1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 561 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I take great

pleasure to advise the House that this morning I had the pleasure in

receiving in my office Miss Canada, and Chief Dan George who is

chairman of Brotherhood Week which has been proclaimed from February 20

to 27 of this year. Chief Dan George is well known to you as a great

leader, a great Canadian and a great British Columbian. He was awarded

the Medal of Service in the Order of Canada last year. Also with him is

Mr. John Smithson who is executive director of the Canadian Council of

Christians and Jews and I know all Members of the House will want to

welcome both of them very warmly.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to give my public welcome to Miss Canada and I'd also like to echo

the sentiments of the Premier in regards to Chief Dan George, and

because it is Brotherhood Week, Mr. Speaker, let me take the lead and

say that I now invite the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier

to coffee with me next week.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I

too extend very liberal greetings to our guests today and to say that

we too will do more than our share during Brotherhood Week here in

British Columbia. And we welcome our guests.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I rise again with great pleasure Mr.

Speaker. We have on our Floor today Miss Karen Magnusson. Miss

Magnusson is 19 years old and is a resident of North Vancouver and so

to make you all jealous she gave me a beautiful picture of herself

which I will not share with anyone but myself.

She holds the Canadian Figure Skating Association Gold Medal, United

States Figure Skating Association Gold Medal, and the International

Skating Union Gold Medal. She has held titles in all ladies'

categories, provincial championships and she has also been the Canadian

Junior Ladies' Champion.

In 1968 she was a Member of the Canadian Olympic team, in 1970 she

became Senior Ladies' Champion of Canada, in 1971 she was the Senior

Ladies' Champion of Canada, also the North American Ladies' Champion,

and won the Bronze Medal in the World's Figure Skating Championships.

In 1971, Mr. Speaker, she was also selected as the Woman Athlete of

the Year for all of Canada. In 1972 she is still the Senior Ladies'

Champion of Canada, and just recently won the only medal for Canada in

the Winter Olympics by acquiring the Silver Medal for Ladies' Figure

Skating.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House, and all the people of our

province join today in honouring Miss Magnusson who has brought honour

to Canada and to British Columbia.

Accompanying Miss Magnusson are her parents, and also Mrs. Dixon. I

would ask them all please to stand and receive a warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask an exception be made in the rules of the

House and Miss Magnusson be asked to say a word or two for us from your

dais.

Miss Karen Magnusson: I

would just like to say thank you very much for the honour of being

here, and thank you ever so much for all your support that I've had

throughout the years. I've really really appreciated it and getting

telegrams from everyone has made everything so much easier. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation of

Miss Magnusson, thank her for her words, and express to her our very

good wishes for her success at the world championships in Calgary next

month. And beyond that I think that all Canadians will understand that

there are some areas of equalisation we can't share, and one of those

is her Silver Medal.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker I too would like to extend the very,

very warmest congratulations to Miss Magnusson. It was once a great

thrill for me to be a member of Canada's Olympic Team and I know how

hard the people who represent our country must work and how tough the

competition is.

But I do say this, that the people who represent our country at the

Olympic Games and in these various international competitions are our

greatest ambassadors and in all the experiences I have had over the

years no country conducts itself in a better way than Canada. And I

hope that in the future our athletes, our young athletes, are going to

have even greater support than they have had in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

I'd just like to say how proud we are of North Vancouver today to have

so many distinguished residents of North Vancouver present. Miss

Magnusson and her family, and Chief Dan George, we are very proud to

have them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the risk

of incurring the displeasure of the Whips for delaying the House I must

tell you that we had 60 students from the Cloverdale High School

swarming happily through our chambers this morning. And they are

accompanied by Mr. Brunell, the principal, and Mr. Allison, and they

are in our galleries and I would ask the Members to extend a welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 562 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Before mentioning to

the House the name of the school that I would like the honourable

Members to welcome I'd like to say that it has a very short but thought

provoking motto and that is "Ich dien" — "I serve", and I think the

Members of that school looking at the Members of the Legislature

appreciate that there are 55 people here who also serve, and I would

ask all of the Honourable Members to pay an especially warm welcome to

the students from the Prince of Wales High School, their teacher Mr.

Cupit, Mrs. Adlan and Mrs. Calangis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): To Dan: "Lu-am-go-dem-wilga'in, sim-ogit." (The Members of this House are glad to see you, Chief).

MR. SPEAKER: I hope my Honourable friend was in order. (Laughter). The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker and Honourable

Members. In the Speaker's gallery today is the Mayor and Aldermen from

my home town Quesnel, Mayor Kingley, Alderman Lazzarin, Alderman

Enemark, Alderman Johnson and Town Administrator Tony Green. I would

ask the Members to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, for the

benefit of the Members in this corner of the House who can't see Miss

Canada very well, does she appear to be from a have-not province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Miss Canada was in my office this morning

but she has a bad cold so she couldn't appear in the House this

afternoon. I have nothing but good feelings to all parts of Canada

including Quebec today. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to say that Miss Canada happens to come from the have province and

she happens to be of Ukrainian origin, the third ethnic group of the

multi-cultural society in Canada. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): I would like to introduce Curtis Harvey from the Nanaimo Youth Organisation today.

MR. SPEAKER: May I introduce Mr. Clerk? (Laughter).

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker I think this is more interesting than the question period they didn't have in Ottawa. (Laughter).

Introduction of Bills.

Orders of the Day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services): Thank you,

Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased the other day to hear the Leader of the

Opposition comment on the birthday of the deputy Leader over there. I

was reminded, of course, of the old saying that it's a gentleman who

remembers birthdays but forgets the years.

I noticed too the other day, Mr. Speaker, the Member from Cariboo

talking in a most animated way about the subject of the Moran dam and I

couldn't help come to the conclusion that the Honourable Member was

thoroughly convinced that he had not been elected by the constituents

of Cariboo for the purpose of liquidating that constituency.

Another time in one of the earlier debates the Honourable first

Member from Vancouver Centre had occasion to talk about the Scots and

their long history. And I see by the orders of the day that he will be

addressing you a little later on, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's

appropriate that he should remember that the history of the Scots is

long, certainly tumultuous on occasion, but at one time the Romans when

they had to deal with the Scots could do nothing better than build a

wall across Northumbria. Just a word of caution there.

Another occasion of course, I think it was the Honourable Member

from West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) who was objecting to what he

thought was an unseemly display of automobiles along the front of these

magnificent buildings. And I was very grateful as I listened to the

Member talking about the aesthetic value of the building that I had

disposed of my green Dodge before he rose to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the health services of the province are divided into

four major administrative functions. The medical care programme which

is under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Provincial Secretary and

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black), the three other branches — public health, mental health and hospital insurance — come under my

purview and I would hope in the next few minutes to deal with those in

that order.

There are a certain number of pieces of information from the

division of vital statistics which I should report to you. The first

relates to the increase in population of the province. As of December

31, 1971 the population stood according to the estimates of our

director at 2,200,000. And it is interesting to observe, Mr. Speaker,

that this increase results generally from an excess of births over

deaths to the extent of about 25 to 35 per cent of the total increase,

and the other 65 to 75 per cent results from immigration into the

province. So that in broad terms…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where from?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mostly from the rest of Canada. The

proportion is probably about one to three. For every increase of one as

a result of births and deaths, there are about three people coming in

from other parts of Canada.

In assessing the measure of our budget and some of the policies that

are obviously necessary for the best management of this province we

must recognise that any government in this province will be required to

deal with this very important matter of such a large influx in

population into the province. The birth rate in the province in 1971

was the lowest rate

[ Page 563 ]

in 30 years at 16.1 per 1,000.

The birth rate for illegitimates was 12.3 per cent which marks the

first year in which the substantial increase in other years since 1961

has been reversed.

But before we draw any conclusions from that I think it is necessary

that I mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the same time the rate of

therapeutic abortions in British Columbia is at its highest and also

that the same rate in British Columbia is by far the highest in Canada.

1970 and 1971 marked the lowest death rate ever in the province with rates of 8.0 and 8.1 per 1,000.

The same favourable trend is to be remarked in the downward trend in

number of deaths from heart disease. This continued in the right

direction. The 1971 rate was 262 per 100,000 which was 15 per cent

below the 1969 rate of 310 and 25 per cent below the 1965 rate of 349.

This, Mr. Speaker, may well be a reflection of the greatly-improved

treatment facilities now available in intensive care units established

in many hospitals in the province.

In 1971 there was also a very marked decline in cancer mortality and

deaths from cerebral vascular disease. Perhaps I should acknowledge

here the very fine work being done by the cancer institute in

Vancouver. Certainly these statistics as the Hon. Members immediately

recognise are a tribute to the work that they are doing.

Unfortunately, in another area which is outside that of the medical

and hospital team, but certainly is within the control of the community

itself is the unfortunate accident rate, which has increased from 71

per 100,000 in 1970 to 79 per 100,000 in 1971.

Turning next to the rubella vaccination programme, this appears to

be proceeding satisfactorily. In a Vancouver publication called Health

News 1971 which is published by the people of the Metropolitan

Vancouver health service area, it was reported that Dr. Bonham who is

the medical health officer for Vancouver stated:

The war against rubella turned out to be the major

public health programme during these past months and it carries with it

the label of success.

I think too that at the same time Dr. Bonham did say that in the Vancouver Province of July 22, about the same time, that Vancouver has one of the best school health programmes in North America.

Now in respect of the H.I. testing programme, of course, which is a

part of the rubella vaccine programme for the detection of rubella

infection, during the years 1970, when the programme got under way, and

1971 there were approximately 29,500 tests conducted. Approximately 104

positive reactions were found in pregnant women.

The department has been informed that of these 104 persons, 52 chose

to terminate the pregnancy by therapeutic abortion. While the

statistics may sound objective, all Members will recognise the

heartaches that went into those decisions, by the medical adviser and

the woman herself when she was told that as a result of these H.I.

tests the prospects of her bearing a child with a serious deformity

were such that an alternative had to be considered.

I'd like to comment at this time too on certain efforts that are

currently being made allegedly by persons in the travel industry,

particularly in the United States and in Britain, to reduce or even

eliminate the present requirements in respect of smallpox vaccination.

I might advise that the public health services in British Columbia

do not at this time propose any changes in respect of existing policy

relating to smallpox vaccination. The risks, Mr. Speaker, are too great

and until we know more about this we've been inclined to rely on the

wonderful record in respect of smallpox vaccination in the last 100

years. We will be cautious in making any changes or recommending any

changes of the kind that are being advocated in the interest of tourism

in those countries.

I will only comment very briefly at this time on the matter of

pollution control. Sufficient to say, that the 1968 statement of policy

requirements for treatment of domestic sewage which was published by my

department at that time, and the air quality standards and the water

quality standards which were later published with the concurrence of

the pollution control board and branch are presently being enforced by

the Public Health Department and the pollution control branch.

I might say that at this point all of these statements of principle

seem to be standing the test of time and we hope that as time goes on

the evidence of their value and the wisdom these policy statements will

manifest themselves.

