.

[ Page 480 ]

There have been two or three examinations made of this whole problem

of what is called a total health programme, and I might say that before

I leave that subject, to the best of my knowledge there are only two

functioning progressive care programmes that I can discover in the

western world. One of them is at the Nuffield Ward at the Community

Hospital at Durham in England. They have about 30 beds there. And I

believe that there's a new one that has just opened down in Seattle. So

I think that British Columbia can report to be well in the forefront in

the introduction of this kind of care.

But now I am going to address myself to another problem, and I'm

sorry the honourable first member from Point Grey is not here, because

I think this is a subject on which he would have some particular

interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you explain progressive care?

MR. LOFFMARK: Progressive care, essentially, is a setting up

of a series of hospital beds in such a way as to have facilities in

some where there is suction, oxygen and all the elaborate equipment

that is necessary, for very high level acute care, sometimes called

intensive care. Then other beds, less expensively constructed, suitable

for care of patients whose medical demands are much less. For instance,

the case of the person who is in for orthopedic treatment, and he may

be in traction, where there is very little need for oxygen or anything

like that, and it's possible to have a much lower level of nursing care

as well as medical care. The idea is to move these people through

different forms, different levels of hospital accommodation, depending

on the seriousness. In some instances, of course, we have already

embarked upon the other end of this spectrum, by bringing people in for

ambulatory care without ever having put them into anything more than a

recovery bed.

Now I want to get on, but before I leave this problem I want to deal

with one aspect of it, and I think that we should look at the broad

outlines of the financing of this subject in Canada and see where it is

leading us. I point with my finger at no one, other than to show you as

best I can the direction in which our community is travelling. Now, the

first thing I think is fair to say, is that the Federal Government has

been throwing increasing amounts of money into hospital operating

budgets and its medical care plan, but at the same time they have left

pretty much to the provinces and to local governments a long list of

preventative medicine practices, and let me tell you something about

these more specifically.

First of all, the Federal Government has withdrawn from the

construction grants previously given, remember it's $2,000 a bed for

hospital construction, and also a comparable figure in respect of

health units. Federal assistance in this field has been withdrawn,

withdrawn completely.

Now the second area from which they have withdrawn is in the whole

series of grants to voluntary agencies, of which the Multiple Sclerosis

Associations, Cerebral Palsy, Heart Foundation, and the C.A.R.S. and

the Hemophiliac Association, all the Health Centres, and so on. Now the

total amount in 1960 was $900,000. This year the withdrawal will amount

to about $1,700,000, next year it will be about $2,700,000. So over a

period of three years the Federal Government will have withdrawn, under

this one heading alone of voluntary agencies support, a total of

$5,400,000.

In addition to that, they are telling us they are going to withdraw

from the care of Indians under two headings, tuberculosis and mental

health, and the result will be to throw an additional burden on the

Province in this particular case of about $500,000 or $600,000 a year.

Also, there has been a very significant withdrawal under the National

Health Grants.

Finally, under the fifth heading, there has been a very substantial

withdrawing under the Health Resources Fund. Now we are advised that

the Health Resources Fund, which normally is for the financing of such

things as the Health Science Centre of the University, will be so

restricted as to make available to this Province about one-tenth of

$38,000,000, which is about $3,800,000. Now if you remember that the

budget of hospital construction for the Health Science Centre at U.B.C.

will run at least $10,000,000 a year, you'll see that the phasing in,

in the construction of this, must be handled with a great deal of care.

Now what is to be taken from all this — and I'm glad to see the

first member from Point Grey is back again, because this is a subject

on which he has a considerable interest, and well he should — because

what you've seen here is a very substantial withdrawing by the Federal

Government from all of these preventive care, preventive medicine

services. Furthermore, the additional costs which are being piled on to

patient care, direct patient care, are being met at the expense of

medical research. Mr. Speaker, if I might respectfully say so, I think

all levels of government in Canada, and certainly the Federal

Government which should take a lead in this, should go back and have

another look at the present programme which is placing so much

attention on immediate care, and so little emphasis is being placed on

preventative medicine, and more particularly on research.

Now my friend the member from Skeena, and I believe other honourable

members have also discussed at various times, the problem of bringing

medical care to the northern part of the Province. I am very pleased to

report, Mr. Speaker, that not long ago I wrote to the Medical

Association and to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as

to the Dental College, pointing out to them this very, very serious

imbalance between the number of doctors that are located in the

Vancouver-Victoria area and those in the rest of the Province, and they

have undertaken, Sir, to sit down with me and talk about a system of

bringing adequate care to the northern part of the Province. I say to

you, Mr. Speaker, that I spoke to them in the most firm tones and

pointed out to them the very serious consequences that the Government

would recognize in the event that something wasn't done to make a

better distribution of doctor's care throughout the Province. The fact

is that, on a per capita basis, there are more doctors in the Vancouver

area than in any other part of Canada, and I think the same thing

applies in respect to dentists. The difficulty is that they all want to

enjoy the climate of Vancouver and Victoria, without recognizing that

the privilege of enjoying professional standing in this Province

carries with it certain duties, and it is our expectation that the

professions will do that and we've already seen that in some of the

professions they have dealt with this matter.

Now I would like to turn next, very briefly, to a question that was

raised by the honourable member from Yale Lillooet, and he discussed

this year and last the subject of cooperative medicine in the United

States. I listened very carefully to what he had to say then, and again

this year, and I say that my colleague the Provincial Secretary and I

have both examined this proposition. I think that it's fair to say,

without casting any reflection upon the best intentions of the member,

that I think he was very much enamored by

[ Page 481 ]

two aspects of that programme down there — one, the

fact that it was a co-op, and secondly, that the remunerations of

doctors were on a very orderly basis by salary.

But if I may respectfully say to the member, there are some other

aspects of this thing that I think are quite inconsistent with the

philosophy which not only he, but the other honourable members in his

own party have expressed at other times, and I'll tell you what these

are. First of all, I think that you'll find that most cooperative

medical plans in the States were nothing more than a combination of

what we had at one time here under our M.S.A. or C.U. & C., and our

hospital programme. That's just about what they are. The second thing

is, that it's a salary programme, and the third thing is that they have

not proved in the United States — and here is the fatal difficulty with

those things down there — they have not proved that they can meet the

demands of universality for the whole of the community and, by and

large, their operating costs are high. I would say that ours are about

five and theirs are about eight, and I would say that they are not as

far progressed — and I'll make this concession to you — they are not as

progressive in their service to the whole of their community as either

the Saskatchewan plan, or the British Columbia one. They do not cover,

they don't have the universality, and I don't think you'd work them in

Canada. We're far ahead of them on that.

Now I want to deal next with the two or three items under the

heading of mental health, very briefly. We have introduced in the last

year, ten new mental health units and we have under construction

several more, and probably the only thing I need to report to the House

is the fact that in conjunction with the bringing of medical care to

the northern part of the Province, we are also discussing with the

professions the need for staffing our mental health units. We have also

taken steps to convert Riverview into what is called an Open Hospital,

and I am very pleased to say that their psychiatrists are now dealing

on a private basis with their own patients in Riverview and Crease

Clinic, much the same as they would anywhere else. I think this is a

very, very worthwhile step, but at the same time bearing in mind that

we must have, in our community hospitals, a continuing construction

programme for the introduction of psychiatric care beds in the general

hospitals.

I'm passing next, very briefly, to the Eric Martin Institute. As you

may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the hospital is now in operation. We had

some difficulty in persuading the Federal Government to cost share in

the 170 beds. That problem has been worked out by introducing 120 beds

for psychiatric care. The operating costs are divided, in respect of

120 beds, under the heading of psychiatric care, and another 50 beds

are being used for those children who otherwise would be looked after

at the Woodlands extended care hospital.

My only regret in connection with the whole process of opening the

Eric Martin, was a certain reluctance, on the part of some of the

professional people to agree to the bringing of these children into the

Eric Martin, and I'm sorry to say that in some instances there was some

rather clumsy language used in respect to these children. Mr. Speaker,

whether those descriptions were technically right or not, it doesn't

really matter. I think that a lot depends on how we introduce these

matters to the public, and if there is any one among us, Mr. Speaker,

who is without sin, it's those children, and as long as I'm the

Minister of Health, they shall get first call on my consideration.

We have, at the same time, got under way the Lady Fatima School now

as a halfway house, so to speak, for young adults who are being taken

out of Woodlands, preparatory to bringing them into a boarding house or

a foster home community. We hope that within the next year the Glendale

Hospital will be in operation, and I think we will be able to say that

there will be a more than adequate supply of beds for all of our

extended care children, as well as those who have serious physical

handicaps.

There's also a small group that we mustn't forget, Mr. Speaker, and

that relates to those children who appear, in all physical

circumstances, to be normal, but there seems to be something wanting,

in that in some instances they utter no sound. These children are

described as autistic children, and a great deal of exploratory and

adventuresome and exciting work is being done at Woodlands. There is a

group of people in Vancouver who feel that there is another channel,

another road we might take in order to bring these children out of the

terrible silence in which they move, and so we have authorized, very

recently, the purchase of a house in Vancouver, which we are going to

call Laurel House, and there will be a small group — there aren't many

autistic children in the Province — and they will be brought up in what

we hope to be a home environment, with probably six, or eight, or ten,

and we hope that between the two of these, we will have made some real

progress in the bringing of happiness into the homes, not only of the

children themselves, but their parents.

