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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 361 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me today to stand for the first time in this third Legislature of the 29th parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I will certainly speak for myself and I'm

glad to see that the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is back

(Mr. Gardom). We missed him last week. I may say that perhaps the least

that is said about the two leaders of the Opposition parties and their

contribution to this debate would be the kindest possible, but there's

one thing I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worthy opponent.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Well, yes, there's one comment I wish to

make as far as the official Leader of the Opposition is concerned. He

doesn't make any pretext of being a financial man and for that reason

his observations on the budget can go perhaps by the board. But as far

as the leader of the Liberal group is concerned, he puts himself out as

a great financial critic. I was told by a very close friend of his from

Vancouver that the poor guy can't even balance his own bank account.

(Laughter).

But, be that as it may…

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be unkind. I had that trouble too.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Have you been talking to my banker? (Laughter).

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I didn't say it was your banker, I said

it was a very personal friend of yours. (Laughter). There's one point

that I want to make regarding the leader of the Liberal party and his

budget. You know, he's hip on this idea that Hydro, the contingent

liability is a part of a debt of British Columbia. Now I say to him in

all fairness, if that's the fact why does he not include the debt of

B.C. Tel? Now since the take-over, I say it's exactly the same thing,

his argument is that it's paid by the public of British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: O.K. — just wait 'til I say that from

1961 to '71 B.C. Tel has gone on the public market for $230 million in

bonds, $42 million in preferred shares, $78,800,000 in other share

offerings making a total of $350,800,000. This year B.C. Tel will go

the money market again for further requirements of $60 millions, making

a total over the 11 years of $410,800,000. So, Mr. Leader, next budget

be sure to include that in the public data as well because the public

have got to pay for it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind. It's being paid for by the public. That was your statement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: My friend is the expert. I don't put

myself up as an expert like he does. I wouldn't be prepared to make a

statement like he did on Monday of this week. But of course the only

peculiar thing about the whole thing is that he was ridiculed by his

own party. Isn't that terrible, Mr. Leader?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Now, I have been asked to comment today

on a few statements made by the Mayor of the City of Victoria, and I

may say that in this business some people learn very, very quickly.

He's only been elected in the City of Victoria twice, once for a

two-year term as alderman and he's been now the Mayor of Victoria for a

little over one month, he's not even dry behind the ears.

But he's got all the answers for the problems of municipal

government, of the provincial government and the federal government.

And he made a statement that Socreds are not worthy of the people.

Well, I would like to ask him what made him do this latest flip-flop

from four years ago when he ran as our candidate in Oak Bay?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: He at that time was very, very glad to be on our side.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Did he? Well, of course, it's a peculiar

thing that they're both about the same build. We call them little

pip-squeaks so the two of them make a pretty fair team. (Laughter).

Now, I would suggest…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: …I would suggest that the Mayor of Victoria in all fairness…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Just a minute. You had your speech

yesterday, and I would ask the Mayor of Victoria to come clean, come

out and tell the public why he's had this change of heart. I challenge

him to tell us and if he doesn't tell us, one day I may.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No, I won't tell you today. No, I

[ Page 362 ]

think in all fairness the Mayor should be prepared

to make his own statement. Just like the new leader of the Conservative

Party did himself yesterday.

Now, I want to say this before I leave the good Mayor. I want to say

that he has a problem as far as the harbour is concerned. I may say

that the City of Victoria and the provincial government have had rather

good relations at least for the last two years and I am prepared, along

with my good colleague the Minister of Public Works, to call a meeting

of all representations of the four municipalities and the provincial

government and help him resolve the problem of this harbour.

I'm fair minded enough for that. I say that now and I'm quite prepared to stand behind it.

He stated that I had never in his term of office or any time even I

had been in Victoria, stood up and say anything on behalf of Victoria.

Well, I may say he hasn't been in Victoria very long because for the

last 25 years I've been actively interested in civic affairs. I spent

three years on the school board, six years on the council and now 12

years in this Legislature. At the same time I was also four years on

the first board of the C.I.D.C. Now perhaps the Mayor is not conversant

with the facts that we are the only province in all of Canada that has

a Capital Improvement District Commission and we have every year for

the past 15 years allocated $200,000 for the beautification of the

capital precinct.

The only other Capital Improvement District is one in the federal

capital in Ottawa but we're the only province and I'm very, very proud

of the small part that I played in that development. They say "Why

hasn't Skillings spoken up on behalf of the City of Victoria?" Well, I

want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, he was still in knicker

pants at that time, that 25 years ago I came out at that time for the

fast ferry service between the north end of the peninsula and

Vancouver, and I've been working for it ever since.

I think one of the greatest things that this government has done for

the City of Victoria and the whole island has been our ferry policy.

Would anybody argue about that? As you know well when the C.P.R. and

the Black Ball went on strike some 12 years ago, the City of Victoria

was dying on the vine.

You don't know it, but I'm telling you, that's the facts. The ferry

service revitalised the entire city and the entire southern end of the

island.

What's the government doing now? We're stretching these ferries so

we can handle more cars and more people. I don't know whether the Mayor

knows that I put my shoulder to the wheel many years ago to make the

University of Victoria a degree-granting university and I'm very proud

of that.

This government has assisted the City of Victoria in senior

citizens' homes, Glendale Hospital in the last few years, the Eric

Martin Institute, cultural funds for the different associations in the

province, the physical fitness programme — but I think in most recent

years the outstanding achievement that I have spoken for and my

colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has been the new museum and

archives complex that we should all be very proud of.

No, as a matter of fact, I'm quite prepared anytime to stand on my

records of public service and I want to perhaps emulate my good friend

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by referring slightly to the fact I

have been elected to this Legislature four times — 1960, 1963, 1966 and

The first time I sought office in the provincial House I was

successful in knocking out at that time George Gregory who was the

sitting Liberal member and he got his just reward as you know. He went

to the bench and George and I are personal friends and I wish him well.

At that time in 1960, I polled 8,600 votes. In 1963 I polled 9,300

votes. In 1966 I polled 12,000 votes. In 1969 I polled over 15,000

votes. As you remember the old days when I was a private member I used

to have a little golden ball. Remember I used to make some forecasts? I

say this: If the election is called in 1972 or '73 or '74 I think I'll

still get in excess of the number of votes I got the last time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No, no. I was just giving a little

historical fact. You know, somebody phoned me up this morning, and I'd

like to pass this on to you because this is an idea that perhaps might

catch on. He said: "Waldo, do you know, I think there's a conspiracy

going on with the Press of this province." He said: "You know it's a

funny thing that anybody that wants to criticise this government can

get terrific Press."

Now the mayor that's had the most experience in the contiguous

municipalities is Mayor Curtis. He apparently was very pleased with the

result of the budget last Friday but there seemed very little in the

newspaper about what he's had to say. Also the Mayor of Esquimalt was

quite pleased. But there's been very little about his observations. So

the man suggested to me that there's a conspiracy on behalf of the

Press to try at every opportunity to knock this government and he gave

me the answer why. Because they do not like the government's ban on

liquor and tobacco advertising. Now, do you think there's anything to

it? I don't know.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: We've had a hostile Press in British

Columbia for 20 years and I hope they continue to be that way because

the way that the people in the newspapers write the people ignore them.

They don't any longer listen. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Oh, they've got all kinds of people. Look at them.

I may say that we have passed through two very difficult years, and

I think that in 1971 the uncertainties in the financial circles,

problems of markets for Canadian resource industry and the changing

trade alliances patterns have made a tremendous impression upon our way

of life. The big feature of 1971 turned out to be the re-alignment of

world currencies, a move forced by the American application of

surcharges on imports.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote this?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I wrote this myself. I don't have to get anything like that from you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that true?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Although the surcharge remained for only

a brief time, it showed the Nixon administration's willingness to use

new aggressiveness to achieve a more compatible currency situation.

It now appears that last year, while not a notable year,

[ Page 363 ]

was the year of the upswing.

Although many problems lie ahead, the prospects for 1972 are good

with predictions much more optimistic than those made one year ago. In

British Columbia, however, there is a serious cloud on the horizon and

that is our problem, for example. 1972 is a year of labour

negotiations. And I hope we will not have a repetition of 1970. In the

annual survey made by my department of leading British Columbia firms,

business executives expressed optimism — backed up by the recent

international monetary settlement, increased consumer spending, surging

housing construction and increased productivity resulting from more

complete utilisation of manufacturing facilities.

My department is ready to accept the challenge of 1972. Greater

emphasis will be placed in creating demands for the goods of existing

British Columbia manufacturers, both secondary and resource-based. By

building on existing industries, one of the soundest principles of

economic development is being used, although the results are less

dramatic than bringing in new ventures.

Eighty-five per cent of economic growth derives from the expansions

of existing industries and facilities — a point obviously overlooked by

my department's critics. This is a sound principle because it makes use

of millions of dollars of capital investment already in the province,

investment which is productive even as the new expansion investment is

being introduced. It creates confidence in the existing business

community, as well as in foreign investors who are looking to British

Columbia — confidence inspired by the knowledge that any future

investment they make can be based on the demands of increased

production resulting from this government's trade promotional

activities.

Manufacturing opportunities will continue to be identified by such

processes as my friend from Vancouver Centre calls "fat stars", but one

which is highly respected by the industrialists with whom my department

deals.

In too many instances, industrial development has been a

catch-as-catch-can activity, characterised by good intentions,

generalities and a shot-gun approach which assumes that all industry

will be attracted by colourful brochures or the desire of our province

to have the industry.

Make no mistake, now make no mistake my friend and listen…

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened at Houston?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: What happened to Houston? It's a thing

that can happen at any time. There's no guarantee that any going

concern is going to be successful. A man can start off tomorrow,

another man can start over, one will be successful and one will fail.

Make no mistake, all statistics cannot be always truthful. Because as

you know figures don't lie, but sometimes liars figure.

Make no mistake, industry at whatever level will respond only to the

siren call of profitability and if we are to induce our existing

industries to expand or new industries to establish we must show that

the opportunity for profit exists.

We will therefore, continue to produce our reports because by doing

so, we know we will be able to identify business opportunities and

describe them, in a businessman's language, to potential developers or

investors. We will also continue to produce the statistical reports as

clearly laid out in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce Act, which provides the terms of reference for this department.

It is interesting to note that this Act lists nine duties. Of these,

five refers specifically to the "collection, abstraction, compilation

and publication of statistics relative to the commercial, industrial,

social, economic and general activities and condition of the people of

the province."

One refers to the studying and giving advice on questions relating

to the economic conditions of the province, and one refers to the

and other provinces.

The last two on the list direct my department and I quote: "To

encourage and facilitate the production, sale and exportation of

provincial products in every way considered advisable for the general

economic welfare of the province," and two, "to secure information and

advise us to the establishment of new industries in this province."