Next, I'd like to deal very briefly with the question of the kidney

failure correctional programme, which has been said by responsible

people and knowledgeable persons to be one of the finest in the world.

Certainly, British Columbia can say that our medical profession is

leading all of Canada in the development of this programme.

There are approximately 75 beds set aside for treatment of patients

suffering from kidney failure. They are in Vancouver, Victoria,

Kamloops and Trail. The annual operating costs for one of these beds is

about $18,000. It was for this reason and taking into account the

advantages that would accrue to the patients themselves that the

provincial government agreed to underwrite the cost of drugs and

equipment for those patients who could benefit from our home dialysis

programme.

The dialysis machines as used in the home care programme cost about

$7,000 each and the home care costs range from $2,000 to $8,000 a year

depending on the form of treatment and the nature of the drug therapy

that is administered.

I might say that a better perspective of this wonderful programme

can be given by relating an experience of a resident of this province

knowledgeable in this matter who was visiting Florida not long ago

while one of his relatives was suffering from a form of kidney failure.

In the interests of helping his relative he attended upon the doctor

who was treating this relative of his and he got a description of the

form of the ailment. Knowing of the programme in British Columbia he

said to the doctor: "Couldn't we have a renal failure machine supplied

to this lady to assist her?" The doctor replied to the British

Columbian in words something like this. "Sir, I don't think there's a

renal failure machine within 40 miles of where you and I are sitting."

This was in a large city in Florida. He added: "If I wanted to go out

and find a machine for this lady, I would not know where to look." We

are giving these now on a public service basis to many, many patients

in this province.

I should remark also very briefly on the home care programme of

which there are really two parts. The first one had been a

long-standing appropriation in our public health department and it's

administered by the public health nurses across the whole of the

province.

In addition to that, last year we appropriated money for the purpose

of trying out a pilot programme of home care designed to draw patients

from acute care hospitals in the

[ Page 564 ]

province.

Our first pilot programme was introduced at New Westminster in the

Royal Columbian Hospital. It was brought in during September and I had

the first formal report from the members of that team just before

Christmas.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was most impressed, with the

sincerity and the competence of the people who run it, with the

cooperation that they received from the hospital and from medical staff.

I'm able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the patients who received

the benefit of this are most pleased and we have now expanded this home

nursing programme and have authorised the commencement of a home

nursing programme at the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops and at St.

Josephs — or as it is now, Mr. Speaker, the Queen Victoria General

Hospital and also the Royal Jubilee. I'm sure that those Members of the

House who are associated with the medical profession will recognise the

value of this kind of a programme.

Now, on the same subject, I think that it is proper that I point out

to you, very briefly, that we do have a problem of persuading the

senior federal government of the importance of maintaining some of

these programmes. The reason for this is that in the last three years

there has been a precipitous decline in the federal government's

contributions in this field of health care grants.

In 1969, there was a $900,000 reduction in the health grant

programmes which were a part of the British Columbia general programme.

In 1970, the withdrawal by the federal government came to

$1,800,000, and in 1971 the figure was $2,700,000. The accumulated

total reduction in these health grant programmes by the federal

government amounts to $5,400,000 all of which must be borne by the

provincial treasury. I think too that we should observe that the

federal government has also withdrawn financial support from the

construction of community health care centres as well as hospital

construction grants.

Turning next to the mental health services…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I'll come to that in just a minute. Because that is a most important matter.

In the case of our mental health services, new mental health centres

were opened during the year at Whalley, Port Coquitlam, Penticton,

Duncan, Fort St. John and Powell River, bringing the number of mental

health centres in the province at December 31, 1971 to 23 in total.

The government proposes, Mr. Speaker, to recommend to the

Legislature at a later time appropriations to provide additional mental

health centres at other places. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you'll be

interested to hear that one of them is contemplated at Prince Rupert,

another one at Port Alberni and another one at Williams Lake.

All of these, of course, Mr. Speaker, are part of a broad programme

to create a community based system for care of patients suffering from

mental illness outside of what are sometimes called the conventional

forms of institutions.

As part of that broad programme of reducing the population in mental

institutions we have been successful in undertaking psychiatric home

care services, group living homes, day care and out-patient programmes

and particularly the introduction of a new out-patient department of

the Riverview complex on East Broadway in Vancouver.

We also hope to be moving in in a very substantial way into regional

boarding homes, sheltered workshops and the like of that. Also, the

opening of Glendale centre will have a wonderful effect upon the

opportunities for seriously handicapped children who develop in an

environment that will be beneficial to them.

Now, what is the result of all this, Mr. Speaker? Well, it is this.

That there will be a much improved mental health care service for the

people of the province and this can be seen particularly in the

reduction in the number of patients forming, the population in the

Riverview complex. Perhaps you would like to hear something of the

numbers who have in the last two years been resident in that place.

June, 1969

2,542

December 1969

2,482

June 30, 1970

2,472

December 31, 1970

2,470

June 30, 1971

2,375

December 31, 1971

2,322

The significance of this of course, Mr. Speaker, is that notwithstanding the

ever-increasing population of the province and with the normal expectation

that there would be an increase in the demands in respect of mental health

services, we have successfully brought down the population of Riverview from

2,500 to 2,300. Now, furthermore, and at the same time of course, we remember

that at one time the maximum number of patients in Riverview stood at 3,700.

So this will indicate, Mr. Speaker, the success with which we are reintroducing

mental health treatment as a community-based programme where it really should

belong.

The most pressing problem today in the field of mental health care

is in respect of the poor geographic distribution of psychiatrists.

There are 126 psychiatrists practicing in Vancouver and Victoria.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: There are 126 in Vancouver and Victoria and there are 12 in the rest of the province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many in West Vancouver?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Now, I'm not going to say, Mr. Speaker,

who is the disadvantaged group. But I am sure that you will agree that

a better distribution of this professional group would be desirable.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I intend, Mr. Speaker, to refer this

matter of the geographic distribution of these people to the medical

manpower committee of which I will have more to say in a few minutes.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to remark very briefly and to

register my regret that some property owners have objected to the

locating in their neighbourhood of residences for retarded children and

for others.

In a recent item in the Vancouver Sun it was reported that

the North Vancouver municipal council had defied a group of angry

residents and voted to allow development of a retarded children's

residental complex in lower Lynn Valley. Here's what the paper said:

Cries of "finks", "stinkers", and "snow jobbers", greeted the council policy committee decision to bring in a zoning

[ Page 565 ]

bylaw amendment to rezone the area at Mountain Highway and East 19th for the complex.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these children must be maintained in an

environment as nearly a normal community as is practical. I join the

municipal council in asking all people to see that these young persons

be received with compassion, with kindness and with understanding.

I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the matter of the administration of the

British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service. "Payments to hospitals" is

the second largest appropriation that at a later time the committee of

the House will be asked to consider. This is the second largest item.

In 1968, the budget appropriated $125 million for hospital

operations. We spent $137 million. The Hon. Member from

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), who criticised an under-expenditure in

another vote, must in all kindness remember that it is not all votes

that are underexpended, but that the hospital vote was over-expended by

$12 million that fiscal year.

In 1969, the $150 million budget was over-expended by $9 million at $159 million.

In 1970, $175 million was over-expended at $184 million. This year,

the present fiscal year, the House appropriated $205 million but we

don't know what the final figures will be, of course, but it will

certainly be in excess of $205 million.

In the year to come of course, this item will be going up

proportionately. At the present time I should just remind you, Mr.

Speaker, that the rate of increase for hospital operations in this

province is now running at $30 million a year which is almost twice the

total budget of our public health section. This gives you, Mr. Speaker,

some idea of the enormous demands for hospital services — the increase

alone, not the total of the budget, but just the increase of hospital

operations being almost twice as much as our total public health budget.

Now, turning to capital. The capital budget under administration for

hospital construction, which includes $58 million for a health sciences

hospital in Vancouver, an estimated $90 million for the Greater

Vancouver regional hospital district bylaw which is coming up and the

forthcoming bylaw in the capital regional district will in this coming

fiscal period approach $400 million in capital.

Now, education and health care appropriations together take up 70

per cent of the budget. My colleague, the Hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brothers) and myself between us are responsible for spending

more money than all the other departments put together — by 50 per

cent. That's the way it should be.

But at the same time, this fact must be clearly in the minds of

every Member when we come to this question of cost sharing — very, very

important. While it is true that education is the largest single item

in the provincial budget today the rate of escalation for health costs

has been and probably will continue to be greater than that for

education.

One of the major tasks facing all provincial government today is to

contain spiralling education and health care costs within manageable

bounds. Recently the Government of the United States fixed guidelines

for increasing health costs by imposing a 2.5 per cent limit for

increases in fees and a 6 per cent ceiling for increases in hospital

charges.

Now, in the face of that policy I don't think we can conclude

anything but that the Government of British Columbia has made every

effort to be as fair and generous as we can. At the same time remember

that we have a responsibility to keep the economy of this province on

an even keel and moving along.

The problem of the province is compounded by indications that the

federal government proposes to introduce a new method of financing its

share of hospital operating costs. The essential elements of the

federal plan is that the federal payments will be based on a formula as

follows: The provinces would receive annual grants calculated on a per

capita amount for a base year. To this would be added a fund which is

called a thrust fund and which my friend, the Hon. Member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. Campbell) has characterised as the "cheese on

the trap."

Well he may say that, because in addition to that the annual

increases in years subsequent to the base year if the federal proposal

is accepted would be tied to increases in Gross National Product. The

consequences of this, Hon. Members, is most serious from the province's

point of view.

I'll tell you why. The federal government defends the proposed

changes by alleging that this new formula will permit greater

flexibility in tailoring health services to the special needs of each

province. No doubt this is true, but the price that the federal

government is asking the provinces to pay for this privilege of

flexibility is too high for a number of very good reasons which are as

follows. This so-called thrust fund of $600 million would provide

British Columbia on a per capita shared basis with about $60 million.

The $60 million the federal government proposes to put up would

probably run out very, very quickly and certainly would not extend over

probably more than two or three years at the most. The federal

government proposes that its share of increased operating costs be

limited to an amount proportional to the changes in the Gross National

Product.

Let's see how that relates to our escalating hospital operating

costs. Health care costs are rising at a rate far in excess of

increases in Gross National Product. The effect would be to place the

burden of increasing costs almost entirely on the provinces. Gross

National Product is increasing of a rate of three to five per cent.

Health care costs are going up at rates in excess of 10 per cent.

In the event of a recession and a fall in the Gross National Product

the federal government could reduce its share of operating costs,

notwithstanding that health care costs were still rising. No provision

is made in the federal government formula for federal sharing in the

cost of such things as new hospital construction, improved standards of

care, new programmes like the kidney failure treatment programme, open

heart surgery, nuclear medicine and so on. Or indeed in any

newly-developed treatment.

Problems in respect of uniformity in services will be much more

difficult to solve as each province goes its own way. There will be new

difficulties in co-ordinating hospital insurance with other shared-cost

programmes.

