1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 495 ]

The House met at 2: 00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I rise to a point of

personal privilege. I have now been a Member of this House for nearly

thirty years. I have been Premier for approximately 19 years and this

is the first time I ever rose in the House on a matter of personal

privilege. I do so, today, because of this headline in the Vancouver Sun ,

caused by an honourable Member of this House. I show it here. I want to

say this. In the nearly thirty years that I have been an M.L.A., I have

bent backwards more than any other M.L.A. In the history of the

Commonwealth to make sure that our stores would never supply any

merchandise to the Government, directly, or to its Crown corporations.

When my sons were mature men, 38 and 41 years of age, and took over the

operation of the businesses, and their own businesses, they had full

right to do in their own business as I would have had full right in the

company, but, nevertheless, they followed the same point of view. This

accusation and suggestion that the Bennett stores sold fencing to the

Hydro for the Bennett Dam, at double the price, is completely false. It

is untrue and a complete lie.

I want to say that the Bennett stores did not sell any fencing to

the Hydro and the Peace River Dam, at any time, at any price, double

price, half price, or any price. I want to say that this type of

cowardly attack, Mr. Speaker, even if it were put in the form of a

question, is what brings public life into disrespect in this country. I

asked the Bennett stores to search their records and they did. They

found no records of any sales. To be doubly sure, I phoned the Hydro to

make sure, too, that they did not buy from us. Today, I have a

statement from Gordon Shrum, chairman of Hydro. February 18, 1971.

Release time, 9:28 a.m. this morning. I phoned him at eight o'clock

this morning. "Message for the Canadian Press: re Wire Fencing for

Hydro Projects. In reply to the charges made by Mr. Gordon Dowding in

the Legislature yesterday afternoon, I wish to report that we have

checked all British Columbia Hydro accounts back to April 1, 1963. No

wire fencing of any kind has been purchased from Bennett's Hardware, at

any price, either for the Peace River Project or for any other purpose

in the Hydro system. All our orders go out to public tender and are

ordered at competitive prices. I can make the above statement with

authority, as we have a complete record of all transactions. Signed by

G.M. Shrum." Then at 11 a.m., we got this further notice from Dr.

Shrum. "Since sending the above message, we find that the chain link

fence on the Peace project was under contract number 71, the Foundation

Company, to supply and install 3,700 ft. at $6 per ft. The fencing

material was supplied by the Dominion Bridge Company." Mr. Speaker,

this is a very serious charge, indeed, and I'm not going to say any

more about it at this particular time, because I'm advised that Court

action is contemplated against the Honourable Member from Burnaby and

the Vancouver Sun and others (applause) .

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, we accept, on this side, the assurances of the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the matter is now

before the Courts. So, I won't comment further, except to say this. As

soon as I learned of the story that had gone abroad, I immediately took

steps with the press and, very fortunately … I discussed this with

the committee chairman, this morning, who entirely bears out my

statement that… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order.

MR. DOWDING: A statement made in the Public Accounts

Committee came out in two different versions in the press. The chairman

of the Public Accounts Committee has confirmed with me this morning his

understanding, as is mine, that no implication was made against the

Bennett Stores (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. DOWDING: I went on TV and reassured them.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to

withdraw that statement thrown across the floor in a moment of emotion.

I am sure he didn't mean it. You called that Member yellow, Mr.

Premier, and I ask you to withdraw it.

MR. BENNETT: Well, he's not yellow. I wouldn't lie.

MR. BARRETT: I asked for an unconditional withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well, I think the Premier… Heat is being

generated in these matters and they are highly emotional. I'm sure that

the Premier didn't wish to leave any impressions that the Member was

cowardly or anything else. I would ask him to fully withdraw his

statement.

MR. BENNETT: I withdraw. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

MR. BENNETT: But this is a part of a campaign of the NDP Party!

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Highways.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

find out in a very few minutes whether I am a pro or an amateur. As you

well know, somebody has got to tell some jokes here. I don't feel very

funny this afternoon, after having been sick on top of that other

thing. However, I do say this. This House is a wonderful place and

everyone of us has a very deep feeling about being here and what we are

supposed to do here. At the same time, as my honourable colleague Lacie

Gracie said the other day, "We've got to laugh sometimes and we've got

to tell stories sometimes." I

[ Page 496 ]

can't think of a better time than now to add one.

If I said that these last two debates have been as dull as dishwater

… Oh, they have, they have. I couldn't find anything really funny to

say about them. There was only one big joke and that was the coup de

grace. The only reason, Mr. Speaker, he said that was because I

repeated it to him 12 times over the telephone. Now, just because you

have obviously done went in your first lesson, here's your second

lesson. You'll find it, in French on the back of the cornflakes box (laughter) .

Unfortunately, I think that's where most of us learn our French these

days, at breakfast time. However, there is another one that sort of

fitted in, today, and I got a real kick out of it in the debate when

the little den mother for the NDP rose and told us what great little

Cub Scouts she had over there. She got out her whitewash brush and

started whitewashing them all. I'll tell you some of that crowd will

never be in the wardrobe department for white wings. So, I got you

something, dear. Oh yes, I did. I got you a little brush, but you'll

have to buy your own whitewash so you can paint them all you like but

they will just be the same to us. Would you take that over to the

little den mother over there. If you don't want it, send it back as my

wife wants me to paint the kitchen (interruption) .

I beg your pardon. No, I'm not asking her to paint herself. Listen, my boy, listen. I've been very remiss… (interruption) .

She's done that for several years but I've tried, though. Perhaps,

today, is a day of confession. I made my wife stay home, today.

However, Mr. Speaker, I'd be very remiss if I didn't say something

about my constituency, but perhaps say something about it in a

different sort of way than others do. I see my friend from Kootenay is

absent this afternoon. Be that as it may, there are others here from

the general Kootenays, who recognize that the Kootenays are one of the

most beautiful places there are in British Columbia. Those who like big

game hunting — why people like that I'm darned if I know, but some

people do — and there are people who like fishing and certainly a lot

like skiing. They couldn't get a better place than the Kootenays to

develop skiing. I want to say, in relation to skiing, and I'm sure all

of us here realize that the skiing population in British Columbia and,

indeed, from other Provinces is becoming very transient, and they move

from ski hill to ski hill and it has become a family sport, and that's

a good thing. The more we can do to develop ski resorts the better.

Now, when one looks at the Kootenays, those of you who know anything

about it, there is very little industry in the Kootenays, so to speak,

with the possible exception of, say, Trail or Kimberley where CM &

S is situated. But, broadly speaking, that is generally the case and

… (interruption) . Well,

Celgar over in the Trail-Rossland area but, generally speaking, there

isn't too much industry. So, we have to concern ourselves with the

development of a broad assessment base within that area. It always

amazes me that Members of this House don't support going down to Ottawa

and asking for this or that area to be considered a designated area or

a special area. Those figures were read out to you the other day and

I'm not going to bore you with reading them out again. Some of those

areas I have taken the time, personally, to visit them and find out why

they should receive special assistance and parts of British Columbia

didn't. I would be, as an M.L.A. ready and willing to let other areas

worse off than ours have any Ottawa grants because one has to be

unselfish about this sort of thing. But I cannot see why Members of the

NDP do not support going to Ottawa and asking for only a fair share.

Why is it that the Liberals are very chagrined about asking for monies

from Ottawa out to British Columbia? We're not gouging Ottawa. All

we're doing is asking for our fair share.

My dear friends, I want to tell you something, and I mean this quite

honestly, because the gentlemen who used to sit opposite over

there…I'll tell you, if you want to get a fair shake and get around

Ottawa, sell Ray Perrault. I mean that sincerely. I'm happy to say it

because it's true. I'll say this, some of the NDP fellows … Mr.

Harding, who used to sit opposite here. I know him, personally, of

course, and I want to tell you he has done what he could to support

that point of view.

In the Kootenays apart from the one that the other gentlemen

mentioned — the Celgar or CM & S-controlled industry, there's

little or nothing. You can't eat grass and you can't eat scenery and

we've got to have an industrial base in there. Believe me, as far as

I'm concerned, all we want is our fair share — no more, no less.

We've had all kinds of Provincial incentive policies. Just let me

carry on here and I'll show you some of the other avenues in which the

Federal Government seems to forget all about British Columbia. You

know, it's an amazing thing in this Centennial Year. Here, we are, on

July 20, one hundred years in Confederation and, yet, we're having

confrontations over the share of the wealth of this Province, for

Canada, with Ottawa, which in my opinion is all wrong. Centennial

should be a time when we are filling our citizens with encouragement

rather than discouragement. If there is anything that ever catches the

imagination of our people in British Columbia, it's a party or a fun

time and Mr. Wallace, who has handled our celebrations over a number of

years, has gone from success to success (applause) .

AN HON. MEMBER: There he is.

MR. BLACK: Is that Lawrie Wallace? I see him so seldom I have

to turn around twice to recognize him. He has done a tremendous job.

They have 25,000 people involved in the development of Centennial

projects and they go anywhere from blasting to recreational areas,

parks, museums, swimming pools, libraries, community halls, flower

planting, tree planting, you name it — the people of this Province have

caught the imagination of the Centennial. Those of you who have not

made yourself aware of when Her Majesty the Queen will be in your

particular area, I don't have the

schedule in front of me now, but you

should make yourself aware of that (interruption). No, I'm sorry I

don't know when she will be in Vancouver East. She will be in

Vancouver. You are a Member for Vancouver, so I'm sure you'll find your

way to see Her Majesty, if you so desire.

In any case, it's a big year. It's a time of big celebration and I think we are all going to enter into it with a will.

I want to say, and I don't intend to be long, a few words relative

to highways. If you’ll forgive me, I'll speak from a prepared text for

a few minutes. There will be placed on your desks, honourable Members,

a copy of the Department of Highways' Branch Reports and Statistical Data

up to the end of 1970. Those of you from rural areas will be able to

ascertain what has been done almost up to date in your particular area

and will be able to ascertain for yourselves what your priorities are.

They deal with the research branch of our department, the

reorganization that has taken place within the Highways Department. I

should be quick to say that, in the next fiscal year, we will have an

engineer whose primary responsibility will be liaison between municipal

[ Page 497 ]

jurisdictions, that is municipalities, cities and

so on. So that I am not, and they are not, always faced with

differences of opinion, relative to this or that engineering report.

Engineers are the same as lawyers or doctors or anybody else, they

differ in opinion from time to time. We hope that this will end a lot

of difficulties. You will notice, too, the programme that has been

developed relative to highways — how much money has been spent and from

the first of September last year, the Department of Highways has

awarded some of the contracts. If you add them up, it spells nothing

but jobs. Horseshoe Bay to Taylor Way, that's

section one, that's

$6,241,000; Wardner to Newgate, $497,000; Sand Creek to Bayness Lake,

$350,000; Highway number 15 to Roberts Bank, $257,000. I could name a

great list. I don't want to take your time in doing that but this is

work that is on the way and being done and it totals somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $21 to 22 million. On top of that — that's over and

above the continuing programmes — on top of that, I am happy to

announce, today, and I think the House will forgive me for this … I

think, Mr. Speaker, because you don't get the opportunity, as you are

not in the Chair during estimates to ask questions as the others do …

I think you will discover that estimate-wise, you have nothing to be

ashamed of, as far as the work in your constituency is concerned. I

think there will be a goodly amount of work done there.

