[ Page 287 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in addition to joining with the welcomes I would like to draw attention to the honourable Members that a telegram has been dispatched to Miss Karen Magnusson expressing, on behalf of the Province, our congratulations at her outstanding victory in winning the North American Figure Skating Championship and wishing her the very best of success in the World Championship. (Applause.)

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the course of the last year there has been quite a number of matters touching on health services which have caught the eye of the public. Some of these have been brought to the attention of this House by honourable Members, others not. In any event, there are, perhaps, four or five that I might mention as being worthy of discussion here. I'll deal first of all with these and the following in this order.

I'd like to talk about the question of small hospitals and the construction of these, the matter of rubella, German measles as it's sometimes called. I'd like to touch upon abortions, the question of the staffing of Pearson Hospital, a few remarks on drug abuse, hospital construction and so on. Later on, I'd like to turn very briefly to the principles of sound financial management as these are reflected in the Budget which we're now debating.

Turning first to the matter that has been raised by one of the honourable Members across the way and touching on the proposal to provide a hospital in the Clearwater area, I'd like to deal with this under two headings. First of all, the wisdom of such policy and, secondly, touching upon the matter of what some people have said and others have been alleged to have said, and some of the matters that have been repeated by Members of this House as well as members of the media.

First of all, not long ago, at the last meeting of the Ministers of Health of the Provinces of Canada, it was common ground by all those present that, in the present state of our knowledge of medical matters, matters of hospital care, that it was not practical, except in very remote parts of Canada, to operate hospitals with less than 50 beds. Some of the members, who were at that meeting, suggested that we should follow the European policy and, perhaps, not have hospitals under 200 or 300 beds in number. I don't think that that's practical in this country, but certainly, 50 beds is a reasonable minimum for any hospital. Now, this is not a policy that was established originally by this Province but it was one which arose out of debate and common consent by all the Ministers and, of course, has been supported wholeheartedly by the Medical Associations of Canada.

The question is, then, in British Columbia, where and under what circumstances we ought to authorize and encourage the development of hospitals of 10, 15, 20 beds and so on? I think the answer, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what the Health Ministers have suggested and as we are advised by the medical profession, that, except in those very remote parts of British Columbia where there are, obviously, difficult transportation problems, particularly in the wintertime, these ought not to be encouraged. Now the question is whether Clearwater is one of those places where we ought to have a hospital? It is common ground that the number of people involved and the population there, at the best, would not warrant more than a hospital of 10 or 15 beds. The driving distance from Clearwater and environs to Kamloops, where there's a very fine hospital, is something around an hour and a half or two hours, and on a very good road, I might say.

Not long ago, at the time that a by-law was being proposed for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, the Government had occasion to wire the district and point out to them that it was most anxious that there be included in that by-law, provision for some facility at Clearwater. We had in mind, at that time, that we should have what is sometimes called a diagnostic and treatment centre. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this kind of programme can be described as a hospital without in-patient beds and without dietary facilities but with things such as radiology services, laboratory, clinical equipment, a well-equipped operating room for handling emergencies and so on. Generally speaking, you would have those aspects of a hospital without the intention of having in-patient services or dietary. Having that in mind, we encouraged them, the regional district, to provide in their by-law an amount of a quarter of a million dollars for this purpose, not only at Clearwater, but at other places within the area. I might say in passing, that this matter didn't come to the fore in British Columbia for the first time. As a matter of fact, probably the best example of this public issue arose in Saskatchewan, where the Government of the day under the leadership of the then CCF Party, I think, in good conscience, established a number of so-called cottage hospitals in the five- and ten-bed range. Unfortunately, these have not received public acceptance and now, in the past few years, the Government of that Province, as had already been commenced before that, began phasing these out.

I think that the original impetus which closed these hospitals was recognized and commenced by the Government of that day, namely the CCF Government and I'm not quarrelling with them on that point. I think that they made an honest effort to try these. They didn't work and they began changing their policy. On December 6, 1969, a by-law was passed in the Thompson-Nicola Regional Hospital District in the amount of $2,240,000 and, included in that, as I say, was a quarter of a million dollars for provision of hospital facilities at Clearwater. Since then, I have authorized the incorporation of a hospital society and they're prepared to proceed. Now, I would not trouble you, Mr. Speaker, in taking up your time in reading a letter that I sent to the Hospital Board, except that the principles enunciated in this letter will apply not only to Clearwater but to many, many other communities across this Province where they are, in good faith, seeking some kind of medical hospital facility. I'd like to read to you, sir, an excerpt from my letter to Mr. Harwood, the Chairman of the Wells Gray Hospital Committee. This is October 23, 1970. "Dear Mr. Harwood: The Deputy Minister of Hospital Insurance has reported to me on his visit to Clearwater. Consideration has been given also to the proposals advanced by your committee in support of the establishment of a hospital facility with provision for in-patient care. In this regard I wish to make it quite clear that the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance has not, on any previous occasion, concurred in

[ Page 288 ]

any planning for in-patient hospitals service at Clearwater. The question of the most suitable arrangement of services for a community such as yours has been the subject of a great deal of study, during the course of which the advice of the British Columbia Medical Association was sought. The Association supports the proposal of diagnostic and treatment centres in which space is provided for ambulatory patients." And then I go on a little further, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the advice that I've received, I told them that the establishment of an in-patient hospital facility cannot be supported and, furthermore, would be contrary to good medical and surgical practice to enter into an arrangement under which there would be an in-patient facility with visiting surgeons coming in from a distance to perform surgery. I hope that, Mr. Speaker, will give you a little of the background and the reasons why we're not able to concur in the ambition of the people in that area for what is, sometimes, referred to as an in-patient hospital.

Now, since that time, I have, by a subsequent letter, authorized the development of plans for a diagnostic and treatment centre in Clearwater and I've also provided that, since public funds would be involved, the project should go to public tender. More recently, we have approved the appointment of an architect and it is my expectation that he will be in the Clearwater area within the next few days.

Turning next to a matter that was raised by one of the honourable Members across the way, and it was, I think, brought up at the same time that he was referring to what he considered to be a regretful decline in the atmosphere associated with the activities and business of this House.

I'm going to read now a short excerpt from one of the newspapers, which I think will describe the background against which a number of letters will be reported. "Barrie Clark, Vancouver-Seymour, told the Legislature Loffmark had allegedly written to Dr. Regehr and accused him of playing politics." I'm sure that the honourable Member didn't say that and I'll accept his word for it. I'm only reporting here, Mr. Speaker, what the newspaper said about him and, if it's wrong, he has my sympathy. This is what the newspaper also reports.

AN HON. MEMBER: I said the Minister was reported as saying certain things. There were no letters mentioned.

MR. LOFFMARK: I accept. I will now proceed to report a little bit more on what the newspaper had to say. "Clark claimed Loffmark had threatened to investigate Dr. Regehr's professional qualifications if he didn't allow the hospital issue to drop." Now, it may well be that that Member was misquoted. Here is how a gentleman deals with those matters. I'm going to quote Dr. McClure. Dr. McClure is the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of British Columbia. Here's what he said, and he's writing to me, "I'm writing to you in regard to statements attributed to you published in the Kamloops Daily Sentinel and the story on a certain page. The statement attributed to you was quoted as follows, 'Mr. Loffmark accused Dr. Regehr of playing some sort of game and said that if he didn't stop he was going to look into the doctor's medical competency and see about lifting his license."' But you'll notice that he didn't go rushing on to the floor of the House or to the press. He gave me the courtesy of writing me a letter (interruption). Yes, he sent me a note. "I appreciate that you are under no obligation to explain." A few days later, I won't trouble you with all of the letter but, if any of the Members are interested enough, they can have a copy of it at their convenience.

This is my letter to Dr. McClure. You'll notice that, so far, the injured person, if there ever was one, Dr. Regehr, has not been a party to any of these complaints (interruption). My friend, you're always right, but it's always on the second time. That's one time too late.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about you? You're never right.

MR. LOFFMARK: Steady, my friend, steady. We'll come to you, later. You're way down the list, though, so take your turn.

This is my answer to Dr. McClure. "At the meeting mentioned, Dr. Regehr proceeded to cite a number of instances in which he felt, as a doctor, he could give adequate care in a hospital of the size of 10 to 20 beds, for which he and representatives of the local Hospital Board had been pressing. The fair inference from his words was that he, as a doctor, was better able to judge such matters than the Minister, who was a layman. I did not at that meeting mention nor do I now take any objection, on principle, to a doctor expressing his views on medical matters or, for that matter, on any subject." But I did make other points. I made the foregoing points to Dr. Regehr. "Further," I said, "I would take up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the British Columbia Medical Association," as I do now, "the question of whether a doctor is free to draw the Minister of Health into a public debate, during which the Minister is expected to defend the policy approved or recommended by either your College or the British Columbia Medical Association and accepted by this Department, in good faith, without that doctor assuming a responsibility for making known to all his hearers the official position of his professional associates?" (Interruption).

At no time, have I ever suggested or said that I was going to look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license. As a matter of fact, Dr. Regehr, at the meeting mentioned above, said that he felt the policy statement in the Minister's letter was an adverse reflection on his medical competency and, at that moment, I assured him, in specific words, that neither the policy statement nor my objections to his words were, in any way, to be taken as a reflection on his professional competency. This latter assurance to Dr. Regehr was given to him in the presence of four other people. I say, in the final paragraph of the letter, "You will readily see that there is not much point in my consulting either the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the British Columbia Medical Association on any matter of health care policy if, at a later time, I find myself defending a policy which your College or the Medical Association has endorsed against an individual doctor who allows the impression to go abroad that he is speaking for all doctors or that he, as a doctor, is a better judge of medical matters than a Minister of Health who may not have medical qualifications."

Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to hear the answer which I then received from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They are writing to me and the words are as follows: "Reference your letter of December 27th regarding Dr. Regehr. The Council, at their last meeting, reviewed your letter and certainly agree that any doctor quoted by the news media should make it very clear whether the opinions that he gives are his own or whether he is speaking as a representative of the medical profession or one of its branches. The Council of the College was reassured by your denial of any threat to

[ Page 289 ]

Dr. Regehr's license to practice medicine."

Now, I might say that, as far as Dr. Regehr was concerned and as far as I was concerned, that closed the matter. I might say that Dr. Regehr did participate in this debate subsequent to this exchange of correspondence. I might say that he did me the courtesy of saying that, "These are my own views and they are not the views, necessarily, of the College of Physicians and Surgeons." (Interruption.)

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, at no time, did Dr. Regehr ever say publicly or make any objection publicly. But I'll tell you who the mischief makers were. They were those people who left that meeting and proceeded to report this matter, either falsely or out of context and, certainly, misleading. What price, then, on the honour of this House if an individual Member chooses to meddle with some mischief maker and never does the courtesy of enquiring as to whether this were a fact or not? The honourable Member across the way had something to say the other day about the decline in the honour of the House, not only this House, but Parliament, generally. I think that his point is well taken. I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a pamphlet called the Canada Month, an eminently respectable publication — Canadian. Among other things, of course, it has a little item in here entitled "Why I Quit the Liberal Party." Of course, this kind of thing comes up quite often but this one is of particular interest to you, Mr. Speaker, because of its currency. Now it is reporting on Mr. Perry Ryan, MP, a very distinguished member of the Toronto community and he is commenting upon his reasons why he left the Liberal Party. He starts off by saying, "The governing party has made quite unnecessary changes that push elected Government MP's to the margins of influence and debates." Then, a little later on, Perry Ryan announced in December his refusal to support the present Government in the House of Commons for three reasons: our desertion of NATO, not to put too fine a point upon the matter; two, our willingness to recognize Communist China on terms different from what we promised in the 1968 Federal election, and I make no comment on either of those two reasons, but the third one is of particular interest to the Member from Vancouver-Seymour, because of his desire to have a very high level of debate in Parliament. The reason why Mr. Ryan left the Liberal Party he says is, "the downgrading of Parliament and its Members emphasized by the recent conduct of his colleagues in the Government."

I'd like to turn next to the matter of rubella (interruption). Yes, you'll have them. You'll have them later today. But there's other stuff that we'd like to deal with first. We don't want to take up time with the filing of letters now. We'll do that later (interruption). Yes, yes (interruption).

Last June, for the first time, Mr. Speaker, there became available in British Columbia a vaccine which was designed to prevent the infection commonly referred to as German measles or rubella. We already had, at that time, a serum designed to offer protection in respect of red measles or rubeola. Today, I'd like to confine myself to remarks relating to rubella, because it is said, and I think without doubt it is true, that a number of defective births have been, in the past, attributable to the infection of the mother during the early months of pregnancy. At the same time, it was suggested that this Province, as well as others, ought to embark upon a mass, I use that word because it was common at the time, a mass inoculation programme. I believe that, of the Provinces in Canada, at the time that this became available, Ontario and British Columbia were, probably, the most active in developing a mass inoculation programme. However, I think it is unwise to use that expression, because it's misleading in its description, for the reason that mass immunization is not practical for a number of reasons which I would like to give you.

First of all, there is quite a number of persons who should not properly be given this vaccine and these include any person who is pregnant at the time the vaccine is given. Secondly, persons who have any severe diseases, such as cancer, leukaemia and the like of that, patients taking drugs or treatment which lower their resistance to infections, such as steroids and irritations, also patients with gamma globulin deficiencies, and patients with allergies of any constituent of the vaccine being used, for example, in respect of eggs, rabbits, myosin and the like of that. Finally, in respect to that group, it's certainly not possible to vaccinate anyone if there's any illness or fever which would be present at the time of vaccination. Now you'll notice, there, that there's a list, Mr. Speaker, of about eight different classes which are not eligible for vaccination but, in addition to that, of course, there's a very large group of persons who, for religious or other reasons, decline to participate in this kind of a programme. So that we begin with the proposition that there is a very significant group of people in the community who, for one reason or another, should not or ought not be vaccinated for rubella.

Of course, we should also recognize that, in this day and age of fast travel by jet, there are many people coming into British Columbia from the Orient, from Europe, from the United States, South America, and so on, to say nothing of a great number of people who travel from this Province elsewhere. So that, while the theory of mass immunization and, thereby, the depression of this pool of infection among children is a good one for practical purposes, this has not always been effective. So we had to think of other ways to deal with this matter. Of course, at the same time and notwithstanding the very active advocacy of mass immunization, there are rules and, at the same time, a considerable amount of doubt which has its origin in statements made by some of the most prominent virologists in Canada, the United States and England. Two of, probably, the most prominent is Dr. Enders, who is a Nobel Prize winner in this field and also Dr. Horstman of Yale, both of whom have, at various times, expressed doubt, based on their research, as to the effectiveness of the immunization programme. The main criticism they had, or the main doubts that they raised, related to the degree of protection which the inoculation provided. It was said to be not as potent in its protection as the naturally acquired immunity through the contamination in the infection.

The point is that, notwithstanding the fact that a broad-scale inoculation programme was introduced in this Province and pursued with vigour, here, and in Ontario, the theory behind it has not worked out in practice as well as it might. However, there is a far more important and a far more effective first line of defence, which I would like to take this opportunity to draw, not only to your attention, Mr. Speaker, but also to the public's. That is that there is a scientific procedure by which this matter can be determined with a very high degree of certainty, and I'm referring, now, to what is called the HI testing programme.

Today, in British Columbia, every expectant mother is advised to consult her physician with a view to having a blood test taken which would identify the presence of rubella infection during those very critical first few months of a

[ Page 290 ]

pregnancy. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the last year, or seven or eight months, I should say, since the programme got underway, the Provincial laboratory has detected at least one hundred cases of infection during this period. I'm told by the doctors involved that, in practically every case, there has been a therapeutic abortion performed. It's fair to say that the number of defective births which we might have expected during that same period has been reduced by at least one hundred. That's over about a seven-month period on which we're reporting.

The laboratory tells me that in respect of actual defective births, they have been able to identify only one where there was an infection during the period of pregnancy, although they also mentioned that they are establishing, they hope, an additional laboratory procedure which will permit them to identify others in the event that they come forward.

Now, in respect of our policy, I think it's fair to say that there is no firm or uniform opinion as to the best long-term programme. There will be a National conference on this matter a little later on this year, and we will rely upon the judgement that we receive from it. We will continue the programme which we started in 1970 but, certainly at present, our immunization programme covers us in, probably, the best way that it's possible either in Canada or, as far as we can see, Canada or the United States. I might say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that both rubella and rubeola are now reportable diseases in British Columbia.

I would like to talk now, Mr. Speaker, about the matter of abortions, therapeutic abortions. I'd like to talk about, first of all, the law as it now stands. Secondly, the experience in this Province, the present criticism of the experience we have and the remedies which, I think, are practical and which may be acceptable.

First of all, as the law now stands and is to be found in the Criminal Code of Canada, a therapeutic abortion may be performed only in the confines of a hospital and only if it is established to the satisfaction of certain people that there is a risk to the life or health of the expectant mother. Now, that being the case, the Criminal Code then goes on to describe how an abortion committee must be established and the procedure that must be carried out. I might say that, as I say, the Criminal Code only allows this procedure to be carried out in either an accredited hospital, which relates, generally speaking, to large hospitals which have been accredited by the Canadian system, or one approved by me. To this date, there have been quite a number of applications by some of our smaller hospitals asking that they be approved and authorized to carry out therapeutic abortions and there have been no applications which I have turned down. I have approved of everyone of them.

When we came to the matter of setting a policy, the only policy that I established was to ask the doctors of this Province that, when they considered applications for this procedure, they should deal with them with sympathy, with compassion and with understanding and I believe, sir, that they have, in fact, done this. So much so that today, in Canada, undoubtedly, on a per capita basis there are more abortions per capita being performed in British Columbia than in any other Province in Canada and that in the last count, in our last year, the total was something in excess of 3,000 cases up to December 31.

Now, difficulties. First of all, I think we should recognize that there is a profound and a sincere difference of opinion as to the propriety of this type of procedure. I think that is a fact of life that we must recognize and I think that we must, with sympathy, listen to the petitions put forward by people who think that the Abortion Law should be so-called liberalized. I think we should also recognize, too, that those who have a contrary view are entitled to be heard, to be considered and their views carefully weighed. I think, too, we must recognize that there is a natural aversion on the part of the medical profession and its supporting staff to this kind of operation. This is a natural and an understandable one because a doctor from the day he commences his training and from the day that a nurse in training goes through that little ceremony of carrying the candle and so on, they devote their lives and their energies to the relief of pain and the extension of life. Now, these same people are being asked to bring a life to a close and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, there are instances, and too many of them I'm sorry to say, where a doctor has had to make the terrible choice, where he has, on one hand, had to reach out and help a child born prematurely to breathe, to stimulate his heart to beat and his body function to perform and, at this very same time, another foetus in the same state of development, with an equal chance of life, he is being asked to stop. Now, let us not ever forget the terrible strain, the emotional strain, that that must put on a doctor. Let us not, at any time, ever ask him to do something that is so in conflict, never force him to do something that is so in conflict, with everything that he has been taught and all his natural instincts.

There are some defects in the laws that now stand and one of them is manifest in the practice which is developing of what we might call an undesirable ritual of evidence. All Members in the House are aware of how this developed in the case of divorces and where the only cause of action for a divorce, at that time, was adultery. So the charade developed of one of the parties to a marriage finding his way to a hotel room, a pre-arranged meeting with some accommodating person and there simulated evidence being developed and everyone knowing that the facts were not as the evidence appeared and not as the Court seemed willing to assume. I see one of the Members across, who is a lawyer, remembers these well. There were many of them. Simulated…(interruption). No name, sir. I think there were many Members on this side of the House and on that side of the House who protested that kind of simulation of evidence and it was to that I was referring. I recall many Members of this House saying that it brought the law into disrepute to make it necessary to have that simulation of evidence. And this, I disrespect. Thank you. I think that the same kind of thing might very easily develop in this area, because it appears now that some abortion committees are quite willing to rely on evidence, which follows a pattern not unlike that which developed heretofore. Persons are being told that the way to supply the evidence for the committee is for the lady to come in and say that if she must go through with this pregnancy she shall kill herself. Now she may or may not mean that but, if these words are uttered, then they seem to supply the evidence, rightly or wrongly, that this warrants. Now this is a poor, poor way for the law to develop. I think that we must do something to settle that matter. It is sometimes said that this matter should be moved out of the Criminal Code, and I make no comment one way or the other on that. That's a matter for the Federal Government. I have private views on it and I, certainly, will undertake to convey to the Federal Government not only those views, but the views of other people whose views have been presented to me.

On the question of abortions and so-called abortions on demand, I think we should also remark, Mr. Speaker, that we

[ Page 291 ]

do not have in this Province, or any other Province, any kind of operations on demand. I see no reason why there should be an exception made for this or any other surgical procedure, for the reason that every doctor is well aware of the fact that he has a responsibility not only to his patient, but to his colleagues and, when a doctor brings a patient to a hospital and he proposes that there should be a surgical or medical procedure done, he must have the acquiescence of his chief of staff. He must have the confidence of his colleagues on the staff and, this being the case, then he can no more do an abortion on demand than he can perform an appendectomy on demand. The hospital and his colleagues and doctors don't object to this, they are parties to it. They must always explain to the hospital and they must always explain to their medical associates, the basis upon which they're going to perform this operation, whatever it may be. This is a protection for the doctor, for the hospital and for the individual involved. So you see the best we can hope for, the best that we could ever ask for, is that abortion procedures be handled just the same way as any other surgical or medical procedure.

Finally, I think I should say something briefly about the matter of facilities. There are two places in British Columbia where the present demand for therapeutic abortion is placing an undue burden on hospitals, and I'm referring now, first of all to the Vancouver General Hospital and secondly to R.J.H. I'm able to say that, in respect to V.G.H. I have recently authorized the expenditure of additional amounts of money to provide facilities for increased services in this respect and I'm hoping that, with some alterations in certain other hospital facilities in the community, there will be a very much expanded facility for this purpose in the Victoria area. In the Vancouver area, in particular, the Vancouver General Hospital has asked me, specifically, to do what I could to remove from the normal activities of that hospital these abortion procedures. I hope that, within a very short time, we'll be able to make some formal announcements in respect to the addition of new facilities for this purpose.

I'd like to deal now with the question of the Pearson Hospital. There was a short period of time, the last while ago, when there was a number of people who made some assertions, mainly relating to the number of staff at Pearson Hospital. I think, probably, the best way to deal with this matter is to explain two or three very short points and give you the statistics of the number of beds, the number of patients and the number of staff, and leave you and the public to decide whether the matter is not being fairly treated.

First of all, I think one should recognize that recruitment at Pearson Hospital is unique in many ways, and I say this without any reflection either on the staff seeking employment, or the patients, or the administration. I'll tell you why. Nursing and looking after patients at Pearson is a matter of real difficulty through no one's fault. Not infrequently, we have people who come on to the staff to work at Pearson only to discover that, notwithstanding their great desire to be of help, they cannot really cope with the emotional trials that they're faced with. Not infrequently, they find that they just can't work there any longer. As I say, this is no reflection on them, because the emotional problems that they sometimes encounter, sometimes the involvement that they find themselves caught up in, is just more than they had bargained for. For example, how does one talk to a young man of 22 who came to this country a short while ago, full of eagerness and expectations at finding a place in this community to make his fortune here, like so many other people before him, only to find himself, very shortly after that, a victim of an accident, paralyzed from the neck down, not able to move as much as his little finger and facing a lifetime in a bed.

