[ Page 361 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I will certainly speak for myself and I'm glad to see that the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is back (Mr. Gardom). We missed him last week. I may say that perhaps the least that is said about the two leaders of the Opposition parties and their contribution to this debate would be the kindest possible, but there's one thing I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worthy opponent.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Well, yes, there's one comment I wish to make as far as the official Leader of the Opposition is concerned. He doesn't make any pretext of being a financial man and for that reason his observations on the budget can go perhaps by the board. But as far as the leader of the Liberal group is concerned, he puts himself out as a great financial critic. I was told by a very close friend of his from Vancouver that the poor guy can't even balance his own bank account. (Laughter).

But, be that as it may…

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

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

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I didn't say it was your banker, I said it was a very personal friend of yours. (Laughter). There's one point that I want to make regarding the leader of the Liberal party and his budget. You know, he's hip on this idea that Hydro, the contingent liability is a part of a debt of British Columbia. Now I say to him in all fairness, if that's the fact why does he not include the debt of B.C. Tel? Now since the take-over, I say it's exactly the same thing, his argument is that it's paid by the public of British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: O.K. — just wait 'til I say that from 1961 to '71 B.C. Tel has gone on the public market for $230 million in bonds, $42 million in preferred shares, $78,800,000 in other share offerings making a total of $350,800,000. This year B.C. Tel will go the money market again for further requirements of $60 millions, making a total over the 11 years of $410,800,000. So, Mr. Leader, next budget be sure to include that in the public data as well because the public have got to pay for it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: My friend is the expert. I don't put myself up as an expert like he does. I wouldn't be prepared to make a statement like he did on Monday of this week. But of course the only peculiar thing about the whole thing is that he was ridiculed by his own party. Isn't that terrible, Mr. Leader?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Now, I have been asked to comment today on a few statements made by the Mayor of the City of Victoria, and I may say that in this business some people learn very, very quickly. He's only been elected in the City of Victoria twice, once for a two-year term as alderman and he's been now the Mayor of Victoria for a little over one month, he's not even dry behind the ears.

But he's got all the answers for the problems of municipal government, of the provincial government and the federal government. And he made a statement that Socreds are not worthy of the people. Well, I would like to ask him what made him do this latest flip-flop from four years ago when he ran as our candidate in Oak Bay?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Did he? Well, of course, it's a peculiar thing that they're both about the same build. We call them little pip-squeaks so the two of them make a pretty fair team. (Laughter). Now, I would suggest…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Just a minute. You had your speech yesterday, and I would ask the Mayor of Victoria to come clean, come out and tell the public why he's had this change of heart. I challenge him to tell us and if he doesn't tell us, one day I may.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

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

[ Page 362 ]

think in all fairness the Mayor should be prepared to make his own statement. Just like the new leader of the Conservative Party did himself yesterday.

Now, I want to say this before I leave the good Mayor. I want to say that he has a problem as far as the harbour is concerned. I may say that the City of Victoria and the provincial government have had rather good relations at least for the last two years and I am prepared, along with my good colleague the Minister of Public Works, to call a meeting of all representations of the four municipalities and the provincial government and help him resolve the problem of this harbour.

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

He stated that I had never in his term of office or any time even I had been in Victoria, stood up and say anything on behalf of Victoria. Well, I may say he hasn't been in Victoria very long because for the last 25 years I've been actively interested in civic affairs. I spent three years on the school board, six years on the council and now 12 years in this Legislature. At the same time I was also four years on the first board of the C.I.D.C. Now perhaps the Mayor is not conversant with the facts that we are the only province in all of Canada that has a Capital Improvement District Commission and we have every year for the past 15 years allocated $200,000 for the beautification of the capital precinct.

The only other Capital Improvement District is one in the federal capital in Ottawa but we're the only province and I'm very, very proud of the small part that I played in that development. They say "Why hasn't Skillings spoken up on behalf of the City of Victoria?" Well, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, he was still in knicker pants at that time, that 25 years ago I came out at that time for the fast ferry service between the north end of the peninsula and Vancouver, and I've been working for it ever since.

I think one of the greatest things that this government has done for the City of Victoria and the whole island has been our ferry policy. Would anybody argue about that? As you know well when the C.P.R. and the Black Ball went on strike some 12 years ago, the City of Victoria was dying on the vine.

You don't know it, but I'm telling you, that's the facts. The ferry service revitalised the entire city and the entire southern end of the island.

What's the government doing now? We're stretching these ferries so we can handle more cars and more people. I don't know whether the Mayor knows that I put my shoulder to the wheel many years ago to make the University of Victoria a degree-granting university and I'm very proud of that.

This government has assisted the City of Victoria in senior citizens' homes, Glendale Hospital in the last few years, the Eric Martin Institute, cultural funds for the different associations in the province, the physical fitness programme — but I think in most recent years the outstanding achievement that I have spoken for and my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has been the new museum and archives complex that we should all be very proud of.

No, as a matter of fact, I'm quite prepared anytime to stand on my records of public service and I want to perhaps emulate my good friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by referring slightly to the fact I have been elected to this Legislature four times — 1960, 1963, 1966 and 1969.

The first time I sought office in the provincial House I was successful in knocking out at that time George Gregory who was the sitting Liberal member and he got his just reward as you know. He went to the bench and George and I are personal friends and I wish him well.

At that time in 1960, I polled 8,600 votes. In 1963 I polled 9,300 votes. In 1966 I polled 12,000 votes. In 1969 I polled over 15,000 votes. As you remember the old days when I was a private member I used to have a little golden ball. Remember I used to make some forecasts? I say this: If the election is called in 1972 or '73 or '74 I think I'll still get in excess of the number of votes I got the last time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No, no. I was just giving a little historical fact. You know, somebody phoned me up this morning, and I'd like to pass this on to you because this is an idea that perhaps might catch on. He said: "Waldo, do you know, I think there's a conspiracy going on with the Press of this province." He said: "You know it's a funny thing that anybody that wants to criticise this government can get terrific Press."

Now the mayor that's had the most experience in the contiguous municipalities is Mayor Curtis. He apparently was very pleased with the result of the budget last Friday but there seemed very little in the newspaper about what he's had to say. Also the Mayor of Esquimalt was quite pleased. But there's been very little about his observations. So the man suggested to me that there's a conspiracy on behalf of the Press to try at every opportunity to knock this government and he gave me the answer why. Because they do not like the government's ban on liquor and tobacco advertising. Now, do you think there's anything to it? I don't know.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: We've had a hostile Press in British Columbia for 20 years and I hope they continue to be that way because the way that the people in the newspapers write the people ignore them. They don't any longer listen. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

I may say that we have passed through two very difficult years, and I think that in 1971 the uncertainties in the financial circles, problems of markets for Canadian resource industry and the changing trade alliances patterns have made a tremendous impression upon our way of life. The big feature of 1971 turned out to be the re-alignment of world currencies, a move forced by the American application of surcharges on imports.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote this?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that true?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Although the surcharge remained for only a brief time, it showed the Nixon administration's willingness to use new aggressiveness to achieve a more compatible currency situation.

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

[ Page 363 ]

was the year of the upswing.

Although many problems lie ahead, the prospects for 1972 are good with predictions much more optimistic than those made one year ago. In British Columbia, however, there is a serious cloud on the horizon and that is our problem, for example. 1972 is a year of labour negotiations. And I hope we will not have a repetition of 1970. In the annual survey made by my department of leading British Columbia firms, business executives expressed optimism — backed up by the recent international monetary settlement, increased consumer spending, surging housing construction and increased productivity resulting from more complete utilisation of manufacturing facilities.

My department is ready to accept the challenge of 1972. Greater emphasis will be placed in creating demands for the goods of existing British Columbia manufacturers, both secondary and resource-based. By building on existing industries, one of the soundest principles of economic development is being used, although the results are less dramatic than bringing in new ventures.

Eighty-five per cent of economic growth derives from the expansions of existing industries and facilities — a point obviously overlooked by my department's critics. This is a sound principle because it makes use of millions of dollars of capital investment already in the province, investment which is productive even as the new expansion investment is being introduced. It creates confidence in the existing business community, as well as in foreign investors who are looking to British Columbia — confidence inspired by the knowledge that any future investment they make can be based on the demands of increased production resulting from this government's trade promotional activities.

Manufacturing opportunities will continue to be identified by such processes as my friend from Vancouver Centre calls "fat stars", but one which is highly respected by the industrialists with whom my department deals.

In too many instances, industrial development has been a catch-as-catch-can activity, characterised by good intentions, generalities and a shot-gun approach which assumes that all industry will be attracted by colourful brochures or the desire of our province to have the industry.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened at Houston?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: What happened to Houston? It's a thing that can happen at any time. There's no guarantee that any going concern is going to be successful. A man can start off tomorrow, another man can start over, one will be successful and one will fail. Make no mistake, all statistics cannot be always truthful. Because as you know figures don't lie, but sometimes liars figure.

Make no mistake, industry at whatever level will respond only to the siren call of profitability and if we are to induce our existing industries to expand or new industries to establish we must show that the opportunity for profit exists.

We will therefore, continue to produce our reports because by doing so, we know we will be able to identify business opportunities and describe them, in a businessman's language, to potential developers or investors. We will also continue to produce the statistical reports as clearly laid out in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce Act, which provides the terms of reference for this department.

It is interesting to note that this Act lists nine duties. Of these, five refers specifically to the "collection, abstraction, compilation and publication of statistics relative to the commercial, industrial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people of the province."

One refers to the studying and giving advice on questions relating to the economic conditions of the province, and one refers to the maintenance and liaison with departments of the Government of Canada and other provinces.

The last two on the list direct my department and I quote: "To encourage and facilitate the production, sale and exportation of provincial products in every way considered advisable for the general economic welfare of the province," and two, "to secure information and advise us to the establishment of new industries in this province."

Not since 1937 when the previous Department of Industries Act was repealed, has my department received any direction that differs appreciably from that described as I have summarised.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Mr. Speaker, we now come to a matter of emphasis. Despite the Act's overwhelming pre-occupation with statistics my department will continue to emphasise the development of trade, particularly export, recognising the long-held principles associated with trade balances.

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

We will develop closer liaison with British Columbia government departments, Lands and Forests, Agriculture, and I may say as you all know there's a special $200,000 grant to assist the farmers in the sale and distribution of agriculture in British Columbia.

I'm very happy to say that along with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture this will be a real sales job because as you know I haven't got very many qualities but at least I'm a salesman. And I'll tell you right now we'll put agriculture over in this province like it's never been put over before.

Mines and resources: so that our province's resource wealth can be developed for the greatest good of the people of British Columbia and Canada, we will develop a closer relationship with industry and commerce, both management and labour so that their efforts to expand their markets, increase their productivity and hence create more jobs will be compatible with the efforts made by my department in these same areas.

We will work closely with the related departments of the federal government so that the full value received from federal aid programmes can be accomplished by British Columbia companies.

We will continue to represent our province in Europe, through British Columbia House in London; and, in the United States, through British Columbia Houses in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Additionally we will provide more detailed direction to the staffs of these Houses so their efforts are co-ordinated extensions of what's going on in the department head here.

We will continue to provide the high standard of service from the data processing branch that you have come to expect. The department, as a whole, will make greater use of the computer facilities in its search for new areas of

[ Page 364 ]

economic growth.

We will strengthen the relationship with the British Columbia Research Council so that its facilities for providing technical assistance will be available for greater use of all departments of government. And I may say that we now have on the University of British Columbia one of the very finest research councils in all of Canada. And I may say that in Dr. Trussell we have I think the outstanding director in Canada.

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

To accomplish these objectives I have made, and will continue to make, organisational changes to strengthen the industrial development trade and commerce branch of this department. I have chosen my new deputy from the executive ranks of the pulp and paper industry. I have instigated, through the Civil Service Commission, a search for a director to head up the industrial development, trade and commerce office.

Other staff additions to this same office will increase its effectiveness and make possible the carrying out of a more aggressive programme designed to create more jobs by the expansion of existing industries and the establishment of new.

The men who will make up the industrial development, trade and commerce will be promotion-oriented with strong experience in industrial development work, so that the job of promoting the Province of British Columbia will be carried out with enthusiasm and vigor by these dedicated professionals.

And I'd like to add here, that there's no department of government that has a finer staff than I have. And the new people that we hire I know they'll be of exactly the same calibre.

The economics and statistics office will continue to compile the statistics, which provide the Government of British Columbia with invaluable information on growth and form a secure base for forward planning. This office will continue to seek out manufacturing opportunities, carrying out feasibility studies to show, in a businessman's language, areas where existing companies can diversify or new companies can establish.

Where necessary, outside specialists will be retained to investigate specialised opportunities. At this time, we are currently studying the recent tax changes to determine if opportunities have been created which will attract investment in British Columbia by off-shore companies. We are studying the recent currency changes to determine if the changed relationship in foreign currencies has created conditions which now favour manufacture in British Columbia as opposed to exporting to British Columbia by foreign companies.

This is the kind of professional information my department must have if it is to respond to the changing world conditions and retain its credibility in the industrial world.

As a further effort to increase the sale of British Columbia products in world markets and to publicise the manufacturing opportunities in British Columbia, my department will participate in a fair promotion in Edmonton. Because the Province of Alberta came down last year and put a display in our international trade fair we're going to reciprocate and go up to Edmonton this year.

We are also going to attend an exposition in the State of Washington, in Seattle. I know the Leader of the Opposition will be very glad to hear that. British Columbia in 1972 is sponsoring a British Columbia promotion in California. This event which is now in the initial planning stages, will strike at two specific groups in that state:

First, company presidents whose companies can take advantage of the specific manufacturing opportunities which have been uncovered and described in the publication prepared by my department.