The attempt being made by the Highways Department, this year, is to

try to get as much work done as is possible through contracts, through

day labour and to put men back on the job and to put men to work. Up in

the Peace River, we will be spending something in excess of a million

dollars in the North Peace, something in excess of a million dollars,

as an extra, over and above the estimates in the South Peace. Down in

McBride to Tete Jaune, there are some 37.3 miles incomplete and we will

start on two projects there, totalling 22 miles. Mr. Speaker, from

Terrace to Rupert, you know that area well, where the road comes along,

16 comes along and is adjacent to the Skeena. There are several bridges

there that have to be replaced. Those will have to be replaced and

there will be some rerouting of the road, obviously, and I'm not going

into a description of it. You know it even better than I do.

Furthermore, there will be a survey done on the Skeena Bridge, the

bridge going down from Terrace to Kitimat, that long, narrow two-lane

bridge or one-lane bridge, where that light is going off and on

(interruption). Yes, but we've got to do the survey first and that will

be coming along. Williams Lake to… (interruption) . There's going to be an election?

Well, I want to tell you, I'll resist the temptation to answer that

one. Spencer Hill on Highway 13, west of Grand Forks, going to bring

that in. I'm sorry "Me, too" isn't here, because I'm sure he would take

credit for this, because, yours truly, Cranbrook to Fort Steele

Junction is included in next year's programme and on the Upper Island

Highway there will be a contract let (interruption) .

Well, we try to clean them up as quickly as we can. However,

relative to highways, it's so easy to lose capital sums anywhere,

because of the immense cost of building highways these days. The wants

of the people and the M.L.As is insatiable as far as their particular

constituencies are concerned. As the estimates unfold, I am sure you'll

discover that we try to be fair to all.

For the most part, this part of my address to the Assembly will be

extemporaneous. I want to talk a few minutes to this Assembly about an

extremely important subject called medicare. I'm not going to bore you

with the history of medicare in this Province because you know it only

too well. It appears to me that what British Columbia does, today, most

of the rest of Canada does tomorrow and that we don't have the problems

that exist in some of the other Provinces of Canada. You might be

interested to know that we try to stay on the ball as far as medicare

is concerned. When they had a confrontation in Quebec in relation to

radiologists and pathologists, you will recall that, a year Or so ago,

we were there in their galleries and heard the debate. When

Saskatchewan had their debates relative to the deterrent fee, we were

there. We heard the debate and talked to people on both sides of the

argument. So we try to stay ahead. We are proud of what we have in B.C.

and it would be so easy for any politician to stand up and take credit

for the whole thing. I'm not going to do that because credit isn't due

to any single person.

The greatest partner we have had has been the medical profession

and, regardless of on what side of the House it takes place, I

personally do not like to hear these broad generalizations. We have had

a great partner in the medical profession. It would be the first to

admit it is not and has not been perfect. I want to assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that it has taken a very, very responsible position in respect

to medicare. Doctors are, at present, reviewing their fee schedules. We

are not interfering at all. They are reviewing. While it was so easy,

perhaps, to play politics with the little blue book, or green book, or

whatever colour it was, that outlined the earnings of various doctors,

nevertheless it was good for the profession itself. They were one of

the first to recognize that it was, because they could see errors, they

could see inaccuracies, they could see places where improvements could

be made. So they are reviewing the fee schedules. Likewise, they have

done a very, very responsible thing in declaring a moratorium, relative

to fees in the year 1971, for which we thank them.

However, there are some areas, in relation to medicare that cause us

some concern. If I said to you this is the best piece of social

legislation that has ever come into Canada in the last hundred years

perhaps you could think of some other. I certainly cannot. I think it

is and I think that the people of this Province expect all of us,

regardless of our politics, to be conscious as far as this avenue of

social legislation is concerned. It is so easy to believe and think

that medicare, as it presently is, is here to stay. They keep

forgetting this clause of the Medical Care Bill. I am going to read it.

"At least six months before the 31st day of March, 1973," which is only

financial situation and will perhaps abolish any payments and include

such payments in the specified tax or the transfer of tax credits."

So, when you talk about medicare, just don't you forget that. Too

many people are forgetting about it and we're being cost conscious.

Perhaps, at another time, in the estimates, I will be able to give you

some facts and figures relative to some of the developments. We hear a

good deal these days about paramedical services and I'm not going to

single out one from the other. But, I am going to say this, that we are

continually studying, and these things are a matter of continuous study

as far as we are concerned, and, if and when we can make upward

adjustments on some of these perhaps we will. I've already given a

commitment that, as far as we're concerned, we are always prepared to

take a second look and to reconsider some of these matters. I just want

to say, remember that these paramedical services are non-

[ Page 498 ]

sharable. What is the matter with asking Ottawa to share those services'?

I am concerned about some of the services done outside the hospital

which could well be done on the inside. Here, I want to be quick to say

that this is no veiled threat to anybody. What I mean by that is this.

I am concerned about services done on the outside that could readily be

done on the inside. I am talking about some of these laboratories, be

they x-ray, be they the normal blood-testing urinalysis, etc. I am

concerned. I have a team, my advisory committee, which is looking into

this kind of thing, because the public expects us to be cost conscious.

It seems a ridiculous thing to me that we have a laboratory in the

Royal Jubilee Hospital, which cost something in the neighbourhood of

half a million dollars and, yet, it is only about one-third or 35 per

cent occupied, as far as work is concerned. It seems to me a bit of a

ridiculous situation. However, there may be answers of which I am not

aware, at this moment. I want to be fair to everyone, except to say

that we are worried about some of these private laboratories.

Have you ever thought, relative to medicare, of the new developments

which are coming into medicine which either are now or will be, in the

future, a great drain on the medicare facilities? First of all,

abortions. You had a report, the other day, of abortions and I'm afraid

I share the opinions of the two speakers, relative to them, that these

committees, as presently constituted, are nothing more than a rubber

stamp. I agree with that. I think we've got to have a look-see into the

whole situation, and I'm not trying to express an opinion either for or

against abortions. We have sterilization, which is on the uptrend.

Renal failure, which is on the uptrend. Heart disease, operations and

developments are taking place at a great pace in respect to heart

disease. Coronary insufficiency, heart transplants — these are some of

the new things or relatively new things that are coming into the whole

medical picture. They are not going to be done for nothing, and we have

to be cost conscious.

I told this House, on a previous occasion, don't accept my word for

anything. Just look and see what's happened in Britain. I told you,

last year, that prepaid medicine is beginning to rise, again, out of

the ashes of what was their health care. That's a fact. Then I discover

that Britain's health service faces drastic cutbacks. Why? Because in

Britain, in days gone by, politicians, pressure groups of one variety

or another, forced Britain to the situation it was in. And a good thing

was so diluted that it became a meaningless nothing. Now it's to the

point where it is almost nothing. We don't want that to happen in

British Columbia. We don't want to, and I said it another time, and I

was rather amazed…I had the honour to go over and open the new

building of CU&C , and I greatly appreciated being invited. At

least two M.L.A.s, or three, I think it was, were present. I said to

them, at that time, "Let's not kill the goose that laid the golden

egg." Said by, I think, it was Aesop, to tell you the truth … well

read. I have colouring books, too. Anyway, I was greatly amazed to find

out that those people, who are labour union leaders' shared my opinion

and admitted to me quite frankly that at the original outset they had

not shared that opinion, but they are rapidly coming to the opinion

that medicare, as it exists in British Columbia, is too valuable to the

people of this Province to dilute it to the extent that it is no longer

useful to anyone.

Mr. Speaker, there's a good deal more I could say but I know you

will forgive me if I thank you and give way to someone else for a

while. I look forward to discussing other subjects during the estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to be able to take my place in the Chamber this afternoon and follow

the Minister of Highways, the Provincial Secretary. I was pleased to

hear him speak on health care and I am pleased to see him back here in

good health. We did hear that he was under the weather yesterday and,

while we may disagree one with the other on different political issues,

I am sure we never wish anyone poor health.

He made reference to the health plan and I intend to make reference

to the health plan as I proceed. I think we all should ask questions

because I believe the health plan in this Province is in trouble and

it's going to be in far more serious trouble. Unless we adopt an

entirely different approach, unless we can do something different than

operate a bill-collecting agency for the medical profession, unless we

can do something different than operate a plan of sickness insurance

and unless we can develop a programme of preventative health care and

pay our doctors to keep us well then, we, too, are going to be in ever-

and ever-increasing trouble. When we realize that this year our health

care costs went up by almost 150 per cent of the total cost of

medicare, itself, in the first year … at least $28 million for

medicare in the first year, approximately. The overall increase of

BCHIS and medicare, this year, is $40 million, which is almost 150 per

cent. So, what the Minister said, we are cognizant of and, this year,

as in previous years, we will hold out positive alternatives to help

control this situation. I was pleased to hear what he had to say about

the laboratories that private doctors are buying and exploiting the

plan through. I think it is time that we expanded hospital laboratory

facilities and provided these services as part of the plan.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to mention, seeing that I had the

Minister of Highways precede me, to draw to his attention that there

have been some very bad winter break-ups on the Trans-Canada Highway up

through the Fraser Canyon. That's a limited highway. It is our number

one and because of the very, very heavy traffic and, at times, heavy

frost it takes quite a beating. Again, it has taken a beating, this

year, and I hope, before his estimates are finalized that he will have

his engineers check out certain sections in and around Yale — Saddle

Rock, Alexander Tunnel, which are going to have to be rebuilt, I

believe.

There is a great need to upgrade and to blacktop the entire

section

of the Mamit Lake Road going up into the Highland Valley. The Highland

Valley is, probably, the hottest mining area in the Province, if not in

the Nation, today. This highway, the Mamit Lake Highland

Valley–Ashcroft Highway, running from number 8 in the Nicola Valley,

through to Ashcroft and number one, is in three different highway

districts. I believe, for a matter of efficiency, snow ploughing and so

on in the winter, it might be good for the Minister and his department

to consider consolidating this into one highway district.

Two or three years ago some work was done, I believe some quarter of

a million dollars were spent, on the highway between Squamish and

Lillooet, running along Anderson Lake but it has been left sitting at

that. Nothing more has been done and you get great rain there in the

winter. It's become pretty badly eroded. I hope the Minister will review

[ Page 499 ]

that and see that it is improved so that at least you can drive through with a standard vehicle.

There is considerable interest being shown in the development of the

north and there is the shortest route to the north, up through

Pemberton, up through the Hurley Pass and, then, on out into the

Cariboo. There are very few miles that would have to be completed,

here. True, some of it is logging roads but I believe, by improving

this, it would take some of the pressure off some of the access roads

going into Vancouver. People coming down from Prince George, Williams

Lake and north, could cut down through the Hurley route and go into

Squamish and then into Vancouver.