Not since 1937 when the previous Department of Industries Act was

repealed, has my department received any direction that differs

appreciably from that described as I have summarised.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Quiet, I didn't interrupt you and I wish you'd do the same to me.

Mr. Speaker, we now come to a matter of emphasis. Despite the Act's

overwhelming pre-occupation with statistics my department will continue

to emphasise the development of trade, particularly export, recognising

the long-held principles associated with trade balances.

We will continue to emphasise the development of existing and new industries, whether resource-based, secondary or tertiary.

We will develop closer liaison with British Columbia government

departments, Lands and Forests, Agriculture, and I may say as you all

know there's a special $200,000 grant to assist the farmers in the sale

and distribution of agriculture in British Columbia.

I'm very happy to say that along with my colleague the Minister of

Agriculture this will be a real sales job because as you know I haven't

got very many qualities but at least I'm a salesman. And I'll tell you

right now we'll put agriculture over in this province like it's never

been put over before.

Mines and resources: so that our province's resource wealth can be

developed for the greatest good of the people of British Columbia and

Canada, we will develop a closer relationship with industry and

commerce, both management and labour so that their efforts to expand

their markets, increase their productivity and hence create more jobs

will be compatible with the efforts made by my department in these same

areas.

We will work closely with the related departments of the federal

government so that the full value received from federal aid programmes

can be accomplished by British Columbia companies.

We will continue to represent our province in Europe, through

British Columbia House in London; and, in the United States, through

British Columbia Houses in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Additionally

we will provide more detailed direction to the staffs of these Houses

so their efforts are co-ordinated extensions of what's going on in the

department head here.

We will continue to provide the high standard of service from the

data processing branch that you have come to expect. The department, as

a whole, will make greater use of the computer facilities in its search

for new areas of

[ Page 364 ]

economic growth.

We will strengthen the relationship with the British Columbia

Research Council so that its facilities for providing technical

assistance will be available for greater use of all departments of

government. And I may say that we now have on the University of British

Columbia one of the very finest research councils in all of Canada. And

I may say that in Dr. Trussell we have I think the outstanding director

in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, these are our objectives for 1972. Our plans are much more detailed and specific.

To accomplish these objectives I have made, and will continue to

make, organisational changes to strengthen the industrial development

trade and commerce branch of this department. I have chosen my new

deputy from the executive ranks of the pulp and paper industry. I have

instigated, through the Civil Service Commission, a search for a

director to head up the industrial development, trade and commerce

office.

Other staff additions to this same office will increase its

effectiveness and make possible the carrying out of a more aggressive

programme designed to create more jobs by the expansion of existing

industries and the establishment of new.

The men who will make up the industrial development, trade and

commerce will be promotion-oriented with strong experience in

industrial development work, so that the job of promoting the Province

of British Columbia will be carried out with enthusiasm and vigor by

these dedicated professionals.

And I'd like to add here, that there's no department of government

that has a finer staff than I have. And the new people that we hire I

know they'll be of exactly the same calibre.

The economics and statistics office will continue to compile the

statistics, which provide the Government of British Columbia with

invaluable information on growth and form a secure base for forward

planning. This office will continue to seek out manufacturing

opportunities, carrying out feasibility studies to show, in a

businessman's language, areas where existing companies can diversify or

new companies can establish.

Where necessary, outside specialists will be retained to investigate

specialised opportunities. At this time, we are currently studying the

recent tax changes to determine if opportunities have been created

which will attract investment in British Columbia by off-shore

companies. We are studying the recent currency changes to determine if

the changed relationship in foreign currencies has created conditions

which now favour manufacture in British Columbia as opposed to

exporting to British Columbia by foreign companies.

This is the kind of professional information my department must have

if it is to respond to the changing world conditions and retain its

credibility in the industrial world.

As a further effort to increase the sale of British Columbia

products in world markets and to publicise the manufacturing

opportunities in British Columbia, my department will participate in a

fair promotion in Edmonton. Because the Province of Alberta came down

last year and put a display in our international trade fair we're going

to reciprocate and go up to Edmonton this year.

We are also going to attend an exposition in the State of

Washington, in Seattle. I know the Leader of the Opposition will be

very glad to hear that. British Columbia in 1972 is sponsoring a

British Columbia promotion in California. This event which is now in

the initial planning stages, will strike at two specific groups in that

state:

First, company presidents whose companies can take advantage of the

specific manufacturing opportunities which have been uncovered and

described in the publication prepared by my department.

And two, purchasing executives who can purchase the British Columbia

manufactured goods which will be on display. Even the selection of the

goods to be displayed will be guided by the results of the market

survey now being carried out by our two British Columbia Houses in

California.

I wish to mention, in passing, the outstanding success of the Fifth

British Columbia International Trade Fair held this past year in

Vancouver from June 2 to 12.

This important trading event has developed, since its inception in

1958, into the largest regularly-scheduled trading event of its kind in

North America.

In 1971 the fair attracted a record number of international

pavilions, many of whose countries have already indicated their

intention of returning to the next fair.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind Taiwan. I don't want to get

into any hassle with the federal government on that. But sometime I may

tell that story too. Four hundred and twenty exhibitors from Canada and

the United States and other countries visited this fair and we are

still maintaining commercial ties.

In additions, close to 3,000 professional buyers from Canada, the

United States, and Europe and the Far East attended the fair and their

participation resulted in numerous sales contracts and agencies being

established. Computerisation of all data provided immediate access to

information on a wide range of products on display and simplified the

production of the official catalogue.

The sixth British Columbia International Trade Fair will be held in

Vancouver in 1974. Some organisational changes will be made to take

advantage of experiences gained in 1971. This fair has now attained an

enviable international reputation. But all efforts will be directed to

increasing the stature of this event so that it will continue to be

recognised as a show case of products manufactured in British Columbia.

So you see, I think we're right on top of the job.

This expansion will come because the economic climate in the

province and in the world is right, not because of any give-away

programme that might be offered, as proclaimed by the other provinces

and by many of those who criticise my department's activities.

British Columbia does not offer cash subsidies to induce companies

to establish in British Columbia. This type of incentive appears on the

surface to be advantageous so that it is easy to direct criticisms

against my department and this government, by attempting to relate lack

of growth in this area to a lack of industrial subsidisation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great division of opinion as to whether

government incentive grants are desirable and effective. The business

community in the free enterprise world is traditionally wary of

government involvement, and so it is surprising to hear Honourable

Members of this House advocating subsidies. Particularly they

themselves have been considered successful in this free-enterprise

competitive world.

In a recent study of the effectiveness of the federal grants to industry in the designated areas of Quebec, a number of

[ Page 365 ]

significant facts have emerged:

"Depressed" areas tend to remain

depressed since most industries established in the

section of the designated

area which was already industrialised. In doing this these industries follow

economic logic, not regional disparity correction. Often, jobs —

listen to this

very carefully Mr. Leader of the Opposition —

often jobs created were offset

by jobs lost in the actual depressed area.

Profitability was generally the criteria for establishing an

industry at whatever location ultimately chosen. Except in periods of

excessive government control, cash is usually readily available for

viable enterprise. The available grants in the designated areas,

therefore, tended to increase the profit of what was already a

profitable enterprise.

I spent a great deal of time reading a book entitled "Forced Growth"

written by Philip Mathias, and I would recommend it to any person that

thinks that giveaways are the answer. The five studies of government

involved in development projects are discussed in this book. Of the

five projects one can be classified as being successful, and one will

probably be successful although there will be a tremendous risk of

capital involved. And three are considered absolute disaster.

The Government of the Province of British Columbia firmly believes

that the best industrial development is that which establishes and

operates in a sound economic climate. Industry in British Columbia will

involve initially, resource development. This government has

contributed indirectly in this field by its heavy infusion of capital

into the British Columbia Railway and the provincial highways' system.

To open up the resource areas, it has contributed to the capital

development of the B.C. Hydro resources. Secondary industries receive

far more value in their development from this strong resource industry

base than they ever could from the heavy cash subsidies which only mask

and hide the true economic facts.

As everyone is aware, the federal government has available certain

forms of assistance. Wherever possible my department will assist in the

re-evaluation of these designated areas. As you know, Mr. Marchand has

promised that in the middle of 1972 he will have a conference at which

time the specific areas will be discussed.

I want to say this and I want to say this very forcibly, that the

number of times I've been back to Ottawa to discuss this matter, not

only with Mr. Marchand but also with his deputies — and I would also

like the Member for South Peace (Mr. Marshall) to listen to this very

carefully — that we will fight very hard for our place at the trough.

But I would also like to suggest that the trough is a long ways from

Ottawa and we are not very strategically placed in British Columbia — we're at the end of the line.

As far as our relationship with the business and industrial

community is concerned, we will actively work to strengthen that

relationship. In the near future, I will set up an advisory council,

made up of senior executives of management and labour, in order to

obtain feedback and advice on problems which face our province and may

hamper its industrial growth.

Mr. Speaker, we have come through two unsettled years when business

conditions precluded all thought of expansion for many companies.

Despite this, shipments of coal, metal concentrates, potash and sulphur

continued to climb and the Port of Vancouver was never busier. The

manufacturing upturn in British Columbia realised in the third quarter

the highest percentage change upward of any area in Canada and it was

50 per cent. In the last month of this nine-month period covered by the

report, British Columbia was second highest in its percentage change

upward and there again it was twice the national average.

I point with pride to the record of this province and particularly

my department in the development of British Columbia. I might say this,

that British Columbia's future is in the hands of all of us and we hope

and trust that each and every one of you will assist in the further

development of our province.

Mr. Speaker, there are just two other subjects I wish to touch on

before I take my place and I think that I will be just as brief as

possible because I believe in giving the speakers that are still to

come a fair shake as well.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Victoria has more senior citizens per

capita than any other major city in Canada. Most of these people are

living on fixed incomes and have a hard time making ends meet,

particularly as they find the price of necessities rising every time

they go to the market place.

These are the people who suffer the most when the cost of such

public services as health and education get out of control, because

when more money is needed for social services, that money has to come

from somewhere else, and it always has to come from the taxpayers who

in the final analysis have to pay.

During the past 15 years, people throughout British Columbia poured

money without question into the public education and post-secondary

education system. Now these people are asking whether they are really

getting their money's worth.

The taxpayers have heard it said by the teachers, year after year,

that the quality of education will suffer if they don't keep coughing

up more and more money. But the truth is that the teachers, most of

whom are probably already getting over $10,000 to $12,000 per annum are

gobbling up the money as fast as we hand it out, leaving little left

for the children of the province.

I would like to refer to the Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to

an editorial that appeared on Saturday night in the Vancouver Sun .

It is written by Alan Morley, and I think it is worthy of every Member

of this Legislature and I think it's worthy of every citizen in British

Columbia to read and I will just read in part, this is the Vancouver Sun , editorial of February 10, on page 4.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No conspiracy at all, this is just one

person's opinion. When I'm talking about a conspiracy my dear friend,

I'm talking about the fat cats who are the Press bosses — not the

working stiffs — the Press bosses.