The position of the British Columbia Government is set forth in a

letter dated January 28, 1971, from me to the Hon. John Munro, federal

Minister of Health and Welfare which reads in part as follows:

The British Columbia Government does not

support the suggestion that federal contributions under shared cost

agreements take the form of per capita grants as proposed. This

government opposes any alteration in federal contribution under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act

as well that would replace the present shared cost system. Prevailing

federal provincial cost sharing agreements are cornerstones of

cooperative federalism and this govern-

[ Page 566 ]

ment urges the federal government to preserve the spirit of unity implicit in the partnership character of hospital financing.

The avowed intention of the federal government is to establish a

system of cost restraints with the federal government's share being a

fixed amount. The federal proposal is really a bail-out operation for

Ottawa. The pattern is well known. The federal government claims credit

for innovating programmes then a few years later they pull out of the

programme leaving the provinces to foot the bill.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: What they save goes, you know where.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I'd like to turn next, Mr. Speaker, to

another proposal relating to eligibility and portability for hospital

and medical care benefits.

Perhaps I should begin, Mr. Speaker, by explaining that existing

rules applying in the provinces do from time to time cause hardship for

some Canadian residents because of discrepancies between provincial

plans. The objective of the new proposal is to achieve a greater degree

of unanimity in terms of coverage and benefits.

With the objective, the British Columbia Government is entirely in

agreement. However, we do warn that complete portability ought not to

be achieved at the expense of reasonable safeguards designed to protect

provincial plans from abuse by non-residents of Canada.

We understand that the federal government proposes that eligibility

for coverage be based on physical presence in a province regardless of

whether the patient is a visitor, a transient, or a tourist. But we

say, Mr. Speaker, such a proposal would not be practical and would

expose our provincial health plans to exploitation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to come to a matter that I have thought

about for some little time. It involves the naming of patients. In most

cases, I would not even consider bringing such a matter on to the floor

of the House, but after a careful reflection of the matter and

considering the issues that are involved and considering the

responsibilities this government has to the taxpayers of this province

I see no way but to give you a complete detail of the facts in order

that you shall be fully informed as to what has been going on and why

the government is very concerned about this matter of persons coming

into this province and enjoying the benefits of what we can say are the

finest medical and hospital services in the world. Here they are.

The British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service has only recently

completed an investigation of a case involving a lady who I am informed

had at one time been a Canadian resident but who is now an American

resident and who received medical services and hospital care in

Vancouver under circumstances which can only be described as unfair to

British Columbia tax-paying residents.

Here are the facts as they have been reported to me. On August 5,

1971, in a letter from Norma Rankin, 190 Jacqueline Avenue, Sparks,

Nevada, to the Vancouver General Hospital, Mrs. Rankin wrote as follows:

I am expecting to come to Vancouver to the

hospital to have a heart operation. I'm told it will be the end of

September or the first part of October to be operated on by Dr. — and

Dr. —

I delete the names of the doctors here.

I want to know, will you accept Cal Western

Insurance Company of California? I am told the head office is in

Sacramento. I have had Blue Cross the last two times I was there and

you accepted Blue Cross but the Lynch Company have changed from Blue

Cross to Cal Western Insurance Company and I have to know definitely

before I come up again, and if you have changed the rates since June or

not.

On August 25, 1971 in a letter from the Vancouver General to Mrs.

Norma Rankin, signed by E.G. Parsons of the collection department two

excerpts read as follows:

This hospital prefers that you paid cash… This is particularly preferred in cases of elective surgery.

and Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that here the

Vancouver General Hospital administration refers to elective surgery.

The standard ward rate at the present time is $64.90 per day.

Now, sir, if Mrs. Rankin had been accepted as a resident of this

province the total cost to her for the operation would have been about

$40 for 40 days of hospital care. As a non-resident here she would have

probably been billed in British Columbia for hospitalisation about

$2,600. Medical care we estimate at about $1,400 for a total of $4,000.

That is a non-resident who comes here and enjoys the benefits of our

plan. I have also been informed that a similar operation performed in

Seattle or San Francisco would range in cost from $8,000 to $10,000. At

least twice of what it would cost a non-resident. But only $40 to a

resident.

This, Mr. Speaker, gives you some idea of the dollar value that is

involved in our hospital and our medical plan. I say to the Hon.

Members that we must defend these to the last.

On December 5, 1971, Norma Rankin was admitted to the Vancouver General Hospital for heart surgery.

At the time of admission, Mrs. Rankin applied for hospital benefits

and claimed to be a resident of British Columbia. Another person

certified Mrs. Rankin had lived continuously in British Columbia from

June 6, 1971 to December 5, the date of her admission. Notwithstanding

that in August, during that same period, Mrs. Rankin wrote to the

Vancouver General from an address in Nevada.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the waiting list then?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I'll come to that. On January 19, 1972, on

instructions, an investigation was made. A report was received by the

eligibility supervisor from our Vancouver representative. The following

are excerpts from the report:

…the admission form showed her living at an

address in Port Moody. However, when the investigator on behalf of B.C.

Hospital Insurance Service called there he was advised that she and her

husband were living at the Sands Motor Hotel and they could be reached

there.

Before he had a chance to introduce himself, Mrs. Rankin said she

wanted to pay the bill herself and that she was going down to the

hospital that next day to do so because she could not live with this

for the rest of her life.

The investigator confirmed that Mrs. Rankin was on leave of absence

from her employer in Sparks, Nevada and was returning to work again.

The Rankins were in before noon the next day and paid the hospital bill

in full, a total of $2,596.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 567 ]

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I'll come to that in just a minute.

January 21, 1972, Mrs. Rankin was determined to have checked out of

the Sands Motel in Vancouver. On February 14, 1972, I've been advised

that Mrs. Rankin is presently living in the State of Nevada.

Now, the foregoing information first came to this department in the

form of a letter as follows — and I might say here that in Britain

people of the same political inclination and political philosophy as

Hon. Members across the way, I think in good faith brought in a plan.

They did so in good faith. But it's under terrible pressure, and here

I'm going to tell you the reasons why. We're under just as much

pressure as that plan in Britain was. The foregoing information as I

say first came to this department in the form of a letter as follows.

Here is the informant and I quote the letter:

I wish to point out something we think very

unfair both to the residents of British Columbia and the Government of

British Columbia. It concerns Mr. Gilbert B. Rankin and his wife,

Norma. They are American citizens…

I think that may not be so. I think probably they are American residents, but for our purposes it doesn't matter.

They live and work in Sparks, Nevada. Last

year she decided to have an open heart operation and as she said

herself, B.C. is so much cheaper than anywhere in the United States. So

her husband, Gilbert Rankin, came up ahead and made residence at a

relative's in Coquitlam, where he applied for the B.C. medical plan and

was accepted because he didn't say in the application he was an

American citizen. So they didn't know the difference as he gave his

address as the place in Coquitlam. The reason being to have all his

wife's expenses paid for just the price of one year's medical. They

knew for over a year this operation was coming up.

On September 28 (that would be 1971) Norma came to — to wait for the

operation and in December had the operation. She is still in Vancouver

General.

and that letter was written by the way in the early part of January.

Incidently, for the Members of the House who are familiar with the

laws of evidence, this next

part is hearsay but I think the Honourable

Members should hear it:

Doctor So-and-So and Doctor So-and-So told

her to go ahead and collect from the B.C. Government. She got a year's

leave of absence from her place of employment near Reno, I believe

Lynch Electric Company, and plans to collect medical expenses from the

insurance company at her place of employment and she says she should be

able "to pocket some money between the two countries." Husband is going

to claim she was in this country longer or that she plans to stay in

British Columbia for quite some time but she is going home to Nevada

just as soon as she is well enough.

I delete the next sentence because it may otherwise identify the

informant and I don't think there's any reason for me to do that at

this time. Then she goes on.

Their home address is 190 Jacqueline Avenue

in Sparks, Nevada, and her brother Angie Leclair lives with them there.

So he knows when she left, also this relative Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So

with whom she lived when she arrived in Canada.

Here's the observation of that citizen.

The unfair

part is being able to collect all

expenses when they knew so far ahead just by joining the B.C. Medical.

If they get away with it they have other friends in the United States

who are going to try the same, just by giving their address as that of

a relative in British Columbia and then joining B.C. Medical.

We are watching with interest to see if they can do it. Yours truly (signed).

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Rankin is a person worthy of

any medical assistance that we in British Columbia can offer, but aside

from whether or not there was any misrepresentation intended or

committed, it must be remembered that at the time Mrs. Rankin, a

resident of Nevada, was occupying a bed in the heart surgery

section of

the Vancouver General Hospital, a British Columbia resident in the

person of Mr. McKinnon was flown at public expense to Montreal for

badly-needed heart surgery which was not available to him at the

Vancouver General Hospital when he needed it. Mr. McKinnon left British

Columbia for Montreal on about December 17 or 18, 1971.

Another case of a Seattle resident coming to Vancouver and giving

false information is under investigation. If the allegations made are

supported by the evidence, I will be reporting the matter to the

Department of the Attorney General for further consideration and action.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: She's had two operations, as near as I can make out. No, I don't know about those, I have no information about that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: No, not by the same surgeon, I don't think

— I have no knowledge on that. But the essential facts are that she was

a resident at that time of the United States. Although I am not sure on

those matters, I did check very thoroughly on to the question of

residence.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you leave the country, you leave the country.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Please, we'll come back to that in a minute.

These cases, and I emphasise that these are examples, point out the

reason why the government is unable to accept the existing system of

accrediting doctors in the heart surgery department of the Vancouver

General Hospital and the present system of admitting patients to that

department of the hospital. There is a great deal of evidence leading

to the conclusion that all too often whether a patient is to be

admitted to certain departments of the Vancouver General Hospital

depends more on who his doctor is rather than on the seriousness of his

illness.

Just the other day another case came up in which a doctor told a

patient that there would be a two-year waiting time for admission to

the Royal Columbia Hospital. The patient wrote to me complaining about

what she called an appalling waiting list. When we checked into the

matter we found that the doctor making the statement did not have

admitting privileges at the Royal Columbian Hospital. Had this patient

selected another doctor, she probably would have been admitted within a

week or so.

Sometimes an individual physician with less than adequate hospital admitting privileges will make statements

[ Page 568 ]

about long waiting lists which really apply to him and his patients rather than to the availability of facilities.

The problem is not unique in British Columbia. In the Toronto Daily Star ,

October 2, 1971, Dr. John Wilson and Dr. Stanley Sober of Ontario are

quoted as telling a Ministers' committee on hospital privileges that

"how quickly a patient gets into hospital and into an operating room

depends on which doctor he chooses."

It was with these matters in mind that amendments to the Hospital Act

regulations were passed last fall, authorising the Minister of Health

Services to create three new administrative agencies as follows:

First, a medical appeal board. The function of this board will be to

hear appeals in respect of decisions of hospital boards touching on a

doctor's privileges in that hospital.