I have just mentioned one or two highway problems, but highways and

access property on those highways have been mentioned in past Sessions

of the Legislature and have been raised again here in this Session. I

would like to say, for my part, that when these matters come up, it's

the matter of the principle, the economics and the good business of

this Government purchasing access lands, in the case of new highways,

before the general public, even before the owner of those lands knows

that a new road or access road or a complete new highway is going to go

through there. Now, in the case of 401, it was laid out across the

Fraser Valley. It would have been no problem for the agencies of this

Government when they saw their 401 on the drawing boards to say, "All

right, we are going to have an intersection here at Prest Road," and so

on, and then pay the farther the going rate, pay him a good rate for so

many acres that the Minister of Highways felt would be needed to

service the travelling public, to service the people that live off

Prest Road and so on, buy it at the going rate, at a fair price. Then,

from there on in, the Provincial Government would own that property and

they would lease it out to this oil company or that oil company, to

that service industry, or to that service industry. As my friend, the

Second Member from Vancouver East, pointed out, when he was first

elected in 1966, the State of Pennsylvania makes millions of dollars

out of this sort of thing, millions of dollars of revenue every year.

I am mentioning this because I believe that that is good sound

principle. This is the thinking behind my colleague when he mentioned

it. It's not the personalities. It's not the Gaglardi's, the Bennett's,

the Bonner's, the Clynes — it's the principle that the Premier stood up

here and enunciated, some three or four years ago, that he has welshed

on. This is why we are concerned. This is why every Member of this

House should be concerned and every taxpayer. When the farmers ask for

a reduction of taxes on their land, they will never get it until they

have a Government of principle, that will put principle above

personalities and principle above politics. This Government isn't doing

it on this issue.

I went through the Budget Speech, paragraph by paragraph. I numbered

each paragraph and each page. Paragraph 14, on page 8, deals with the

ambulance service. It states that we are going to spend approximately

one and a quarter million dollars in ambulance service and this is

correct. But some of the municipalities, villages, towns and cities

that are receiving this grant are doing very little towards ambulance

service. There are other communities that are providing very good

ambulance service, which do not receive one penny out of this fund.

Just yesterday, I picked up one of the local papers and it says, "Three

Local Men Narrowly Miss Death." It goes on to praise the ambulance

crews. Scarcely a week goes by, during the winter months, but what

there is either a train gone off the highway and down into the Fraser

Canyon, or a car, or a truck or some other kind of vehicle that has

gone over. Some people get killed but many, many people get saved by

the good services of the North Bend and Boston Bar search and rescue

group that operates the ambulance. Both of these communities are in

unorganized territory and they do not receive one penny out of this

fund. We all, the Member from Cariboo, the Member from Peace River,

even the Premier, and the Attorney-General and, I'm sure, the Minister

of Highways, drive the Trans-Canada Highway and the Hope-Princeton

Highway, from time to time. We could hit black ice, we could slide

around and go over the bank and our very lives could depend on the

efforts of a volunteer group of ambulance workers, of search and

rescue, and they owe nothing to us and we, really, give nothing to

them. I think the least we could do, Mr. Speaker, on the vote for

ambulance service is that it should be extended so that even

unorganized communities could apply and receive per capita grant

commensurate with those in the organized communities.

Paragraph 47, page 18, has to do with health services. The Minister

made reference to health services. I have commented in brief that in

vote 104, in our estimates, we find, this year, that the cost of our

hospitals has gone up by 16 2/3 per cent. We talk about wage

guidelines, keeping them down to 6 or 7 per cent, but this has gone up

by 16 2/3 per cent — from $176 million, to $206.7 million, an excess of

$30 million in one year.

I'll go along and we'll take a look at B.C. medical care. The first

year, as I mentioned, we just really had it for nine months … it cost

$21 million for nine months, I believe, but projecting that for 12

months, it's $28 million. Last year or, at least, March 31, 1971, we

anticipated spending $60 million. Next year, $70 million or another 16

2/3 per cent increase there.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Provincial Secretary, Mr. Minister of

Health, what does this mean? Does it mean that, now, we are paying our

doctors as much as they bill us, that they are running around looking

for sick people? If it does, we have one sixth more sick people, today,

than we had a year ago. We are planning on that? Looking back,

comparing $70 million with $28 million, the first year, it means that

we are paying out twice as much as we did the first year — the people

of British Columbia are twice as sick now as before we had medicare.

I may be wrong in drawing that inference but I submit, and I hope

one day this young lady will speak up on this because she has

professional training — I understand in the public health field — but

in the public health field, Mr. Speaker, they don't pay the public

health doctors when you are sick, they pay them a salary to keep you

well. That is health care, that is preventative medicine. But, no, our

whole medicare plan is predicated on sickness. We pay our doctors so

much, if we go see them in their office; if they have to come to your

home, we pay them more; if they can get you into the hospital and put a

knife into you, then we pay them a great deal more; or the sicker you

are, the more we pay them. This, Mr. Speaker, to me, is Social Credit

sickness insurance. I think it is time we got on the road and developed

a programme of health care for the people.

As I said, at the outset, on this side of the House, during

consideration of the Hall Commission Report, we spoke out for the

implementation of the Hall Report. We did that, because as socialists,

we believe in helping people. Going back to 1933, the early socialists

in Canada, who drew up the Regina Manifesto, wrote in a plank, clause

number 8, to do with health care: "To publicly organize health,

hospital and

[ Page 500 ]

medical services. With the advance of medical

science, the maintenance of a healthy population has become a function

for which every civilized community should undertake responsibility.

Health services should be made at least as freely available as

educational services. The properly Organized system of public health

services, including medical and dental care, would stress prevention

rather than cure." There it is, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Member from the North

Okanagan. Prevention rather than cure should be extended to all our

people, both rural and urban. This is an enterprise in which Dominion,

Provincial and municipal authorities, as well as the medical and dental

professions, can cooperate. I think that is a pretty fair basis for a

programme of health in Canada. It's just too bad that it has to be 38

years old and we are still a long way off from what the early

socialists envisaged, when it came to looking after our health, The

Minister indicates that he's concerned about the ever-increasing health

costs. We are concerned and we will, certainly, not only assist in any

way we can when you make changes in your programme, but we will try to

point out and give certain suggestions as to what can be done to direct

a better pattern of health care in lieu of sickness insurance.

Now, there is a different approach. There are at least four

different group health clinics in Canada that are practising a measure

of preventative health care. There's one in the United States and that

one, probably, has the best record, in that it has been operating for

well over 20 years. Our group health clinics in Canada have been

operating for a much shorter period of time. In B.C., a hospital

patient day average runs about 1,700 hospital patient days per thousand

people. In the group health clinic in Sault Ste. Marie it's about 600,

or about one-third the number of hospital patient days spread out over

the population as we are racking up in British Columbia. In Seattle, in

a group health clinic there, they have it down to 455 hospital patient

days per thousand, or about a quarter of what we have. Now what would

that mean, Mr. Speaker? We talk about this Budget. We look at the

Budget. We know that the Minister of Finance has brought in new taxes

despite, at last election, he said he wouldn't be bringing in any new

taxes. He's brought them in. But, with the proper approach, using a

preventative accent instead of a sickness accent in paying our doctors,

the total of $70 million that we are going to spend in medicare and

$206 million in hospitals, a total of approximately $280 million each

year in health care, could be reduced by 63 per cent. The 455 hospital

patient days racked up in Seattle compared to our almost 1,800 is 63

per cent — a 63 per cent reduction — which means, in this one avenue

alone, Mr. Speaker, that we could save for the taxpayers of this

Province $176 million. We could reduce the $280 million to $104 million.

With that, I would like to quote what Dr. Golden had to say. The

headline is, "Dr. Golden Says Organized Medicine is Geared to Oppose

Reforms Needed in Health Education and Patient Care." Organized

medicine is geared to oppose reforms needed. He says, "It is time the

medical profession substituted deeds for words in bringing about

controls in soaring medical costs."

The Minister, as he concluded, mentioned that he felt we were

running into trouble in Canada. He pointed out clause 6, where, in a

little better than two years, the Federal Government could take an

entirely new look at our health care set-up. I think this is a good

thing. I don't think we can just keep pouring an endless supply of

dollars into, this fund. I don't think we should, particularly because

of a letter that was sent out very recently by a group of doctors to

their patients. I'll read this letter, Mr. Speaker, and it is available

to the press and the Legislature, if anyone wishes it. "Dear Patient:

My associates and I have decided to discontinue the billing arrangement

with the Government of the Province of British Columbia. The reasons

for this are numerous and briefly are that we object to the increasing

interference by the Government in medical affairs." This is signed by

Dr. P. Gareau, M.D.,F.R.C.S.(c); Dr. D.A. Baird, M.B; and John Wellman,

M.D. They all have their Fellowship in Surgery, by the way.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is this correct? Is this correct that this

Government and this Minister is interfering with the patterns of

practice and with the medical affairs of the doctors of this Province?

I have it here in writing. Who are these people? Are they just general

practitioners? No, they are highly skilled plastic surgeons, some of

the top paid men in our Province. Because of the nature of their work

… well, they are GP's, not real estate men (interruption) .

Well, if you feel that the profession should be defended, then, get

right in there and speak on it. If you feel that medicare can be

improved in this Province, get up there and speak. You should be able

to do that. So, if these men are specialists, particularly, if they are

plastic surgeons, they have to depend a great deal more heavily on the

public institutions that the taxpayers provide than does a general

practitioner. A general practitioner can practice in your home, and in

his house, and in his office. But a plastic surgeon has great trouble

doing plastic surgery unless he has the access to the tools of his

trade and all the facilities that are made available in the hospitals

at a high cost to the taxpayer. Yet these people say they are going to

withdraw. What's going to happen — if this group can get away with

opting out in the hope that you will then bill the medical plan and pay

them? It's going to mean a great deal more red tape than we already

have. If they are opting out … I'd like you to remember that this was

the very issue that the strike in Quebec revolved around. The doctors

there wanted to opt out. They went on strike and, to the credit of

Premier Bourassa, he said, "If we're going to have a medical plan, you

are all going to be in it, or that's it." And they are all in it, but

that was the issue they tried to pull off in Quebec. They didn't get

away with it. The Minister may know of other doctors who are trying to

opt out. If they can get away with it, they can very definitely

sabotage our medical care plan in this Province. I am just going to

read a

section of this letter again. The reasons… (interruption) .

If you agree with them, get up and say so. I say that this is why

they went out on strike. They wanted to opt out in Quebec. I say it's

to the credit of Premier Bourassa that he said, "Nothing doing, get

back to work, call off the strike." They did that and there's no opting

out in Quebec. I say there should be no opting out in British Columbia.

They either send in their bills to the medical care plan, the B.C.

medical plan and they get paid through that, or they opt out entirely.

They can't be half in and half out, Mr. Speaker, they must be entirely

in. This is the thin edge of sabotage by the medical profession of our

B.C. medical plan. They should put up or shut up.

If there are particular examples of interfering by the Government in

the patterns of practice, then, I think these men who have written to

their patients should state before the Legislature, state before the

B.C. medical plan, what that interference is. If there is interference,

then, it's up to the Minister and those about him to see that it is

corrected. For my part, I feel that this matter of opting out should

stop forthwith. I'm going to conclude on Medicare by just

[ Page 501 ]

repeating what Dr. Golden said. Dr. Golden says,

"Organized medicine is geared to oppose reforms needed in health

education and patient care. It is time the medical profession

substituted deeds for words in bringing about controls in soaring

medical costs."