Now, there are some people who can care for that man and God bless them for it, but there are other people who cannot. We should never suggest that there is anything wrong, anything deficient in them, if they don't just have the emotional make-up to deal with those very difficult problems and to talk to that man to explain to him what life is going to be like and what they can do for him and what they can't do. So, there always are and there always must be a certain number of people coming and going from Pearson for this reason.

Never, at any time, to my knowledge, was there any so-called freeze ever issued from my office in respect to employment at Pearson, at no time. I say that no time from my office and I'm in charge of this Department. Now, you listen carefully, that at no time, at no time, did I ever at anytime say to anyone that there should ever be any freezing of so-called staff replacements. At any time. Ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the civil servants?

MR. LOFFMARK: I'm only responsible for my Department. I'm the one who gives the orders in this Department (interruption). Whatever your views are, you are entitled to them. I'm reporting to this House, sir. Now, then, here are the facts. There are, at the present time and there have been for some little time, 247 patients in Pearson Hospital and these are divided into three main categories: TB, polio and extended care. Now, of these people, of course, there's a variation in the nursing service that should be provided for them but, in total, there have been continuously approximately 328 on the staff. At the present time, there is one vacancy. That may be too many or too few for a proper staff and I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to look across the whole of Canada and look at all hospitals who render this kind of service. You tell me if they have a better staff ratio than that. I can find none, sir. Furthermore, one should go down to Pearson, see the physical layout of the place. I think this is one of the best hospitals of its kind in the country, sir. Furthermore, it's rather interesting to test the bona fides of some of the critics who over a short period of time thought they would ride this hobbyhorse. They began to talk about how undesirable it is to have patients going around in pyjamas, that this was their home and they should be up and about. You'll find that for two or three days they enjoyed that proposition, of course, behind it all was the theory that they were trying to develop that the British Columbia Government was being parsimonious in forcing these people to stay in their beds and go around in pyjamas when they could have been up. However, Mr. Speaker, they discovered a couple of days later that over at Shaughnessy Hospital, which is administered by the Federal Government, the standard dress, not on the odd day when there was a staff shortage but all the time, year in and year out, is pyjamas. The theory is if you're sick enough to be in a hospital you're sick enough to stay in pyjamas. You'll notice that at that point there was…(interruption). Oh, there's nothing stupid about that, my friend. All that demonstrates is that there was a real lack of bona fides on the part of some of the members of the media when they started riding that hobbyhorse, only to discover later on that this was the standard dress in Shaughnessy and the whole criticism evaporated (interruption). It is a fact, and

[ Page 292 ]

you know it. I will now move on to another subject.

I won't ask that Member across the way who is protesting, "When he was last there…." I'd be surprised if he's been there for a year. Now then…(interruption).

Now, then, we'll deal next, Mr. Speaker…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. LOFFMARK: One of the major social problems facing people in this country, as well as the United States, and I dare say mostly around the world, is the problem of drug abuse. Now in the broadest terms, Mr. Speaker, drugs which are misused may be classified under four or five headings. In the first group are those derivatives from the poppy seed, namely, opium, morphine, laudanum, codeine and heroin. All of these are euphoric. In the second group, the large group, are the solvents and the likes, such as glues, lacquers, paint removers and so on. The third are the hallucinogenics and under this heading come LSD, acid, and the like. In the fourth are the amphetamines. These of course are stimulants and go under the name of pep pills, speed, bennies, bambinos and so on. Then, barbiturates, which are depressants. These are sometimes called goof-balls, membies, yellow-jackets and the like of that.

Mr. Speaker, I have not, at any time, ever heard anyone in a degree of responsibility who was not prepared to acknowledge that the use of any of these substances either in small, modest or large amounts would do anything but seriously impair health. Let me give you an idea of what is involved. In the case of a heroin user, or those who use opium, laudanum, codeine and so on, their life expectancy, usually, from the time of addiction, is about 15 years, and to put it rather broadly, most of them starve to death because of their incapacity to absorb food and water. In the case of LSD, acid and the hallucinogenics, the life expectancy of a user of these products is about three years. Make no mistake about it. A man who uses LSD, a person who uses LSD has a life expectancy of about three years. A heroin user about fifteen. Now that will give you an idea. In the case of some of these other ones, solvents, the life expectancy can be a day if they get a toxic dose.

There is one that I have not mentioned and that is those products which are manufactured from Indian hemp, the cannabis, which, of course, produces an intoxicant.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we are going to approach this problem of the use of marijuana, which is the mildest derivative, I think we should recognize that it is as difficult to make the use of marijuana legal and, at the same time, prevent the use of hashish or some of the more concentrated products, as it is to administer the use of the poppy seed and, at the same time, control opium, morphine, laudanum, codeine and heroin. It is administratively impossible to control the poppy seed, except in one way and that's to nail down all products that are derivatives of it. As far as we're able to see, the use of cannabis is in precisely the same field. Make no mistake about it. While there may be some debate upon the use of marijuana, there is no debate upon the toxic qualities of hashish or the other concentrates of the same product.

At this time in our history, there's something of a debate going on as to whether marijuana ought to be legalized. I say that the first obstacle that you're going to have to get over is how you're going to control these other derivatives in the same field. If there's any doubt, and there seems to be in the minds of the Federal Government because they've spent a half a million dollars looking into this already and they propose to spend at least that much more, I wonder how it's possible for us, logically, in the face of the experience of the whole world, with sixty countries joined together, pledged to eliminate the use of marijuana, to not encourage it but to eliminate it. Now why would they want this? For the very good reason that the people of India and the people of the Near East, Egypt and so on, have had a long experience with this drug and, as in Canada and the United States, one out of every four people in our mental institutions came there as a result of the abuse of alcohol. An even higher percentage of those people in the mental institution population of the Near East have had the cause of their mental health attributed to the use of marijuana and derivatives such as that.

If one wants to know why and under what circumstances marijuana is a dangerous substance, one only needs to look at the proceedings of the United Nations, prior to the time of the entering into this convention, the intention of which was to outlaw the use of marijuana. At a time when the whole world is marching one way as the consequence of their experience, Canada, under its brilliant leadership in some areas, is marching in the diametrically opposite position and spending a million dollars to do it.

Let me refer, Mr. Speaker, very briefly to one of the finest documents that I have seen, and I'm proud to say it's with a great deal of satisfaction that I refer you to a little precis under the heading, "The Great Deception" written by H.F. Hoskin, lately the Executive Director of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation.

Of all the people I have met dealing in this field, there's no one more sincere than Mr. Hoskin. I would recommend to the attention of every person in this House and, indeed, every person in this Province, the words of Mr. Hoskin, who is, probably, as closely associated with this problem as anyone in this Province. While I will not read all of it, may I be permitted to read just one paragraph on the first page, in which he says, with all the emotion he can muster, I believe: "With the above in mind, one is led logically to the question, what new and wonderful gift does a small segment of Canadian society propose to bestow upon our children by legalizing marijuana? The answer, of course, is that after the most honest and painstaking appraisal of this phenomenon, all one can determine is the proposal to introduce yet another intoxicant, yet another hallucinogenic or yet another euphoric into a society which already ill handles the ones deemed to be currently medically and socially acceptable. Our inability to cope effectively with this major medical and social phenomenon is made increasingly more difficult, not solely because of the deceptions practiced by those who press for the legal, social use of mood-changing drugs but by the self-deception of the adolescent drug user and, unfortunately, by the so far inept performance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State. I commend them." (Applause.)

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding our conviction that the use of these drugs adds nothing to this community, we must recognize that these, in fact, do exist and there are people who have come under their influence. You have already noted, Mr. Speaker, that provision has been made for the appropriation of $25 million in a trust fund, the income of which will be available for educational and treatment purposes. I'm very pleased to report to you, today, sir, that only yesterday I authorized the incorporation of a new hospital society in Vancouver to be called the Greater

[ Page 293 ]

Vancouver District Hospital and, while it will have many other uses, I hope, and it will serve many other purposes, we expect that one of the major activities carried on in this hospital will be the rehabilitation of persons who are suffering addiction either from alcohol or from drugs or from any other substance.

We would expect this hospital to be in the general area of the Vancouver General Hospital, although it would come under separate management, and it would be located physically apart from the Vancouver General. The people associated with it, I think, should be noted by you, Mr. Speaker, and I would refer, particularly, to Dr. Dick, who is presently on the staff of the Vancouver General. The incorporation of this hospital society is the result of the culmination of at least a year's work on his behalf and I think that he ought to be publicly recognized for this service.

I'm going to deal with the Greater Vancouver District Hospital. I hope that as soon as they have held their organizing meeting they will be making representations to the regional hospital district, to the city of Vancouver and to the Vancouver General in order to get under way. We have already encouraged them to engage an architect and he has informally been looking at sites. He sent in to me, today, a rough drawing of what he imagines would be a suitable hospital. I've also talked to the regional district and the city of Vancouver and, from those informal discussions, I'm very much encouraged that we'll have no difficulty in raising the capital for the construction. It will be a multimillion dollar project. It will be financed as to its operations by the B.C. Hospital Insurance programme and it will be completely funded as to its operations under the normal hospital insurance programme.

I turn next to the matter of hospital construction in this Province. You have already noted, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 there was due for completion in this Province hospitals to the value of $60 million, with another $33 million worth of hospitals in the advanced stages of planning and construction. I only need to recite just a few of these, such as Prince Rupert — a $5 million project. I'm sure that you will be pleased that I put that at the head of the list of those that I was to remind the Members of. Prince George, $7 million; Glendale, $7 million; the Gorge $3 million; and so on. There's quite a long list and I would refer the honourable Members to the annual report where these are all set out in detail.

The number of acute care beds being added amounts to about 2,000, with the extended care beds under construction, or close to completion, 800.

I think, too, Mr. Speaker, that I should observe that we are introducing into our general hospitals psychiatric beds, as well as day care programmes in at least four hospitals, with more to come. We have, too, a cytology out-patient programme, which is being developed with a great deal of satisfaction on everyone's side. I think, probably, the most interesting of these special services must be the renal failure programme where we are on an out-patient basis, supplying those persons suffering from kidney ailments with a renal dialysis system. Each one of these units is worth about $4,000. They're being placed in the homes of the patients and, to the best of our knowledge, there is no other programme in America and, certainly, not in Canada, that meets the dialysis treatment programme being offered at the Vancouver General and elsewhere.

Finally, in the field of mental health, particularly, I would draw your attention to two or three items. First of all, the psychiatric wing at the University Hospital is operating now at capacity. I'm very pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are very close now to having an agreement with the Federal Government as to the financing of the University Health Sciences Hospital. In our judgement, and from the exchange of correspondence I've had with Mr. Munro, it's likely that the capital cost of the Health Sciences Hospital will be in the magnitude of around $40 million, with another $20 odd million for equipment. It's expected that the confirming letters as to the cost-sharing will be announced very shortly (interruption).

No. This is the Health Sciences Hospital. This is the major teaching hospital. It will have 400 beds, at a construction cost of $40 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's quite a bit of capital money for each bed, isn't it? That's something like $100,000 a bed. Is that it? Yes,400 beds, $40 million; a $100,000 a bed. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, the amount of energy, the amount of National money, that will be diverted into that, both by the Federal Government and ourselves. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it was the expectation that all our negotiations would go forward on the understanding that the cost would be shared fifty-fifty between the Federal Government and ourselves. I must say that I'm very pleased with the progress of these negotiations.

On the subject of intermediate care, a number of honourable Members have dealt with this matter and I think that it's worthwhile to just take a minute to say something about this, because not only Members on our own side but, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition did refer to what he called chronic care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you not to use that word, "chronic" care because, in today's language and usage, it's not too descriptive. The fact is that, today, if we're going to be precise about this we ought to describe our hospital care as coming under one of the following headings: acute care, which envisages in-patient services in an acute care hospital, which is eligible for payment under our Hospital Insurance programme. Similarly, extended care relates to those patients who need 24-hour nursing care, although the level of care, while it's an in-patient hospital, is somewhat lower in standards than acute care but, in other respects, it's the same and, of course, it's financed jointly by the Federal and Provincial Governments under our insurance programme. Extended care is, oftentimes, thought of as applying to older people but, this, of course, is not so at all, Mr. Speaker, because we have many, many young people. I mentioned this young man of 21 who is destined to spend the rest of his life in bed; he is an extended care case, as are those children whom we have placed in the Eric Martin Institute. They are very seriously affected pediatric cases and some of these children are perhaps one, two or three years old, but they are, no less, extended care cases and are eligible for benefits, just the same as an older person.

Now, of course, we have rehabilitation and activation units. I don't need to dwell on those. At the other end of the spectrum, we have, for the care of older people, senior citizens' housing, which comes under the administration of my honourable colleague. Now, in between there, though, there are a number of care institutions, such as private hospitals, nursing homes, rest homes and the like of that, where there is presently no adequate, and I use this word advisedly, system of public financing. There has been a number of proposals put forward and the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, I'm sure, is as interested as anyone in this and has spoken eloquently on the subject.

[ Page 294 ]

Dealing with this matter, I think there are a number of things that should be done. Some of them we can do ourselves and some of them we will need joint action, including other people. First of all, we think that it is most desirable that all of the administration of institutions which, heretofore, have been administered either under my Department or under the Department of Rehabilitation should be brought together under one authority. You'll be invited to consider later on, Mr. Speaker, a bill which will, in effect, bring together the administration of all of our institutions of this type, public as well as private. That is step number one, so that we will have a level of administration, a level of regulation and a set of standards, which are uniform throughout. We propose to do that at this Session.

The next thing is what can we do to establish a Province-wide or indeed a Nationwide system of intermediate care, if I may use that word, or nursing home care, for everybody who is entitled to it? Mr. Speaker, we've already observed in the Budget that the cost of acute care hospitalization in this Province, in this coming year, will be around $205 million, if not more. The total cost, I'm told, of our Medicare programme from the community's point of view, will be around $150 million, more or less, and, for that purpose, the Provincial Government is appropriating, by way of special assistance, an amount of $70 million to cover this. Now, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, an undertaking in respect of intermediate care will, in terms of the dollars involved and the magnitude of the problem, be not unlike the assumption of a social programme equal to the introduction of Medicare. The costs will be high. They will put a real strain on all of our resources and, while we agree with those people who would like to see the development of an intermediate care, nursing home care programme, we must recognize that this is a major social and fiscal step. If this is the case, then, it seems relatively clear that there is no Province that can undertake this in the way it should be done on the basis of their own resources; therefore, it is the policy of this Government to take every measure that we think appropriate to persuade the Federal Government to participate with us in a cost-shared programme, analogous to that which is now financing our acute care and our hospital care. It is not possible, I don't think, and I don't think we should let the impression go abroad, that a Province could do this on its own. I think that there are too many ramifications to handle this in any other way than under our Hospital Insurance programme. At the present time, I'm in contact with the Ministers of Health in other Provinces, in order that we shall establish a policy statement in regard to this, which we propose to submit to the Federal Government. Nothing short of a shared-cost programme would ever put us in a position where we could implement this in any meaningful way.

I turn now, and I hope that I won't be too long in this, to deal very briefly with the subject of hospital operating and the costs associated therewith. I've already mentioned that this year the budget will be $205 million and, if you'll look back over the last three years and notice that, in 1968, Mr. Speaker, the operating cost was $125 million, you will get some idea of the rate at which the cost of operating hospitals is accelerating. It is accelerating at a rate which neither this Government nor any other Government in America can stand. I think that this is plain. One only needs to look at some of the newspaper clippings. Here's one that reports from England that chaos is looming over doctors' pay boosts in England. The waiting rooms of doctors in England are jammed, the waiting lists for hospitals extend beyond the purvue of any one individual. As a matter of fact, the National Health Programme in Britain is in a state of collapse and more and more collective agreements in England are calling for the introduction of private medical schemes as an alternative to the national scheme in England. At the present time, there are several millions of working men in England who come under a private medical scheme. Why? Because the national scheme in England has been a failure and there is no better evidence of that than the demand on the part of the working man of England that he be given better health care than what the national programme can give. One only needs to look at the collective agreements to see the matter documented, not in thousands, but in millions of working men who are thoroughly dissatisfied.

Here's what's happening in the United States. Let me read it. "Sickness is becoming a luxury in the United States. Medical bills are the highest in history and they are getting higher everyday. Nowhere has inflation had a greater impact than on the public's pocket book. The rise in health costs for the past four years has been nearly two and a half times as rapid as the rise of living costs. President Nixon says he foresees a massive crisis within the next two or three years, unless prompt steps are taken to curb the sharp rise in doctors' fees and hospital charges." Make no mistake about it, I think, something will have to be done.

I would like to deal very briefly with the question of why we don't raise this one dollar a day fee, the provision that we have in our Hospital Insurance programme. The plain fact is this, Mr. Speaker, that every time we raise that one dollar a day to a higher figure, the Federal Government will not participate in the cost-sharing thereof. So, that what you do, if you increase that dollar a day, you shift that dollar and every other dollar that you charge that patient, from the Canadian taxpayer as a whole, on to the back of the patient himself. If I must make a choice between protecting the patient, if I must make a choice between that and offending a doctor, or make a choice of where this tax burden shall fall, the last man who is going to have to pay this, as far as I'm concerned, is the patient. A man has enough problems when he's sick, without adding to his bill.

The next thing. I think that there are other ways in which we can get the couple of dollars a day that is required and I say this, in all seriousness. We have had documented cases, I'm sorry to say, in Victoria and Vancouver. I'll give you some illustrations and if there's any real inefficiency in hospitals, the first people whom we are going to have to call to account are the doctors. I'm going to be specific on this and I'll give you some illustrations. We have one that's no more than 15 days old, in which a young lady in her teens was admitted to a hospital. She stayed in that hospital for 10 days before she was ever examined, before she was ever treated and I asked the doctor about this and he said, "Oh, I made a mistake in the booking." Well, Mr. Speaker, in that hospital the per diem figure is $60 a day. That was a $600 mistake that that doctor made.

The next thing is that we had a study made of a hospital in the Greater Victoria area and we had studies made in the Vancouver area. It was found by the doctors who had made these studies that the worst offenders in respect of hospital utilization are the doctors. We've had cases, I'm sorry to say, when a patient could not be discharged on Friday but was discharged on Monday and, when we ran down his doctor, we found him on a golf course.

We also had another case in Vancouver of a university professor. Now this one, Mr. Speaker, will test your

[ Page 295 ]

credulity. This gentleman was a professor at one of our universities over there. He was admitted to the Vancouver General Hospital and he stayed there at nights. He occupied a bed in the Vancouver General Psychiatric Ward. He was there for thirteen months and during the days he went to his university and he taught and he received his stipend, a very handsome one I might say, but the day that I enquired into this case, he was discharged. Now, sir, I think we must be very careful…(interruption). Thirteen months and the only time they ever saw him was between eight o'clock at night and nine o'clock the next morning. After he had had his breakfast, he got in his car and drove off to the university and taught all day. Will you believe it? It's a fact.

Finally, on that, the B.C. Hospital Association was invited to consider this matter as to whether they ought to increase the dollar a day coinsurance. The matter was rejected by the B.C. Hospital Association Convention. One of the questions, of course, that will arise will be what are the prospects for additional money for the hospitals? I would say that they are good. But I have a little difficulty, sometimes, in dealing with the criticisms across the way, particularly those from the Members on the Liberal benches over there. I think one of the things that you should understand over there is that this matter has been very thoroughly dealt with by the Honourable Mr. Munro. The newspapers, although you can't always rely on them, I think, in this case, they give a pretty good idea of what Mr. Munro's thinking is. You'll see here that they have these hospital clamps to hold. It starts off like this, "Doctors, hospitals and other components of the health system who are outraged over spending cutbacks will have to deal with forces far more formidable than those of the British Columbia Government, Health Minister John Munro says. He indicated this last week in Vernon that there is a unanimous concern about the ever-rising cost of hospitalization and these must be curbed, not increased." I think that what he's really saying there and I don't quarrel with him on that, is that we're going to have to introduce into our hospital system a very, very, high degree of efficiency if we're going to avoid the calamitous experience which has been so common in the United States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I'm going to wind up very quickly by dealing with two or three items which relate specifically to this debate on the subject of financing. I'd like to deal very quickly first of all with two or three matters that were raised by the Honourable the Leader of the Liberals in which he referred to the, as he said it, the British Columbia Government's propensity to avoid the market like the plague. He's quite right about that, you know, that the Government of British Columbia has not gone out onto the market, has not used the very valuable credit of this Province, in order to fill the coffers of those people, who are lending at unconscionable rates, only made possible by a fiscal policy which is marked "Made in Ottawa." Now, I'll come back to that in a minute but, before I do that, I'd like to refer very briefly also to the transportation policies that have been referred to by the Liberal Member across the way, yesterday.

I would remind you, of course, that the Liberals over there were very much against the development of Roberts Bank until it became a reality and then, of course, they made an about-face. Isn't that right? The chief opponent to the development of Roberts Bank was the Honourable Member, Mr. Davis, who, of course, when it became a feasible thing couldn't jump on the bandwagon fast enough. If you want to know something about the Liberal transportation policy and if you want to look at the monument in British Columbia, which testifies to the imagination of the Liberal Party, I'm going to ask you to cast your eye upon that monstrosity of a railway crossing at the Second Narrows in the city of Vancouver. Now, let's see if we can't identify those people who are responsible for the development of that architectural monstrosity, as I said. Who was it that was responsible for the building of that railway bridge over there which is a 1908 Mechano set design? Who were the elected representatives on the North Shore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals, that's right. Who was the MP at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A Liberal.

MR. LOFFMARK: He was a Liberal. Who was the Member in the Federal Government who was on the Burnaby side at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A Liberal.

MR. LOFFMARK: It was a Liberal. Who managed the National Harbour Board at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals, that's right. Who ran and controlled the CNR at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals.

MR. LOFFMARK: The Liberals. Mr. Speaker, we searched for somebody that we could blame besides the Liberals but, as far as we could find, it was the Canadian Government under a Liberal leadership. It was the National Harbour Board under the direction of the Liberals. It was the Canadian National Railway under the direction of the Liberals, and all the Members over there were Liberals. Look at that bridge.