Today, I am pleased to announce that this appeal board will be

constituted very soon. Persons designated to serve on this board are,

as follows: Dr. F.A. Turnbull, Dr. L.L. Ptak, Mr. T.C. Marshall — past

president of the B.C. Hospitals Association — Dr. D.M. Longridge,

representing the B.C. Hospital Insurance Service. The fifth member

will, I hope, be the person named by the medical manpower committee as

its chairman.

The second authority we propose to create is a special medical

review board which will make recommendations to the board of management

of the hospital designated as being a hospital which provides a special

referral service on a province-wide basis.

This review board will also be constituted soon. Persons designated

to serve on this board are: Dr. Peter Banks, Dr. D.J. Cody, Mr. Gordon

Frith — who is the administrator of the hospital at Nanaimo — Dr.

P.A.H. King, and the fifth member in this case too will be the person

named by the medical manpower committee as its chairman, so that we

will have a continuity of policy and information, between the three

boards.

Now I intend to designate the heart surgery departments at the

Vancouver General Hospital, at St. Paul's Hospital, and the Royal

Jubilee Hospital as facilities providing a special referral system on a

province-wide basis. And that is as far as I propose to go in respect

to these cases where there appear to have been non-residents by their

own admission receiving elective treatment in the face of what seems to

have been demands of a higher priority.

I am also pleased to announce that today I have established a

medical manpower committee to advise me on all matters respecting the

overall medical manpower needs of the province and the geographic

distribution of medical practitioners throughout the province.

The medical manpower committee is comprised of the following: Dr.

J.C. MacKenzie of Vancouver, Mr. Ray Menzies — and may I explain to

Honourable Members that Mr. Menzies is a fourth-year medical student

enrolled at the University of British Columbia and I'm sure that you'll

all agree that he and his associates there have a real interest in the

problem of distribution.

The other members of the committee are Dr. H.J. Pickup of Alert Bay,

Dr. D.M. Longridge of Victoria, Dr. R.H. Patterson of Prince George — he was nominated by the medical staff of Prince George Hospital, and

finally the president of the British Columbia College of Physicians and

Surgeons Dr. Adam Waldie of Vancouver.

I will ask Dr. Longridge to convene this committee forthwith. The

committee's first job will be to meet and name a chairman and consider

terms of reference which are now ready in draft form.

In the same regulations we introduced measures which will give more

democratic privileges to all doctors in the province in such matters as

the election of chiefs of medical staffs, bed utilisation committees

and accreditation committees.

Now finally as my last subject, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very

briefly with a matter which touches many people very closely. I hope

that no one will be offended by some of my remarks that relate to

alcohol and tobacco.

Now there's nobody, Mr. Speaker, who has more courage and more

confidence in himself than a man with a glass of booze in one hand and

a cigarette in the other, unless it's a cigar. But, Mr. Speaker, I meet

some of these people going into the Cancer Clinic. Last year according

to Health Minister Munro's statistics between 16,000 and 18;000 people

died in this country of lung cancer. If that many people died on the

highways or for any other reason that wasn't so sociably acceptable the

whole country would be up in arms to do something about it — 16,000 to

18,000 people died of lung cancer. It's practically unknown among

non-smokers.

One-half of the male population in the Riverview Hospital record

histories of acute and chronic alcoholism. The LeDain Commission has

said that the problem of alcohol addiction in this country is 100 times

as bad as the marijuana problem. And he's right. I see the Honourable

Member nodding his head and he's in the right.

Mr. Speaker, we're either on the right side of this problem or we're

on the wrong side of it. Either we stand for what is good and what is

right or we don't.

Now in respect to alcohol and tobacco advertising more than once in

the year since legislation on this subject was passed by this House

efforts have been made to impute to this government motives of dubious

quality. Suggestions have also been made that the legislation was

capricious in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth and to

illustrate the breadth of support that the British Columbia legislation

has throughout Canada, and the States, I would report to Honourable

Members something of the proceedings of the latest federal-provincial

health ministers' conference held in Ottawa in December 1971.

At that meeting the following statement of policy was considered,

and here is the statement that was drafted by the ministers of health

assembled; and I quote:

The health ministers concurred in a statement as

follows: that recognising (

A) the health hazards associated with the

misuse of alcoholic drinks and tobacco and (

B) the conflict between the

objectives of improved health of this nation on the one hand and the

manifest purposes of commercial advertising designed to encourage and

increase the use of these hazardous substances on the other, it was

agreed to set in motion a federal-provincial inquiry to determine how

best to discourage if not bring to an end commercial advertising of

liquor and tobacco.

This statement was approved and endorsed by seven out of 10

provincial Health Ministers, seven out of 10 of them. The three

ministers who did not join in the statement thought it appropriate to

refer the matter to their respective governments and to the best of my

knowledge these governments are still studying that.

Mr. Speaker, you and the Members of the House listened patiently to what I've had to say, and for that I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-

[ Page 569 ]

Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier isn't here. I have a little present for him. But before I send

the present across for the Premier I would like to thank the good

potato producers of the province for the fine bag of spuds they sent

across to all of us. I would like to offer my regrets to the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Bruch) who two days ago stated that the farm produce of

this province was not of as high calibre as it might be. I think we

have some of the finest farm produce grown, produced in British

Columbia of anywhere in Canada. The potatoes were not the quality of

B.C.-produced. Mr. Speaker, no matter how thin he slices it, it's still

spuds.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in all

of the remarks that the previous speaker made. I'm sure he gave a great

deal of time and thought, study and preparation of the talk that he's

just delivered on I think something that should rightfully concern

every Member here — the matter of health services.

I regret that in the budget and in the Department of Health they

have come up with no answers with regard to the problems he outlined,

how the cost of health services and the growth of inflation, far

exceeds the growth of our Gross National Products.

I hope the Minister will be back because I feel, as in the past, we

have positive suggestions to make for him in his department. I'll save

that until he comes back. I hope you don't all leave, I'll have to just

stand here.

Now, this budget, Mr. Speaker, as I see it is mainly a money budget.

Of course we can't have a budget without money but I believe that every

dollar should be related to the good and welfare of the citizens of the

province. That is we shouldn't have a big budget, we shouldn't have

growth merely for growth sake.

Many of the families in our province that have great social

problems, that have great family problems, many of the children that

are found on drugs come from the better part of town, come from homes

where the father or the income of that family is far above average. The

social problems that we are suffering in British Columbia today are not

confined to the people on welfare or the working poor or the average

people.

Just as a good personal income doesn't protect a family from these

social problems, particularly the children of these families, a great

big fat budget doesn't protect this province, and the citizens of this

province from great social problems.

One of the greatest injustices that I've heard done by politicians

in this province is when certain leaders name certain people as

deadbeats and they did this because of the deadbeat philosophy. There

should be no room in a wealthy province, in a great province like this

— a $1.5 billion budget — for a deadbeat philosophy. We have to accept

within ourselves that within every man, within every boy and girl,

within every person, there is good. True, some of the children starting

school may have reading problems, they may have writing problems, they

may be slow learners but these are problems of education.

This is an area where I feel that we are failing. We are failing to

place enough or sufficient emphasis on quality education. We're

spending more time trying to beat down the teachers and make a

political issue out of their salaries rather than saying how can we

break the large class down into smaller groups. A group of brilliant

children that may want to move more quickly than the whole class — have

them in a group where they can work together and move ahead as quickly

as they wish. Then have an average group, then a slow group, then a

group with particular problems. I think that when we can do this, when

we can let every child and every man and woman feel that they are

valued and they have some real work then the dead-beat philosophy will

die and of course this government will die. This is possibly one of the

reasons that they are failing to really come to grips with educational

problems.

While speaking on education, I would like to commend the Victoria

school board for the work that they are doing in South Park and Beacon

Hill. They have placed a new principal there, Mr. Allen, and some new

teachers under him and I believe that they are really working hard to

involve the whole community to make that school a community school.

I am looking forward to seeing great things come from this

experiment because in the James Bay area, while the complexion is

changing, there have been many families, and there are many families

with great problems, and yet with the new high-rises, some fairly

well-to-do families are moving into that area. So there's a great

conglomerate of students and with that great problems but I certainly

commend the Victoria school board and the principal and staff of those

schools for what they are doing.

I noticed that our budget certainly has climbed up. I notice that

the social welfare vote is up to $138 million and many of the votes,

the health vote, the education vote, for some reason the Minister of

Finance related these back to 1960 and said they were double or triple

or so, many more times what the budget was little better than a decade

ago.

But in the case of social welfare, in 1960, it was $26 million now

$138 million or 530 per cent more than it was at the start of the last

decade.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that should condemn this

government, the Social Credit Party has become synonymous with social

welfare. They are pretty much the same — Social Credit-social welfare.

What we need is a new philosophy. A philosophy that is going to lift

people instead of calling them dead-beats and try to knock them down. A

philosophy that will provide work and wages for all and lift people so

that they have the moral and spiritual values of appreciating the

opportunity and the ability to work.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, my friend from Esquimalt says labour camps.

That's all he can think of. That's what he would do, not this little

group here. That group, he knows too much about the black shirt, the

jack-boot and the labour camp. We recognise to give full employment,

that we must move ahead to a 30-hour week and we have to consider

earlier retirement. Surely it is better for everyone to be free to work

30 hours than having half our work force working 40 hours or 48 hours

and a great percentage unemployed and on welfare. That is what we have

to date. This should indict this government and this budget more than

anything else.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Health, (Hon. Mr. Loffmark),

made some very interesting comments about alcoholism and I agreed. It's

a very, very serious problem. In British Columbia last year there were

almost 50,000 chronic alcoholics. If the increase in alcoholism

continues for the

[ Page 570 ]

next 10 years the way it has under the past decade,

under Social Credit, we will have almost 100,000 chronic alcoholics in

this province. In the last decade alcoholism increased by 85 per cent.

Didn't quite double, but almost.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: The authorities that have made a study on

alcoholism say that it is just impossible, beyond the realms of a good

solid estimate, to tell how many we will have in the next century,

unless an entirely different approach is used by government, by the

educators, with this problem. Now, while the profits, earnings from the

liquor industry in this province went up by 10 per cent — it went from

$70 million to $77 million — yet the grant that we give to the alcohol

foundation went up merely from $300,000 to $325,000 — 8 per cent. An 8

per cent increase and that $300,000 is just a very, very small fraction

of a per cent of the total earnings, the total moneys made by this

government from alcohol.

I would like to say this, that if the Minister of Health was serious

about alcoholism, if those were not just pious words, I will challenge

this government to blaze a trail for the whole world.

We've heard different Members of this government and I agree that

there is no money to be made from the sale of alcohol. You may show a

profit but the number of spoiled and ruined lives can never be bought

back by money. I would like to challenge this, that if this government

would take that $77 million and use it to rehabilitate the 50,000

people in this province that have alcohol problems, to put on a

programme of education of alcoholism in the schools, if they would do

that then this government and this province would have something I

believe truly to be proud of.