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we, in this Province, set up a group

health practice with a panel of general practitioners and specialists

of all fields, and hire those doctors on a salary and charge them with

the responsibility of looking after the health of the people on a

professional health care, public health, salaried basis so that when

you and I wish to go to a doctor we don't have to go to the yellow

pages of the phone book, we can go to our group clinic, appear before

the diagnostician, let him refer you to his colleague who is

salaried…There will be no professional jealousy, saying, "I have to

hold on to you because under the fee-for-service set-up, I must have

lots of sick people to make lots of money." Under a group practice,

they will be paid on a salary. The diagnostician will refer the sick

patient to the doctor he feels best able to look after him. Where this

has been done, and it is being done and it has been done for 20 years,

the hospital patient day average is reduced to almost one quarter of

what we are suffering from in this Province.

A word on the dentists. We all received, or I imagine all the

M.L.A.s received, some P.R. material from James Lovick, sent out on

behalf of the dentists, giving us, as the soft sell, a lot of malarkey

on what they proposed as their method of preventative dental care. I

was a little suspicious of it, so I wrote to Dr. S.J. Gallagher. I told

him I was concerned about dental care because there are many, many

children in the rural parts of this Province and many, many children in

the less well-to-do urban areas of our Province who cannot afford

health care. I wrote to Dr. Gallagher on December 4 and I stated, "In

the rural area that I represent I find an ever-increasing segment of

our society that claims it cannot afford anything more than the very

minimal of dental checkups. These people are not on welfare. Some live

on small holdings getting whatever seasonal work they can. Others work

quite steadily but are in the lower-income sector of our economy. Has

your association made any plans where this fairly large group of people

will be able to afford regular trips to a dentist?" That was on

December 4, almost four months ago. The dentists are so concerned

they'd rather have James Lovick handle their P.R. than answer their

mail. I suspect that one of the reasons they have James Lovick handling

their P.R. work is that they know they are in trouble. They put out a

new fee

schedule and in that fee schedule, they talk about a 7 per cent

increase, a 13 per cent increase. If you will examine the

section that

governs x-rays in your mouth, right there, there is a 100 per cent

increase, from $2 to $4. Now, that isn't 13 per cent. In many cases,

the increases are many times 13 per cent, in excess of 100 per cent.

This is gouging the mouths of the children of this Province. It is most

unfair. It is morally and professionally wrong (interruption) .

Well, if I were depending on you people, I'd sure be in trouble. Mind

you, Mr. Speaker, my friends have done all they could to help me out…

(interruption) thanks, I sure do. Without their help, I'd probably never survive politically.

Now, we all got a copy of the Budget Speech, Pardon me, I got seven.

How many did you get? Anyone who asked for them, all got them.

I would like to start by referring to "Economic Conditions and

Outlook," on page 14. As I took this through, on page 14, they talk

about financial proposals for the fiscal year 1970-1971. Mr. Speaker,

we have opted for continuation of dynamic growth "….to increase the

supply of jobs for our fast growing labour force." My friend applauds

that and I'm sure we all applaud that. We look at paragraph 35, now,

and what do they say? This is on mineral developments. "Commencement of

coal shipments on long-term sales contracts to Japan and the steel

industry assure us continued strength to this sector of the economy.

The improved outlook for crude oil, natural gas…" etc. "The

commitment of a portion of our mineral output under long-term contracts

will help stabilize the Provincial economy." Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent

of our mineral and coal contracts are committed to those long-term

agreements and they say this will stabilize our economy, so that 90 per

cent of our mining has been stabilized — not expanding — not as they

say, in

section 44, "to expand to get more jobs." When we expect to

export the copper, the coal, in the raw, the minerals in the raw, and

send them to Japan and there have them made into the various utensils

and manufactured goods, we have tied our economy to a stability in that

area, in the coal and mineral mining area for many years to come. When

this Government across there stands up and points their finger to

Ottawa saying, "This unemployment is caused by Ottawa," it is caused by

the economic and fiscal policies of this Government, in failing to

develop secondary industry, in failing to do something with that copper

and that coal and that iron — and you say so, right in your Budget

Speech (interruption) .

There he is. He's against progress. He's against jobs for the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, there is something unique in this report — not just the

picture, the picture is quite unique. I went to the library and checked

it out and they said it was 24 years since that picture was taken.

That's fine. It's a nice, bronzed, young man. But, in looking into

that….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He looks younger than you. He was, 24 years ago.

MR. HARTLEY: That's right. When I was looking it up, I

happened to come across a newspaper of March 20, 1948. It says that

W.A.C. Bennett, "Cec" as they called him in those days, says the sales

tax will be the brick around the neck of the Government. "A slashing

attack on British Columbia's proposed 3 per cent sales tax was

delivered in the Legislature Friday, by Cec Bennett, Conservative

Coalition Member for the South Okanagan. He called on the Government to

take the unprecedented step of withdrawing the Budget for

reconsideration by experts." Now, Mr. Speaker, if that were the good

advice of 23 years ago, is it wrong today?

And what else did he say? He declared that the Government does not

have to levy a sales tax to balance a Budget. We have shown you, today,

and for the past two weeks, different areas that you could move in and

have the revenues. You don't have to levy a sales tax to balance this

Budget. What else did he say? "By putting a capital gains tax, cutting

down administrative expenses and returning to former Premier John

Hart's policy of setting aside only essential sinking funds, the

Government could have overcome the gap between expenditure and revenue."

So, Mr. Speaker, not only is the picture way back in the Depression,

but this type of sales tax taxation very often hits the. people who can

very least afford to pay it. You take someone living up in the Fraser

Valley, living up in the interior or up Island who has one of their

loved ones

[ Page 502 ]

hospitalized in one of our special care hospitals,

possibly, has been there for several weeks. The loved one has to come

down and stay in a hotel. This is bad enough, but we put a second tax

on the sick. Now, my friends, long lost, long forgotten, anyway, second

cousin R.B. Bennett, he brought in sales taxes in the Depression. Does

the Minister of Finance admit, by bringing in this type of taxation at

this time, that we are now moving into a Depression situation'?

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would be remiss if I didn't have a few

comments for my friend across the Floor on the best insurance laws in

the world. I think, maybe, at this time, we should just make a little

review. You will remember how this Government set up the Wootton

Commission to study automobile insurance in this Province. To this day,

they haven't told the House what it cost to have Mr. Wootton make that

study. Have they? Then, after they had the study done by Wootton, they

had the first Member from Vancouver Centre chair a committee, a

committee that had its hands and feet bound. They were supposed to look

into insurance but, of course, all they were trying to do was try to

get the Opposition to go along with their corporate no-fault car

insurance. Thank goodness, we didn't. I say, thank goodness that, when

we saw the high temper of dictatorship moving into that committee, some

of us had enough gumption to get up and walk out. Of course, when it

was over and the majority report was no-fault, the group over in this

corner, we had our own minority report. It is fortunate… (interruption) . That's right. They wouldn't dare bring the committee report before the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. HARTLEY: On the day the draft legislation was placed

before the House, Mr. Burns, representative of the All Canada Insurance

Federation, said, "God bless the Government of British Columbia." A few

days later, the Attorney-General said, "Yes, and the rates will go down

by about $24 a year." I guess he said that simply because we said they

were going to go up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I said it. You didn't say it at all.

MR. HARTLEY: Credit the author? Who is the author?

AN HON. MEMBER: Me. I'm the author.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good! What has happened now? The last time

the Attorney-General spoke, he appointed an insurance board for British

Columbia. Who has he put on the insurance board? The chairman of the

PUC and the other two members and an actuary, by the name of Byron

Straight. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd say a very good man to carry out the

wishes of this Government's insurance committee and the thinking of

these corporate car insurance entrepreneurs. I'd say a very good man

for that. If you'll…

AN HON. MEMBER: Smear, smear.

MR. HARTLEY: I don't have to smear, Mr. Speaker. Just read

what this man said in the paper, as he was quoted as saying in the

paper. We are standing up here to smear no one. We are standing up here

on the principle of public insurance versus corporate insurance. This

is the issue we are standing on. "New Order Boosts Insurance Rates."

This is the headline in the Sun of Vancouver, the 27th, the day

after the Attorney-General announced the board had been set up. It says

here, "There will probably be another increase in B.C.'s automobile

insurance premiums as a result of the Order-in-Council requiring

automobile insurance to accept higher risks." This is by Mr. Straight.

"The statement that a rise is likely because of the Order-in-Council

came Tuesday from Vancouver actuary, Byron Straight." The Sun ,

in that editorial, had this to say. "One

interpretation was quickly

suggested by the lone member of the public appointed board. Actuary

Byron Straight declared that it is unfair to blame the insurance

companies for high rates." This is the public defender who you have

appointed. The first thing he does, the first statement he makes, is to

get up and defend the insurance companies. "It's unfair to blame the

insurance companies for increased rates." What can you expect? This is

this man's business. This man makes his living advising insurance

companies. He has been retained by the B.C. Motorists' Insurance

Company, by the B.C. Mutual. He has .been retained by these companies.

If he's going to be able to make his living in this Province, he cannot

stand up in this committee and take a position for the people against

the insurance companies. If this Government has any integrity in its

spirit, it will accept the resignation of Byron Straight from this

board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. HARTLEY: As a matter of fact, there is a very good cartoon in the Province .

It is a cartoon of somebody wrestling. It shows the wrestling ring and

they have one fellow with his head twisted between the ropes. It says

there, "The auto driving public." There's a fellow, twisting one of his

toes, and it's labelled, "The First Member for Vancouver Centre," and

another fellow, that's the chairman of the car insurance committee.

There is another fellow, twisting the other toe, and that says, "Car

Insurance Corporations." Then, over here, it shows the referee, the

Attorney-General, running interference with the NDP, who is trying to

get in there and help the little fellow on the mat, while the new

insurance board is a little old lady beating him over the head with an

umbrella. I would like to send this across to the chairman of the

insurance committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is health care, whether it is hospital

insurance, whether it is car insurance, until this Government can

separate itself from the people who pull the strings and put up the

campaign funds, it will not be able to administer in the best interests

of the people. I think that the most recent act, now that the

Attorney-General is back, in appointing a man who makes his living

working hand-in-glove with the insurance corporations — and this isn't

a personality. I sat on the CU&C Board with Byron Straight and, as

far as an individual is concerned, he is an honourable gentleman — but,

if you don't ask for his resignation, Mr. Attorney-General, he should

have the moral and professional integrity, as an actuary, to resign,

because he knows he makes his living setting up rates, advising

insurance companies. For him to stand there as a public defender, for

him to be a policeman, and, Mr. Attorney-General he is no more of a

policeman than my friend over here a cop out to lunch, while the

corporate insurance industry is pilfering the pockets of the poor

people in this Province and making them poorer. That is the situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 503 ]

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): It is always a great

pleasure for me to rise in the Debate following the good Member from

Yale-Lillooet because certainly by comparison of what one can say and

certainly, in the quality of the material that is inclined to come out,

he is a great act to follow.

I would point out that, in his usual unbelievably fallacious manner,

he has pointed out that Mr. Byron Straight, shouldn't be entitled to

sit on the insurance committee. He sat on the insurance committee,

while he was selling insurance — the Member from Yale Lillooet. Did he

at any time suggest, Mr. Speaker, at the time that he was on the

committee, acting in good faith, he was actually selling automobile

insurance. He talks about committees. You never walked out of a

committee. You did not walk out of a committee and that is not true.

You will recall that you did not walk out, you sat there (interruption) . No, it's no Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Just one moment. The Chair will decide whether or not there is a Point of Order. There is a Point of Order.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind you how

the Honourable Member of Vancouver … the Point of Order is that he

came into the House and asked to discuss the committee and why I had

walked out. The Speaker refused him that right. He was protesting me

walking out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has made his statement. Proceed.