I would like to turn very briefly to one or two aspects of pollution

control insofar as they relate to health. Now one of the honourable

members across the way made an assertion that we didn't have any

quality standards in this Province. I must say that I was considerably

agitated about this at that time, for the reason that it came to me as

a great surprise, because all the voters of this Province knew that we

had air quality standards, and all the voters in this Province knew

that we had water quality standards, too, because as you well know they

read about them. Now my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources, has already said to you that the standards upon which

the Pollution Control Board will proceed will be the health standards

that were established in respect to water quality and air quality and

he has my assurance, and I have his, that these will be enforced in

good faith throughout the Province. Now then, in the case of water

quality standards these of course, are normally enforced by medical

health officers and by the Pollution Control Board, as well as the

Water Resources Department and this is as it should be. But the same

thing doesn't apply to air quality standards for this reason, that of

all the places in the world, there is no place where there's such a

wide variety of geographic and climatic conditions as in this Province.

Let me illustrate. Outside of the Antarctic, the lowest temperatures

in the world have been recorded in northern British Columbia. The

highest temperatures in the world have been recorded within a degree of

each other in Libya, North Africa, Imperial Valley in California, and a

place just west of Salmon Arm near Walhachin in British Columbia — they

have the highest temperatures in the world. There are some places in

British Columbia where the rainfall is over 300 inches a year, other

parts of British Columbia only get about five inches. Now this being

the case, and having regard for the almost incredible differences in

geographic conditions of this Province, there's only one sensible way

to apply air quality standards and that's on a regional basis. That's

precisely what the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources said

we were going to do, and he has the complete support of the

[ Page 482 ]

Health Department in this matter. Now then, if

there is any difficulties about this, or if there is any concern on the

part of the honourable members, I need only remind them that the

present by-laws in the City of Vancouver on the matter of air quality

standards are based almost word for word upon the quality standards

published by this Government.

Now there is some talk about the Neptune Terminal over on the north

shore in North Vancouver, and the honourable members would like to hear

it as it is — I shall tell them. The Neptune Terminal is standing upon

ground in respect of which the authorization for construction was

conferred by the National Harbours Board, which is an emanation of the

Federal Government which is, I think, a responsibility for which the

Liberal party is accountable. The transportation of the coal to that

place is under the guidance and direction of the Canadian National

Railroad, which is operated under the direction of the Federal

Government, which is under the domination of the Liberal party. At the

same time that this place was constructed and purported to be under

operation, they had as their representatives three Liberals in West

Vancouver, North Vancouver, North Vancouver–Seymour, they also had two

Liberal members of Parliament. Now by what stretch of the imagination

is anybody but a group of Liberals responsible for Neptune Terminal in

North Vancouver?

Now, there is one aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, though that hasn't

been canvassed and that is just how badly is the air quality control

over there going to be? We propose to put within that jurisdiction, and

as close as we can come to that piece of property, a series of air

testing stations, and when the time comes, we will tell it as it is. We

will tell it, Mr. Speaker, as it is; We will, we will, my friend, we

will tell the people of North Vancouver just how badly they were led

down the path on that one, and the people who are going to do something

about it are the voters of North Vancouver.

This, Mr. Speaker, characterizes the great difficulty of some of the

members opposite in respect of their ambivalence which they

characteristically display from one session to another. It wasn't so

many years ago that they were being told that this Province is broke,

and now they say, and that was the truth. We'll come back to that in

just a minute.

Now I want to deal now with one other aspect of financing. These

days there is a considerable concern about the financing of sewage,

sewage construction, and so on. There is a very clear problem of

raising money today for any purpose, and it is suggested by some

members opposite that the question of raising money for the

construction of sewers and sewage treatment plants is something that is

strictly the exclusive responsibility of this Government. I think it is

proper to say that this Government has a share of that responsibility,

and this Government will assume its fair share of this responsibility

but I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago this

Government sought to take a position in the Bank of British Columbia,

and this objective, Mr. Speaker, was a fair one. Now the reason why the

Federal Government refused to permit the British Columbia Government to

take a position in that bank…. Now they may have had many reasons,

but there was only one that they were prepared to make public, and it

was as follows — the Federal Government refused to give the British

Columbia Government an opportunity to take a position in that bank for

one reason, and they said that the supply of credit, they said that the

setting of interest rates was a Federal matter. That's what they said.

They said that the supply of credit in Canada, they said that the rates

of interest, were matters of Federal concern. We say that fair is fair.

If the Federal Government wants to control banking, let them. But, they

should also have the responsibility of putting into the hands of the

municipalities a sufficient amount of credit at a fair interest rate

sufficient to build.

The biggest political boon-doggle that ever took place in Canada

took place at the time that the bankers of Canada came before the

Banking Committee in Ottawa, and what did they tell the people of

Canada? They said that the six per cent rate was too inflexible. They

said open up the bank interest rates and rates will find their own

level. They said that some rates would go down and some would go up.

Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one rate in one bank that went down. They all

went up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't plug Commonwealth, don't plug Commonwealth.

MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, there has been some request for a

detailed statement of Commonwealth, which can be said in two minutes,

and that is that the Federal Government….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. LOFFMARK: All right now, are you ready over there? I'll

tell you. Simmer down now, simmer down. You'll notice that they always

get excited when things get tough for them.

Now, the fact is that the Federal Government, through the Department

of Insurance in 1968, after a full and complete examination of the

Commonwealth records, permitted Commonwealth to register for deposit

insurance. On a full examination of their accounts, but it was done

without any reference to anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (loud interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order.

MR. LOFFMARK: The fact is that the Federal Government granted

that company deposit insurance in 1968 after a full examination, on a

full examination. Now listen, everybody, I'll tell you what really

hurts some of your friends….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LOFFMARK: A full examination by the Federal Government.

Deposit insurance issued by the Federal Government. If there was

anything wrong, why did they ever issue that deposit insurance? Why did

they issue that deposit insurance?

Alright now, going back to some general subjects under the heading

of the Budget. It is sometimes said, Mr. Speaker, that the portion of

the sales tax which originally was allocated for hospital purposes, two

per cent of the sales tax was originally intended to defray the cost of

hospital operations, and there has sometimes been suggestions that some

part of that was being siphoned off and it wasn't going to hospitals.

Now you don't have to be a post-graduate in mathematics to look at the

Public Accounts to see that not only all of that two per cent is being

paid for hospital operations, but more, Mr. Speaker, much more, much

more. And where is it coming from? Now then, just to refer….

[ Page 483 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Part of that is Federal.

MR. LOFFMARK: After the Federal is taken off, after the Federal is taken off.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much of that budget is Federal?

MR. LOFFMARK: Less than half, less than half.

Now then, getting around to this question, I want to refer again to

the well-known ambivalence of some of the members across the way, and

it seems to me this is the particular problem of that group in the

middle over there. Exactly what it means is this. It means talking out

of both sides of your mouth at once. This is what that little group has

to do because they are saddled with all the defects of that crowd down

in Ottawa, that's their problem.

I want to just close off, Mr. Speaker, by referring very briefly to

two other items. The first one is respecting the Pacific Great Eastern,

and during the course of the Budget Address, there was an announcement

that the Government intended to increase its equity and its equity

contribution to the P.G.E. Now the result of all this is that we will

be proceeding from Prince George up to Fort St. John on one side, and

up into the Dease Lake country on the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: …. here we go.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, the member is not discussing

the financing at this point but actually the progress of the railroad.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that and I don't like the

inferences that are being cast. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: …. he'll get out of control.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm perfectly capable of controlling the debate. (Applause)

MR. LOFFMARK: I'm very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your

guidance in this matter. I will change somewhat, and refer very briefly

on the same subject to the very famous writer of 100 years ago, Zane

Grey, who wrote many wonderful stories which have passed into the

folklore of America. One of them is a great story about the U.P. Trail,

and it's the story of how the Union Pacific was brought out through the

west, and how the great Irishmen with their great bulging muscles drove

steel across the plains of Wyoming, and how in the west side the

Chinese work gangs brought the Union Pacific up through the Donner

Summit. Zane Grey said that the U.P. Trail was built with whisky and

tea. It doesn't matter how it was built. It's the story of the opening

of the west.

During the time of the Budget it was a very straightforward

statement of what was the progress through British Columbia under this

heading. I think what we are seeing here in British Columbia — and I

think we should be grateful — that just as through the west the story

of building railroads was the story of opening up the country, so too,

the Budget insofar as it relates to transportation and the development

of those great fingers of steel that go up through the northern part of

our Province, we too are participating. I hope some day, Mr. Speaker,

that we will produce in this country a man like Zane Grey to tell the

story of how they opened up the great northern country. In fact one

word more, too, about that northern country, that some day, some day,

Mr. Speaker, we hope to see a real unified, economic, jurisdiction in

the west that goes all the way from the 49th parallel and Vancouver

right to the mouth of the MacKenzie.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOFFMARK: The day that the people of British Columbia are

assured that the people of the north, of the Yukon and the western

Northwest Territories are anxious and willing to sit down with them and

redraw those boundaries to make it the kind of community that is worthy

of the west, that's the day that we'll be calling for steel to

Whitehorse. (Applause)

We heard a year ago, this time last year, Mr. Speaker, that there

were 100,000 new voters in British Columbia, and at that time there was

no reason why we should dispute that statement. It was verified by all

the records, but there was some suggestion, you know, that the reason

why we should have an election last year was that those 100,000 voters

were going to change the political picture of British Columbia. Well, I

suppose they did, in a sense, because 100,000 more is what we got.