And two, purchasing executives who can purchase the British Columbia manufactured goods which will be on display. Even the selection of the goods to be displayed will be guided by the results of the market survey now being carried out by our two British Columbia Houses in California.

I wish to mention, in passing, the outstanding success of the Fifth British Columbia International Trade Fair held this past year in Vancouver from June 2 to 12.

This important trading event has developed, since its inception in 1958, into the largest regularly-scheduled trading event of its kind in North America.

In 1971 the fair attracted a record number of international pavilions, many of whose countries have already indicated their intention of returning to the next fair.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind Taiwan. I don't want to get into any hassle with the federal government on that. But sometime I may tell that story too. Four hundred and twenty exhibitors from Canada and the United States and other countries visited this fair and we are still maintaining commercial ties.

In additions, close to 3,000 professional buyers from Canada, the United States, and Europe and the Far East attended the fair and their participation resulted in numerous sales contracts and agencies being established. Computerisation of all data provided immediate access to information on a wide range of products on display and simplified the production of the official catalogue.

The sixth British Columbia International Trade Fair will be held in Vancouver in 1974. Some organisational changes will be made to take advantage of experiences gained in 1971. This fair has now attained an enviable international reputation. But all efforts will be directed to increasing the stature of this event so that it will continue to be recognised as a show case of products manufactured in British Columbia. So you see, I think we're right on top of the job.

This expansion will come because the economic climate in the province and in the world is right, not because of any give-away programme that might be offered, as proclaimed by the other provinces and by many of those who criticise my department's activities.

British Columbia does not offer cash subsidies to induce companies to establish in British Columbia. This type of incentive appears on the surface to be advantageous so that it is easy to direct criticisms against my department and this government, by attempting to relate lack of growth in this area to a lack of industrial subsidisation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great division of opinion as to whether government incentive grants are desirable and effective. The business community in the free enterprise world is traditionally wary of government involvement, and so it is surprising to hear Honourable Members of this House advocating subsidies. Particularly they themselves have been considered successful in this free-enterprise competitive world.

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

[ Page 365 ]

significant facts have emerged:

"Depressed" areas tend to remain depressed since most industries established in the section of the designated area which was already industrialised. In doing this these industries follow economic logic, not regional disparity correction. Often, jobs —

listen to this very carefully Mr. Leader of the Opposition —

often jobs created were offset by jobs lost in the actual depressed area.

Profitability was generally the criteria for establishing an industry at whatever location ultimately chosen. Except in periods of excessive government control, cash is usually readily available for viable enterprise. The available grants in the designated areas, therefore, tended to increase the profit of what was already a profitable enterprise.

I spent a great deal of time reading a book entitled "Forced Growth" written by Philip Mathias, and I would recommend it to any person that thinks that giveaways are the answer. The five studies of government involved in development projects are discussed in this book. Of the five projects one can be classified as being successful, and one will probably be successful although there will be a tremendous risk of capital involved. And three are considered absolute disaster.

The Government of the Province of British Columbia firmly believes that the best industrial development is that which establishes and operates in a sound economic climate. Industry in British Columbia will involve initially, resource development. This government has contributed indirectly in this field by its heavy infusion of capital into the British Columbia Railway and the provincial highways' system. To open up the resource areas, it has contributed to the capital development of the B.C. Hydro resources. Secondary industries receive far more value in their development from this strong resource industry base than they ever could from the heavy cash subsidies which only mask and hide the true economic facts.

As everyone is aware, the federal government has available certain forms of assistance. Wherever possible my department will assist in the re-evaluation of these designated areas. As you know, Mr. Marchand has promised that in the middle of 1972 he will have a conference at which time the specific areas will be discussed.

I want to say this and I want to say this very forcibly, that the number of times I've been back to Ottawa to discuss this matter, not only with Mr. Marchand but also with his deputies — and I would also like the Member for South Peace (Mr. Marshall) to listen to this very carefully — that we will fight very hard for our place at the trough. But I would also like to suggest that the trough is a long ways from Ottawa and we are not very strategically placed in British Columbia — we're at the end of the line.

As far as our relationship with the business and industrial community is concerned, we will actively work to strengthen that relationship. In the near future, I will set up an advisory council, made up of senior executives of management and labour, in order to obtain feedback and advice on problems which face our province and may hamper its industrial growth.

Mr. Speaker, we have come through two unsettled years when business conditions precluded all thought of expansion for many companies. Despite this, shipments of coal, metal concentrates, potash and sulphur continued to climb and the Port of Vancouver was never busier. The manufacturing upturn in British Columbia realised in the third quarter the highest percentage change upward of any area in Canada and it was 50 per cent. In the last month of this nine-month period covered by the report, British Columbia was second highest in its percentage change upward and there again it was twice the national average.

I point with pride to the record of this province and particularly my department in the development of British Columbia. I might say this, that British Columbia's future is in the hands of all of us and we hope and trust that each and every one of you will assist in the further development of our province.

Mr. Speaker, there are just two other subjects I wish to touch on before I take my place and I think that I will be just as brief as possible because I believe in giving the speakers that are still to come a fair shake as well.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Victoria has more senior citizens per capita than any other major city in Canada. Most of these people are living on fixed incomes and have a hard time making ends meet, particularly as they find the price of necessities rising every time they go to the market place.

These are the people who suffer the most when the cost of such public services as health and education get out of control, because when more money is needed for social services, that money has to come from somewhere else, and it always has to come from the taxpayers who in the final analysis have to pay.

During the past 15 years, people throughout British Columbia poured money without question into the public education and post-secondary education system. Now these people are asking whether they are really getting their money's worth.

The taxpayers have heard it said by the teachers, year after year, that the quality of education will suffer if they don't keep coughing up more and more money. But the truth is that the teachers, most of whom are probably already getting over $10,000 to $12,000 per annum are gobbling up the money as fast as we hand it out, leaving little left for the children of the province.

I would like to refer to the Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to an editorial that appeared on Saturday night in the Vancouver Sun. It is written by Alan Morley, and I think it is worthy of every Member of this Legislature and I think it's worthy of every citizen in British Columbia to read and I will just read in part, this is the Vancouver Sun, editorial of February 10, on page 4.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No conspiracy at all, this is just one person's opinion. When I'm talking about a conspiracy my dear friend, I'm talking about the fat cats who are the Press bosses — not the working stiffs — the Press bosses.

I'll just read one paragraph:

The B.C. Teachers' Federation is humiliated because teachers now will be asked by the local ratepayers to approve any increase in pay over and above the annual increases the provincial government have given.

My oh my, the poor things. For half a century the teachers of this province have been having their own way pretty much along the educational system and the remuneration they get from it. There's no bill here, I'm just reading a letter. Am I in order Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 366 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The Member is referring to salary negotiations with the teachers, anticipating debate on Bill No. 3 and I think he's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member must not anticipate the debate that will take place on the amendments of the Public Schools Act nor can he do it by letter or by editorial or in any way at all. If what he's reading does anticipate that debate I must ask him to discontinue.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I will certainly take your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry if I transgressed because I know that you're the fairest Speaker we have ever had in this Legislation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

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

In conclusion I want to make one more suggestion. As you know, I have been interested for quite a number of years in higher education, that is as far as universities are concerned. As I mentioned before I am not a graduate myself but I will have at the end of this year five sons who have graduated. One's wearing a beard up there.

There is one subject, I would like you to listen very carefully because we now have in British Columbia four universities and two of them have had a great deal of trouble; three of them had a great deal of trouble as far as presidents are concerned. Now I know that no layman is supposed to talk about university life, but in any case this is something very close to my heart and I feel that we have in our Province of British Columbia now, three very fine universities. University of British Columbia is recognised across Canada as one of the finest universities within the Dominion and I may say that the last two presidents that the University of British Columbia has had created a certain amount of difficulties. I'll leave it at that.

Lo and behold, after going all over the world to find a president they finally found, right on the faculty of the University of British Columbia, a one Walter Gage. I may tell you he's an outstanding professor because he got me through first year of math. That was quite an accomplishment.

Walter Gage took over that university at very trying and difficult times and has put it right on its feet. Now I know because last fall Walter Gage told me that he is not going to continue in office very much longer. I hope he stays on a good four or five years more. But the point I wish to make is this, that when Walter Gage retires, let's not send the governors of the University of British Columbia all over the world looking for…

AN HON. MEMBER: A lame duck.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: No, I won't say a lame duck. Looking for another president. Why not take a good look at the faculty members they have now? I may say I don't wish to put the kiss of death on anybody, but I know that there are very many deans at the University of British Columbia that could fill that job if they were only given the opportunity and I may say that I know from personal experience that the dean of the Faculty of Commerce could fill that job on the retirement of Walter Gage.

Now as far as the University of Victoria is concerned, we have had a duplication — they say that history repeats itself. Well it has as far as the University of Victoria is concerned because we went all over Canada looking for presidents and as you know we have had some trouble.

I am not going to adjudicate on whose fault it was, but I know this much, that in the University of Victoria, right now, we have an acting president in Hugh Farquhar and I don't think you could find a better president for the University of Victoria if you went across Canada and then the United States.

Let's give him a chance, let's confirm him. We can't do it, it must be done by the governors, but let the governors take a good look at Hugh Farquhar and let the University of Victoria proceed along the lines of being a real university for the capital City of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget came out and a few days later on February 8 an ad was inserted in the paper, in the Vancouver Sun and in that ad they outline some of the highlights of the budget. The companion piece for that ad, however, is the ad right beside it. It's an ad of the Beledune Fertilizer Company Ltd. I wonder if it's significant, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR COCKE: Both related to growth.

Mr. Speaker, since the Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi), just spoke up, it reminded me that I would like to set the record straight in the House with respect to the nomination of the public accounts committee. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) indicated that the Member for New Westminster declined the nomination for chairman of the public accounts committee.

In a very private conversation with only two or three present prior to the late assembling of that committee, the Member for Vancouver Centre, the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan) and myself decided that it would be an idea to worry the Member for Dewdney and the Member for Vancouver Centre agreed to nominate me providing I gave a promise that I would decline the nomination and as an honourable man I declined the nomination.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to once again get back to that old office building in New Westminster. We would be only too happy if the government would see fit to do the thing that is necessary in New Westminster and that is build the proper size office building and renovate the old Court House. We don't want to see the old Court House relegated to the hammer. We would like to see the old Court House renovated — it's in a disgraceful condition but we would like to see it renovated and across the street in city-owned property a proper office building to accommodate some of the lower

[ Page 367 ]

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

We feel that this would be a good move on behalf of the government and we feel that it's long overdue. There is no excuse for this very rich government to have a Court House that looks like a Court House belonging to some banana republic.

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

One, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the increase in the home-owner's grant. I for one, and I'm sure the rest of our caucus are quite happy and welcome this on behalf of the people in our own constituencies, I am particularly happy about the $50 for old age pensioners.

I am at a loss however, as to what's going to be done about tenants. I noticed that in the last election the candidate for the Social Credit Party in New Westminster announced a tenants' grant. I'm suggesting, not as he did, but I am suggesting that tenants' situation should be looked into and that they should certainly be given voting rights in this province and they should certainly be given other consideration by this government and it seems to me that they have been overlooked.

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

One other matter that we should straighten out on the record is some criticism that was levelled after the throne debate with respect to the non-contributory pension plan that was part of the McGavin's Toastmaster pension for their employees.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I will not apologise, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell the facts as they are and let that Minister of Labour afterwards make his comments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Labour nor those other critics of the pension plan know much about pension plans. I've been involved in them for some 20-odd years.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, during the throne debate, I indicated that it was a non-contributory plan. I indicated also, Mr. Speaker, that it was a negotiated, non-contributory plan and that all of the people that got that pension plan accepted that pension plan in lieu of increased wages. It was not given to them as a matter of largesse, as far as those men were concerned that was a fringe benefit that they were entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, the men accepted this in lieu of wages and that's all there is to it. Now I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the robbery aspect that pension benefits did not go to these 48 men. Legally the money was not misdirected and I never suggested it was. I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that morally it was improper. I suggested there should be rules, laws in our province that cover exactly that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's precisely my situation. Another critic about what I had to suggest said that the trust is intact. We do have rules about that in this province and the trust is intact, no question, nobody asked that. The trust is satisfied but the men are dissatisfied.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I certainly have not, Mr. Speaker. It is not uncommon and I know with 20 years experience, while that member was working elsewhere, that it is not uncommon to deprive workers of pension benefits.

It's a process that should be stopped by legislation. That's all I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that Toastmaster or anybody else is alone in this thing. I'm just saying that we better have rules and that Minister, Mr. Speaker, isn't going to help the workers of this province. You can tell that, right now.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR COCKE: Minister of Labour, Minister of Labour! That's an odd one. Mr. Speaker, one other question with respect to the criticism, the severance pay. Now surely, the Minister of Labour knows that severance pay negotiated has no relationship whatsoever to the pension plan. Surely, what relevance has that? None, whatsoever. So I just want to clear these things up.

Another Member, the Member for Burrard, unfortunately he is not in his chair, was talking about a carrier for this pension plan and that you cannot work with carriers. Mr. Speaker, let me say that that was a trustee pension plan, no carrier involved. Three trustees, all management trustees. The union members did not even have a person representing them on the trustees. So let's not kid ourselves about that situation.

In conclusion about that particular item let me suggest hard and fast rules as they have in Alberta, as they have in Saskatchewan, as they have in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, there was question on the orders of the day, question 97. I don't want to make much of an issue of this but I would like to go on record as suggesting to the Honourable Attorney General that insurance companies in the province be informed as to the laws of the province with respect to their obligations toward beneficiaries, in this province.