MR. CAPOZZI: I would also point out one other wonderful part

of the great philosophy that that side espouses. He referred to the

insurance committee as though it were some sort of special committee

and that, at that stage, a group of them had attempted to walk out. I

would point out that recently the NDP Government in Manitoba appointed

an insurance committee and do you know not one Opposition Member walked

out? Not one — they didn't appoint one Opposition Member to the

committee! The entire insurance committee, supposedly to investigate

insurance for the Province of Manitoba, consisted entirely of NDP

Members. A typical example of the wonderful cooperation and scrutiny

that any committee should have. It's amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't come here to start today by picking on that

Member. He has enough problems. I did come here today to give out some

kudos, and I said kudos, not Trudeaus, by the way — for the Members of

the Liberal Party. I would particularly like to pick up the Member from

Atlin and compliment him on his newest endeavour, which is the

magnificent newspaper which is put out in regard to the Indian people.

I think that the Native Voice is one of the finest new newspapers to

come into the Province of British Columbia. It is available and I will

give you a commercial — $3 for the annual subscription — and I would

certainly hope that every citizen in the Province of British Columbia

would take advantage of it. It is a great newspaper and you deserve a

great deal of credit. I would point out by the way that, having read

it, I think you are getting some of your material for the House out of

the newspaper because you are using part of it here.

A second kudo, and I'm following in that vein, and I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that this House would agree and go on record as sending from

the floor of this House, with unanimous consent, a telegram of

commendation and congratulations to Chief Dan George. Certainly his

example to the citizens of British Columbia and particularly the native

Indians has been a magnificent contribution to the history of this

Province. His recent performance in the movie and what he has attained

and done for the citizens of this great Province is something to be

recognized from the floor of this House. I would certainly hope that

the floor of this House would support me in this endeavour.

I did have one other kudo. I did want to extend, of course, it

hasn't been done, congratulations from the House to the American

astronauts. I've often wondered whether we really appreciate the

courage that the American astronaut has to have because, if you ever

think about it, as he's getting ready to leave and sitting there and

they start the countdown, the American has to appreciate the fact that

everything underneath him was built by the lowest bidder. You have to

appreciate some of the problems that that could create!

We are here today, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Debate and we're

dealing with a Budget of $1,300,000,000. We haven't heard, I think you

will agree, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of criticism about the actual

Budget. Nobody really has complained that the Budget isn't doing a job

in roads, nor have they really made any outstanding complaints about

the total amount of money that is being spent, for example, in

education. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Members on that side, if they

were given the chance of a free vote, if they were given the

opportunity to break the party line, I would have to think that even

the Members of the NDP would probably support… (interruption) .

Every vote is a free vote? You are saying that every vote is a free

vote'? Mr. Speaker, I would say some were freer. I heard a statement in

this House, Mr. Member from New Westminster, that your good Leader got

up one time after the Member from Atlin had spoken, and said that every

Member in his Party was free to say what he wished without any

criticism. You agree with that? Then let me read to you from an excerpt

in a newspaper that says, "NDP Executive Rebukes Calder."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. CAPOZZI: "The New Democratic Party Provincial Executive

has publicly rebuked NDP M.L.A. Frank Calder for his attack in the

Legislature last week on the B.C. Federation of Labour." Now, I can

appreciate that that is the NDP Executive. But, down at the end of the

article, it says, "On the Executive, there are three M.L.A.s, who were

in attendance at that particular meeting. There was Party Leader Dave

Barrett, there was Gordon Dowding and Bob Williams." It says that

Calder was not present at the meeting. He was tried in absentia .

"Asked to specify the inaccurate statements mentioned in the

resolution, Stupich said that Calder's charges that Haynes refused him

campaign funds were untrue." He didn't say that it was untrue that

there weren't funds but then he said he would not identify the person

opposed, because only one person there was opposed to this particular

rebuke. He did say this, "That not one of the three M.L.A.s, who are

members of the Executive, were opposed to the resolution." Not one of

them put up their hand. Tremendous loyalty of a free right to speak,

supported

[ Page 504 ]

by the Leader of the Opposition, when his own Members stand up and, later on, when he's asked, says, "Yes, there was a vote."

AN HON. MEMBER: There wasn't any vote.

MR. CAPOZZI: It says here, "That not one was opposed." There was only one… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Would the Members please address the Chair?

MR. CAPOZZI: If you didn't vote for it, then you voted

against it. If you didn't vote for it, then you are against it. That's

the type of freedom you have as a free vote. Same type of thing — the

Alberni NDP fired their president because he didn't go along with them.

Time after time, in the freedom of their so-called choice.

Mr. Speaker, we are really not here to go into this. I did feel that

in most of the praise that they had on the discussion of the Budget,

there hadn't been sufficient reason…I was going to discuss the

question of the Liberals on unemployment and their stand of how they

have been on the Budget. I would have to believe that you are going to

support the Budget, because the only criticism, basically, was that it

was $100 million out from the budget that your Leader put out. Since

it's only $100 million, which was the amount that he was out the year

before, I would certainly feel that he should probably support it

because it is only $100 million difference from what he had. I would

say that, in some instances, the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has

finally come into the House, does have some merit in the budget that he

produced because, to my knowledge, it is the only Liberal Budget

anywhere in Canada that will be completely balanced this year. It is

the only one and I think that you are to be commended and perhaps be a

type of example you could give to the rest of the party.

It always amazes me though that the Liberal Party has…you know,

they have such a capacity to get us into things and then tell us it is

our problem to get out. They got us into the Skagit Valley and now

stand up and say, "It is up to you to get us out." They got us into the

Harbours Park Development and said that it is up to us to get out. They

got us into the worst unemployment situation we've ever had in Canada

and said it is up to us to get out. They have a fantastic relationship,

Mr. Speaker. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal impression is?

They have all the great capacities of a man, standing on the edge of a

stream with somebody drowning 20 ft. out, and they throw you an 11 ft.

rope and say they are meeting you half way. It's an amazing thing.

Mr. Speaker, when talking about half way, we can still talk about

the Liberal philosophy about half way and unemployment. I sincerely

believe, Mr. Speaker, that the key of this Budget still boils down to

the question of unemployment and what the Budget will do for

unemployment. The word that was used by the Premier was "jobs" and this

Budget is to produce jobs. I say, and I know I speak for every other

Member here, that we, too, want to make sure that it's jobs and that

the money that is in the Budget has to be spent as quickly as possible

to get the economy moving and back into force in the Province in

British Columbia.

I would say, however, that when we talk about unemployment in

Canada, today, the question of unemployment being a disgraceful figure

… but the attempt by the National Liberal Party to disguise the

unemployment figures by phony formulas and complicated measures to show

that they have been statistically adjusted has got to be a disgrace,

and has to point out that they have, by this very fact, actually

brought into complete disrepute every statistical figure that is put

out by any department of statistics in Ottawa, today.

It is amazing that, in talking about inflation, the one issue that

seems to have been missed over and over again and that we have seen in

today's paper, how can we possibly be looking at controlling inflation

when, year after year after year, the Federal Government insists on

deficit financing? How can you be producing more money than you have

goods, deliberately through your own policies in your Budget, and, at

the same time, saying that we are going to fight inflation? You cannot,

and I think every housewife that is here, today, and every housewife in

this Province will agree that if she does not have enough money to buy

the goods that she needs then she is going to go into debt. At the same

time, if we do not have sufficient money, then the value of the money

that we are putting out of our printing presses is going to go down in

value and there we are at one of the root causes of inflation in

Canada, today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on to another subject. As you are

well aware, we are in Centennial Year and certainly it is intriguing to

look back at the fantastic growth of the Province of British Columbia

in the hundred years. It's rather interesting even to try to follow the

immigration pattern to see what happens, to see how, for example,

Vancouver Island was developed by the Scottish immigrants coming out,

in essence, to work in the coal mines, followed later, as I have

pointed out many times, by the great Chinese development, followed by

the Americans, who came up in the Gold Rush and stayed behind, followed

by Italians, who worked for years on the railway, followed by

Scandinavians, who helped to fish out fjords and did a great

part in

building up the complete coastline of Canada, and perhaps followed by

even the Greeks, who kept opening up the restaurants, which kept

following everybody else. Nevertheless, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker,

that the immigrants from all countries helped build the great Province

of British Columbia and the great Nation of Canada. They built a great

country. The reason they were able — and, with a scant two million

people, we have developed this Province. I still believe this is a

tribute to the courage and the initiative of the pioneers who came to

this Province. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, after a hundred years, all these

nationalities have earned the right of equal recognition.

We passed the Bill of Human Rights in this Legislature and I will

quote a part of it, Mr. Speaker. It says here … a question of the

treatment, where a person "…should not, at any time, be discriminated

against for race, colour and creed." Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have

discriminated against certain parts of our population since we first

joined Confederation. I am asking today, Mr. Speaker, for equal rights

for all nationalities in this Province of British Columbia. At the

present time, in municipal and Provincial voting, there is a definite

discrimination between Canadians, other subjects and other

nationalities. I am saying that voting rights should be divided on only

one point and that is the question of Canadian citizenship. Certainly,

up to a hundred years, we owe to all the other elements of our society,

equal recognition when they go to the polling box. Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, in the question of who should be able to vote in by-laws, the

question should be that of Canadian citizenship, or everybody who owns

property — one or the other. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, through you, to

the Minister of

[ Page 505 ]

Municipal Affairs, the Provincial Secretary, who I

hope will be bringing in a new election act, that, as our Centennial

gift to all the nationalities in the Province of British Columbia, we

provide them this year with equal rights.

In the last debate, Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly about the problems

in the harbours of British Columbia and I am, certainly, not going to

elaborate on the pilfering, etc. It was certainly rather intriguing

that there was a denial by the Harbours Board and then, subsequently,

three days later they came out with the statement to the effect that

they have now put out a new screening and identification process that

will stop the pilferage. I might point out that the union

representative, here, who said that it was about $5,000 a year, he

might be intrigued to know that the Liquor Control Board, in 12 months

last year, lost close to $100,000, in between the departure and the

arrival, once it had gone through the docks.

I wish to point out that the question of what they endeavour to do,

however, in solving the problem is as typical as anything I can think

of — in overkill. Instead of fencing it and putting in a computerized

operation so that they could check what was coming in and going out,

they mailed out a series of forms. These are the questions that are

designed to stop pilfering in the harbour of Vancouver: "Have you ever

been dismissed or asked to resign from any position?" "Give the dates,

countries visited, purpose, travels made to any communist-dominated

areas, since July 1, 1945, excepting only travel in the service of the

Canadian Government."

I have to believe that the series of questions asked there, Mr.

Speaker, has got to be a violation of the rights of individuals and a

terrible example of the overkill of bureaucratic departments belonging

to governments on all sides. I would hope that that form, wherever it

comes from, and I would particularly ask the Liberal Members to contact

and have that form removed from any part of any questionnaire put out

by the Federal Government. That's the most prompt attention I have ever

had to a request I have made on the floor of this House.

In the last debate, Mr. Speaker, I also referred to the harbour and

I would like to put only two things on record. They are that in the

harbour of Vancouver, today, we have one of the most potentially

dangerous places with a combination of circumstances that could occur.