It's said, Mr. Speaker, from time to time by people who lack

something else to say, that this is a lucky Government. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there may be an element of luck, but I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, you have to make your luck. But even if we conceded just for a

moment, Mr. Speaker, that this is a lucky Government, I don't think

that the Opposition could take much comfort from it. I'll tell you why,

Mr. Speaker, and that is that the voters like a lucky Government!

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a very

entertaining hour and a quarter during which I am told by the Minister

himself that the population of the world increased, but I don't think

the sum total of human knowledge increased one drop during that hour

and a quarter. The point of the exercise, it appears every year when

the Minister of Health gets up, is to talk about Ottawa, to say what

they are not doing and to blame the Liberals for every crime in the

calendar, and to go into an arm-waving tirade and say nothing at all

about his department.

I think, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health to have made a

major address to this House in the Budget debate and not mention the

Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, to fail to grasp the point

that the member from Yale-Lillooet was making about preventative

medicine, and just simply to skip over the problems of the handicapped,

the cerebral palsied, by saying that Ottawa wasn't looking after them,

leaves a lot to be desired.

We are nearly at the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the second

time that we've debated a billion dollar Budget, and there are precious

few areas of Government activities that haven't come under some

scrutiny already, but I will and must go over some of them again with

perhaps a slightly different point of view. But before that, there are

a couple of things that I'd like to comment on that happened since we

first came into the Session. The first, Mr. Speaker, is the complete

silence of the Government of the Province on the matter of the proposed

resumption of nuclear testing in Alaska. On February the 3rd, which is

some time ago now, during my speech in the previous debate, I appealed

to the Government to give this Legislature an opportunity to

[ Page 484 ]

express the opinions of the people of this Province

on this stupid and dangerous course of action. I praised the Government

for its actions in opposing the original testing last year, and I ask

that the Government Leader introduce a motion on this matter, Mr.

Speaker, so that we can and as soon as possible, express the total view

of this Legislature on this testing. Failing that, failing that, we can

only come to the conclusion that the Government, by its silence, is

agreeing to the resumption of this nuclear testing. Mr. Speaker, I want

to say, along with others, that if you think that is a Federal matter

that's a matter for everybody who draws breath on this continent…. He

wants to give his opinions about many things, but not that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say how pleased I am that the Premier's back safe and

sound from the east. He's safe from the moneylenders and the sharks in

eastern Canada, the straw men he uses so often in his speeches at half

past five. But I'm really glad he's back because it means the

Conference only lasted two days, and because I don't think that the

country could have stood another day of that foolishness that went on

in Ottawa this past two days. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier from

the Maritime provinces simply came to Ottawa to ask for more money. The

Quebec Premier came to conduct the original rounds of his T.V. election

campaign that he's going into in Quebec. The prairie premiers, Mr.

Speaker, came for more socialist dollars for private enterprise wheat,

more socialist dollars for private enterprise wheat. Premier Robarts

came and just talked about opting out, whilst our own Premier, Mr.

Speaker, just sort of floated past them in his lifeboat, saying there

is no inflation in B.C., there is only inflated prices.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to know what these inflated prices are.

Which company? Which products? And, which prices? When the member for

Cowichan-Malahat spoke about inflated prices a week ago and showed this

Legislature how the fat is being larded on the price since last

November, how there has been increase after increase after increase,

there were protests from the other side. Those increases, Mr. Speaker,

were a direct result of the telegraphing by the Federal Government last

November of their so-called voluntary restraint programme, and we all

know what happened since last November, that these prices have been

raised in anticipation, so that now we've got the situation in this

Province where one party to the bargaining table is fixed on 1967 wage

rates, and the other party to the bargaining table has had the

advantage of all these price increases, particularly those since last

November. We've got that debate going to be continued around the

industrial table in the eye of public opinion, Mr. Speaker, this coming

summer, with '67 prices on the one hand and 1970 prices on the other,

and frankly, it seems to me that that is simply not good enough.

It is just as meaningless, Mr. Speaker, as the expression of

voluntary restraint, another meaningless expression like corporate

citizenship, and we have seen examples, Mr. Speaker, of corporate

citizenship all over this Province and all over this country. We have

seen the oil companies. We have seen K. C. Irving in the Maritimes.

We've seen the steel companies both here and in the States. The steel

companies putting up prices, being asked to take them down, and putting

them up again. Two increases, Mr. Speaker, in steel in the last 12

months alone. Whilst the labour cost per unit production of steel has

gone down and down and down. Four increases in the price of copper in

the last 12 months, and the productivity and the labour costs of that

unit going down and down while the productivity is going up. If

restraint and control, Mr. Speaker, is to be the path — and I suggest

it is probably the only path we can go as long as these old-line party

governments want to tinker with the system — that it's got to be

compulsory. It has got to include profits, it's got to be retroactive,

it has got to be enforced, and it's got to start now. Otherwise, the

galloping inflation, as it is commonly called, together with

unemployment, will continue.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, it has got to be accompanied

by a stop to some of the inflammatory and ill-advised statements of

some of the members of the Cabinet. We have already heard the Minister

of Lands and Forests fire the first shot in the forest negotiations

this year, predicting gloom, sowing the seeds of despair, warming up

the conflict, I suggest. Two years ago the same thing happened with the

same Minister. We have seen the Minister of Labour produce the figures

on labour costs of 1969, itself an innocuous document, a responsible

document, and I take no exception to the production of that document,

other than to say it should have been accompanied by a similar document

from the Minister of Trade and Industry about prices and profits. The

Minister of Trade and Industry was told and warned and asked and

requested a week ago in this House to look into the whole question of

price increases and profits. He spoke two days ago. He didn't say a

thing. He didn't say a thing. As my colleague, the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon said, he wasn't going to talk about trade and

industry because he didn't know anything about it either. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, it is not the fact that the Minister of Labour produced the

document, it is the fact that only one document came before us. When

the Minister of Trade and Industry spoke, he told us all that had

happened since 1952, how everything had grown, how everything had

increased and, Mr. Speaker, he even took credit for the increase in the

birth rate, and that seems to me to be a little much.

Already, you know, Mr. Speaker, we have seen unemployment figures.

It was announced that this is 7.3 per cent. I suggest to the Minister

of Labour that it is probably a realistic nine per cent, a realistic

nine. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, by a responsible social worker in

this Province, that there is 25 per cent of the work force unemployed

in the Peace River area, and we haven't heard a word from either of

those two members — 25 per cent of the work force in the Peace River

area.

The carpenters of the Province, Mr. Speaker — and that is, I think,

a thoroughly reasonable statistic to take — have reported that on the

17th of February when they had their Joint Council Meeting on their

pension and welfare plans, February 17th, that 75 per cent of the

carpenters in the Okanagan are unemployed, that the situation in

Kamloops is good, that the situation in Northern British Columbia is

poor. That there is 25 per cent unemployed carpenters in New

Westminster, there is 25 per cent unemployed carpenters in Vancouver.

In the West Kootenays, Mr. Speaker, there is total unemployment of

union carpenters in the West Kootenays. In Cranbrook a third of the

carpenters were unemployed, in Victoria, 20 per cent. In Nanaimo the

situation is reported as being good. In the rest of the Island the

situation is called depressed. The figures, Mr. Speaker, for this one

union, which I think is a barometer of what's going on, is in between

25 to 30 per cent unemployed across the Province, and that's whilst

we've got a freeze on hospital and school construction and a housing

shortage, and sitting on top of what is obviously the cheapest supply

of lumber in the world. Some would say you have to be a real financial

genius to arrange that kind of situation.

[ Page 485 ]

Whilst that is going on, Mr. Speaker, the social welfare department

in the City of Vancouver has had to open up a special unit for single

male welfare recipients, and there are over 5,000 of them, Mr. Speaker,

over 5,000 for the first time ever. Now we have all said on both sides

of the House that unemployment must never be an antidote to inflation,

and we all agreed on that. But the extra tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is that

you can have inflation and you can have massive unemployment at the

same time, and that is what is going to happen here unless we do

something about it and stop that nonsense that went on on Monday and

Tuesday. With 7.3 per cent — I suggest a realistic nine, Mr. Speaker,

we should finish this debate tomorrow and we should go into an

emergency debate on unemployment in this Province. If the U.S. figures

are followed, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures will be doubled by

mid-summer. At the same time, prices are increasing at the fastest rate

for 20 years and, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy about the prices is, as I

have said before, that they are managed prices, they are managed

prices, and I think this Government should take action against it.

