[ Page 555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill No. 92) Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 555

The Air Ambulance Aid Act (Bill No. 93) Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 555

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 555

Mr. Fraser — 563

Mr. Brousson — 568

Mr. Lockstead — 579

Ms. Sanford — 583

Statement Statement by Mr. Speaker on distribution of bills — 586

Mr. Chabot — 587

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the House today from the Sechelt Indian Reserve: Chief Henry Paul; Chief Clarence Joe, band manager; Gilbert Joe, councilor; Teddy Joe, councilor; Gilbert Gerwin, representative of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; Terry Miller, representative of Non-status Indians of British Columbia; Lea Paul, band secretary; Audrey Joe, student; and Derwin Owen, band councilor.

As well, two outstanding residents of Texada Island my sister and her brother…rather, her husband. Mr. and Mrs. D. Fretts. I'm the brother. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You're the Hon. Member for Mackenzie, too. (Laughter).

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask the House to join me in a great welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, we have a group of students from Eric Hamber high school accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Klassen and Miss Marsh. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to thank somebody for the apple; I don't know if they polished it. (Laughter).

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): It was yesterday that I was speaking, Mr. Speaker.

Among those in the gallery today are some 34 members of the local Council of Women from Nanaimo. They've picked an excellent day — wonderful weather for a drive, and the Minister of Health is speaking this afternoon. I'm sure everyone will welcome the 34 members from Nanaimo.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I would like to welcome three members from the food industry from the Okanagan sitting up in the Speaker's gallery. And I think all the Members had a chance at an apple this morning.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 92 intituled An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 92 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

THE AIR AMBULANCE AID ACT

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 93 intituled The Air Ambulance Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 93 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am debating the motion whether or not you should leave the chair. I feel you should stay right where you are for the moment, Mr. Speaker, and I will attempt to keep you there for a little while.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are discussing of course is the whole question of this budget. And we've heard some flip and frivolous remarks from across the floor: names for the budget — I think that's one of the common practices.

I think that nothing can dissuade me and, I'm sure, my colleagues on this side of the House from supporting this budget, Mr. Speaker. This is a budget that has increased the services to people by $191 million in just three departments alone: Health, education and welfare. Mr. Speaker, I think that's indicative of the kind of budget that it is.

Sure, we support the budget. It's creative; it's forward thinking, Mr. Speaker. It puts the priority

[ Page 556 ]

where it belongs. It puts the priority around the needs of British Columbians. And that's why we're elected, Mr. Speaker, to establish those kind of priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we ask educators; ask those people that are recipients of the old age pension, the guaranteed minimum income; ask people that are afflicted with an illness in this province. Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we have a fault, our fault is we are a Government with social conscience and that's the kind of fault I think we should have.

Well, Mr. Speaker, before getting on to some of the areas in my particular purview, I'd like to discuss this whole question of the environment for a minute or two.

I think that our government is genuinely concerned over the environment. It is concerned. The decision to implement secondary treatment of sewage at Annacis Island promises an era in which British Columbians will begin to respect the magnificent natural condition of our province.

In the future the Department of Health will be working closely and co-operating to the fullest extent with those involved in the environment, Mr. Speaker. Health will have an influence on the formulation of policy, especially that policy relating to sewage and water quality control.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the legislation setting up the Pollution Control Board was the failure to recognize Health's role in this particular area. I have many examples of problems that arise and that have arisen from that failure. It's not going to serve our purpose particularly, I feel, to go over old letters, old files, which merely indicate a lack of communication because of the shortcomings of that particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, another major shortcoming with respect to the legislation is that it set a civil servant in essentially a political position. That made it impossible for other departments to work properly with the board, and what's worse, impossible for B.C. citizens to employ normal political processes to effect pollution control policy in B.C. The overcoming of these great shortcomings in this vitally important area, Mr. Speaker, will be seen in the future as one of the most important accomplishments of this Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another area that I think we should cover today is this whole question of pathology and radiology laboratories. I must report to this House that the situation in British Columbia with respect to pathology and radiology labs is quite unsatisfactory as far as I am concerned at the moment. Frequently the same professional personnel operate public and private labs and this gives rise to the situation in which doing an excellent job in the public service may detract from the same person's private interests. It also greatly complicates the planning of public facilities. I often encounter pressure to extend certain services in certain areas of the province, but find that difficult to do economically because of the presence of private facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I have been east three times recently for the Government and on one of those visits I encountered and visited with Dr. Potter, the Minister of Health for Ontario. He told me of his grave concern about the presence in Ontario of some 800 private labs, Mr. Speaker, and he also dealt with the immense difficulty that situation has developed in that province. Now, Dr. Potter warned against allowing similar situations to develop in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am taking that warning seriously.

