1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 133 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of privilege. The point that I wish to raise is similar

to the one raised yesterday, by the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) dealing with Ministerial

statements outside of this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I think before proceeding with it

if we could adjourn the matter until 6 o'clock. I'm presently

preparing the reasons to deal with the other matter. I would

certainly consent with the House's consent to deal with it at

that time. But it seems to me it would be engaging a double

argument in one day, when one only may serve. Would you mind

holding your point of privilege with consent of the House until

prior to adjournment when I'll be presenting my investigations

into the complaint of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson).

MR. CHABOT: This one is similar in nature but it has to do

with tabling of material in the House and the availability of

material outside of the House which is not available inside of

the House. It's a very brief statement that I'm going to make

and I would like to make it if at all possible at this

time.

MR. SPEAKER: There's one rule I would ask all Members to

adhere to, which was set out I believe in May. When you have

some matter of this kind, you bring it to the Speaker prior to

the session, so that notice of the matter may be first given to

the Speaker. That does not bar you from making a statement in

the House. But it's proper procedure I understand, to notify

the Speaker, prior to the session. In any event, if you wish to

make your statement proceed. You say it is a point of

privilege.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. Recently the Premier made a statement on a

matter establishing a coal port at Britannia Beach — using as

justification a preliminary report prepared by H. Paish and

Associates. The report in question was made available to a

member of the Press which is clearly indicated in his news

release. The same preliminary report is not available to

Members of this Legislature. In fact on request for a copy of

the preliminary report I received a flat refusal. This in my

opinion is most regrettable, and an insult to the rights of the

Members of this assembly.

The release of this material to the Press without its

availability to the Members or prior tabling in the Legislature

is a serious step towards the erosion of the role of Members

and the function of this assembly. I request that the Premier

table the preliminary report on Britannia Beach prepared by H.

Paish and Associates forthwith.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I regret that the Member is

forced to embarrass himself in this manner with misinformation.

The preliminary report prepared by Mr. Paish has not been

released to anyone and that's a fact. And had the Member called

my office and checked he would have found that the report — Mr.

Paish's preliminary report on Britannia has not been

released to anyone. In my Press conference I made it clear when

the final report was available it would be released to everyone

in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members…oh, excuse me is this on the

same point?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there was a copy of

a Paish report on my desk this morning.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I beg your pardon. I had a report on my

desk by Paish and Associates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I'm trying to avoid the

Member's further embarrassment. It's a policy that everybody

have every report that's been released. I made it very clear

that I only had a preliminary report on Britannia and as a

result it was not released to anyone. I made the statement that

as soon as the final report was available it would be released.

Unlike the former administration, these reports are made

available to everyone.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Members. The matter will be taken up on

the question first raised by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

yesterday; about whether there is a breach of privilege in the releasing of

policy statements by the government on matters concerning the government, prior

to their being initiated by any statements in the House. That matter is in hand

— our study of the matter has been complete. We'll be reporting to the House

on the question of whether a prima facie case of breach of privilege exists,

It is my duty under the rules to determine if a prima facie case exists from

all the authorities we have and by which we are bound. If I find a prima facie

case exists I will then put it to the House as to what they wish to do about

a prima facie case. But my determination of the

[ Page 134 ]

matter will be given to the House, with your indulgence,

prior to adjournment. Is that satisfactory?

Is there some statement the Hon. Member wished to make? He

was up earlier.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House

to join in welcoming to the galleries today four persons from

the Skeena electoral district — Mr. Carl Spicer, the Mayor of

Smithers — Mr. Perry York, the Mayor of Hazelton — Mr. Gordon

Williams, the Vice-Chairman of the Industrial Development

Committee. These three men are from the heart of the beautiful

Bulkley Valley area. Also Mr. John Pidherny, he's a working

man, a contractor from the Meziadin Lake area.

Introduction of bills.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

rise on a matter of urgent public importance to ask leave to

move adjournment of the House to discuss the seriously

protracted strike of Local 382 of the Canadian Union of Public

Employees against the School District of greater Victoria,

School District 61. This motion is seconded, whether you wish

it, by either the First Member for Victoria, or the Member for

Oak Bay, at your will. I have here a copy of this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it must be seconded. It is a question of

which one you are asking to second.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will

second this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, do you have a statement of the matter to

send to the Speaker?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I have here

clippings which I presume will be adequate for your purposes — clippings both from Victoria Times Saturday January 27, 1973,

page 21; Tuesday January 30, 1973, Page 15. The clippings, Mr.

Speaker, indicate that this strike has continued now for three

weeks, that the school children involved — some of them getting

part of their education part of the day or approximately two

hours a day. Others are getting less. I interviewed two urchins

in the street outside. They assured me they were delighted to

have a full day's holiday today because the schools are closed

down. We have had this dispute going on now for many weeks, a dispute that affects virtually every

school child in the greater Victoria area. A dispute costing

the public approximately $90,000 a day, the people of Victoria

about $90,000 a day, despite the fact that the amount of education being provided is

virtually minimal. These people will be required, no doubt, by

legislation to pay school taxes for this period when no school

services are being provided, and I, and my colleagues, two that

I've mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the two other Members from the

greater Victoria area — I know I speak also for the Member for

Saanich (Mr. Curtis). I'm not too sure about the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). But he certainly will have an

opportunity to speak for himself if this debate is allowed. We

feel that there has not been adequate attention paid to the

gravity of this. We regret that there has been far too much….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you are not to indulge in the

debate on the topic, you were to indicate the urgency of the

matter. I think I've grasped your statement as to what the

matter is, and usually as a courtesy it is accepted practice to

not only say what the particular matter is in terms of a strike

but the urgency of debate. You've stated that verbally and I

have accepted your statement of the matter. Now it is for me to

decide as to the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the

matter — that's for you to discuss if you are permitted to

debate it. I have to determine, according to standing order 15,

whether there is urgency that this particular special debate

take place.

I'm sorry — it's 35. I wasn't reading this correctly — standing order 35.

The rule is that in determining that, I must decide whether

you have the opportunity or have had the opportunity to debate

this matter at large. I point out to the Hon. Member that he

indulged in two debates in this week. The other Member who

seconded the motion spoke yesterday in debate. Neither of you

mentioned this as a matter of urgent public importance although

it had, I understand from your statement, been going on for

several weeks.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it on the

record that I did indeed speak in the throne speech debate on

the school strike in district 61. I would wish to have that

corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Right. I'm sorry. I was not in the House

apparently when you spoke and so I would not be aware.

But at any rate and all the more, it reinforces the point.

When I make a decision on this I have to decide whether urgency

of debate requires this special adjournment of the House. It

seems to me that since we are in the throne speech debate and

every Member has the opportunity to join that debate, the

matter could be canvassed every day of the week from now on and

past days as well. Therefore, I cannot find in the authorities

that bind me that there is that urgency of debate which impels

me to ask the House to accept

[ Page 135 ]

the motion, or upon the request of not less than five

Members.

In the circumstances, I think I must rule that it is not a

matter of urgency within the rule that binds me.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm overwhelmed. (Laughter).

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Enjoy it. You'll never

have it again.

HON. MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say

first, congratulations to you on a job well done, not only in

this session but also in the special session during the fall.

We're finding that your consideration of matters pertaining to

this House is certainly fair indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note at this time that

there is in the galleries just to my left the past Minister of

Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Chant. I would like everybody to

recognize him. I'm just wondering whether Mr. Chant came to

keep his eye on one of his old critics but I'm sure it was

something else.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also particularly proud to stand in this

House with a group of new Members who are sure doing their

homework and obviously have been doing their homework in the

past in their constituencies as real community workers.

I particularly congratulate the mover and seconder of the

reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think that they

certainly set the tone for this debate and I do hope that for

my part, and for the part of the rest of us that will continue

on in this debate, that we can keep up that high level of

production.

Mr. Speaker, I don't in any way want to embarrass the Opposition. They really

didn't have that much to do with policy in the past Government. Despite that,

they did, however, support the past Government. I mean it — I really don't want

to be overly critical. But there has been a great deal of criticism from that

side of the House and so I do feel somewhat defensive. Therefore I feel that

since they can afford the luxury of criticizing a government of only 4 1/2 months

in standing, 4 1/2 months in power — from September 15 to now — and they have

been very heavy with their criticism, Mr. Speaker — I think that maybe I can

say a few words about the last 20 years with respect to health care.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: I didn't hear what the Member said, Mr.

Speaker, but I'm quite sure it was O.K.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the jobs that we have

to do in this new Government is to clean up a mess. I've found

a mess in health care. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a

mess in health care elsewhere, but I am suggesting….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to deal with

that exactly now. I hired an executive assistant, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Hire some friends.

HON. MR. COCKE: I hired a consultant. Who wouldn't? Were

going to go into that in some detail, Mr. Speaker, into this

particular thing. I did replace another executive assistant

with my own executive assistant. The fact of the matter is

that's the kind of support and help I need, and I'm getting

great support and help.

What difference does it make? Look at the answers to the

questions on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that we inherited a mess in health

care. I'll just give you a couple of examples along the way. My

department inherited the Vancouver General Hospital annex. Now,

that's what happens in this system. That's what happens across

the country when we have a tendency to neglect areas that are

important. But when we have contempt for suffering — and we

can't say that that suffering was unknown. It was known. When

we ignore suffering, then we create situations such as that

Heather annex. Now the Heather annex has been solved and I

certainly congratulate the past Government on the fact that

they did O.K. — the replacement for that annex.

But I do hope that we can get rid of that kind of

institution, that kind of delivery of health care in this

province — where the Press call a place "death row."

However, in spite of these unbelievable working conditions,

the one thing that I'm really proud of is the fact that people

were working their hearts out and working for years. Many of

the people that worked in the Heather annex worked there for 15

and 20 years and we should really applaud that group of people

in our society.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke at the opening of the new

building, the Bannfield Pavilion, I asked that that old Heather

annex be destroyed. You know, there's always somebody with a

great idea — somebody

[ Page 136 ]

would find a use for it somewhere along the line. That thing

has been an eyesore and a disgrace since the 1918 flu epidemic.

So, I am happy to announce next week, on February 7 in the

morning — that's Wednesday morning — I have been asked to start

the demolition of that building and I'm going to be there and

I'm going to be there with delight. Because we're going to

sledge-hammer — no, we're going to do it with a bulldozer. Kind

of for old time's sake. Anyway, if you'll forgive me….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. (Laughter). I don't mind

being a wrecker on that kind of project, Mr. Speaker, through

you to that Member.

Mr. Speaker, another example — and these are areas that all

of you know about in the Press and so on and I feel that it is

important that I put some of these areas before this House.

There was the Royal Columbian Hospital problem.