Let's talk about the fiscal policy. I think we should take a minute to really define the differences between this Government and those people who seek to supply their own basis of administration. We had a play budget by the Liberals yesterday, but, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a real Budget. A real Budget that was developed over a number of years of sound administration and, if you want to see the real issues in respect of this Budget, you only need to look to the words of the honourable Member across the way, who, yesterday talked about a fiscal policy that leaned against the business trends of the day. That, Mr. Speaker, is a laic way of describing Keynesian theory. Here's what's involved in the Keynesian theory and the Federal Government down in Ottawa is in the grips of that kind of thinking. I'll tell you what it is. It's a theory that you can regulate an economy by regulating the supply of money, the supply of credit and controlling the banks. That's what it means and the implicit proposition is that you can depress economic activity by turning the economic and credit screws of a country. That is precisely what the Federal Government has done, that is precisely the kind of advocacy that we heard from the Liberal Member across the way, yesterday. If you don't believe me, look at the headlines in the papers, "Ottawa

[ Page 296 ]

keeps control over money and credit. The Federal Government staked a claim yesterday on the major instruments of the economic policy. They also insist that they have control of the banks." There's no question, Mr. Speaker, but that the present programme that has caused all the unemployment in Canada, is an act of deliberation on the part of the Federal Government of this country. They claim to have the exclusive power over credit. They claim to have exclusive power over employment. They claim to have exclusive power over our banking system. They say they will use those to defeat inflation. What they have done is to precipitate this country into mass unemployment.

What you really have is a statement and a policy which give, as far as the Liberal administration in Ottawa is concerned, two alternatives. Their economic thinking can be defined in those ways. There are really only two alternatives that the Liberals offer us. Here is what they are: you can either have unemployment and depression, or you can have inflation, and those are the two alternatives being offered, today. Here they are being defended by the Federal Government. This, precisely, is the problem. If you want a short analysis of the defects in that Member's Micky Mouse budget, I'll tell you how easy it is to identify it. I think that it's fair to say that, over the last 15 or 20 years, there hasn't been a Liberal Government, or for that matter a Conservative Government in Canada, that hasn't produced a series of budgets under which, at least, 15 per cent of their total revenue has been allocated to direct debt charges. In the Federal Government, today, one and one half billion dollars is the charge for interest. Now, I say that, if there had been in this Province the same kind of administration, neither better nor worse than the Liberal Governments of the last 15 or 20 years, out of our budget of $1.3 billion, anywhere from $150 to $200 million would be the direct debt charge against the people of this Province.

There, in a nutshell, is the record of fiscal management on the part of the Liberals. One and one half billion dollars. Yes, it is the ABC formula. You only have to look at the Federal Government budget today — one and one half billion dollars of direct interest debt charges. Do you know how much that would buy, Mr. Speaker? That would build one new community hospital in Canada every day, 365 days of the year. That's the basis of that burden.

I've tested your patience unduly. For the rest of this day and henceforth we'll continue to consider this Budget. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the values that are represented in this Budget, the effectiveness with which the economic problems of this country are being dealt with and, certainly, of this Province, will be measured now and in the future with that very easy comparison between that heavy, heavy charge, the deadweight debt, and all the economic advantages of this Province, measured by a series of years of fiscal management of the highest order, something which, Mr. Speaker, is the envy of this country. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the previous speaker and his remarks. You know, this is the twenty-second time I've got up to debate in the Budget Debate and I feel quite honoured. I noticed that the Honourable the Minister of Health told us that the small hospital did not meet public approval. Well, we've got a small hospital in Michel. It's a very small hospital. I believe there's only seven beds in it…

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. NIMSICK: …only seven beds in that hospital and I think they've done a marvellous job and I hope….

AN HON. MEMBER: What hospital?

MR. NIMSICK: The Michel Hospital, and it took care of many of the worst accidents that happened in the Province in that area. I hope that, when you are considering hospitals, you will consider one for the Sparwood area because there are 55 miles that people have to travel to Fernie Hospital. I think that is a ridiculous situation to look ahead to.

Now the Honourable the Minister spoke about intermediate care. Here we have a Province that is supposed to be one of the wealthiest Provinces in Canada and we contribute to other Provinces that are not so well off. I think it is a reflection on this wealthy Province to say that we cannot give hospital intermediate care to our elderly citizens. Regardless of whether the Federal Government comes along or not, I think we should go ahead with this scheme. I appreciate the fact that the Honourable the Minister is a little worried about the costs of health care. He was speaking about the doctors. Well, the Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet gave you a solution last year but I haven't heard any more about it from you (interruption).

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the honourable Member's talking about but, in regard to this, we've got to develop preventative medicine in the Province of British Columbia if we're going to solve the problems of health costs and give the same service and better service than we're giving today.

There's one question before the Honourable the Minister goes that I'd like to deal with and one on which I placed a bill on the Order Paper last year, dealing with the restrictive clauses in doctors' agreements. At that time, I was dealing with the case of Dr. Stanton who was banished from practicing in Cranbrook. He couldn't practice within ten miles of Cranbrook. He is at the present time in the Kimberley Hospital. I did ask him last year what would happen if there were an emergency and he had to go to the Cranbrook Hospital to operate? Would he be taken up for contempt of Court? He didn't answer that one. But the bill that I placed on the Order Paper might not be the one that the Government wants. I know that a bill that's placed on the Order Paper by an Opposition Member is not going to receive a great deal of consideration and that's why I'm asking the Honourable the Minister to give consideration of this, at this time, because, last summer, I had another case where a doctor in Fernie was only an employee of a clinic, only an employee, and when he left that employment, this was the clause that he had to stand by: "The assistant," this is just to be an assistant, "will not for a period of five years after the termination of his employment carry on either alone or in partnership with any other person or persons nor act as an assistant to any person or persons carrying on or about to carry on the practice of physician, surgeon or general medical practitioner in the city of Fernie or within ten miles from the Post Office thereof, and will for every breach of the stipulations contained in this clause pay to the principals the sum of $5,000 as liquidated damages and it is especially intended by the parties hereto that the said sum of $5,000 shall be deemed to be ascertained a demerit for the every such breach without proof by the principals or either of them

[ Page 297 ]

of any actual damage or the amount thereof."

This doctor, Mr. Speaker and the Honourable the Minister, for all intents and purposes, was banished from practicing in Fernie because he left his employment. I don't know whether he left it voluntarily or they didn't need him but he couldn't go down and set up an office down the street. I say that you people who claim to believe in free enterprise, I don't think a clinic is much value if they're afraid of competition down the street. This doctor didn't want to leave the area that he was practicing in. He liked the Crowsnest area so he went to Michel (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, he went to Michel to practice there. That's 21 miles away from Fernie. Then he's presented with another agreement and this is another clause in this agreement: "The associate will not for a period of five years after the termination of his employment carry on either alone or in partnership with any other person or persons nor act as an associate to any person or persons carrying on or about to carry on a practice of a physician, a surgeon or general medical practitioner in the town of Michel or within 20 miles from the town of Michel." He's fined for any break of that. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Honourable the Minister, this doctor who is practicing in Michel now doesn't want to leave the area. He likes the area. If he doesn't continue with the doctor he's with there he'd be banished from the whole area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why doesn't he start on his own?

MR. NIMSICK: Because he can't start on his own there. They won't let him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to get a job.

MR. NIMSICK: They won't let him. This clause in the agreement, because he happened to be an employee there. He didn't sign this one and neither did Dr. Stanton in Cranbrook sign it. They didn't sign it. They had a court case over it and they banished Dr. Stanton from the Cranbrook area. I say that this is wrong. It is difficult enough to get doctors to go to a small place. That doctor who left Fernie and went to Michel, they haven't got all the facilities in Michel and sometimes they have to take an operation to Fernie. They wouldn't even let him scrub for the other doctor in Fernie, for the head doctor that went down from Michel. He couldn't even scrub for him in the Fernie Hospital. I think that this is a violation of human rights. These doctors are given the right to practice by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and I think that they should have the right to practice any place in the Province of British Columbia and…(interruption), and they haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have.

MR. NIMSICK: They haven't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Honourable Member from Columbia that Dr. Stanton cannot set up in Cranbrook.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. NIMSICK: Because he was banished from Cranbrook by this agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he sign it?

MR. NIMSICK: No he didn't. He is bound by it because the Court said so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: The Court said that he was bound by it. I gave you this agreement. You know the court case that went on with Dr. Stanton.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister said he was going to look into it two years ago. He was going to look into it last year. Now I ask you again to look into it and let's solve this problem. Let's get back on the track and give these people back their human rights.

Just because a Member of the Opposition brings it up, don't think that it's… This could happen to any area in the Province, when you find it in Cranbrook, when you find it in Fernie, when you find it in Michel. With this agreement and with this Court case that went on with Stanton they could banish them all there from the area. Now I don't think that that's human rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can do it on a verbal agreement, too, and still be….

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, that's right. That's why Dr. Stanton was convicted because…(interruption). Well, he wasn't convicted but he was made to hold to the agreement, even if he didn't sign it, because they said that it was on the agreement and he knew it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal a few minutes with Regional Districts. In the first place, for quite a number of years now, since Regional Districts were set up in the Province of British Columbia, in a Province the size of British Columbia, when you set up Regional Districts, they have to be very large. It's only a matter of degree whether they are Provincial or whether they are Regional Districts. In my area, when you consider representatives from Radium and Kimberley deciding what's going on down in the Michel-Natal area, I think the Regional Districts are really beyond the sense of a community affair. They're a little beyond that sense. Now, at the time the Regional Districts were set up, I was a little fearful about what might happen or what the purpose was. It sounded reasonable and, at that time, I warned this Government that they were setting up a fourth level of Government in Canada, a third level Government in the Province of British Columbia. I think it's time now, after all these years, for this Government to re-examine the Regional District concept, because I wonder, a Province the size of British Columbia with so many open spaces and thinly populated areas with only two million people in it. I wonder whether we can afford the luxury of a Regional Government, another level of Government in the Province of British Columbia.

Let me tell you and let me warn the people that, in 10 or 15 years, these Regional District governments are going to be a very costly affair to the taxpayers in the area. At that time, they said they had no real power and they have't too much power yet. They're only a child of the Provincial Govern-

[ Page 298 ]

ment. I said, at that time, too, maybe the Regional government was being set up so that the Provincial Government could act as a clearinghouse and pass on a buck-passing affair so that they could pass on those things that were politically nasty to handle and let the Regional District look after them rather than the Provincial Government. Then when anything happens, they could blame the Regional District.

To give you an example, one of these problems was the relocation of Natal-Michel, which was mooted here in 1964, when the Premier got up and, in a grandiose style, told us that he was going to beautify the eastern entrance to the Province of British Columbia and that he was going to have Natal-Michel relocated to Sparwood, without any cost to the citizens of Natal-Michel. He went on to say he was doing this to beautify the eastern entrance. Well, I've come to the conclusion that that time was the very time that the negotiations were going on between Kaiser and CNI and I rather believe that the Kaiser coming in hinged on whether Natal-Michel would be moved or not. I don't think it was beautifying the eastern entrance because the minute they got the people to agree to go along with their relocation then the Government opted out and turned it over to the Regional District to look after.

I think they're going to be a costly form of government for the Province of British Columbia. The relocation of Natal-Michel went along with the Regional District. I don't know whether there was a deadline set up at the time this grandiose scheme was proposed or not but, anyway, last summer at the time they bought a lot of the homes from these people, they let them rent them back. They said that they wouldn't have to move unless they provided suitable accommodation for them. Last summer they came to them and gave them eviction notices, told them the time had come when they had to move. The only alternative those people had was to move to a $20,000 home in Sparwood or a $180 a month apartment. Some of those people were within one year or two years of having their pension. There was no public housing scheme developed by this Government which there should have been. They laid the blame on the local people for not developing a public housing scheme, but I say it was the responsibility of this Government. They should have developed the public housing scheme because it was their baby — the relocation of Natal-Michel. I think it was a disgraceful act for the Regional District to have to give these people eviction notices.

The eviction was to take place September 30 and I will say that the Honourable the Minister, probably, intervened on this a little bit but, nevertheless, they went ahead with the eviction notices to Court. The Judge, in his wisdom, of course, said, "Well we'll leave them there till next year." They're still there, these people that are in these places, and there's no provision made yet for them to move. They made provision for senior citizens, but these people were not in the senior citizen class. Now, in addition to this, we have a large number of people there who own businesses, who have homes. They're not satisfied with what the Regional District offered them — $6,000 for a four-bedroom home, with full basement and fence and garage — $6,000, that included the lot, when they have to go over to Sparwood and the lot itself is $2,000 and the home will cost them $20,000 besides. These people rebelled and now they've got expropriation proceedings against them. They say that it's all going to be cleaned up by the middle of this year. I'm sure they will get more than what they were offered by the Regional District but I don't think it was necessary to put these people, who have felt the brunt of the ups and downs of our economic system over the years, through the frustrations that they've been forced to go through during this time. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this was wrong. You've still got an opportunity to redeem the Government, I think, because I still think you should set up a public housing scheme in Sparwood. A public housing scheme it should be.

Another thing that the Provincial Government has passed on to the Regional Districts and the property owners in the Regional Districts is other costs, costs that rightfully belong to the Provincial Government. Looking after garbage in the rural areas, this was done by the Highways Department for years, looking after garbage dumps by the Highways Department, paid for out of the consolidated revenues. Last year, you turned it over to the Regional District. They didn't act very fast. The Highways Department opted out and I know places, such as Jaffray where they didn't have a garbage dump, where the people had to get rid of their own garbage. To get a garbage dump, they've been proceeding on it for a whole year now. They still haven't got the garbage dump at Jaffray. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extra added cost taken off the Provincial Government and placed on the property of the people in the local area.

Zoning is another nasty issue that was given over to the Regional District. I'm not opposed to zoning, mark my words, I'm not opposed to zoning, but I don't think it's proper to use a place, such as the Elk Valley, as a pilot plan for the whole Province. I've talked many times about a land use programme in the Province of British Columbia, in the Fraser Valley where we're subdividing and industrially subdividing that fine agricultural land when we shouldn't be doing it. It should remain as farmland. There is a place where you should have started, not in the Elk Valley, way up there where you have a lot of people who have been living there for 40 and 50 years. The geographical situation is not like the Fraser Valley. The Regional District brought in, that a person, if they wanted to subdivide, could do so in not less than 80 acres, in certain instances. Now this is a pretty difficult task when some of the plots of land are less than 80 acres. When a farmer wants to give his son a piece of land, he can't do that under the 80 acres and if a person doesn't want 80 acres to farm on, what's the good of it to him, anyway (interruption).

It's proceeding slowly. The people, I will say, put up enough opposition to it that it didn't go through, and I'll thank you, again, too, for not letting it go through. I don't think that this is the way to pilot a land use programme. Let's make it Province-wide. Let's have a land use programme Province-wide and then these people will not feel that they're being unfairly dealt with, compared to the people living in another area. I say that this is one of the nasty problems that, probably, the Department thought they would find out how it would work in this area.

Pollution is another question that they turn over to the Regional District, in some instances, but they don't know what to do with it. The election of officers of a Regional District, I don't think is too democratic (interruption).

I've got your diagram here and I noticed that a person is elected in a municipality to serve that municipality and then he is appointed by the municipality to serve on the Regional Board. I think all members should be elected, if you're going to have a Regional Board. I don't think any one member should have two or three votes. This is exactly what they have. This is not democratic for one member to have two or

[ Page 299 ]

three votes (interruption). Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where such a stupid remark came from. You say that I'm wrong. There's a guy who was put out by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What are you talking about? (Interruption.)

Yes, they should elect their representative on the Regional District exactly as your own municipality.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the Members please address the Chair (interruption). Order.

MR. NIMSICK: His first loyalty when he's elected as a municipal alderman is to the municipality and I say that he should be elected to be a representative of the Regional District.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. NIMSICK: The people….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He doesn't trust the people.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the Honourable the Minister to carefully re-examine the regional idea because, I'm sure, that as time goes on, as it builds up and the administration cost builds up, it's going to be a terrific weight on the people throughout the areas. A terrific financial burden on them because the costs are piling up and in 10 or 15 years it's going to be more costly than your municipal government (interruption). Certainly, I would, but I know where they'd be filed. With you, I guess (interruption). You've got access to the tape.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it right out of Hansard.

MR. NIMSICK: It's on Hansard now. I don't write my speeches out in longhand, so I haven't got it written out for you (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal a little bit with taxes. Some years ago we passed an act, here, Assessment Equalization. The purpose of that Assessment Equalization Act was to equalize assessments throughout the Province. I've got a whole sheaf of letters here from people in my area complaining about the enormous increase in assessments. On investigating, I find that the increases are mostly on the small farmer, on the small home-owner, on the small landowner. But the huge landowners are left to go scot free. I will just go over some of these large ones, just to give you an idea of what it is. Here is one — 6,044 acres right along the highway and very choice land. In 1968, the assessment on 6,044 acres was $23,105. In 1969, it went down to $18,480, about $3 an acre assessment on that land. In 1970, it went back to $19,960 about $3.50 or $3.25 assessment on that 6,000 acres.

Then we go to the Crowsnest Industries and see what kind of an assessment they get on their large holdings. Here is 249 acres, $10 an acre; 1,709 acres, $5.50 an acre; 1,382 acres, $7 an acre; 1,974 acres, $10 an acre; 9,983, $5 an acre; 85,157 acres, $4.50 an acre; 117,000, $4.50 an acre. This is the Crowsnest Industries: 727 acres, $4.50 an acre; 9,970 acres, $4.50 an acre; and all the way down. Some of it down to 6,400 acres at $2 an acre. None of it over $8 an acre. Then we go on to the Kaiser Holdings: 27,042, $4 an acre; 12,000 acres, $4 an acre; and then we come back to out in Meadowbrook, just outside of Kimberley, where I get all the letters from, and what do we find? We find that, in 1969, for 40 acres, $315, which is $8 per acre; in 1970, that jumped to $125 per acre, a 1,600 per cent increase for bush land, the same kind of land, in many cases, as the CNI or the other people are paying only $4 an acre. I have letters here from people there — "Last year our taxes on 40 acres of land with nothing but trees and seepage on it went from $6.48 to $280.39." Another 40 acres with a house and nothing more done to it, the taxes went up from $188 to $542.

Just outside of Cranbrook last year, a pensioner, living on 10 acres of land, his taxes went up about 800 per cent (interruption). Last year, it was around $800. I think something should be done in these cases especially where people are on fixed incomes. You're trying to drive them out of their homes. The Honourable the Premier said the other day that we want to see everybody have a home. Why doesn't he live up to that then and he can carry it out? It's only a small home, but, to jump that amount of taxes, it forced them to sell to the land manipulators — five acres of it. They, probably, will have to sell the rest because, outside right around Cranbrook and Cranbrook is a fast-growing area, the land speculators are there to grab onto anything that they can get hold of. I think that this resolution that was passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities which says and I'll quote: "Municipal councils continue to show concern for problems faced by elderly home-owners, retired on a limited fixed income, with respect to the ever-increasing property tax burden on their homes. The difficulties are increased for that group of citizens whose finances are such that they are eligible for the guaranteed income supplements, yet who wish to continue to live in the home which they have strived most of their lives to establish rather than move to unfamiliar tax-supported surroundings. We, therefore, once more, press the Government of British Columbia, most vigorously for action in devising some form of optional and effective tax relief for the group of elderly citizens. We reiterate our willingness to work in any way with the Government in seeking the solution."

I would ask the Government to do something in regard to that case and also in regard to the discrimination that is going on between the large landowners and the small ones. The CPR has plenty of land in that area. I don't know what their assessments are, but I take it that they are around $4.50. CNI is assessed at $4.50. When Sparwood wanted to buy the land from them, what did they ask? $200. When Fernie wanted to buy land from them, it was $300 for land that is assessed that CNI, probably, has not paid much taxes on over the years. If we're going to up these taxes, I think that the taxes on the small home-owners have gone out of bounds altogether. When it goes up 700 or 800 per cent, it is a big jump. To think that these other people are getting away with practically nothing and holding huge tracts of land, without doing anything with it, it's not fair. This is some place where the Provincial Government, if they wanted to…. They're talking about ability to pay, they're talking about wanting more income, and they're talking about that they want to give a home-owner grant to these people with homes. But, on the other hand, they're taking it right back when they increase the assessments to the extent that they increase these assessments. They're taking it right back, giving it with one hand and taking it back with the other. I know that's a good political gimmick, but let's be just in dealing with the people concerned.

[ Page 300 ]

Another policy of the Government with which I disagree and that is their policy in regards to lotteries, bingo and small raffles. The little people are penalized. We've got the horse races, we've got the stock market, we've got gambling in the higher echelon of our society. Why should the little people be denied the right to have the pleasure of going to a bingo game at night or sitting in their own home and playing a bingo game on TV? Why should they be denied this right when you don't deny the others the right? The Government went out skelping for more money and even these raffles they've taxed them or licensed them, in all instances. The Lions Club of Kimberley has, for years, run a TV bingo and they built the Pioneer Home from the income that they received from the bingos — this is a senior citizens' home. I'd like to read a letter that was sent to Premier Bennett in regards to the question of bingos. "Dear Mr. Bennett:"….

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. NIMSICK: January 30, 1971. "This letter is written with the hope that you will find time in your busy schedule to give it some personal consideration. The subject is one of great concern to a good many citizens of our Province. The subject of which I write is that of recent legislation banning TV, radio and newspaper bingos. As an active member of the Kimberley Lions Club, I can honestly say that this legislation is a tremendous blow to our club's fundraising activities, as Lions Clubs are totally service clubs. Our aim is to better the lot of our fellow man. The services accomplished by the Kimberley Lions Club up to now have been greatly needed and appreciated by our fellow citizens. We have raised considerable amounts of money over the past years and have accomplished projects, such as the ambulance purchase, heart machine purchase, which I might add has added to the life of more than one of our citizens, and our greatest accomplishment is the building of a Pioneer Lodge. It is our hope this year to begin with the addition of 16 more units to this project, our contribution to the Centennial Year."

Now I know that you made some changes in the TV bingos, in regard to making them pay at least 25 per cent of the gross, but the 25 and 35 per cent of the gross is the wrong way to attack this problem. If you want to make sure that these amounts of money are given to the charity causes for which they're run, I say that it should be on the net, a higher percentage on the net rather than forcing people…the Cranbrook bingo went in the hole because they had to pay 35 per cent to charity. Don't forget that these bingos that are being run, these small ones, raffles and that, these are local people trying to do things that maybe the Provincial Government would have to do if they didn't do them. The Provincial Government may have to foot the bill if they didn't do them. They get, I suppose, a certain amount of pleasure and a certain amount of good feeling out of working for other people. And who attends the bingo games? It's mostly elderly people, who have got lots of time on their hands, and they go to a bingo game just for an evening of pleasure. I don't think for $2 they could find pleasure any cheaper. But You're still operating on the gross and I think that this is going to stop a lot of them. I just got the regulations two days ago and they've got to give 25 per cent of the gross on TV bingos or newspaper bingos, and 35 per cent on the other lotteries. Now, I say, that it is fine to make regulations but let's make it on the net. Let's make a higher percentage. If you want to make 80 or 90 per cent on the net, I don't care, but on the net is far better than on the gross (interruption). That's on the gross but many of these don't pay for themselves (interruption). Yes, that's right. All right, let's make it on the net and then they'll have to go to charity. This way, of making it on the gross, they could get away with more money into other courses than it would be necessary. I say that we should take another good look at this question of lotteries.