Last year during the closing days of the Budget speech I said that

the Government had to be an instrument for social change and that we

believe that the Government has a role to play in industrial

development, in directing the economy, that we believe the Government

had a role to play in orderly resource management, we believe that the

Government should be the instrument in guaranteeing rights and

protections in the Province. Just as the Budget failed to reflect that

year, Mr. Speaker, it reflects it again this year. We can't escape the

fact that we have the biggest per capita debt anywhere in Canada. That

30 per cent of every dollar on our light bill goes to pay interest.

Now I was amused by the speech of the member for Dewdney who

unfortunately isn't in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, who tried to explain

to us a couple of days ago what contingent liabilities really were. You

know he failed. He failed to show us that, but he did show us how

inflation occurs, how prices are managed, how buyers pay twice for

their purchases, how pieces of paper are discounted and then marked up.

Yet at the same time he applauded when one of his colleagues suggested

financial counseling services as part of our consumer protection law.

If financial counseling services were to come into operation — and take

a look at the interest rates the member was telling us about when he

discounts his pieces of paper and marks it up on the other side — 20,

25, 27 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if counseling services were introduced by

the Attorney-General as part of our consumer protection law, that

member would be out of business.

Our debt, Mr. Speaker, is $2,433,000,000, and no amount of talking

on the other side is going to hide that fact. Mr. Speaker, being in

debt, if the money is spent wisely, is nothing to be ashamed of,

nothing to be ashamed of at 0. But when we see the Government sitting

on $227,000,000 of cold cash last March 31st, with essential services

going unfinanced, it is something to be ashamed of.

Let's look at some of the things that happened whilst that cash

reserve was there. In the Department of Education, for a start, in the

division of teacher registration we estimated $456,000. We spent

$281,000 in the first nine months, that's about half-pace expenditure.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of Education, that

nearly every member in this Chamber has received letters complaining

about the delays in that department. We have all heard of individuals

coming from out of the Province who are schoolteachers, people who have

passed the examinations and can't get the certificates. We've been told

what the B.C. Teachers' Federation have had to say about it and yet

there is half-pace expenditure. In the Department of Education again,

in its training programme the estimates were $185,000. In the first

nine months of the year we spent $5,000, and yet we heard Socred after

Socred criticizing the teachers, criticizing the teachers.

In Health Services, Mr. Speaker, on the cancer control, we have

$450,000 budgeted. We spent $224,000, half-pace expenditure again,

while at the same time we have cash reserves. In public health

research, and here we had a speech from the Minister who talked about

the need for research, we had $600,000 in the estimates and we spent

$360,000. It seems to me that that diversion that we were entertained

by, from two o'clock to a quarter past three, might have included

something about that.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago we heard the member for Skeena

complain about the shortage of public health officers in his riding. I

want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, through you, that service totally across

the Province was 30 per cent undermanned, 30 per cent undermanned, and

we are waiting for an answer to a question on the Order Paper. But I

want to say that last year we didn't have a medical health officer in

Prince Rupert, in Dawson Creek, in Prince George, in Saanich, and we

didn't have assistant directors in Cloverdale and Nanaimo. And when the

Minister tried to answer the question of the member for Skeena, he

jumped off the public question right into the private question and

talked about private doctors up there, when the real acid test that the

member for Skeena was asking about was the public health officers. At

the same time he said we are going into a programme of genetic

counseling — with 30 per cent undermanning of that particular

department, 30 per cent understaffed. It's no wonder the member for

Skeena suggested, using excessive language, that the Cabinet should get

working. No wonder he said that.

Mr. Speaker, I notice we only spent $502,000 out of an appropriation

of $3,500,000 for apprenticeship and industrial training in the first

nine months of the year. That, of course, looks like it is out of line,

but I suppose the reason is that the residential month's course in the

beginning of the year would take up the difference. But going back over

the years I noticed the levels of expenditure have been consistently

under the allotments. We have put into our Estimates $1,000,000 per

year more for apprenticeship and industrial training than we have

spent, year after year after year. That is nearly a third each year

remained unspent.

But the area of greatest neglect, and I think five or six members

have spoken about it at length, is about housing. The urban renewal

proportion is still $5,000,000, and we still only spent 50 per cent.

Senior citizen homes rationed down to $2,500,000 like last year,

totalling $7,500,000 for housing in this Province. Seven and a half

million is less, much less, than one per cent of the Budget.

Now the Government has obviously put housing at the bottom of its

list of priorities, and we believe it should be at the top of the list.

We need a housing programme for senior citizens and low-income

families, because they are the people who are suffering most, they are

the people who are suffering most from the housing shortage. The

housing programme of the Government, the grants and the second

mortgages, are all pointed towards the middle class and the upper class

income groups. It seems to me that we need a housing programme, Mr.

Speaker, that has got an effect on the low income

[ Page 486 ]

population, that looks after the low income

population and one that looks after the Indian people of this Province

who are the poorest of all, the poorest of all. The old age pensioner,

the elderly in this Province, spend over 50 per cent of their income on

housing, and that simply means they don't have enough left for food and

for heating and clothing. Our programme of housing is incomplete, it is

incomplete because it leaves behind the poor, and when the housing

programme leaves behind the poor it can only be described as wretched,

wretched.

We have heard a lot about the new programmes in social welfare. The

accent, the Minister tells us, will be on rehabilitation. Now if you

really want to talk about rehabilitation in social welfare you are

going to talk about two things. You are going to talk about more social

workers and a lighter case load, and you are going to talk about

heavier expenditures. There is no evidence that there is going to be

more workers or more expenditure in the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: A wide awake Minister.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is stirring. I think he

is tuned in now, and I want to tell him that with the municipalities

facing the increased share of that five dollar bill, it's going to mean

heavier taxes. But we have only budgeted here in this Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, for an increase of $3,000 in the very division that the

Minister is talking about. $3,000 in the rehabilitation division. In

the field service division there is no extra personnel contemplated,

there is no extra people in the field service division. He was talking

about rehabilitation. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are going to

want a lot of answers to a lot of questions on this. Before the Session

is over we would want to ask the Minister to explain to us in detailed

answers, how he is going to accomplish the promises he made to the

press.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got the Alliance for Businessmen.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance for Businessmen was

mentioned. I want to tell you what happened to the Alliance for

Businessmen in the States. They just conducted a survey, after the

years that it has been in operation, and they find that they are only

achieving a 42 per cent retention rate in that programme. I don't think

we'll even hit half of that in our programme.

I would like to turn to a couple of issues in my own riding, Mr.

Speaker. First of all, I want to comment on the statements of the

Attorney-General and the Minister of Highways about the number of

traffic deaths in the Province. The Provincial figures show a decrease,

that's true, a slight decrease, but in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, they

have gone up 60 per cent. Traffic deaths in Surrey have gone up 60 per

cent, and frankly, I want something done about it, Mr. Speaker. The

Provincial figures are one thing, but when you see an increase like

that in one riding, then I think we should look about what's going on.

For four sessions I have talked about safety in this Legislature, I

have talked about truck safety, I have talked about the necessity for

legislation, and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings

where I have talked to people in the industry, I have talked to people

in Surrey. They have come to see people in authority. Authorities tell

them that everything is being done that can be done. Well, I don't

believe that. I don't believe that we can sit here and see an increase

in traffic deaths of 60 per cent in one municipality and say everything

is being done that can be done. I would like a study into that whole

question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another problem, and I'm going to try this one again,

because we have a new Attorney-General since I brought it up last time.

It concerns the aftermath and the resultant problems — mental,

psychological, call them what you will — that take place following

cases of child molestation and child rape. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,

south of the river in the growing areas like Surrey, because of the

geography, I suppose, we are faced with this problem more than most

other areas. I'm concerned about the problem not just from the point of

view of the need for forensic clinics and psychiatrists in the

institutions and so on, and all the other preventative measures we

could and should take, but I want to talk about the delays that occur

following the event, and the apprehension and charging of the offender.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm treading into an area that I can probably

be mistaken on, but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as the

Attorney-General knows, part of the technique and part of the rules and

traditions of British law require the accused to be faced by his

accuser. In this case it means that where we have had an instance of

child molestation or child rape, the doctor's involved, the parents are

involved, and we're talking about an incredibly high level of emotional

disturbance. The Courts are crowded and months may elapse between the

event and the trial. It seems to me that delay is the remedial

treatment that is needed. It seems to me that delays — in fact, the

problems of the man involved, and obviously he's got lots of them, lots

of them — and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the business of having

to relive the incident may indeed be worse than the incident itself.

I know that we can get into the Federal thing if we're not careful,

but it seems to me that we have to either put a priority sticker on

these cases, or we have to adopt some of the methods that are used

elsewhere. The Israeli method, where a paramount youth officer says,

"No, the child is not going into Court." The Ingleby Committee in

England made all sorts of recommendations and they rejected the Israeli

method, and then years afterwards they brought some of those Israeli

methods into the British Courts, where depositions and affidavits and

so on could take place. Now I want to appeal to the Attorney-General to

look at this thing, because it seems to me that those delays we cannot

stand, even if it's only one, we cannot stand.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, I believe it is your problem, and I hope

that your department can come up with a solution that's as fair to the

victim as it is to the accused.