We have a file that dates back to November 8. In this file is a letter a man wrote to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition asking that his case be taken up by the Leader of the Opposition because of the fact that he had not received a $1,500 death benefit on behalf of his son because the son was driving a motorcycle.

Give the company credit, the B.C. Automobile Association do have another plan that does pay a death benefit outside of the laws of B.C. but it does not include motorcycles. But the problem is they did not recognise that this young man should be covered under the basic rule of this province.

So the Leader of the Opposition checked it out, took it up with the Attorney General's department, and after this correspondence and so on and so forth the insurance company agreed to pay the claim and were very nice about it.

However, it is our opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the question on the orders of the day — since it says that the other companies have not so far been notified as to the

[ Page 368 ]

beneficiary status of a child or a parent of a child living at home — we would suggest rather strongly that they are notified of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I made reference to the fact that the municipalities of British Columbia are suffering. Despite the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, he's very loquacious about municipalities and all they're getting, but the Honourable Minister that just sat down indicated that also municipalities are doing fine according to some of their mayors.

I'll suggest to you, however, that the lower mainland mayors and other mayors are not talking that way. Mr. Speaker, they indicate that any increase in their municipalities' government assistance is eaten up by their increase in population. Now, when the Premier talks about unemployment in the province, the Premier says, it's because they come here from everywhere. They come here from the Prairies, they come here from heaven knows where.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Premier use the same kind of reasoning when he's dealing with a municipality? Why doesn't he recognise that the municipalities in this province also have those problems if in fact they're that great?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the municipalities had better be considered, otherwise there is going to be a lot of them in receivership in this province and that would be too bad. One other thing, Mr. Speaker, while I'm still dealing with some of the past speakers — guaranteed annual income. The Premier was commended all over the place last night by the Honourable Lady Minister as having been the one first and only to extoll guaranteed annual income.

April 7, 1967, that was long before this was ever announced by the Honourable Premier, the Member from Cowichan was addressing a meeting in North Vancouver and he told supporters in North Vancouver that a guaranteed income proposal was designed to eliminate poverty and continuing income must be available to those who are unable to work. A guaranteed annual income scheme in its most basic form would provide for payment of whatever amount of money is needed to provide a person a decent subsistence each year, the Opposition leader said.

Mr. Speaker, that was April 7, 1967. Once again they're stealing our thunder. But we don't mind, we are the conscience of this country. Thank heaven we're here, Mr. Speaker.

While I deal with the Honourable Member from Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I would just like to recall last night that the Honourable Member said last Friday's budget could be an election budget — and I'm quoting from the paper — and said if it turns out to be, Social Credit will be returned to power on the policies it sets out.

In this House she reiterates it, right in the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, that election bribery should not be considered in the House. We should not be setting budgets. That's corruption, if we're setting budgets to win elections. That's an odd way to do it and particularly to announce it. When elected members brag in this House about winning elections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think on consideration of the Member's statement "bribery and corruption" while they weren't directly imputed as motives of the government, I think there was enough material in what he did say that he must withdraw them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to withdraw them. I still say it is a sad state of affairs however when we use budgets in this House to please people at election time. Mr. Speaker, why isn't it suggested at other times? Why isn't it being done?

Last year was not an election year, it was a tax increase year, that's all I can remember. Mr. Speaker, it was a tax increase year.

Health care, by its very nature, is one of the utmost importance to all people of this province. Everyone is interested in the subject on which their very lives depend. In B.C. we have a Crown Prince of health care who obviously feels that the people have no right to know the direction this government has chosen in this important area. The Minister of Health has successfully confused everyone from the doctor and other health care workers to the consumer — you and I, Mr. Speaker.

We are confused because the whole subject has been distorted by a series of battles provoked by this Minister. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume the government may have no solutions to health care problems. If the Minister has a policy let him say so. If the government have a direction let them show it, let them show the way.

The Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, laid it on the line on November 17, 1971. Health Minister Munro met with the provincial health Minister, and at that time he indicated exactly how they were going to phase out their present arrangements. He said within 17 months, we better get on course. A new financial arrangement is in the offing. This was no surprise, everyone knew the cost-sharing formula would be subsequently changed, substantially changed.

Instead of negotiating, consulting, and working with health care people in this province the government has been lashing out at hospitals, doctors or whoever comes in sight. The softening-up process is a loser, Mr. Speaker. In this case particularly, because the solution must come from cooperation not confrontation.

There are two federal Acts involved in the forth coming change. The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Insurance Act are to be exchanged for new legislation in 1973. The change will require a reduction of the rate of increase in cost. This will require streamlining of our system. The system involves people and they are in the dark, Mr. Speaker. That's the problem.

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

Should the federal government's proposal become a reality, the resultant legislation could rank in importance for its effect on health care in Canada with legislation that made universal comprehensive, etc. hospital and medical care insurance a reality in this country.

Everybody is keen on hospital insurance, everybody's keen on medicare. Oh, how hard our party had to fight for that in the first place. Oh yes, oh yes, it was the good old red herring in the old days, now it's great and it's clean but it has to be streamlined.

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

In financing B.C.N.I.S., in only one of the last fiscal years has the provincial share been larger than the federal share — that's why they're uptight. That was in 1966-67. That year the federal share was $42,805,862 of a total of $91 million plus. In 1967-68 the federal share was $57.5 million of a total of $108.5 million. In 1968-69 the federal share was $71,312,000 out of a total of $134,679,000 — again over half. In '69-'70 the federal share was $80,956,000 out of a total of $180,637,000 — again well over half.

[ Page 369 ]

Now let's look at medicare. Here we have three divisions basically. In the case of medicare in '69 a total of $86 million was spent, $86,527,059. Of that $49 million came from subscribers' premiums, $21 million came from Ottawa and the remainder from interest on investments and roughly $15 million from the Government of B.C.

In 1970 $123 million, that was the total, $67.9 million from premiums, $36,116,000 from Ottawa, $1,729,000 from interest and only $17 million from B.C., from provincial funds.

And in '71, it was roughly the same — $144,665,000. Premiums accounted for $73,650,000, Ottawa provided $53,935,000 and interest accounted for another $2 million. B.C. put up $16.9 million.

In all of this B.C. isn't doing too badly. B.C. — the government that cries out that the federal government is taking us down the garden path.

In medicare we've only been around the $17 million mark, over the last three years, while Ottawa climbed from $47 to $73.5 million during the same period. Now Mr. Speaker, I'd say that the Minister is nervous because he's running a show that will soon have to produce results. Judging from his track record he's got a long way to go, Mr. Speaker.

Much overhauling will have to be done in order to keep the costs of health care in line in the future. The people can only stand so much drain on their pocketbooks, as long as the government dips into the poor more deeply than the wealthy the load is just too cumbersome.

It's obvious, however, we will not enjoy a properly organised system as long as there are divisions such as there are. The Minister of Health should be directly responsible for the three divisions of health and also the Medical Care Commission which is now part of the Provincial Secretary's department — a Minister of Health with a senior deputy minister to co-ordinate all departments, to co-ordinate all departments. They're running in all directions at the same time.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, our setup in health is built inadequately. If we had a plan to subvert the efforts of those delivering health care in this province we couldn't improve on the present aimless structure. The problem with our structure is that it provides autonomy at the top and rigid control at the bottom. Very worst possible system. Each division of health care has to fight for its financial survival because of a lack of coordination. The duplication of service and the lack of interdepartmental planning are ruining what could be a great Department of Health. The health services in B.C. are governed by a reign of terror, Mr. Speaker. The people involved in the delivery of health care are afraid of reprisal.

The government has failed to act in a responsible way. The people of the province suffer the results of this government's total incompetence in health care, Mr. Speaker.

The Crown Prince of health care in B.C. has turned out to be a court jester, Mr. Speaker. Just because a jester may provide humour for the king doesn't make him funny to the people. The joke is on the people and they're not laughing. Mr. Speaker, in the days of the jester the witch doctor was also in vogue. The question arises: does the health of the province rest in a steaming cauldron or tinkling bells and coloured ribbons that so often please the king?

How will the health department and the Provincial Secretary's department react to the new cost sharing formula, Mr. Speaker? Will they be able to cooperate to the point that they can take advantage of our share of the $640 million "thrust fund"? This fund will run concurrently with the new proposed five year agreement. The fund will be based on a per capita basis, therefore we can look forward to $64 million plus out of this fund. I believe the money could be used constructively if we only had a co-ordinated health system in B.C.

Just one or two suggestions for long-term improvement in health care. Here is an idea to save some money, Mr. Speaker. Eliminate the collection agency system for medicare premiums; three collection agencies. Now, more than ever, since our Finance Minister has been outfoxed by the former Minister of Finance of Canada we need to switch the method of financing medicare. Mr. Benson's new Tax Act provides taxation on medicare premiums. This means an increase in income tax to all who had employers paying a portion of their premium. The obvious way to turn is to accept all medicare moneys in one place. There is no need for these agencies collecting premiums, Mr. Speaker. The best and fairest means for all the people of the province is to use general revenue as the source of all medicare revenue, Mr. Speaker.

I go to the budget of 1954, this government's budget in 1954. The Finance Minister at that time, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. This is what he says when he was discussing — he set a precedent — Mr. Speaker, he was discussing at that time hospital insurance. This is the same idea. At that time we were paying a premium and this is what the Premier said:

"The present plan is replete with conditions. It is neither a welfare nor an insurance plan. It cannot be made a composite of the two without creating distortions and inequalities or without requiring exorbitant administrative costs. From the welfare viewpoint it fails to protect adequately the low income group and seasonally employed, the unemployed and all of their dependents. From an insurance viewpoint it fails in its purpose because true insurance premiums must reflect actuarially and constantly current cost experience and because a province-wide compulsory plan would require a constant consensus of the population with a means test and an army of enforcement agents.

Any hospital insurance plan sponsored and operated by the government must not fail to meet with acrimonious and bitter opposition if the benefits it provides are not universally and equally distributed and its cost to the people is not fairly distributed in accordance with the ability to pay of the individual. It is therefore obvious that such fixed premiums as are now imposed are nothing more or less than a head or a poll tax which are totally unrelated to actuarial need or economic work, that the premiums in some instances create oppressive burdens whilst in other instances they favour unduly those in the higher income levels."

Now, Mr. Speaker, as an aside I suggest there there has been some consideration given in our present plan. But not the kind of consideration that I suggest is completely just. The logical solution, the Premier went on to say:

"therefore is the abolition of premiums and the imposition of a tax levy with an incidence that reflects in the most equitable manner possible the income currently available to the people."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that works out better with Ottawa and it works out better in our own situation. We don't need any more sales tax, we don't need any other kind of taxes. This government has indicated very clearly that the money is there. The future, I hope, will change the whole

[ Page 370 ]

medicare system but for the time being let's streamline what we have and save millions of wasted dollars by this simple process, Mr. Speaker.

A second way to conserve funds in the health area would be a concentration on preventive care. Students of the delivery of health care have found that the most costly service follows where the least preventive care is done.

The very basis of medicare shows a lack of interest in preventive care. The present plan does not provide for paid check-ups. It's clear that a disease or illness diagnosed early is usually much less expensive than one diagnosed late. There are many forms of preventive care — each should be thoroughly researched. Admittedly, as long as we live in a system that encourages poverty we will live with sickness, Mr. Speaker, the incidence of illness among the poor and the need for medical care for that group leaves no doubt in one's mind.

We don't however, have health care people taking the service to the poor. We wait until an acute situation develops and work from there, Mr. Speaker.

There is a tremendous imbalance when 95 per cent of the health expenditures go to treatment and 5 per cent go to prevention. That's our problem. If there were only some importance placed on personal training in nutrition, exercise and hygiene, what a difference it would make. We can't hope to make a start in prevention when all our efforts are directed towards treatment, Mr. Speaker.

If there is any doubt in our minds about the need for prevention, let's look at some other statistics, Mr. Speaker. In 1967 B.C.'s hospital admissions per 1,000 were 170. Judging from last year's report it hasn't changed significantly. In 1970, the Group Health cooperative of Puget Sound had admissions of 85.5 per 1,000 in their hospital.

Our average length of stay was 9.7 days last year in hospital, once admitted. Group Health cooperative was 4.7 days length of stay. Half the admission, half the length of stay.

You know what they say? They suggest why, one of the many good reasons why other than the fact that this is a very effective system.

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

The Group Health cooperative have over 135,000 members including welfare recipients — 4,000-odd welfare recipients that are noted. The comparison shows there is a great deal of difference and to quote their annual report, part of the difference is preventive care and I want to quote their report, Mr. Speaker.

Hospital care is the single most expensive service for most people in the United States. Group Health's emphasis is on preventive medical care which reduces the necessity of costly hospital stays. The savings in hospital costs promoted by Group Health System are passed on to its consumers.

Now, that's what they say, Mr. Speaker, and it's reflected in all of the group health plans virtually throughout all of North America and I suggest we take a darned good look at them.

Now we ask our Minister of Health: where do we go from here? Surely not more of the same. For the help of the Minister, here are some essential principles that might help him govern a health care programme. Principles that are basic, we suggest.

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

(2) To utilise fiscal control to bring about major improvements in organisations and delivery of health care, Mr. Speaker, something like this.

(3) To establish a working partnership between the public and private sectors of health care through public financing and administrative guidance accompanied by provisions of personal health services through private practitioners, institutions, and other providers of health care.

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

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

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

(7) To ensure the operation of a dualistic system — not arbitrary, not one-sided, not this kind of stuff that we're ramming down peoples' throats — but a dualistic system to permit choice for both the public and the providers and an opportunity for development and a study of new forms. I suggest this works out much better than confrontations.