Mr. Speaker, that was really a problem that was just poor

labour relations. Management not speaking to workers and

workers not speaking to management and therefore no

communication. Really, that's what it was. Nobody really

understood the other guy's point of view because of the fact

that he had never heard it. He didn't even know what it was,

unless he read bits and pieces of it in the Press. Because

there really was no communication. I'm happy to announce that

things seem to be going along well.

Therefore I feel that this Government is moving in the right

direction in that area as well — to indicate to people that no

longer will there be this kind of climate in which people tend

to lean on one another without even listening to what one

another is saying.

Mr. Speaker, this party across the floor, my good friends

across the floor — yes, and we're talking to the farmers — they

moved a vote of confidence the other day on jobs. What did we

find? Squeeze. "That's where the squeeze was," said the

Royal Columbian. That's where the squeeze was all over the

place — the civil service.

On one hand this group across the floor castigate our leader

for indicating that he's going to hire, that we're going to

open up the civil service to replace the jobs that we've been

calling for for years. They talk about patronage and all that

silliness, because they know perfectly well that the Civil

Service Commission is going to do that job and those people are

going to be hired fairly and squarely. And look through my

department if you care to. They've hired exactly the same as

they always were. But the fact is we're opening up the squeeze,

Mr. Speaker. We're opening up the squeeze on hospitals; we're

opening up the squeeze on the civil service.

No longer do our hospitals in B.C. have to adhere to that infamous Press release

that came out of that very door the day of prorogation in 1970, and I was standing

outside the door when the then Minister of Health (Mr. Loffmark) brought a Press

release out — no announcement in the House. Out in the hall came that Press release.

The first sign we saw of this 70 per cent, that the Government will pick up

70 per cent of the increased cost of labour — after the negotiations were over.

And that is correct, Sir. I was there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. That's right. It was not correct. The

day of prorogation, and there he was in the hall with an armful

of Press releases. That was the kind of situation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm delighted to say, however, that our

leader, our Premier has made his statements right during our throne debate,

when anybody can get up — and a budget debate yet to come — when anybody can

get up and cry their heart out or pat him on the back — as I hope most of you

will, because he's doing a great job.

Mr. Speaker, we within the last three months have restored

that formula back to fair play. We've restored that 70 per cent

back to the hospitals and back to the workers alike where it

belongs. No longer do they have to worry about that

shortfall.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that in that way we can create a

climate, an opportunity for people to negotiate properly

knowing full well what's on the table all the time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with one other area in

this purview and that's Riverview. Now we as a province were

once one of the foremost areas in all of North America with

respect to the delivery of mental health care. Now because of

the fact that we've been dawdling along in one direction and

dawdling along in another direction and never been able to

quite make up our mind how to go in the delivery of mental

health care, we have actually fallen so far back that

oftentimes people say, "It's shameful." I used to say that from

the other side of the House and, now that I'm on this side of

the House, I must confess that I still feel the same way.

We've had shortages of staff, we've had morale problems, and

mainly because of the fact that the people that are involved

directly in this particular aspect of health care know

themselves, know that the direction isn't proper. And it's not

only because of lack of governmental direction; it's structure.

The whole thing is wrong. So the first step I feel is that we

recognize that there is a problem there. We recognize that it's

a major problem and we're certainly going to work our hands to

the bone in order to put this thing right.

[ Page 137 ]

First thing I did, almost within a week of being appointed,

I was invited to a meeting of the psychiatric

section — that

was last fall. And I met with 100 out of the 170 psychiatrists

in B.C. Not only were they psychiatrists in the public sector,

they were psychiatrists in the academic sector and they were

psychiatrists on their own — in other words, the private

practitioner. All of them.

One of the things that came out of that meeting was a

promise from both Government and from them that there would be

real cooperation in trying to redirect this whole question of

mental health care.

So what have we been doing? Well, we've been developing

community programmes. Right now there's the beginning of a good

community programme, which is a pilot project under John

Cummings, but it's endorsed by the Vancouver health region. Of

course they are cooperating and so are we. But it's under the

directorship of John Cummings. And I have great hopes that this

particular kind of a community concept will develop to the

extent that we can see where it's going to go and it will go

right across the province.

We're not going to, however, decide that we're going to

change the whole direction without really trying something

properly and then, then we can move out. But we do feel that we

must do it in that particular area first in order to prove to

ourselves our own satisfaction. And then we will develop out

from there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a beginning.

You know, one of the things that I want everybody here to

recognize is that there are many people in Riverview. Because

of the fact that they've been there a long time, they've

institutional neurosis and all the rest of it. So I believe

that we have to consider Riverview in the future as people at

the extended care level. Because a lot of them fit in that

particular category.

There are also those that are intermediate care level. And

of course some that are acutely ill. But I think that that has

to be developed and we have to somehow or another get this

question of mental health back into the area of health, period.

It's been isolated, all by itself out there, and naturally in

that kind of a situation it's almost impossible to develop a

decent, good integrated programme.

So we're going to bring that programme back to the

community. We're going to decentralize — there's no question

about that. But I want to say at this time that there is no

threat to the staff of any of our mental hospitals or other

facilities in this province. No threat to them. They are as

important to us in the community as they are in those mental

hospitals. I say that to the psych nurses; I say that to the

RN's involved; I say that to all of them, the aides and

everybody. Because those are people that know that problem

better than anybody else.

You know, there's nothing like "on the job learning,"

I feel, nothing like it. There are a lot of people that come

out very nicely academically equipped. But there's no exchange

as far as I am concerned, no substitute for the kind of

learning and the kind of training that they've had — right on

the job. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that amply clear,

that that staff is in no way threatened, no matter what

happens, through decentralization or what happens to any of the

complexes. They're in no jeopardy whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking at Riverside, that maximum

security area out there at Riverview — and if anybody has been

in there you know exactly what I'm talking about. We're going

to bring it up to date. There's no question about that.

It has to be that we have to have maximum security. There

are people in our society that just cannot be set free and

that's all there is to it. And that's where they're going to

stay. But we're going to upgrade that place. There's going to

be proper security but proper recreation and so on, We're already discussing now, and I hope that we can get

inter-forensic service in the near future. Because that should

be coupled, we feel, with that whole question of Riverside.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're not standing still in the area of

mental health.

Along another line, Mr. Speaker, my colleague who is now in

Ottawa meeting with his counterpart at the federal level, the

Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr. Levi), he and I and one or two of our other colleagues have

been working on this whole question of alcohol and drug

dependency. As a matter of fact, the Hon. second Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made some remarks the other day — yesterday, I believe — regarding his lack of confidence in the

two foundations. But, you know, those two foundations are part

of a whole system of empires out there, a whole system of them.

They're not just two; there's a multiplicity of groups that are

dealing with this problem. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the

problem, or at least a part of it.

Now I'm not suggesting I or anybody else has an easy answer

to either of them. They are extremely important and very

difficult-to-solve problems. But that's it, these empires, and

the system has created these empires. And I believe that that's

a great deal of our problem.

So therefore this whole question of direction — and naturally

there can be really no direction as long as you have a group….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, no. It goes back to the community the

same as the other. But you have to

[ Page 138 ]

have some direction.

You know one of the jobs I feel that government has is to

finance, to set standards and to supervise. I think that that's

necessary. Now you don't necessarily have to deliver the

service. As a matter of fact I think it's rather bad when

government does deliver the service.

But those are the three areas, as far as I am concerned, in

my department. That's the direction that we're heading. And all

of the evidence that we have today indicates that that's where

we should be going.

So, I hope that we also get over this hang-up that we have

on overprofessionalization. And that's an area that in that

particular deal — that is in alcoholic dependency — that the

most successful people in that area are the non-professionals.

A.A. was the best example.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is what they call re-cycling, Madam

Member. There's a dedicated work going on in these fields and

what we hope to do is put it all together. I hope we're doing

a little more than just speaking about it. As you know a few

weeks ago we sponsored a two-day meeting. We picked up

professionals, and non-professionals including the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who was there for a good part of the

time. He was invited because he has some definite interests.

And….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's quite a difference isn't it — "open government", Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, these people have expertise in working to

combat this drug dependency problem. Don't forget when we're

talking that drug dependency covers the whole scene. The

overwhelming consensus of that group was the need for

coordination of effort and the need for co-coordinating

government's own activities.

Do you know we have six Ministers involved in that. We've

got the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), doling out

grants. We've got the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance in this kind of therapy aspect; the Minister of

Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi), with his input; the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), dealing with the criminal aspect

of the whole thing and the Premier, naturally. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) also is involved. So, it's a real

dog's breakfast. We've put that together. From our committee

we've got a subcommittee now of people, just a small group,

that are charged with the responsibility of coming in with, at

least, some direction. That's what we need. I hope that's what

we're going to get.

It was wide open. There were people coming and going from

that meeting and there was a great deal of enthusiasm. I feel

that this kind of thing is going to help us because no one person has all the answers. Mr.

Speaker, we'll put our best efforts forth and this Government

will go on supporting that kind of activity.

Well, we're not stopping there, we want participation from

everyone, not only in dependency, but in all areas of health

care. Health care is certainly part of that dependency thing.

The health security team I hear discussed. The health security

team, or the health security programme, have advertised to the

public in general for briefs. We say we want input from

everybody — from layman, from professionals, from individuals,

from groups.

This is the kind of an ad that we had in all the papers all

across the province. Now, you have a voice in major health

security decisions — use it…and on and on it goes. It's a

big job, frustrations and so on. And if this ad tells the

story, that's the work that Dr. Richard Foulkes is doing in the

health security field. He's going out and finding out

information that will be absolutely important to the Government

and in studying directions for the future delivery of health

care.

Dr. Foulkes and his committee have worked tirelessly. There

are no reports coming from them until next October. I'm really

excited looking forward to that report. But I am getting lots

of memos. I know they're busy, and they're going day and night

in this particular area. He has a group of hard working,

excited people working for him and I'm sure that much will be

learned from their deliberations.

Their job is to help us better co-ordinate our own

activities. They are first to take an over-view of our

departments. And you know this "health" in B.C. has a

multiplicity of departments. I know some of you have heard me

talk about that in the past. We've got mental health,

B.C.H.I.S., Health Services which is Public Health, and we've

got Medicare — all under one umbrella, but all separate. Mr.

Speaker, it's very difficult to work in a co-ordinated way under

those circumstances.

So, there's research being done, and that research is

directed towards ways and means of helping us co-ordinate our

activities. It's also looking at interdepartmental problems.