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation or whatever it is, he should get up and speak once in a while here in the House rather than going down to Ottawa, and definitely state in this House what he thinks. If he thinks that the welfare recipient should pay income tax, he should state that right in this House here, not down at Ottawa (interruption). But he should tell us when he comes back. He should give us a report on it and he hasn't been up on his feet yet.

Now, dealing with highways and this is a question that you can deal with in jobs. I'd like to leave this — I'd like the Minister to be in. Maybe I'll deal with another question first. I'm going to deal with pollution.

You know, this Government has, in their Speech from the Throne and all the rest of it, shown a lot of worries about pollution, about ecology and all the rest of it. Over the years that I've been here, I think it's just been giving a lot of lip service to pollution. They have set up a Pollution Control Board, up until this time, as a sort of a clearinghouse for an application to pollute, not not to pollute but an application to pollute. As I have said before, the RDK is in quite a dilemma over pollution, because the Pollution Board, when they receive an application, where do they send it to? They send it back to the Regional District and they ask the Regional District if they've got any objections. The Regional District hasn't got the machinery to look after pollution. They haven't got the research to look after pollution. This should be the Provincial Government. The Pollution Board should have all this at their fingertips. Before they ever advertise in the Gazette asking people whether they've got any objections or whether it's going to interfere with them or not, they should decide beforehand whether it's going to pollute or not. I think the Regional Districts, if they've got a pollution problem, should be able to go to the Pollution Board. I don't think that the Regional Districts should have to go to the expense of hiring an expert to figure out pollution and that's what they're going to do up there — another expense on the local taxpayer. They're going to hire an expert to advise the Pollution Board. What a foolish thing that would be, when the Pollution Board is supposed to be set up with all the data for looking after it. Kaiser Coal — they've got several applications in; Fording has got applications in; Scurry Rainbow will have applications in; CNI will have applications in, all to pollute the Elk River. I notice, according to the Chairman of the Pollution Board, he stated that, if a third company wishes to establish itself along the river, the other two companies would have to reduce the strength of their effluent so that, even with the new discharge the water quality would not be further downgraded. Now, I'm not quite so naive, Mr. Speaker, to think that, if Kaiser has been given the right to pollute to a certain degree and along comes Fording and puts in an application to pollute the same river, that you're going to go back to Kaiser and stop them from running their pollutants into the river. I don't think that this is feasible and what's going to happen when all these outfits, such as CNI, Scurry Rainbow, all make applications to pollute the Elk River? Where is the Elk River going to go? It will be going down as a polluted river. I say

[ Page 301 ]

there should be no pollution going into these rivers, no pollution at all, because there's ways and means with our technological advances, today, to stop all pollution if we want to stop it from going into the river. They can recycle the water, they've got lots of methods to do it. It's only because it's a cost item and it interferes with the profits that they will not do it.

Then you've got Port Hardy, where you allowed the mines to run their sludge into the water. Now, you've got an application from a party to flood the Slocan or to pollute the Slocan Lake. On January 2, 1971, the Daily News carried an application by the Semiahmoo Enterprises for a permit under the Pollution Control Act to dump effluent from lead-zinc ore into the Slocan Lake. The whole world is crying for pure, fresh water but still this firm is filing an application to pollute one of the very few unpolluted rivers in the world. The proposed treatment of the waste to be applied before discharge is as follows: it is Semiahmoo's intention to run a six-inch line from the bank into approximately 50 feet of water, 150 feet offshore, to settle tailings on the lake bottom. I ask you what kind of treatment is this? This is not a treatment before discharge, this is the discharge of the pure waste. If this permit is granted to this company, what is to stop other mining firms from obtaining permits? Well, there's nothing to stop them, because you gave a mining firm on Buttle Lake a permit to pollute Buttle Lake, you've given the Utah Mines the right to pollute and now I suppose you're going to give these people. Sure, the Semiahmoo Enterprises Ltd. states that they would dump only 25,000 gallons of waste for 24 hours but, over the years, this waste will build up and the water will be unfit for human consumption. The entire Slocan Valley depends on this water for domestic use, for irrigation purposes and for recreation. If this permit is granted, think of all those people who, in time, would be affected by this polluted water. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, I hope he doesn't grant this permit to pollute the Slocan Lake.

I've got a letter here from a resident of Slocan, R.H. Cunningham, and this is what he says: "Dear Sir: I am writing with regard to an advertisement that appeared in the Nelson Daily News. This advertisement was inserted by the Semiahmoo Enterprises Ltd. of 15240 5th Avenue, White Rock, B.C. It is notice of application for a permit from the Pollution Control Board to discharge effluent from a lead zinc operation into the Slocan Lake at Silverton, B.C. I would like to make the following protest against the granting of any such permit. First, I believe the material to be discharged constitutes a form of pollution of a serious nature. Second, I believe that the quantity to be discharged, approximately 1,000 gallons per hour, is sufficient to pollute the entire Slocan water system." I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is using the Pollution Control Board as a means of granting the right to pollute.

Mr. Speaker, when they put the ads in the Gazette, they always put them in this way, and I quote from the ad in the Gazette. "This application is to be filed with the Director of Pollution Control, Parliament Buildings, Victoria. Any person whose rights would be affected in accordance with the Act may, within 30 days of the date of the application or within the 30 days of the date of the publication in the British Columbia Gazette or in a newspaper or where service is required within 30 days of a serving of a copy of the application, file with the director an objection in writing to the granting of a permit stating how he is affected."

I don't think that people living in the area should have to state that it's going to pollute the area. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a job for the Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board is the one that should be deciding whether it's a pollutant or not. I think that the International Pulp Workers had a good idea. I went to try and find out if I could get the monitoring of the pollution on the Kootenay River. But they told me nobody could have it except the Department and the company. I think that this is not a proper method to take. I think anyone should have the right to the monitoring record of a company such as a pulp mill. They do their own monitoring I understand.

We've got a pollution control expert supposed to be up there at the present time and he was the one I asked for access to the monitoring records. He told me that I'd have to write to Victoria, that it wasn't open to the public. This, I don't think, is the proper attitude to take. I think that the International Pulp Workers had a good suggestion when they suggested that a committee of the workers, in conjunction with the company, should have a pollution committee to see that the pollution controls are looked after. To me, it's not fair to the public that are getting pollution-minded, to allow the pollution to go on the way that we are doing at the present time. I noticed this morning, according to the radio, that there's going to be a hearing on the Skagit Valley flooding in Seattle. I'd like to urge this Government to have representation at that Skagit Valley hearing. I'd like to urge this Government to pass a resolution here telling them that we're not happy about the flooding of the Skagit Valley. If this were done, maybe we could retrieve some of the mistakes that have been made.

In regards to highways and this is a question, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier spoke on about providing jobs. He was up in my area at election time and we've got a section of road that has been asked for ever since 1960 — the highway from Fort Steele Junction to the overpass at Cranbrook. He promised that tenders would be called right away. Well, I'm still waiting for tenders to be called on this section of the highway for the relocation of this section. But it hasn't been done yet and I would like to urge this Government to fulfil this promise. Then there's the Van Horne by-pass and the Kimberley Highway needs to be upstaged, in accordance with the highways today. The Kimberley Highway between Cranbrook and Kimberley was built in 1949 and I think it is time that it was upstaged to be modernized, somewhat. I'd like to see the Minister get up and speak on what he's doing about the Rose Pass. (Interruption).

Well, the candidate for the Social Credit Party said he was going to have it finished in a year. That's right. He said he was going to have it finished in a year, if he got elected. I didn't expect it would be finished even then and I don't expect it to be finished in a year, while I'm here. But I do like to know. They tell me there's some work going on at the Rose Pass and I'd like to know what is being done. The road from Fort Steele to the fish hatchery — we spend millions of dollars on the fish hatchery and we have a very poor road to that other great tourist attraction, Fort Steele. I think that we should have a paved highway from Fort Steele to the fish hatchery.

Now, getting over into the area of my friend, the Minister of Highways, and the Honourable Member for Rossland-Trail, I think the Champion Lakes cut-off should be gone ahead with, immediately. I don't think we should be playing politics with the Champion Lakes cut-off. This would shorten the distance considerably between the eastern part of the

[ Page 302 ]

Province and Vancouver. If people want to go into Trail or Nelson, they'll go into Trail or Nelson, but we don't have to force them to go in there. We don't have to force the trailer trucks and the big equipment to wind their way through Trail or through Nelson in order to continue on the highway. I'm sure, what the Minister said last year was a political issue, is a political issue, and if we're going to build highways on politics, then, it's time we took the highways out of the political sphere and turned them over to a highways commission.

Another point I'd like to say and that is in regards to our ferries. You know, the distance from the ticket office to the ferries is a long way and many times there are elderly people, people that are sick and crippled. I think there should be some kind of a shuttle service between the ticket office and the ferry. It would give somebody work and it would help out a lot of people. I'm telling you that, when you watch those people having to walk a distance, some of those elderly people, it's pretty tough.

In regards to parks, now that the Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation is here, I think there should be a trailer and a camping park right near Fort Steele. In the evenings, when the tourists are at Fort Steele there are hundreds of trailers and campers on the parking lot and I feel that this attraction would boomerang if we would only have a trailer camp right close to the park. People could come in there in the evening, set up their camp, and then visit the Fort Steele Historical Centre. Here, again, a place where you could give a job, and that is a shuttle service from the parking lot, either by the railroad or some method in keeping with the historical idea of Fort Steele to take people around there, people who are too old to walk that distance. You could do this by giving somebody a job to handle it or it could be a concession to somebody, if they would do it.

I would like to ask the Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and also the Minister of Forestry that they will go ahead with the Top of the World wilderness park. I know it's in the hands of the Land Use Committee at the present time, but the people who are logging in that area are pushing roads as fast as they can. They may have been stopped since, I don't know, but they tell me they're pushing a road right through. I think that if we allow them to go right through with that road, we're going to destroy this place as a wilderness park. I would like the Minister to find out if the roads are going into that area, at the present time, while it's in kind of sub judice with the Land Use Committee.

Now, I'm going to deal a few minutes with the Budget, Mr. Speaker. As I told you before, I've listened to, I believe it is, 22 budgets and all I can say about most of them is — tedious and repetitious. Tedious and repetitious for 22 times!

I listened, today, about the high interest rates that we pay in the Federal Government but, I wonder, who pays the interest on the two and one-third billion dollars of contingent liabilities that we owe (interruption). This, to me… don't forget the contingent liability doesn't only cover hydro, it covers schools, it covers quite a few sins, and…(interruption). Well, they are sins, by the fact that they're omitted from the regular Budget. The people of this Province are not allowed access to see what's going on within the books (interruption). They haven't got the right to examine them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is wrong, The taxes on schools, payments for electricity and hospitals, student aid loans and all this that you pay on that contingent liability at 6 per cent, will be $140 million a year. And who pays it?

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayer.

MR. NIMSICK: Just because you don't pay it out of the Treasury, as you say, the people pay it. The people pay it on their light bill, they pay it on their municipal taxes, they pay it on different taxes throughout this Province. Even to class the student aid loans as a contingent liability to me is wrong. One hundred and forty-four million dollars. I listened to the Honourable the Minister of Health state what the interest that was paid by the Federal Government would do in building hospitals. This $144 million that's owed by the Provincial Government, actually owed by the Provincial Government, $144 million interest a year, because it's a contingent liability and guaranteed by the Provincial Government…. The only thing that you have done is transferred the payments of this interest from the Treasury to the people out there, as an increased tax on the people throughout the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the books.

MR. NIMSICK: This isn't done, according to the ability to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're hiding these facts. You know what it is. Bring in the Hydro books.

MR. NIMSICK: "The emphasis and Provincial policies in this Budget will be two-fold," the Premier said. "One, on the creation of additional jobs and, two, the maintenance of high standard in education, hospital and medical care and social services."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Just one moment. What is your point of order?

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): From time to time the Members opposite request that the Government side table their position with respect to the statistics. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Member to table his statistics in the normal way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member has made the request and I'm sure it will be noted.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm reading this out of the Budget Speech. He can get it out of there. I don't have to table the Budget Speech. The Premier has done that and he's not only tabled it in the Province of British Columbia but he tabled it down in Ottawa. He told everybody that….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: A further point of order. The Member has used statistics here this afternoon and I'm sure that the House is entitled to the benefit… (interruption) the Member is entitled to offer to table them and if he wishes to refuse that's fine. I'm sure the Member will table his material, will you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister's comments have been noted.

MR. NIMSICK: I don't have to have them written down, Mr. Speaker, to tell them what the interest on a contingent

[ Page 303 ]

liability would be.

In another place in the Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Premier stated: "The British Columbia tax structure adheres closely to the principle of ability to pay. For example, as the personal income tax increases at a faster rate the higher the income. Many tax exemptions are allowed…" here and there — an annual home-owner grant.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why he put that in there, but I think it was to cover up the increase in taxes that he had in mind at the time that he read that out. I'm sure that the increase in taxes that the Premier spoke about the other day in regard to gasoline, in regard to tobacco and cigarettes, in regard to hotel and motel, that they're not all on ability to pay. In other words, you're saying that a poor person shouldn't smoke, but it's all right for the rich to smoke. That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's all right for a rich person to run a car and pay the extra amount, but it's not all right for a poor person. It isn't according to the ability to pay. It's hitting the little person and the only thing the old age pensioner has, in many cases, to pass the time away is to have a smoke. Many of them… (interruption) and to place the taxes in this way, I think it is taxing the little fellow…not according to ability to pay. You can see that in regards to the fuel tax. You don't tax the big trailer trucks the same as…you increased them 2 cents on diesel fuel when you increased 2 cents on the gasoline fuel (interruption). Listen, when we want to stop people from smoking, I don't think you should tax it. Taxing it only deprives the little man but it doesn't deprive the big man.

Mr. Speaker, "British Columbia has been offered a $35 million loan by the Federal Government to finance job creating projects. The Province has suggested to the Government of Canada and is on record on a number of occasions as to the need for low-interest loans to municipalities for essential local projects. While the loan fund has been accepted completely for our municipalities, I do not consider loans at Canada Pension Plan interest rates as low-interest loans."

Now, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Provincial Government…they've got a large surplus, they've built it up over the years, why don't they loan the municipalities who are their children, why don't they loan the municipalities loans at lower interest rates for job creating? Why do we always have to run to the Federal Government and ask them for the money? They're big, bad boys because they don't give it to the municipality at no interest. The municipalities are not the children of the Federal Government. They're the children of a Provincial Government and, yet, you pile up these reserves and you make these piggy banks and everything else, so that you can use the money for other purposes. That's all it is. If you want to treat the municipalities in this way you start showing the Federal Government up. Show them what you're doing in regards to municipalities and in regards to making jobs for the people. But you don't do it (interruption).

I'm not talking about contingencies — straight loans to the municipalities — that's not a contingent liability.

Then, in another place, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Premier stated: "The Federal White Paper on social security published last fall proposes some progressive action in income maintenance but is far removed from British Columbia's repeated suggestion of a guaranteed annual income." To me, Mr. Speaker, the acceptance of a guaranteed annual income under the capitalist system will be nothing short of a glorified welfare system. To accept, as a fact of life, that some people will never be given a chance to make their contribution to society is morally wrong and I cannot accept such a stand. We pinch in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the police force. We say to these people, "After you work 25 years, you have made your contribution to society and we'll give you a pension." Why can't we do that with the other people? With the industrial workers, the people who serve us. Why not everyone? Give them a guaranteed income of pension at 45 or 50 years. Either it be voluntary — there's many people that are square pegs in round holes that have spent 20 years in jobs that they've hated and they might be glad to go on a pension and do their thing that they wanted to do all their life at 45 or 50 and make room for the young people (interruption).

…to anyone who wishes to get away from what he is doing and get away and do what he likes. Sick people are compelled to work for years, sick people and crippled people are compelled to work on and on until they're 65, for years, when they shouldn't be working. These people could be taken out of the labour market and they should be freed from their labours long before 65 years of age. People wishing to do…Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Honourable the Minister of what ever it is, if he is in favour of the guaranteed annual income? Are you in favour of the guaranteed annual income?

The right to an early pension for those who have made their contribution should be a right that they should have if they wanted it and this would make way for the right of the young people to make their contribution. Young people want a chance to take their place in society, not a glorified welfare system, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT (Shuswap): Speaking of times in the House, the last time I got up to speak reminded me of during the First World War. In Germany, they used to have what they called rabbit a la mode — for every one rabbit you add one horse. This is the kind of way they divided the time the other day.

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a privilege to be able to stand and take my place this early in the Debate. I don't mean, necessarily, early in the day but at the beginning of the Budget Debate, before anyone else has spoiled my speech and I have to repeat what they've said. This is one of the times when I can really say that it has been a pleasure to be early in the Debate and speak for the Shuswap area. This is one of the most beautiful parts of British Columbia with the abundance of lakes and rivers and the temperate climate that we enjoy. This draws large numbers of tourists annually. Tourism is the second largest industry in the Shuswap area and is increasing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be so abundant when they divert it.

MR. JEFCOAT: That's for sure, but I'm coming to that, Mr. Member, and I intend to have a few words to say on it, after what you said last year, seeing that you didn't know anything about what you were talking about. So, I'm going to have a few words to say.

With this increasing tourist industry, roadside camps and increased parks and camping areas are urgently required. I am pleased to see an increase in the Budget for park expenditures. This, I hope, when the Minister's estimates are brought

[ Page 304 ]

down, will reflect a fair share of this spending in the Shuswap area.

Farming and forest industries are also a major source of revenue to the economy of the area. Now the Honourable Leader of the NDP Party, I see he has left the House, used the term the other day, that I thought wasn't very becoming; however, it was considered where it came from. He was comparing the Budget to B-U-L-L, I think was the term that he used. Now, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, as I have spoken on agriculture many times in this House, that I have a little article here from the Salmon Arm Observer, which I received last night. I see that a young animal — I have said that we raise quite a lot of purebred stock for breeding purposes — and I see here where a young animal has been sent from the Salmon Arm area to the Calgary bull sale and it brought $25,000. This is the type of animal that we have in the Salmon Arm area.

All of these industries, farming and forestry, as well as tourists and the local people, certainly, require roads. I brought this to the attention of this House, when I spoke last week on the great need for an increased highways programme in the area. I have been concerned that local roads are very rough and dusty. This excessive dust makes driving very hazardous, especially during the heavy tourist season. I could mention one road, Mr. Speaker, where there were 28 logging trucks hauling over this particular road and the school busdriver told me that he would sit alongside of the road, sometimes, when four logging truck loads of logs would go by before he dared try to pull back onto the road. So don't let anyone in this House feel that I'm here, just to be talking. We certainly need some improvement in the roads around these lakes and areas because they are not only rough and dusty but they are very hazardous to drive on.

I would hope that a greatly accelerated programme of construction and blacktopping can be undertaken this year. The Budget allows for an increase in highways spending. Yes, it allows for employment. When the Minister of Highways is giving his estimates I hope to deal, more specifically, with individual roads and the requirements of these specific roads.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House, this afternoon, the importance of water in this Province. We are endowed with plenty of water and the responsibility to develop and properly use this resource rests with us. Proper use cannot be attained until adequate studies have been undertaken in the areas concerned. These studies must be on a very broad basis to determine what our requirements are, what use should be made of the waters available and what controls are necessary, if any, to accomplish the best and most efficient use of these very important resources. I have advocated for a number of years that studies be done in all major areas of this Province to determine the potential and best use of this resource.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this programme has been undertaken in the Okanagan Basin and, I hope, will be the basis for continuing studies in other areas throughout the Province. This agreement for study, Mr. Speaker, is between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. It was signed on October 29, 1969, and is for a four-year period, ending in October, 1973. The costs of this study are to be borne jointly by the Federal and Provincial Governments and the cost is not to exceed $2 million for the four-year study. I want to draw to the attention of this House certain sections of this agreement as they may affect the Shuswap-Thompson areas: "Whereas the Governments of Canada and British Columbia recognize the growing need to plan water resources development on a comprehensive basis; and whereas the economy of the Okanagan Basin is heavily dependent on the quantity and quality of its limited water sources for agricultural production, recreation and tourism, as well as for domestic, municipal and industrial water supply and for the assimilation of wastes; and whereas the water supply problems in the Basin may involve the re-use of municipal waste water in irrigation systems, increased efficiencies in the use of water for irrigation and the augmentation of water supply from groundwater and from diversion; and whereas the Shuswap–Thompson River and the Okanagan River are important habitats for valuable stocks of Pacific salmon; and whereas the Shuswap-Thompson system is a potential diversion source for the Okanagan Basin; and whereas these problems and possible solutions may have, not only municipal, regional, Provincial, and National significance, but potential implications outside of Canada; the purpose of this agreement is to develop a comprehensive framework plan for the development and management of water resources for the social betterment and economic growth.

This study will also embrace any areas likely to be affected by the adoption of various alternative solutions, including, but not limited to, the possibility of diverting water from the Shuswap–Thompson Basin."

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that all previous Provincial studies have been suspended, pending the report and recommendations in 1973 by this Federal-Provincial study group. In other words, there have been studies implemented but, in the past, these have been tabled until this report is brought in with recommendations from this Federal-Provincial group. Information must be available as to projected future requirements of the area and the sources of supply before any logical decisions can be considered.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken my place in this Debate this afternoon. If these studies indicate that additional water from outside sources are required for the Okanagan Basin, then I submit that comprehensive studies of areas which may be affected are equally as necessary before any decisions for diversion can be contemplated. I want this to be a matter of record in this House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I am now requesting that no proposal for diversion from the Shuswap-Thompson watershed be contemplated or, in any way, considered, without a thorough and comprehensive study of the area being completed. This study must be on a very broad basis and take into consideration increasing demands likely to be placed on the water resources of the area for industrial, agricultural and recreational uses and for fish and wildlife management, also the increasing tourist trade which the area enjoys around Shuswap Lake, Mara Lake, Mabel Lake, etc.

I've had the assurance from the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources over the years and also from the Honorable Premier that nothing would be done which would adversely affect the areas concerned, that is, in the way of diversion. I want to read into the records of this House so there will be no misunderstanding as to the Government's position in this regard. This is a letter from the Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources to me at an earlier date and I quote a part of it: "The following commitment is made, with the support of Government as a whole and the Water Rights Branch, in particular: no diversion of any water from one basin to another shall be licensed without an advanced notice in writing calling for a

[ Page 305 ]

public meeting or meetings at which all interested and affected parties may question the proposal and present information. Further, no diversion will be advanced which will prove in any way detrimental to the Shuswap-Thompson areas of the Fraser River system."

Now, these have always been the assurances by this Minister and I wanted them read into the records of this House so that everyone would know what the Government's stand is. I'm sure that before any diversion from any area is undertaken these commitments will be fulfilled and that adequate studies will be undertaken so that any water diversion contemplated may be on a basis that will not ill affect the areas.

I notice also in this paper here — I won't take the time to read it, at this time, because it's a full page — where one of the men who is now presently undertaking this water study in the Okanagan Valley spoke up in my area and the paper has devoted a full page to his speech. He outlines in detail this whole programme and he finished up by saying that he regretted the stand that many people in the Shuswap-Thompson area were taking, in that they did not seem to be prepared to consider what benefits might accrue from proper regulations and storage in other areas.