(8) To ensure the provision of an adequate number of well-trained health workers and to correct maldistribution that we have now and is being talked about.

(9) To involve the health professional education and other training centres more heavily in community needs.

(10) To assist health regions and local areas in health-care planning, construction and operation by the provision of adequate high-level consultative services. This can be done in this province very easily.

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

Mr. Speaker, condemnation of our present system is that the increasing costs of health care are not producing an increase in life expectancy. That's the condemnation of our system.

Any changes must be brought about by cooperation. The system can be changed but negotiation is the key. Negotiation is the key. I hope the Labour Minister listened to that. Unfortunately in most of its dealings this government has not seen fit to negotiate. I urge them strongly to learn the meaning of the word and employ it.

The need for group health clinics or health centres is obvious in this province, Mr. Speaker. The track record of established centres in North America is so much better by comparison there can be no argument. We don't however, have to eliminate one system to begin a new one. Back to the principles, in the health care programme that I suggested — a dualistic system is a must. There are those in the public and professions who will not change or who will not wish to change. For those who do require or wish for a change let's encourage them, right now. Let's give them an opportunity to participate.

A community clinic will not work effectively under a fee-for-service system, however. For them — and I'm only isolating them — for them a system of capitation financing must be provided. I think they run hand-in-hand together. The community clinic should receive a fixed sum of money on behalf of each subscriber and also should receive a portion of the savings which their hospital enjoys, as a result. That's the way they work best. The clinic therefore must be directly connected with a hospital.

[ Page 371 ]

Here is a long interview, Mr. Speaker, if any of the Ministers would like to see it, they're working in Ontario as we know. There's clinics going in St. Catherines already. There's a clinic in the Soo and now there's a clinic suggested for Ottawa.

This is an excellent interview with two of the people that are starting that clinic. They suggest some of the things that happen, when they're asked about doctors' participation. Here's Dr. Law's answer to Mr. Campbell's question.

"I would say that the most attractive feature for a young professional is the wide range of back-up services available. I think there is a real opportunity to practice high-quality medicine in a health centre where you have not only the diagnostic facilities but other health professionals. The fact that there is a ready consultation with a wide variety of specialists, the fact that you have public health nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists and other people working in health centres — these are the reasons. This is something that would obviously be very difficult to attain, certainly in solo practice, and it is probably not as common even in group practice to have quite that range of facilities available."

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

"One of the problems of general practice is isolation. This tends to have a deteriorating effect on the maintenance of standards in a solo situation where the doctor is relatively isolated from other professionals. Young physicians should be encouraged to enter group practice with more experienced physicians. I think that this effect of introducing practitioners into practice with that kind of support is increased through the community health centre as opposed to the other types of practice, in the sense that the orientation is preventive.

"There is a rotation on volume and services required of an individual physician so that he has time to study and time to devote to himself. I think that another thing is the fact that when he is off he knows somebody else in charge of his patients. The physician's schedule becomes regularised."

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying, right now we are overworking our doctors. Much of the work they do has little to do with health care. Too much of their time is taken up with work which could be done by nurses or medical assistants et cetera.

Presently there is a real case for doctors' assistants in the rural areas as well. The Registered Nurses Association of B.C. made a good case for utilisation of highly-trained nurses as doctors' assistants. We should be looking at situations where nurses are involved in small communities in a way that they can spot illness before it goes too far. There is a good case to be made for the nurse to work for the district and be paid by the government.

The nurse could build an information network which could provide the information needed regarding the health of individuals of that community. She could be called upon to provide preliminary medical assistance and see to it that the people are directed to a doctor at the appropriate time. This is the type of preventive service which would very well start bringing the statistics into line, Mr. Speaker.

A statistic to remember from the Croll Report that was talked about yesterday, the Croll Report on Poverty, is that 25 per cent of the people have 75 per cent of the illness. It's no secret that there is a shortage of doctors in some areas of the province. The Minister has reacted to this situation arbitrarily. Rather than set up a climate of cooperation he has provided confrontation. Serious discussions with doctors and educators should have been more to the point. There are some rather obvious ways to help solve the problem of lack of medical care in the outposts. One could be to subsidise by providing a guaranteed annual income to those doctors, Mr. Speaker. Along with this could be an assist in providing necessary facilities for those young doctors.

Another long-term plan could be to subsidise the education of medical students and asking in return service for a certain period of time from those graduated. A government who really cares would not leave their people without health. It seems right now the government is moving in the opposite direction.

Clinical clerks — for those who don't know that's medical students — in their medical years have been cut off the budget of the hospitals, right now. The stipend for clinical clerks was an important contribution. During their time out of university they were able to supplement their education and provide some good service. It would appear that they were trying to drive them into unrelated jobs during their time off. Let me read you a letter from the Vancouver General Hospital to one of this year's clinical clerks:

The funds available for the payment of house staff have been sharply curtailed. As the funding of clinical clerks has never been accepted by funding authorities as a reimbursable part of the hospital's expenses unless it could be provided within the authorised house staff budget, it is with profound regret that this hospital must withdraw from making such payments when the present class of clinical clerks are through their clerkship.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that:

This is to advise that this hospital will cease paying stipends to the present clinical clerks at the end of the clinical clerkship of the present class of May 31, 1972, and as of March 20, 1972, when the next class of clinical clerks commences, it will cease reimbursements of other hospitals and institutions in the province that have been accepting clinical clerks for elective programmes in clinical training. Yours sincerely, Lawrence E. Ranta, M.D., D.P.H.

Mr. Speaker, what direction are we heading? These men are helping provide, at a very low rate too, I might suggest, they are providing a great service at a very, very minimal rate and we're trying our best to eliminate an assist that we have now in health care in the province.

It's time to broaden medical training not narrow it, Mr. Speaker. I call on the government to cooperate and build a truly great health care service.

Not only should communication with health care authorities be going on but also communication with the public. There has been a gradual exclusion of the public in decision making. The government must reverse its trend. Participation is the key to better service, Mr. Speaker. Involvement at all levels provides the kind of cooperation I've been talking about. This government claims to be interested in guaranteed annual income. Comprehensive, all-inclusive health care is part of such a guaranteed annual income plan, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

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

[ Page 372 ]

visit last night of the Boy Scouts up in the Speaker's gallery who had apparently heard of the Premier's counter-challenge to the Leader of the Opposition. And since the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't go to the Boy Scouts, they came to him last night.

The speaker who preceded me this afternoon said that this budget has been described as an election budget, and somehow this was very immoral and wrong and that people shouldn't be bribed. He used some other words which I won't repeat because he was asked not to use them.

However, his memory is very short because I remember the first time I sat in this House, following the 1969 election, and the first budget that this government brought down following that election was also described as an election budget. And one had just been held the year before.

Now, the Hon. Member for New Westminster spoke at length in his remarks on health care and we would all agree that that is one subject that isn't just measured in dollars, I think that this government's record in new hospitals and special facilities that have been constructed stands very well.

But you can't get away from the costs that are involved, and the fact stands out in this budget that of the increase of $151 million over last year, $49 million is going to health care services with half of that figure for hospitals. And he made mention of the $600 million thrust fund that the federal government is proposing as an attempt to remove itself from present arrangements with respect to financing in health care fields. With a thrust fund, the federal government proposes a percentage of the Gross National Product to the provinces and then for a five-year carrying period they would put up an extra $600 million which sounds like a huge amount but this province would only receive $60 million.

Our share would be 10 per cent of the $600 million. And that just covers two years of the increase of this province each year. And so it's the cheese on the trap. The federal government is just funding for two years to get out of five years.

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

We heard the First Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) the other day refer to supernumerary cabinet Ministers. I looked up the meaning of the word and it says, "being in excess of the usual number." Well, there's a fellow in our Press gallery here by the name of Lloyd Mackey who writes a column "Provincial Perspectives" which is distributed and carried in about 25 newspapers in the province, and in reading through some of the papers in the library I found that he makes reference to the N.D.P. and he says: "Back to Barrett for a second. He announced this session's shadow cabinet last week," and I will list just a few of the N.D.P. counter — portfolios for your reference: Mines — Leo Nimsick, Barrett, and Bill Hartley. Three of them to do the job of one man. Lands and Forests — Robert Williams and Robert Strachan. Two of them to do the job of one man. Industrial Development — Mr. Strachan and Dennis Cocke. Two of them again to do the job of one man in this government. And it also requires two apparently to look after Municipal Affairs.

You know, a couple of sessions ago there was a column read in this House that was written by "yours truly," I believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs called him. It was written by the Member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick). Well, there's also a column I dug out of the library that is written by, I would say, "little Sir Echo". This is the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Barrett). And this column is called "Echoes from the House," and it's one that he writes in the Enterprise which serves the Coquitlam area in his constituency.

This column appeared on March 4 last year. Now, late in the evening of March 4 or very early morning of March 5 something happened in this House. You remember that particular Member left us for a little while. And here's what he said in public print the day of the evening that he left us. He said:

"The rules make it very clear while a Member has the right to ask questions, no Minister has to answer the question. A Member can ask a question. If he receives no answer and repeats the question he is gavelled down by the Chairman and must proceed with some other point or sit down."

That's what he was saying the day of the fourth but that isn't what he was following the evening of the fourth.

Now this budget that we're debating here and will be until the vote is held, has something for everyone. Even those with their eyes cast towards the tenants' vote, and the mayoralty race in Vancouver this coming December have been able to find issues to their liking.

I note that the leader of what's left of the Liberal Party isn't here, but their listening post is and perhaps it might be of some interest, because I think that when the leader of the Liberal Party goes out into the province on periodic tours I'm sure he comes back and he tells them how great things are going to be for the Liberal Party out in the country. And I just wonder maybe they should know the reaction he gets as he goes out about the country.

For example, in Nelson earlier this year he described the transportation facilities in the area as lousy. He said the airport "is the most unreliable in western Canada. Transportation in the Kootenays has been held back by Socred policies which, for example, allowed an airport in an unsuitable location to remain there." Obviously it's under federal jurisdiction. If he's not trying to fool the people he's obviously very misinformed himself. So the Trail Times, in an editorial entitled "McGeer the Magnificent," felt called upon to answer it. And they commented that Kootenay voters must be sadly disappointed by the condescending attitude of Mr. McGeer to the problems of this province and those of the rural taxpayer.

It continues:

Mr. McGeer claims Provincial Secretary Wesley Black has neglected his Nelson-Creston riding. New Nelson access, a multi-million dollar government building, toll free bridges and ferries. Neglect? And how about this gem from the mouth of Mr. McGeer: "This area was opened for resources half a century ago. Had there been good government policies there would be now manufacturing and secondary industry in the area."

And the editorial points out for his information that the provincial government of British Columbia in 1912 was not Social Credit but Liberal under the Premiership of that great B.C. grit "Honest John Oliver".

So obviously he goes about very badly misinformed and the country knows it and that is why the Liberals' numbers are going to be further decreased when the time comes to go to the people, and what seats they salvage will be in the "fat cat" areas. This type of reaction, Mr. Speaker, is continuing because we've heard the Liberal group over there concern themselves with the problems of the City of Nelson with the Kootenay canal plant. The reaction of the very responsible

[ Page 373 ]

newspaper in the Kootenays the Nelson Daily News, is as follows:

It was inevitable. Victoria has started playing politics with Nelson's future prosperity. The city's struggle with Hydro to get an increased water licence to produce power has come to the attention of the Opposition Members in the Legislature. And seeing Nelson's underdog status in the struggle government critics have latched onto the issue… Government must be convinced that this issue is non-partisan as far as Nelson is concerned.

And they obviously aren't too happy with their newfound friends from the Liberal Party who suddenly decided they want to interest themselves in the affairs of the City of Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, there are three items I want to touch on today. One deals with power development north of Revelstoke, progress on Mica dam and proposals for development on further sites along the river above Revelstoke. Second, the proposal for a Minister of the Environment, not a Department of the Environment, and third, certain occurrences within my riding that I would like to touch on.

As Members of this House are well aware two of the Columbia treaty projects are located within my constituency: Duncan dam in the Lardeau Valley and Mica north of Revelstoke. I'm informed by B.C. Hydro that the storage facilities for Mica dam will be operable on April I of next year as required by the treaty, while construction of the dam itself is expected to be completed by October 31 of next year.

Now employment figures are of interest, particularly to my constituents, and to those that are employed on that huge project. The initial civil contract on the power house is expected to be awarded this month and anticipated employment figures for Mica dam are 1,400 to 1,500 men this coming June and 800 to 900 in September. Because the driving of access tunnels will be under way this coming winter, employment at the project is expected to be higher this winter than in any previous winter.

With regard to next year there will likely be between 1,200 and 1,300 men employed on the project in the summer of 1973 while underground work during the winter of '73-'74 will likely see 1,000 men working throughout that period.

Now, the clearing of the Mica reservoir under the very commendable $12 million project which was announced in November by Dr. Shrum will likely see some additional 200 people employed for quite some period of time. And that $12 million figure is equal to the cost of clearing the Arrow reservoir behind Hugh Keenleyside dam. It will provide for the clearing of the Mica reservoir to 20 feet below normal high water.

First generation is planned at Mica for 1976-77 and the Mica power house will ultimately produce some 2 million kilowatts with units coming on line into the 1980's. Cost of the generating facilities for Mica dam have been estimated at $339 million in 1977 and $145 million for transmission facilities, for a grant total on this aspect of the project alone of $484 million.