It's a vast expenditure but this money, the $77 million, is coming

from broken homes and broken wives. The very least that we can do as

responsible legislators is to plough this money back into rebuilding

those lives and make certain that the growth of alcoholism is checked

in this province.

I would like to commend the government for increasing their rural

electrification assistance grant from $3 million. This is something

that is very close to me in the Yale-Lillooet riding. This government

has spent a considerable sum of money in building rural electric lines

throughout the riding and I was pleased to be notified yesterday that

another six lines are being built. As you know originally the subsidy

was $1 million, three years ago it was increased to $2 million and this

year it is being increased to $3 million. I think this is very good,

when we can supply electricity in the farm home and for the rural

housewife, it gives that home all the amenities of life that a city

home could have. With that you can have running water, you can have

inside plumbing, you can have refrigeration, you can have a fully

modern home. I am sure that if anyone deserves these facilities, it's

the farm wife and the rural wife.

I am pleased to see that under vote 237, under the Department of

Recreation and Conservation that $100,000 is being made available

towards the conservation officers so that they can do a better job.

They will be given some auxiliary help in policing and assisting in the

management of the game of this province. I am pleased to see that the

new training programme, vote 241, is increased by $25,000. I believe

this could be increased far in excess of this, that this is a

worthwhile project. I visit it at least once a year with the youth

group up at Manning Park and I'll deal with that further during the

Minister's vote.

While on recreation I would like to call on the Minister to have the

former elk sanctuary in Manning Park or in the area of Highway 3

restored to its former boundaries. A few years ago, we changed our game

boundaries so that the hunters could go right up to the head waters of

Copper Creek and this was the wintering ground of the elk. Once they

got in there they cut great inroads into the main herd of elk and they

are becoming very scarce. They may become wiped out. So under the

wildlife estimates I hope the Minister will consider the boundaries of

the Manning Park Game Preserve.

The first citizens fund — this is very good but I would like to see

from this fund full-time court workers or from another fund if you

wish, but full-time court workers that would be paid to assist any one

of our native Canadians that happens to become before the law.

I don't know whether any of you saw the documentary on the Eskimos

the other evening. It was a very good documentary. It showed how the

traders moved into the north land, the North West Territories, and how

they would trade off a rifle for a pile of white fox furs as high as

the rifle. Then they would have to come back next year with another

pile of fox furs to get the bullets.

While the Eskimos were in at the trading posts, they were introduced

to fire-water and it showed how they reacted to this. Then it showed

the priest coming along and telling the Eskimos that it was wrong to

drink this fire-water and so on. It showed a rather bad scene, the male

Eskimo and the Eskimo family. He accepted what the priest was saying

and he accepted it with so much interest and sincerity that he offered

the priest the greatest of hospitalities in the Eskimo culture. He

offered him the opportunity to "love" with his wife. To sleep with his

wife.

The priest said: "Oh, no, that's all wrong," and he tried to lecture

the Eskimo and with this the Eskimo was insulted and he took and shook

the priest and bumped his head on the wall and the priest died and of

course it showed the law coming in.

It was really a very sad situation, and yet it showed the conflict

that exists between the philosophy of those that were here thousands of

years before us and our philosophy. The philosophy that we have forced

on them. He showed what happens when they take our fire-water and I

mention this because in the Yale-Lillooet riding we have many native

Indian people and they are good people. They are good people to have as

friends. But often when they run afoul of the law they look very

bewildered and they look very perplexed and if they are forced to go to

court they often go there and plead guilty.

So I'm mentioning this little story, Mr. Speaker, through you, to

the Attorney General because I hope this government will appoint

full-time court workers that will be available to go anywhere in the

province at any time.

I hope that before this session ends and before very long, before we

really move out of the budget and that's tomorrow, that the transcript

of the Fred Quilt case will be made available to those of us who would

like to read it. I believe in all the areas of justice when we are

dealing with native Indians and Eskimos, we must bend over backwards

not just to see that justice is done but in their eyes that it appears

to be done and I think this is very basic and very important.

I would like to make some comments with regard to the previous

speaker, the Minister of Health. The problems that he lay before us

today were basically problems of the

[ Page 571 ]

fee-for-service system that we have been using in

paying the doctors. On the matter of the renal dialysis system that the

Minister spoke so proudly of, and I think he has every right and we

have every right to be proud of the work that we are doing in home

treatment and in kidney transplants. I think Dr. Price and Dr. Russell

Palmer have done a remarkable job in leading this field for all of

America.

When the Minister takes credit, and we have no objection to this, I

would like just to remind him that this is another idea that was sold

from this side of the House. It goes back to the days when the

Honourable Eric Martin was Minister of Health and a friend of one of my

constituents came to me. This young man was in his late twenties with

two kiddies and a wife, and had a very chronic kidney condition. His

doctor has asked if it would be possible to have home treatment by

peritoneal dialysis. This was the system whereby they hooked the

plastic tube into the dialysis cavity of your stomach. It was the first

system that we had here, an idea, I believe, that Dr. Russel Palmer

brought back from Holland following the war.

I approached the then Minister of Health and he said "No, no, we

just couldn't do that." I pointed out that if we could give him this

treatment at home, his employer, the town of Hope, would allow him to

work five days a week and he could have this treatment during the night

while he was resting.

I couldn't get anywhere with the Minister so I raised it on the

floor here and showed how we are spending about $13,000 a year at that

time keeping this family on welfare paying for a hospital bed for him

in the hospital. The Minister of Health at that time looked up at the

Press gallery, he saw them writing up the story and he stood up and

said: "Okay, if the Member for Yale-Lillooet insists we'll experiment

in that case."

He started with Ricky Stevens in Hope. Today with the help of some

of the airforce mechanics, we have a good supply of peritoneal dialysis

machines — this is the kidney machine — that through the Department of

Health and Welfare, these machines will be provided in any home in the

province and I think this is a credit to the government. But I think it

is also a credit to this side of the House that we do have ideas and we

sell them to you, that's part of our job, selling good positive ideas.

There are some renal dialysis machines that I believe are available.

If anyone knows of a community or home that needs one the government

will build a room onto the home if necessary so that the husband or the

wife can take treatment at night while they're resting. The case I

mentioned, the Ricky Stevens case in Hope while he started under

peritoneal dialysis then later went on to renal dialysis in the past

year had a kidney transplant and I saw in the paper quite recently

where Mr. Stevens had given something like his thirtieth pint of blood.

He's a good, youthful, healthy citizen paying income tax. I think it's

a lot better than having left him on welfare and left him sick. It's a

good positive programme and I commend the Hon. Minister of Health.

Now, I said that I would have some suggestions as to how we could

reduce the cost of health services in British Columbia and Canada.

In 1968-69, the first year of medicare, medicatre cost $32 million.

Our current budget is $85 million — almost three times as much. Now Mr.

Speaker through you to the Minister of Health, it's gone up about $30

million a year. It doubled in just over the first year.

This means the more money we have the more sick people we have. Why

are we spending more money? I always thought that health care was

simply that, health care. Now is it that instead of health care we have

sickness insurance? Is this what we are selling? Is this what we are

dispensing in this province? Do we put a premium on being sick? And I

think we do. I think so long as we have the fee-for-service structure

then if a doctor or the medical profession through alchemy could come

up and make us all healthy they would all be without jobs. They would

be all without income. It is in the doctor's interest, to have have

sick people. The doctor's financial interest is to have sick people.

Now you think about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doctors never want us to be sick.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that the

doctors want anyone to be sick, but I am saying this — that if we all

became healthy through better diet, through better exercise, through

looking after ourselves, the doctors' incomes would go down.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not their fault.

MR. HARTLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, to the lady Member from

Vancouver South, this is not the doctors' fault, this is the

government's fault and that's what I'm telling her. And I'm glad she's

listening but she's got a lot to learn.

This is where this type of fee-for-service, this sickness insurance

this government is perpetuating, is wrong. The government is wrong and

the policy is wrong, and the policies of health care that you are

allowing, or that you are operating are basically wrong.

You put the premium on the sick person rather than saying to the

doctors: "We'll pay you well to carry out a programme of preventive

health care and keep all your patients healthy. And we'll pay you well,

we'll pay you when you have holidays, we'll see you do post-graduate

work."

So Mr. Speaker, the cost of medicare in British Columbia since July

1, 1968, the year it started, the first year it was $32 million, this

year $85 million which pretty near tripled the cost of medicare. And we

have absolutely no control over the quantity, or the quality of

medicare being dispatched. Have we, Mr. Member? Very good.

I believe there are certain things that we could do to reduce costs.

They tell me a few years ago when we didn't have the complete coverage

that we have today that if a male wished vasectomy he would go to the

doctor's office and have a little operation performed.

Today they tell me if a male has a vasectomy most surgeons send the

gentleman to the hospital by appointment. He takes up a bed in the

operating room, he takes the time of a couple of nurses and valuable

space.

Now my suggestion is this, Mr. Speaker, that if the doctor can do

these operations in his office, O.K. — he gets one fee. But if he is

going to call on a great deal of ancillary public services in the

hospital and operating room and so on then he gets a reduced fee.

I don't see why we should have to provide all these extra services

at extra cost if certain elective operations can be done without an

operating room. And if you'd travel that road you will get no credit

from here, Mr. Member.

We say studies show that under the fee-for-service system that the

tendency is to over-service. You've heard both myself and the Member

from New Westminster speak of the group health in Seattle. The group in

Prince Albert, and

[ Page 572 ]

Saskatoon and in Sault Ste. Marie.

Now I'm sorry that the Minister of Finance isn't here, but in

British Columbia we have approximately 1,800 hospital patient days per

year. That means for every 1,000 persons in the province, 1,800

hospital patient days are used. Better almost than two patient days per

person.

In Seattle under the group health clinic where they have a whole

series of doctors, specialists and ancillary services, that figure is

reduced from 1,800 to 422 — 23 per cent. Now, the Minister was saying

how our costs were skyrocketing. This year the money that we expect to

spend for hospitals is going to be $230 million, almost a quarter of a

billion dollars. If we through a group practice putting doctors on a

salary and plenty of ancillary services to work with them we would

reduce $230 million to $53 million or we would save $176 million for

the people of British Columbia. Now, this is being done elsewhere. And

I would like to commend Dr. McCreary and the medical faculty at the

university for experimenting in East Vancouver with the Reach Clinic.

Here they have doctors and ancillary services on staff. But this

government isn't cooperating too well with Dr. McCreary, they're not

cooperating too well with the medical faculty.

Now, to the Minister of Health through you, Mr. Speaker, I say Dr.

McCreary is to be commended. But under your fee-for-service structure

of medicare, Mr. Minister of Health, there is no way that a group

health practice in B.C. can be paid through medicare for a public

health nurse, for a social workers, for a regular nurse or for any

ancillary services.

At a group practice seminar that I attended in Vancouver a week ago

today, they showed how in different parts of America, including parts

of Canada — there was a gentleman there, Mr. Fred Griffiths from the

Sault Ste. Marie clinic — showed that by having ancillary services to

work with the doctors and having them all on salary they were beginning

to get figures reasonably close to the figures that I gave you from

Seattle.