Proper studies may establish requirements for regulating and controlling the level of lakes. Neither excessive high water nor low water is desirable. We have on the Shuswap River a rise and fall of some 14 or 15 feet annually, some years, as much as 17 feet. You can imagine what this does to the summer camps around the lakes. In high water time, the water is right up into the camps and many places and then, later on, in the summer, it is away out. They almost have to hire a taxi to go out to the water's edge. I think, and this has always been my position on this, that controls are very, very necessary. Storage could be implemented on Sugar Lake. At the present time there's 113,000 acre-feet of storage on Sugar Lake and some power development takes place at the falls below this. There are no fish spawning grounds above the falls because the fish run cannot get above the falls, so storage on Sugar Lake would not interfere with the fish spawning in any way whatsoever. There is a potential storage on Sugar Lake of 400,000 acre-feet up to 600,000 acre-feet, depending on the height of the dam that would be constructed. There is a potential for some 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of storage on Sugar Lake. This could be stored during the high water times, when the water is simply coming down the river and doing no one any good. Then this water could be used at a later date. The answer may be in the storage of spring run-off waters at higher levels. This storage could be used later in the summer to supplement the increased use of water. It may also be necessary to regulate the outflow of our lakes in order to avoid excessive low water. I think that, throughout the Province, in many cases, we're going to have to come to control. It's not because we have a shortage, but because regulations, I think, would be much better than the present free flow system.

Pollution is the number one problem in maintaining and preserving our fresh water supply. Former legislation passed in this House forbids the disposal of any wastes in fresh water, except by permit. I believe that these regulations must be enforced, Mr. Speaker, on a much broader basis. It is certainly necessary to control disposal from industries, and from the cities and villages that may have sewage disposals, but it is also becoming increasingly necessary to enforce these regulations on the private homes around the lakes and on the rivers, the farm barnyards and on any other sources that may, directly or indirectly, contribute to pollution. Pollution control is everybody's responsibility and successful controls can only be attained as we all cooperate to enforce them. The flushing of lakes by high water helps control pollution, but this is not the answer. The solution is in preventing any wastes entering our fresh waters which will tend to increase pollution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few very brief remarks regarding the Budget. I believe this is the third Budget that has been brought down in excess of one billion dollars. This Budget for $1,300,692,600 follows a year of great labour unrest within the Province. Strikes and lockouts, coupled with the Federal policy of tight money and excessive interest rates have greatly damaged the economy and slowed up development within the Province. This Budget makes provision for expansion and increased jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. JEFCOAT: In every sector of the economy. If you want to read the Budget and look at it in the right light, in every sector of the economy within this Province. Provision has been made for increased spending, for increased development, and it's only as the people decide to go back to work and make use of these facilities and these monies available that we can expect our economy to prosper. Fifteen million dollars is provided for park development to create more jobs.

Since the introduction of the home acquisition plan, the Government has provided $85 million for outright grants or second mortgage financing. A total of $29,200,000 has been approved for 53,200 housing grants and over $51 million for 12,200 second mortgage loans. I am pleased to see that an additional $20 million are added this year to ensure continuance of this programme. Applications are being received for home-owner grants and loans at the rate of over 1,900 applications a month. This has increased since April of last year, when, at that time, the application rate was about 800 or 900 per month. Now they are coming in at the rate of about 1,900 per month. This will certainly assist in job opportunities, in case the Member over there doesn't know where, as well as provide many urgently required homes. This shows how popular this one phase of the operation within the Province is, when you receive in excess of 1,900 applications per month for this grant or loan.

Some change in the tax structure, of course, has been necessary. To reduce welfare formulas to 15 per cent from 20 per cent will ease the burden on municipalities. The annual home-owner grant has been increased from $160 to $170. This, again, will lessen the burden on the taxpayer. Much more money is provided for schools, hospitals and every sector of our economy, except maybe for industrial development and, as was said the other day, we don't have Expo this year. It has been necessary to increase taxes. I see, by one of the papers, where this has added a great burden on the truck logger using a private road in that his taxes on fuel is going to be 17 cents more. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker, his tax on a private road is not increased, it's only on highways that the tax on gasoline or diesel fuels have been increased. Cigarette tax has been increased, hotel tax is coming on. These things are necessary, in order to meet the requirements of a buoyant economy. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we go forth, that we go forth with an onward look into prosperity and leave the gloom behind that was so prevalent last year because of lack of industry, lack of development and people out of work. I think if we look into the future

[ Page 306 ]

and all take our places we can bolster this economy and go forth to a prosperous British Columbia. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, let me get organized here. A few little goodies. It gives me great pleasure once again to rise in my place and represent the great constituency of Alberni. You know, it was with interest that I noted the remarks, Mr. Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, when he was making his reply to the Budget Debate.

At this time, I'm going to combine my Throne Speech Debate with my Budget Debate because of the difficulty of being able to relate abortion to labour. There is a relationship, Mr. Speaker, but we won't go into that right now. You know, as he rose in his place and discussed the question of Cypress Bowl, I couldn't help but think that their adulation over the fact that this was now going to be made into a Provincial Park and that they had suggested that this was what should have been done in the first place, were not my feelings on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker, and the reason for it is quite simple. That is, that I don't believe, personally, that the place of Government at this point in time is to go into the expense of having to build ski lifts which are expensive and which are a drain on the public purse, unless we are absolutely obliged to do so. Now, we heard arguments from that side of the House saying that this was some kind of great give-away, that these companies were making vast amounts of money out of this performance and if that were the case, Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't be broke today. They'd be in there performing because it would have been to their advantage to do so. The bald facts of the matter are that the ski lift business is economically a very precarious one and one which, I think, perhaps, in fact, is worthy of some Government support in assistance by way of roads. I think it's unfortunate that the companies who became involved in this found, in fact, that it was an uneconomic proposition. I think, it's rightly our position in this regard to go in under these circumstances and salvage something for the people, but I don't think it's the most desirable thing. I can't really believe the glee with which the Opposition have found themselves in this position. This money could well be spent for health or welfare and for many other things that Government should be in rather than the ski lift business.

I happen to know of an area on Mt. Arrowsmith, which is near the city of Port Alberni, to which the MacMillan Bloedel just recently donated a piece of land roughly valued at half a million dollars. I've been making enquiries — this is to the Regional District — and it's a very nice gift, Mr. Speaker. But, you know, the economics of the development of this is difficult. I've approached several developers on my own in an attempt to get them interested in the area and they're not just that interested. I think that the Regional District, in fact, which doesn't want to put money into it are maybe going to have to go on some sharing basis, if, in fact, we're going to have to get this kind of a recreational resource. It has been the policy of the Government to assist these things by way of providing road access and, in some instances, providing funds to keep it open. I think that this is all to the good but whenever free enterprise can do this kind of a job, I think that they're the ones who are best able to perform it and the ones who should be in that particular business.

Mr. Speaker, it's a funny thing when the Leader of the Opposition got up the other day and said, as one of his main platforms that he would like to see a Parks-B.C. programme, I lauded him for this because this is my feeling, too. I think that the parks in this Province need considerable amounts of money spent on them. Since I first came into this Legislature, I've always maintained that our present Minister of Recreation and Conservation can make a nickel go further than any other Minister, but that he just didn't have enough nickels. But he's got those nickels this year, Mr. Speaker, he's got $15 million. It wouldn't surprise me if he's got most of it spent already but I think, this money could not be spent in a better way than on a trail programme, doing various things in parks to make access for hikers, and this sort of thing, and to get the youth to provide temporary jobs for university students in the summer would be a great way to put some of this money to use.

This is the kind of a thing that the youth are crying for. They're interested in our wilderness, they're interested in the environment, and this will enable them to get out and participate in a very helpful form of exercise and endeavour and I'm sure that, this overworked word that, this work will have relevance for them, Mr. Speaker. So, I hope, that this programme will be part of what is going to happen with this money.

During the Budget Debate we didn't hear a word about that. Did you notice that not a word, not 30 seconds worth, of work after he'd made such a big fuss about it in the Throne Speech? Well, I hate to say that it's dishonest, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly lacks a certain amount of integrity.

We also had some interesting comments from the Leader of the Liberal Party in his assessment of the work stoppages that occurred this summer in the Province. In position number 6, we had the tugboat strike which, he readily admitted, was under Federal control. Mr. Speaker, the tugboat strike was, probably, next to the construction strike, the most devastating strike in all of British Columbia last year. For the Leader of the Liberal Party not to know that, means that he doesn't know what's going on in this Province. He simply does not know what's going on. Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to tell just how disastrous this impact was because it had so many repercussions through the whole woof and fabric of British Columbia. As far as the forest industry alone was concerned, this strike, of course, went on from May 4 to June 15. At the peak, 17,000 coastal workers, Mr. Speaker, 17,000, a third of the whole forestry work force, were out of work because of the tugboats. Mr. Speaker, why was there a tugboat strike? Well, the most important reason that there was a tugboat strike, Mr. Speaker, was because they were fighting for their lives. They were fighting for their lives. They were fighting against antiquated conditions on those boats, unsafe conditions, and I said at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again in this House, that there is no position to be haggling for men's lives over the bargaining tables. And this, Mr. Speaker, was a direct responsibility of the Department of Transport of the Federal Government, which simply was not on the job (interruption). I think the men had a perfectly legitimate beef. There's no question about that. I wouldn't go into one of those tugs at the rate they were sinking on this coast, Mr. Member, not for a minute. That shouldn't have been the issue but it was. There were other issues as far as money was concerned, that's true, and that's the proper place that they should be taken care of, at the bargaining table, but not when lives are involved, Mr. Speaker, and that was the great failure of the Federal Government. We lost millions of dollars in productivity to

[ Page 307 ]

the people of British Columbia because of this ineptness. The Leader of the Liberal Party says it's number 6 and tries to dismiss this.

There were some other interesting things that he had to say and, you know, it's a funny thing, he certainly is brought up in the good Liberal tradition. He was saying, the other day, that some of his words were not remarked on the tape, Mr. Speaker, and I think he misses Hansard where he can put those in at the end whenever he wanted to. One thing did come through on the tape and it stands out pretty clear — he said with regard to the budget — it will be $1,400,000. I'll repeat that statement — "…willing to make a wager with any honourable Member in the House, including the Premier." Yesterday, by his own admission, after socking in a windfall of $35 million, he still came up with an estimate of $1,300,000, but that's not much. I mean, what's a hundred million, what's a hundred million to the Liberal Leader? That's in the Liberal tradition — deficit financing. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll be the replacement for Mr. Benson. Mind you, he's a bit of a piker by Mr. Benson's standards, even at $100 billion, Mr. Speaker, but he's certainly trying and he's on the right track.

There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that did occur during the year. I would like to give the Member credit for it and, that is that at the Liberal Convention, he said that he gained virtually unanimous support for the proposal that personal property and homes should be exempt. I think that's greatly to the credit of the Leader of the Liberal Party in that it's something we, on this side of the House, have stressed ever since the beginning of Social Credit.

He went on after that, Mr. Speaker, and he bitterly castigated Hydro. This was kind of the hydra-headed monster. He really didn't have a good thing to say about Hydro. But, perhaps, some of the things that he said last year to this House, Mr. Speaker, might be a little bit illuminating. He said, "Perhaps, the Socialists on my right and the Socialists on the Government side of the House would disagree with that, but we are free enterprise in the Liberal Party and we think that Crown corporations should pull their own weight. We say this that schools and hospitals and some local Governments have difficulty doing this and they are the ones who need the help." Well, I don't basically have any quarrel with that, but it wasn't three paragraphs later where he said, "We should have no increases in B.C. Hydro power rates this year."

I don't know what sort of a thinking is going on in that Member's head where, at one time, he feels that Hydro should pay its way and, when costs go up, we shouldn't raise the rates. It seems to me that a little bit more logical thinking on the part of that Member might be more appropriate in a speech before this House. The real thing was that he got down and said why didn't Hydro go into the open market to raise its funds.

I have a little clipping here from the Financial Post in the spring: "Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation: 28 million 5 5/8ths bonds mature in 1990 priced at $99.50 — the bonds to yield 8.75 per cent," Mr. Speaker. You know, I'm very glad that the Government of this Province had sufficient prudence and sufficient reserves to carry on through a difficult summer like we had and that we haven't had to go to the market at 8.75 per cent, or even 8.5 per cent. I predict, Mr. Speaker, that, in the coming months, and in the short run, we will see bond interest rates down more realistically at, possibly, even 7 per cent. The significance of even a half or a quarter percentage point in the long term means millions and millions of dollars to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

He's a half-baked financier, Mr. Speaker. He just doesn't seem to understand these things. He said all these funds are disappearing into these trust accounts and our funds for doing this. I'd have to say, Mr. Speaker, so what, so what if they are? Is there any utility that is put to better use in the Province of British Columbia, from the point of view in creating jobs, from the point of view of creating comfort, from the point of view of creating a better life than adequate electricity?

Perhaps, he would like to take this money and loan it out and make Hydro borrow at 9 per cent, so that the user's rates would go up, but that's not my idea. We have a postage stamp rate. I'd like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, at this time, within my community, roads and Hydro are the two most important things. The smaller communities that we have are crying for Hydro, they need Hydro, every nickel we can put into Hydro, and the sooner they get their power the happier I'll be. There hasn't been even enough money yet for Hydro. I think that it will be a long time in the future, if we can believe Mr. Shrum and I think that he's a realistic sort of man, it will be a long time before we are ever to supply the needs for power in this country. When hydro, maybe, goes up in the spring, I hope that we get some more of that money and I hope we get it at reasonable rates. I also hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be prepared to go, at some time in the future, because I think that his municipal financing authority is an excellent scheme and, certainly, collectively, the municipalities of British Columbia do better than they will alone. I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will be able to borrow, or will allow the municipal financing authority to be able to go to the open market and borrow money on behalf of municipalities, at what is a realistic rate (interruption). You know there's the Leader of the Opposition again. He just can't remember that he's not a backbencher anymore, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to just take a minute here and say, about Hydro, that the community of Zeballos is in a very tight way for hydro, that the private supplier who has been supplying electricity to that community has had problems, that Zeballos because of the progressive policy of this Government will quadruple in size in the next six months to twelve months from a ghost town. It's had a new lease on life, through the actions of the Minister of Lands and Forest and the present consumer, I don't believe, will be able to provide the capital to provide the electricity that the growth of this town is going to require. I would like to remind the two Ministers, who sit side by side and that are on Hydro, that I hope it is still the policy of Hydro that, if a community finds itself in difficulties and power cannot be provided from other sources, that Hydro will not see them stuck.

It's an interesting thing, speaking of finance, that, while an army marches on its belly, a Government will march in accordance with its fiscal policy. Sometimes, it can be helped and sometimes it can be hindered. You know, there's one Province in this country, Mr. Speaker, which isn't doing at all badly by the Federal Government. I'd like to read you a little excerpt from the Financial Post: "$725 million Plan Triggers P.E.I. Election" — $725 million, Mr. Speaker, for Prince Edward Island. Would that British Columbia, even our size, receive some consideration of that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people there?

[ Page 308 ]

MR. McDIARMID: About the size of Victoria. Wouldn't it be nice for Victorians to have $725 million? "Province gets major portion of revenues from Ottawa. Sixty-five per cent of Prince Edward Island revenues in 1970-71 will come from Ottawa, according to the Provincial Budget brought down in March, the Liberal Government Treasurer T. Earl Hickey…."

Prince Edward Island isn't the only area, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Trudeau, when they campaigned in the Province of Quebec did not, basically, campaign on the question of nationality, of race, of language, they campaigned on dollars, Mr. Speaker, on dollars. Mr. Bourassa promised 100,000 new jobs: this was his platform, Mr. Speaker, and this is what the people of Quebec bought. After that election, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa said, "We won't have this old dialogue with Ottawa, we won't be like the Union Nationale and go down there and stir them up and oppose them, we'll go quietly and we'll come back with our pockets jingling," Mr. Speaker. And you know he has, he has, Mr. Speaker. This Province, it seems to me, in terms of the proposals that we have put to Ottawa, we've really been left out in the cold. I'm going to leave that just for a little while, because I have something specific to bring up in that nature later on, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to say a few words about drinking, seeing as how the Premier is not with us in that regard (laughter).

I'd like to say that I have had the courage, in the past, to say a few words about drinking when he has been in the House. Mr. Speaker, we had a good report from the Liquor Enquiry Commission and I'd like to say one nasty word about the press, because I think that it acted very irresponsibly. In the first joy of enthusiasm over becoming 19 it was sort of like a 21st birthday and New Year's Eve all combined and some of the young people in the pubs did behave in a rather disorderly and exuberant fashion as any youthful spirit might in these circumstances. Of course, the press immediately jumped on this and said, "Mr. Premier, what do you think of all these disturbances? What do you think of these youths behaving this way now that you've given this liberty?" Of course, knowing perfectly well the Premier's hang-up about booze, his reaction was, "Well, I think we've gone far enough." I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have made it a point to visit…in the course of visiting my municipality, I find many of my constituents in the beer parlours on the west coast of Vancouver Island and I have occasion to talk to the proprietors of those establishments, from time to time. Universally, they have said that after the first rush of getting used to their new liberty, the younger patrons in their establishments are the best behaved, Mr. Speaker, of any people. I think, probably, others of you in this House have had the same experience. I would like to say to the Minister of Finance and to the Premier, "Let's take a second look, now that things have cooled off, and look at some of the other good legislation that is contained within this report."

I'd like to just say a few words now on the question of abortion, Mr. Speaker. I know we've heard a lot about abortion and I, personally, believe that, with my colleague from Oak Bay, that these abortion committees, basically, are a rubber stamp situation and that the matter of an abortion should be between the woman and her personal physician. And I believe the age of majority. I believe, Mr. Speaker, before long that in early cases and in properly selected cases that we will see this operation done on an out-patient basis and after all if Dr. Makaroff can see as many patients and deal with them as he did and only have to admit one, by his own admission, to hospital, I think that it's pretty obvious to everyone that on proper selection that this can be done perfectly safely on an out-patient basis and thereby not create the problems in hospitals that it has to this point in time. Of course, obviously, I think we must look at the other end of the spectrum and that is for every abortion that is done that there will be no live birth at the other end to further complicate things and take up seven hospital days. So, I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that this problem will work itself out in time because I think these solutions are now pretty well obvious to most Members of this House. This, in no way, imposes any restriction on a hospital to do this operation necessarily or any physician, but is simply a matter, as any other medical matter, between the woman and her doctor.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, a few words about highways, which were brought up by the Leader of the Liberal Party, because they affect my constituency on Vancouver Island. I fully agree with him about the Island Highway. The Island Highway, in my opinion, and I'm sure the Member from Nanaimo will agree with me and the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, is a number one priority for the people of Vancouver Island. I don't believe that his suggestion about the E & N Railway is a realistic one at all. I think we all know that that was more for the press than for anybody. The people are going to move by cars and rapid transit is really not the answer. Rail transport on Vancouver Island is something that is not au courant at the particular time. I think that we have to look to upgrading the Island Highway. I have a suggestion.

When this deal was made, Mr. Speaker, with the E & N, at that time the basic purpose and guts of the whole thing was to provide transportation, which was the most important kind of transportation to the residents and the people of Vancouver Island. This has now been superseded by roads, Mr. Speaker. It's been superseded by roads, and roads will be, whether we like it or not, a main form of transportation on Vancouver Island in the forseeable time. I have a suggestion which I think is perhaps a valid one and that is that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the reason behind this railway being built, if the E & N with their new schedules and new proposals are unable to generate traffic to that line, and I think they may well not be able to, but if they are unable to, I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, just to make some relic of the past operate, that we should make them spend a half a million or three quarters of a million dollars a year in subsidizing that particular route. What I do think is this, that if they demonstrate that this thing is losing money, we take the last year, and we say, "Look you don't have to run it, but you made a commitment to this Province for transportation and we'll take your three quarters of a million that you've lost. Thank you, very much, and we'll put it to an alternate use for roads." I don't think that they'd like to buy that, Mr. Speaker, but, in all honesty, it seems to me, that this was the purpose — to provide transportation. If they aren't going to provide it, in one way, then, they should provide it in the other. Why shouldn't they, Mr. Speaker? They've been given all the riches of Vancouver Island, practically. They own three quarters to half of the Island. If they can't do something in return for these grants of the inland land I think that it's a very sorry state that we've come to.

I want to get down to the question of the creation of jobs, Mr. Speaker. This is, probably, the most important thing that is facing this House at this time. There are companies, which are providing jobs in British Columbia, and

[ Page 309 ]

one is the Tahsis Company in my area. The Nootka Cedar Products have established a new $3 million mill at Tahsis to finish cedar products in British Columbia and this will provide, Mr. Speaker, 150 new jobs. There will be approximately one hundred new homes built by the end of this year, Mr. Speaker, in Tahsis. The one thing that is going to make this possible and feasible, Mr. Speaker, is the advent of Hydro. The Tahsis Company has a commitment from Hydro that, if they will clear the right of way, Hydro will build the line. Now it appears to me that there is some hitch, at this point in time on behalf of Hydro, and I would like to say to our two Ministers here that I think that this is one line which we can't afford to not build because, if we don't build it, we may destroy those jobs and this is the most important thing that we can be doing at this point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from Gold River to Tahsis?

MR. McDIARMID: That's from Gold River to Tahsis and they're busy going on that route and, hopefully, before long there will be sort of a goat trail through there, Mr. Speaker. I went there the last time but, unfortunately, you've got to go through at low tide. If you go through at high tide, you're cut off for six hours — it's that kind of road.

I listened with interest to the Member from Vancouver Little Mountain as she outlined the question of tourism as it was handled in Mt. Ste. Anne by special area legislation. For the benefit of some of the Members, who didn't rightly seem to know what a special area was, perhaps, if you'll bear with me, I'll describe what a Federal Government special area is and what this Government has been attempting to do as far as special areas are concerned. This is the Federal Government pamphlet that's put out and it's entitled, appropriately enough, What is a Special Area?

"The Honourable John Marchand, today, announced a designation of twenty-two special areas in eight Provinces. This is being done in accordance with the power contained in Part 4 of the Government Organization Act, 1969, which created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. A special area for the purpose of this legislation is one where special action is needed to promote economic expansion and social adjustment because employment opportunities are exceptionally inadequate either within the area itself or in a larger region of which the area forms a part. Special areas are designated by the Federal Government, after consultation with the Provincial Government concerned. These consultations began immediately after the enactment of the legislation last year. The special area programme is designed to enable the Federal Government, in cooperation with the Province concerned, to take a development approach specifically designed to meet the needs of the area concerned: therefore, the kinds of Federal action which will be undertaken will vary from area to area according to that need. In general terms, however, designation of special area permits the Department of Regional Economic Expansion: (1) to make financial assistance…." I'll go on but, basically, that's the nuts and bolts of it. Special areas can be large, or they can be small or whatever. "In the Mt. Ste. Anne development, phase A, in Quebec, a year-round tourist and ski centre. Mt. Ste. Anne is becoming one of eastern Canada's most important tourist and recreation areas. Improvements will be made to permit the area to host a greater number of ski enthusiasts for a longer season. Improvements to be undertaken in the Mt. Saint-Fereol north slope will include new ski lift chalets and water systems; phase B, since the area encompasses a fishing river and possesses considerable natural beauty, work will be done to make it a potential year-round recreation tourist centre and, to this end, a golf course, camping site, access roads and promenades will be built."