There are approximately 150 aircraft that take off in the summer months

from the harbour. These are on floats, and I will say this in this

House, that if they do not clear the passageways, the areas that these

have in cleared runways, it is only a matter of time until there is

either a critical accident or a complete disaster and loss of life in

the planes that take off from the harbour of the city of Vancouver. I

would ask, again, one other thing to the Harbour Board, "Please give us

back one part of the harbour for our own people." I ask, through you,

Mr. Speaker, to them, through the House here today, that in the great

harbour in Vancouver, there be one area, one dock, one spot, where the

citizens of that area and the rest of the Province can go, fish if they

wish, watch the boats come in and do any part of that. It isn't really

suitable for launching boats but certainly the chance to go and utilize

one portion of the harbour is the least the Harbour Board could do,

today, as a return to the people of that great area.

Another point, and I am glad that, in essence, the Member from

Yale-Lillooet did get onto the subject of car insurance, because I want

to extend, not just into that, but into insurance in general. There is

perhaps, Mr. Speaker, no single concept that has had greater acceptance

than insurance. If you wanted to really mark the stage in our

civilization, it, perhaps, has a great deal to do with the idea of

banding together by groups of people to avoid a tragic loss to the

individual by weighing it over the entire group. We have seen this in

home insurance, fire insurance, theft, automobile, marine, shipping and

liability and so on. You could say that we are in the insurance age.

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming more and more convinced that the basic

concept of protection and aid to the individual in time of need that

insurance is supposed to provide is not, in essence being provided by

the insurance companies. More and more often the poor individual, who

comes up with a claim against an insurance company, finds that he is

being sunk in a morass created by both the companies and, in essence,

by lawyers of the companies. Time after time and I can document it in

cases, Mr. Speaker, there are delays in payment and, to paraphrase it

in another expression, I would have to say that, in the case of

insurance, aid delayed is no aid at all. What occurs, and I am not

concerned with the question of whether someone should be legitimately

covered by their insurance claim … but if an individual has a loss

and the loss is, we'll say, $25,000 for his home, and there is a

dispute as to the value of the loss, whether it should be $25,000, or

$20,000 as the insurance would claim and they go to litigation, there

is no return to the individual for the money that he has tied up while

that litigation is under way. The longer it can be brought out and

dragged out, the more pressure there is on the individual to settle for

the lesser claim. This, of course, is like going to play baseball with

only the insurance company getting to go to bat. Time after time, Mr.

Speaker … this didn't have the same relevancy when interest rates

were 3 or 4 per cent but, today, when interest rates are 8 or 10 per

cent, the load and the pressure that is put on the individual to settle

for a claim that he knows is not correct is unbelievable.

I can cite a particular case, Mr. Speaker, of a company which had a

fire. The fire occurred and they made a claim for loss. The claim has

now been delayed two years. The company is now in bankruptcy because

they had no funds to carry on and the question of … under this

particular provision … allows them no recourse. Eventually they will

get the amount of the disputed claim, nothing more. I am saying, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a complete injustice and it is using, in essence,

our Courts as a barrier, Or almost as a threat, against the individual.

I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, that we bring

in legislation that says that, after a claim has been submitted, and

following the 60-day period in which they have a time to analyze it,

after 60 days, that claim and the final settlement shall bear interest,

not at the regular legal rate which is ridiculous, not at the bank rate

which is not what many of them can borrow at, because the average

individual, in this case, is caught by a lack of security, but at one

and a half times the regular bank rate and this should continue from

the period of 60 days until the final settlement is made. I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General, that such

legislation would let both sides eventually go to bat under fairly

equal terms.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we have had considerable

discussion on the question of rapid transit and hydro transit. Mr.

Speaker, to many people the question of transit is of concern, but to

my riding it is the lifeblood of the, city. I would point out, and I am

not sure whether you are aware … but, Mr. Speaker, do you know what a

gooney bird is? A gooney bird is a bird that used to rise from its nest

[ Page 506 ]

and fly in rapidly diminishing circles until it

disappeared in a most unusual fashion. Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Hydro

Transit System in the city of Vancouver is a gooney bird, because they

are rapidly diminishing their services and cutting down what is

provided to the public and eventually it will disappear. The actual

amount of equipment that is available now as compared to 1957 is 15 per

cent less than they had then. How, possibly, can you say to anyone

that, if you are trying to expand the service you are providing and

make the thing profitable, you are going to cut things down and narrow

things down and reduce the service and reduce the number of people?

You've got a classic gooney bird. I'm not here to say, Mr. Speaker,

that I don't have alternatives, because I believe the time has come to

not say, "Just turn it over to the communities." I have here another

suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It is a letter from one of the more prominent

British Columbians, Mr. James Pattison of Neonex Corporation. I would

like to read this letter. He says, "Regarding the possibility of

private ownership of the B.C. Hydro Transit System, I would be prepared

to lead a group of British Columbia businessmen in an investigation"… (interruption) .

Give whom a chance? I maintain that transit systems operated as such

have not been successful in any part of the country that you can point

out. I would point out that, at the present time, if you want to

examine and if you want to look this up — because I took the trouble to

look it up, I took the trouble of looking it up, Mr. Speaker — the most

successful transit systems that are now operating in the United States

are those which are being operated on a management contract by business

people. I point out that within the areas of responsibility a

corporation, a company or anything else, whose responsibility is

fundamentally power, axe not the people who should be dealing with the

people in regards to transit. I would also point out, if you would let

me finish this letter, he said, "I would be prepared to lead a group of

British Columbia businessmen in an investigation of the transit system,

with a view to advising the Provincial Government as to the conditions

under which it would be feasible for private enterprise to acquire the

system outright or to operate it under a management contract. This

would be possible only with the full support of B.C. Hydro and the

appropriate Governmental authorities."

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the few reasonable

alternatives that we have had presented to this House in the last

little while. I would hope that the Government would follow up on this

and determine whether it isn't a more practical solution of the problem

of transit to have it done in this particular fashion. I would suggest

with the combination of those people, because, Mr. Speaker, you cannot

point out to me, today, what the transit system has done in Vancouver

to encourage people to ride. Show me one example where they have tested

speed expressways into the downtown area, show me one example where

they have got gathering areas, show me one example where they have

gone, with the cooperation of the merchants, to try to encourage people

to ride the transit system. That is why I say that if we are ever going

to get this gooney bird off our back, through you, to the Cabinet

benches, I think this is one of the possibilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go into one other subject, and I

would hope that what we have seen and what has occurred in this House

in the past weeks is not an example of the type of conduct one should

expect in any Legislature in this country. We have seen, again and

again, deliberate attempts to attack by innuendo, smear, false

accusations, unfounded rumours. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the

worst examples of the abuse of the privileges of this particular

Legislature. We heard today and we say yesterday in the paper by the

peeper — because we have a peeper (interruption) .

I am going to go through that because, to me, I think that's a very

significant thing. I would suggest that what we saw as listed out of

one of our committees of a statement with no foundation, no truth,

which was followed up by statements on television and two newspapers,

is an abuse of the legislative rights that we give to people in this

House. Certainly, if they had anyone who, at this time, has a record of

assassination and must take over the clear and absolute title to it, I

would suggest that the Member from Burnaby-Edmonds has earned it 100

per cent. We have seen, Mr. Speaker…. (interruption) .

It isn't a question of what he said. It is the innuendo of nothing

that was said. Mr. Speaker, anyone who would take and offer as an

example … I hope that you are roasting in your own conscience. We saw

once before in this House, Mr. Speaker, the ability of that particular

Member to thwart the rules of this House and I suggest that he has done

this once again in his conduct in the House today (interruption) .

The words have been published enough. The innuendo is there. You've

already had the … You can always tell when they are bothered, because

they yell louder, Mr. Speaker.

There have been other accusations that have been thrown from the

House. There have been the accusations of speculation, speculators,

people using privilege to obtain things, the question of people, who

are rip-off artists. "Rip-off artists" — I could find no definition,

Mr. Speaker, in any dictionary. The implication was that a rip-off

artist was somebody who would use their privilege to obtain a favour,

someone who would take advantage of a purchase, use their influence to

obtain a favour to make a profit.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very beautiful little island that is located

just in the district of North Vancouver — I'm sure that the Member from

Vancouver-Seymour is aware of Grey Rocks Island. It is a small, little

island, just off the mainland. It is rather interesting that this

beautiful island…and I have a picture of it. It is right in the

middle of the most beautiful bay in the harbour, rounding across as you

come through from the Deep Cove Marina — a view of the Indian Arm

tranquil waters and the eye-filling vistas of towering mountains. Deep

Cove, itself, is a delightful summer resort located in a protected bay

on the north arm of Burrard Inlet at the eastern end of North

Vancouver. Swim from smooth beaches, picnic, fish, hike or take to the

water in a rental boat from this busy tourist centre, and that is Grey

Rocks Island. It is a beautiful spot. I have been by there in boats. I

might point out that if you are interested, the owner of the

certificate of title for Grey Rocks Island, I'll give you the … there

is a mortgage held for Austin Carter and Jessie Irene for $20,500 at 7

per cent, that's $20,500. It's the mortgage on the property, this

beautiful island.

AN HON. MEMBER: I drew up the mortgage.

MR. CAPOZZI: Oh, you drew up the mortgage. Isn't that

intriguing? The owners, by the way, there are two owners, William

Charles Boutillier and the other owner, Mr. Speaker, is a gentleman by

the name of Robert Arthur Williams, 2158 Wall Street. I happen to be

familiar with that because that's in my riding. It's a rather unusual

building in my riding. I'd like to file it some day. But that part …

anyone is entitled to own land. I'm not here because anybody owns a

particular

[ Page 507 ]

piece of property that has a mortgage of $20,500 on

it. Nothing wrong with that. I would hope that every individual in this

House would pride himself in ownership in land in the Province of

British Columbia. But let me read this letter to Mr. John Westwood,

Western Pacific Projects, February 9, 1971, from Alpine Estates Ltd.,

which is handling the sale. "This is to advise you that Grey Rocks

Island, 177 of the District of North Vancouver, is available for

purchase and development." … and development — it's not going to be a

tranquil little island anymore. "This island is comprised of

approximately 3.1 acres and is situated approximately 600 ft. off of

Strathcona Road. Zoning is RS2, single-family residential. The price is

$115,000…" Mr. Speaker, a mortgage of $20,500 and the asking … but

that, again, is a question of development of land. "…and as the

owners recognize that any proposed development would require rezoning

of the property, they are prepared to cooperate in securing the

necessary approvals."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read it again.

MR. CAPOZZI: "… and as the owners recognize that any

proposed development would require zoning of the property, they are

prepared to cooperate in securing the necessary approvals." This is an

M.L.A., Mr. Speaker, representing Vancouver East who says that he can

secure a rezoning through a municipality because of the pressure of his

position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. CAPOZZI: He is attempting to obtain … (interruption) .

What? It says that it is single-family residential. But it says that

"…the owners recognize that any proposed development will require

rezoning."

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand zoning by-laws.