Whilst I'm on the subject of youth and crime and this whole question

of young people in Courts, I'd like to comment on the situation that we

find ourselves now, Mr. Attorney-General, with the young offender, and

let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I reject the arguments that are put

forward by the member for Shuswap and the member for Esquimalt. Their

policy in this, Mr. Speaker, when they spoke, appeared to me to be one

of violence itself, of retribution based on some sort of Old Testament

thinking. I think that, too, is at a piece with some of their remarks

about schoolteachers and professors and students, and I feel sorry

about those statements.

But I think the Attorney-General should re-examine the report of the

Department of Justice on Juvenile Delinquency in '65, because therein,

I feel, ties some solution. I'm persuaded, however, that the

examination of the Israeli system would bear merit, particularly as

their system appears

[ Page 487 ]

to take note of the fact — and I think this is

what's escaping some of the members — that a great number of the

incidents that involve young offenders are incidents of group

behaviour, group behaviour, rather than the single incorrigible. It

seems to me that if we have that in the back of our minds, with the

statistics and the evidence that they could bring to bear, we could put

B.C. back where it was, Mr. Speaker, where it even may still be in

terms of some of the laws — in the forefront.

I want to congratulate the Government on two or three of the

measures they've brought in, because we are in the forefront in this

regard, but the trouble is whilst you've got the laws, you're not using

the resources and you're not bringing the people in. But certainly from

the point of view of legislation we are in the vanguard, we are in the

front. But I think we should explore this problem, and if the member

for Shuswap and the member for Esquimalt who have every right, just as

I, to have an opinion on this, why don't we put it into committee? I

want to appeal to the Attorney-General to look into this problem and

let us have a look at it, but I must say I'm pessimistic and I'm

puzzled by the continual pattern of the Government in rejecting the use

of these committees.

When I was preparing these notes, Mr. Speaker, I went over some of

the files and one of the files I've got is called, "Government promises

— bring forward……… you know, temporary promises, and you bring

them forward each year. The one from the Municipal Affairs Department

about his committee on tenants and housing. Two years ago we heard

about it from the Minister in response to our Bill on the Landlord and

Tenant Act. In January '69 the Minister reported that a review was

under way, a review was under way and when completed he would make a

report to the Legislature. Thirteen months later we're still waiting

for the report, but, Mr. Speaker, what do we hear the other day? We

heard his colleague, the Minister for Little Mountain, say that we're

going to go into another review. This time it's going to be an in-depth

study, an in-depth study.

Two years ago we were told that the Ministry of Trade and Industry

had a special task to look into the employment problems of the

handicapped. I will resist some facetious remarks. But what happened to

that report, Mr. Speaker, from that Minister about the handicapped

employment? A year ago, for the fifth year in a row, for the fifth year

in a row we heard that the Government was again looking into

expropriation laws. I think they're trying to find a copy of the

report, that's what I think.

It's got to be seven years ago since I first heard about gasoline

prices, seven years ago since the member of that day in the Chamber

became exercised about gasoline prices. We've had Commissions, we've

had committees, we've had reports, we've had motions, we've had Bills,

we've had minority reports, we've….

AN HON. MEMBER: We've had more gas increases.

MR. HALL: We've had more gas increases, we've had price

increases, and all that's happened is that the gas prices continue to

increase and the man who started the whole thing off is in the Cabinet.

Is it all over, Mr. Speaker? Is that the end of the gas strike? Well, I

want to say it's not. It's not over as far as we are concerned. We

still want action and we're still going to continue to press for

Government intervention in price fixing because that's what it is.

The illustrations I've given show that the Government, Mr. Speaker,

is not grasping the real problems. It seems to me to be fatuous to talk

about the good life, to talk about the rounded life, when we've got 20

per cent of our population in poverty, with unemployment going to

all-time levels. We've had deputations from P.T.A's, from the farmers,

from the teachers, and from the tenants, all complaining about the

failure to act by the Government, and it isn't a question of

expenditure necessarily, Mr. Speaker.

I want to repeat again what I said in the previous debate about the

Government's role in these critical times, and the disturbing trend

I've noticed is that the number of people — and I want to say this over

and over again as long as I'm in this House — the number of people

outside in the Province who are becoming to think that the Legislature,

the parliamentary system, that this form of democracy we enjoy is

becoming irrelevant. We've had instances over and over again where

young people have come to us at meetings, at youth groups, that would

strengthen this feeling if anybody is aware of them.

I feel that the whole question of the relevance of parliament, the

question of the measure of responsiveness, responsiveness, Mr. Speaker,

and responsibility to our problems is the greatest issue facing us

today. The Government appears to be badly equipped to handle that

problem. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern and the concern of

my party about this feeling.

I want to warn the House, and I want to say it again very clearly,

because two of the members that came to me after my last speech I think

may have misheard me. I want to say that the question before us really

is that democracy on the continent was never so dangerously poised,

that our system of checks and balances are based on the rational

tradition. The forces that can and may play a role in our future cannot

be described as either rational or traditional.

When the wishes of the school taxpayers, the wishes of the farmers,

the wishes of the underprivileged are thwarted and denied by the

Government, we are adding to the numbers outside who have already made

up their minds that we are irrelevant, and that the dogma and the

manifestos and the objectives and the agendas and the sloganeering that

goes on from time to time is, in my view, no longer viable and is dead.

The only dogma I'm prepared to accept, Mr. Speaker, is the dogma that

deals with making this Government, this democracy, this Chamber, this

Province really work, to ensure that the dead weight of bureaucracy is

lifted, to reduce and to make more democratic all the quasi-judicial

boards that we've erected all over the Province. The rest, Mr. Speaker,

will have to go to the essential nature of the quality of the

Government in power at the time. I add, Mr. Speaker, that this

Government hasn't got that. It's a proof for me, if I needed proof,

that those remarks that I made on the Speech from the Throne were

relevant to this Budget, and the Speech that accompanied the Budget

gave me that proof. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. H. MERILEES (1st Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my

understanding, as one of the kindergarten group of this Twenty-ninth

Legislature, is the members taking their place in the Budget debate are

allowed to do considerable roaming as far as their choice of subjects

is concerned, except that they mustn't wander into the pitfall of

hydro-electric rates. Well, I've had my fill of those, so it'll be a

pleasure to talk

[ Page 488 ]

about something else.

First of all, let me give you a progress report on several of the

recommendations made in my maiden speech. First of all, a committee has

already been formed and will meet shortly with regard to plantings to

beautify the median of Highway 401 between Chilliwack and Vancouver.

These plantings will also make it a safer highway for night driving.

The project will show its first results in the Spring of 1971, and

it'll be a part of our greeting to visitors driving to our Centennial

Confederation celebrations. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I've been

flooded with grand-stand quarterbacks. Everybody thinks this is a great

idea, but everybody and every amateur horticulturist in British

Columbia has her or his own ideas as to the best thing to plant — everything from cherry trees to native dogwoods and bluebells — and the

latest suggestion comes from the wife of the honourable member from

Cariboo. She came all the way from Quesnel today to be in the House to

petition for the planting of petunias, and she's watching me now, and I

guess I'd better plant a few petunias. From long range standpoint the

greatest….

AN HON. MEMBER: …. give them lots of fertilizer!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MERILEES: You'd better be nice to me, young man

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All the members will have an opportunity to make their contribution.

MR. MERILEES: If it wasn't for me, you might be one row back and working for half price. (laughter)

MR. D. BARRETT: I'll speak to you later.

MR. MERILEES: From a long range standpoint, Mr. Speaker, the

greatest contribution that this can make will be inevitably a dividing

hedge that will block blinding headlight rays and make for safer night

driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MERILEES: I wonder how many members of this House know,

Mr. Speaker, that one of the best hedges in the whole world, or for a

windbreak for that matter, is made from our own natural cedar trees.

The seedlings grow by the thousands along the side of every road on the

lower mainland and Vancouver Island, and I'm sure that our Forestry

Department would supply enough for free to do the whole of Highway 499

between the Peace Arch and Richmond. What a blessing that would be on a

rainy night when you're driving to the boundary or to the ferry. They

grow fast and they're easily trained.

Suggestion two — I'm pleased to report that some of the best

architects and designers that we have in the Province have volunteered

their assistance in the formation of a voluntary design panel to assist

municipalities, cities and this Government in doing a better job of

design and colours to match the various parts of the Province of

British Columbia, and cut down some of the hideous colour combinations

and structures that now decorate the Interior as well as the Coast and

the Island.

Number three. I've already entered into discussions with Dean Philip

White, who is the head of the Department of Commerce at the University

of British Columbia, and with leaders of the transportation and

accommodation facets of the travel industry, to produce a four-year

course with specialised tourist summer job training and post-graduate

research. Hopefully, such a course will give British Columbia at least

a few specially trained tourist and convention oriented young men and

women at the end of each university year.

Along with the positive, Mr. Speaker, we must, in all honesty,

complete the record with a quote "lack of progress report" unquote on a

couple of items. One of these is the absence in the Budget Speech of

any hint for cheaper money to encourage the building of badly needed

and long overdue physical accommodation in the hotel, motel and resort

field. In my maiden speech, increased better quality accommodation

received a top priority rating in my list of the needs for tourist

development. On the subject of more financial help for the heavily

urbanized areas, I suppose my answer was contained in the Budget Speech

which indicated how much better off Vancouver was faring in comparison

with some of the other Canadian cities, but this is a comparison that I

am presently checking up with the chairman of the City of Vancouver's

Finance Committee, Alferman Earl Adams, and I'll report to you later on

that one.