So what do we have to do to make these group clinics possible and

practical in B.C.? We have to have a

schedule in our fee

schedule to

pay these people either on a fee basis or on a salary basis. And I

would like to see through the medicare plan and through the Department

of Health, through the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to see them pay grants to the Reach Clinic so that they can fill the

empty dental chair. The Reach Clinic has a dental chair but they not

have a dentist to fill it. And if there's one of the areas of health in

British Columbia that is being woefully neglected it is dental care.

Dental care is being woefully neglected in British Columbia.

A survey was made last summer by four medical students in East

Vancouver in the area of Reach Clinic. And they said that the dental

health, the dental hygiene of the children in that area was just

something terrible.

Now here is an area that would lend itself for us to experiment in

the case of health care. Let us hire a dentist, some dental hygienists

and dental assistants to work with this dentist and put them to work

helping to fix up the teeth and the dental health of the children in

East Hastings, And if it works there, if we find that that salaried

dentist and the girls that help drill out the teeth and make the

fillings and work with him, if they find that they can handle more

people and help lower the cost then, Mr. Minister of Health, possibly

we can apply this more wisely.

I can assure you that in the areas that this is being done, not only

in British Columbia. In other parts of Canada and the United States

where dentists are being paid a salary a most remarkable development

has taken place. But what is happening in B.C.? The opposite is taking

place. One or two of the trade unions have dental plans and many B.C.

dentists are holding up those dental plans. You go to the dentist, you

have your teeth fixed and you may pay your account. You send your bill

in to the dental plan, and they say "we'll return it to the dentist."

And I have accounts from dentists and from these trade unions that feel

that their plan is being bilked by the dentists where in more than one

case, regularly, once a dentist finds there is a dental plan they

increase the fee by 50 per cent.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: This isn't blackening anyone, Mr. Speaker. If my

friends over here on my left, and they should be on the right — if they

were in close touch with their constituents they'd know. Of course

maybe these aren't problems of the urban rich, maybe these are not

problems of the urban rich, maybe these are just problems of the

working people. Anyone that would like to see the documents, they are

available. This is what has happened.

This is a dental statement and on the bottom of his account it says:

"Due to proposed legislation, all accounts billed and due and payable

by the 15th of the month. A service charge of $1 per billing will be

placed on the account if the account has to be rebilled. All accounts

90 days and overdue processing go through a collection agency." Now do

you know of any proposed legislation that gives any dentist the right

to tax $1 on every account that is 30 days overdue?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to pay it. It's not a contract. You don't have to pay it.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's all very well for my legal

friends on my left here to say they don't have to pay it, they are a

bunch of slick city lawyers. They know. But the average working man

when he gets a slip like that from his dentist saying "due to proposed

legislation", he doesn't know about legislation. And this is why I'm

raising it right here Mr. Speaker. So the Press knows and that you know

and if any of your constituents get an account saying "due to proposed

legislation" and if the health plans are going to be bilked by a 50 per

cent increase by a certain dentist — not all of them — I think then

that this Legislature has to take action.

The action that I suggest is that in the Reach Clinic we put a

salaried dentist with some salaried hygienists and some dental workers

to provide a high quality dental care to families whether they can

afford it or not. Extend this service in that area, in the Vancouver

East area, under the B.C. Medical Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be some help to these people and tell them they don't have to pay it.

MR. HARTLEY: I've told them they don't have to pay it. Now

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) shortly. He put on a most shameful show here the other

night, I don't know whether he'd been in the sauce or what but I have

something that I've saved up for him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member withdraw that remark?

[ Page 573 ]

MR. HARTLEY: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I thought maybe he liked tomato sauce.

Well, Mr. Speaker, being as my friend is getting up-tight about this

when he stood here the other night he took a policy and deliberately

attempted to say that the contract that a certain party was covered

with, was a Saskatchewan government insurance. He implied that, and he

said that those rates would be the same as in Saskatchewan.

He carried on at great lengths, and he is a very clever

silver-tongued lawyer. Very able, but what he said, or what he implied

was not the case.

I can tell this House that it is absolutely impossible for any car

driver in British Columbia with a B.C. licence plate to buy

Saskatchewan government insurance. The only way you can get a

Saskatchewan government licence plate insurance is to have a

Saskatchewan licence plate and you can't twist that. But this Member

did try to twist it.

Here is the booklet on Saskatchewan government insurance that was

put out by the Liberals for the 25th anniversary of Saskatchewan

government insurance and the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Bruch) during

that debate got up and made quite a big to-do on how Saskatchewan

government insurance lost $991,000. He has the same document as I have.

He didn't tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the year they lost that was the

year 1965-66 when the Liberal Party — my friends on my left here — when

they were the government back there.

The Liberal Party was elected in Saskatchewan to do away with

government insurance. And they did their best. After they'd plunged

into debt then they discovered that according to the legislation

Saskatchewan licence plate car insurance can neither lose money nor

make money. If you lose money one year you either cut back on the

benefits or you raise the rates. According to legislation.

The last year this reports shows, there was a surplus of $1,200,000.

Now, I'm not going to go at great length into insurance but I'm also

going to reply to what the Attorney General tried to do on a point of

order.

transcript of what he said here. He tried to indicate to the House that

because the company in question had not raised their rates in 1970, but

in 1971, for the year '71-'72, they had increased a whole category by

65 per cent.

It was stated in December that the insurance industry for car

insurance in British Columbia would go up by 5.9 per cent. Now if this

company in question raised their collision rates by 65 per cent in one

year — I'm sure there was no raise the year previous. But if they had

had half that raise or spread it over two years, it is still 33 per

cent for 1970 or 1971 and 1972.

Are we to take it then that while 65 per cent is too much, 33 per

cent is alright by the Social Credit? They're using all these methods

to cover up and to protect their friends in the insurance industry.

I say 33 per cent increase in 1972 is too much. Certainly 65 per

cent when there was no increase the year previous is too much. But it

works out at about 33 per cent the year ahead and 33 per cent the year

where there wasn't a raise.

Now we did have an insurance hearing. At that hearing I filed a

series of questions with the board. I now have a written reply to those

questions. I would like to say this, that I'm not satisfied with many

of the answers. I'm not going to say it's the fault of the board, but

I'm going to say it's the fault of the way we keep our statistics, it's

the fault of the way that the car insurance industry disclose their

statistics in the Blue Book and this is the most recent Blue Book here.

I'd like to read one of these questions as an example. I asked: what

was the total sum of money paid for medical services for the above

purposes — this is for accident car insurance — in 1966 and 1967? This

is when the average person could pay an extra $2 and have medical

benefits with their car insurance. This is before it was no-fault and

before we had medicare in B.C.

Then I went on and asked what the total sum was in different years.

What is the answer to 3B? The answer is: "The board cannot obtain this

information." Now if the board cannot obtain this sort of statistical

information how ever can we expect them to make worthwhile decisions on

behalf of the car driving public of British Columbia?

I go on further to ask for a breakdown as to what was paid for

hospital services, medical services, and so on. They say they haven't

this information.

How do we know that the car insurance companies are not charging our

B.C. Medical Plan on B.C.H.I.S.? How do we know that these people are

not going in and having their hospital and medical bills paid by the

tax supported plans? This is what happened prior to 1967. Every health

service organisation had to police car insurance accidents, make sure

the car insurance companies paid them and not B.C.H.I.S. or the

respective medicare plans before 1968, before we had medicare.

Now when the B.C. Insurance Board states that this book doesn't give

them the information to answer the questions I think that we should

have a complete investigation into the methods by which we keep track

and record the fire and casualty business in Canada. But we could start

in British Columbia, if we want to start a pattern here. This is an

area in which we could and should start in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you can see this or not but

this is a beer glass. The past year the price of beer went up from 20

cents to 25 cents a glass. I don't know whether anyone here ever goes

into a pub but last Saturday night I took a walk around town and about

11 o'clock, I'd been working…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the Chair, Honourable Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I guess because the hour was

late and maybe the chap at the bar thought well, they've all had a few.

I hadn't had any, I went in and had one. I noticed that it was filled

possibly within an inch from the top. So when I was in another province

I bought for 25 cents a beer glass with a Plimsoll line on it. I

brought it out here. If the Attorney General would promise to do

something about, I'll give him the glass. He just has to nod his head.

No. It has a Plimsoll line on it and I remember when the former

Attorney General was very critical of that went on…

AN HON. MEMBER: I think the beer was better, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, when we give a pub the right to

sell draught beer by the glass, we're virtually issuing them a licence

to print money. There's a fabulous mark-up in beer by the glass and I

think the least that we can do in the good life under this province is

make sure that those who wish to patronise the pubs know that they're

entitled to a glass full of beer, at least the beer should come up, the

yellow

[ Page 574 ]

of the beer should come to the white Plimsoll line, the foam can go as high above that as it likes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARTLEY: I have this little present for the Premier but

I'm sorry he hasn't returned. Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair

bit said about advertising of various wares in our papers. As of

September 1 last year liquor and tobacco ads were outlawed. Now I

noticed after that legislation went up, that there was a marked

increase in government advertising, particularly in the weekly papers.

There was a marked increase.

I have several papers here from different parts of the province and

of course, just what is going on I'll have to leave possibly to your

imagination. This is a little rural weekly paper. I noticed there are

three major items.

Here, "Are you on Social Assistance?" It's a full page signed by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Dan Campbell, Chairman of

Job Opportunities.

Then, "Call Phil." About a three-quarter page ad "Call Phil." It

gives a phone number there. Well, at least I imagine that's the call

number. "Phil Gaglardi has been asked by the Premier to help you find a

job." Well, I'm not sure, or whether there's some little race going on.

Now in the same paper, I think this fellow's winning. He's got a big

picture, the biggest picture I've seen of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs in any paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a beautiful picture.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, whether this is the way the Social Credit Party in this province are running the leadership contest…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you refer this to committee and I'll tell you something?

MR. HARTLEY: We had a statement made up, quoted on the floor

of the House yesterday and attributed to the Attorney General with

regard to advertisements and what would happen to newspapers that did

or did not cooperate. The statement as I understand it, and I have the

clippings from the Victoria Times here in part: "The Times should in no way be rewarded by the government."

That's on Page 1, February 16 Victoria Times .

I looked up the word "reward." I went to Webster, and what do they say?

"Something that is given in return for good or evil done."

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty pitiful if you have to look it up, eh Bill?

MR. HARTLEY: "Something that is given in return for good or

evil done." So what's the opposite of reward? Is it punishment? What's

"punishment"? "The infliction of a penalty, retribution, suffering,

severe, rough or disastrous treatment."

I wonder what the Attorney General had in, mind, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what he said when he said the Times

should in no way be rewarded by government. Those ads like you see in

the weekly paper — are you attempting to reward these weekly papers for

the money that they lost in advertising from the liquor and the tobacco

industry? Is this what you're trying to do? If they carry out your

political line, they'll be rewarded. If they're not, they'll be

punished. Can we impute it this way?