MR. CAPOZZI: I don't understand zoning by-laws, but I do

understand one thing, that, when they say they are prepared to

cooperate in securing it, prior to the sale of it, that I find the

development will change it from $20,500 … I want to know, Mr. Member

from Vancouver East, the Second Member, does your purchase, your bank

and your land bank, is this going to involve the purchase of all

islands? Are you going to purchase all waterfront, with your great new

development fund that's going to buy land along the highways? Is that a

part of it so that those Members of your own Party who are involved in

ripping-off sections of the waterfront taking a profit through rezoning

and extending it…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. CAPOZZI: If I were he, I wouldn't be in the House, either.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: It's along the main water highway that runs

through the great harbour of Vancouver, and a most amazing development,

I would point out, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot

of questions that get answered and I certainly feel that perhaps I have

gone a length of time today. I must feel that somehow the question of

speculation in the Province of British Columbia, and I brought this up

in the House because I felt that this is the type of thing that people

are using. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that we truly

understood that, when we take words like "speculate," which is a fairly

begin to twist it into something mean, we really are dealing with a

fundamental part of. the development of the Province of British

Columbia. I looked it up in the dictionary and "speculate" in the

dictionary has no terrible connotation. It says, "to make a purchase or

investment that involves a risk of loss but also offers a chance of

considerable profit."

The good Member from Cowichan-Malahat quoted Baruch in this House.

There is another quote by Baruch. He said, "During my life I have been

called a gambler, a speculator, a developer, an investor, a banker, a

financier. During that time, I was always doing the same thing. The

difference was only in other people's opinion of me."

Mr. Speaker, I'm here because I make no bones when I say that both

myself and my family have been involved in development and if you want

to call that speculation…If, in speculation, Mr. Speaker, you are

talking about taking a piece of land and developing it into something

then, without any bones, I say that we have been involved in this type

of development. But so have people throughout the entire province and I

say, Mr. Speaker, that the growth of the Province of British Columbia

has been because we've had citizens who go into areas and take a

chance. People who have risked in their lives everything they have had

on the possibility that it may return something to them. Mr. Speaker,

on eight separate occasions I have signed my house, my children's

education, every cent I have owned, over to a bank as a part of a risk,

and on three occasions, I can say, have been within a hair's breadth of

losing it entirely. I am not ashamed of that and it isn't unusual.

There are people throughout this Province who have done it, time

after time, and are doing it today, and instead of standing in this

House and making "speculate" a dirty word, we should be proud of this

type of people, we should be proud of this type of an individual. We

should feel that we should be encouraging people to take the chance of

doing something. I might say that, if it's possible to humbly boast

about something then, out of the results of it, out of all … yes, I

say that purposely, humbly boast. I need to say that I am humbly

boasting about it…

As a result of it, there are now 500 positions that have been opened

up because of the various so-called developments. Mr. Speaker, may I

say that so often in the House we hear the words used and we hear

people talk about this thing as though we were looking at something

that was not the right and proper thing for people to be concerned with.

I feel too, Mr. Speaker, that, during the debates, we had one other

comment raised on the floor of this House. It was a comment raised by

the Member from Cowichan-Malahat and he, at that time, said that this

Budget of $1,300,000,000 was a Budget produced from your rotten system

— "your rotten system," those were the words he used, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, your rotten system is the system that made it possible for him

to come to this Province as an uneducated immigrant, which he admits,

and to sit for 17 years as a proud and representative member and as the

Leader of the opposition. This was the rotten system that gave an

individual the type of opportunity to reach one of the most honoured

positions in the land, the opportunity, by this

[ Page 508 ]

rotten system, to send his youngsters and obtain an

education, through his help and his work, this rotten system. It was

this rotten system that has enabled the two Members, who sit on each

side of him to be in the top 10 per cent income in Canada and, perhaps,

the top one per cent in the world. This rotten system. It is this

rotten system that has produced more doctors, more schools, more

hospitals, more development, the highest standard of living, this

rotten system, Mr. Speaker, which has given this country the highest

standard of living in the world. With all its problems, with all its

concerns, this rotten system, if that's the case, Mr. Speaker, I say to

you that, if we were to open our boundaries, we would probably be

flooded by people from all over the world who would want to come and

live in your rotten system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I think I can open with the same opening remarks as the

previous speaker with, perhaps, a different inference, that that is a

tough act to follow. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate on this

great Budget of ours and commenting more particularly on the remarks of

the Opposition, the farmers' definition of the political philosophy is

brought to mind. I feel I can sum up this debate, to this point, by

using the farmers' comparison of philosophies. Farmers are

traditionally very realistic in putting philosophies to practical

tests. With socialism, the farmer rationalizes that if you have two

cows…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. MARSHALL: You've heard it. I'm going to tell you, again.

If you have two cows, you give one to your neighbour. In Liberalism,

and this is a change in this particular philosophy, if you have two

cows, you milk one and pour the milk down the drain. With Social Credit

if you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

It has been said that the toughest part of trying times is that

people quit trying but people in this Province will never quit trying

as long as our Minister of Finance keeps bringing in Budgets as

progressive and as tailored to the times as this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss in this debate trends that we are

nurturing, and some of this is repetitive. When I use the word, trend,

I consider the word "trend" akin to a rut. The only difference between

a rut and a grave is the depth. The trend I have noticed in this House,

perhaps, even more so than last year, is that many Members, of all

Parties, perhaps have forgotten that it is easier to be critical than

to be correct. I, personally, did not get into politics to get personal

and make personal attacks over philosophy. There has been in my mind

too much character tearing down of all Members, and it is easier to

pull down than it is to build up. I look at my Liberal friends, to the

right, and I sincerely believe them to be honourable Members. Although

I believe them to be slightly confused in their politics, I cannot say

that they do not have the right aim in life any more than myself when I

ask myself the same question. I do not feel it fair to criticize the

Provincial Liberals for everything wrong that the Federal Liberals do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. MARSHALL: They have made their stand quite clear to me on

this issue whether they are talking about Mr. Bonde or our unemployment

problem. However, I do not feel it fair that, conversely, our Party

should be continuously criticized for pointing out the errors of our

Federal Government. I thank the good Lord there is somebody left who

will take our Federal Government to task. It is good to have the right

aim in life but I think we have to remember to pull the trigger.

There has been a little bantering back and forth between myself and

the Leader of the Opposition regarding his statements over Chetwynd's

homes and I firmly believe he knows he is wrong, but he is a speaker

who likes to say things to please his audience. This is akin to the man

who gave his wife a fur coat, not to keep her warm, but to keep her

quiet. Seriously though, I'd like to see more in-depth discussions by

all Parties towards solving our many problems rather than the

expression of wrong aim on personal attacks and pulling the trigger on

personalities rather than solutions.

Another trend that concerns me a great deal is our trend in the

home-owner grant and what its continuation, unchecked and unchanged,

might involve. I, by no means, want it understood that I do not approve

of this grant for indeed I do support its application as an assistance

to home-owners to make it easier to own a home and to ease the tax

burden for those on fixed incomes, particularly those on fixed incomes.

The trend, however, is one that involves disparities and if I may

digress for just a moment, I want to give some supportive thoughts to

this home-owner grant. I feel that if we continue these trends that it

could defeat the principle of the grant's original concept. Farmers

have, for many years, endeavoured to point out glaring disparities in

taxation, and I firmly believe these do exist. Quite firmly also I

cannot support any Government that bows to militancy to solve a

problem. I'm thinking here of the case where our Government gave an

answer. It was the right answer but it was done at the threat of

Government by farmers who were threatening to dump grain on the steps

of our Pouce Coupe Land Office in order to pay their taxes. I feel that

our Government did act correctly, because I realize farmers only get a

pay cheque once a year but, I believe, they should have acted sooner.

Therefore, I want to support a government which, when the need for

change is apparent, reacts before people have to resort to militancy.

With the defeat of four consecutive referendums in the Peace country

by a massive campaign by the rural population, I have endeavoured to

discount or substantiate some of the farmers' allegations. Bearing in

mind that there are no farmers who get by with paying, at least in the

Peace River country, $1 a year taxes, and they allege that many

five-figure salary earners do enjoy the privilege even though they have

several children, of just paying $1 a year taxes, I endeavoured to find

out how serious this trend might become should we let it go unchecked.

With over 21,000 tax folios in our land office in Pouce Coupe, it was

too massive a job to take a complete, comprehensive survey, but I did

take, at random, some 500 folios. I found 21 per cent of these enjoyed

the privilege of paying only $1 a year taxes. It then became obvious to

me that should this 21 per cent figure represent the total percentage

of the total number of folios, it could involve a situation where, if

100 per cent of the $1 a year taxpayers voted, they could control the

outcome of any referendum. I realize this is not necessarily always the

case but it is, nevertheless, a trend, to me, that is alarming. I

certainly do not advocate that we cancel payments of these

[ Page 509 ]

home-owner grants but I would respectfully suggest

to our Government that whether it is paid in part or in total should be

dependent on the home-owner's ability to pay.

Another trend, Mr. Speaker, is disparities which are becoming more

glaring in the assessment of farmland. I am most aware that farmland is

classified and must be assessed on the basis of its value for farm

purposes, without regard to its value for other purposes. In the Peace

River district, the farmland use represents the highest and best use,

in the majority of cases. Accordingly, the value for farm purposes and

the actual value, that is, the probable selling price, are the same.

But as they are using for the purposes of assessment the selling price,

this is fictional for, in the past two years, the only major land sales

have been based on purchases made by other than bona fide farmers.

Assessments of farmland in the Fraser Valley, however, are quite

different. They are arrived at by capitalizing the annual rent value of

land used for farm purposes to arrive at the value for farm purposes.

It seems quite obvious to me that land speculators, owners of land who

are not bona fide farmers, those who do not receive the majority of

income from farming, who do not own the land on the basis of its value

for farm purposes — I'm thinking here of land that is valued for farm

purposes at $150 an acre and it has been purchased by a speculator at a

value 10 times that amount — this land should be taxed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have a classic example of a farmer in the Peace River

Country, who owns several thousand acres of land and he has rented this

land for the highest possible rent that he could possibly receive. It

is becoming more difficult, because of the lack of farm income, to rent

land on a profitable basis. It used to be rented, prior to two years

ago, on a one-third to two third basis. It is now a 20 to 80 basis.

This particular chap rented this land on the basis of the highest rent

he could get, which was $10,000. His taxes on this same piece of

ground, last year, were $6,500. In other words, 65 per cent of his

income went to land taxes. If we applied the same basis of assessment

as they do in the Fraser Valley, his taxes would have been but a

fraction of that amount. I realize the costs of services are not the

same, but I would respectfully suggest to our Government that the

assessment equalization consider provision, at least some provision,

for bona fide farmers greater than the 50 per cent present exemption

for farm use. The Federation of Agriculture has presented to Cabinet

its views on land taxation, and the Member from Delta has discussed it

as it relates to providing for green belts. These suggestions would

undoubtedly be accepted at this time in the Peace River country but I'm

sure, in my case, they wouldn't be acceptable in the lower mainland. To

argue about the comparative relation of farmland value to actual value

and state that they are not relevant is indeed false thinking, if we

are to retain to us what is known as a bona fide farmer.

I would hasten to point out that tax stands by farmers are not

restricted to only British Columbia. In Ontario, the Minister for

Municipal Affairs, early last October, stated that the Government would

return to the farmers 25 per cent grant on their net property taxes.

The farmers in Ontario are asking that the educational tax be removed

from farmlands and just taxed on their dwellings. In Manitoba, the

farmers are in favour of tax withholding and a farm committee is now

studying the tax question to find some way to apply school taxes more

fairly other than by increased tax to the landowner.