By and large, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult for even the most

rabid critics to fault the Minister of Finance's Budget for the first

year of the 1970's. Increases are included for the most crying of our

needs. There is nothing in it of a serious inflationary nature, and yet

the spending on necessary services to people and construction has not

been stinted. But, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that

investigation and consideration be made of the total amount that will

be allocated for tourist, convention and travel development in the next

Budget. True, the Department of Travel budget was increased by a half a

million dollars, but with increased newspaper, magazine, television,

film, and printing costs, I would suggest that this increase will

barely enable us to hold our own.

If General Motors or Woodwards Store had exclusive control over an

industry the size of British Columbia's Travel Industry, roughly

$345,000,000 a year, I think that you'd find that they would be

spending a lot more than $3,000,000 a year on servicing and promoting a

product. The advertising and promotion budget on almost any saleable

service or product today is between two and seven per cent. If one took

the lowest figure, two per cent, we would still come up with a tourist

budget for British Columbia of close to $7,000,000.

Tourism produces general prosperity and employment for over 20,000

British Columbia families, as well as a very healthy slice of business

for just about every merchant and manufacturer in the Province. The

honourable Minister of Agriculture, I'm sure, realizes the tremendous

support our farmers and ranchers receive from tourists and convention

delegates. Just one small example, Mr. Speaker, during the peak of the

tourist season, visitors from outside the Province of British Columbia,

consuming at least a million of fresh-laid eggs a week, to say nothing

of millions of pounds of beef and other farm produce, and the

Provincial revenues also gained substantially, as you well know, from

gasoline, liquor and sales taxes.

In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that in last year's Budget,

under Bill No. 10, 1969, the Minister of Finance allocated one and a

half million dollars of additional funds to the municipalities for the

express purpose of tourist promotion, but not one, as far as I know,

passed on this amount to

[ Page 489 ]

their local tourist promotion group.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us turn our attention for a moment to

pollution and to litter. Everybody has had a kick at the cat or should

I say a kick at the can, on this issue, so I see no reason why I

shouldn't put in my nickel's worth. There are some very fine

contributions that have been made by members of all parties, both

during their debate on the Throne Speech and on this Budget Speech.

Positive action has been announced by the Government, and I commend the

honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources for the very

meaningful plum on the end of what I hope is a stick, that he has

pointed at the pulp mills of this Province. I refer to the offer of

$250,000 to the individual or company that comes up with the answer to

this ghastly smell. Even in Vancouver, as far removed as we are from

the pulp mills in Howe Sound, when there's a certain set in the wind,

this dreadful odour percolates through Stanley Park and into the city

centre, and those driving the Island Highway don't need to be told when

they are getting near Campbell River or Nanaimo.

But, Mr. Speaker, pollution, as everybody agrees, is not just a

one-industry, one-product problem. It covers the gamut which is best

described by a word that was practically unused as recently as five

years ago, that word is "ecology." Rachael Carson, not too long ago in

her famous book "The Sea Around Us," was a voice crying in the

wilderness, but now everybody either has an intimate or at least a

speaking knowledge of what the meaning of the word "ecology" is.

Because my patron saint was Captain George Vancouver, as you all

know, and because Vancouver was of Dutch descent, I quoted the old

Dutch proverb in my maiden speech, "If you would like to improve the

world, the best thing you can do is to start with yourself." Well, as

good citizens and individuals, and through various organizations and

through our municipalities, we can accomplish a great deal by our own

personal efforts, and again I recommend we adopt and publicize the

slogan, "Keep British Columbia Clean."

For every cigarette carton, every chocolate bar wrapper, used

chewing gum, pop bottles, beer bottles, tin cans — these are the things

that ordinary people can deal with — they are not only an eye-sore, but

they also contribute to the pollution of our Province. Mr. Speaker, the

results you see are horrendous. You see whole cartons of empty beer

bottles, of beer cans heaved out on the side of the highway or

individually smashed to smithereens against bridge abutments, rocks or

trees. You see them degrade the bottoms of beautiful streams, ponds or

lakes next to the highways, making it almost impossible to retrieve

them, even if you had the machinery to do it, or the manpower. You've

seen places, even in designated areas, where people have moved in and

out and left a fantastic mess. I've seen places just off the highway,

and I daresay you people have seen them, where some of our so-called

sportsmen have pulled out after a day or two of slaughtering deer,

birds, fish or anything else that happened to move, and examining the

ground where the camper stood, I'm almost prepared to swear that I

could give you the precise measurements of the vehicle. These people,

Mr. Speaker, are not litter-bugs. That's just too polite a term for

them. These people are garbage-mongers. Let's fact it. They should be

labelled, and they should be treated as garbage-mongers.

There's a

section of the Highways Act that calls for a $5000 fine

for littering our highways, but in searching our Provincial records I

can't find six convictions over the past year for the whole of the

Province of British Columbia. We all know that education and our pride

in our community are vital to the success of any correctional

programme, and the honourable Minister of Travel, and his department,

are to be commended on their splendid efforts, continuing efforts, in

this regard. But, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe there will be

nothing, nothing quite so effective a deterrent to these

garbage-mongers, as a regular and well-publicized programme of

convictions under the highway littering Act.

In April of 1968 the Legislature passed another commendable Act, the

Highways Scenic Improvement Act, and this was aimed squarely at what I

call garbage-mongers. It's an excellent extension of the Highways

littering regulations, and covers land anywhere up to 500 feet from the

centre line from any designated highway in British Columbia, and it

specified, I quote, "any accumulation of rubbish, garbage, ashes,

filth, discarded materials or the bodies or parts of vehicles or

machinery, " unquote. The Act covers Crown land, and also gives the

power to municipalities who proclaim it in their areas. As far as I can

determine, Mr. Speaker, in the whole of the Province of British

Columbia there has been only one conviction which produced one fine of

$100 since April of 1968, and to the best of my knowledge, the

Municipality of Saanich was the only municipality that has seen fit to

take advantage of this legislation and have it proclaimed.

Abandoned auto and truck bodies are probably the worst offenders

that we have, and we all know the difficulty of tracking them down, but

means must be found, even if it requires some kind of a bonus system or

whatever may be needed to get this type of junk to a central crushing

plant in Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince George, or where have you. I think

it would be well worth the small additional budget that might be

required, and as the Scotsman said, why spoil the soup for a

halfpenny's worth of salt. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere belief

that a systemized, well-publicized programme of convictions is required

to bring home in a forceful way, itinerants and residents alike, that

they just can't go around dumping and polluting our roadside areas with

junk and garbage.

Communities throughout the Province are all deeply interested, and

many of our municipalities and many organizations stage very excellent

clean-up or paint-up campaigns, but I think it is up to us in this

House, this Government, to set the lead and give an inspiration by

declaring total war on the irresponsible disposition of garbage and

litter in every part of beautiful British Columbia. (applause) To this

end I would respectfully recommend to the honourable Minister of

Recreation and Conservation to have the Premier declare a set day each

spring in British Columbia as a giant clean-up day. The one end of the

Province to the other — from boundary to boundary — give it a special

name, enlist all the forces that can be mustered, including service

clubs, school children, boy-scouts, guides, municipal authorities,

particularly the police forces, and let's all get together and do a

cracker-jack job.

After all, Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague, the second member

from Vancouver-South got away with a suggestion and was roundly

applauded, declaring it a Provincial holiday for everybody and I,

incidentally, think this is a jolly good idea, too. The least we can

do, I would suggest, in reply to that, the least I can do is to suggest

that we have a Province-wide clean-up to get rid of the mess created by

the holiday…. (laughter and applause)…. You may have noticed that

through the cooperation of the

[ Page 490 ]

Canadian Tourist Association, that the City of

Terrace in the riding of the honourable member from Skeena, has been

chosen as a national test area for a clean-up and beautification

experiment in the month of May. Possibly the date for a British

Columbia campaign could be made to coincide with this date. So much for

the garbage-mongers, Mr. Speaker.

Now for a couple of ideas I'll add to the list for the prevention of

pollution. Number one: Through the cooperation with the appropriate

Ottawa authorities, let us insist, and this has been mentioned before — a slight twist on a subject that's been discussed by a number of the

members. Let us insist on a review and the imposition of the strictest

possible rules governing the ocean-borne and highway-borne materials

and liquids that have pollution and human disaster potential. The one

on everybody's tongue at the minute is the water-borne shipment of oil

by tanker.

The inside passage from Bull Harbour through the Straits of Georgia

and down to Victoria is a prime route for many a dangerous cargo. How

we have escaped disaster between Bull Harbour and Victoria up until

now, I just cannot understand but, Mr. Speaker, I am truly thankful.

The good people of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, should be showing real

concern for the cargos that are presently passing in front of their

front doors through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The latest

possibility, I understand, will be shipments of deadly nerve gas that

the Japanese have insisted be removed from Okinawa. Just think about

that one.