Mr. Speaker, I think a statement, the nature of which the Attorney

General made two days ago, is a very very poor statement to come from

the gentleman who holds the key to the meeting of justice in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion no democratic nation can remain free with

a captive Press. With these ads that he's putting in the papers,

spending more money this year than ever before, is he trying to have a

captive press?

Send it across to him.

Yes, the motor vehicle branch, through you Mr. Attorney General,

puts ads in. There's about two pages of ads in a little 12 by 16

weekly. I'll show them to you, I'll show them. I'm not finished yet,

Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly on the rights and the freedom of the

Press. What I think we should do, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to call for a

complete review of government policy with regard to advertising and the

placing of advertising and its effect on the future and the freedom of

the Press. I think there's a very, very serious situation that has

arisen in this province and it's emanated from the Attorney General's

department — the man that's supposed to look after freedom and justice.

A man that would think in the terms of whether we reward a paper with

advertisements or punish them, I think this is most despicable. I have

plenty of them here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a reflection on the free Press of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ads that you pulled out today? You announced in the paper you pulled out the drug and alcohol ads.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech and in the

budget, we do have some very limited quotes on pollution. I noticed in

December where the citizens of Peace River, Alberta, were up in arms

because this Social Credit government were issuing a permit to the oil

refinery at Taylor. The community of Taylor draws their water off above

the oil refinery. They weren't worried but our neighbours to the east,

our neighbour province to the east, was very much concerned with what

we are going to do with the Peace River, with millions of gallons of

effluent. Well, they like to have a swim in it once in awhile, they

like to drink some of it. They might like to go fishing in it. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say to the Member from Peace River North that

he might do well to listen because the problems of pollution are very,

very serious.

When we went down to Olympia we found the Senate representatives

from Okanagan, Washington, were very, very much concerned as to the way

we polluted the Okanagan Lakes and the Okanagan watershed. They wanted

to know what we were doing about it. I told them that I would raise it

in this House, that we had raised in the past. The Member from North

Peace River (Mr. Smith) Mr. Speaker, thinks just because the Peace

River flows out of British Columbia and into another province he can

act in the very irresponsible fashion we see him acting now. Well, it

wouldn't hurt him to use a little water to wash his ears out and listen.

There are problems on the Peace, there are problems on the Fraser,

there are problems on the Kootenay and the Columbia. Many of these

rivers flow outside of the province

[ Page 575 ]

into other parts of Canada and into other parts of the United States.

I don't believe that this gives us any licence to treat the matter

of pollution lightly. Now I've noticed that the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation has a programme — he calls it Sam — where you gather

up the old cars and grind them up, shred them, and then recycle them.

Of course the Minister of Water Resources, he's in charge of our other

fields of pollution.

I think what this government needs, Mr. Speaker, is to take and put

the Member for Chilliwack and the Member for Prince George through that

shredder, recycle them and then with that, we'll come up I hope with a

new Minister with some backbone and

an Act with some teeth and then we

can do something. Our Act needs teeth and our Ministers in charge of

these programmes need some backbone.

With regard to the P.G.E. Railway, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the

Premier would come in because I have a little present here for him

somewhere.

We have a couple of bills before us so I won't go into the matter of

naming the P.G.E. — renaming it. But I will say this. It's going to

cost approximately in excess of $1 million to change all those things

and before we embark on that sort of nonsense I think we should improve

the road bed of the P.G.E. Railway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask through you the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) why that very special train that went

up to the opening at Fort Nelson ran off the tracks in that Member's

riding. It ran off in that Member's riding because the road bed is in

horrible shape.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: In that particular point where it went off the

tracks there were "slow" signs. The train was flagged down to 20 miles

an hour and the road bed was in such horrible shape that even at 20

miles an hour it ran off the tracks and there was a major accident.

That happened in your riding Mr. Member for Cariboo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the House what happened.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes. I'll tell the people up in the Cariboo too that if you valued the lives…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: …the lives of the running trades — the engineers

and the firemen and the conductors and the brakemen — and the

passengers you'd be speaking out to see that those punky, rotten ties

were replaced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing to do with those ties at all.

MR. HARTLEY: Plenty to do with the ties. What's this I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker? It's a tie…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: …it's a sleeper, that's correct. In this month's

Coupler , the P.G.E. magazine that's sent out to all employees and M.L.A.'s,

it shows a picture of a six-engine P.G.E. diesel coming down off the Kelly

Lake

Hill heading down into the area of the Moran dam.

Now, the road bed situation had been reported to me by employees of

P.G.E. because when they go out on those runs, they realise they are

taking their lives in their hands.

If this was just one tie that was rotten and punky, it wouldn't be

bad. But I walked over a mile down this stretch of the highway below

Kelly Lake and in 100 yards there was something less than 100 ties but

there were between six and 16 rotten ties. In some cases, one following

the other. You wouldn't feel so bad if there was a new tie close by.

Unless something is done about this road bed, Mr. Speaker, we're not

only going to have more of our running crews maimed and killed but

first thing we know one of the Budd cars will go over and maybe the

Premier will be in it. Because he's the president of this outfit and

I'm sorry that he's not here. I'd like to send this…

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you reported it to the P.G.E.?

MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you report it to the president?

MR. HARTLEY: I'm sorry that the president isn't here to accept this.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney

General if he would accept this piece of rotten tie. Do you know what

the running trade call it? They call this a widow-maker. Because

they're realising they can go out on a run and the road bed, the shape

it is — and I don't like to raise this because it's not good in

encouraging people to go on that railroad but I wouldn't want people to

go on that and wind up in an accident.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: If you'll take that over to the Attorney

General. In case he doesn't know, you can tell him it's wood. Wood

suffering very badly from dry-rot.

Again I'm sorry that the Premier is not here because you know, in

the past year he changed the name from the Trans-Canada Highway to B.C.

Highway No. 1. In this Monday's Vancouver Daily Province

there was a picture of B.C. Highway No. 1 as it runs between Yale and

Spuzzum. B.C. Highway No. 1, and it shows pictures of pot-holes in the

black-top, people standing in there with their gum boots. It shows

wheels badly bent from hitting these pot-holes.

Now, if the Premier is going to change the name of Trans-Canada

Highway to B.C. Highway, I think he should see to it that it's kept up

in the type of repairs so that we can be all proud of it. If he's not

going to do that it would be just straight politics for him to say:

"Oh, well, that's Trans-Canada Highway and they're not helping us with

it." But he's changed the name and so he's taking responsibility and

he's going to give B.C. Highway a very, very bad name unless he does a

better job in maintaining it than what they're doing right now. Until

these pot-holes are fixed, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it would

be better known as pot-hole alley. Not B.C. No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset B.C. has over 500 per cent more cases of welfare on welfare than they did at

[ Page 576 ]

the start of the decade. The start of the 1960's. Social Credit, social welfare.

The roads, many of them, including B.C. Highway No. I are full of

pot-holes. Mr. Speaker, this is a pot-hole budget from a pot-hole

government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I rise on a

matter of personal privilege. The Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Hartley) who just took his place, in his remarks this afternoon said

that in a previous debate I had said or implied that he had purchased

automobile insurance from the Saskatchewan government plan.

I have a copy of the Hansard

transcript of that debate. In fact I said, referring to that company

"…now there's a company with its head office in Regina, Saskatchewan,

carrying on business in that province, offering as it turns out the

precise minimum package which is offered in the Province of

Saskatchewan."

The words attributed to me by the Hon. Member were not said by me.

The implication that he suggests is not properly drawn and was not

intended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It

is a pleasure for me to take my place in the budget debate and to

represent that great constituency of Vancouver South.

We in British Columbia are fortunate to have one of the best

governments that any free people anywhere in the world have, thanks to

the dynamic leadership of the Premier of our province, a man of vision

and political brilliance, a man with such infectious enthusiasm that he

can bring off plans that seem beyond the reach of conventional reason.

It was under his firm guidance and reputable leadership that British

Columbia made such great progress, especially during the last two

decades, or in other words one-fifth of the entire history of the

Province of British Columbia.

It was this same man, and the same Social Credit government that

deliberately eliminated the province's total debt of $222,453,788

between 1952 and 1959. It was this same man and this same Social Credit

government that took the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, soon to be

renamed the British Columbia Railway, under its wing and proceeded to

open up the north, and may I add, with no federal financial assistance.

It was this same man and this same Social Credit government that

encouraged private industry to follow the railway and build up the

north country. And it was this same man, and this same government that

launched the vast Peace River hydro-electric project that linked the

province's largest single power source on the Peace River to the lower

mainland.

And it was this same man, and this same Social Credit government

that deliberately cemented and strengthened the relations with the

Pacific Rim countries. And it was this same man, and this same Social

Credit government that concluded major mineral contracts especially of

coal and copper with Japanese industry.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, and on, and on, but the past 20 years

are just the beginning of greater things to come for all the people of

British Columbia. The opportunities are unlimited and we are ready for

them.

We are ready because we have laid a solid foundation upon which to

build a greater future, thanks to the people of British Columbia who

have placed, and who will continue to place, their faith and confidence

in the Social Credit government of British Columbia. The only

government that has balanced budgets operated on a pay-as-you-go policy.

Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 5, 1972 was a great day. It was the

20th budget of the Social Credit government and it was Bennett Day all

the way! It was the people's day!

This year's budget is a bold budget, a dynamic budget with a real

heart. A budget filled with optimism, opportunity and confidence, all

directed towards human needs, values and aspirations by a government

that really cares.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition had great difficulty in finding

something to criticise. How can they argue with success? How can they

argue with a government that provides services for people without any

increase in provincial taxes? How can they argue with a government that

has vision, courage, determination, and above all the experience to

make long-range plans for the benefit of all the people of the province?

And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the word "surplus" seems to have a

derogatory connotation with the Opposition, those who would rather see

half the budget being spent on interest rates rather than on people.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we would be having if the Socialists ever

became the government, and what a hope! Such stupid statements come

from the Opposition. For example, how can a government be bankrupt and

still sit on a fat surplus? The Opposition is so confused that it

doesn't know the difference between a surplus and a deficit. It is

really comical, Mr. Speaker, to hear the leader of the Liberal Party

bring in his budget and state how he will spend the surplus. Whose

surplus, may I ask? Have you ever heard of a Liberal surplus budget?

That's utter nonsense!

The leader of the Liberal Party with his shortsighted, distorted,

tunnel vision, can't even comprehend that this year's budget didn't

just happen. He can't comprehend that the great growth and prosperity

of our province was the result of long-range planning and

decision-making, over the past 20 years by a government continuing in

office and exercising good sound judgment and plain ordinary common

business sense.

Last year the Premier of our province stated that the prime goal of

the Social Credit government was to create more jobs within British

Columbia. At that time he set a minimum objective of 25,000 in the

number of people gainfully employed between October 1970, and October

In the budget speech of the Premier we noted that that minimum

target was reached. It was in fact exceeded by nearly twice that number

with 73,000 more British Columbians working in October 1971 than in

October 1970. And that, Mr. Speaker, is performance. That is action.