Mr. Speaker, of interest of course to the province but most specifically to Revelstoke and the whole Revelstoke-Slocan constituency are plans for further power development on the Columbia north of Revelstoke. I have a letter from the city council of the City of Revelstoke. This motion passed by them was adopted unanimously, and it reads as follows:

That the City of Revelstoke petitions the Provincial Government, strongly urging said government to immediately make further studies of the proposed Downey Creek and Revelstoke Canyon dam with the main aim being of an early implementation construction programme.

I personally, Mr. Speaker, look forward to the report of the B.C. Energy Board in May because as is indicated in that letter from the City of Revelstoke, there have been two proposals — Revelstoke Canyon and Downey Creek. However, I understand that one of the possibilities that is being considered by the B.C. Energy Board is the dropping of any plans for a dam at Downey Creek in favour of the building of a higher dam at Revelstoke Canyon than was first proposed.

This latter site, some five miles above Revelstoke, would involve the building of a 400-foot-high dam that would have a reservoir backing up right up to Mica dam. I understand that some site investigation has been done to determine if a high Revelstoke dam would be feasible, and I look forward with anticipation — as do my constituents — to the Energy Board's Report and any comments that they might make in this regard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems that no public speech today is apparently complete unless some reference is made to pollution control and the protection of the environment. I think that I'll try and keep my remarks fairly short on the subject, but I do want to have something to say.

Under the Pollution Control Act enforced in this province, this government — as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources well explained last night — has developed a single agency concept with the decision making based on multi-discipline and inter-agency consultations.

This method is the most effective and efficient because it allows integrated use of resources that are under provincial jurisdiction. Consistent with this philosophy the government has established the land use committee composed of a number of Ministers who meet under the chairmanship of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Now, I have spoken in previous debates in this House, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to suggestions for a separate department for the environment and I remain opposed to that because, quite honestly, I don't think such a department is practical. No Minister of a separate environmental department can be fully effective when the matters with which he must deal cross department lines and responsibilities so completely, and I suggest the federal government has proven my point with the establishment of its environmental department.

That is why I suggest the appointment of a provincial Minister of the Environment but not the establishment of a separate environmental department. To back that up we need only look at some of the references that we've seen in the Press over the last little while from Ottawa — the most recent being the granting of oil exploration rights by the federal government to close to 3 million acres off the B.C. coast, granting of rights which were described by the federal Minister of the Environment as a mistake. He said that the permits ran counter to an understanding he had with the then Minister of Mines and Resources, Joe Greene, and with the Minister of External Affairs.

What was the reaction of the oil company concerns to that? They called his claim ridiculous. They said that it was just a kick at a political football. The president of the company concerned said that it filed its permits in August and September and finally someone decided to turn it into a political football in an election year.

[ Page 374 ]

This is a problem with a special department. There is not the liaison afforded that is required and this is why I've been opposed to a separate department.

Another example… Here in Victoria, on October 30 of last year, the federal minister, Mr. Davis, spoke to the professional engineers and his speech was full of contradictions. He started out by saying that our environment is too important to be left to the sensationalists. They have helped to focus public opinion on pollution alright but now they are tending to overdo it. And he went on to refer to the mercury scare. He said, suddenly, as a result of a breakthrough in the detection of a minute amount of metal, we were able to detect mercury in fractions of a part per million. As a result of this breakthrough, he continued, we began to find mercury in one kind of fish after another. We couldn't keep these facts from the public so we tested shipment after shipment.

Yet, two years have passed and we are a lot wiser now. We know that there are background levels of mercury in nature, we know that these background levels vary from place to place, that they vary from one species of fish to another and that they increase with the age of each fish.

Mr. Speaker, that mercury scare was initiated by that Minister and it was he who shot from the lip without the facts and first started that mercury scare going before his own department had the opportunity to properly look into it.

In the same speech, here in Victoria, he warned about super oil tankers on the west coast and described how the breaking of a super tanker near here could be 100 times more devastating than the firing of the Cannikon device on Amchitka.

But one policy or one pose for the west coast — apparently another pose or policy for the east coast. Because within days of the Minister's speech here in Victoria pictures appeared in the Press of a new terminal in the Canso Straits in Nova Scotia where it welcomed the biggest tanker ever to cross the Atlantic.

That terminal would handle tankers of 326,000 deadweight tons. In November of last year, again after the Minister of the Environment warned about the danger of hauling oil by super tanker, a report came out from the federal Public Works Department which said: "A deep-water port able to accommodate the largest oil tankers in the world can be constructed and operated year round in the western Arctic". This is a public works report. "The feasibility study revealed to oil companies in Calgary concludes that a marine oil terminal off Babbidge Bight is a possibility."

It says it would be ideal to service both the north slope oil fields of Alaska as well as any big producers located in the Mackenzie delta. In environmental matters the federal Minister of the Environment obviously doesn't know what is going in the federal government.

We don't want a department here that has, as his federal department does, some 25,000 employees and seven deputy Ministers. In fact, the federal Minister reminds me somewhat of like a eunuch in a harem. He knows what he would like to do but in a good many cases he lacks the wherewithal to do it.

Only through the liaison afforded through a committee such as we have in this government can it be done. That's why I suggest that the Minister of the Environment should be chairman of the land use committee, which in turn would be given broadened and increased responsibilities. The new Minister would have a staff, but in the main he would work through co-ordinating the activities of various departments through the liaison afforded with the Ministers making up the membership of the land use committee.

I believe that this approach would be practical, efficient and effective and would better focus public attention on a record in environmental concern that deserves more recognition than it is presently receiving.

Mr. Speaker, I now turn to a topic of particular interest and importance in my own constituency. As Members of this House are well aware, as recently as the 1950's and for far too many years before that, residents of the West Kootenays — particularly those in the lower Slocan Valley, the southern part of my riding — were second-class citizens.

Now I refer to the position most residents, including the orthodox Doukhobors, were placed in by the antics of the lunatic Sons of Freedom minority. The Sons of Freedom engaged in all sorts of depredations including the bombing of bridges and public buildings, the burnings of private homes and schools.

Now the rest of us in the West Kootenays were placed in a second-class citizenship category for a number of reasons — one of which was the restriction on our freedom of movement. We were subject to frequent roadblocks as the R.C.M.P. searched vehicles for dynamite and other explosives.

But the second-class citizenship factor really involved the light legal treatment given the Sons of Freedom until the mid-50's when this government took office and the then Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, took a much sterner attitude.

Until then the Sons of Freedom received light jail sentences — if they received them at all — and few of them were convicted for burning down either their own homes or those of their neighbours. No other West Kootenay resident, or any other B.C. resident for that matter, would have been treated so lightly. The Sons of Freedom were the first-class citizens and we were the second-class citizens.

Now as for the matter of the Freedomite nude parades and the taking off of their clothes while houses and public buildings burned, the only section of the statutes of this province under which action could be taken was that dealing with indecent acts.

That was section 160 of the Act. So this government introduced section 170 dealing with public nudity. It is this section, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to comment on today because there is need in my constituency for action under it.

The particular section with which I differ is the fact that no proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General. It says that "everyone who, without lawful excuse, is nude in a public place, or is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own, for the purpose of this section a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order."

In our constituency we have an invasion of American hippies. We have draft dodgers coming in. We have landed immigrants coming in. They are going about, for example at the Appledale bridge in the Lower Slocan Valley where they sun themselves. There are problems — and I will deal with that in a little more detail, at the Nakusp Hot Springs. Action hasn't been able to be taken because by the time informations are laid with the R.C.M.P., and consent of the Attorney General is obtained, these people have left for parts unknown and can't be traced down.

This is the problem. I'll just quote from the Arrow Lakes News, which is a weekly published in Nakusp. The editor of

[ Page 375 ]

that paper mentions getting a phone call and these are his words:

…from mild mannered Tony Bobicki last week following my article on crowded campsites in the area. He, his wife, family and friends went out to Whatshan Lake to camp a short time ago and found that the hippies had completely taken over the Steven's Creek campsite. For several years now people have been going out to the campsite on weekends and taking the family for a truly enjoyable time. This year, however, the hippies have moved in with broken-down vehicles bearing foreign licence plates, unruly stock including goats, and indecent selves. People have been turned away in droves from the once-pleasant site. He reports that the goats' feed is kept in the change rooms, the goats are allowed to roam free, and they wandered into the tent that these people had.

The Grade 9 students of one of the schools in Nakusp went out on a very commendable project to the Nakusp Hot Springs. A busload of them went there with rakes, shovels, et cetera, to clean and tidy up the grounds.

This letter, signed by the parents of these children, relates that during the process of the project a bunch of hippies descended upon this hot springs and completely disrobed and commenced frolicking in the pool in the presence of the Grade 9 students.

We, as parents of these students very strongly object to having our children subjected to this type of exposure and very urgently request that you in your wisdom take immediate steps to eliminate this blight which has enveloped our community. This is not an isolated incident. One could find this type of behaviour on the part of hippies any day of the week and we, the citizens of our community, find ourselves deprived of the pleasures of enjoying the hot springs with our families especially on weekends because of this detestable behaviour on the part of a few parasites.

Mr. Speaker, I've had correspondence with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I have related to him in correspondence the complaints, both verbal and written, which I have received, and have related to him in correspondence the incidents which personal friends of mine have seen at the grounds of the Nakusp Hot Springs. I have requested of him that a summer caretaker be provided there. I hope that the Minister and his department are giving this request consideration and I hope that it will be treated with action.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, that in this morning's mail, already with the intent of speaking to this particular subject, I received a letter from my very good friend, the former Member for Kootenay, Mr. H.W. Herridge who wrote me on this very matter of the Nakusp Hot Springs.

He says in his letter:

I hope you will forgive me as a former Liberal using this issue at a meeting held by former Premier Pattulo in Nakusp in 1920. Of course, since that time I've seen the light and have become a log cabin Socialist who is always getting in dutch with the elite of our party and trade union leaders, etc. So I'll make good — hopefully, Mr. Minister, with your help the promises made by Mr. Pattulo so long ago.

Mr. Herridge includes the notice which was posted at the hot springs in 1928, which he suggest should be followed as regulations at the present time. This is a bit of a historical document so I won't give it to the Hon. Minister, but I will make a photocopy.

There are several other matters of concern related to the same subject, Mr. Speaker, and one is the matter of social assistance to American immigrants. I think that it's right at this time to put the procedure on the record and inform the constituents of the Revelstoke-Slocan riding, particularly those in the Slocan Valley, of the procedures which are followed in this regard. Under the sharing agreement of all provinces with the federal government, they are eligible to receive assistance on the same terms as other immigrants.

Financial assistance until first placement in employment is a federal government responsibility. All immigrants to Canada requiring assistance within five years of arrival are reported to immigration authorities.

Now, the problem with this, of course, is that the immigration department isn't usually able to do very much about returning them to their place of origin. The problem, that is fairly well known, is that any immigrant can appeal deportation and this process requires a lengthy period of two or three years and the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement has often expressed its concern about this to the federal government.

It is national government policy to give refuge to young Americans who are eluding the draft and the problem also extends to immigrants who have entered this country illegally, since national policies have been permitting them to obtain landed immigrant status once within the country, or at least to delay their return by appeal process. The illegal immigrant, however, is not eligible to receive public assistance. Now it's been the concern of the Department of Rehabilitation for some time that Canadian Immigration policies are much too open and the process of appeal far too lengthy.

The other matter that causes concern, again related to this, is the problem of licensing motor vehicles brought into this province by citizens of the United States and other landed immigrants.

Now the motor vehicle branch allows vehicles licensed outside of British Columbia to be operated for 30 days after they enter the province. But there are these hippies who operate these old vehicles, many of which are definitely candidates for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's project SAM, and they operate them with out-of-province, out-of-country licence plates.

While I appreciate the problem of the enforcement agencies in knowing just when a vehicle did enter the country and therefore when the 30 day period is up, nonetheless, I would hope that the enforcement agencies will step up their enquiries in this regard in the lower Slocan Valley and I hope that the people will come forward with licence plate numbers and with specific complaints.

The last item with respect to this particular subject is the two Acts, the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act and the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The Home-owner Grant Act provides a grant to any owner, regardless of citizenship, who otherwise qualifies. And a person is considered eligible who owns and is residing in a home which is on a separate parcel of land, is assessed and taxed in the current year, and is his ordinary residence.

Now, there is no citizenship requirement under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. If a person has been a resident of the province for one year in the case of a new home, or two years as a tenant in the case of an older home, he would be eligible for a grant or a loan provided he met the other conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the government would

[ Page 376 ]

review its policy of providing home-owners grants and home acquisition grants and loans without a citizenship requirement. I can appreciate that it would create administrative problems and that the Acts concern themselves only with property owners as such but the matter of a citizenship clause merits some consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I said that residents of the West Kootenays, particularly those in the lower Slocan Valley, were second-class citizens during those trying days and years of Freedomite problems. And they were.

Now the residents of the lower Slocan Valley and those in the Nakusp area are becoming third-class citizens as hippies, draft-dodgers and deserters from the military forces of the United States flock into these parts of the riding. The problems I have outlined with respect to this matter today are very real and pressing and I hope that action will be taken to meet them.

In concluding, I'm pleased to be on this side of the House to vote when the time arrives in favour of this budget. In fact it's a budget — I'll quote from Bob McConnell a columnist with the Vancouver Province, something that he wrote before the budget was brought down in the House, but is given increased emphasis by this great budget —

There were many years when the question was in dispute but nobody can deny now that Premier Bennett is a man of financial genius. The province he governs has provided him with substantial aid through its resource base but he has still performed a remarkable feat in keeping its finances in far better shape than those of any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I support an increase of $15 in the home-owner's grant and an extra $50 for our senior citizens. And I'll vote in favour of the budget. I support the budget's proposal to spend an additional $151 million this year completely balanced from estimated revenues. And I'll vote for the budget.