There are areas of overlapping between my department and the

Department of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation. There is also

overlapping with education…and so on. So, they're taking a

good look at that at the same time to see to it that there is

no overlapping or, for that matter, vacuums building because of

the fact that there isn't the right kind of communication.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's all very exciting and I do hope that,

soon, we're going to start moving a little bit faster. But I

make no apologies for going slow. I think it's just too

important to play around with this activity. Health care is a

very, very important factor in our lives and the health

security team is instructed

[ Page 139 ]

to advise us the best way to go. They can't do that in five

minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they have other work that they must do. You

know we've had a little bit of a confrontation with Ottawa over

this question of health care costs and so on. It's not any more

than any kind of confrontation that you would have to have in

view of the fact that health care is becoming very, very

expensive for us all. One other job that we've instructed the

health security team to do is to check on the alternative

methods of the delivery of health care. One such method is the

community health centre concept.

Now, many of us have spoken pro and con about this in the

House. There have been criticisms levelled at the community

health centre concept. I've heard, for an example, in recent

weeks that the clinic costs would be somewhat higher. There's a

suggestion that per capita costs would be higher for this kind

of delivery.

But we're still interested, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you

why we're interested. We're interested because that concept can

save us hospital care, and that's the very expensive aspect of

health care. Actual medical input is not that terribly

expensive. But, what happens when people are hospitalized is

very expensive. That's why we're still interested in looking at

this concept. We're not interested in forcing it down anybody's

throat either.

We believe that there are many areas to follow up, many

areas of alternative methods of delivery. I read the scariest

article in my life the other day. I would suggest that any of

you that get a chance read Kelmar's

article on a little bit of

a history of the American system of health care delivery. He

tells you about…from the turn of the century to the

Carnegie Report, remember in 1911, and tried the big change

then — and then the change where the academies lost control of

the A.M.A. and the doctors took control of it.

He predicts that in 10 years time or thereabouts the

insurance companies will own lock, stock and barrel the

delivery of health care in the United States because of the

directions they have taken. That's kind of scary — it's Kelmar,

Sidney Kelmar. I could send you a copy if you like. It's very

interesting and, as I say, it's an academic thing. He's got an

awful lot of input into it. But — and it may be that he's wrong — but it's these kind of scary things are going on.

As far as we're concerned, Mr. Speaker, we're most

interested in taking a look at this question of what to do

about rising costs. So, we're looking at a real reduction in

hospital utilization. We know perfectly well that our economy,

or anybody else's economy cannot stand, or withstand, an

increase of 12 per cent a year. Don't forget that that increase

of 12 per cent a year drives the cost double every five years.

It's just too much to take.

The federal government, a year and a half ago, commissioned

John Hastings to do a report. He did a pretty good report

considering he was only given a year to do it. We're reading

that report, of course we are. Right here, the Community

Health Centre Report , by Hastings. And there is no government

decree. As far as we're concerned we want input from everybody,

and we want an opportunity to assess and assist. But we do feel

that the delivery of health care has to be centered around the

community, and I'm not meaning in this particular way. But we

certainly want to try it. I've announced that we're open to

areas that are interested in going with us and we'll do pilot

projects on this and we'll co-operate.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows

that we're not hung up on this question. We're looking for

alternatives and those alternatives have to produce a good

quality system that must keep the price in line. We can't go on

without the federal government. The Hon. Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), and I were invited to attend a meeting that he was

at in Ottawa. We were told by our counterparts down there that

they want off the escalator. I don't blame them. I'd want off

the escalator too, if I was in that position. So they made us

an offer. I don't think it's an offer that we can use. But they

have made us an offer, and it's improved a little bit from the

offer they made in 1971. It's an actual sharing based on our

present sharing arrangement, and they only share insured

benefits — Medicare, hospital coverage and so on, up to and

including extended care but not beyond.

That's one of the unfortunate aspects, you see. Ottawa

doesn't recognize mental health and they don't recognize

intermediate care. So, we're taking a formula that is biased

against us. Then they're saying….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Excuse me. No, they are not broadening the

basis yet. We are arguing that they should.

But anyway, their offer has been to increase their

participation at the rate of increase of the gross national

product. There's a little bit of phasing — it's plus 1 per cent

the first year and plus 0.75 and so on — over a five-year

period, to a point that we are going to be on that basis. Now

we know perfectly well that the cost of the delivery of health

care is increasing at a much more rapid rate that is the gross

national product. So they have thrown in a nice little carrot

and it's called the "thrust fund." It has been somewhat changed

since the last negotiations but it is still around $65 million.

This will help us develop alternative systems, they claim.

Now they have thrown in another one and that is risk

sharing. For a five-year period — they're for going

[ Page 140 ]

for the ten-year period — they are prepared, providing we

can prove it, to participate to the extent, on a shared basis,

of up to three more percentage points. But it is still pretty

tight, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to sit back and accept

this until we have exhausted all our arguments.

I must say this — that we are not going to go out on a

vendetta. We understand the problems of Ottawa I think that

what they are making us do in this country is do some real hard

work in this whole question of health care. We are going to go

our best licks to get a better cost-sharing arrangement. But we

certainly understand their position.

Mr. Speaker, we do view the increase seriously. We want

greater federal participation and we are going to, ourselves,

have to correct some of the problems that we have here in order

to reduce our own costs. I feel there are a number of ways this

could be done.

The first thing that we need is an informed public. We need

a public that recognizes that you can, if you're not careful,

kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I think it is

important that we have the cooperation from a determined team

of people. A team of doctors, nurses and paramedics. Now what

about this team, Mr. Speaker? Well, I would like to say one or

two words about them.

I said when I was in Opposition and I'll say it again now,

that we in this province are really lucky to have this

hard-working, dedicated group — not only the people that are

working inside the system, but the people that are working all

through, on the community level and elsewhere. I have found

them most cooperative before and I find them most cooperative

now. It's a privilege to work with them.

You work more closely with the people that are actually on

your staff and so on. But I would like to just give you an idea

about how some of these people feel about their work. Recently

I was in Tranquille, at our hospital for the retarded up there.

This was early evening. There was a young woman walking up and

down the hall, in a uniform, carrying a little baby — no bigger

than — just inches long. The person that was with me, the

director, told me that that is the way she really feels. She is

doing it continually, and particularly with this child, a

little child that was just a few weeks old — I think something

in the order of maybe six month, but of very, very stunted

growth. This woman was walking up and down nursing this child

as though it were her own because that's the way she feels. It

was just great to see. These are the kinds of things that

really make you feel that it's worthwhile and that there are

people contributing to this system that are really

worthwhile.

I'd like to boast a little bit, Mr. Speaker. How about the isolation

of the A2 virus? We isolated it in our laboratory two weeks before they

did in the east. When they did it in the east two weeks later, they got

national coverage on television. I don't know, these guys were asleep.

We let them know. They got national coverage on television when they

did it two weeks later in the east. But I'm very proud of a laboratory

that works that well and effectively.

MRS. JORDAN: What government hired the people in the

laboratory?

HON. MR. COCKE: The Liberals and the Conservatives prior to

1952. Most of them are old, old guys.

Mr. Speaker, there are problems around. We've got

intermediate care. We've got the situation around the R.C.H.

and the V.G.H. and the Campbell River and so on. We have to

respond to these thing. Since I've been a Minister, I think

I've been confronted with virtually everything.

We've got medicare back now. Medicare has come home to rest

and we feel good about that. We feel that there is some great

input into the health department directly. The Provincial

Secretary's department has really no relationship with this

particular area, but we have a very close relationship. I would

say right away that we've only had them in our department for a

matter of weeks and they are already helping. They're

cooperating, helping the health security team with some real

good input, that people are not taking their own future

seriously. If they want co-ordinate the whole effort.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also suggest that we are very

interested in the whole question of prevention — not only

preventive medicine but also fitness. Therefore we dispatched

to Ottawa one or two people to attend the fitness conference on

December 4, 5 and 6, 1972, just a month and a half ago. I've so

far had three reports and those reports are splendid, to the

extent that I suggest that we are going to cooperate in every

way with this new fitness council.

Mr. Speaker, some of the areas that they were dealing with

when they were down there were exercise testing, post-coronary

rehabilitation programmes, physical activity and weight

control, the role of the community health centre in the

promotion of fitness, techniques for improving fitness

programmes for asked last fall that hospitals get their

employees involved. In industry and homes for the aged, and

marketing physical fitness — new techniques in attitude change.

There has to be an attitudinal change.

People in Canada are in lousy shape. They are in poor

shape.

MR. CHABOT: Physically.

HON. MR. COCKE: Physically. I hope that somehow or another

by cooperating in this area of fitness that we can get people

to involve themselves directly in jogging and other activities

to improve their quality of life — in sports and recreation of

all sorts. The

[ Page 141 ]

YMCA's, the government programmes and the municipal

programmes are not well attended because of the fact that

people are not taking their own future seriously. If they want

to improve their quality of life, I think that they have to

begin to study, read and think and then act upon it with

respect to getting involved in recreational and physical

activities.

I ran four miles a day every day for years, as the Member

across knows. Unfortunately, I've been a little bit irregular

lately — I make that confession — and I'm going to get right

back to it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we feel that there is to be a

reduction in morbidity, if not mortality. There is no proof, I

don't think, at this point, that you can extend your life that

much by taking

part in physical activity. But there is proof

that you feel better and there is a reduction in illness or, as

I said, a reduction in morbidity. It's a positive approach. I

asked last fall that hospitals get their employees involved. I

think the government — people working in our department and we,

as legislators — should lead the way in this question of keeping

physically fit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. I think we can maybe get

some of those springs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on to another area. I would

like to announce that those young doctors or those fourth-year

students called "clinical clerks," that as of January 1

, I am re-instating their renumeration. As you know, the last

group — that is, the fourth-year students that will be getting

out this May — lost a number of months. So we're re-instating

it as of January 1 and it will continue until they're through.

Then the next go-round will get the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, I think that these people, these fourth-year

students with no income at all, work hard. They work 50 to 60

hours a week and they move around the province and they learn a

lot, and it will be a lot better for us in the future for

having at least recognized them at this point, and we don't

recognize them to that extent.

There isn't that much money but I do feel that it is

important for us to make that kind of effort. Mr. Speaker,

there has been an announcement in the paper — somebody said

that I announced we were negotiating with Richmond Heights

hospital. Well that's not true.

I didn't make the announcement that we were negotiating with Richmond Heights

hospital, but we are negotiating with Richmond Heights hospital. (Laughter).

More power to the Press I guess. But this goes along with our objective to get

all chronic illness under our insured benefit programme.

Mr. Speaker, we feel very definitely that we cannot move in

the direction of just providing under our insured benefits for

people in any and all institutions, and we feel that there has

to be some place that we draw the line. So naturally we are

negotiating and we are also developing, as you know, four

special care homes right now, one close to here in Saanich, two

in Vancouver and one in Kamloops, and there will be others.