I'll just read one paragraph:

The B.C. Teachers' Federation is humiliated because teachers now

will be asked by the local ratepayers to approve any increase in pay

over and above the annual increases the provincial government have

given.

My oh my, the poor things. For half a century the teachers of this

province have been having their own way pretty much along the

educational system and the remuneration they get from it. There's no

bill here, I'm just reading a letter. Am I in order Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 366 ]

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: They are humiliated. Don't take my word for it, take the word from…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The Member is referring to salary negotiations

with the teachers, anticipating debate on Bill No. 3 and I think he's

out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member must not anticipate the debate that

will take place on the amendments of the Public Schools Act nor can he

do it by letter or by editorial or in any way at all. If what he's

reading does anticipate that debate I must ask him to discontinue.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I will certainly take your ruling, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm sorry if I transgressed because I know that you're the

fairest Speaker we have ever had in this Legislation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I was going to say that flattery will get you nowhere, but I think I would be out of order. (Laughter).

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Mr. Speaker, those words came right from my heart.

In conclusion I want to make one more suggestion. As you know, I

have been interested for quite a number of years in higher education,

that is as far as universities are concerned. As I mentioned before I

am not a graduate myself but I will have at the end of this year five

sons who have graduated. One's wearing a beard up there.

There is one subject, I would like you to listen very carefully

because we now have in British Columbia four universities and two of

them have had a great deal of trouble; three of them had a great deal

of trouble as far as presidents are concerned. Now I know that no

layman is supposed to talk about university life, but in any case this

is something very close to my heart and I feel that we have in our

Province of British Columbia now, three very fine universities.

University of British Columbia is recognised across Canada as one of

the finest universities within the Dominion and I may say that the last

two presidents that the University of British Columbia has had created

a certain amount of difficulties. I'll leave it at that.

Lo and behold, after going all over the world to find a president

they finally found, right on the faculty of the University of British

Columbia, a one Walter Gage. I may tell you he's an outstanding

professor because he got me through first year of math. That was quite

an accomplishment.

Walter Gage took over that university at very trying and difficult

times and has put it right on its feet. Now I know because last fall

Walter Gage told me that he is not going to continue in office very

much longer. I hope he stays on a good four or five years more. But the

point I wish to make is this, that when Walter Gage retires, let's not

send the governors of the University of British Columbia all over the

world looking for…

AN HON. MEMBER: A lame duck.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No, I won't say a lame duck. Looking for

another president. Why not take a good look at the faculty members they

have now? I may say I don't wish to put the kiss of death on anybody,

but I know that there are very many deans at the University of British

Columbia that could fill that job if they were only given the

opportunity and I may say that I know from personal experience that the

dean of the Faculty of Commerce could fill that job on the retirement

of Walter Gage.

Now as far as the University of Victoria is concerned, we have had a

duplication — they say that history repeats itself. Well it has as far

as the University of Victoria is concerned because we went all over

Canada looking for presidents and as you know we have had some trouble.

I am not going to adjudicate on whose fault it was, but I know this

much, that in the University of Victoria, right now, we have an acting

president in Hugh Farquhar and I don't think you could find a better

president for the University of Victoria if you went across Canada and

then the United States.

Let's give him a chance, let's confirm him. We can't do it, it must

be done by the governors, but let the governors take a good look at

Hugh Farquhar and let the University of Victoria proceed along the

lines of being a real university for the capital City of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure whether I'm following a Minister or a hiring agency.

Mr. Speaker, the budget came out and a few days later on February 8 an ad was inserted in the paper, in the Vancouver Sun

and in that ad they outline some of the highlights of the budget. The

companion piece for that ad, however, is the ad right beside it. It's

an ad of the Beledune Fertilizer Company Ltd. I wonder if it's

significant, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR COCKE: Both related to growth.

Mr. Speaker, since the Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi),

just spoke up, it reminded me that I would like to set the record

straight in the House with respect to the nomination of the public

accounts committee. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) indicated

that the Member for New Westminster declined the nomination for

chairman of the public accounts committee.

In a very private conversation with only two or three present prior

to the late assembling of that committee, the Member for Vancouver

Centre, the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan) and myself decided that

it would be an idea to worry the Member for Dewdney and the Member for

Vancouver Centre agreed to nominate me providing I gave a promise that

I would decline the nomination and as an honourable man I declined the

nomination.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to once again get back to that old office

building in New Westminster. We would be only too happy if the

government would see fit to do the thing that is necessary in New

Westminster and that is build the proper size office building and

renovate the old Court House. We don't want to see the old Court House

relegated to the hammer. We would like to see the old Court House

renovated — it's in a disgraceful condition but we would like to see it

renovated and across the street in city-owned property a proper office

building to accommodate some of the lower

[ Page 367 ]

mainland offices that are spread out all over Coquitlam, New Westminster, Surrey, et cetera.

We feel that this would be a good move on behalf of the government

and we feel that it's long overdue. There is no excuse for this very

rich government to have a Court House that looks like a Court House

belonging to some banana republic.

Just to go along a bit, I would like to discuss just for a second, one or two items that were in the budget.

One, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the increase in the home-owner's

grant. I for one, and I'm sure the rest of our caucus are quite happy

and welcome this on behalf of the people in our own constituencies, I

am particularly happy about the $50 for old age pensioners.

I am at a loss however, as to what's going to be done about tenants.

I noticed that in the last election the candidate for the Social Credit

Party in New Westminster announced a tenants' grant. I'm suggesting,

not as he did, but I am suggesting that tenants' situation should be

looked into and that they should certainly be given voting rights in

this province and they should certainly be given other consideration by

this government and it seems to me that they have been overlooked.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver Centre, followed me around and listened to my comments.

One other matter that we should straighten out on the record is some

criticism that was levelled after the throne debate with respect to the

non-contributory pension plan that was part of the McGavin's

Toastmaster pension for their employees.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I will not apologise, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell the

facts as they are and let that Minister of Labour afterwards make his

comments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Labour nor

those other critics of the pension plan know much about pension plans.

I've been involved in them for some 20-odd years.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, during the throne debate, I indicated

that it was a non-contributory plan. I indicated also, Mr. Speaker,

that it was a negotiated, non-contributory plan and that all of the

people that got that pension plan accepted that pension plan in lieu of

increased wages. It was not given to them as a matter of largesse, as

far as those men were concerned that was a fringe benefit that they

were entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, the men accepted this in lieu of wages and that's all

there is to it. Now I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

robbery aspect that pension benefits did not go to these 48 men.

Legally the money was not misdirected and I never suggested it was. I

suggested, Mr. Speaker, that morally it was improper. I suggested there

should be rules, laws in our province that cover exactly that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's precisely my situation.

Another critic about what I had to suggest said that the trust is

intact. We do have rules about that in this province and the trust is

intact, no question, nobody asked that. The trust is satisfied but the

men are dissatisfied.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I certainly have not, Mr. Speaker. It is not

uncommon and I know with 20 years experience, while that member was

working elsewhere, that it is not uncommon to deprive workers of

pension benefits.

It's a process that should be stopped by legislation. That's all I'm

suggesting. I'm not suggesting that Toastmaster or anybody else is

alone in this thing. I'm just saying that we better have rules and that

Minister, Mr. Speaker, isn't going to help the workers of this

province. You can tell that, right now.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR COCKE: Minister of Labour, Minister of Labour! That's an

odd one. Mr. Speaker, one other question with respect to the criticism,

the severance pay. Now surely, the Minister of Labour knows that

severance pay negotiated has no relationship whatsoever to the pension

plan. Surely, what relevance has that? None, whatsoever. So I just want

to clear these things up.

Another Member, the Member for Burrard, unfortunately he is not in

his chair, was talking about a carrier for this pension plan and that

you cannot work with carriers. Mr. Speaker, let me say that that was a

trustee pension plan, no carrier involved. Three trustees, all

management trustees. The union members did not even have a person

representing them on the trustees. So let's not kid ourselves about

that situation.

In conclusion about that particular item let me suggest hard and

fast rules as they have in Alberta, as they have in Saskatchewan, as

they have in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, there was question on the orders of the day, question

97. I don't want to make much of an issue of this but I would like to

go on record as suggesting to the Honourable Attorney General that

insurance companies in the province be informed as to the laws of the

province with respect to their obligations toward beneficiaries, in

this province.

We have a file that dates back to November 8. In this file is a

letter a man wrote to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition

asking that his case be taken up by the Leader of the Opposition

because of the fact that he had not received a $1,500 death benefit on

behalf of his son because the son was driving a motorcycle.

Give the company credit, the B.C. Automobile Association do have

another plan that does pay a death benefit outside of the laws of B.C.

but it does not include motorcycles. But the problem is they did not

recognise that this young man should be covered under the basic rule of

this province.

So the Leader of the Opposition checked it out, took it up with the

Attorney General's department, and after this correspondence and so on

and so forth the insurance company agreed to pay the claim and were

very nice about it.

However, it is our opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the

question on the orders of the day — since it says that the other

companies have not so far been notified as to the

[ Page 368 ]

beneficiary status of a child or a parent of a child living at home

— we would suggest rather strongly that they are notified of this

matter.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I made reference to the fact that the

municipalities of British Columbia are suffering. Despite the

Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, he's very loquacious about

municipalities and all they're getting, but the Honourable Minister

that just sat down indicated that also municipalities are doing fine

according to some of their mayors.

I'll suggest to you, however, that the lower mainland mayors and

other mayors are not talking that way. Mr. Speaker, they indicate that

any increase in their municipalities' government assistance is eaten up

by their increase in population. Now, when the Premier talks about

unemployment in the province, the Premier says, it's because they come

here from everywhere. They come here from the Prairies, they come here

from heaven knows where.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Premier use the same kind of reasoning

when he's dealing with a municipality? Why doesn't he recognise that

the municipalities in this province also have those problems if in fact

they're that great?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the municipalities had better be

considered, otherwise there is going to be a lot of them in

receivership in this province and that would be too bad. One other

thing, Mr. Speaker, while I'm still dealing with some of the past

speakers — guaranteed annual income. The Premier was commended all over

the place last night by the Honourable Lady Minister as having been the

one first and only to extoll guaranteed annual income.

April 7, 1967, that was long before this was ever announced by the

Honourable Premier, the Member from Cowichan was addressing a meeting

in North Vancouver and he told supporters in North Vancouver that a

guaranteed income proposal was designed to eliminate poverty and

continuing income must be available to those who are unable to work. A

guaranteed annual income scheme in its most basic form would provide

for payment of whatever amount of money is needed to provide a person a

decent subsistence each year, the Opposition leader said.

Mr. Speaker, that was April 7, 1967. Once again they're stealing our

thunder. But we don't mind, we are the conscience of this country.

Thank heaven we're here, Mr. Speaker.