I don't really have a quarrel with that, because if we really believe that tourism is a great resource and brought over $450 million to the Province of British Columbia, this has a right to stand on its own feet as promoting industry and being a self-generating part of the economy. Well, having become apprised of that situation, I looked around my constituency and, Mr. Speaker, I made a proposal to the Federal Government. I'm going to bore you with this brief, which I presented to our Department of Trade and Industry to show you how I thought this could apply to British Columbia.

"It is proposed that a coastal strip along the west coast of Vancouver Island from Ucluelet to the south and Estevan to the north be declared a special area by the Federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The topography of the area is typical of the west coast of Vancouver Island with rain forests, mountain streams, lakes, islands and, most specifically, one of the most beautiful coastlines in all of British Columbia. It is so beautiful, in fact, that a National Marine Park centred around Long Beach has been declared in process of being assembled jointly by the Federal and Provincial Governments. To the north of Tofino, approximately eight miles, lies Catface Mountain on which extensive mining claims are held by Falconbridge Nickel Mines. This is a very large but very low-grade copper shelf which, at current estimates, would cost $150 million to put into production. It is so marginal, in fact, that a projected early start in 1969 has been postponed for at least three years, possibly indefinitely. As one of its stated criteria, a special area is one where special action is needed to promote economic expansion and social adjustments because employment opportunities are exceptionally inadequate. Within the proposed area, there are two white communities, Tofino, to the north, with 400 people, mostly loggers and fishermen, and Ucluelet, to the south, with approximately one thousand people also mostly loggers and fishermen. There is a large native Indian population residing in the area on five principal reserves, Hesquiat, Ahousat, Clayoquot, Ucluelet and Toquart, with a total population of 900 people according to figures supplied by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Developments. In the month of December, of 75 families in Ahousat, 57 were issued welfare cheques and the majority of the others was receiving unemployment insurance. Similar figures of unemployment exist in other reserves, and seasonal unemployment amongst white fishermen is also high in both villages during the winter months, many of whom, therefore rely on unemployment insurance. The National Parks Authorities have indicated that they wish all the tourist facility development except for a minor campsite programme to occur outside the park. This means that this development must occur in the villages of Tofino and Ucluelet and the two intervening strips, about five miles long, between Ucluelet and the southern boundary of the park. The extent of this development is considerable and has been estimated by one park official that, in the not too distant future, as many as three million people could visit the park. It is anticipated that the peak would come in the summer." I'm going to stop reading this, Mr. Speaker, it loses its effect.

What I'm really trying to say is that this is a unique area in British Columbia. This could be the Carmel of Canada. But it's very expensive to develop. The tourist business, from

[ Page 310 ]

talking to businessmen on a two- or three-month basis is a most difficult industry to become involved with. If we are going to have tourist facilities, which measure up and, which, in any sense, will be able to provide facilities for winter months by way of meeting halls and this kind of thing, a golf course, a swimming pool, I don't think that it's an unreasonable thing that the Federal Government which, after all, has a tremendous stake within the Park, don't want this kind of development to occur outside the park. I don't see why the Federal Government shouldn't be interested in making this a special area and the native Indian people are very well adjusted to this kind of work. It's outside work and also, some of the tasks involved in the tourist industry, which is highly-labour intensive, are within the scope of the skills of the native Indian people who are there at present. Also, Catface Mountain is right adjacent, across a small channel, from Ahousat and, if this were to go ahead, it would provide ready employment for that whole and total reservation. I think to assist this, the Provincial Government should complete the switchback section of Highway number 4, which is probably familiar to any of you who have gone out to Long Beach, and which needs to be badly done in any expansionary highway programme (laughter).

I made this proposal to various people and received extremely good support from Mr. Malis, who is the Regional Director of Parks in charge of western Canada. He wrote and said what a good idea he thought this would be. The Superintendent for Indian Affairs for British Columbia wrote and said what a good thing it would be. I wrote to my MP and also the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and they said what a good idea they thought it would be. With that sort of endorsation, and from our Provincial Government, I thought it would be just a matter of time until we would hear something from Mr. Marchand.

We wrote to that Minister in November. Do you know what he replied? Mr. Leader of the Liberal Party, I'd like you to pay close attention to this. Do you know what the reply was from that Federal Minister whom we wrote in November? Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what the reply was from that Minister because there is no reply, no reply, none whatsoever. You know, they've got a new filing system down there. Mr. Speaker, it's called the British Columbia file. There it is. That's where it goes. Two months and not so much as an acknowledgement. Here is the new B.C. file in Ottawa.

I say that when it comes to providing jobs for our native Indian people that this is one of the most important things that we can possibly do. Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I think we can, perhaps, forget the question of special areas. It doesn't really seem to mean anything to the Government of Canada, as long as it's in the Province of British Columbia. I think that this is a great shame, because I think in the area that was outlined there is a great potential. It's unfortunate that the Federal Government doesn't have the foresight to get out here and have a look at it.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about labour relations in the Province. If I could find my notes, I'd give them to you quicker than I can right now. What I think, Mr. Speaker, is, coming from a highly intensive-labour community, I don't know whether any of you people and…incidentally, an area in which I consider the leadership in the labour unions in that community to be very sound. Because of their management in the heat of the summer, when many of the woodworkers were out of work because of the tugboat strike, these people all received unemployment insurance and they kept their cool, Mr. Speaker. What really worries me, in this context, is that on W5 the other night, on a questionnaire, they said, "Who is most responsible for inflation in this country?" Seventy per cent of the people said they blamed the unions. Now, whether this is true or not, this is the impression that is going around in the minds of the average Canadian. Some blame big business to a lesser extent, some Government and so on and so forth. But, you know, unless we can really get down to productivity, we won't have any real advance in the Province of British Columbia. You know, there is an old expression which loses something in its Parliamentary context by the way one has to say it. "We're here to log, not diddle the dog." As the loggers would say, and you know this expresses, Mr. Speaker, more clearly than anything, the feeling of pride that the loggers used to have in getting production, they were there to work, they weren't there to pansy and anybody who couldn't hack it was down the road with their lunch bucket. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that is changing. It's changing, because of the large companies, they are not close enough to their workmen. You know, a lot of times, the personnel manager is believed to be a con artist for the company. This isn't good enough. They don't have the relevance. They think that they are part of a huge machine and if it belongs to the company — equipment or whatever — you know, "It's not mine and I couldn't care less." I don't think that labour, in this day and age, either, can afford, as it did, to not even come and sit down with the Prices and Incomes Commission. I don't think that they can afford the attitude of Ray Haynes, who is out to weaken the Mediation Commission before even giving it a chance to work. I don't think that the people of British Columbia appreciate that sort of leadership, Mr. Speaker. I believe, by the example that has been set in my community of Port Alberni, that management and labour can sit down and can get things calmly done if we have the sort of leadership that's needed on both sides. I don't think the sort of leadership that we're getting from many of the labour unions, today, is as responsible as it should be. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that anything that we can do to get union and management together for the greater productivity and for the greater use of the citizens of the Province of British Columbia is the foremost thing that this Legislature can do. If we have accomplished that, we'll have accomplished more in six months than we will in the next ten. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the motion of Mr. Wallace, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. Price presented the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, as follows:

Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the Standing Orders have been complied with relating to the respective petitions for leave to introduce the following Private Bills:

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology;

An Act Respecting Central City Mission;

An Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Management (British Columbia Branch);

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter;

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953.

[ Page 311 ]

The Report was read and received.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I am quite frequently a little upset by the antics and behaviour that goes on in this Chamber, on the understanding that we are supposed to be intelligent Members and educated representatives of the society that we represent. Sometimes, I wonder just how truly we reflect that image. Of course, I would agree that many of the encounters have their humorous content. I happened upon one such event in the corridors of this famous building the other night, when two Members of this Assembly, having adopted a nose-to-nose position, were enjoying a spirited conversation, which could hardly be described as an exchange of terms of endearment. The fact that I was a little thunderstruck was due to the fact that I couldn't quite decide my role, as to whether I should be coach, referee or family physician. Anyway, to put the record straight, Mr. Speaker, not a blow was struck but, I understand, one of the participants almost lost his pointing finger in the midriff of his assailant.

My faith and confidence in the goodwill of the Members of all Parties of the House, however, was restored at the dinner at Government House, the other night, when following the dinner, I noticed the lady Member, the Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South, her arm entwined on one side by the Honourable Member for West Vancouver Howe-Sound, and her arm, on the other side, entwined by the Honourable First Member for Vancouver East — in a kilt — and all three singing, lustily, "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts." And all this, Mr. Speaker, in Government House.

It would not be too simple to submit that the different Parties in this House, have largely the same goals — to alleviate the problems which we have discussed of unemployment, pollution and poverty and that we all wish to seek social justice for all citizens and a high standard of living. Where the Parties have their basic differences lie in the manner in which these goals are to be achieved. Fundamentally, the difference seems to lie, in my view, in the degree to which the State shall intrude upon the affairs of the individual and, possibly, assume the responsibilities for the individual which he should assume for himself. This is particularly true in the realm of financial subsidies provided by Government for many purposes. The followers of Socialism believe that the State should retain extensive control over the business and industrial segments of society and provide a wide range of social services financed from general revenue at no apparent cost to the individual at the time he receives the service. This is the concept of the so-called Welfare State, which endeavours to provide security from the cradle to the grave. Such a concept was introduced in Britain after World War II and, after some twenty odd years of incredibly severe taxation, has reached the point today where the much wanted National Health Service is on the verge of complete financial collapse.

The Social Credit Party differs from the Socialists, in that it believes in and encourages the initiative and independence of the individual and does not assume that every single person requires to be controlled, or aided by the State, and to be given so-called free benefits which the citizen has already paid for out of taxation.

It is certainly my view, Mr. Speaker, that Government must provide assistance to individuals who are truly in need, whether this be a matter of unemployment or sickness or poverty. Conversely, it is my strong view that the State should not take on financial responsibilities for the individual which the individual can well assume for himself.

The Budget, Mr. Speaker, which we are now debating is, in my humble opinion, a sound, practical programme for the continuing development of the Province and for the overall health, welfare and education of its citizens. This is not to say that the Budget programme is perfect but to recognize, in general, that it has a sound foundation and that the Government, by its clear awareness of the importance of health and social services and education, has chosen to allocate 86 per cent of the total Provincial revenue to these three services.

To provide the required revenue for the increased expenditures, three tax increases are proposed and I feel that the manner in which this has been done follows very clearly the statement on page 8 of the Budget, which states: "The B.C. tax structure adheres closely to the principle of ability to pay." This principle seems very clear to me in the three tax increases, which will provide for the increased expenditure proposed on health, welfare and education in excess of $100 million.

I would disagree with the criticism which has been made, that the tax increases hit, mainly, the little man, if, by this description, is meant the individual with low or fixed income, such as the pensioner, the welfare recipient and the disabled, who cannot, of course, share in regular wage increases. I sincerely believe that the amount of tax, in itself, is not large, and that a large percentage of these low-income group persons whom I have described, the so-called little man, they either do not drive cars or they do not cover a great deal of mileage; they are, certainly, under no obligation to smoke cigarettes, and they do not do very much travelling with attendant hotel bills. On the contrary, the higher-income groups, including businessmen and executives, do, indeed, own one or two or maybe three cars; they are, frequently, I am sad to say, heavy smokers; and, in their travels, frequently, utilize hotel and motel accommodation. In this way, I believe that the principle of ability to pay is fulfilled by having those in the higher income groups, as well as the tourists, provide the largest part of the new revenue.

To speak for a moment on hospitals, which have had some coverage, I might add, already today. I feel that this Government can take just credit, Mr. Speaker, for the programme of hospital insurance which now exists in British Columbia. No citizen is denied care because of lack of money, nor does any citizen face ruin because of large hospital or medical bills and, while certain improvements need to be made and while there is still a great deal of progress required, we should not lose sight of that which has been accomplished, in a relatively short time, by a series of steps, Mr. Speaker, where one step has, logically and in a calculated way, followed the preceding step.

I would like to talk about the steps which we still require to take, which seems to me a rather constructive and intelligent approach. From the very pointed reference by the

[ Page 312 ]

Minister of Finance on Friday, honourable Members cannot be in any doubt about the fact that, in acute and extended care hospitals, a patient pays one dollar a day, the remaining part of the total cost being met by Federal and Provincial revenue on a fifty-fifty basis. For the patient who requires intermediate care, which is generally provided in a nursing home or private hospital, there is no financial assistance from either the Provincial or the Federal Government until the patient's assets are reduced to the point that he or she has to go on welfare. I would ask a simple question: Is this the just society? In the Budget Speech, no specific mention was made of any plan to assist the patient in the financing of intermediate care and, for me, this was, above all, the most disappointing feature of the Budget Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: There were others.

MR. WALLACE: There were others, but there is always one major disappointment, honourable Member.

I would like to refer to some of the comments made by the Honourable the Minister of Health, this afternoon, when he stated that, at the present time, there is no contribution of money from the Federal Government towards intermediate care and that, since the costs were very high, he felt that we could not embark on any programme of coverage until we had the financial support of the Federal Government. The costs of care can be evaluated and, I think, that when any Member of this House brings to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, a proposal or a discussion of matters, such as coverage of hospital beds, we should be willing to spell out the costs that one can expect to encounter. I should say first, since I have written it in my speech, and forgot to say it, earlier, that persons, who are now elderly and require intermediate care, spent their working years in an economy which did not enjoy the affluence and fringe benefits of today's society. Consequently, their ability to save for their old age, particularly an old age handicapped by illness and disability, was severely limited. These same elderly people are the ones we so frequently hear described in this Centennial Year as the pioneers who built and developed the foundations of this now great Province in the early years. I believe our recognition of their contribution should go beyond mere lip service.

We are now living and working in a much richer society, which claims to have a social awareness of the needs of the sick and disabled and I submit that we must recognize this gap which exists in the present range of subsidized hospital facilities. The gap is tragic in two respects: one, that there are simply not enough intermediate care beds; and, secondly, the fact I have already alluded to, that the patient receives no financial benefit from the Government. While I would agree with Friday's statement by the Honourable the Minister of Finance that we must continue to approach Ottawa in pleading, and I don't think that is an appropriate word, in suggesting, that all forms of illness require equal consideration and that whether you need an acute bed, or an intermediate bed, or an extended bed, that, surely, if the Federal Government sees fit to share in some of the costs, it should, in all reason and justice, share in all of the costs. However, I would make this plea to this Government, that some degree of financial assistance be made available to patients requiring intermediate care, immediately, not after we can or cannot get a yes or no out of the Federal Government.

With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Alberta Government has been providing just such a form of assistance in Alberta since 1964. In the case of the Alberta Government, without belabouring a point, which the honourable Members must now be very sick of, I would say that the patient in the Alberta intermediate care programme pays $3.50 a day and the Provincial Government of Alberta pays $5.50 a day, which is $270 a month, provided in the divided manner that I have described. Now, I said earlier that I don't think any one of us, as Members, should come to this House with proposals without two things: one should be the cost of that proposal; the second thing should be the Members's honest opinion as to how that cost might be met.

It is a little difficult to be absolutely precise as to the number of patients in this Province who require intermediate care but some studies have been carried out by the Department of Health in Victoria and in the interior, and I would admit that this could not be precise in the light of later findings. But, at the moment, it would appear that we have somewhere in the region of 4,000 patients who require intermediate care. At the present time, this Government pays $280 a month for such a welfare patient in a private hospital or nursing home. If you multiply $280 by 12 by 4,000, the annual cost comes to $13,440,000. If we were to follow the principle outlined by the Honourable the Minister of Finance on Friday and ask the patient to pay one dollar per day, the net operating cost to the Government for intermediate care in this Province — the net cost — would thus be $12 million per year. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rather modest fraction of $1,300,000,000. The cigarette tax, alone, it is anticipated from figures which we can take from the other Provinces who presently have a tax, that tax alone should bring in $18 million, and I'm suggesting that intermediate care could cost in the neighbourhood of $12 million.

I accept and agree with the statement of the Honourable the Minister of Finance that we are subject to a very considerable influx of persons, some of whom rapidly become patients, from other Provinces in Canada and, while I know the Honourable the Premier is opposed to this philosophy I'm about to mention, it is a fact that the Alberta programme does include residential requirements. Any person in Alberta, to qualify for the intermediate care coverage, has to live either the three consecutive years prior to the application, or must have lived some time in his or her preceding life a fully consecutive period of ten years in Alberta. Now, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if this Province adopted this same policy, it sounds eminently practical and logical and not of the order of an expense that cannot be met from our present Budget.

I would have to be just a little facetious, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this one dollar a day. It was clearly pointed out by the Honourable the Minister of Health, this afternoon, that the reason, the predominant reason, in fact, the only reason, why this Government will not change the one dollar a day, is due to the fact that any increase would mean that there would be less money coming to us from the Federal Government. Now, I've thought about this a long time and, while I cannot and will not accept the philosophy that has been outlined, I would submit that the Government would be acting in a much more logical fashion in the light of what has been stated as Government policy, this afternoon, if this dollar a day were abolished. If the dollar a day were abolished, we would then receive about…(interruption).

Can't you wait? You wouldn't recognize philosophy if it were written in letters six inches deep. You don't know the

[ Page 313 ]

meaning of the word. I haven't seen a lawyer who didn't know what a dollar was. I was just trying to make a point and used words which apparently our honourable Opposition can't even understand. But I'll try to use smaller words and simpler words. The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that if this is the belief, the thinking, the credo — oh, that's a Latin word he might not know what credo means — if this is the thinking of this Government in abolishing the dollar a day, Ottawa would be obligated to give us something in excess of another $2 million a year for hospitals. The other point I would like to stress, in a serious vain, is that, and I wasn't joking entirely earlier on, but because of the inadequate number of extended care beds, Mr. Speaker, we don't have many patients who have been examined and classified as qualifying for extended care, which costs a dollar a day, if the bed is available. Yet these same patients continue to live in the present nursing homes and receive no financial assistance from this Government. I would submit that it would not be a severe financial difficulty for this Government that if, at least, the patients presently in the nursing homes who qualify for extended care but cannot be accommodated in an extended care bed because it does not yet exist, I would ask that the Government show some sense of compassion and, at least, pay the cost of the nursing home care minus a dollar a day. I have said so before and I say it again, and it sometimes surprises me that no matter how blunt your language people still insist on misunderstanding you. Oh, it's easy for the Opposition, that's true. You need a certain amount of intelligence to understand some of my remarks. Philosophy, what's philosophy? (interruption). Oh, I'll be delighted if you'll understand me when I'm finished. I doubt it.

I have said many times that I do not believe hospitals are either a suitable or a desirable form for the investment of private capital. Come on, where's the NDP? I thought I would get a clap on that one. Isn't that what you believe? I don't accept the present situation, whereby patients requiring intermediate care depend on privately-owned hospitals, where one essential purpose of the hospital is to make a financial profit for the owners.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sandringham.

MR. WALLACE: I'll get to that. Hold your horses, I'll get to that. The one and only purpose of a hospital, in my opinion, must be to provide compassionate treatment and care of a high standard for the patients. Now, while I approve of the fact that the Provincial Government has not been issuing licenses for the construction of private hospitals for some time, I would submit that it is an urgent responsibility of the Government to provide the facilities and the coverage by some alternative mechanism. I am suggesting, Mr. Member, that the Government cannot have it both ways. If no further private hospitals are to be build, and I do not think they should be, then the Government must ensure, in the light of the tremendous need, that the required facilities are created under some other aegis.

Now, the honourable Member has mentioned Sandringham and I would like to comment on that particular situation. It is well known that the staff of the Sandringham hospital is presently on strike and has been for some time. I think it should be made clear to this House, and to the people of British Columbia, that all but one of the acute and extended care hospitals in British Columbia, which are operated by nonprofit bodies have union contracts with their staff, guaranteeing the staff job security and the right to negotiate for improved working conditions and wages. Three other private hospitals in Victoria have also signed such a contract. Now, I am quite certain that, in society today, while abuses do arise from union activity, and while I oppose the compulsory membership in unions, I expect and believe that employees should expect job security in return for honest effort. As a result, the workers do better work and have more harmonious relationships with their employers. Surely, there is nowhere in society that this is of more importance than in a hospital, where the contentment and sense of worth of the employees must be reflected in the standard of service they provide and in their compassionate attention towards the patients. This has proven to be the case at the other three private hospitals which have signed, essentially, the same agreement as is being sought at Sandringham Hospital. I understand there has been a noted reduction in the turnover of staff, with resulting benefits to the elderly patients who derive comfort and confidence from a continuity of care by the same people.

I would like to point out that the Sandringham Hospital is an exception to the general rule in the Province, inasmuch as the employees have union recognition but National Nursing Homes Ltd. which operates the hospital refuses to negotiate, in fact, refuses point blank even to sit down with the union. The President, Mr. Neil Cook, told me, in a telephone conversation, that he would rather close the hospital down than come to any agreement with the union. He gave no reason — other than financial. He said that…(interruption).

Since you asked, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would answer the Member by saying that Mr. Neil Cook stated that, in no way, could the hospital afford to have an agreement with the union.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's behind Cook?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, his wife, probably (laughter). Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this attitude of Mr. Cook as the attitude of a responsible citizen, in whose hands rests the responsibility for the proper and efficient care of elderly sick people (interruption).

If you would just wait, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you are stealing some of my lines. Do you mind? Now, this dogmatic refusal to recognize that all other hospitals in British Columbia afford their staffs the benefit of a contract with job security and that such contracts are simply an accepted part of today's working world reveals to me a distressing lack of social awareness. The result of this defiant attitude can only be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the poor patient. Even the statement by National Nursing Homes Ltd., and this is your line Honourable Member of the Opposition, even the statement by National Nursing Homes Ltd. that Sandringham is losing money, hardly coincides with the review from Bay St. which advises that the earnings outlook for National Nursing Homes is excellent. The revenues have increased 56 per cent in the past two years and, in 1970, there is a net income of $605,000.

I would appeal to the Honourable the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, through you, to bring into play his role as Minister of Labour to bring a solution to this very distressing situation. To return to the matter of intermediate care, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I sound like an old record going around and around, but I am a great believer that until you keep hitting at something you are less likely to get results…but, in returning to the matter of intermediate care, I would

[ Page 314 ]

suggest that the Government adopt the same policy in regard to intermediate care facilities as now applies to acute and extended hospital care, mainly, that they be owned by nonprofit organizations.