Also, in the honourable member from Alberni's area, on the west

coast of Vancouver Island, the graveyard of the Pacific so-called, why

in the name of thunder are there not laws that prevent freighters of

any kind, unless bound for a definite port on the west coast of

Vancouver Island and under professional pilotage, coming any closer

than 50 miles offshore? I don't see it. Such a law might not eliminate

all accidents, but it would certainly lengthen the odds. Even a blind

man, barring serious engine failures, should be able to keep off the

rocks on this basis.

Point number two, and my second suggestion, Mr. Speaker, regarding

pollution concerns what I consider a vital area and a vital new

concept. This is the Gulf of Georgia, Puget Sound, and the Straits of

Juan de Fuca. Years ago, if anybody had told me one day the Gulf of

Georgia with its beautiful Gulf Islands, the Strait of Georgia,

Discovery Passage, and all of the British Columbia inland sea could

become completely polluted, I wouldn't have believed them, and I don't

think you would have believed them either.

Incidentally, British Columbia's inland sea is one of the most

fabulous pieces of cruising water in the whole wide world. During the

1958 Centennial, the well-known British Columbia writer, Mr. Bruce

Hutchison, did a feature for Reader's Digest on British Columbia, and

it was a beautifully done article, and Mr. Hutchison pointed out that

we had on the coast of British Columbia 5,000 miles of cruising

waterways, inlets. I thought this was an impressive figure, but I also

felt that it was a little conservative, so I had the officials in the

Department of Lands do a survey for me, an accurate measurement of

every inch of territory on the inlets on the coasts, of all the islands

of British Columbia, and you better guess what they came up with. The

actual outline, if you travelled every inch of the coastline of British

Columbia, you would have travelled a distance only a couple of hundred

miles short of the circumference of the world — better than 24,000

miles of cruising coastline!

Today it is the unanimous opinion of experts that pollution of this

Gulf and the Straits is not only possible, but that the elements are

already loosed to do just that. These problems, I know, are under

discussion. The Fraser River's sewer outfalls in the lower mainland,

and the south-eastern coast of Vancouver Island, including Victoria,

are all great offenders. But, Mr. Speaker, the one area where I think

immediate cooperative action should be instituted, is in the

relationship between British Columbia and our American neighbours in

the State of Washington.

There was once a notorious or famous, depending on your point of

view, American business tycoon, who put his foot in his mouth when he

said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." I don't

think I'm putting my foot in my mouth, Mr. Speaker, when I say that

what's bad for the State of Washington is bad for the Province of

British Columbia, or vice versa. This applies to all forms of

pollution, but particularly it applies to the Gulf of Georgia, Puget

Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. There is no sense in having a

new pulp mill on Vancouver Island just outside the boundaries of

Cowichan-Malahat, with the hope that the people at Duncan won't smell

it. Nor is there any sense, Mr. Speaker, of placing pollutants by the

Americans into Puget Sound and banning them in British Columbia, or

vice versa. The question of pollution by the State of Washington, in my

opinion, is a much more vital issue and concern to British Columbia

than any kind of pollution even in our sister province of Alberta.

There are strong forces at work right now, Mr. Speaker, at Olympia,

Washington, keen and eager to combat the same types of problems that

confront us, and may I respectfully suggest that the Premier of this

Province institute a programme that would be a vital history-making

first, by inviting the appropriate representatives from the State of

Washington to commence discussions with appropriate Ministers from

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't they have a $5,000 a day fine for air pollution down there?

MR. MERILEES: I don't know.

Targets for these talks between the representatives of the State of

Washington and our own Ministers would be a mutual programme of

cooperation to keep the Gulf of Georgia clean.

The Minister of Finance is to be commended on giving a further grant

of $2,500 for a second mortgage or $500 outright to assist in buying an

older home but, Mr. Speaker, what about the other older homes, and

their pioneer owners. These people are doing what the Premier is

probably anxious that good British Columbia residents do, and that is

to own and take a pride in their own home. There are thousands of these

people in my constituency alone, Mr. Speaker, and many of these homes,

though they be 40, 50 or 60 years old, are extremely well-built and

well-kept. But to stay abreast of the times, to keep them in tip-top

modern condition, they require costly remodeling with either the

installation of a modern kitchen, bathroom, automatic central heat, or

whatever it may be. In some cases where zoning regulations permit,

these older people might be permitted to make a conversion into a

revenue type property. Mr. Speaker, I think a home improvement loan

plan for people of this type and their homes might well be considered

by the Minister of Finance in his next review.

Also, Mr. Speaker, may I at this time enter a plea for those of us

who live in apartments. Does anybody here live in apartments besides me?

[ Page 491 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. ISABEL DAWSON: I do when I'm here in Victoria.

MR. MERILEES: The trend toward urbanization has been

mentioned many times already during this Session, and today in the

larger cities in Canada, and especially in British Columbia, the trend

to apartment-house living is turning into a torrent. I see no reason

why people who establish themselves as long-time steady tenants, paying

steady rents, thousands of couples, both young and old, who elect to

live for a period of years or for the rest of their lives in an

apartment-type dwelling should not receive the home-owner grant. In

doing this, they still make their just contribution to municipal,

provincial and federal revenues, and I see no reason at all why they

should be treated as second-class citizens.

Everybody, Mr. Speaker, has also had a kick at the cat as far as

education costs are concerned, and agreed we need more teachers, agreed

they deserve the best possible treatment, and agreed we need fewer

students per class, and agreed we need many other things. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is one thing we don't need, and the thing as far as I am

concerned that we don't need are luxurious public schools scattered

around this Province of British Columbia that have all the trappings of

a California ranch house. Whatever happened to the sound economic

principle of multi-storied school buildings? Surely they are more

efficient. Surely with modern construction methods they are as safe as

a church. If we can't cut the cost of building our schools and still

include suitable covered recreational areas, then I think we need to

have our heads examined.

One of the most interesting experiments in Canada today is going on

right in the Strathcona area in the Vancouver Centre riding in the City

of Vancouver under the direction of Mr. Maurice Egan, newly-appointed

director of social planning for the City of Vancouver. This structure

under discussion and planning today amalgamates the needs and desires

for an educational, social and community programme building for that

whole area. The plan envisions a combination of community library,

swimming pool, gymnasium and auditorium, all of which are combined with

secondary school facilities. This building could be the indicator

toward a better way of spending our money.

Now, one last kick at the White Paper, Mr. Speaker, and I will be

finished. Members of the Opposition have claimed that this Government

is totally opposed to the whole of the White Paper. Such a statement,

Mr. Speaker, is nothing but misleading hog-wash. Many of the

recommendations have been openly approved by the Premier and the

members of our Cabinet and by various of the backbenchers of this

party. but there are a number of proposals in the White Paper, and some

of these have been spelled out for you, that are just absolutely no

good insofar as the effect that they would have on the economy of

British Columbia.

The honourable member from Oak Bay pointed out, and I think it's

rather interesting, that if we are able to move hospital patients out

of expensive acute beds one day earlier, it will result in the saving

of millions of dollars on capital and operating costs. But, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to turn this coin over and say to this House if, on

the other hand, we are able to keep tourists and convention delegates

in our hotel beds one night longer, we would gain over $60,000,000 of

additional revenue every year. And this would go a long, long way to

buying more schools and more hospitals and more services. But, Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Benson proposes to eliminate the presently tax-deductible

expenses incurred by delegates attending Canadian conventions. He

claims this would save $17,000,000 every year, $17,000,000 every year.

Well, I have news for Mr. Benson, and it may even be news for some

members of this House. The convention part of the travel industry in

British Columbia brought to this Province alone, gross revenues last

year of over $47,000,000. If this regulation is allowed to become law,

British Columbia would be the biggest single loser in Canada, because

we are at the end of the line, and you all know that. Business meetings

and conventions of all sizes, kinds, and types that are vital to

national business, professional and fraternal organizations — and they

are going to be held — would be, for vital reasons of economy, held in

Toronto or Montreal, so don't think that this wouldn't create

unemployment in British Columbia.

The honourable member who was against convention expenses — if there

are abuses in connection with convention expenses, then these are easy

to get rid of. They're easy to get at.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. MERILEES: Regulations governing convention expenses are

already covered under Federal statute. They are under Federal statute

and they can be policed, but for the life of me I just can't understand

why Benson seems so hell-bent to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to save money and we don't want taxes to

go up. On this score let me doff my hat to the best housekeeper in

Canada, the Honourable Minister of Finance. Just take a look at the

chart on page 45 of the Budget Speech that shows where the money comes

from and where the money goes. If there is a man in this House who

thinks he could do a better job let him stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing up there?

MR. MERILEES: This is one of the terms of reference. This

goes with the position, you stand up to speak and you don't sit down

rudely. Look at Table 4 on page 25 of the Budget Speech and consider

the advantages that we in British Columbia enjoy regarding taxes in

comparison to the taxes imposed across this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote yes on the budget motion. A yes vote

is a vote for a bigger and better and more beautiful British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H. R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take my place today in the Budget Debate.