While I deal with the Honourable Member from Little Mountain (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) I would just like to recall last night that the

Honourable Member said last Friday's budget could be an election budget

— and I'm quoting from the paper — and said if it turns out to be,

Social Credit will be returned to power on the policies it sets out.

In this House she reiterates it, right in the House. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that election bribery should not be considered in the House.

We should not be setting budgets. That's corruption, if we're setting

budgets to win elections. That's an odd way to do it and particularly

to announce it. When elected members brag in this House about winning

elections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think on consideration of the

Member's statement "bribery and corruption" while they weren't directly

imputed as motives of the government, I think there was enough material

in what he did say that he must withdraw them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to withdraw them. I

still say it is a sad state of affairs however when we use budgets in

this House to please people at election time. Mr. Speaker, why isn't it

suggested at other times? Why isn't it being done?

Last year was not an election year, it was a tax increase year,

that's all I can remember. Mr. Speaker, it was a tax increase year.

Health care, by its very nature, is one of the utmost importance to

all people of this province. Everyone is interested in the subject on

which their very lives depend. In B.C. we have a Crown Prince of health

care who obviously feels that the people have no right to know the

direction this government has chosen in this important area. The

Minister of Health has successfully confused everyone from the doctor

and other health care workers to the consumer — you and I, Mr. Speaker.

We are confused because the whole subject has been distorted by a

series of battles provoked by this Minister. We can draw no other

conclusion than to assume the government may have no solutions to

health care problems. If the Minister has a policy let him say so. If

the government have a direction let them show it, let them show the way.

November 17, 1971. Health Minister Munro met with the provincial health

Minister, and at that time he indicated exactly how they were going to

phase out their present arrangements. He said within 17 months, we

better get on course. A new financial arrangement is in the offing.

This was no surprise, everyone knew the cost-sharing formula would be

subsequently changed, substantially changed.

Instead of negotiating, consulting, and working with health care

people in this province the government has been lashing out at

hospitals, doctors or whoever comes in sight. The softening-up process

is a loser, Mr. Speaker. In this case particularly, because the

solution must come from cooperation not confrontation.

There are two federal Acts involved in the forth coming change. The

Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care

Insurance Act are to be exchanged for new legislation in 1973. The

change will require a reduction of the rate of increase in cost. This

will require streamlining of our system. The system involves people and

they are in the dark, Mr. Speaker. That's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, here's a quote out of the Special Report by D.A. Geekie in the C.M.A. Journal .

Should the federal government's proposal become a reality, the

resultant legislation could rank in importance for its effect on health

care in Canada with legislation that made universal comprehensive, etc.

hospital and medical care insurance a reality in this country.

Everybody is keen on hospital insurance, everybody's keen on

medicare. Oh, how hard our party had to fight for that in the first

place. Oh yes, oh yes, it was the good old red herring in the old days,

now it's great and it's clean but it has to be streamlined.

The Government of B.C. takes credit for the financing of health care. Let's take a look at the facts.

In financing B.C.N.I.S., in only one of the last fiscal years has

the provincial share been larger than the federal share — that's why

they're uptight. That was in 1966-67. That year the federal share was

$42,805,862 of a total of $91 million plus. In 1967-68 the federal

share was $57.5 million of a total of $108.5 million. In 1968-69 the

federal share was $71,312,000 out of a total of $134,679,000 — again

over half. In '69-'70 the federal share was $80,956,000 out of a total

of $180,637,000 — again well over half.

[ Page 369 ]

Now let's look at medicare. Here we have three divisions basically.

In the case of medicare in '69 a total of $86 million was spent,

$86,527,059. Of that $49 million came from subscribers' premiums, $21

million came from Ottawa and the remainder from interest on investments

and roughly $15 million from the Government of B.C.

In 1970 $123 million, that was the total, $67.9 million from

premiums, $36,116,000 from Ottawa, $1,729,000 from interest and only

$17 million from B.C., from provincial funds.

And in '71, it was roughly the same — $144,665,000. Premiums

accounted for $73,650,000, Ottawa provided $53,935,000 and interest

accounted for another $2 million. B.C. put up $16.9 million.

In all of this B.C. isn't doing too badly. B.C. — the government

that cries out that the federal government is taking us down the garden

path.

In medicare we've only been around the $17 million mark, over the

last three years, while Ottawa climbed from $47 to $73.5 million during

the same period. Now Mr. Speaker, I'd say that the Minister is nervous

because he's running a show that will soon have to produce results.

Judging from his track record he's got a long way to go, Mr. Speaker.

Much overhauling will have to be done in order to keep the costs of

health care in line in the future. The people can only stand so much

drain on their pocketbooks, as long as the government dips into the

poor more deeply than the wealthy the load is just too cumbersome.

It's obvious, however, we will not enjoy a properly organised system

as long as there are divisions such as there are. The Minister of

Health should be directly responsible for the three divisions of health

and also the Medical Care Commission which is now part of the

Provincial Secretary's department — a Minister of Health with a senior

deputy minister to co-ordinate all departments, to co-ordinate all

departments. They're running in all directions at the same time.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, our setup in health is built inadequately.

If we had a plan to subvert the efforts of those delivering health care

in this province we couldn't improve on the present aimless structure.

The problem with our structure is that it provides autonomy at the top

and rigid control at the bottom. Very worst possible system. Each

division of health care has to fight for its financial survival because

of a lack of coordination. The duplication of service and the lack of

interdepartmental planning are ruining what could be a great Department

of Health. The health services in B.C. are governed by a reign of

terror, Mr. Speaker. The people involved in the delivery of health care

are afraid of reprisal.

The government has failed to act in a responsible way. The people of

the province suffer the results of this government's total incompetence

in health care, Mr. Speaker.

The Crown Prince of health care in B.C. has turned out to be a court

jester, Mr. Speaker. Just because a jester may provide humour for the

king doesn't make him funny to the people. The joke is on the people

and they're not laughing. Mr. Speaker, in the days of the jester the

witch doctor was also in vogue. The question arises: does the health of

the province rest in a steaming cauldron or tinkling bells and coloured

ribbons that so often please the king?

How will the health department and the Provincial Secretary's department react

to the new cost sharing formula, Mr. Speaker? Will they be able to cooperate

to the point that they can take advantage of our share of the $640 million "thrust

fund"? This fund will run concurrently with the new proposed five year

agreement. The fund will be based on a per capita basis, therefore we can look

forward to $64 million plus out of this fund. I believe the money could be used

constructively if we only had a co-ordinated health system in B.C.

Just one or two suggestions for long-term improvement in health

care. Here is an idea to save some money, Mr. Speaker. Eliminate the

collection agency system for medicare premiums; three collection

agencies. Now, more than ever, since our Finance Minister has been

outfoxed by the former Minister of Finance of Canada we need to switch

the method of financing medicare. Mr. Benson's new Tax Act provides

taxation on medicare premiums. This means an increase in income tax to

all who had employers paying a portion of their premium. The obvious

way to turn is to accept all medicare moneys in one place. There is no

need for these agencies collecting premiums, Mr. Speaker. The best and

fairest means for all the people of the province is to use general

revenue as the source of all medicare revenue, Mr. Speaker.

I go to the budget of 1954, this government's budget in 1954. The

Finance Minister at that time, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. This is what he

says when he was discussing — he set a precedent — Mr. Speaker, he was

discussing at that time hospital insurance. This is the same idea. At

that time we were paying a premium and this is what the Premier said:

"The present plan is replete with conditions. It is neither

a welfare nor an insurance plan. It cannot be made a composite of the two without

creating distortions and inequalities or without requiring exorbitant administrative

costs. From the welfare viewpoint it fails to protect adequately the low income

group and seasonally employed, the unemployed and all of their dependents. From

an insurance viewpoint it fails in its purpose because true insurance premiums

must reflect actuarially and constantly current cost experience and because

a province-wide compulsory plan would require a constant consensus of the population

with a means test and an army of enforcement agents.

Any hospital insurance

plan sponsored and operated by the government must not fail to meet with acrimonious

and bitter opposition if the benefits it provides are not universally and equally

distributed and its cost to the people is not fairly distributed in accordance

with the ability to pay of the individual. It is therefore obvious that such

fixed premiums as are now imposed are nothing more or less than a head or a

poll tax which are totally unrelated to actuarial need or economic work, that

the premiums in some instances create oppressive burdens whilst in other instances

they favour unduly those in the higher income levels."

Now, Mr. Speaker, as an aside I suggest there there has been some

consideration given in our present plan. But not the kind of

consideration that I suggest is completely just. The logical solution,

the Premier went on to say:

"therefore is the abolition of premiums and the

imposition of a tax levy with an incidence that reflects in the most

equitable manner possible the income currently available to the people."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that works out better with Ottawa and

it works out better in our own situation. We don't need any more sales

tax, we don't need any other kind of taxes. This government has

indicated very clearly that the money is there. The future, I hope,

will change the whole

[ Page 370 ]

medicare system but for the time being let's streamline what we have

and save millions of wasted dollars by this simple process, Mr. Speaker.

A second way to conserve funds in the health area would be a

concentration on preventive care. Students of the delivery of health

care have found that the most costly service follows where the least

preventive care is done.

The very basis of medicare shows a lack of interest in preventive

care. The present plan does not provide for paid check-ups. It's clear

that a disease or illness diagnosed early is usually much less

expensive than one diagnosed late. There are many forms of preventive

care — each should be thoroughly researched. Admittedly, as long as we

live in a system that encourages poverty we will live with sickness,

Mr. Speaker, the incidence of illness among the poor and the need for

medical care for that group leaves no doubt in one's mind.

We don't however, have health care people taking the service to the

poor. We wait until an acute situation develops and work from there,

Mr. Speaker.

There is a tremendous imbalance when 95 per cent of the health

expenditures go to treatment and 5 per cent go to prevention. That's

our problem. If there were only some importance placed on personal

training in nutrition, exercise and hygiene, what a difference it would

make. We can't hope to make a start in prevention when all our efforts

are directed towards treatment, Mr. Speaker.

If there is any doubt in our minds about the need for prevention,

let's look at some other statistics, Mr. Speaker. In 1967 B.C.'s

hospital admissions per 1,000 were 170. Judging from last year's report

it hasn't changed significantly. In 1970, the Group Health cooperative

of Puget Sound had admissions of 85.5 per 1,000 in their hospital.

Our average length of stay was 9.7 days last year in hospital, once

admitted. Group Health cooperative was 4.7 days length of stay. Half

the admission, half the length of stay.

You know what they say? They suggest why, one of the many good

reasons why other than the fact that this is a very effective system.

This by the way is the annual report of the Group Health Clinic which covers a great many people in the State of Washington.

The Group Health cooperative have over 135,000 members including

welfare recipients — 4,000-odd welfare recipients that are noted. The

comparison shows there is a great deal of difference and to quote their

annual report, part of the difference is preventive care and I want to

quote their report, Mr. Speaker.