The government has allocated an additional $45 million for education this year, or 30 per cent of the $151 million increase. I support that. The total health services. expenditure, as I said in my opening remarks, is up $49 million including $25 million more for hospitals. And I support that.

There is $7.5 million additional for our fine civil service in this budget. I support them. This budget proposes the expenditure of a further $115 million from accumulated surplus funds for job-creating projects, including $10 million for a repeat of last year's accelerated parks development programme. And I support that.

There's an extra $15 million for capital expenditures by the Department of Highways. And I most certainly support that, and I support this government in the policy of establishing special and perpetual funds whereby it recycles money to the advantage of all our citizens. It puts Social Credit principles, policies and philosophy to work and I support that.

Through its perpetual funds, I suggest that this government has given this province's motto, "splendor without diminishment," real substance. Because the capital in these perpetual funds is never touched, is never diminished, and the splendor of what can be done with the interest goes on for year after year. Far in excess, eventually, of the capital money in the fund will have been spent in the interest that has gathered on it.

When February 18 arrives, Mr. Speaker, and the vote is held on this budget there should be none that vote against it. All should rise as one and vote for its adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, once again it is my opportunity to stand here and make my annual attempt to persuade the unconverted to support this budget.

This shouldn't be difficult. This shouldn't be very difficult. All you have to do is look at the first two or three pages and you're ready to go for it. I was going to say that it seems to me that this has been a rather uneventful session, if you can call it that to date, so far. By this time last year, I looked back, and we had some very memorable statements.

For instance the Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) might have forgotten this. I recall one occasion when he stated: "I had a very gratifying experience last weekend" and he was immediately called to order, and the first Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi), when he said: "I hereby declare Gastown an hysteric site."

I don't know if anyone noticed the priceless clipping in the Victoria Colonist this morning. The headline is: "Italian Census Polls 55 Million Liars," dated Rome.

The 1971 national census taken last October in Italy seems to be quite informative. It was billed as the first census designed to be programmed for a computer and provide a wealth of statistical detail about this nation of 55 million people. Instead, reports the weekly, The Expresso, many blatant inaccuracies have been found in the forms such as the registering of an absurdly low number of private cars and private baths, presumably because the correspondents or respondents were afraid of being taxed if they told the truth. Further, a large percentage of those questioned answered questions as to the residences of family members with the response, "that's our own concern," which was indigestible to the computers. In summing up The Expresso declared: "We are 55 million liars."

I think that the Member from Vancouver Centre should stand up and deny that he's a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disassociate himself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WOLFE: Furthermore, I recall last year the Member from Haney, when he made a very impressive comment about the Prime Minister of Canada and the Member for Dewdney, (Mr. Mussallem), in which he was very concerned over his association with an orang-utang, when he stated: "Why should he have his arm around that orang-utang?"

I really do sympathise with those who find it necessary to criticise the budget. It must be difficult, you know, and I always feel very sorry for the Opposition leaders after the budget has been presented and I can imagine their caucus has tremendous difficulty in getting approval that they wish to oppose this budget. It must be most difficult. One would want to be in one some of those meetings, you know. I don't think they have their hearts in it. They have to stand here and do this, it really is unfortunate.

We only have one of the two leaders in the House just now, but I am very much impressed with the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, when he referred to paying senior citizens $200 a month and then stated that he proposed that they would raise this money from increased royalties on coal, copper and other resources. Then, in the very next breath, he referred to the necessity of encouraging

[ Page 377 ]

development of industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there is really a contradiction and perhaps he hasn't noticed what has happened in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan where industry is concerned. Imperial Oil have decided to pull out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and establish a master refinery in Edmonton — $200 million, Mr. Speaker. Obviously they have good reason to consolidate their enterprise in one place but they are leaving Saskatchewan and Manitoba and I have to think that it has something to do with the nature of their government in those provinces.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: Why should I be prevented in commenting on the topic of contingent liabilities? I ask you.

AN HON. MEMBER: No reason at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: Actually, I honestly believe that the Opposition want to bring this up all the time because they can't stand us being debt free. I think it really hurts. After all, everyone has contingent liabilities. Contingent liability depends on some outside circumstance. For instance, there is always a contingency that my mother-in-law might move in with me and if she does that becomes a direct liability and not a contingent liability.

In any event, I would be interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition say how we would go about guaranteeing my bank loan. For instance, if I go to the bank and ask for a loan and they tell me: "Well you will have to get a guarantor," and if I go to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to guarantee my loan, he has acquired a contingent liability.

Now the way he would argue this case is that he has a direct liability and there is the obvious reason why they're absolutely wrong in alleging that this province has any debts.

What this province has, is this province is absolutely debt free but it is not contingent-liability free.

Of course we had the delightful experience of receiving the annual budget of the leader of the Liberal Party and, Mr. Speaker, I've saved these. In case he ever wants I could supply it to him. It's the usual spend-it-before-you-get-it budget. You know, he's their Minister of Finance and as near as I can tell he's been there too long. Ottawa would move a lot quicker on these things, if there's musical chairs and I think it is time they had a change.

No Minister of Finance should be in office as long as that. We call it shuffle the cabinet, shuffle the cabinet. I'm expecting an announcement soon. Anyway I have all his budgets.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: They're not in living colour but they're good for a few laughs.

Now, I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I studied this budget very carefully and although I'm impressed I really haven't decided yet whether I'm going to support it. As the Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, I want to keep an open mind. I'm going to wait until I hear from everybody before I actually decide.

But I am impressed with certain things like page 7, where it says, "this is the 20th budget that this government has presented under Social Credit administration." I am reading now from chapter 42, verse 9, where it says:

In meeting these challenges this government has balanced the priorities of economic development and services to people within its basic policies of financing all general and capital expenditures out of current income, low tax rates and at the same time maintaining adequate cash reserves. Mr. Speaker, that tells a real story which can't be repeated often enough. You know, I'm almost persuaded but I should go on and look at other items. The size of the budget, $649 per man, woman and child in British Columbia, that's still less than the debt encumbrance of the federal government which represents over $2 billion and 14 per cent of their annual expenditures.

I'm impressed with certain other things and in particular the new funds established, the green belt protection fund, the power line beautification fund and the additional $50 home-owner grant to people over 65. You know, the more I talk about this I'm selling myself, you just can't help it. The rapid transit subsidy and the amendments to the Succession Duty Act, although I'd have to say here that I would have to believe that we should eliminate the Succession Duty Act, however, there have been some welcome changes in it.

You know, I have almost persuaded myself, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to hold off committing myself because I want to keep an open mind. I'll give you a hint that to come up with a budget like this with a surplus, with no increased taxes, after a year like we've just been through is a tribute to the Premier of this province and I say that sincerely and if he ever decides to go back in the hardware business, I'll be glad to be one of his shareholders.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word on the speech made last week by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I want to compliment him on his comments on the Moran dam subject.

Excuse me for bringing that up. I know it gives the Member from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) high blood pressure but I just want to say that I'm pleased to hear and it gives me confidence to realise that these important things will be decided on the bases of the facts, when the facts are in.

I'm prepared to accept whatever these facts say to us, not as the Liberals say, "don't confuse us with the facts." I think this is a very important thing and I've been given renewed confidence with the comments of the Minister last week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like again to refer to my favourite page, which is page 27, the comparative provincial tax rates covering 1972. Once again we see that British Columbia has among the lowest tax rates in Canada. That's in a way an old story but most impressive. I'd like to draw your attention to two particular items on this table. One of them is the driver's licence fee. I'd like to point out driver's licence fee at $1 per year or $5 for five years being the lowest in Canada it is possibly due for an increase.

I say that because there are no less than 1,300,000 drivers in this province as of the end of 1971 and it seems to me that our costs of testing, administering, operating such a department is probably in excess of this and that we should look at the possibility of increasing this fee to perhaps $2, with a view particularly to the fact that we soon will be coming out with a new type of driver's licence, I hope, with pictures included.

The other item is the matter of diesel fuel tax at 17 cents. Now included in that is propane gas tax which in this province is taxed at 17 cents under the Motor Fuel Tax Act — the same rate as diesel fuel.

[ Page 378 ]

I think there's a case to be made for reducing this tax on propane gas. We have a reason to promote the use of propane gas in the interests of pollution and many companies are attempting to go into this field. But we find that the tax is higher than the tax on gasoline at 15 cents.

This is perhaps out of line for two counts. (1) The same amount of propane gas will, produce less horsepower or heat than the same amount of gasoline. So you need more propane gas to do the same job than you do the equivalent amount of gasoline.

(2) It's a higher price. I think the State of California have now entered an experimental five year period where they have eliminated the tax on propane gas, so I am simply putting forward the idea that we might consider bringing that down to 15 cents or reducing it further in the interests of promoting use of propane equipment.

As a matter of fact, I understand we'll be seeing his Honour later this evening and if it's your pleasure I'll bring back a message bill tomorrow. (Laughter).

I'd like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which many people in business are somewhat affected by. This is the procedure used in our sales tax audit department. Either through shortage of staff or for other reasons, audits of companies for sales tax purposes are only conducted about every six or seven years on an average, just from my own experience. Companies must maintain old records, keep them on file until an audit takes place.

It used to be that you always feared the tax collector when he came around and now-a-days you kind of welcome him because you can get sort of up-to-date.

The reason that I brought this up is that the procedure used is that the auditor comes in and will go through a complete month of invoices. This will take him quite a while and he will look for shortages in your sales tax computations, inadvertent shortages. They may be a half a cent or a cent or a quarter of a cent and through that month he will add this up to say $5 or $10. Using this as an average, multiply that into the period since your last audit, and it might become $800 or $900 in that item alone.

Now, this may seem fair but on the other hand you get no credit for the overages, the over charges on sales taxes. So you might then get presented for an assessment for a sizable amount for undercharges of sales tax on routine invoices, but get no counter credit for sales taxes which have over charged and perhaps the two balance out from any one month. Then the company is left to argue or to try to defeat this assessment and the only way they are free to do this is by proving that the assessor is wrong.

I hear from many company people who talk about this and consider that it is unfair and I think that it is a procedure that we should examine in terms of being more equitable to the employer who is not attempting to defeat the Sales Tax Act but in casual day-to-day transactions finds that inadvertently he does so.

Just a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the increase in the home-owner's grant and in particular the extra $50 to senior citizens.

We all know that many organisations have pressed for this and so I think we should consider it welcome to people who are older and more fixed income. But I still believe that in items of this kind we should only be paying them on a basis of need, or on a basis of income. I can think of several people just off hand who really would prefer to see an additional amount of this kind like $75 or $100 and pay it only to those people who have limited incomes.

Also, just a comment in the increase in the municipal aid grant, Mr. Speaker. The municipal aid grant expenditure is going to increase by some $6.5 million and there is no increase in the per capita, but there has been a new census in 1971 which will be the basis for the new grant.

Now, I think all members of this House should realise that there has been a very significant shift in our population. Our population in the period between 1966 and '71 has increased about 14 per cent. When you look at a city like Vancouver it has really comparably increased very little in population, only about 3 per cent. I realise that the basis of payment of the municipal aid grant is fair but I think all members should realise that Vancouver will not receive very much of this increase. I calculate something like $350,000 whereas many other smaller, faster-growing municipalities quite properly will receive a greater amount. For instance, the Municipality of Delta will receive $750,000 of the $6.5 million increase. I don't classify this as a complaint but I think we should realise once again Vancouver in effect takes it on the chin and has to look for other years in terms of increases in the municipal aid grant.

Mr. Speaker, the whole accent of this budget is in the creation of jobs, quite properly so. On the first page of the highlights of the budget Mr. Bennett said:

Job-creating projects must receive top priority along with policies that will increase our economic base.

We read yesterday where our unemployment figures have jumped drastically in the month of January, so I think that it is timely that we hear the comments from the Minister today and that we discuss the subject of industrial development.

Last year I spoke, in this House on the need for certain incentives for industrial development and, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact this government and also the Hon. Minister has upon several occasions gone on record as being opposed to incentives. As a matter of fact he has had a very significant magazine article written on him recently — perhaps he's seen it. I don't think the picture is as good as the one in his annual report but the title is "Incentives to Industry? No, says Skillings" Within B.C. boundaries his policy towards industrial incentives at least is clear:

"This government does not want hot-house industries and for the immediate future at least there is no way we're going to get into incentive fields."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister is doing a good job with somewhat limited funds and that we should step up the funds available for industrial development considerably. I understand that most other provinces have instituted industrial development measures and we should examine what they are doing.

What we need are immediate incentives to encourage new secondary industries to come to British Columbia and also to encourage increased employment at existing B.C. Industries. I'd like to emphasise that I am completely in favour of the idea that we should be fair to existing industries, but if a new industry or an existing one can increase employment as a result of some government programme we just can't afford to ignore this.

Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of incentive grants or loans or giveaways. But I would like to make two or three suggestions on other types of incentives which might promote more employment.

First of all, an accelerated depreciation programme governing new capital expansion and provided for under the B.C. Income Tax Act. President Nixon last year announced an accelerated depreciation programme in the U.S., obviously

[ Page 379 ]

for good reason. I would say also that where new equipment purchases are concerned that the accelerated depreciation should not be available on foreign purchases but only if you are buying Canadian-made equipment.

Secondly, that the Minister of Industrial Development should lead trade missions to eastern Canada, U.S. and abroad. I notice the Premier now travels abroad and spreads the good word for British Columbia and I think he really does create a lot of interest and development for British Columbia because of this. But the Minister should lead trade missions to these places. He likes to travel and I'm sure he's a good ambassador for this province when he does so.

Thirdly, we should consider some temporary income tax incentives for corporations to increase the numbers they employ as compared to last year.