I might say also that Richmond Heights is not the only

hospital that we are talking to, it is not the only private

hospital. But as I say they are coming to us, we are not going

out to them. We are also interested — and the Member for Oak

Bay would be interested in this — in seeing to it that they are

community run, not some new level of care that we are going to

administer from here. It is going to be community run.

So the special care homes that we have now are demonstration

projects and they will go into the community as well. No

question about that. We have no idea of beginning this whole

centralization approach. I am going to repeat it again, we feel

that Government should be in the financial end, supervision,

setting standards and that's it.

So, Mr. Speaker….

MR. WALLACE: It's like a breath of fresh air in here

now.

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not

interested in poor facilities. I might say that now, so if

anybody comes offering us some of the places that I have seen

in recent months I can tell you right now we are not going to

buy them, for any price. But there are some facilities in this

province that we would be only too happy to look at.

Well, I was going to deal very briefly with acupuncture. I

know that nobody here expects me to just jump over that one.

There is a tremendous public pressure at this point for us to

involve ourselves in licensing acupuncturists. Well, as you

know, we set up a committee, and I want to make this very

clear. That committee was set up by myself and my deputy. We

appointed the members. This wasn't a committee that was thrust

upon me, and I have had some criticism that says that a

committee of doctors are running us as opposed to us taking a

clear look at it.

What we did, we got a person in cancer treatment, we got a

person in arthritis and rheumatism treatment, we got a

person in anesthesiology, the Registrar from the College, my

own deputy, myself and I am pleased to say that Rosemary Brown,

the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard, will be on that

committee as well.

And what we want to do, and what we have

[ Page 142 ]

already asked, we've been in touch with acupuncturists and

medical colleges outside of Canada, we have been in touch with

China, the medical college in Peking, and asked them if they

could send one or two people here who are involved in this

delivery of what they term health care so that we can assess

more closely just how we can help out our own health care team

in this province with this system.

Mr. Speaker, 700 million people and more have been very

close to acupuncture and it has been a system that has been

used for many, many years in China and other Oriental

countries, and there are many people who swear by it.

Now I'd like to suggest that there are two forms of

acupuncture. One is the traditional. The ancient form of

acupuncture is where the person administering it is trying his

best to improve the health of your organs by stimulating them

with the help of these needles. The second one is absolutely

proven. The second one is analgesia acupuncture. Now the

traditionalists say well, it doesn't take very long to learn

analgesia acupuncture. Most of you have seen demonstrations of

it on TV where they can perform an operation in the thorax or

even in the cranium with no pain whatsoever, with analgesia

acupuncture.

But we want to look at it carefully and then, if it is found

to be something that we should have, we are going to be able to

set standards and licensing regulations so that we keep it out

of the hands of charlatans.

That's why we can't just say today, "O.K., go ahead, "

because anybody that has a couple of needles can become an

instant acupuncturist, and we just don't feel that is the way

to go. So we are working on it. We know that there are

so-called experts in and around Vancouver, and many of them are

highly thought of, and we are certainly discussing the question

with them, but we are just going to move at the pace that we

feel is the safest for the people in this province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a couple of words

before I close on that gem of this province — New

Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

HON. MR. COCKE: It was odd to hear the Member from Burnaby

asking where is that? He lives in the suburbs of New

Westminster. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy with the kind of cooperation that

we had from B.C. Hydro. New Westminster has been assured that

they will be able to negotiate not only to keep their power

which they will distribute from here on, but they will also be

able to negotiate a fair rate, a fair price for the power. Mr.

Speaker, the Mayor and the Council would like to let everybody

know that they are quite happy with the new Government and the

Hydro policy at the moment. Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy that we were able to

change a few minds in Vancouver, not by undue influence but

just good round talks and that was this whole question of the

Annacis Island primary treatment plant on the Fraser River.

We were really really worried about that. We felt that after

having taken a real good look at Iona Island and the damage to

the ecology there, that it would be absolutely shameful on our

part to go ahead and put in primary treatment only in Annacis.

After some weeks of study and discussion, this Government

finally made the decision that we would go for secondary

treatment on Annacis Island. New Westminster thanks this

Government for that as well.

They are also going to thank this Government, Mr. Speaker,

if some decision is made in the not too distant future with

respect to the courthouse. It is unbelievable — since 1889 they

have been talking about that courthouse in New Westminster and

I hope — and this isn't Government policy — but I hope that

there is enough sense of antiquity around to keep that courthouse. Renovate it, get rid of many of the Government

offices that are in there, build another building in that

general area, but keep the courthouse as a traditional building

— an historic site in New Westminster. Get rid of all the junk.

Land Registry, the whole thing. Out, out. And then we have the

fine courthouse. It is a beautiful old building, beautiful old

courtrooms, and should be retained, and it could be renovated

and brought well up to standards. Add a few more bathrooms — as

you well know if you go in there, you had better be sure you go

somewhere else first. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the courthouse isn't the only problem. The

R.C.H. of course is very close to my heart — that's the Royal

Columbian Hospital. We are doing a study right now on this

whole question of what is the future of the Royal Columbian and

I can tell you that it's exciting times. We are not going to

move quickly but we are looking at that as being a very fine

central location for a referral hospital. So, Mr. Speaker,

beyond that I would like to suggest to anybody that is

interested in that area of the province and I am sure everybody

would be, if they knew it — it is a great place.

We're going to be building an extended care facility on the

site of Woodlands. Now we're not quite sure exactly where.

There is a subcommittee of the board right now checking out

different locations, but this will be, to begin with, a 150 bed

extended care unit. We feel very definitely that that's the way

to go and extended care is still a priority and will continue

to be a priority until the needs are met. As you know,

yesterday we opened 300 beds at the Gorge Road. Not only was

that opening 300 beds, we created 270 jobs too, and I think

that's important.

[ Page 143 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: What difference does it make? You know when

it was started. But as I say, there were 70 new jobs out

there.

MRS. JORDAN: Does a lot for your ego.

HON. MR. COCKE: You don't worry about my ego, you worry

about your ego. (Laughter).

Well, Mr. Speaker, we wish to continue the policy of getting

into this area of health care delivery. Extended care is still

a priority and will continue to be a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say in closing that this is an

exciting portfolio. There's something to do all the time, I'll

tell you. I'm delighted to be the Minister of Health in the

province. I've had a great deal of cooperation, not only

cooperation out there in the department and also in the field,

but also the cooperation of my cabinet colleagues and the

Premier, and I'm delighted and hope that we can continue to

serve this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am

pleased to take

part in the throne speech debate as the

representative for the riding of Cariboo. I look forward to the

second session of the 30th parliament.

I did not expect too much in the throne speech and I was not

disappointed, because very little was revealed from this

document which had not already been made public. I'd hoped for

as I am sure most citizens of British Columbia were hoping for

more information on the philosophy of the new Government, and

what direction they were going to take this province in the

immediate future.

When the present Government was the official Opposition,

they had the answers to all the problems. Now they are a

government they don't know where they are going. Every problem

they have had has been referred to a committee, or a

consultant, or a task force, and the problem is not resolved,

While they boast about being an open government, they have

taken some actions on problems that indicate they are not an

open government, but a very closed regime. I refer, of course,

to the forced amalgamation of some municipal areas and the land

freeze affecting the whole province. I will have something to

say about these questions later.

The throne speech makes reference to the employment of 1,000

new government jobs in the civil service of our province. The

throne speech does not say how many jobs will not be created

because of the lack of confidence in this Government by the

citizens who want to invest in this province, but will not until they

get better direction from the Government. Because of statements

made by Members of the Government, while in Opposition and

since becoming Government, the most noticeable atmosphere in

British Columbia today is one of fear and uncertainty. We have

a fairly high rate of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, and when the

Premier was questioned on this he brushed it off and blamed the

federal government. While the uncertainty exists, I am sure the

unemployment will exist and continue to rise in this province,

and this will no doubt be pointed out in a few days when the

figures are released for the month of January, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, a problem this province is facing is the supply

of electrical energy for the future. Where is the power to come

from? It has only recently been reported that consumption will

increase 9 per cent per year for the next 10 years. Therefore

it is obvious that decisions have to be made soon to

accommodate this increased consumption. The prior government

commissioned the British Columbia Energy Board to report where

the future supply of power was to come from for the period 1972

to 1990. This report was received August 31, 1972. About all

that this Government has said about this report is to advise

the citizens of British Columbia to turn off their lights and

start burning candles. In my opinion, this is not acceptable to

the citizens of British Columbia and whether the Government

likes it or not, decisions are going to have to be made soon

about the power supply and not swept under the rug by the

Government as they have done so far.

I spoke in opposition to the proposed construction of the Moran Dam on the Fraser River last year. I was pleased to see

that the B.C. Energy Board did not recommend the construction

of this huge dam in their report. The B.C. Energy Board did

not, and I repeat, did not recommend the Homathko River power

development in their report, because of the risk of power line

failures for the delivery of this power over the high

elevations of the Coast Range, to get it to Vancouver Island.

However, with this advice, Mr. Speaker, from the B.C. Energy

Board, the Hon. Premier ordered them to take another look at

this power development because he was opposed to nuclear power

for Vancouver Island.

If the Homathko River Power Development is proceeded with,

it will effectually change the course of a lot of water taking

it from the Fraser River drainage basin to the coast drainage

basin. If the Homathko Power Development is proceeded with, it

will destroy one of five sockeye salmon in the Fraser River as

well as devastate a large

section of country in the Chilcotin,

which is in my riding of the Cariboo. It will destroy it

because of the lack of water.

The citizens of the Chilcotin are very much opposed to this

development and through you, Mr.

[ Page 144 ]

Speaker, I want the Hon. Premier to know this. At present,

the water from Chilko Lake and Taseko Lake flow in a west to

east direction through a system of rivers to the Chilcotin

River, which is a tributary of the Fraser River. If the

Homathko River power development is constructed, this would

take the greater portion of these waters and direct them to

flow to the coast in an east to west direction.

By making this large water diversion, it would destroy the

spawning grounds for salmon. In addition, preservation of the

salmon is vital to the Indians living in the Fraser River

basin. Last but not least, due to the lack of water flowing to

the Fraser River, from the Chilko and Taseko Lakes, hundreds of

miles of beautiful country would be destroyed for recreation,

for farming and for many other purposes. The citizens of the

Chilcotin, who I said earlier are part of my riding of Cariboo,

strongly object to any diversion of existing water and while

they realize the Hon. Premier is hung up about nuclear power,

they will string somebody up if the Homathko Power project is

undertaken.

I am sure that the Hon. Premier will not allow this project

to proceed because of the heavy damage that will be caused to

the salmon industry, the native people, and also the

destruction of the environment in that part of British

Columbia.