To this end, the Provincial Government and regional hospital boards should purchase existing facilities on the sixty-forty cost-sharing formula and should encourage the entry of nonprofit groups at the local level, and I emphasize the words, local level, to build and operate intermediate care hospitals in exactly the same manner that acute and extended care are presently managed. I strongly believe that, while the Government must provide financial assistance and while the regional hospital boards must co-ordinate and plan the appropriate size and location of these hospitals, and I wish to emphasize this point most strongly, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a strong and vigorous local element in the running of the hospitals.

Sick and suffering human beings are intimately involved and, as such, they need the close and sympathetic attention of interested local citizens, who are well informed about the needs of the patients in the running of such hospitals.

Centralized Government control of such hospitals, in my view, would be neither efficient nor in the best interest of the patient, in that the control is too distant, too detached and too impersonal. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to be misunderstood in regard to the matter of regional planning of a co-ordinated hospital Programme. I strongly endorse the regional concept as the only economic, efficient and co-ordinated manner in which the needs of a region can be measured and planned, at a time when costs are soaring and when duplication of facilities is inexcusable.

In the matter of local management of intermediate care hospitals, I would encourage all public-spirited groups and organizations at the local level to become involved in this project. At this time, when a spirit of cooperation exists among the many different churches, it would be an exciting challenge for the churches to meet what is a very urgent social need. If, and Mr. Member of the Opposition, I'll try and make this position very clear, if the churches choose, of their own volition, to raise some of the funds, this would be their choice and, naturally, help, but this was, certainly, not my intention when I mentioned the matter earlier. I would seek to correct any such impression that I might have created. I think the Honourable Leader of the Opposition considered that I was trying to pass the financial buck from the Government to the churches and this, in no way, was my intention. It was my intention that the Government and the regional board in each area would raise the financing but that the operation of the hospital would be in the hands of individuals, sympathetic to their local neighbours, who are in these hospitals, and with this very definite and strong local influence in the actual management of the hospital. In encouraging the churches to fill this role, I am seeking to enlist the genuine sympathy which I have witnessed many times over, where religious organizations give their services to the care of the sick. After all, many of the first hospitals ever built in this country owe their origin to religious orders, whose concern and dedication have set outstanding examples in the hospital field.

The House would be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that in Victoria, in the fall of 1969, women from the Anglican, Roman Catholic and United Churches formed a group, with the specific intent of helping in the care of the aged and the chronic sick. This movement has grown both in size and activity and now includes 14 different denominations under the title, Ecumenical Women's Outreach. It is just such a group and similar groups of both men and women that I would envisage as forming nonprofit societies to embark on the construction and operation of intermediate care hospitals, provided, as I've said already, that the Provincial Government and the regional boards accept the responsibility of providing the financing.

My appeal, of course, is directed not only at the churches, but to all local groups and organizations with a deep interest in helping their less fortunate neighbours.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've stated earlier and repeated the fact, that, when someone in this House has a proposal to make that costs money, he should spell out the dimension of the cost and the manner in which he feels it might be met. Assuming facilities are required for 4,000 patients, I've already stated that I would accept the fact that 4,000 may be less than the actual figure but comparing ourselves with Alberta and using certain other studies in the private hospitals, it would appear that 4,000 is a reasonably fairly accurate figure. Therefore, assuming that we have 4,000 patients and that the cost of construction and acquisition of existing beds would approximate $10,000 per bed, the $10,000 figure is the actual cost which has been decided per bed for the Gorge Road Hospital extension, which I am happy to say gets underway tomorrow, and, therefore 4,000 beds at $10,000 a bed, means the cost of the Government of acquiring the intermediate care beds, those in existence and those which would need to be built, the cost would be $40 million, of which the Provincial Government would pay 60 per cent, namely $24 million, and the other $16 million would be raised at the local level through the aegis of the regional boards. Actually, this sum would not be required in one or even two years. If the amount required for the first year of such a programme cannot be found from the increased Budget allocation to BCHIS of $30 million, I would suggest that there is a reasonable source of revenue in our midst which has not yet been tapped by Government. I say, "if." I would like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Budget allocates an extra $30 million to the BCHIS and I would remind the House that $18 million is expected to come from the cigarette tax…but, if the money cannot be found from our present Budget, I feel there is a very reasonable source of revenue which has not been tapped and I refer to the money presently spent on advertising.

The vast sums of money spent on advertising, when you stop to look into it, are really quite staggering. Figures for 1968, printed in the Canadian Consumer show that the top 100 advertisers in Canada spent a total of $160 million in 1968, through print, radio and television. The very lowest in the list of the top 100 was the Vick Chemical Company, which spent half a million dollars. Some $226 million annually, has been spent until, at least, recently on the radio and T.V. advertising of a certain product, Mr. Speaker, which we now tax in British Columbia but which must not be mentioned in this Debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, give it a try.

MR. WALLACE: Cigarettes. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has stated that advertising expenditure in Canada worked out to $240 per family per year. It is a well-known fact that consumers not only have qualms about the validity and integrity of some advertising but, frequently, are subjected, without choice, to a veritable torrent of advertising, which, in my view, must inevitably increase the

[ Page 315 ]

cost of the product. It is a matter of conjecture as to what extent this excessive degree of advertising succeeds in selling the product but it is reasonable to conclude that there is a substantial advertising "overkill" in today's society.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that if the proposals that I have brought forward cannot be financed in the method I have suggested, I submit that it would be a hardship to no one in an area where such massive amounts of expenditure are already being made, that extensive advertising should be taxed, inasmuch as the manufacturers have claimed many times that they are not raising the cost of the product.

I would suggest a tax of one per cent on all individual ads costing more than $50 and on all advertising by mail, but I would suggest that we exclude the classified advertising in newspapers, personal ads and such municipal, Provincial and Federal advertising of jobs, public hearings and land sales. I would not exclude advertising at election time.

Mr. Speaker, I would not propose to know all the minutae…oh, that's another word they might not understand…I would not propose to know how the ramifications of this proposal would work and I think it would be reasonable to not exclude workmen's compensation. I oppose the expenditure of public money on the advertising of the Workmens' Compensation Board. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I am putting forward this suggestion in an attempt to live up to the basic understanding I have of the role of an individual on the back benches that he should bring forth proposals and if they cost money, he should state how much money and how that money should be produced.

While I am taking issue with the Government on some points, Mr. Speaker, I would want to give credit for the awareness shown in the Budget Speech for the need to expand home care programmes, where suitable patients could be looked after in the most desirable surroundings, namely, their own home. But, here again, Mr. Speaker, the patient, who is looked after in his own home at some cost in the form of physiotherapy and nursing care and home-maker services, should not be expected to shoulder the total cost of that service himself. If a patient in hospital is paying one dollar a day out of a realistic cost of $50, I think it is unreasonable to expect a patient to hurry home from hospital to have home care, which might amount to eight, nine or ten dollars a day and be expected to meet that cost without any Government subsidy. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the availability of such services in the home, not only make sound economic sense, but is of tremendous psychological value to the patient who can remain in the home. It is my personal regret that the Government has chosen to reduce by half the physiotherapy coverage to out-patients and I will have more to say on this at a later date.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, wish to express my gratitude to the Honourable the Minister of Health for agreeing, at least verbally, to the provision of increased facilities at the Royal Jubilee Hospital for the performing of abortions which have increased markedly. His response was prompt and accepted, in total, the recommendations of the hospital as to the quickest and most economic way these services could be provided. I'll come back to some other points that the Minister of Health raised and I will not be able, on these points, to be quite so complimentary.

On another matter, I would feel impelled to take issue with the Honourable the Minister of Health, in the matter of his attitude to the proposed extended sewage outfall at Clover Point in Victoria. In this situation, the Minister is insisting on a primary treatment plant. When I spoke in the Throne Speech, I made the point and I think it is a reasonable one that, before we tackle any particular form of pollution sensibly and intelligently, it is only a sensible prerequisite to be in possession of the facts. The extended outfall at Macaulay Point was approved on the basis that monitoring and continuing studies would reveal whether or not the extended outfall met the requirements, or whether or not a primary treatment plant also would be required.

To turn again to the fact that you should have your facts right before you spend a lot of public money, I would suggest that we are made aware of the fact that the Capital Regional Board sponsored a comprehensive study of sewage disposal for the Saanich Peninsula and Greater Victoria area in 1966, with the objective of preparing a master plan for the whole area for the most effective method of disposing of sanitary sewage for the next fifty years, assuming a population growth from 170,000 to 420,000. The study concluded, Mr. Speaker, that deep extended outfalls with comminution at Macaulay Point, which means a dispersal and smaller fragments of the sewage, and the systems at Macaulay Point, Clover Point and McMicking Point, where the currents are extremely active, would adequately clean up the pollution on the Victoria beaches without the need for primary treatment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, no one would claim that engineers, any more than the rest of us, are infallible. But I think we should stress one point, that primary treatment does not do away with the need for deep extended outfalls, since the effluent, after primary treatment, still contains 50 per cent of the undesirable components. I am quoting an engineer when I state that a treated sewage outfall would have to be 80 per cent as long as a raw sewage outfall. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, that the difference in length is insignificant whether the sewage is treated or not; therefore, the urgent need for an extended deep outfall is unquestioned whether you treat it or not. With or without treatment, the primary object is to provide adequate protection for the shoreline waters and assure that the water quality standards of the Pollution Control Board are met at the shoreline.

The study I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, from 1966, reported that such objectives could be met in the specified locations with extended deep outfalls and comminution. At a subsequent seminar sponsored by the Capital Regional Board, engineers with extensive experience of ocean, and I would like to emphasize ocean, not inland or lakes or still waters, I am talking about the turbulent Pacific Ocean, that these engineers confirmed the conclusions of the 1966 study. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that, even if all the engineers are wrong, every single one of them, which is unlikely, but even if we suggest for a moment that they are all wrong, surely, it is only commonsense to install the outfall first, study the effect of the outfall and, when you have the facts, figures and the valid information, then, surely, would be the time to decide whether or not a primary treatment plant is also required.

Again, I believe that when you are talking in terms of projects or proposals, whether it is a private Member or a Minister of the Crown, I think we should spell out the sums of money we are talking about. If the honourable Members, Mr. Speaker, know the Victoria area, as I think they do, reasonably well, Clover Point lies on Marine Drive or Beach Drive, which is a tourist attraction and the implications of building a treatment plant at Clover Point are as follows: The city of Victoria would have to acquire some 70 residential lots, which would cost somewhere in the region of $1 million. The plant it is estimated, and I have the figures from

[ Page 316 ]

the engineer, would cost $5 million and its annual operation is estimated to cost half a million dollars, which is a total of $6 1/2 million, not to mention the loss of $30,000 in property taxation to the city.

Now, these are very large sums of money, Mr. Speaker, and to insist that the city become involved in such expense, regardless of the fact that the extended outfall, is, in my opinion, quite unjustified, I would, Mr. Speaker, through you, suggest that the Honourable the Minister of Health review his opinion and adopt what, to me, seems the logical approach of installing the outfall, which must be done anyway, and subsequently monitoring the results to determine the exact, indisputable result of the outfall.

At a time when the need exists to provide large sums of money for many other urgent social needs, such as health services and pollution, such as the open ditches filled with sewage in the View Royal area, if we are worried about how long they should be, or whether we should have primary treatment, maybe we should go back down the scale of pollution a little bit and provide some money to clear up the sewage polluted ditches in View Royal. To any reasonable observer, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the very turbulent waters off Clover Point would seem quite adequate to disperse the natural human organic material as claimed by the survey.

I have no wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I am suggesting we tolerate pollution on our Victoria beaches. I am simply trying to make two points. Why ask experts to carry out a scientific study and then disagree so basically with their recommendations? Secondly, why insist on primary treatment with the expenses that I have mentioned when, in truth, it is not known, with certainty, that the primary treatment plant is essential? I would agree that, if we had all the money to do all the things which are desirable in improving our environment, the addition of primary treatment would be reasonable, realistic and acceptable. But we know very well that this is not so, we just do not have the money to do all the projects, many of which are more urgent than the one I have just mentioned. I feel that, in this regard, some series of priorities must be set up to deal with the worst problems first and, therefore, at this time, I would appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable the Minister of Health to review his opinion, to take another look, a second look at the evidence, and consider whether it might not be completely realistic to go ahead with the installation of the outfall and consider the primary treatment plant on valid, proven, realistic, scientific evidence.

Mr. Speaker, some comments were made by the Honourable the Minister of Health, this afternoon, in a rather spirited and, what I thought, was a rather extravagant expression of the degree to which doctors abuse hospitals. As it was pointed out in the Debate, during the statement by the Minister, a doctor should always state clearly on whose behalf he is speaking. At the present time, I propose to speak on behalf of all the citizens of British Columbia. I am the first person to admit, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that abuses occur by doctors in hospitals. I would ask this House this question. Is there any segment of society with privileges, where a certain percentage of that segment do not abuse the privileges they are granted? I wish to make it painfully clear that I accept that there are abuses of hospitals by doctors. I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion, the degree to which abuse occurs, as inferred of stated fairly plainly by the Minister this afternoon was grossly exaggerated.

I would like to point out that, in the past year, the average length of stay of patients in the city hospitals of this city has dropped by about approximately half a day and, in the year preceding the present year, the patients' stay diminished by a whole day, that, in general, the doctors have reduced the length of stay of the patient in the course of the last two years by a day and one half. I would like to point out to the Honourable the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the doctors of the Province are very well aware of the cost of hospital care. The vast majority — and I think when we are discussing this type of issue we should talk about the majority, I don't think it is reasonable and fair to elevate the behaviour of a minority and depict this as though it is the behaviour of the whole profession…the doctors of this Province are sufficiently aware of their responsibility that a utilization committee exists in most hospitals. We also have a system of ward monitors, which consists of a weekly report to a doctor on each ward and the doctor, in turn, approaches any doctor who is considered to be keeping a patient in too long. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the Honourable the Minister of Health himself has publicly given very considerable credit to the staff at St. Joseph's Hospital for having adopted what is called the "Murray system." I won't go into the details, but it is a method of supervision of patient care and length of stay and, by the statement of the Minister himself, something of the order of 600 additional patients were treated at St. Joseph's Hospital last year compared to the former year.

Now, the question of a doctor abusing his use of hospital facilities, as I state, is well known to each and every doctor. The abuse is carried out by a small percentage and, some 18 months ago, the Department of Health suggested to the Jubilee Hospital that, perhaps, a study in depth would give us, as on the case of the outfall, accurate, valid information. The medical staff of the Royal Jubilee Hospital was asked to participate in a study and, with respect, the Minister of Health provided funds for this study, in which every detail of the utilization of the facilities at the Royal Jubilee Hospital was to be studied. The study was carried out by a Dr. Longridge — the name doesn't really matter, but since it has subsequently been called the Longridge Report, I may refer to it later. The study was carried out by Dr. Longridge but, before the medical staff of this hospital of which I am a member, gave its agreement to this study, the executive director of the Royal Jubilee Hospital was assured by the Minister of Health, on three different occasions, that the information to be collected was to be utilized in a scientific way to pinpoint the manner in which hospitals are abused and to help the profession and the Government, in cooperation, to correct some of these situations, which I am not, for one minute, trying to defend. The abuses do exist. The point I am labouring rather a long time to come to, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize, is that the medical staff, the doctors of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, are just as keen as you and I and the next person to correct abuse and to use hospitals economically and efficiently. When the doctors agreed to this study, the Honourable the Minister of Health gave his firm, verbal assurance to the executive director of the Royal Jubilee Hospital that the findings of this study would never be used for cheap, political gain. Mr. Speaker, it is with much regret that I view the attack by the Honourable the Minister of Health, this afternoon, on the doctors of this Province, in a very widespread, diffuse, and blunderbuss fashion. There was no selectivity, there was no statement of the percentage of doctors who might be involved, or of what

[ Page 317 ]

percentage of total hospital days are wasted, and I think that that kind of diffuse attack on all the doctors of this Province, without qualification…there was no statement, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister that he had looked at the relative percentage of doctors involved, the relative percentage of hospitals, or the relative percentage of days of hospital bed wastage compared to the total. As far as I am concerned, the people of this Province must be left and, certainly, the Members of this House must have been left this afternoon, following the Minister's speech, with the impression that this is a very widespread degree of abuse. But, worst of all, Mr. Speaker, in my honest opinion, I feel that the type of attack which was delivered this afternoon against the doctors of this Province was based on information which he received from a study, he said, himself, the contents of which would not be used for political advantage. While I regret very much that this situation has developed, Mr. Speaker, I stand here on something as important to me as anything, short of life itself, and that is honour. I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, through you, that the Honourable the Minister of Health now apologize to the medical profession of British Columbia (applause).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the constituents in the Nanaimo area were very happy to hear in the Budget Speech that a sum of $25 million had been created to fight the problems of drugs, nicotine and alcohol. One of the reasons we are so concerned and interested in this particular fund is the fact that, in Nanaimo, three years ago, the problem of heroin addiction was unknown. All of a sudden, in the space of three years, in a small area of the Nanaimo constituency, we have 100 heroin addicts and, if something is not done in the next two years, the number of addicts will probably double again. Now, this is alarming to our area. It is a constituency of approximately 38,000 people and, all of a sudden, in a period of five years, from no heroin addiction, we suddenly find that the constituency of Nanaimo has the second highest ratio of heroin addiction in all of Canada.

Previously, armed robberies were unknown in our constituency. In 1969 there were none and, yet, last year, there were 16 armed robberies. In the space of two years, the number of complaints to the police have almost doubled from 7,000 to 14,000 and 85 per cent of the crime in our constituency is associated with the drug problem. Eighty-five per cent, it's a big percentage. If this problem continues the way it is, we are going to face a change in the character of our community. It should interest every M.L.A. here because, to a lesser degree, the same thing is happening right across British Columbia. We should all be very much concerned with this problem.

Three years ago in Nanaimo, marijuana first appeared and, in general, it rated on par with the problem in most of the constituencies in British Columbia. Then it was controlled and still is, under the Narcotics Control Act. Then they changed the law so that it came under a summary conviction offence, which meant they were no longer fingerprinted and it, really, wasn't a severe crime to be involved with marijuana.

Our problem here in the Nanaimo area has been that, in three years, we've had no additional help to fight the problem of heroin. There have been no police added to the drug detail. The city, this year, in our budget, to show good faith, have added two constables and what I'm asking tonight is that the Federal and Provincial Governments get together so that we can get, at least, four or five more constables to fight the problem of heroin and drug addiction. If we wait for five more years, it will be too late and the problem will be much more severe. We are going to have violence. We could have violence, crime and entirely different kinds of things than we have ever imagined in crime in our constituency. We are getting, I would say, the overspill from Vancouver, with its 3,000 heroin addicts, and from Victoria, with 325 addicts. And they are going to go to other small communities in British Columbia, too. Frankly, I don't think we are coming up with a prime programme to fight this. I think now we should consider also financial incentives so that, when civic governments go in, they will have an extra incentive to construct youth and family recreational facilities, because youth that is highly involved normally steers clear of the drug problem. We need a far more intensified educational programme in Nanaimo. We do have one, to a small degree, and as well-meaning as it is, it is no way coming near to fulfilling the type of educational programme that is so badly needed. They should start in grade one and work right through and it should emphasize human purpose and the value of commitment. It is a sociological problem and we have got to find out what is causing it. Are the kids looking for kicks? Is it rebellion? Or is it to fulfill a human need? The problem is with us so we should be working on it and fast.

We have the four types of drugs in our community: the speed type which increases activity; the barbiturates, which are depressant; the LSD and the heroin, these are a hallucinogenic type of drug — this is the one that is causing the big problem; and then we have the tranquilizers, as well. The heroin caps in Nanaimo are selling at $20 a cap and some of the addicts and, mind you, this is not the average, it is well above the average, some are going as high as 20 caps a day. On the average, they are using four to ten caps a day. That is a habit that's costing them somewhere between $80 and $200 dollars a day. They have to have it once they are on it. It is a terrible thing and, don't forget this, only 5 per cent of those people that ever get on heroin ever get off it. It destroys lives and snuffs them out completely. These young people, unfortunately, are the targets. This problem is increasing in momentum every single day. Remember, this has just started in the last 36 months. In a small town, people become aware of this problem much more quickly. I do think, in a small area like ours, we have a better chance, probably, to fight the problem and lead the way and set an example for other communities. That is what we want to do but we need help to do it.

We have quite a problem with shoplifting and the store articles sell for about a quarter of their original price, so you can get a good idea just what's happening. In New York City, where they have 100,000 addicts, they steal $1,500,000,000 worth of merchandise every year. You can see how this can affect a community. In the end, of course, it is the taxpayer that pays. Once the addict gets on to this, he either has to steal or prostitute. That's why we are so happy, in our constituency, that you now have this Drug, Alcohol, Cigarette Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund. We hope that when you look at that fund, you will be looking at Nanaimo, and quickly, so that we can get on with the job of rolling up our sleeves to fight the problem of heroin addiction.

It would also be a forward thrust if we could treat very, very quickly in satellite centralized facilities, such as in our local health unit, where these addicts could got free and fast treatment or even methadone, if necessary. But the way it's going now, we are not really going all out to help them. They

[ Page 318 ]

are in a world of their own. They need help and, if we don't help them, the problem is going to increase. The traffickers are going to keep going. We need more law enforcement badly. In some countries, they hang these traffickers in heroin. I don't suggest that in our Province, but I do say this. It's worth fighting a lot harder than we are fighting at the moment. If we don't do it very shortly, we are going to be in trouble right across the Province.

In Nanaimo, we are having a public meeting this week, which nearly every organization in our city will be attending. We are getting every citizen in our community behind the problem and it is our intention to fight it.

I repeat to the Government that we want you to look at our problem and we will be presenting a brief to you, very shortly, outlining the problems of drugs in our community. Remember this, it can happen in any community in British Columbia and it can happen overnight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure to rise in my place and speak on behalf of the people I represent from that great riding — Columbia River. The hour is late and I almost feel that I am on the late night show. Of course, all the late night shows are the best shows.

Recently, Thursday, Mr. Speaker, very recently, two of the Vancouver Members, the Member from the Vancouver-Burrard and the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, rose in their places and advocated the abolishing of big game hunting in this Province. Hearing these statements, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that they are not hunters and have a limited degree of appreciation for the healthy and inspiring sport of hunting. One must not conclude that hunting is merely an attempt to kill wildlife. It affords a great opportunity for peace and solitude that is not available anywhere else. Hunters are certainly attempting to secure game but I seriously believe, being a hunter myself, that the prime objective is the appreciation of nature in its purest form. Most hunters would find it much cheaper, in fact, to buy meat rather than incur the heavy expense of hunting, through the purchase of various forms of equipment, tags, licenses and the travelling expense.