If the rest of Canada had performed as well as British Columbia did

in the creation of jobs, Canada would not have the unemployment crisis

it has today.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this year's budget will continue to

provide for still more jobs because of an additional $10 million

allocated for reforestation and another $10 million for parks

acceleration projects — just to mention a few of the job creating

programmes enunciated in this year's budget.

[ Page 577 ]

Ever since the Social Credit government initiated the home-owner

grant to relieve the burden of increased taxation on homes, it has been

the policy of this government to endeavour to ease the burden of

taxation at the local level.

This year I am particularly pleased to note in the budget speech

that the home-owner's grant will be increased from $170 to $185, and an

additional maximum $50 home-owner grant will be given to home-owners

aged 65 and over for a maximum grant of $235.

Mr. Speaker, I think that would-be home-owners, especially tenants,

will be very pleased to hear of the continuation of the provincial

government's home-ownership assistance programme. Introduced in 1966 it

is an unqualified success. To date, almost 84,000 families have

received outright grants or low-interest second mortgage loans. It is

an original and unique programme and it is Social Credit policy to

provide for individual needs and to encourage homeownership.

In last year's budget debate, Mr. Speaker, I said we will build more

senior citizens' homes in the Vancouver South constituency. I am

pleased to say that last week an outright grant of $455,000 was

approved for the new 160 unit Polish Park Manor, to be built in

Champlain Heights in the southeast

section of the Vancouver South

constituency. More of these homes will be built in the near future.

They will be built because of the harmonious relationship and the

splendid cooperation between the provincial government and

community-minded public-spirited citizens.

It's a fantastic arrangement of government and people working

together. And that's how it should be. Surely the people don't want the

government to do everything for them? The freedom-loving people of this

province want to be independent, self-reliant and enterprising. Thanks

to the Social Credit government of British Columbia the people are

given such opportunities. The people of British Columbia really

appreciate receiving this incentive of an outright capital grant of

one-third of the total cost of constructing senior citizen's homes.

Another unique feature of the Social Credit government is the

innovation of perpetual funds, the earnings of which will provide in

perpetuity much-needed services for our people. I am particularly

pleased that an additional $5 million will be added to the $10 million

British Columbia cultural fund and $5 million will be added to the $10

million physical fitness and amateur sports fund. A very important

feature of these perpetual funds is the fact that no money is spent on

administration and the capital of each perpetual fund is invested in

many of our human resource buildings such as schools and hospitals,

thus returning a two-way dividend to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there is a

section of Crown land right in the heart of

Vancouver on Burrard Street. It's a very small block just on the corner

of Burrard Street; that piece of land belongs to the Crown. It belongs

to the province. It belongs to the people of British Columbia.

I would suggest and recommend that this piece of Crown land between

the Bentall centre and the new Columbia centre be dedicated as open

space for the people of Vancouver and British Columbia. After all this

will be in keeping with our new green belt policy and when the B.C.

provincial building complex is completed, no doubt this provincial

office will not be needed and it's just natural to have this piece as

part of our open space.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see another item from our government

and that would be a firm commitment to purchase one-half of the

government paper requirements, produced by recyling old paper. Such a

move on the part of the government would encourage the development and

research into the use of recycled paper. It would provide a new

industry and it would serve as a catalyst for other industries to

pursue other areas of recycling glass and cans for example.

I admire my colleague and running mate, the Hon. Minister of Health,

(Hon. Mr. Loffmark), and his concern that the community accept retarded

homes. As he works so effectively for the province in total, I hope

that Vancouver South will not be subject to the old adage that the

shoes of the shoemaker's children are the last to be soled.

I plead with him to take special interest in a particular project currently awaiting approval for a grant under the Treatment Resources Act ,

which would permit the Vancouver Association for Retarded Children to

proceed with their building plans, which include seven group homes for

retardates, to be built in the new area of Champlain Heights in the

Vancouver South constituency.

I wish to commend the Vancouver City Council for making this land

available at a very reasonable cost and also the local community — that

is, our constituents in Vancouver South who welcome this project with

wide-open arms.

We in British Columbia don't expect any special treatment from the

federal government, but we certainly expect to receive fair treatment.

But do we get it? The answer is an emphatic — no.

I am appalled at the massive equalisation payments made by the

federal government to certain provinces, particularly to the

resource-rich Province of Quebec. It is reported that over the three

latest years, equalisation payments and contributions to certain

special programmes paid by the federal government to the Province of

Quebec, have increased from $440 million to $773 million. Nothing — but

nothing — is more explosive, more dangerous to our Canadian unity, than

unfair treatment, or seemingly unfair treatment of one sister province

to another.

For example, we have papa Trudeau and 10 daughter provinces. Papa

takes $500 million from one daughter and gives it to one of his

favourite daughters, plus a pat on the head — nice girl.

Do you realise what this does to the family unit? It creates

resentment, suspicion and mistrust. Of course no fair daughter would

want to hurt papa's feelings by refusing to accept this gift and I

don't blame her. But when the "la belle" daughter province, rich in

resources, receives this gift, then this fatherly act of kindness

becomes extremely explosive and very dangerous to our family unity. It

further places a seed of resentment, disharmony, suspicion and

jealousy, within the family unit.

Some will say: "Oh, papa is French, that is why he favours la belle

Province de Quebec." Others will say, well, the pay-off is 74 seats out

of a possible 108 and such a move is politically expedient.

It is very obvious that the present system of equalisation grants is

not in the best interest of confederation. The time is now for the

federal government to devise a fair and just programme of assistance

from sea to sea to all — and I emphasise all — needy Canadians

regardless of their geographic location. Just because we don't agree

with Ottawa's unfair treatment of our province it doesn't mean we're

not Canadians first and foremost. There is no feeling of separatism in

British Columbia.

British Columbians are dedicated, hard-working, freedom-

[ Page 578 ]

loving Canadians, concerned about the Trudeau

policies and the treatment given to British Columbia. Day by day

Canadians are becoming more and more divided by the so-called just

policies formulated by a just government for a just society and

seasonally adjusted.

I want to make my position very clear, I am for one strong united

Canadian nation from sea to sea and Canadianism is the only "ism" of

any importance to us. The only "ism" that can adapt itself to our

people, our country and our needs. I am certain that 100 years ago when

our forefathers decided to join Canada, they did not expect a

"fuddle-duddle muddle, take it or lump it" attitude from Ottawa. A

change in federal government policies is a must and the only way we may

get such a change is to sweep the federal government out of office.

British Columbia has been very fortunate because of its natural

wealth of physical and human resources. Its geography has placed it in

a trading position that is already the envy of the world. Strategically

located on the Pacific Rim, British Columbia will be the hub of a

trading wheel whose spokes will extend to every corner of the world.

British Columbia is no longer Canada's back door. British Columbia is

Canada's front door, the gateway to the Pacific and we are ready for

further expansion and development all for the benefit of our people.

Our most valued resource and by the end of the 20th century British

Columbia's population will be over 5 million. With this phenomenal

growth we will see great changes in the concentration of our

population. No longer can we have half the population of this province

clustered in the greater Vancouver area. It's crowded already and

public pressure is beginning to ferment with cries of "give us open

space, give us room to breath, let's keep the traffic moving, give us

fresh air" and so on and so on.

Therefore, I would suggest that we look to the north, to the Arctic,

and capitalise upon the tremendous, untapped economic opportunities.

Let us provide incentives for people to develop the true north, strong

and free. Today young adults are already the most mobile and

income-conscious of all age groups in Canada. Instead of just paying

them to idly roam the country at the taxpayer's expense, let us put

them to work and develop the challenging northland.

What an opportunity for advancement! What an opportunity to develop

whole new communities, planned and organised in such a manner that they

will provide all the necessary amenities such as schools, hospitals,

cultural, and recreational facilities for the enjoyment and enrichment

of the people of our province!

Let us remind ourselves that the natural resources of our province

have built our modern cities and fashioned our dynamic economy. It was

this unremitting search for resources that threw back our frontier,

built the rails and dug the mines, and most important of all, planted

the seeds of both adventure and self-reliance in our people.

Furthermore, I think the Yukon Territory can never be properly

developed by its isolation administration. I would therefore suggest

that British Columbia extend its boundaries to the Arctic Ocean to

promote the growth of the entire northland — now I don't mean by

declaring war, but by peaceful negotiations and mutual respect and

understanding between both government. In this way the newly-developed

riches of the northland will serve as a magnet to attract millions of

people into unsettled areas. This will in turn alleviate the heavy

concentration of people in the lower mainland, in particular around the

greater Vancouver area.

I am confident that such a move will beckon people, as it did in the

so-called frontier days for the sake of challenge, for advancement and

higher income. Young folk today will want to explore the northland,

rough it out and receive the satisfaction that comes from a day's work.

By opening up the northland all the way to the Arctic we can really offer and share the good life with others.

I think it is imperative that better cooperation and co-ordination

be established between all levels of government and private groups

working with youth, especially since many projects are now being funded

by Ottawa, and the provincial government has no say in the matter.

In order to utilise the great potential of youth and in order to

co-ordinate these efforts, I would suggest that we establish a British

Columbia Youth Service Corps, which would be youth helping youth. This

corps could have a programme of its own, called greater opportunity for

youth, "GO" for short, for youth.

Summer programmes could be set up in various areas of the province

in which students after an orientation course, would work on a variety

of projects in a given community. Such programmes would provide an

opportunity for creative work for the benefit of others and at the same

time provide an opportunity for concerned young people to be confronted

with the realistic problems of people and communities.

The "GO for youth" programme would enable youth to develop, for

example, neighbourhood improvement projects, serve as volunteer

probationers, counsellors, work with solvent and glue sniffers, drug

users, help in senior citizen projects, public-housing projects, serve

as tutors, et cetera. The list is endless for services to people in

need.

I believe that those who would be participating in such a programme

would gain a deeper understanding of the problems faced by

disadvantaged members of society. Furthermore, the "GO for youth"

programme of the B.C. Youth Service Corps would not only provide an

opportunity for our idealistic creative youth to contribute their

energy and thinking toward developing our human resources, but it would

also inspire them with a deep sense of excitement, a sense of destiny

and belonging, a sense of responsibility, recognition and faith in

their capabilities, a sense of being involved in helping to make a

better world for all mankind.

As I said, the majority of our youth today are splendid young

people, healthy, self-confident and well-balanced. About these we need

feel no anxiety. There are, however, others who find it difficult to

come to terms with society and whose social incapacity can take many

forms, from shyness to compulsive exhibitionism and crime.

Adolescents need to develop their capacity for making sound

judgments. They need opportunities for realising that some things,

slower, and more hardly won, are nevertheless more rewarding than the

excitements offered in each day's passing show, and I believe that

there is a desperate need for special youth centres where new

approaches and advice can be given to problems of youth.

Such centres could be in the form of a mobile unit, an "opportunity

caravan." These caravans could be purchased through our drug, alcohol

and tobacco fund, and operation of the project woul