I would now, Mr. Speaker, like to discuss the amalgamations

that have recently been ordered in this province. As a past

municipal elected official, I am very disturbed about the

recent arbitrary ruling of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) which ordered the amalgamation of the areas

outside the City of Kelowna and the City of Kamloops. I don't

know how this government can say that they have open government

when the Minister of Municipal Affairs arbitrarily orders the

boundaries of the cities of Kamloops and Kelowna to expand to

the citizens in the surrounding areas without giving these

citizens their rightful say in this decision. There has never

been a more high-handed order issued from Victoria in many

years.

I realize that problems exist in areas adjacent to these two

cities, but I object most strenuously to the fact that they are

to be resolved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs without

consultation and study with the people affected. This directive

from the Minister affects many thousands of citizens and surely

if, as the Government says, we have open government, they

should be consulted. Approximately 90,000 to 100,000 people are

affected by this arbitrary order.

I am very surprised that the new Minister of Municipal

Affairs has taken this arrogant action, because as a member of

the Opposition in the Legislature for the past three years, he

was a member of the Municipal Matters Committee. I was also a

member.

In 1971, the Municipal Matters Committee dealt with the

subject of boundary extension and amalgamation. This committee

also dealt with this problem in 1972. Many ideas were presented

to the committee on how to resolve boundary extensions and

amalgamations and municipal incorporations in this

province.

The municipal matters committee of the Legislature consulted

with the Union of B.C. Municipalities — asked and received

their opinion. For the information of this House, Mr. Speaker,

there are approximately 140 municipalities and regional

districts in British Columbia. All but three or four of these

bodies are members of the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities. Therefore when the committee on municipal

matters received their opinion, it was safe to assume we had

the majority opinion of all the elected municipal officials of

the Province of British Columbia.

We received the last submission from the UBCM on March 20,

197, and it stated as follows:

"In our presentation to the committee on March 6 we

expressed the basic opinion that communities in unorganized

territory, either adjacent to or a distance from organized

municipalities, should be required to assume municipal status

when certain criteria were attained. In the case of communities

on the fringes of municipalities, when the degree of urban

content is similar to that of the adjoining municipality."

In addition they suggested that certain regulatory powers

concerned with planning and zoning in municipalities should be

made applicable to the unorganized fringe communities through

the regional district. Thereby insuring that development along

the boundaries of organized municipalities proceed in a manner

compatible with that of the host municipality.

They further proposed that the provisions of

section 12(5)

of the Municipal Act be allowed to apply to town and

village municipalities, as they are now available to cities and

district municipalities. These provisions permit the council,

in extending municipal boundaries, to undertake special works

or services for the benefit of a specified area of the

municipality, which may be the newly-added area. The cost for

these added services, in whole or in part, are then charged to

property owners or users of the work or service. The extension

of these powers to towns and villages would permit residents in

all types of incorporated municipalities to take up their share

of local taxation only when they receive the benefits of added

local services.

We also express our belief that better and more effective

pollution control measures would result if communities around

the fringes of organized municipalities were elevated to

municipal status. They were aware that the provincial

government had entrusted

[ Page 145 ]

municipalities with much of the responsibility for

protecting environment and preventing pollution from a variety

of causes. However, developing communities on the fringes of

municipalities contributed to the pollution problem. But

because they are outside municipal authority and control, the

task of curbing that pollution falls to the regional district

or to the province. We suggest that such pollution could be

more effectively and economically controlled once these areas

become municipal.

Finally, their brief appreciated that many of the

difficulties encountered in the past during proposed boundary

extensions have resulted from basic differences of opinion

expressed by either a municipal council, municipal residents or

residents of an outside community. Nevertheless, we firmly

believe that elevation to municipal status must receive urgent

consideration when certain pre-determined criteria are met. At

that point, ample opportunity must be given to all parties

concerned to advance their respective arguments on the type of

municipal status to be assumed.

I would just like to repeat that: "And at that point, ample

opportunity must be given to allow all parties concerned to

advance their respective arguments on the type of municipal

status to be assumed." With this in mind, they propose that the

Minister cause an inquiry to be held when he believes that the

established criteria have been met in any particular

instance.

We hold that the setting up of such an inquiry should be

mandatory and should be required by statute.

They now turn, Mr. Speaker, to some other further suggestions covering what

they believe should be the duties, functions and composition of such inquiry

boards. They suggested that the Minister appoint a secretary on such terms and

conditions as he may deem to be proper. This person should have considerable

experience in municipal and government matters and his duties should include

the following: (1) to determine all instances where, in his opinion, the relevant

criteria have been met and to report his findings to the Minister; (2) to proceed,

after authorization by the Minister, to collect all relevant data pertaining

to the community concerned and, in the case of a proposed boundary extension,

to collect the necessary information from the municipality or municipalities

concerned and from the fringe community. In this matter he should have full

access to those statistics which are available only from departments of the

provincial government, such as the records of the Provincial Assessor, Collector

of Taxes, et cetera; (3) to publicize that an inquiry will be held in connection

with the proposed incorporation or boundary extension, stating the place and

date of such inquiry, the names of the members of the inquiry board and such

information relevant to the holding of the inquiry as the Minister may deem

necessary; (4) to convene the inquiry and perform such duties as the members

of the inquiry board may require and to advise the members of the board in all

matters on which they are required to make a decision.

The UBCM recognized that there would be instances where an

inquiry may be necessary. But because of the minor nature of

the matter under consideration, such as a small area with few

residents being the subject of a boundary extension, there

would be no need to establish an inquiry board of more than one

member, assisted by the secretary. They therefore suggest that

the Minister, at his discretion, shall determine the number of

members of the board, depending upon the magnitude of the

particular inquiry. If the Minister determines that the issue

is such that it requires a board of more than a single member,

they suggested that there be three members selected as follows:

one member selected by the electoral area directors of the

regional district, one member selected by the council of the

host municipality. They recommended that neither of the members

as selected above should be elected persons in any local

government capacity, such as council members, regional district

boards, school trustees, et cetera. Neither should they be

permitted to serve if they have any direct or indirect

pecuniary interest in the matters referred to them.

The two members so selected would, within one week, nominate

a third person to be a member and chairman of the inquiry

board. Such election being made from a list maintained by the

Minister, of individuals such as past presidents of the Union

of British Columbia Municipalities or other prominent and

respected municipal officials. It should also be required that

the appointment of the third person be restricted to an

individual who does not reside in the area under

consideration.

In the event the two members are unable to agree upon the

nomination of a third person to be chairman within one week,

the Minister shall appoint such a person. In the event that

more than one municipality or more than one fringe community is

involved in a particular instance, the Minister shall specify

the additional number of board members to be appointed, giving

equal representation to the municipality's or municipalities'

view points as well as to those the fringe community or

communities.

The inquiry board thus established shall: (1) meet forthwith

in the area under consideration; (2) determine the boundaries,

with subsequent review and revision as required; (3) establish

whether the criteria have been met within the boundaries so

determined; (4) if the criteria have been met, hold public

hearings and receive submissions to evaluate the opinions of

all the parties concerned.

If deemed necessary, the board may conduct an

[ Page 146 ]

overall plebiscite of the area covering both municipal

owner-electors and property owners in the community for the

purpose of determining the wishes of the residents in respect

to the proposed incorporation or boundary extension, as the

case may be. Such a plebiscite shall be held to have been

approved if a 60 per cent overall vote in favour is

returned.

I would like to comment there. I'm still at their brief,

but my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and all the Members, is that I

think we should be considering reducing that percentage figure

from 60 per cent majority to 50 per cent majority of those who

vote. I would remind this House that there already is an

amendment in the Municipal Act that if 60 per cent of

the people vote that are on the voters' list vote, a 50 per

cent majority now is acceptable, as I understand it. I think

that we should, though, consider lowering to 50 per cent

is governed by a party that had 38 per cent of the popular vote

and we have a government in British Columbia that governs with

a percentage of the popular vote of 40 per cent.

If the board in its discretion deems it to be unnecessary

for a plebiscite to be held or if a plebiscite has been held

and approved by the required 60 per cent overall vote, the

board shall make recommendations to the Minister concerning the

type and extent of municipal status to be assumed; the date

that these changes shall become effective; and any other

matters which in the board's opinion will contribute towards

the overall betterment of services, general improvement to the

environment and long-range economic benefits to the

residents.

If a plebiscite fails to receive the required approval, then

the board should have the power to recommend to the Minister

that no further action be taken at that time. However, they may

recommend a review and reconsideration at a specific future

date. In addition, their recommendations should include

specific suggestions on services that might be extended into

the fringe community, the methods of paying for such services

and all other matters which encourage the community, require

the functions and responsibilities of self-government.

In conclusion they reported that the functions and

responsibilities of such enquiry boards are bound to be as

complex as the problem which they were required to examine. We

therefore advocate that they be given, by legislation, broad

and comprehensive authority to make recommendations on any

pertinent aspect which in their judgment would result in better

and more efficient local government.

You will note from this, from the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members — in the brief,

that the provision for a vote was made based on a vote of the

citizens within the incorporated area as well as the unincorporated area. Such a

plebiscite should be held — been approved, which I mentioned

earlier of 60 per cent that voted in favour.

You will readily see, Mr. Speaker, that the municipal

leaders of this province wanted a vote by all citizens affected

so that democracy would continue to be a governing factor in

determining boundary extensions, amalgamations or

incorporations of municipalities.

In spite of this fine report and before the committee had an

opportunity to act on it, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) directs the City of Kamloops and their

fringe areas to amalgamate and the City of Kelowna and their

fringe areas to amalgamate.

This directive of course denies all the affected citizens

the right to vote on this subject and is most undemocratic. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs has ordered the amalgamation of

the areas of Kamloops and Kelowna to take place this year.

Responsible elected officials of the area concerned have asked

for extension of time. This has been denied.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, municipal officials of this

province have been granted many additional powers so they can

control their own destiny more effectively. Overnight we see

this all changed by a new Minister of Municipal Affairs

deciding he knows what is best for Kamloops and Kelowna. He

knows best from his ivory tower in Victoria. He knows more

about the situation than the local mayors, aldermen, regional

directors and citizens in the local areas.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the local people know best and they

should be left to decide by a democratic vote which is provided

for in the Municipal Act.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Is that the way regional districts

came in?

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll comment on that remark.

Regional districts came in by vote of this Legislature. The

vote was 55 to nothing to bring regional districts into British

Columbia. I am firmly of the opinion that the Minister's

directive in the case of Kamloops and Kelowna is not legally

binding and I recommend the affected citizens in these two

areas pay no attention to this directive from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs unless they are given their just rights to

vote on the amalgamation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: I was afraid you were going to say that Mr.

Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the order-in-council which

put a freeze on all agricultural land in British Columbia.

[ Page 147 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: On all land.

MR. FRASER: This order-in-council effectively stops all

agricultural land sales unless it is sold to continue in

agricultural production.

Many farms in British Columbia are not economic and the

farmers do not mind this as they enjoy this kind of life.

However, when they decide to sell they do not want restrictions

applied to them which restrict what they can sell their land

for.

Why should this small group of citizens subsidize society by

selling their land for less than the market value? Most farmers

look forward to the day of retirement and rely on the sale of

their farms to provide them with some help in their retirement

years.

This order-in-council effectively takes away for these

citizens this income. The provincial Government should not

allow this to happen. Again, no public hearings have been held

prior to the passing of this order-in-council by the

Environment and Land Use Committee. The least this Government

could have done was to hold public hearings of the Environment

and Land Use Committee first before dictatorially by this

order-in-council freezing all agricultural land in British

Columbia.

Again it shows citizens of the Province of British Columbia

how this Government's promise of open government is so much

malarkey. I say to the Government to rescind this

order-in-council freezing farm land and conduct public hearings

across this province so all citizens can be consulted before

any legislation is passed.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Talk to the farmers.

MR. FRASER: I am sure all our citizens want to preserve farm

land but not at the expense of a small group in our society — the farmers. The order-in-council of the Environment and Land

Use Committee also takes away any power local authorities have

over this land and whether the land is within a municipality or

outside.

I refer of course to local zoning and building bylaws of a

municipality or a regional district which most all areas of

this province now have. The dictatorial action taken by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs on the boundary extension of

Kamloops and Kelowna, and the dictatorial action taken by the

Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet — I cannot

see why you do not take the remaining powers away from the

municipal and regional authorities. You could just do this by

passing an order-in-council disbanding all municipal councils

and regional boards. Then you would have absolute control which

is what you appear to desire.

While on the subject of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference

to a statement made by the Hon. Premier telling the consumers of British Columbia

to boycott the purchase of beef because of the price. The Premier of our province

should not be making irresponsible statements such as these.

Even his own Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

disagreed with him about the boycotting of beef by the

consumers and he said, which is correct, that beef prices have

only reached the same level they were at in 1951. I am

especially concerned about the Premier's statement because my

riding of Cariboo produces more beef for shipment to market

than most points in British Columbia.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, is it not time that the beef producers

of this province get the opportunity to finally get a decent

return for their hard work?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: That's unparliamentary.

MR. SMITH: You mean you're a bill-shipper, Alex?

MR. FRASER: The costs of the beef producer have been going

up constantly. Costs such as wages, fuel, farm machinery, taxes

and all other costs. The Premier of the province should

apologize to all the farmers of this province who raise beef

for these most uncalled for remarks and urge the citizens of

British Columbia to buy B.C. grown produce such as beef rather

than lamb or mutton from Australia and New Zealand.

I have mentioned that the Cariboo riding, which I have the

honour to represent in the Legislature, produces more beef for

market than most areas in B.C. Cariboo is famous for its cattle

country and it represents a big part of the economy. While we

have some very large cattle ranches in the Cariboo we also have

many smaller cattle ranches which are family operated and have

been for years, passing from one generation to the next.

There are no citizens of this province who work harder and

get less from the government. They have always paid their way

and it has been very difficult to do so at times. But never have any of them expected any handouts from the public

treasury. I hope Mr. Premier that your remarks about boycotting

the buying of beef were not made to hurt innocent hardworking

citizens and I only ask you to reassure the beef producers of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate so far on the Speech from the

Throne and indeed on it, even every other resolution presented

to this House, the side opposite seems to wish to find

solutions to problems by suggesting that after 20 years there

was nothing but chaos in British Columbia.

The Premier himself is either galled or upset about any

positive position assumed by the Opposition. His

[ Page 148 ]

Ministers decry the previous 20 years when they had all the

answers and now admit that on almost every front they have none

of the answers. Bills are still in the process of production,

Mr. Attorney General, even the latest — the Prices and Enquiry

Board of the Premier is really but a gleam in his eye and

nothing more. 20 years is a long time, Mr. Speaker, but across

this country the legislative books of Canada are full of ideas

which were initiated here.

The list is too long to repeat them all but some will be

enough, I am sure, to indicate that the throne speech itself is

not only hollow but the Government's answer to criticism is

also hollow. The first Ecological Reserve Act in Canada,

the first Environment and Land Use Act in Canada, which

my friends across the way described as a toothless tiger when

it was introduced into the Legislature and yet has seen fit to

use it to abuse the farm community of British Columbia in the

month of January 1973. The Home Acquisition Grant, first in

Canada, now becoming part of federal legislation; the Homeowner

Grant, first in Canada, now becoming part of the legislative

programme of Alberta; the municipal finance authority, first in

Canada and described by an Ontario municipal committee as the

finest piece of legislation they had seen anywhere.

The greenbelt protection fund, another first in Canada.

The perpetual fund supported in every instance by the NDP

and opposed by the Liberals — another first in Canada.

The Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act , another first

in Canada.

The First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation

Act — another first in Canada. One would only hope that the

present government acts on it as the previous were in the

process of doing, as the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder),

the Hon. Minister without Portfolio well knows.

The Regional Parks Act , another first in Canada.

One can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Members opposite

learn the responsibilities of Government much more quickly than

they have exhibited so far. The ball is over there now, not

here. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the official

Opposition intends to be not only the watchdogs of the people,

but our positive position programmes were laid alongside those

produced opposite for all to see.

Mr. Speaker, the socialists are advocates of a no-growth

policy. In spite of them, we will have growth in this wonderful

Province of British Columbia. I only hope their policies will

not do too much harm.

They have advocated, since being elected, the takeover of so

many activities in this province that the treasury — and I

would remind them when somebody said he gave some money to

something it's the taxpayers' and the citizens' money — they

would be bankrupt in 6 months if all the takeovers were

effected.

A few of the takeovers recommended are the natural gas

pipelines, oil pipelines, B.C. Telephone Company, the car

insurance, a life insurance brought in just at this session by

the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), and all

privately-held land.

They've not told the citizens of British Columbia where the

money is going to come from to pay for these takeovers. They

have truly shown they know how to spend the taxpayers' money

but the taxpayers would like them to show some responsibility

concerning the tax dollars. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I assure you and the Hon. Members that I intend to

speak as briefly as possible in this throne speech debate this

afternoon and to touch only on those matters which I believe

are of immediate concern to the people of British Columbia and,

therefore, the Members of this House.

May I say, also, Mr. Speaker, that I was delighted to

listen, to the best of my ability — although I was called out

of the House briefly — to the statements at the start of this

afternoon by the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance for British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Cocke). That indeed,

as my colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) observed in an

interjection, is a "breath of fresh air." For as a municipal

person and as one involved with regional district government

for quite some time, I recall with horror his predecessor.

Mr. Speaker, if I were required to single out one aspect of

proceedings in this Legislature which troubles me as a new

Member — or as a "rookie", as others have described themselves

properly — it would be that dealing with much of the debate on

the Speech from the Throne. And what I feel is the unnecessary

procedural wrangles which appear on a fairly regular basis. I

cannot believe that this is why the citizens of British

Columbia have sent us here. I cannot believe that we are

serving them efficiently and effectively by, as an example, the

other night, spending over 25 minutes debating a single

amendment with regard to the time at which night sittings might

terminate.

For myself, and I believe for my colleague in the

Progressive Conservative bench in the front, I say that we're

prepared to accept the Hon. Premier's stated intention to

improve the handling of matters in this House and to see that

public business is carried out more promptly and

effectively.

I hope there are new Members on both sides of this House who

are seriously concerned, about the

[ Page 149 ]

relevance of some of our actions and this apparent

preoccupation with scoring points by one side against the

other.

In the course of debate last Monday afternoon, as I listened

with others to the tossing of unemployment percentage figures

back and forth, I wondered if the unemployed husband and

father, or the mother of small children who seeks part-time

work, is really concerned whether this unemployment figure is

7.8 per cent or 8.4 per cent, or 6.9 per cent. All that father

knows, or all that mother cares about, Mr. Speaker, is finding

work. And surely it is that to which we should be directing our

attention.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your stated intention

to bring before the House proposals for improving and refining

the procedures of this assembly. For with all due deference to

the past, one cannot help but feel that we in this assembly are

facing issues of the 1970's and 1980's in a House whose style

has changed very little since the 1870's and the 1880's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not without considerable sympathy for

Members of the present Government — particularly the cabinet — and the situations which they have encountered in certain

departments since the middle of last September. One did not

have to sit in this House prior to last August to fully

appreciate the fact that the former Government had simply grown

old, inept and indifferent — in several departments, including

health and hospital services, social rehabilitation, highways

and travel industry. It was apparent to tens of thousands of

British Columbians that the former Government had to be

replaced at the earliest possible date.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, to quote the Hon. Premier, speaking as

Leader of the Opposition just over one year ago, January 24,

1972, "we have seen a government that is tired in office, a

cabinet that quarrels among itself and when pinned down with a

problem acts in a crybaby reaction towards Ottawa. It is a

bitter disappointment that this government has lost the

opportunity to lead and I hope soon they will lose the

opportunity and the right to govern." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, those words spoken in this House by the

present Premier just over one year ago crystallized for me, at

any rate, the situation which faced British Columbia last

summer. And as this new Government starts to mature in office,

many of us who do not subscribe to socialism as the great

panacea, hope that 38 men and women in this House will clearly

understand one thing I believe this Government today is in

power not because people turned to it, embracing all that the

NDP offers, but again because tens of thousands of our citizens

finally turned away from Social Credit.

At the time — last August 30th — it was a case not of voting

for something but turfing out that tired, elderly, arrogant group which had held office for so

long.

As a new Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, I turned to the

Provincial Library for some appropriate quotation which would

serve to emphasize the point. The librarians found it and I'm

indebted to them.

The August 30th situation could have been stated

beautifully, superbly, by a very famous North American now

deceased. Robert Louis Taylor wrote that man's biography and

provided this very brief passage:

"Who are you going to vote for, Uncle Willie?" asked Fowler.

"Hell, I never vote for anybody. I always vote against."

Mr. Speaker, W.C. Fields has said it all for us in those few

words.

Now could we go back to the Hon. Premier's speech, that same

one in 1972 quoted a few moments ago. And, Mr. Speaker, I

realize that my colleague, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

and others, have referred to the statement which I'm about to

quote. Nevertheless, the Hon. Members must realize how

seriously those of us in the Opposition view this complete

change of attitude.