I would like to say, before really getting into the meat of the

matter, that I am a little bit concerned about the performance of some

of the members on this side of the House with regard to the first

member from Vancouver East. Now, we've heard from the member from

Vancouver East, and he has been referred to in some rather biting

attacks from members on this side as the member from smear — second

member, excuse me — the member from smear and other rather unfortunate

epithets, and you know, as I listened the other day to the rather

memorable speech in this House of the member from Dewdney, I couldn't

help but look over at that member and it occurred to me, you know,

[ Page 492 ]

that any member in this House that couldn't crack a

smile sometime during that speech had to be in pretty serious trouble.

I don't think that he deserves our condemnation, I think he deserves

our pity. I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the member is really

missing the second member for Burrard who was here last Session, but I

think he does miss his analyst. I'm only hopeful that from what I read

in the paper of his impending change in marital status it will have a

more salutary effect on his personality than what has been evidenced in

the past.

This is a time when we traditionally talk about money, the clear

indication in the Budget about where the money comes from and where it

goes. The answer, of course, is the same for both. It comes from the

taxpayer and it goes back to him. However, it's a question of how you

proportion it and what your priorities are that form the general

over-all philosophy of the Government. In my previous speech in the

Throne debate I indicated that I was concerned with the rapid growth in

the Province of British Columbia because of the great amounts of

capital that are necessary to service that growth, and if we look at

the Budget what we want to do is to see where does the bulk of the

money go, and it goes to people in the form of health and education to

the tune of 67.2 per cent, or over two-thirds of our entire Budget in

those particular areas. These are two functions that are supposedly

under provincial jurisdiction and I think — let's be honest — that we,

as in every other jurisdiction in Canada, have trouble keeping up those

particular fields.

There is nothing here, however, that can't be solved with money. We

can build gymnasiums. We can have limitless pools. We can build more

acute care beds, more chronic care beds, increase home nursing, if only

we have more money. And, as far as I am aware, there are only two ways

in which you can get more money for these two particular areas. Well,

one is to increase taxes, and the other is to spend less in other

Government departments. Now then, the Opposition — it's a rather

interesting thing — never seem to me to be very interested in cuts in

other departments. I don't think we have ever seen the Leader of the

Opposition now, get up and call for cuts on social welfare, if memory

serves correctly. I don't think that we've seen the second member for

Vancouver East call for cuts in the Department of Lands and Forests. I

don't believe that we've ever seen the member from Cowichan-Malahat

…. Granted, the saving of a dollar is not very significant an opinion.

It's rather interesting thing, we used to hear the old saw that we

are just a blacktop government, just a blacktop government. We haven't

heard that this Session, I wonder just what's happened to it. You know,

it was a funny thing during this last election, you know, I never heard

of the blacktop government during the election. It's a funny thing, you

know my N.D.P. opposition in the constituency of Alberni, when he went

into Tahsis, you know it's a funny thing, he didn't condemn us for the

blacktop government, he promised them a road into Tahsis. When he went

into Gold River, you know he didn't condemn us for being a blacktop

government, he was going to fix up and pave the last link into Gold

River. When he went into Port Alberni, he talked about a second route

into the Albernis. When he went into Tofino-Ucluelet, he talked about

relocation of the switchbacks, and on and on. You know, that particular

fellow built more roads in three weeks than the Minister has done in

the last two years. All in three weeks!

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you opposed to these suggestions?

MR. McDIARMID: Just a question of the money. No, I'm not opposed to them at all, I'm not opposed, not for a minute, no, no.

As for the increasing of taxes, we heard a marvelous address in this

House from the member of Cowichan-Malahat or Duncan- Ladysmith or

something. You know, he held our rapt attention at least for the first

two hours of his speech. You remember how he stormed and he raged in

stentorian tones, I'm sure well over the allowable decibels of safety.

You know, he recounted the dismay that he had with the backbenchers on

this side of the House who are proposing, of all things, selective tax

increases for specific purposes. He gave us, I am sure, the distinct

impression that his Opposition party would have no part ever in the

raising of taxes.

I think you can sum up their philosophy very succinctly in this way,

in the old poem: "Under the spreading gooseberry bush the village

burglar rests, the burglar is a hairy man with whiskers in his eyes,

and the muscles on his brawny back keep off the little flies. He goes

on Sunday to the Church to hear the parson shout, he puts a quarter on

the plate and takes a dollar out."

And, you know, I just want to tell you right now, that to take a dollar out, Mr. Member from Cowichan-Malahat….

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Take two dollars out. (Laughter)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will both members withdraw their reflections on the honesty of each other.

MR. McDIARMID: The very simple lesson of this is to take a dollar out you've got to put a dollar in, and that's what we do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McDIARMID: I listened to you for three hours the other day, my friend, I'm only ten minutes into mine.

But you know, seriously, no real discussion of the Budget, I don't

think, can be had without getting into the serious questions of

philosophy that are raised by the proposed White Paper on Taxation.

Ostensibly, this has been purported by the Finance Minister as

something that will redistribute the load of taxation. It will make it

easier for the small man, the person who doesn't make a buck, and it

will make it tougher on the wealthier person. This is the whole

purport, but you know, really, when you get into the nuts and bolts of

it, it isn't that at all. It's a very thin guise to raise an awful lot,

many more millions of dollars, for the Federal treasury. That's what it

is. It's not redistribution, my friends, not redistribution for one

bit. That's the ostensible purpose but really, it's more like

confiscation.

Mr. MacNaughton, who was the Minister of Finance of the Ontario

Government, indicated in a fairly comprehensive study through his

computer banks and this sort of thing that even the many millions which

Mr. Benson admitted would be raised by this, that this real figure

would be only half, in fact, of what actually they would raise. So what

we really want to get down to is, if it's going to raise that much more

money, where is the money going to go? We haven't heard anything from

the Federal Government as to where this money is going to go, and it's

going to be a substantial amount, in the many millions of dollars. You

know, the thing about this is that the Federal Government, after a bit

of pruning which was probably long overdue, tells us that they will

finally, for the first time in 11 or 12 years, balance their budget.

Even have a bit of a surplus.

[ Page 493 ]

Now our needs as far as provinces are pretty obvious. They've

already been mentioned in many areas of health and in the areas of

education. But you know, it's a rather interesting thing, that I read

in the paper today about this recent Conference that our Premier was

at. Mr. Trudeau said here, in part, "That the primary responsibility

for putting the lid on the rate of health, welfare and education

costs," said the Prime Minister, "was provincial. The Federal

Government was the prisoner of these vastly expanding shared cost

programmes with the provinces."

Well, you know, probably the greatest recent single expenditure in

the area of health has been Medicare, which in fact has been a boon to

many people, but this is one of the principal large costs and this was

instituted by the carrot and the stick, by the Federal Government, the

Federal Government. They were the prime movers, they were going to tax,

and unless you instituted the plan you wouldn't get your money back.

Certainly I believe in it, but what I'm getting at is this — on one

hand they turn around, institute the big expenditure and then they turn

back to the provinces and say, "You keep the lid on." You know, this is

great philosophy.

You know it's only a year ago, really, or a couple of years, that

this happened, and it's a rather interesting thing that when they went

into this field, what they did was that, as the member from

Cowichan-Malahat said the other day, something about a stacked deck.

Well you know, they dealt the Medicare cards out right on top of the

table where everybody could see them, but what were they doing at the

bottom of the deck? What were they doing at the bottom of the deck?

National Health care grants to British Columbia, grants from the

Federal Government for professional training, mental health, T.B.

control, general public health, cancer control, medical rehabilitation,

child and maternal health, and hospital construction, all Federal

grants, all share-cost programmes entered into with this Government; in

1967-68, $3,311,000, 68-69 — $3,320,000, 69-70 — $2,400,000, down a

million, 1970-71 — $1,600,000. So, here we have the proposition of

health. They come in at the top with one programme while they are

pulling the other things out from under the rugs. If you're going to go

in for health, go in for it. Don't put one in at the top and pull one

off the bottom.

Hospital construction is another thing. The $2,000 per bed grant to

hospitals has been a very real help in raising the municipal share of

construction costs as far as hospitals are concerned. I was in on the

building of a hospital in Tofino and Ucluelet and this, at that time,

amounted to a real big factor. But what are they doing in the areas

where we need the help the most? Next year there won't be one nickel of

a Federal Government share for a hospital bed in British Columbia — not

one nickel, and this is what concerns me.

The same thing with the health resources fund of $500,000,000 — big

fanfare. Well, they are going to string it out over 15 years, maybe 20,

maybe 25. They absolutely diluted the effect of that, so it has

absolutely little or no impact today whatsoever.

I feel this, that when the provinces are facing, as their two major

things in the areas where we need help that the Federal Government is

taking that help away, that they've got their priorities mixed up, my

friends, they've got their priorities mixed up. You know, the worst is

not to come. It is to come — I'm sorry. Every indication is that they

are going to opt out of Medicare itself in five years, no question

about that, and you know, there's another little hooker here, too.

We heard from the member from Atlin the other day about the White

Paper on Indian Affairs, and I agree with him that certainly the native

people have to have far more self-determination. The Federal Government

has indicated from time to time that this is simply a transfer of

responsibility, but the Federal Government will retain full fiscal

responsibility for these things that are put over onto the province.

Well, if what we've seen as far as the medical health branch is going

to happen, you know what will happen on that programme. I would just

like to read a little thing on page 9 of that thing which I think puts

the thin edge of the wedge. As I said last year, the Federal Gove