Hospital care is the single most expensive service for most people

in the United States. Group Health's emphasis is on preventive medical

care which reduces the necessity of costly hospital stays. The savings

in hospital costs promoted by Group Health System are passed on to its

consumers.

Now, that's what they say, Mr. Speaker, and it's reflected in all of

the group health plans virtually throughout all of North America and I

suggest we take a darned good look at them.

Now we ask our Minister of Health: where do we go from here? Surely

not more of the same. For the help of the Minister, here are some

essential principles that might help him govern a health care

programme. Principles that are basic, we suggest.

(1) To establish unity in fiscal control of public expenditures on health care. That's all health care.

(2) To utilise fiscal control to bring about major improvements in

organisations and delivery of health care, Mr. Speaker, something like

this.

(3) To establish a working partnership between the public and

private sectors of health care through public financing and

administrative guidance accompanied by provisions of personal health

services through private practitioners, institutions, and other

providers of health care.

(4) To provide comprehensive health care as a right — a basic right, Mr. Speaker.

(5) To favour prevention and early detection over concentrating on treating established illness.

(6) To ensure proper management of health care services with participation by all interested parties.

(7) To ensure the operation of a dualistic system — not arbitrary,

not one-sided, not this kind of stuff that we're ramming down peoples'

throats — but a dualistic system to permit choice for both the public

and the providers and an opportunity for development and a study of new

forms. I suggest this works out much better than confrontations.

(8) To ensure the provision of an adequate number of well-trained

health workers and to correct maldistribution that we have now and is

being talked about.

(9) To involve the health professional education and other training

centres more heavily in community needs.

(10) To assist health regions

and local areas in health-care planning, construction and operation by

the provision of adequate high-level consultative services. This can be

done in this province very easily.

(11) Finally, that the doctor has the right to treat patients and the patient has the right to the doctor of his choice.

Mr. Speaker, condemnation of our present system is that the

increasing costs of health care are not producing an increase in life

expectancy. That's the condemnation of our system.

Any changes must be brought about by cooperation. The system can be

changed but negotiation is the key. Negotiation is the key. I hope the

Labour Minister listened to that. Unfortunately in most of its dealings

this government has not seen fit to negotiate. I urge them strongly to

learn the meaning of the word and employ it.

The need for group health clinics or health centres is obvious in

this province, Mr. Speaker. The track record of established centres in

North America is so much better by comparison there can be no argument.

We don't however, have to eliminate one system to begin a new one. Back

to the principles, in the health care programme that I suggested — a

dualistic system is a must. There are those in the public and

professions who will not change or who will not wish to change. For

those who do require or wish for a change let's encourage them, right

now. Let's give them an opportunity to participate.

A community clinic will not work effectively under a fee-for-service

system, however. For them — and I'm only isolating them — for them a

system of capitation financing must be provided. I think they run

hand-in-hand together. The community clinic should receive a fixed sum

of money on behalf of each subscriber and also should receive a portion

of the savings which their hospital enjoys, as a result. That's the way

they work best. The clinic therefore must be directly connected with a

hospital.

[ Page 371 ]

Here is a long interview, Mr. Speaker, if any of the Ministers would

like to see it, they're working in Ontario as we know. There's clinics

going in St. Catherines already. There's a clinic in the Soo and now

there's a clinic suggested for Ottawa.

This is an excellent interview with two of the people that are

starting that clinic. They suggest some of the things that happen, when

they're asked about doctors' participation. Here's Dr. Law's answer to

Mr. Campbell's question.

"I would say that the most attractive feature for a

young professional is the wide range of back-up services available. I

think there is a real opportunity to practice high-quality medicine in

a health centre where you have not only the diagnostic facilities but

other health professionals. The fact that there is a ready consultation

with a wide variety of specialists, the fact that you have public

health nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists and other people working

in health centres — these are the reasons. This is something that would

obviously be very difficult to attain, certainly in solo practice, and

it is probably not as common even in group practice to have quite that

range of facilities available."

Dr. Tulchinski answers the same question by going on to say:

"One of the problems of general practice is isolation.

This tends to have a deteriorating effect on the maintenance of

standards in a solo situation where the doctor is relatively isolated

from other professionals. Young physicians should be encouraged to

enter group practice with more experienced physicians. I think that

this effect of introducing practitioners into practice with that kind

of support is increased through the community health centre as opposed

to the other types of practice, in the sense that the orientation is

preventive.

"There is a rotation on volume and services required

of an individual physician so that he has time to study and time to

devote to himself. I think that another thing is the fact that when he

is off he knows somebody else in charge of his patients. The

physician's

schedule becomes regularised."

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying, right now we are overworking

our doctors. Much of the work they do has little to do with health

care. Too much of their time is taken up with work which could be done

by nurses or medical assistants et cetera.

Presently there is a real case for doctors' assistants in the rural

areas as well. The Registered Nurses Association of B.C. made a good

case for utilisation of highly-trained nurses as doctors' assistants.

We should be looking at situations where nurses are involved in small

communities in a way that they can spot illness before it goes too far.

There is a good case to be made for the nurse to work for the district

and be paid by the government.

The nurse could build an information network which could provide

the information needed regarding the health of individuals of that

community. She could be called upon to provide preliminary medical

assistance and see to it that the people are directed to a doctor at

the appropriate time. This is the type of preventive service which

would very well start bringing the statistics into line, Mr. Speaker.

A statistic to remember from the Croll Report that was talked about

yesterday, the Croll Report on Poverty, is that 25 per cent of the

people have 75 per cent of the illness. It's no secret that there is a

shortage of doctors in some areas of the province. The Minister has

reacted to this situation arbitrarily. Rather than set up a climate of

cooperation he has provided confrontation. Serious discussions with

doctors and educators should have been more to the point. There are

some rather obvious ways to help solve the problem of lack of medical

care in the outposts. One could be to subsidise by providing a

guaranteed annual income to those doctors, Mr. Speaker. Along with this

could be an assist in providing necessary facilities for those young

doctors.

Another long-term plan could be to subsidise the education of

medical students and asking in return service for a certain period of

time from those graduated. A government who really cares would not

leave their people without health. It seems right now the government is

moving in the opposite direction.

Clinical clerks — for those who don't know that's medical students — in their medical years have been cut off the budget of the hospitals,

right now. The stipend for clinical clerks was an important

contribution. During their time out of university they were able to

supplement their education and provide some good service. It would

appear that they were trying to drive them into unrelated jobs during

their time off. Let me read you a letter from the Vancouver General

Hospital to one of this year's clinical clerks:

The funds available for the payment of house staff have been sharply

curtailed. As the funding of clinical clerks has never been accepted by

funding authorities as a reimbursable part of the hospital's expenses

unless it could be provided within the authorised house staff budget,

it is with profound regret that this hospital must withdraw from making

such payments when the present class of clinical clerks are through

their clerkship.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that:

This is to advise that this hospital will cease paying stipends

to the present clinical clerks at the end of the clinical clerkship of the present

class of May 31, 1972, and as of March 20, 1972, when the next class of clinical

clerks commences, it will cease reimbursements of other hospitals and institutions

in the province that have been accepting clinical clerks for elective programmes

in clinical training. Yours sincerely, Lawrence E. Ranta, M.D., D.P.H.

Mr. Speaker, what direction are we heading? These men are helping

provide, at a very low rate too, I might suggest, they are providing a

great service at a very, very minimal rate and we're trying our best to

eliminate an assist that we have now in health care in the province.

It's time to broaden medical training not narrow it, Mr. Speaker. I

call on the government to cooperate and build a truly great health care

service.

Not only should communication with health care authorities be going

on but also communication with the public. There has been a gradual

exclusion of the public in decision making. The government must reverse

its trend. Participation is the key to better service, Mr. Speaker.

Involvement at all levels provides the kind of cooperation I've been

talking about. This government claims to be interested in guaranteed

annual income. Comprehensive, all-inclusive health care is part of such

a guaranteed annual income plan, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was interesting and perhaps should be noted, the

[ Page 372 ]

visit last night of the Boy Scouts up in the Speaker's gallery who

had apparently heard of the Premier's counter-challenge to the Leader

of the Opposition. And since the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't go

to the Boy Scouts, they came to him last night.

The speaker who preceded me this afternoon said that this budget has

been described as an election budget, and somehow this was very immoral

and wrong and that people shouldn't be bribed. He used some other words

which I won't repeat because he was asked not to use them.

However, his memory is very short because I remember the first time

I sat in this House, following the 1969 election, and the first budget

that this government brought down following that election was also

described as an election budget. And one had just been held the year

before.

Now, the Hon. Member for New Westminster spoke at length in his

remarks on health care and we would all agree that that is one subject

that isn't just measured in dollars, I think that this government's

record in new hospitals and special facilities that have been

constructed stands very well.

But you can't get away from the costs that are involved, and the

fact stands out in this budget that of the increase of $151 million

over last year, $49 million is going to health care services with half

of that figure for hospitals. And he made mention of the $600 million

thrust fund that the federal government is proposing as an attempt to

remove itself from present arrangements with respect to financing in

health care fields. With a thrust fund, the federal government proposes

a percentage of the Gross National Product to the provinces and then

for a five-year carrying period they would put up an extra $600 million

which sounds like a huge amount but this province would only receive

$60 million.

Our share would be 10 per cent of the $600 million. And that just

covers two years of the increase of this province each year. And so

it's the cheese on the trap. The federal government is just funding for

two years to get out of five years.

You know there's been comment during the session from the Opposition benches directed towards the cabinet of this government.

We heard the First Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) the

other day refer to supernumerary cabinet Ministers. I looked up the

meaning of the word and it says, "being in excess of the usual number."

Well, there's a fellow in our Press gallery here by the name of Lloyd

Mackey who writes a column "Provincial Perspectives" which is

distributed and carried in about 25 newspapers in the province, and in

reading through some of the papers in the library I found that he makes

reference to the N.D.P. and he says: "Back to Barrett for a second. He

announced this session's shadow cabinet last week," and I will list

just a few of the N.D.P. counter — portfolios for your reference: Mines

— Leo Nimsick, Barrett, and Bill Hartley. Three of them to do the job

of one man. Lands and Forests — Robert Williams and Robert Strachan.

Two of them to do the job of one man. Industrial Development — Mr.

Strachan and Dennis Cocke. Two of them again to do the job of one man

in this government. And it also requires two apparently to look after

Municipal Affairs.

You know, a couple of sessions ago there was a column read in this

House that was written by "yours truly," I believe the Minister of

Municipal Affairs called him. It was written by the Member for Kootenay

(Mr. Nimsick). Well, there's also a column I dug out of the library

that is written by, I would say, "little Sir Echo". This is the Leader

of the official Opposition (Mr. Barrett). And this column is called

"Echoes from the House," and it's one that he writes in the Enterprise

which serves the Coquitlam area in his constituency.