Let's go back. It is January 24, 1972, and the then Leader

of the official Opposition said this: "It will not be

meaningless exercise for us, Mr. Speaker, as the throne speech

was a meaningless exercise for the Government." End of

quote.

And again, a few lines later, I quote: "No matter what happens out of this

Legislative session, no matter what happens in the future of this province it

must be said for the record that one of the greatest opportunities for outlining

new directions for the people of this province was dramatically missed by the

present Government of this province in the throne speech." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, as a new Member I am so very sorry that the

Premier of this province, having had 5 months in office in

which to review his policies, to set his priorities, did not

give us more in the Speech from the Throne on Thursday, January

25, 1973. For the second year in a row, then, the comment must

be made for the record that one of the greatest opportunities

for outlining new directions for the people of this province

was dramatically missed.

And this time, Mr. Speaker, that is not a quote.

Mr. Speaker, as badly as the people of this province wanted

and needed a change of government last year, I believe that

considerable disenchantment has set in already — perhaps to a

greater extent than many of us would have expected so soon. For

the moment I'm not speaking about so-called special interest

groups who were prepared to be directly affected by the

policies of this new socialist Government. I'm speaking about

those persons who have been clobbered by the impact of poorly

considered and suddenly announced restrictive orders in council

[ Page 150 ]

such as the one concerning a freeze on farmland subdivision — the one referred to by the previous speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in case some purely urban Members of this House

don't fully appreciate the situation, in case the Government

doesn't realize that it has blundered, can I say that there are

now hundreds of farmers and orchardists in this province who

now know how it feels to be hit by a government sledgehammer.

Of course, we admit there has been a wholesale carving up of

precious, vital farmland. Of course, this has been a matter of

grave concern to all thinking British Columbians including the

farmers and the agriculturalists themselves. But, Mr. Speaker,

does this Government understand what has happened as a result

of its action in December?

Well, let me refer in general terms to the reported action

of one non-farming developer-speculator in the Fraser Valley

who was apparently proceeding with a subdivision plan and it

was virtually complete. He had received, as I am told, all

necessary approvals from various levels of government — health,

regional, municipal. He simply shrugged his shoulders and added

$1,500 to the asking price of each parcel of newly subdivided

ground.

Mr. Speaker, that is the heart of this foolish business.

There will be no argument from this desk concerning Government

proposals to restrict, to discourage, speculation or

exploitation of land. But the action taken just a few weeks

ago, has hit the non-speculating farmer and has brought prompt

and widespread disillusionment in many parts of the

province.

Mr. Speaker, when will Governments learn? When will

Ministers of the Crown and their well-intentioned advisors

finally come to realize that there is a difference…there is

a difference between the land merchants — the wealthy, callous

speculator — and the career farmer and farm family? When, in

this province, shall we have consultation before legislation?

That's what the farmers of British Columbia are asking again

today.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that really we need to start

preserving farmers and the farm unit as well as farmland. On

this same general topic may I say how disappointed I am to

find that, thus far in this session, there has been no policy

reference to the serious problem of foreign investment in

British Columbia land. In my own statements leading up to the

election last August, I attempted to identify this as a matter

of very grave concern. Other provincial jurisdictions have

recognized this threat and are moving to ease and counteract

it. It's to be regretted, I feel, that this new Government, in

five months and with a strong majority in the House, could not

have listed this as a priority task.

Mr. Speaker, if I could focus briefly on another problem, I would like to speak

about comments made in this House earlier this week by the Hon. Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with respect to a proposed new ferry route running

generally between greater Vancouver and Nanaimo. In my first draft of these

remarks which were made on the weekend, I was devoting a few moments to the

subject. However, in view of the Minister's statement on Tuesday, this particular

situation has assumed alarming proportions and if my quick canvass…no, he's

not listening…if my quick canvass of public opinion is correct, the residents

of most Gulf Islands are extremely concerned.

The Hon. Members will realize that Gabriola Island is not

within the provincial riding which I represent. Nevertheless,

Gabriola is a typical Gulf Island and what happens there or

does not happen there will inevitably be felt on the other

islands which comprise this magnificent group. To the Hon.

Minister, welcome — and to those Hon. Members who represent

north shore ridings, I really offer best wishes in any attempt

to relocate the mainland ferry terminal from Horseshoe Bay.

However, at the same time may I really plead that no further

consideration, even in the early planning stage, be given to

routing mainland to Vancouver Island ferry traffic onto any of

the Gulf Islands. To do so would be the ultimate folly in

misuse of our still beautiful south western coastal area.

If any Member of this House has doubts on that matter, Mr.

Speaker, I think that the Capital Regional District, which as

you know includes most of the Gulf Islands, can provide a

summary of the islanders' very strong and critical reaction to

the expressed possibility of a bridge-tunnel link between

Tsawwassen and the northern Saanich peninsula. They were

literally up in arms over the proposal.

If Gabriola Island becomes a stepping stone for this

cross-strait link, then we know that it will be easier for

succeeding Ministers of Highways and succeeding Governments in

five or ten or 15 years to also stand in this House, as the

present Minister did, and say that it is finally necessary to

link with another island and with Vancouver Island and the

lower mainland.

We hear the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, tell us about

conserving some of our natural resources and exercising

restraints in matters affecting material possessions. As a

permanent resident of Vancouver Island, who is obliged to use

the ferry service whenever he wishes to take his car to

Vancouver, I wonder if I am really entitled to have ferry space

for my car available at the snap of a finger. Perhaps some

restraint in this respect, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, would be helpful and constructive.

I don't think we should be compelled to move every

automobile that offers itself to be transported between

Vancouver Island and the mainland at a moment's notice. In all

honesty, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 151 ]

through you to the Minister of Highways, there are those of

us living on Vancouver Island — and the Minister should know

this very, very well — who simply avoid travelling between

Vancouver Island and the mainland on holiday weekends. Or, if

we must, we travel as foot passengers or we fly.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that residents of

Gabriola Island are most alarmed over this week's

announcements. Through you, I would like to ask the Minister of

Highways how much discussion with respect to this new routing

took place with the cabinet? How much discussion with respect

to this new routing took place with the Government Member from

that area? How much discussion with respect to this new routing

took place with the Government caucus, Mr. Speaker? How much

discussion took place with the Nanaimo regional district? I can

answer that one, Mr. Speaker — none, not one word.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Shame. Shocking.

MR. CURTIS: How much discussion took place with Nanaimo city

council? None. How much took place with the community

organizations on Gabriola Island? Apparently none. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, this is a unilateral, Ministerial action

which, I regret, is reminiscent of the former Government based

largely, if not totally, on engineering considerations

alone.

The school strike in District 61, which is now reaching the

end of its third week, is indeed, in the view of the

Progressive Conservative Party, a matter of very serious public

importance. Elementary students are severely restricted and

virtually all the junior and senior secondary students in the

greater Victoria area have received no education of any

significance for the past three weeks. It's very disturbing to

us that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who, when

she was in the Opposition, spoke so frankly about her deep

concern for the efficiency and quality of education provided in

this province — yet what do we find when she holds the

responsible position and the power of Minister of Education?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in fact, has remained almost totally

silent in this three week period when the education of many

thousands of our students is being sadly neglected. Neglected

to this extent, that some students may end up by having to

repeat a year — those students in particular who are supposed,

at this time, to be starting their second semester in grade 12.

We really regret that it is not possible to have a full debate

on this subject but we respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiations in the strike, I understand, resume tomorrow

and it's certainly the intent of the local MLAs who have

supported today's attempt to have a debate to raise the matter

again in this House on Monday, if no solution to that strike has been found over

the weekend. We would, in the meantime, earnestly appeal to

both sides in the dispute to bring their dedicated efforts to

the bargaining table over this weekend so that our children in

greater Victoria can return to school.

If no settlement is reached by the weekend, then we do hope

that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) together will surely take a more positive role and

show the kind of leadership which is expected of elected

officials holding the highest offices in the province. We are

sorry that this new and vigorous young Government has in fact,

up to this point at any rate, failed miserably to show any

leadership in this dispute.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may move to yet another matter — one

of the few clear and concise statements in the throne speech

related to the creation of 1,000 new government jobs in the

provincial civil service. Along with others who've reacted to

this statement in the debate, I'm puzzled as to the relative

importance of 1,000 new positions in our provincial structure. And I

have to express difficulty in believing that this one move

apparently represents the keystone of the new Government's

efforts to combat unemployment.

Now it cannot be argued that some departments of government

in B.C. have experienced severe staff shortages and that

services to our citizens have suffered as the natural result.

The former Government was notoriously reluctant to add new

employees when and as they were needed. Matters relating to

public health inspection is just one example.

And yet this rounding off at the 1,000-person mark smacks to

me of government by employment quota rather than by a careful

analysis of staff deficiencies and positive response to that

particular shortage.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if my observations are correct on another

point, there is growing concern about the distinct possibility

of "bureaucracy out of control" in our British Columbia. It may

not have happened yet to any great extent, but the trend is

already apparent and nothing has been said in this House by any

Member of the Executive Council to counteract that impression

or soothe that fear. And I would be lacking in my duty today if

no reference were made to the proliferation of new appointments

relating to special, executive or administrative assistants in

and around the area of the provincial cabinet and senior

departmental levels.

The Progressive Conservative Party in B.C. feels very

strongly about the basic principle of responsible government

through elected representatives. It is with those persons still

responsible to the electorate that the decision-making process

must rest.

The opposite trend, first in Ottawa and now here,

apparently, is expensive and dangerous. Many provin-

[ Page 152 ]

cial cabinet Ministers I know are very busy — perhaps even

overworked — and in need of continuing assistance. That being

the case then surely a new and fresh government, such as we are

told exists in British Columbia, would have introduced the

concept of parliamentary secretaries, turning to the undoubted

talent which is to be found in the Government backbenches for

Ministerial advisors and assistants.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the citizen in this era of complex,

complicated and bewildering government structure, would be far

happier in the knowledge that both cabinet Members and their

closest advisors are subject to acceptance or rejection in the

polling place, every 4 or 5 years. Without doubt, Mr. Speaker,

there are cabinet Ministers in this new socialist Government

who are competent and experienced. On the other hand, there are

also those who will be guided — or perhaps later even directed — in large measure by the appointed persons around them. In a

democracy, particularly after 20 years of one-man rule in this

province, that could very well lead to an extremely dangerous

situation.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the spectre of "shadow government"

is starting to loom in British Columbia.

Members of this House will understand that I have a

particular interest in matters affecting municipal affairs and,

as was mentioned during the special session of the Legislature

by another Hon. Member, it's encouraging to note that there are

several Members who have had experience in civic government in

various parts of British Columbia. I would suggest that

provincially elected people could learn a great deal from local

government and by watching how it handles problems.