Mr. Speaker, this would be somewhat similar to the job opportunities programme which refers only to people on welfare. I would say that this might be done by a corporation income tax rebate related to a company's T-4 slips. Jobs are the key in this suggestion, in that if a company in this year employs more people than last year there should be some incentive offered if he does make a considerable increase in employment.

Lastly, I see no reason why we cannot offer more incentive for foreign industrialists to visit our province — for example, on occasion free transportation to British Columbia or free accommodations while here. We should loosen our purse strings in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, it does concern me that most of the other provinces we compete with have industrial development incentives of one kind or another and we have none except the beauties of our province and the fact that everyone wants to live here. I think we should step up our programme which would facilitate new secondary industries and also existing enterprises which wish to expand as long as we are being in no way unfair to existing British Columbia industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to be charged with making a sensible suggestion but I have mentioned before in this House that it is time that the government order an efficiency survey of its many departments.

It has now been 22 years since we had a comprehensive study on the efficiency of services that we perform in government departments. With payroll consuming over 20 per cent of our budget for all departments we should always keep a careful watch on whether the services performed are required, whether a job could be handled in another way, whether it could be more efficiently executed and so on.

I'm talking about procedures rather than people. I'm saying that it is quite possible that we could find more efficient work procedures that could cut costs and that we should conduct a survey of all departments to find out what might be done. I would be very much surprised if there were not several functions now being performed that couldn't be changed or removed. This has certainly proved true in my own business and I see no reason why it should not apply also in the government service.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. WOLFE: We'll come to that. Once again, Mr. Speaker, what I've been asking for is for our government to appoint an efficiency task force to make a study of all departments. This study could be undertaken by a consulting firm or by a specially appointed committee — one of the two, comprising both in-service people and outside consultants. I know that the Premier is not really sold on my idea and neither is my wife when I suggest she should have an efficiency survey but she doesn't take too kindly to this either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WOLFE: That's right. Quite so. In part I feel that the Premier's feeling may be due to the fact that he is very loyal to the civil service and they are very basically very dedicated people and I share his opinion on this. Also, when the Premier took office over 20 years ago a consulting firm was then in the process of doing a study and had at that time been on the job for over two or two-and-half years. One of the first things he did was to fire them because they were running up a very sizeable fee. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C. Hydro is now conducting a survey through a firm called Wofac Management Systems Ltd. Wofac stands for Work Factor. Fully aware of the pitfalls of employing outside consultants for an indefinite period, Hydro have entered into a contract for a specific term with this firm and they have been asked to survey just one department as an experiment.

Hydro believed it was time to conduct such a study since it was over 10 years since the last one.

Wofac have a somewhat different approach to efficiency surveys. Instead of the usual practice of going through departments and dealing only with the top staff and as a result getting employees very unsettled they make a practice of working through departmental supervisors and also with meeting with the union prior to their study. They guarantee that there will be no employee lay-offs resulting from their survey. But they may wish to transfer certain people to other departments.

It seems to me that the government should take a close look at the results of this efficiency survey in Hydro and perhaps order such a study in one of the government departments.

Mr. Speaker, this is not meant as a criticism of our present operation nor as suggestion that our present services are in any way inefficient. I would make the same recommendation to any government, nevertheless our obligation to the taxpayer is to give him the best value for his dollar and the time for this type of study will never be more opportune than right now.

The inflation steamroller is the most pressing problem in Canada today. Just look at today's Victoria Times: "Living Costs Climb 4.9 Per Cent In 12 Months." That's the high. Our government is being asked from all sides to cut down on spending. Our payroll represents the biggest part of our expenditure so we should make sure that productivity is there and that the most efficient procedures are being used.

Mr. Speaker, finally the popular topic of labour management. I would like to now touch on a subject of great concern which has to do with labour/management relations in our province. Primarily I do this because in a survey recently taken by my colleague, the first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) and myself there was a clear indication that labour/ management was a top-priority item in the minds of our citizens. Allow me to explain.

We asked three questions in the following way and the answers were as follows:

Do you believe unions are too strong? The answer was 62 per cent yes.

Management is too strong? 7 per cent yes.

[ Page 380 ]

Neither? 7 per cent.

Both? 24 per cent.

Secondly: Do you think there has been too much emphasis on the wage aspect of contract negotiations rather than on trying to better conditions of both management and the workers? The answer was 90 per cent in favour and 10 per cent no. That's a very interesting answer Mr. Speaker.

Number 3: Are you in favour of a system of mandatory price and wage controls in Canada? Yes 68 per cent and no 32.

I've commented on the third question before. I don't think the first question requires much explanation except to say that it shows that the majority of people have a feeling that unions have an overbalance of strength. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

The second question is, however, interesting. The overwhelming majority believes that there is too much emphasis on the wage aspect of contract negotiations.

Now, I'd like to turn to two what I would call typical newspaper clippings within the past year. That come to the crux of the whole problem. I think these news items are simply the unfortunate result of poor labour/management relations.

The first one is February 1971, the Victoria Daily Colonist. The headline is "Ford Engine Bypass Hurts Britain."

A Ford Motor Company decision to eliminate Britain as a possible site for a new engine plant dealt another blow Tuesday to the nation's economy, already hard hit by costly strikes and soaring unemployment. The decision not to build the new $72 million plant was disclosed by William Batty, managing director of the British division in a letter to The Times. A Ford spokesman said the plant would not definitely have come to Britain, but the company has decided in view of the difficulties giving guarantees of delivery and production it cannot recommend England as a location, the spokesman said.

And the next clipping is March 10, 1971. Vancouver Province. There's three elderly gentlemen leaning on a piano. "Piano Plant Closing."

Piano tuners in Mason & Rich Ltd., piano factory in Toronto face loss of jobs in three months. Company officials cited the increasing sales of Japanese pianos as reason for closing the Canadian factory. Forty persons will lose jobs.

These are not unfamiliar stories Mr. Speaker, and they do cause concern over labour relations naturally. I only mention them because they illustrate extreme folly of unreasonable labour demands, particularly at a time when it is evident that they do not have widespread public support.

The year 1972, we've been saying, already shapes up like a very good year — the year in which this province can really move ahead. Except that there are several major union contracts coming up for negotiations. Every stone must be turned, Mr. Speaker, to create an atmosphere for peaceful contract settlements. I say our citizens are sick and tired of strikes and don't want to see another period like 1970.

This matter is important enough, I believe, that the Minister of Labour should arrange a series of meetings with participants in several of this year's major contracts — for instance the construction trades and the woodworkers and some others.

I think the Premier should attend these meetings with the Minister in order to stress the importance of labour peace, and perhaps to lay down a guideline for settlements.

I would also make these further suggestions which have more to do with the long term. First of all there needs to be more liaison between union and management during the term of a contract. This is indicated by the people who answered our survey by saying that there is too much emphasis on the wage aspect of contract negotiations — 90 per cent.

Number two: there should be more direct confrontation between top management and labour representatives during the negotiating period. Most major contracts are now settled by professional consultants. Sometimes I wonder if more reason might prevail if the two parties to a contract sat down across the desk from each other — in direct discussion.

AN HON, MEMBER: That's for sure, that's for sure.

MR. WOLFE: Number three: We should encourage the use of cost-of-living improvements in contracts. This is almost an non-existent item in present labour day contracts as I understand it.

Number four: Cost-of-living percentage improvement factors rather than….

AN HON. MEMBER: Regulated?

MR. WOLFE: Yes. That is a contract improvement based on the cost-of-living index from time to time.

Number four: Wherever possible we should be promoting longer term contracts. I think one- or two-year contracts are not in the interest of prolonged labour peace and we should do whatever we can do to expand into longer term contracts of, say, five years or more.

Mr. Speaker, the people in our area have made it very clear they consider labour/management problems a matter of top priority.

Although I don't profess to have all of the answers to this question I have every confidence in our Minister of Labour and I urge the government through him to take whatever steps are necessary to close the gap in thinking between labour and management, and to bring about longer term settlements in the interests of labour peace and continuity of employment in our province.

Mr. Speaker I don't know if I've persuaded any Members to support this budget but I know the people of this province will. And I propose to now give up my place to our clean-up speaker, the Member from Dewdney.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to take my place in this debate, and I'm reminded of the many times I've been here — six times now I've been here. Each time more proud then the last because each time our budget gets better. I'm not going to go into detail why I'm going to support the budget because it's quite unnecessary. It was well done by the Honourable Member before me, of course. Because he's so astute. It's so plain and so clear there's nothing that I could do to add to it in any way, except to say that it is probably without doubt the finest budget to come before any government in Canada this day ever. The only one that will supersede it will be the next budget, about a year ahead.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that when in my remarks in the throne debate I made a point of portable pensions — brought them the attention of the Minister of Labour — was

[ Page 381 ]

surprised about the acceptance it had nearly everywhere. It was a subject of many talk line shows in the lower mainland. I received I'm not going to say hundreds but I did receive over a dozen letters. They all were complimentary and they gave mostly without exception sad stories of what happened to them.

The same thing on the talk shows, they explained a situation where through no fault of their own they found themselves devoid of pensions that they had expected to achieve at some time in their life. They found these disappeared for many reasons, not all through dishonesty, not all through design. The McGavin's Bakery issue was one and I do not criticise McGavin's Bakery in any way, and I do not hold with the Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I think that he does not have all the facts yet.

However, I want to say now that, for example, the most I received from was from people such as engineers who work for many companies, who put a few dollars in the pension fund then move to another company.

What happens is they get back their money so little it doesn't matter, they go to another company also with a pension fund, start over again.

Each time they lose the employer's contribution.

What should be done here, and I said this before, the government could have an Act, a bill making it compulsory that any pension plan must be invested immediately and kept in control of the government, either by insurance or by some other way.

I think the response I've had brings me to the opinion that the time is long past due that pensions should be not withdrawable but every pension that is put into a employee's pension fund should build up to his life time. Employers should put in his share and that should all be a contribution not withdrawable no matter where a man goes.

He is building every time he puts money into it. So that someday he'll receive a pension regardless of the amount. But, he will in fact get a pension and have no way of doing anything else with it. I do think this is necessary and I bring it to the attention of the Honourable Minister, now.

This government is unique in Canada in many ways. Now, I don't have to tell you about this, and I have to touch on this question of contingent liability again. Now, I explained it so carefully before and I would now not explain it again had not the Honourable Leader of the Opposition made the statement he did and for his benefit only, I'm explaining the situation. He said…. 

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, its important because a Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should understand this matter. It's so elementary, but it's important that you understand.

Now, the reason I bring it up is to just tell this House it wouldn't be very important because I think we all know what it is. We have no debts. But when the Leader of the Opposition makes a statement like that some people listen, at least the people that listen to him. So I'm going to explain to him one little thing.

He said this: "I've got a house, and I've got a mortgage on it. I went to my banker and said, 'Mr. Banker, would you please put this on contingent liability so I won't have to pay for the house.' The banker replied: 'Go away, make those payments on time or else."'

Now he said that explains the contingent liability. Now, we all know it doesn't. I'm sure the Honourable Member was being facetious and maybe he didn't know, but I want to tell you if you want to consider contingent liability you've got to go back to the builder of the house — the man that built the house. It's so simple…. 

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now, I'm telling you you've got to go back to the builder of the house. He built the house with his money, he sold it to the Leader and the Leader said: "I can't pay you cash for it now because I haven't got as much as you want." Well, the builder said: "Look, I can't afford to sell it that way, but I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll go to the banker. We'll ask him for the money. And if he'll pay it that will be o.k."

So the banker says: "Yes, I'll o.k. it, Mr. Leader, and I'll give the builder the money providing the builder has signed his name on the contract saying if that leader doesn't pay the builder will be responsible."

You understand, that's contingent liability. Now, that is absolutely no debt on the builder whatever. None whatever. He has his house and he's living in it and paying for it with interest. So it's so simple.

They say Hydro's in debt, and they say that the government guarantees Hydro's deficit. Well yes, the government does for the simple reason of obtaining a better interest rate. I would only wish that somebody would say to me: "George Mussallem…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, you couldn't borrow. Well yes, it's possible, it is possible but a company as liable as Hydro in a province as great and as prospering as this one, it's a good deal for anyone to invest in Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not debt?

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is debt, but it is not debt on the government, it is debt on Hydro. So simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong again, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Who owns Hydro? The Hydro owns Hydro and we are paying for it every day we turn our switches on. The same thing applies to the P.G.E.

This government is debt free, completely debt free. The Honourable Leader reminds me of a man in my constituency when he brings up his house analogy.

It was in the 30's when things were rough and the brickyard there had a cement mixer that they wanted to sell, and that this man wanted to buy. The manager of the brick company said: "Well we can't give you any time payments, if you've got the cash come and take the machine, but we can't give you any time payment."

Now the man wanted it badly, and the manager wanted to give it to him. "How can we give this man the mixer?" he said. Well, they thought and they talked and they thought and the man that wanted to buy the mixer made a suggestion to the manager and to his assistant. He said: "I'll tell you want I'll do. I'll give you the $20 down" — it was a $100 mixer — "and I'll take the rest out in bricks. And he went away with his mixer and a small load of bricks and it was paid for.

[ Page 382 ]

Now that's the kind of a deal you wanted with your house, Mr. Leader. You see it doesn't work that way. What the Leader was saying was "Let me put my hand in your cash box and I'll pay for the house."

The Honourable leader of the Liberal Party referred to the high profits we make from liquor. I want to say this now so that anyone that talks about liquor, when you hear, I shouldn't say stupid, but foolish words of these nature.