This column appeared on March 4 last year. Now, late in the evening

of March 4 or very early morning of March 5 something happened in this

House. You remember that particular Member left us for a little while.

And here's what he said in public print the day of the evening that he

left us. He said:

"The rules make it very clear while a Member has the

right to ask questions, no Minister has to answer the question. A

Member can ask a question. If he receives no answer and repeats the

question he is gavelled down by the Chairman and must proceed with some

other point or sit down."

That's what he was saying the day of the fourth but that isn't what he was following the evening of the fourth.

Now this budget that we're debating here and will be until the vote

is held, has something for everyone. Even those with their eyes cast

towards the tenants' vote, and the mayoralty race in Vancouver this

coming December have been able to find issues to their liking.

I note that the leader of what's left of the Liberal Party isn't

here, but their listening post is and perhaps it might be of some

interest, because I think that when the leader of the Liberal Party

goes out into the province on periodic tours I'm sure he comes back and

he tells them how great things are going to be for the Liberal Party

out in the country. And I just wonder maybe they should know the

reaction he gets as he goes out about the country.

For example, in Nelson earlier this year he described the

transportation facilities in the area as lousy. He said the airport "is

the most unreliable in western Canada. Transportation in the Kootenays

has been held back by Socred policies which, for example, allowed an

airport in an unsuitable location to remain there." Obviously it's

under federal jurisdiction. If he's not trying to fool the people he's

obviously very misinformed himself. So the Trail Times , in an editorial

entitled "McGeer the Magnificent," felt called upon to answer it. And

they commented that Kootenay voters must be sadly disappointed by the

condescending attitude of Mr. McGeer to the problems of this province

and those of the rural taxpayer.

It continues:

Mr. McGeer claims Provincial Secretary Wesley Black has neglected his Nelson-Creston

riding. New Nelson access, a multi-million dollar government building, toll

free bridges and ferries. Neglect? And how about this gem from the mouth of

Mr. McGeer: "This area was opened for resources half a century ago. Had

there been good government policies there would be now manufacturing and secondary

industry in the area."

And the editorial points out for his information that the provincial

government of British Columbia in 1912 was not Social Credit but

Liberal under the Premiership of that great B.C. grit "Honest John

Oliver".

So obviously he goes about very badly misinformed and the country

knows it and that is why the Liberals' numbers are going to be further

decreased when the time comes to go to the people, and what seats they

salvage will be in the "fat cat" areas. This type of reaction, Mr.

Speaker, is continuing because we've heard the Liberal group over there

concern themselves with the problems of the City of Nelson with the

Kootenay canal plant. The reaction of the very responsible

[ Page 373 ]

newspaper in the Kootenays the Nelson Daily News, is as follows:

It was inevitable. Victoria has started playing politics with

Nelson's future prosperity. The city's struggle with Hydro to get an

increased water licence to produce power has come to the attention of

the Opposition Members in the Legislature. And seeing Nelson's underdog

status in the struggle government critics have latched onto the

issue… Government must be convinced that this issue is

non-partisan as far as Nelson is concerned.

And they obviously aren't too happy with their newfound friends from

the Liberal Party who suddenly decided they want to interest themselves

in the affairs of the City of Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, there are three items I want to touch on today. One

deals with power development north of Revelstoke, progress on Mica dam

and proposals for development on further sites along the river above

Revelstoke. Second, the proposal for a Minister of the Environment, not

a Department of the Environment, and third, certain occurrences within

my riding that I would like to touch on.

As Members of this House are well aware two of the Columbia treaty

projects are located within my constituency: Duncan dam in the Lardeau

Valley and Mica north of Revelstoke. I'm informed by B.C. Hydro that

the storage facilities for Mica dam will be operable on April I of next

year as required by the treaty, while construction of the dam itself is

expected to be completed by October 31 of next year.

Now employment figures are of interest, particularly to my

constituents, and to those that are employed on that huge project. The

initial civil contract on the power house is expected to be awarded

this month and anticipated employment figures for Mica dam are 1,400 to

1,500 men this coming June and 800 to 900 in September. Because the

driving of access tunnels will be under way this coming winter,

employment at the project is expected to be higher this winter than in

any previous winter.

With regard to next year there will likely be between 1,200 and

1,300 men employed on the project in the summer of 1973 while

underground work during the winter of '73-'74 will likely see 1,000 men

working throughout that period.

Now, the clearing of the Mica reservoir under the very commendable

$12 million project which was announced in November by Dr. Shrum will

likely see some additional 200 people employed for quite some period of

time. And that $12 million figure is equal to the cost of clearing the

Arrow reservoir behind Hugh Keenleyside dam. It will provide for the

clearing of the Mica reservoir to 20 feet below normal high water.

First generation is planned at Mica for 1976-77 and the Mica power

house will ultimately produce some 2 million kilowatts with units

coming on line into the 1980's. Cost of the generating facilities for

Mica dam have been estimated at $339 million in 1977 and $145 million

for transmission facilities, for a grant total on this aspect of the

project alone of $484 million.

Mr. Speaker, of interest of course to the province but most specifically to

Revelstoke and the whole Revelstoke-Slocan constituency are plans for further

power development on the Columbia north of Revelstoke. I have a letter from

the city council of the City of Revelstoke. This motion passed by them was adopted

unanimously, and it reads as follows:

That the City of Revelstoke petitions the Provincial Government, strongly urging

said government to immediately make further studies of the proposed Downey Creek

and Revelstoke Canyon dam with the main aim being of an early implementation

construction programme.

I personally, Mr. Speaker, look forward to the report of the B.C.

Energy Board in May because as is indicated in that letter from the

City of Revelstoke, there have been two proposals — Revelstoke Canyon

and Downey Creek. However, I understand that one of the possibilities

that is being considered by the B.C. Energy Board is the dropping of

any plans for a dam at Downey Creek in favour of the building of a

higher dam at Revelstoke Canyon than was first proposed.

This latter site, some five miles above Revelstoke, would involve

the building of a 400-foot-high dam that would have a reservoir backing

up right up to Mica dam. I understand that some site investigation has

been done to determine if a high Revelstoke dam would be feasible, and

I look forward with anticipation — as do my constituents — to the

Energy Board's Report and any comments that they might make in this

regard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems that no public speech today is apparently

complete unless some reference is made to pollution control and the

protection of the environment. I think that I'll try and keep my

remarks fairly short on the subject, but I do want to have something to

say.

Under the Pollution Control Act enforced in this province, this

government — as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources well

explained last night — has developed a single agency concept with the

decision making based on multi-discipline and inter-agency

consultations.

This method is the most effective and efficient because it allows

integrated use of resources that are under provincial jurisdiction.

Consistent with this philosophy the government has established the land

use committee composed of a number of Ministers who meet under the

chairmanship of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Now, I have spoken in previous debates in this House, Mr. Speaker,

in opposition to suggestions for a separate department for the

environment and I remain opposed to that because, quite honestly, I

don't think such a department is practical. No Minister of a separate

environmental department can be fully effective when the matters with

which he must deal cross department lines and responsibilities so

completely, and I suggest the federal government has proven my point

with the establishment of its environmental department.

That is why I suggest the appointment of a provincial Minister of

the Environment but not the establishment of a separate environmental

department. To back that up we need only look at some of the

references that we've seen in the Press over the last little while from

Ottawa — the most recent being the granting of oil exploration rights

by the federal government to close to 3 million acres off the B.C.

coast, granting of rights which were described by the federal Minister

of the Environment as a mistake. He said that the permits ran counter

to an understanding he had with the then Minister of Mines and

Resources, Joe Greene, and with the Minister of External Affairs.

What was the reaction of the oil company concerns to that? They

called his claim ridiculous. They said that it was just a kick at a

political football. The president of the company concerned said that it

filed its permits in August and September and finally someone decided

to turn it into a political football in an election year.

[ Page 374 ]

This is a problem with a special department. There is not the

liaison afforded that is required and this is why I've been opposed to

a separate department.

Another example… Here in Victoria, on October 30 of last year,

the federal minister, Mr. Davis, spoke to the professional engineers

and his speech was full of contradictions. He started out by saying

that our environment is too important to be left to the

sensationalists. They have helped to focus public opinion on pollution

alright but now they are tending to overdo it. And he went on to refer

to the mercury scare. He said, suddenly, as a result of a breakthrough

in the detection of a minute amount of metal, we were able to detect

mercury in fractions of a part per million. As a result of this

breakthrough, he continued, we began to find mercury in one kind of

fish after another. We couldn't keep these facts from the public so we

tested shipment after shipment.

Yet, two years have passed and we are a lot wiser now. We know that

there are background levels of mercury in nature, we know that these

background levels vary from place to place, that they vary from one

species of fish to another and that they increase with the age of each

fish.

Mr. Speaker, that mercury scare was initiated by that Minister and

it was he who shot from the lip without the facts and first started

that mercury scare going before his own department had the opportunity

to properly look into it.

In the same speech, here in Victoria, he warned about super oil

tankers on the west coast and described how the breaking of a super

tanker near here could be 100 times more devastating than the firing of

the Cannikon device on Amchitka.

But one policy or one pose for the west coast — apparently another

pose or policy for the east coast. Because within days of the

Minister's speech here in Victoria pictures appeared in the Press of a

new terminal in the Canso Straits in Nova Scotia where it welcomed the

biggest tanker ever to cross the Atlantic.

That terminal would handle tankers of 326,000 deadweight tons. In

November of last year, again after the Minister of the Environment

warned about the danger of hauling oil by super tanker, a report came

out from the federal Public Works Department which said: "A deep-water

port able to accommodate the largest oil tankers in the world can be

constructed and operated year round in the western Arctic". This is a

public works report. "The feasibility study revealed to oil companies

in Calgary concludes that a marine oil terminal off Babbidge Bight is a

possibility."

It says it would be ideal to service both the north slope oil fields

of Alaska as well as any big producers located in the Mackenzie delta.

In environmental matters the federal Minister of the Environment

obviously doesn't know what is going in the federal government.

We don't want a department here that has, as his federal department

does, some 25,000 employees and seven deputy Ministers. In fact, the

federal Minister reminds me somewhat of like a eunuch in a harem. He

knows what he would like to do but in a good many cases he lacks the

wherewithal to do it.

Only through the liaison afforded through a committee such as we

have in this government can it be done. That's why I suggest that the

Minister of the Environment should be chairman of the land use

committee, which in turn would be given broadened and increased

responsibilities. The new Minister would have a staff, but in the main

he would work through co-ordinating the activities of various

departments through the liaison afforded with the Ministers making up

the membership of the land use committee.

I believe that this approach would be practical, efficient and

effective and would better focus public attention on a record in

environmental concern that deserves more recognition than it is

presently receiving.