I'm sure they do not realize the wide ramifications of the suggestion which they just made last week because, almost immediately, the Government of British Columbia would be deprived of $3 million in direct revenue. The direct revenue which is derived, and there are many indirect forms of revenue as well, gasoline tax, 5 per cent sales tax, and so forth, that amount of money is sufficient to maintain the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The hunting ban would deprive approximately two hundred employees, Government employees, of their jobs, ranging from biologists, conservation officers and clerical staff (interruption). No, they don't only exist for hunters but many of them do. The guiding industry, although seasonal, does employ over five hundred people. Investments in guiding are over $4 million. The guiding industry in British Columbia generates a revenue of approximately $3 million. With the abolishing of hunting, these jobs would also disappear. The number one objective in this Budget is jobs. The suggestion which has been made would eliminate thousands of jobs in British Columbia, not only through the nonrequirement of civil servants and guides, but one must also consider that, in the retail trade and in the sporting good stores, many employees would be laid off because of the lack of revenue derived from the sale of ammunition and sporting goods. Many of the small sporting goods stores would be run out of business (interruption). No, that's not true…so they can enjoy the outdoors. No, Mr. Speaker, I say that big game hunting is here to stay because, properly managed, big game can, and I believe will, continue to contribute its fair share to the welfare of British Columbia. It can continue to play an important role in the tourist industry in this Province. I don't think it is necessary to attract tourists to have big game down the main street of Vancouver. Any tourist wishing to see big game, today, can go to any of our National parks. In fact, he can go to almost any wilderness part of British Columbia and see almost every specie of wildlife.

However, big game must be managed to conform with the amount of habitat available. This is evidenced by the number of animals which are slaughtered, from time to time, in the National parks to maintain this balance. In the last Session of the Legislature, I suggested that the Government of British Columbia should not allow the slaughter of elk and sheep in our National parks but should acquire these animals for transplanting to areas which can handle an increase in the population.

I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted my suggestion and, from the Banff National Park, there have been transplanted 50 elk into the Blueberry-Paulson area of the West Kootenays. The elk transplant was arranged by the Trail Wildlife Association. Stop trying to read my Speech, Mr. Member, I'll come to you in just a few moments. Can you be patient, please? I will be with you in just a few moments. It was done in conjunction with the B.C. Wildlife Branch. I don't believe that the Fish and Wildlife Branch should negate its responsibilities by allowing a rod and gun club to initiate a project of this nature because the responsibility of management is solely that of the Wildlife Branch. I believe that they should be the prime movers in transplanting game because they recognize the areas that can handle an increasing number of animals. I believe, in the financial interests of this Department, that they ensure that we have an ever-increasing number of animals to utilize the habitats which are diminishing so quickly in this Province.

British Columbia is rich in big game resources, richer than any other area on the North American continent. Management of these herds of wildlife has not presented any great challenge in the past because of the limited degree of hunting pressure and disturbance of the natural habitat. Management has, to a great extent, been confined strictly to the regulating of the harvest. I think the time has come when we must apply ourselves to not only regulating the harvest, but seriously examining the ways and means by which we are going to maintain big game populations in this Province. We do have the technical details of where the prime habitats exist to help sustain and increase the existing herds of wildlife. Unless we are prepared to act in a very positive way by setting aside those known prime winter grazing areas, we can look forward to an ever-diminishing number of our wildlife species in this Province. What is basically required is intensive management, not only managing populations but ensuring that the existing populations have an opportunity of sustaining themselves and multiplying for the benefit of not only hunters, but for the benefit of everyone who enjoys seeing game in this Province.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Wildlife Branch, through its biologists, undertake a complete survey of the

[ Page 319 ]

areas which they feel are necessary to maintain our herds. I realize that the Government has taken limited steps to protect sheep after a serious epidemic developed but I don't think we should wait until such time as we are confronted with a serious problem. I think the time has come now, when we must act and we must take the necessary steps that are required to ensure that the habitats will always be there for big game. It is not only a matter of setting aside by reserve of habitat but we must also improve these habitats. The Member from North Peace River suggested that we should light a few fires. I would say we shouldn't light a few fires but, by lighting a few fires, it is beneficial in improving the habitat (interruption). No, I don't support fires, Mr. Minister. The fact that we are controlling fires in British Columbia, today, is, to a certain degree, limiting the amount of habitat available to our wildlife. I think with the ever-diminishing amount of Crown land in our Province, I think the time has come when we must act and we must act now. The answers are not as the Members across the way have suggested, a hunting ban, but the answer is through intensive management of a resource.

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by some of the statements made by the Member from Kootenay. You know, I listened to him and it was just like an old record this afternoon, playing the same tune, time and time again, in which he talks about the Dr. Stanton deal in Cranbrook. Do you support the theory that this doctor should be allowed to go into a clinic in the community of Cranbrook and utilize the facilities of the Green Clinic, use its patients, without making any financial sacrifices, to immediately move into lucrative medical practice, to be able to after having signed an agreement, walk across the street and take those patients away from the Green Clinic? Is that what you support? I'll tell you, if that's your theory, my friend, it won't be too long before there will be no clinics in British Columbia. Doctors shouldn't be allowed, once they sign a contract, to move across the street with the patients from a clinic that has pioneered medicine in a community. I have a friend who manages a medical clinic in the community of Cranbrook. He went in on his own. The Member from Kootenay was saying that there is no freedom amongst the doctors in this Province. As far as I'm concerned that's straight hogwash. You have very ample evidence right within your constituency, within your community, because an individual, who is a friend of mine, moved into Cranbrook and has set up a very lucrative medical practice there. Was he stopped? Certainly not. He has freedom and so has every other doctor in this Province, unless he signs a contract (interruption).

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to tolerate statements like that from that Member. I wish you would ask him to retract that statement, please (interruption). I'm also not only amazed, I am astonished at some of the remarks of that Member, as well. It is not too long ago, just about a week ago in this Legislature, that that Member rose and spoke on the question of unemployment. What did he say? — that the people of British Columbia are tired of cyclical unemployment, that it is only a matter of time and they will cast this Government out of office because of this. Is that not right? He went on to say that wherever you have a Liberal and Conservative administration there is cyclical unemployment. Now, one thing this Member happened to forget — that, in Canada, today, we have a Socialist Province, the Province of Manitoba. Is he trying to suggest that there is no unemployment in that Province? Unemployment is rampant in the Province of Manitoba, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the only time you ever hear any clever suggestions or any cunning ideas from this Member is about once every three years, during election time, because this man has a great ability to fix elections. This is the only time this man shows any genius whatsoever — at election time (interruption).

Mr. Speaker, there is so much turbulence here that I didn't hear you. The Member doesn't fix elections, really, Mr. Speaker. He tampers with much of the mechanism, mind you (interruption). OK, he doesn't tamper with the mechanism, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw that statement but he monkeys around with something, I'm sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: I ask a withdrawal of any implication from that Member that any honourable Member in this House would manipulate an election campaign.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, because of the objections raised across the Floor, I think I have made my point very clear and I will withdraw.

When I listen to the NDP talk about jobs, they make me laugh. I should be saddened by some of the statements made by those Members across the way. It is not too long ago, you will remember very well, that a former Member of that political party, in fact, a former leader of that political party — they have had a lot of them, they've rejected a lot of their leaders — we still have rejects in this House, stood up at the University of British Columbia and stated that, "If I were Premier, I would stop the Kaiser deal." In other words, he would stop the hundreds of jobs in the coalfields in the Kootenays. That's what he was saying. They are against jobs, they talk out of both sides of the mouth at the same time.

There were some very revealing statements from that little Member from Kootenay, as well, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for calling him a little Member. But, that Member from Kootenay, I remember in 1969, stood on the floor of this Legislature and talked about the great sell-out to Kaiser in the East Kootenays and he is a representative from that area, Mr. Speaker. He had this to say about Kaiser, "If we can build the Roberts Bank superport as a public venture, we can mine coal, too." He said the Government could keep the profits in coal mining and use it to develop a smelter, to develop steel and secondary industry in B.C. He accused the Social Credit Government of operating with dollar psychology. This is a little better than you could put it, Mr. Member, because it is a newspaper article, "…by allowing coal mining companies into the Province to cream the land, to come through and have all they want for nothing." He said the programme perpetuates a history of natural resource exploitation. Signed, Yours truly.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many jobs that little group over there would have created with the loss that Kaiser incurred of $4.7 million last year. How many secondary industries, how many steel mills, would you build with a loss of $4.7 million? How many steel mills and how many secondary industries would you establish in British Columbia with the anticipated profit of next year? None, whatsoever, because there won't be any profit next year, either. It's a long-term proposition, my friend, that's what it is.

Speaking for the small shareholders, how many people have made money on the stock market buying the shares of Kaiser resources at the initial price of $12 and now they are at $6.75? I wonder how many people made money, there? Dividends? There won't be any dividends for many years. Originally, the original anticipated expenditure in the

[ Page 320 ]

Kootenays to develop these coal deposits was expected to be $85 million. They found a few technical difficulties, which increased the cost to $97 million and, now, they find, because of other difficulties, in order to bring the mine into production, in order to be able to fulfill the contracts which they presently have, that it's going to require another $30 million. Another $30 million — $127 million of capital outlay to get that coal deposit mine in the East Kootenays.

I wonder who would be the first to criticize had this Government taken $127 million of public money, or $127 million on the open market, at interest rates of 8 3/4 to 9 per cent and then find themselves with such a technical difficulty as exists in the East Kootenays. Who would be the first to criticize? It would be that little group over there. They would be the first to criticize. The people that talk about Crown corporations. They'd be the first to criticize. I wonder what they would do if they were Government with a situation such as this. Would they go running to Ottawa asking the Federal Government to subsidize the transportation of coal to Roberts Bank? Or would they go, hat in hand, to the Japanese to renegotiate the contract? Is that what they would do? That's what they'd do (interruption). No, these people are shallow thinkers when it comes to financial affairs. They are very shallow, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the prime responsibilities of a government, and a responsibility of this Government, is to ensure a fair return on the development of its natural resources. That's one of the prime objectives in the development of natural resources. The next one is to ensure the maximum number of jobs for the people of British Columbia and of Canada, as well. In this respect, I would say that we have a responsibility to ensure that the transportation of this coal move over a Canadian route to ensure the maximum benefits to British Columbians and Canadians. For every million tons of coal that is shipped over a Canadian carrier, there are many benefits. Some of the indirect benefits are the expenditure of over $4 million in capital outlay in equipment and diesel power and so forth. Are we going to deny, by allowing export coal to go to the United States, are we going to deny those depressed areas of Quebec and Nova Scotia the opportunity of these indirect jobs? I believe that for every million tons of coal that moves over a Canadian carrier, there are over 200 jobs created in the Province of Nova Scotia and Quebec in the manufacturing of equipment (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Members please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Some of the direct benefits are, in the transportation field, for every one million tons of coal that is transported over a Canadian carrier there are approximately a hundred and fifty direct jobs. For every million tons of coal that is transported in British Columbia, Canadian railways get about $3 1/2 million, of which 50 per cent is labour content. So I strongly support the coal moving over a Canadian carrier and, any time coal moves over an American carrier at the present time, as far as I'm concerned this amounts to the export of jobs to the United States.

I'm not necessarily opposed, Mr. Speaker, to the application of the Kootenay and Elk Railroad because, from that export of metallurgical coal to Japan, there is a very important by-product and that by-product is thermo-coal. If there exists, as has been stated on many occasions, that the market does exist in the United States, we have no right, in fact we should encourage those people to market that coal into the United States. There might come a time when, in the transportation of coal from the East Kootenays, after listening to some of the predictions in the last hearings of the Canadian Transport Commission in Ottawa, where figures from 25 million to 50 million tons a year were tossed about…If this were to become a reality, I strongly believe that the Canadian railways would not be able to handle that type of tonnage. Then the Kootenay and Elk Railway would be in a strong position to transport only that which is not capable of being efficiently handled on Canadian railroads.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this Government should undertake a massive reforestation programme in British Columbia. This would help to create jobs. This would help to create productive jobs, not make-work jobs. Not too long ago, the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Laing, had a few words to say about unemployment. He said that unemployment has reached a point, and this is just last week, where it is no longer acceptable to the people of Canada. It has taken him a long time to come to that realization. He said further that we must generate some new plans for young people who have not yet had a chance of employment. I am thinking for instance of our renewable resources, such as forestry. That's the problem with the Federal Government — too much thinking and not enough action. Because the Federal Government gets the large share of revenue from our forest resources, over $100 million of taxation flows into the Treasury of Ottawa each year, I think they should have an interest in the forests of British Columbia. All of a sudden, you come to realize there is a need for a reforestation programme in British Columbia. It wasn't too long ago that the Premier of British Columbia, while attending a Constitutional Conference in September, 1970, had this to say about reforestation. "British Columbia is presently planting 25 million trees, at a cost of $3 1/2 million, as part of a five-year programme to plant 75 million trees by 1975. With a budget of $10 million, this goal takes care only of current needs to provide for areas requiring reforestation and the indicated expansion in the annual cut requires an increase in the annual planting programme of 175 million trees, which would cost an estimated $18 million." I can't think of any area in which we could create more productive jobs than in planting some of the dormant lands that exist, especially in the Vancouver forest district and this is an area in which there should be cooperation by the two levels of Government, in view of the fact that they are both deriving great benefits through taxation of the forest industry. I would urge the Government, tonight, to make an urgent appeal to the National Government to help participate with this project (interruption). By a cost-sharing project. Cost-sharing — to make work. Isn't the Federal Government interested in employment? This is its primary responsibility — employment. Aren't they interested with increased revenues from the forest industry? Aren't they interested? If they are, it's about time they acted in a constructive way.

I was going to speak on highways in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, however, it's no longer necessary because the overpass I was going to speak about, I was given the message from the Minister today, that tenders are being called. On behalf of the people from the Columbia River constituency, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank this Government for its quick action. The Budget, which we are discussing here, tonight, is a good Budget. It is a Budget that adheres to the needs of British Columbia. I am very happy to see that the Government listened very attentively to my suggestions of a couple of weeks ago, in which I suggested that they employ

[ Page 321 ]

biologists, engineers and ecologists to beef up their staff in the Pollution Control Board. I made several other suggestions, however, they have doubled their Budget in that particular department, for which I am very happy that they have taken some of my suggestions. I never realized that governments sometimes move as fast as they did in this instance.

The increased revenue in cigarettes is a modest tax, really, one of the most modest taxes in existence in this country. I think that if people are going to use this curse, then they should be prepared to contribute to the social welfare needs of this Province. Furthermore, we are not only increasing slightly the taxes on cigarettes, we are also setting up a perpetual fund to help rehabilitate those people who are going to be affected by illnesses and diseases.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is anticipating the debate on those subjects, which as he knows, are on the Order Paper.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't anticipating anything. I was just speaking on the Budget. Tremendous benefits have been passed on to the municipalities in this Budget by reducing their contribution to social welfare by 25 per cent. Millions of dollars will be saved by our municipalities in this Province. Furthermore, I am very gratified to see that the Government has seen fit to maintain that two dollar per capita to help ease the burden of the municipalities as far as welfare is concerned (interruption). No, there is no need to increase it, Mr. Member, because you have to realize that, in 1971, which has just started, in just a few months from now, there will be a census carried out in this Province, in which the benefits of the two dollar per capita will be multiplied, in many instances, three-fold. Can you imagine the benefits to those municipalities on the $30 per capita? Can you imagine? This Government has a record of treating its municipalities fairly.

No, Mr. Speaker, there aren't very many people who seriously oppose this Budget, Mr. Speaker, that guarantees to British Columbians the lowest tax structure in Canada. We've seen the first small operating increase in taxes in nine years. What did the Leader of the Opposition contribute in criticism to this Budget? Very little indeed. He made a passing remark of the philosophy of "Gatsby What's-his-name." That is his only criticism of this Budget, so I have to assume that he is, basically, happy on behalf of British Columbians that their cares are going to be looked after by this Government.

I was rather impressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who spent two hours and twenty minutes in presenting his budget, the budget of the Liberal Party. The Liberal budget, as he calls it. I want to show you, Mr. Leader, that you were a little mistaken as far as the place and the time of the presentation of your budget is concerned because, a little later on in this year, there will be mock Parliament, the Older Boys' Parliament, and that's where you should have presented your budget, not here. They might give you the opportunity there of making believe you are the Premier of British Columbia. One more thing, Mr. Leader, I want to say this, now, that you will never be the leader of British Columbia, never.

Mr. Speaker, that strong supporter of Social Credit, the Vancouver Sun, does not take exception to the Budget, either. It only had this to say. "Modest tax adjustments. No serious disputes." The Daily Colonist had this to say about the Budget. "It's tailored for the time." Without enumerating all the praise and prose that exist within this column, I think you people have all read it, it strongly supports this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, as this Budget is a forward-looking Budget, as it's an aggressive Budget and as it's a realistic Budget to face the needs of British Columbia, in the forthcoming year, after close scrutiny and examination, I have no alternative but to say that I am going to support the Budget, as well.

On the motion of the Honourable W.McT. Skillings, the Debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the following notice of motion (No. 5) standing on the Order Paper in his name was withdrawn:

This House recommends that in order to protect the public interest and welfare, the strike of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Divisions 101 — 134 and 109, against the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority shall immediately cease and that the transit operations of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority be resumed forthwith.

The Hon. D.L. Brothers moved, seconded by Mr. Price, motion (No. 6):

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education to examine the provisions and practices relating to the security of tenure for teachers in the public schools of British Columbia, and to report their findings and recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Burnaby Edmonds, an amendment to this Motion, by inserting after the words, "British Columbia," in the third line, the words, "the effect of the present finance formula upon teachers' appointments, vacancies and salaries." May I speak to that?

MR. SPEAKER: May I have the motion, please? To quote to honourable Members from page 544 in the 17th edition of May, Notice of instructions and amendments thereto: "Notice is required not only of an instruction, but of amendments thereto, which, if agreed to, would enlarge the scope of the instruction, or convert the same into a novel proposition. In order to be effective, such notice must be on the Order Paper." Under the circumstances, I must rule the amendment out of order. The Member may speak to the main motion, of course.

MRS. DAILLY: Of course, I realize that, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware of that practice before, Mr. Speaker, so I will have to accept your rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: It seems to me…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is to make it clear how security of tenure is affected. It is affected by a number of matters, one of which,

>[ Page 322 ]

it appears from the amendment, is the question of their salary and wages.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is not speaking now to the point of order. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rule so this amendment can be accepted.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am, quite frankly, not satisfied that the Minister of Education, having introduced the motion, has not given an explanation beyond what the motion says. That, of course, was the reason for the amendment, which, if we had given notice, would have been in order.

I would like to point out that the vagueness of this motion leaves a great deal of unrest throughout the House, although the committee has the matter in its hands. It leaves a great deal of unrest as to what exactly the Minister is seeking by referring this to committee and without an explanation beyond just introducing the motion. It doesn't seem fitting that the Minister of Education, himself, would not give the people of British Columbia a clear statement of exactly what course he is pursuing by referring this matter to committee. I would ask that, in closing this debate, the Minister would stand up, or someone else, who has spoken for the Minister on previous occasions, such as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or the former Minister of Education, or the Minister of Agriculture, get up and tell us what's going on in the mind of the Minister of Education relating to this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Education is not prepared to tell the House why he wants the motion. The fact of the matter is that the Public Schools Act of this Province provides the type of procedure that deals with the change of tenure of teachers, and it follows that, if the Minister is in any doubt as to how teachers in this Province lose their jobs, he has simply to look at the Public Schools Act. Now, if he is curious about the matter and really is sincere in trying to find out how teachers lose the security of their jobs, then, I suggest that he should find out what is happening in British Columbia as a result of the new finance formula that the Minister imposed on the school boards of British Columbia. It has everything to do with tenure, as I'll point out.

Today, because of the economic pressure imposed by this Government on school boards, they are forced to find ways of reducing the cost to the school board in their budgets for teachers' salaries. They are trying to find ways to eliminate personnel in the schools. If you doubt that, you check through the school districts of British Columbia to find out the skilled personnel that are being let go. Everything has to do with tenure and security of the position of teachers. I say that the Minister knows only too well that the question of salaries, the question of experience, all of these matters, have to do with tenure. I would have thought that the Minister would have been concerned enough about the subject to expand the subject so that the school boards of British Columbia could come here to a committee and tell it how the policies of this Government are destroying the school systems of British Columbia. I'm for investigating this subject, all right, but on wider terms of investigation than the Minister chooses. If all the Minister is attempting to do is to pose a threat to the teachers of British Columbia on their tenure, that's one thing. I said, "If." It is up to the Minister to clear up with this House what his motives are in proposing this motion. I, for my part, want to hear an investigation that deals with the question (interruption). We've got lots of time. This motion talks about "…to examine the provisions and practices relating to the security of tenure for teachers." Does not the Minister know what the provisions for the security of teachers are in this Province? Has he not read the Public Schools Act? How you get rid of a teacher, if you don't want him? Is the Minister aware that the Order-in-Council that was passed by this Government, last November, is not a procedure, is not according to law? Is he proposing to make that according to law, when he talks in this motion about the provisions relating to security of tenure? The provisions relating to the security of tenure are governed by the school boards. They are governed by the Public Schools Act. There are rigid precautions to prevent teachers being fired, frivolously, by anyone. If the Minister doesn't know what those provisions are, then, he should consult the Act by which he is supposed to govern. What we are interested in, and what I'm interested in, is this committee having before it the expert advice of the school boards as to the effect of this Government's policy on the tenure of teachers. How you frightened the life out of the school boards in British Columbia — not by the referendum but by the threat of the referendum, so that school boards no longer can give any tenure to teachers, when they know every budget is subject to a possible referendum. This is why I will support this motion, but I say that the Minister has tried his best to walk along a tunnel without looking sideways at the real problem — the policies of this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: I call the Honourable the Minister's attention to the same volume of May, the 17th edition, which, on page 545 says that the mover of an instruction has not the right of reply. So the Honourable Minister, with respect, may only speak with leave.

The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, as the Member, who just spoke, said, we will support this motion, but we do want to take this opportunity to express to the Honourable the Minister our very great disappointment. For the first time, since 1953, we are having a meeting, a standing committee, to discuss education. You have isolated and limited it down to this very one small sector of all the problems of education in this Province. I believe that the school trustees, the Parent-Teacher Federation and the citizens of British Columbia, who think that we are going to go into a committee to discuss education, are going to be as disappointed as we are that we are limited to these terms of reference. They may be happy with the very fact that, as I say, for the first time, following my suggestion, Mr. Minister,

[ Page 323 ]

last week, that we meet. I was glad that you took it up so quickly that we should have a meeting. Certainly, they are happy because, finally, we are getting together to talk about some form of education. I simply want to express my disappointment, and I know I am speaking for many people in this Province, that you have decided to limit it to this one very small factor of the whole educational problem we face.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. BROTHERS: Mr. Speaker, this matter of tenure has been a problem for several years. If the honourable Member, who last spoke, was at the School Trustees Convention and I think she was, she heard this question debated at some length. As well, I travelled throughout the Province through the course of last year and this question came up, time after time, both from school boards and from teachers. You, yourself, asked that the committee be activated. This is a problem that's being debated throughout the Province. I noticed the day that the notice came on the Order Paper that one of the school trustees from Victoria complimented the fact that this was going to be looked at, including Mr. Isaacson, I believe his name is, of the teachers. So that this is a problem that is in great debate throughout the Province and I think it should be looked at. I can't think of a better place that it should be looked at than by a committee of this Legislature. I, therefore, move this motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:14 p.m.