The difficulties facing cities and municipalities are

increasing annually, and not all of them are expressed strictly

in terms of dollars and cents. Therefore, while I have very

high regard for the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) and for the courage he has shown in a couple of

generally unpopular matters already, I must again deplore the

complete absence of reference in the throne speech to any new

proposals, new legislation, which would assist persons living

in the organized communities of this province.

Again, quoting from a year ago, "A great opportunity has

been missed. An opportunity to say to the people who live in

cities, district municipalities, towns and villages, 'This

government is aware of the municipal crises and is prepared to

work with you in solving some and easing others."

And finally, for this time at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to make it clear that "business" is not a bad word in my

vocabulary. And with many others in this province I have a

feeling of growing uneasiness about the main thrust of the NDP

Government.

Not all business is big business, either. Not all

businessmen are wealthy and indifferent representatives of multi-national corporations about which we've heard

so much in the past few months. Many of the business people

with whom I come into contact on a fairly regular basis are

small businessmen and women, with a half-dozen, a dozen or 20

employees. And with every single penny of their lifetime

earnings wrapped up in and committed to a retail store, a small

automobile dealership, an independent motion picture theatre, a

small private bus company, a farm machinery outlet. These are

the British Columbians who, in their previously frustrated rage

last August, threw out one government and in doing so brought

this Government to power.

And, Mr. Speaker, if this Government becomes similarly

insensitive to the wishes and desires of these ordinary

citizens, then those citizens will again respond in 3 1/2 or 4

years' time, and restore free enterprise government — in the

truest sense of those words — to this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the Members of the Assembly this afternoon

join me in welcoming in the Speaker's gallery two distinguished

citizens from Alert Bay — both aldermen on the council up there — Mr. Gilbert Popovich and Mr. Norm Sumner.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the others this afternoon

who have complimented you in your efforts to ensure that the

business of this House is conducted in an orderly manner. And I

would encourage you to continue with those efforts because I

think it's extremely important.

It was gratifying to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear in the throne

speech a reference made to the ceasefire in Vietnam. That war

has weighed heavily on my conscience for many years and has

occupied much of my time and energy. I as an individual did

what I could to halt that war and feel a sense of relief that

at least a ceasefire has been achieved.

I have tried to find honour in that peace, but as I reflect

on the carpet bombing that took place during the Christmas

season and the destruction inflicted on that small country over

the years, the word somehow doesn't seem to fit.

The task now is to make that ceasefire a reality and to

begin to rebuild that country.

Many Canadians have extended a helping hand to the

Vietnamese over the years by making garments for children,

knitting bandages and contributing financially to Canadian aid

for Vietnam civilians' organizations. And many of us will

continue to assist the Vietnamese in that way until they can

achieve some normalcy in their lives.

But I'm asking today how else can we help? What can the

provincial government do to help those

[ Page 153 ]

people in rebuilding a country which has been so ravished by

war? I am asking that this government consider the possibility

of allocating funds to the rebuilding programme in Vietnam or

to consider sending British Columbians, whose talents might be

useful in that massive programme the Vietnamese are now

facing.

I would like to commend the Government for the creation of

the special committee dealing with oil spills. A committee

which has been instructed to bring back with all possible speed

its report to this House. We must become prepared, for the

environmental damage caused by spills of that nature are

something we simply cannot afford.

When I flew to Alert Bay last week, through a sunny, almost

cloudless sky, I was struck by the sheer beauty of the scenery

beneath me. And I reflected then on the responsibilities that

the 55 of us who occupy this chamber have to preserve that

beauty the environment of this province. That responsibility

may well be the most important one we have in this chamber.

The oil spill disaster at Alert Bay will, I trust, spark the

special committee to act with haste, to work out with the

federal government and the State of Washington the cooperation

needed to deal with spills quickly and efficiently. We must

have equipment ready, knowledgeable people available, and lines

of communication and jurisdictions clearly defined, to keep

damage to an absolute minimum in spills of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the Government for

promising a Bill of Rights this session. One of the first

obligations this Government has to the people of the province

is to ensure their basic civil rights are recognized and

protected.

Some of the response that I have had to the finger-printing

incident at Port Hardy has made me realize that there are

people in this province who do not treasure sufficiently their

basic civil rights. One of the most precious advantages that we

enjoy in a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, is our civil rights

and we must be vigilant to see that these rights are not

eroded. In areas like Port Hardy, where social services have

lagged years behind the population growth, many problems

develop which are difficult for the community and its police to

cope with. The best way that the police can gain the help and

support of the communities that they serve is to win the

respect of all segments of that community. This they can do

only if they work within the law.

The problems police face in rapidly growing areas are

difficult ones. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that many of these

problems would not reach the attention of the police if basic

services to people were available. In the north end of

Vancouver Island there are no resident social workers, mental

health personnel, probation officers or lawyers. There isn't

even a public road to service the north end of the Island. It is

the responsibility of this Government to provide social

services to areas like northern Vancouver Island and to embark

upon a programme to make social justice and equality a

reality.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) yesterday made

reference to my comments in our local paper concerning

ownership of land. While his remarks were essentially accurate,

I would like to bring to the attention of the House what is

happening in Courtenay.

The assessment commissioner of this province has used the

powers, afforded to him under the Assessment Equalization

Act and ordered that in some areas in School District 71,

the usual 10 per cent maximum increase allowed under the Act be

overlooked in order to equalize assessments in the area. In

some cases this has resulted in assessment increases of over

100 per cent. Do you know what that means to people? It means

that they cannot stay in their homes. It means that they cannot

own land because they cannot afford to pay the taxes.

A land tax, Mr. Speaker, is an unfair tax because it is not

based on ability to pay. The NDP has recognized that fact and

is committed to the phased removal of the education tax from

property, in the hope that pensioners and low-income earners

can remain in their homes. Because of the rate at which land

costs are escalating, I wonder if removal of the educational

tax from property will solve the problem. Assessments are based

primarily on value and value is largely determined by the price

that speculators and land developers can command in the area. I

have suggested to people in the Comox riding that they consider

and discuss what the alternatives are so that people will not

be forced out of their homes.

(1) This I suggested in the local paper — they can allow the

uncontrolled escalation of land as is now the case, resulting

in the situation that we see in that area. Or (2), we can begin

to consider exerting controls on speculators and on land use.

This the Government has already done, to some extent, with the

freeze on agricultural land — a move that I heartily welcome.

Or (3), the other alternative that I believe people should be

considering at this point, in view of the fact of what's

happening to them, to have land available on a lease basis. I

personally feel that land and land use are far too important to

be left to the whims of the market place.

Mr. Speaker, one other matter I would like to comment upon.

I feel the women's liberation movement has done a tremendous

job of focusing attention on the oppression and discrimination

which women face. The women's libbers have made women who were

conditioned in our society to play an inferior role and take an

unfair place, aware for the first time of the position that

they hold.

Like the Hon. Second Member for Burrard (Ms.

[ Page 154 ]

Brown), I want things put right. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

convinced that a Ministry of Women is the way in which these

wrongs will be righted. I voted against that resolution at our

convention — the resolution calling for the establishment of a

Department of Women — for I think that such a Ministry may be

divisive. I question what we can accomplish through a separate

Ministry. I am opposed, for instance, to the kind of

legislation that requires that 50 per cent of any board of

directors or 50 per cent of any board of governors or 50 per

cent of school principals in this province shall be women. I

don't want that kind of legislation.

The problem is at least as much one of attitudes as it is of

legislation. I expect the Ministers of this Government to

remove the discriminatory sections from existing legislation

and to avoid any discriminatory clauses in the new legislation

they are drawing up. But attitudes cannot be legislated. We,

who make up over half the population, have a far better chance

of achieving equal rights than many minority groups do. I feel

that it is now up to us to carry the ball — we, the women.

We must educate men and children and each other to

understand the injustices that women face, so that attitudes

will change. It is our job, not a Minister's job, to tell

advertisers that we don't want to be exploited in media

advertising. Because we are consumers, they will listen. We

must press labour unions to help us organize where we aren't

unionized. It is up to us to ensure that legislation in every

governmental department provides for equality for women. I

expect the Ministers of this Government to listen and to

respond.

They already have, to some extent. We are seeing a new

approach in the field of day-care. This, I think, reflects a

basic understanding of that Minister of that aspect of the

problem. There is now just a Minimum Wage Act , not the

"Female" and the "Male" Minimum Wage Act . That was done

in the last session. We even have page girls in this House.

Little enough, I realize, but I think it's an indication of the

awareness that this Government has of these problems.

I trust that the Provincial Secretary will instruct….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. It was not the Government that

made that decision. It was the Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, Mr. Speaker, my humble apologies! I'm glad

to note, Mr. Speaker, that you are also aware of these

problems. (Laughter).

I trust that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will

instruct the civil service commission to hire the additional

1,000 civil servants on merit, without regard to sex. Where we,

the women, can point out that in school text books, for

instance, where traditional roles are emphasized, I expect those passages to

be removed.

Mr. Speaker, I saw the joy on the faces of the women who had

toiled to pass this resolution at our convention. But I wonder

if a separate Minister and department will be any more

effective at solving the problems that women face than the

Department of Indian Affairs has been at solving the problems

of the natives of Canada.

If we cannot elicit response from the existing department in

this Government, then I am prepared to reconsider my position.

Right now I feel that it is not a separate Ministry that we

need, but a will to correct injustices.

I hope to see men and women work cooperatively to eliminate

injustices as they apply to sex, to race, to economics, to age

and even to opportunities. And from this Government I expect a

positive response.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a real honour

to be in this House and to represent the people of Dewdney and

to speak in response to His Honour's speech.

Some of the people in B.C. I think are a little confused at

times when they see leaders in the church standing in forums like this. Occasionally they will

say that we should be out of politics and sticking to what they

say is saving people's souls. These people should remember that

in modern history one of the most eloquent spokesmen for this

style — this very narrow style of what Christian leaders and

what the church is all about — was Adolf Hitler. He was very

happy that the church remain pious; that it remain irrelevant;

that it not be active in political life.

One of the people in recent history who I read about who has

greatly influenced my life was a man who probably chose

political action further than anybody, I pray, in this

Legislature will ever have to go — it meant his life. He was a

Lutheran priest. His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Many of you

remember that during the Second World War he led a conspiracy

of people in Germany to put an end to the fascist menace of

Hitler. He lost his life but his memory fingers. He was simply

saying that if we take seriously that God loves the world, it

means that man cannot privately be open to God's love without

becoming very actively involved in the joys and the sorrows and

the hopes and the fears of his people.

Indeed, some of us who remember in the 25th

chapter of St.

Matthew, there is a very concise description of the final

judgment. St. Matthew describes the presence of God as really