Mr. Speaker, I now turn to a topic of particular interest and

importance in my own constituency. As Members of this House are well

aware, as recently as the 1950's and for far too many years before

that, residents of the West Kootenays — particularly those in the lower

Slocan Valley, the southern part of my riding — were second-class

citizens.

Now I refer to the position most residents, including the orthodox

Doukhobors, were placed in by the antics of the lunatic Sons of Freedom

minority. The Sons of Freedom engaged in all sorts of depredations

including the bombing of bridges and public buildings, the burnings of

private homes and schools.

Now the rest of us in the West Kootenays were placed in a

second-class citizenship category for a number of reasons — one of

which was the restriction on our freedom of movement. We were subject

to frequent roadblocks as the R.C.M.P. searched vehicles for dynamite

and other explosives.

But the second-class citizenship factor really involved the light

legal treatment given the Sons of Freedom until the mid-50's when this

government took office and the then Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, took

a much sterner attitude.

Until then the Sons of Freedom received light jail sentences — if

they received them at all — and few of them were convicted for burning

down either their own homes or those of their neighbours. No other West

Kootenay resident, or any other B.C. resident for that matter, would

have been treated so lightly. The Sons of Freedom were the first-class

citizens and we were the second-class citizens.

Now as for the matter of the Freedomite nude parades and the taking

off of their clothes while houses and public buildings burned, the only

section of the statutes of this province under which action could be

taken was that dealing with indecent acts.

That was

section 160 of the Act. So this government introduced

section 170 dealing with public nudity. It is this section, Mr.

Speaker, that I wish to comment on today because there is need in my

constituency for action under it.

The particular

section with which I differ is the fact that no

proceedings shall be commenced under this

section without the consent

of the Attorney General. It says that "everyone who, without lawful

excuse, is nude in a public place, or is nude and exposed to public

view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,

for the purpose of this

section a person is nude who is so clad as to

offend against public decency or order."

In our constituency we have an invasion of American hippies. We have

draft dodgers coming in. We have landed immigrants coming in. They are

going about, for example at the Appledale bridge in the Lower Slocan

Valley where they sun themselves. There are problems — and I will deal

with that in a little more detail, at the Nakusp Hot Springs. Action

hasn't been able to be taken because by the time informations are laid

with the R.C.M.P., and consent of the Attorney General is obtained,

these people have left for parts unknown and can't be traced down.

This is the problem. I'll just quote from the Arrow Lakes News , which is a weekly published in Nakusp. The editor of

[ Page 375 ]

that paper mentions getting a phone call and these are his words:

…from mild mannered Tony Bobicki last week following my

article on crowded campsites in the area. He, his wife, family and

friends went out to Whatshan Lake to camp a short time ago and found

that the hippies had completely taken over the Steven's Creek campsite.

For several years now people have been going out to the campsite on

weekends and taking the family for a truly enjoyable time. This year,

however, the hippies have moved in with broken-down vehicles bearing

foreign licence plates, unruly stock including goats, and indecent

selves. People have been turned away in droves from the once-pleasant

site. He reports that the goats' feed is kept in the change rooms, the

goats are allowed to roam free, and they wandered into the tent that

these people had.

The Grade 9 students of one of the schools in Nakusp went out on a

very commendable project to the Nakusp Hot Springs. A busload of them

went there with rakes, shovels, et cetera, to clean and tidy up the

grounds.

This letter, signed by the parents of these children, relates that

during the process of the project a bunch of hippies descended upon

this hot springs and completely disrobed and commenced frolicking in

the pool in the presence of the Grade 9 students.

We, as parents of these students very strongly object to having our

children subjected to this type of exposure and very urgently request

that you in your wisdom take immediate steps to eliminate this blight

which has enveloped our community. This is not an isolated incident.

One could find this type of behaviour on the part of hippies any day of

the week and we, the citizens of our community, find ourselves deprived

of the pleasures of enjoying the hot springs with our families

especially on weekends because of this detestable behaviour on the part

of a few parasites.

Mr. Speaker, I've had correspondence with the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation. I have related to him in correspondence the

complaints, both verbal and written, which I have received, and have

related to him in correspondence the incidents which personal friends

of mine have seen at the grounds of the Nakusp Hot Springs. I have

requested of him that a summer caretaker be provided there. I hope that

the Minister and his department are giving this request consideration

and I hope that it will be treated with action.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, that in this morning's mail,

already with the intent of speaking to this particular subject, I

received a letter from my very good friend, the former Member for

Kootenay, Mr. H.W. Herridge who wrote me on this very matter of the

Nakusp Hot Springs.

He says in his letter:

I hope you will forgive me as a former Liberal using this issue

at a meeting held by former Premier Pattulo in Nakusp in 1920. Of course, since

that time I've seen the light and have become a log cabin Socialist who is always

getting in dutch with the elite of our party and trade union leaders, etc. So

I'll make good — hopefully, Mr. Minister, with your help the promises made

by Mr. Pattulo so long ago.

Mr. Herridge includes the notice which was posted at the hot springs

in 1928, which he suggest should be followed as regulations at the

present time. This is a bit of a historical document so I won't give it

to the Hon. Minister, but I will make a photocopy.

There are several other matters of concern related to the same

subject, Mr. Speaker, and one is the matter of social assistance to

American immigrants. I think that it's right at this time to put the

procedure on the record and inform the constituents of the

Revelstoke-Slocan riding, particularly those in the Slocan Valley, of

the procedures which are followed in this regard. Under the sharing

agreement of all provinces with the federal government, they are

eligible to receive assistance on the same terms as other immigrants.

Financial assistance until first placement in employment is a

federal government responsibility. All immigrants to Canada requiring

assistance within five years of arrival are reported to immigration

authorities.

Now, the problem with this, of course, is that the immigration

department isn't usually able to do very much about returning them to

their place of origin. The problem, that is fairly well known, is that

any immigrant can appeal deportation and this process requires a

lengthy period of two or three years and the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement has often expressed its concern

about this to the federal government.

It is national government policy to give refuge to young Americans

who are eluding the draft and the problem also extends to immigrants

who have entered this country illegally, since national policies have

been permitting them to obtain landed immigrant status once within the

country, or at least to delay their return by appeal process. The

illegal immigrant, however, is not eligible to receive public

assistance. Now it's been the concern of the Department of

Rehabilitation for some time that Canadian Immigration policies are

much too open and the process of appeal far too lengthy.

The other matter that causes concern, again related to this, is the

problem of licensing motor vehicles brought into this province by

citizens of the United States and other landed immigrants.

Now the motor vehicle branch allows vehicles licensed outside of

British Columbia to be operated for 30 days after they enter the

province. But there are these hippies who operate these old vehicles,

many of which are definitely candidates for the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation's project SAM, and they operate them with

out-of-province, out-of-country licence plates.

While I appreciate the problem of the enforcement agencies in

knowing just when a vehicle did enter the country and therefore when

the 30 day period is up, nonetheless, I would hope that the enforcement

agencies will step up their enquiries in this regard in the lower

Slocan Valley and I hope that the people will come forward with licence

plate numbers and with specific complaints.

The last item with respect to this particular subject is the two

Acts, the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act and the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act . The Home-owner Grant Act provides a grant to any

owner, regardless of citizenship, who otherwise qualifies. And a person

is considered eligible who owns and is residing in a home which is on a

separate parcel of land, is assessed and taxed in the current year, and

is his ordinary residence.

Now, there is no citizenship requirement under the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act . If a person has been a resident of the province for

one year in the case of a new home, or two years as a tenant in the

case of an older home, he would be eligible for a grant or a loan

provided he met the other conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the government would

[ Page 376 ]

review its policy of providing home-owners grants and home

acquisition grants and loans without a citizenship requirement. I can

appreciate that it would create administrative problems and that the

Acts concern themselves only with property owners as such but the

matter of a citizenship clause merits some consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I said that residents of the West Kootenays,

particularly those in the lower Slocan Valley, were second-class

citizens during those trying days and years of Freedomite problems. And

they were.

Now the residents of the lower Slocan Valley and those in the Nakusp

area are becoming third-class citizens as hippies, draft-dodgers and

deserters from the military forces of the United States flock into

these parts of the riding. The problems I have outlined with respect to

this matter today are very real and pressing and I hope that action

will be taken to meet them.

In concluding, I'm pleased to be on this side of the House to vote

when the time arrives in favour of this budget. In fact it's a budget — I'll quote from Bob McConnell a columnist with the Vancouver Province ,

something that he wrote before the budget was brought down in the

House, but is given increased emphasis by this great budget —

There were many years when the question was in dispute but nobody

can deny now that Premier Bennett is a man of financial genius. The

province he governs has provided him with substantial aid through its

resource base but he has still performed a remarkable feat in keeping

its finances in far better shape than those of any other jurisdiction

in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I support an increase of $15 in the home-owner's grant

and an extra $50 for our senior citizens. And I'll vote in favour of

the budget. I support the budget's proposal to spend an additional $151

million this year completely balanced from estimated revenues. And I'll

vote for the budget.

The government has allocated an additional $45 million for education

this year, or 30 per cent of the $151 million increase. I support that.

The total health services. expenditure, as I said in my opening

remarks, is up $49 million including $25 million more for hospitals.

And I support that.

There is $7.5 million additional for our fine civil service in this

budget. I support them. This budget proposes the expenditure of a

further $115 million from accumulated surplus funds for job-creating

projects, including $10 million for a repeat of last year's accelerated

parks development programme. And I support that.

There's an extra $15 million for capital expenditures by the

Department of Highways. And I most certainly support that, and I

support this government in the policy of establishing special and

perpetual funds whereby it recycles money to the advantage of all our

citizens. It puts Social Credit principles, policies and philosophy to

work and I support that.

Through its perpetual funds, I suggest that this government has

given this province's motto, "splendor without diminishment," real

substance. Because the capital in these perpetual funds is never

touched, is never diminished, and the splendor of what can be done with

the interest goes on for year after year. Far in excess, eventually, of

the capital money in the fund will have been spent in the interest that

has gathered on it.

When February 18 arrives, Mr. Speaker, and the vote is held on this

budget there should be none that vote against it. All should rise as

one and vote for its adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, once again it

is my opportunity to stand here and make my annual attempt to persuade

the unconverted to support this budget.

This shouldn't be difficult. This shouldn't be very difficult. All

you have to do is look at the first two or three pages and you're ready

to go for it. I was going to say that it seems to me that this has been

a rather uneventful session, if you can call it that to date, so far.

By this time last year, I looked back, and we had some very memorable

statements.

For instance the Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) might have

forgotten this. I recall one occasion when he stated: "I had a very

gratifying experience last weekend" and he was immediately called to

order, and the first Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi), when

he said: "I hereby declare Gastown an hysteric site."