Mr. Speaker, I made reference before, in the Throne Debate, with

regard to another trend. The removal of those engaged in agriculture

from the farms and our seemingly reluctant attitude to bring immense

pressure to bear on the Federal Government to change their attitude. I

also have made mention of a new farm industry, alfalfa, and/or forage

for export. I don't want to belabour this point but, the first time I

mentioned this possible diversification in the House last year, I

cited, Mr. Speaker, the growing market in Japan for food and livestock

feeds. At that time, the Japanese imports of alfalfa pellets were some

300 tons annually. This figure has increased by some 20 per cent, now.

In Saskatchewan, through the Department of Industry, a further three

plants are now being built and I find it very strange to find they are

dealing in Vancouver. They are dealing in Vancouver with the Japanese

import-export company.

I have also mentioned in this House the Federal Government's attitude reflected by the Special Areas Act .

I do not wish to belabour the point but it is interesting to point out

that this production that I am speaking about in Saskatchewan began

with an $85,000 grant from the Federal Government's Area Development

Agency. Also, in Saskatchewan, they have a development corporation

called Sedco and the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation

loaned $350,000 this year to develop this project further. Their

production in Saskatchewan, this year, will exceed 18,000 tons. When I

speak about this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to think of our Province

being first and foremost. I want our farmers to enjoy these

diversification enterprises and I want to capture a larger slice of

perhaps some of this Japanese market and the Pacific rim country

markets, as well as the feed market within our own Province, which we

are not even getting.

The remaining final trends I want to discuss, Mr. Speaker, are

trends in welfare. As I look into our welfare system and in reading the

White Paper on guaranteed annual income, I am more convinced than ever

that British Columbia has had one of the most enlightened social

assistance programmes in North America. Some of the goals outlined in

President Nixon's new family assistance plan, such as providing a

stronger link with manpower programmes, provisions for day care, job

training, simplified eligibility for determination of final assistance,

have all been part of British Columbia's programme for some time. I

think it's important that my acceptance of British Columbia's

programme, in stating that it is basically sound, is very important,

when I do call on our Government to implement changes. The solid base

need not be changed but simply added to.

In considering a guaranteed annual income, our Government must show

a great deal of courage in stating, "Let's stop this universality that

costs so much money, that diverts so much money to people who really in

some circumstances do not need it. We must get more into antipoverty,

for it is predicted that, over the span of the next three years, there

will have to be an extra billion dollars, counting the Canada Pension

Plan, diverted into income security." In reading the White Paper on

guaranteed annual income, the thing that bothers me the most is that in

this plan there is no incentive to work. I think that anyone who fully

understands many of our welfare schemes knows full well that there is

every incentive in many of them to not work. If a man is on welfare and

he earns $1, for example, in many cases he loses a dollar and that's

certainly no incentive to work. Even if a man is working, in many

cases, his full employment earns him less than he could get on welfare

and there is certainly no incentive to work there — at least, no

incentive to

[ Page 510 ]

continue working.

I am not convinced that, in this country, we have any equitable,

comprehensive system to finance a guaranteed annual income. By stating

that, I'm not purporting to be a fiscal expert and I'm not trying to

destroy the idea of the guaranteed annual income, but I am aware that

we are dealing with the human element and that there are those people

in our system who are perverse enough to really not want to work. I

will agree that the guaranteed annual income, through tax credits and

in negative income tax as proposed, does provide slightly greater

incentive than does our present system. But I do not think that we

should concern ourselves with the small handful of people who do not

want to work, but concentrate our efforts on the many thousands of

citizens who are out of work and who do want to work. I do not feel,

when I search out public attitudes, that our country wants this

guaranteed annual income plan. The middle groups, which are already

complaining over heavy taxation, would have to again foot the bill and,

regardless of how heavily we tax our higher-income groups, there would

simply not be sufficient money in Canada to pay for this plan.

Corporations, through their many briefs to Mr. Benson, have well

informed him of the problems they are encountering in staying solvent.

In so many words, they have told him to keep his hands out of their

pockets. The CLC has presented a very unrealistic brief and proposal to

have corporations taxed in one fell swoop to pay for this plan. In

getting constructive criticism in recommending changes on welfare, I

should first like to see elimination of the popular and dangerous myth

that welfare is responsible for handling all our social ills. This

results because welfare is being criticized because of the

ever-increasing costs. It is not justified that welfare should be the

scapegoat and bear the brunt of failures of city planning, urban

housing, education, failures in expanding the job market, and failures

in the economy, in general because welfare cannot be all things to all

people.

A welfare programme must have specific goals and objectives entirely

its own but the success of its programme is dependent on the strength

and policies of programmes and cooperation of other departments and

groups, both in the public and the private sector. For example, and I

know I intend this to be critical of another department, but let's take

the example of the school system, which could not cope with the

below-average learner. If business cannot provide him with an

opportunity for employment, then the public, through its welfare

system, will have to provide for him. The specific goals and objectives

for Canada's welfare services have been set forth in the Canada Assistance Act .

The

preamble of the Act refers to the provision of adequate assistance

to and in respect of persons in need and the provision and removal of

the causes of poverty and dependence on public assistance. The

emphasis, in this case, is on the provision of adequate assistance to

persons in need and on prevention and removal of poverty and dependence.

There are three problem areas, with which the community and, I think

also, the social worker are most concerned: they are increases in

financial assistance, increases in family breakdown and the number of

problem children and youth, with the most attention being placed by

everyone on the financial assistance service.

There is no such thing as a simple solution to the problem of

poverty and economic security, but I would take these areas and offer

up some suggestions for alleviating the problems. Firstly, the most

predominant problem which was attacked by this great Budget was the

lack of job opportunities. Unlike so many other promises of political

leaders across Canada, the promises of 25,000 minimum new jobs will be

realized by the increase of the overall demand for labour, by the

creation of new jobs and opportunities through a process of

conscientious economic planning. I hope that all the work programmes,

which are mentioned in the Canada Assistance Act , will also be utilized.

In the Department of Social Welfare's Annual Report, it was reported

that, during last year, 94,000 social assistance cases were closed and

there were 97,000 applications or reapplications for social assistance

opened. Thus, persistent unemployment is a problem that must be

alleviated. I would suggest, also, that we increase the overall demand

for labour, by having employment agencies, which can do a hard selling

job with prospective employers, and I think the Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen is a useful agency in that it can find and create jobs,

place people in them and make referrals to the social agency of

unemployable people. Further, for those who are employable and cannot

be placed in employment, there should be provision for temporary

financial support from an agency other than the Department of Public

Welfare. This would involve expansion of Federal insurance programme to

all persons who have been employed or who are employable. I feel this

latter is most important, as no longer can welfare be the scapegoat of

Federal policies aimed at creating unemployment. The Federal

unemployment should bear the costs of these imposed additional costs.

For the category where job seekers fall into the group "lacking

adequate skills, poor motivation," and several other personal

attitudes, I suggest that we have re-education of the persistently

unemployed by expansion of training facilities.

We need to have social workers from the department in the vocational

schools to provide back-up and supportive services for those in

training, to ensure that the goal of completing training will be

achieved. We need to use more services of those engaged in the staff

position referred to as the case aide, to free the social worker to

cope with the more complex situations in the social assistance.

Further, when we talk of education, I feel that this is not just

provided in the school or the institutional setting. This can be

provided on the job, whether we are talking of BA degrees or vocational

school graduates. We should provide more home-job training programmes,

where an employee or an employer enters into a contract for a specific

length of time during which the Government pays part of the salary of

the employee and at the end the employer provides full employment.

It is necessary to take action on both the job and the income

maintenance area because you cannot separate the two. Therefore, along

with more employment opportunities, training, counselling, etc., there

must be provision for an adequate income for those who cannot work and

for those awaiting employment. The department has a system of overages,

which are grants over and above the basic social allowance rates to

cover extraordinary expenses, such as high rent, clothing, repairs,

replacements, etc. I feel that this system should be abolished and

overages incorporated into one rate, dependent on the size of the

family. This would be far more equitable and it would serve more than

just the demanding client and it would be less costly from the

administrative standpoint.

The rates for female head of families and male head of families,

must remain the same to ensure that the incentive is there for families

to stay together. It is dangerous to create a category of persons

eligible for benefits because this creates

[ Page 511 ]

an incentive for some persons to try to become a

member of that category. Each Province in Canada should have the same

social assistance rates. It has been said that many people move to

British Columbia because of the higher social assistance rates and I

find it quite difficult to determine whether this is fact or fiction,

but the principle of equity is valid. The single person, in receipt of

social assistance, accounts for over 51 per cent of the total load of

the welfare. Some of these are transients and some are resident. I

think the hostel system, while we have had problems with hostels, I

think they should be reduced in size. Nevertheless, the hostel system

is a valid system of handling a transient man. The only cash that

should be provided is for the comforts' allowance and money to go for a

confirmed job or to return home to a family. For the resident single

person and, particularly, for those in the age group under 19, we must

have more social work time freed to help parents assume the

responsibility for finding a solution to. their child's difficulty.

If one accepts the axiom that it is necessary to spend money to save

money, then, more funds will have to be allocated to help persons

remain independent or achieve independence. This will and I realize it

has placed a tremendous fiscal burden on the Provincial and local

Governments. I think it is very important that the Federal Government

assume more of this financial burden. Service to people is a vast and

complex topic and it is my hope that the department will give some

deliberation to my suggestions. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure for me to take my place in this Budget Debate and to represent

that great constituency of Vancouver South.

We, in British Columbia, are fortunate to have one of the best

governments that any free people anywhere in the world have. The

Government of British Columbia, under the very able and dynamic

leadership of our Premier, is a government for all people, a sound

government of genuine commitment, a forward-looking government with a

heart as well as a head, a government that pays its way with careful

budgeting and financing.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the Budget Speech that the emphasis is on the

creation of additional jobs and the maintenance of the high standards

in education, hospital and medical care, and social services

established by the Social Credit Government. Mr. Speaker, one of the

most crucial rights of all in our society is the right to a means of

earning a decent livelihood, and I am so pleased that our Government is

making provision for this right. Twenty-five thousand new jobs will be

filled by October 1, with more job opportunities in the making.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to note in the Budget an increase of

$1,600,000, that is a 60 per cent increase over last year, towards

senior citizens' housing grants. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent

programme, one of the most effective programmes of its kind in Canada

and much appreciated by the people of this Province.

Operated by nonprofit organizations, such as churches and service

clubs, for example, these homes serve as an inspiration for our elderly

people to remain as a vital and necessary force within the mainstream

of our society. The membership of the sponsoring organizations gives to

these homes a real heart and soul. They create and maintain a real

homelike atmosphere and everyone benefits from such worthwhile

projects. Monies channeled into this field are monies well spent.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to the honourable

Members of this House that, to date, the constituency of Vancouver

South has the greatest number of senior citizens' homes of any other

constituency in the Province and, Mr. Speaker, we are going to build

more of these homes in the southeast

section of the constituency known

as Champlain Heights. Last year, we opened four new senior citizens'

homes, namely, the Scottish Manor, the Ukrainian Manor, the

German-Canadian Home, and the Kiwanis Manor. Mr. Speaker, our

community-minded, public spirited citizens welcome this 60 per cent

increase in the senior citizens' housing grants and we look forward to

providing more of these homes for our elderly.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to t