We're far better off, we've made more money on the liquor we don't sell, on the bottles we don't sell than on the bottles we do sell. Much more profit. Because every dollar we make on liquor we spent four on repairing the damage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Repair your damages, four, maybe five, maybe more. The disasters that are caused by drinking drivers alone, let's consider that. The Attorney General said there may be a law come down this year, this session, a bill to prevent…so that when a drinking driver loses his licence or is ordered to have his licence forfeited there is no way for him to get it back until that time expires, no way.

Now I know a great many people agree with this. Many people in this House agree. Although I'm against liquor in all its forms, I cannot agree with this principle for this reason. That when any one of people I could mention in this House lost their licence it wouldn't matter one bit. But if a working man loses his licence he can't get to his job. I ask a question: is this equity before the law? I think not. I think not.

AN HON. MEMBER: He shouldn't drink.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Oh yes, he shouldn't drink. I think if you're drinking when you're driving his truck, I think it's a different matter — but if you're drinking on a Friday night…. I abhor the thought of drinking. I have no time for this drinking and driving, but after all there is plenty of things wrong with our society. And this is not a time to pass harsh judgments on one and let the other off scot-free. I think that punishment should be this way, I think he should be allowed to drive to work and give him an option say: "We'll let you drive to work" and let him pay for it. Let us, say, put special colored licence plates on his car and put a yellow stripe on the back and front. Everybody knows what he is if he wants to drive to work with that, let him drive. That is punishment. I make that suggestion.

I must compliment the government on much of its great work. Especially in the drug abuse fund, drug and alcohol fund, that's a great fund.

Our constituency took a hold of that rapidly. They organised an organisation and they called it Government Organised Drug Abuse Committee and the letters will spell G.O.D.A.C. It's surprising what this little word did. Now this in in Maple Ridge. Mission's going to do the same thing and they made applications for funds to assist them in their work.

We had a meeting and we had people that one businessman who had been an addict, a reformed addict, he said his own words: "We kicked the habit, we kicked the habit." But I want to tell you something about that man. He told us of the sadness and the disaster and danger of being a drug addict. He told us the fears, dangers involved in one drug addict going to another or squealing on a pusher. I was amazed at what went on, but this can be dealt with only on one basis — we came to this conclusion — on a one-to-one basis, each one must help the other, the fathers, the mothers, the sisters and the brothers.

These are the things we must pay strict attention to. We mustn't look to government, government supplying the money but it is us in the field, it is the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and sisters that will lick this problem if it is going to licked at all.

No one else can do it but us, the individuals on the low level. The Hon. Member — I forget his constituency — but the Hon. Member in the Burnaby-Edmonds area said we should do the same as Britain. Now mind you, I think he was in good intent there except for one thing — Britain with 60 million has 1,500 addicts, we have 2 million have 3,000 known addicts about 3,000 and maybe 10,000 and the British system of giving free drugs was a dismal failure and it would just be a more dismal failure here.

The only ray of hope we have at the present time — and I think it is a ray of hope — is our drug, alcohol and tobacco fund. Now, I'm after drugs, but don't misunderstand me, liquor is ten times worse in its volume, not as many people are in it, that's all.

Liquor is deadly as well as drugs, and tobacco kills. These are all bad things but the drug thing is affecting our young and this project is an emergency and this area we must move now and quickly.

I have a little story to bring to your attention and I just don't know how to bring it out and this concerns the media. It's just interesting, maybe has no place in this debate but it's interesting and I want to bring it to you.

You know it has been said — I don't know when but it is oft repeated — "the pen is mightier than the sword." It's more true now than ever and to me I'm beginning to believe that.

When you have your headlines like "Environment is Beyond Recovery — World Disaster Seen" and "Living Costs Rise 4.9 Per Cent," or "Marijuana Epidemic — 7 year-olds Obtain Drugs," this is a strange phenomena. I believe that the media has more power than they even know. I'll tell you how this came to my attention. There's no way you can check it — oh, yes they write some fine things in every newspaper, pick every one you want.

There's a lot of good things to read there but people do not seem to have time for that. They read what's handy. They read the scare headlines and out they go with their car.

The strange thing I want to bring to your attention and I'd like to make a further investigation — I will by next year — is that wherever a media shuts down, newspapers in fact, we see the same thing happening.

One week after the newspapers went on strike last year almost every body shop in the lower mainland was out of business. Practically no work. This is a phenomenon.

I'm not saying it was the reason but as the Hon. Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) will tell you, they just didn't get the story, they didn't get "Marijuana Epidemic — 7-year-olds Obtain Drugs" and they got in that car and "bang." That's what it is. It's too exciting. They get excited — right, you laugh, and I don't blame you for laughing — but I'm telling you the media has more effect on the temper of the people than any one of us is prepared to admit.

Because we do not have the time to read the fine work and the good work in the papers but we'll read the scare headlines, every scare headline, every paper is read by everybody.

This is where the danger comes in. I think the media could do a great service to this country in doing it somehow different. I don't know how.

[ Page 383 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But play down the big headlines, play up the good stories.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Both things sell papers after all. You are business. I know that.

The Hon. Member for Little Mountain, the lady Minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) spoke of the big city and how we should have nice things in the big city. Nice grassy areas and I agree that they are beautiful. But I want to tell her most kindly that I'm sorry, it just won't work. People, it won't work. People go to the big city for one thing mostly they like the hustle and the bustle and the action of the city. They don't want a green park and flowers, they want flowers but not on the pavement. They want thick buildings like that glorious big British Columbia Building that's going to be built. That's what they want. Thank you. Although they may kick about a little bit now, you'll see, they'll proudly point to it. A landmark of government for the great City of Vancouver. I tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the province.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well for the province, alright. For the province, right, for the province. After all, Vancouver represents the Province of British Columbia. It is our greatest city. Mind you, they only have one fault, they may want too much of the revenue. I won't say the word greedy but of course cities are like that and they got to be tempered a little, they get more than their share. But we want them to be a great city and this government will make them a great city.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll tell you where I'd like something to happen along the lines that was said by the Hon. Minister. I'd like to add to the power line beautification fund another fund, add a little to it, the small town beautification fund — see the towns. We have the capital beautification fund but the towns do not have the tax base or the wherewithal to create beauty around their centres, they don't have it. They can never get it because they don't have a tax base, and they can't do it. Now if they were to get a little bit that they could spend with matching grant, not big amounts: it's surprising what $10,000 will do every year in a small town. This would solve, would make not only Vancouver and Victoria the most beautiful cities in Canada, the towns of British Columbia would be the most beautiful in Canada and most of them are today but this would be a great help.

The automobile the Hon. Minister also mentioned, we want to keep the automobiles out of the centre of town. The automobile gets blamed for quite a lot that they don't do. It was said that they contribute to pollution. Perhaps they did contribute a lot more but all new cars today have cut down the pollution content by 4/5th and within one year or two years it will be down to almost zero. But I just mention that to you. Almost zero.

Our Canadian-built cars have all pollution controls on them. That's not an extra that comes with the automobile, no extras built in the price. Mind you, you pay for it. You get about three or four gallons less per mile and all that but we don't want pollution, we pay for it that way. There's no other way. Now I want to tell you one of the reporters in his column Mr. Nesbit, said those M.L.A.'s park their cars out there in the driveways and you know they drip oil down there. But I tell you if we didn't bring our cars we'd probably bring horses and I tell you. (Laughter). Maybe it's a good thing, you know.

Did you ever stop to think if you knock the cars so much — I'm working for you, too, Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre — if we didn't have cars I'd bet you you'd have almost as many horses as cars. Can you imagine what you could grow with all that?

You know, I want to tell you, I tell you the car may create some pollution in the air but it doesn't pollute the highways. I tell you this also, that the automobile is a very clean form of conveyance and it serves a great purpose of society. Why knock it? I say I'm all for it.

If we didn't have that, we'd have to have some substitute. What would be the substitute — a bicycle? I'll bet you if we got the choice between a bicycle and a horse it will be a horse. There's the alternative.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I want to make one little remark to the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) and say to him I was glad to hear what he said about the Moran dam. I was glad to say if it were built it would only be a flood control dam. That at least was a little back up. Well he didn't back up at all. No, no. That at least was a good concession to what we want. But what we'd like you to say is no dam anyway. The Fraser River is so steeped in the history of British Columbia, if you read the British Columbia history, and I'm sure that most of you have, you'll find out that the river was tied into the history of British Columbia, woven into it. If you took away that river, I think if you'll go back in conjecture, you'd have taken away British Columbia because when they give away Oregon, Washington they'd have given away British Columbia at the same time.

But because gold was found in the Fraser River, because the government of Britain took an interest in it, it became important to the small colonial government of Vancouver Island and the small government of British Columbia at that time and consequently they held on to this area.

I don't think they cared very much about it — the only one that cared a little was the Hudson Bay Company for furs, that was all that was cared for. They would have given that whole place up. They gave up Washington and Oregon without a struggle — didn't care. They gave up the San Juan Islands without a struggle — didn't care. But when they came to take away the Fraser River there was one great row because there's gold there you see.

So the Fraser River was an important part of the life of British Columbia and I say that it should be left in its state that it was always in and it should be continued to be that way.

There are other alternatives and I hope the Minister will consider them. This Fraser, for example, let us say, Fort Langley was called Darby then — it was the capital of British Columbia for I think less than a year — but maybe for a year we went to a great deal of expense both federally and provincially to make this historical site and quite rightly so, I agree with that. But we make this a historical site and to suggest we should tamper with the Fraser River I say it's unthinkable. We make Langley a historical site, we say "dam the river." I think the Minister should make his mind up now

[ Page 384 ]

that "no way." I don't blame the big study — they've got to know what goes on. They have got to know the possibilities. But no way I hope will the Fraser River ever be tampered with, the river that gave British Columbia to Canada.

A little matter I want to bring to your attention which seems important to me is that a few years ago it was decided by the Department of Labour that — automobile mechanics would-be certified and have licences. It was said at that time that they would in due course make it compulsory but I understand that the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour, has now suggested he thinks the time is not yet.

I say to the Minister of Labour that time is long past due. I do not want a closed hierarchy at all but an automobile today is far too dangerous an instrument to be monkeyed with by someone that just has a tool kit.

I could tell you instance after instance where great trouble could have occurred, and accidents could have occurred and I'm sure accidents do occur. But after the accident occurred we very rarely know the cause.

I think that every mechanic should be licenced — not that it will make him a great mechanic but at least give him a sense of responsibility. The vital things that he must know — the brakes, the steering, the drive train, the generation system for lights, the electrical system — these overall systems; he should know completely and thoroughly so there should be no danger ever whatever that he could assemble the thing wrong.

I have seen cars come into repair shops with parts missing because the mechanic did not know where the parts went. Now you say, "Well surely it wouldn't run?" Yes, it will run. You can take several parts out of the braking system, the car will run.

There are parts left over, and they don't know where to put them. You think that's laughable? It's true today, it's true because you do not have licensing of mechanics. These vital things should be covered. Now look at private aircraft that could practically only kill the occupant and the four or five people in it and hurt nobody, fall in the bush. No one dare touch that except with licence. Why? An automobile that is 1,000 times more dangerous, anybody with a tool kit can start taking it apart and putting it together. I tell you now, Mr. Minister of Labour, that the time is long past due. There's no time left really. I suggest you do it and start on it this second.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no time left for you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Oh, there's time left for that great Minister of Labour because the government will be here for the longest time with budgets like this. (Laughter).

The lowest tax rates in Canada, no increase in taxes to the taxpayers. Highway, roads, and bridges everywhere. President Nixon just said: "We're not going to do anything about the Alaska Highway because the federal government is not interested."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that's not what he said. Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, in effect, in effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the story, read the story.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'll read it — but in effect the federal government. Oh, no, I have to put my glasses on to read it. Anybody can get it. I tell you it is in the Victoria Daily Colonist, February 9, on the left hand top corner.

The implication is the federal government is not interested. They won't do a thing. Take it anyway you like. They're not going to pave it.

The only hope for the north, that country of the north, is this government and if the federal government will only wake up and draw that parallel of our boundary right to the northern sea, I tell you things would happen in the north. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway would be in Aklavik within 10 years, five years maybe.

Well it's going now to Dease Lake, it's going almost to the boundary. Well, I want to tell you how do you think British Columbia got its wealth? How do you think?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It got it because it had a railway that went in and developed the natural resources of the country, gave jobs, made jobs and made the people realise they lived in a great province and gave them enthusiasm and they went to work. That's what creates business, that's what creates jobs. I want to thank the Minister of Highways for taking the tolls off the Langley Ferry. That was a great thing. I hope he hasn't given me too much because I'm just afraid the ferries will be overloaded so much that we'll be asking for a 31-car ferry very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right now, right now.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Right now, right now, we need a new ferry. I can tell the Hon. Minister that if he can find one somewhere, a good one, we'd like to have it because we need one right now. But thank you for taking tolls off. (Laughter). We appreciate it.

Here is the government with the finest school system in Canada, best-paid teachers in Canada and the railway that brings in the wealth, with funds like the power line beautification fund, a capital fund, the green belt fund, and I could go on. But why go on? It's just too much. That's why this government is government. That's why we'll go on for the years to come. That's why it must and will always succeed, because it is the greatest government ever in the history of this great country of Canada. There's no question.

The problem that we have, the trouble we've got, Honourable Members, is that it is so great we don't want to believe it ourselves. If you read it you say: "It can't be that good, there must be something wrong." It's not true. It's all there because it's engineered to perfection. It's well-oiled, it's running fine, and the economy is sound and 1972 will be the greatest year that British Columbia ever had because of the budget this year. I support the budget.

Hon. Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson presents the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia in manuscript form and the report on expropriation of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.