I don't know if anyone noticed the priceless clipping in the

Victoria Colonist this morning. The headline is: "Italian Census Polls

55 Million Liars," dated Rome.

The 1971 national census taken last October in Italy seems to be

quite informative. It was billed as the first census designed to be

programmed for a computer and provide a wealth of statistical detail

about this nation of 55 million people. Instead, reports the weekly,

The Expresso , many blatant inaccuracies have been found in the forms

such as the registering of an absurdly low number of private cars and

private baths, presumably because the correspondents or respondents

were afraid of being taxed if they told the truth. Further, a large

percentage of those questioned answered questions as to the residences

of family members with the response, "that's our own concern," which

was indigestible to the computers. In summing up The Expresso declared:

"We are 55 million liars."

I think that the Member from Vancouver Centre should stand up and deny that he's a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disassociate himself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WOLFE: Furthermore, I recall last year the Member from

Haney, when he made a very impressive comment about the Prime Minister

of Canada and the Member for Dewdney, (Mr. Mussallem), in which he was

very concerned over his association with an orang-utang, when he

stated: "Why should he have his arm around that orang-utang?"

I really do sympathise with those who find it necessary to criticise

the budget. It must be difficult, you know, and I always feel very

sorry for the Opposition leaders after the budget has been presented

and I can imagine their caucus has tremendous difficulty in getting

approval that they wish to oppose this budget. It must be most

difficult. One would want to be in one some of those meetings, you

know. I don't think they have their hearts in it. They have to stand

here and do this, it really is unfortunate.

We only have one of the two leaders in the House just now, but I am

very much impressed with the statement by the Leader of the Opposition,

when he referred to paying senior citizens $200 a month and then stated

that he proposed that they would raise this money from increased

royalties on coal, copper and other resources. Then, in the very next

breath, he referred to the necessity of encouraging

[ Page 377 ]

development of industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there is really a contradiction and perhaps he hasn't

noticed what has happened in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan

where industry is concerned. Imperial Oil have decided to pull out of

Saskatchewan and Manitoba and establish a master refinery in Edmonton — $200 million, Mr. Speaker. Obviously they have good reason to

consolidate their enterprise in one place but they are leaving

Saskatchewan and Manitoba and I have to think that it has something to

do with the nature of their government in those provinces.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: Why should I be prevented in commenting on the topic of contingent liabilities? I ask you.

AN HON. MEMBER: No reason at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: Actually, I honestly believe that the Opposition

want to bring this up all the time because they can't stand us being

debt free. I think it really hurts. After all, everyone has contingent

liabilities. Contingent liability depends on some outside circumstance.

For instance, there is always a contingency that my mother-in-law might

move in with me and if she does that becomes a direct liability and not

a contingent liability.

In any event, I would be interested to hear the Leader of the

Opposition say how we would go about guaranteeing my bank loan. For

instance, if I go to the bank and ask for a loan and they tell me:

"Well you will have to get a guarantor," and if I go to the Leader of

the Opposition and ask him to guarantee my loan, he has acquired a

contingent liability.

Now the way he would argue this case is that he has a direct

liability and there is the obvious reason why they're absolutely wrong

in alleging that this province has any debts.

What this province has, is this province is absolutely debt free but it is not contingent-liability free.

Of course we had the delightful experience of receiving the annual

budget of the leader of the Liberal Party and, Mr. Speaker, I've saved

these. In case he ever wants I could supply it to him. It's the usual

spend-it-before-you-get-it budget. You know, he's their Minister of

Finance and as near as I can tell he's been there too long. Ottawa

would move a lot quicker on these things, if there's musical chairs and

I think it is time they had a change.

No Minister of Finance should be in office as long as that. We call

it shuffle the cabinet, shuffle the cabinet. I'm expecting an

announcement soon. Anyway I have all his budgets.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: They're not in living colour but they're good for a few laughs.

Now, I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I studied this budget

very carefully and although I'm impressed I really haven't decided yet

whether I'm going to support it. As the Member from Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) said, I want to keep an open mind. I'm going to wait until I

hear from everybody before I actually decide.

But I am impressed with certain things like page 7, where it says,

"this is the 20th budget that this government has presented under

Social Credit administration." I am reading now from

chapter 42, verse

9, where it says:

In meeting these challenges this government has balanced the

priorities of economic development and services to people within its

basic policies of financing all general and capital expenditures out of

current income, low tax rates and at the same time maintaining adequate

cash reserves. Mr. Speaker, that tells a real story which can't be

repeated often enough. You know, I'm almost persuaded but I should go

on and look at other items. The size of the budget, $649 per man, woman

and child in British Columbia, that's still less than the debt

encumbrance of the federal government which represents over $2 billion

and 14 per cent of their annual expenditures.

I'm impressed with certain other things and in particular the new

funds established, the green belt protection fund, the power line

beautification fund and the additional $50 home-owner grant to people

over 65. You know, the more I talk about this I'm selling myself, you

just can't help it. The rapid transit subsidy and the amendments to the

Succession Duty Act , although I'd have to say here that I would have to

believe that we should eliminate the Succession Duty Act , however,

there have been some welcome changes in it.

You know, I have almost persuaded myself, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going

to hold off committing myself because I want to keep an open mind. I'll

give you a hint that to come up with a budget like this with a surplus,

with no increased taxes, after a year like we've just been through is a

tribute to the Premier of this province and I say that sincerely and if

he ever decides to go back in the hardware business, I'll be glad to be

one of his shareholders.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word on the speech made last week by the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I want to compliment him on

his comments on the Moran dam subject.

Excuse me for bringing that up. I know it gives the Member from

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) high blood pressure but I just want to say that

I'm pleased to hear and it gives me confidence to realise that these

important things will be decided on the bases of the facts, when the

facts are in.

I'm prepared to accept whatever these facts say to us, not as the

Liberals say, "don't confuse us with the facts." I think this is a very

important thing and I've been given renewed confidence with the

comments of the Minister last week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like again to refer to my favourite page, which

is page 27, the comparative provincial tax rates covering 1972. Once

again we see that British Columbia has among the lowest tax rates in

Canada. That's in a way an old story but most impressive. I'd like to

draw your attention to two particular items on this table. One of them

is the driver's licence fee. I'd like to point out driver's licence fee

at $1 per year or $5 for five years being the lowest in Canada it is

possibly due for an increase.

I say that because there are no less than 1,300,000 drivers in this

province as of the end of 1971 and it seems to me that our costs of

testing, administering, operating such a department is probably in

excess of this and that we should look at the possibility of increasing

this fee to perhaps $2, with a view particularly to the fact that we

soon will be coming out with a new type of driver's licence, I hope,

with pictures included.

The other item is the matter of diesel fuel tax at 17 cents. Now

included in that is propane gas tax which in this province is taxed at

17 cents under the Motor Fuel Tax Act — the same rate as diesel fuel.

[ Page 378 ]

I think there's a case to be made for reducing this tax on propane

gas. We have a reason to promote the use of propane gas in the

interests of pollution and many companies are attempting to go into

this field. But we find that the tax is higher than the tax on gasoline

at 15 cents.

This is perhaps out of line for two counts.

(1) The same amount of

propane gas will, produce less horsepower or heat than the same amount

of gasoline. So you need more propane gas to do the same job than you

do the equivalent amount of gasoline.

(2) It's a higher price. I think the State of California have now

entered an experimental five year period where they have eliminated the

tax on propane gas, so I am simply putting forward the idea that we

might consider bringing that down to 15 cents or reducing it further in

the interests of promoting use of propane equipment.

As a matter of fact, I understand we'll be seeing his Honour later

this evening and if it's your pleasure I'll bring back a message bill

tomorrow. (Laughter).

I'd like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which many people in

business are somewhat affected by. This is the procedure used in our

sales tax audit department. Either through shortage of staff or for

other reasons, audits of companies for sales tax purposes are only

conducted about every six or seven years on an average, just from my

own experience. Companies must maintain old records, keep them on file

until an audit takes place.

It used to be that you always feared the tax collector when he came

around and now-a-days you kind of welcome him because you can get sort

of up-to-date.

The reason that I brought this up is that the procedure used is that

the auditor comes in and will go through a complete month of invoices.

This will take him quite a while and he will look for shortages in your

sales tax computations, inadvertent shortages. They may be a half a

cent or a cent or a quarter of a cent and through that month he will

add this up to say $5 or $10. Using this as an average, multiply that

into the period since your last audit, and it might become $800 or $900

in that item alone.

Now, this may seem fair but on the other hand you get no credit for

the overages, the over charges on sales taxes. So you might then get

presented for an assessment for a sizable amount for undercharges of

sales tax on routine invoices, but get no counter credit for sales

taxes which have over charged and perhaps the two balance out from any

one month. Then the company is left to argue or to try to defeat this

assessment and the only way they are free to do this is by proving that

the assessor is wrong.

I hear from many company people who talk about this and consider

that it is unfair and I think that it is a procedure that we should

examine in terms of being more equitable to the employer who is not

attempting to defeat the Sales Tax Act but in casual day-to-day

transactions finds that inadvertently he does so.

Just a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the increase in the home-owner's grant and in particular the extra $50 to senior citizens.

We all know that many organisations have pressed for this and so I

think we should consider it welcome to people who are older and more

fixed income. But I still believe that in items of this kind we should

only be paying them on a basis of need, or on a basis of income. I can

think of several people just off hand who really would prefer to see an

additional amount of this kind like $75 or $100 and pay it only to

those people who have limited incomes.

Also, just a comment in the increase in the municipal aid grant, Mr.

Speaker. The municipal aid grant expenditure is going to increase by

some $6.5 million and there is no increase in the per capita, but there

has been a new census in 1971 which will be the basis for the new grant.

Now, I think all members of this House should realise that there has

been a very significant shift in our population. Our population in the

period between 1966 and '71 has increased about 14 per cent. When you

look at a city like Vancouver it has really comparably increased very

little in population, only about 3 per cent. I realise that the basis

of payment of the municipal aid grant is fair but I think all members

should realise that Vancouver will not receive very much of this

increase. I calculate something like $350,000

whereas many other

smaller, faster-growing municipalities quite properly will receive a

greater amount. For instance, the Municipality of Delta will receive

$750,000 of the $6.5 million increase. I don't classify this as a

complaint but I think we should realise once again Vancouver in effect

takes it on the chin and has to look for other years in terms of

increases in the municipal aid grant.

Mr. Speaker, the whole accent of this budget is in the creation of jobs, quite

properly so. On the first page of the highlights of the budget Mr. Bennett said:

Job-creating projects must receive top priority along with policies

that will increase our economic base.

We read yesterday where our unemployment figures have jumped

drastically in the month of January, so I think that it is timely that

we hear the comments from the Minister today and that we discuss the

subject of industrial development.

Last year I spoke, in this House on the need for certain incentives

for industrial development and, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact

this government and also the Hon. Minister has upon several occasions

gone on record as being opposed to incentives. As a matter of fact he

has had a very significant magazine

article written on him recently — perhaps he's seen it. I don't think the picture is as good as the one

in his annual report but t