Here's just an indication of our lab situation in B.C. It is estimated that we spend — and this is within just a few dollars — we spend, out of our total health care dollar, $43 million in the Province of British Columbia on laboratory procedures. I can just go down them very quickly for you, Mr. Speaker. The basic costs for labs under hospital insurance is $24,488,719. Indirect costs are roughly 15 per cent, so that adds $4 million. That creates a figure of $28.5 million, roughly. That was in 1971. To the hospital insurance figure, we add the payments made under the medical plan, the overall medical plan, for lab and radiology procedures of another $14,455,000. We come up with a grand sum of $43 million. Mr. Speaker, that is an immense portion — that's a large portion of our health costs in B.C. and I think it has to be looked at very carefully.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Is that just lab and X-ray?

HON. MR. COCKE: Lab and X-ray. Pathological laboratories and X-rays.

Mr. Speaker, this is the set-up in the province as far as labs are concerned. In the Vancouver area the pathology work is 86 per cent in the hands of private facilities and 13.4 per cent in the hands of public facilities. In the Victoria area it is 57 per cent in the private and 42.7 per cent in the public. In the other areas of the province it is 57 per cent to 42 per cent. Roughly the same as the Victoria area.

Radiology in Vancouver is 85.6 per cent private to 14.4 per cent public. In the Victoria area it is 65.4 per cent and 34.6 per cent public. In other areas in the province it is 48.8 per cent and 51.2 per cent public. That is radiology.

Then we have other electro diagnosis which is 72.1 per cent in Vancouver and public facilities, 27.9 per cent. In Victoria it is 76.2 per cent private and 23.8 per cent public. In the other areas of the province, however, for those procedures it is 100 per cent public.

So we are heeding the advice of other Ministers across the country with respect to this whole question. We are going to look at it very diligently. I do

[ Page 557 ]

not know the answer to the problem as yet, but I do know that it will involve a great deal more participation of the public sector in the provision of lab services. That will require extending and up-grading present public facilities, and probably will also involve some purchase of some private facilities — if, in fact, those facilities are available.

While these policies are being worked out and implemented with full consultation, Mr. Speaker — and I mark that, full consultation — we will naturally have to look very hard at any proposed expansion of private lab facilities or changes in existing ones, just to ensure that such proposals do not further complicate the task before us.

Now, Mr.  Speaker, there is another area that I think we should deal with and that is the whole question of hospital boards. We are trying our best in this province to decentralize the administration of health services. We don't know yet precisely how that decentralization will take place in all areas, but we do know that hospital boards will play an immensely important role in the whole scheme of things.

Therefore, it is important and more important than ever that hospital boards be representative of the whole community — of the total community. We will therefore be suggesting in our model bylaws for hospital boards that they ensure representation of medical staff — yes, medical staff and paramedical staff, nurses and non-professional staff.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: But most important we are proposing that the majority of board members represent the patient, Mr. Speaker. We believe that to do that there should be wage-earners on the board as well as professional and business people. There should be women as well as men, and there should be Indians as well as white people and all the other varieties.

Mr. Speaker, there will be some adverse comment on our recommendation to ensure participation of non-professional staff on hospital boards. We know that there will be some adverse comment. And in anticipation of that comment let me say two other things. In my work as a pension consultant I have worked with labour, management, and all sections of society, but particularly labour and management, in the design and administration of pension plans. Contrary to some views, Mr. Speaker, I found labour representatives to be both responsible and able, and that is one reason why we are making the recommendation.

There is a more important reason, Mr. Speaker. It is neither intelligent nor responsible to talk to labour only about wages and then complain that labour only talks about wages. They have to be brought into the whole scheme of things. So let's underline that. Let's not expect them to talk of anything but wages if, in fact, that is all we ever talk to them about.

It is neither intelligent nor responsible to suggest that whole segments of our society be systematically excluded from all the decision-making processes of the system, and then complain that these segments of society are not responsible to that system.

Hospital boards of course are a very small, although important, element in the system. The decision to make this recommendation will not play an important role in the unfolding of the argument about the right to full participation. I refer to it here because I believe it is symbolic of the kind of approach we have to use in many of the areas with this Government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas. We have been seeing a number of articles of recent days. I see one today in the Vancouver Province, "Top medical men leaving, doctor claims." There was one in another newspaper — a New Westminster newspaper, I believe. T he reporter is sitting up there so I will mention the name — the Columbian.

Mr. Speaker, there are some rumours afoot. I would like to say that the people of this province who are in the business of providing health care services have a right to expect a clearly defined statement from me relating to their role as I see it in anticipated changes and new concepts in the delivery of health care.

I am referring at this point of course to doctors, to nurses and other paramedical people who may see their roles changing with the appearance of community health centres and other alternatives in the whole scheme of the delivery of health care. So I owe them as well as the people of this province, the consumers of health care, an explanation of how I see our delivery system changing.

Doctors, nurses, paramedics and the public have been and are being invited, through Dr. Faulkes' health security programme, to make known their needs and their wishes and their desires and concerns, so that we can collectively come up with the best possible structure to look after the health and welfare of us all.

There appears to be concern in some circles that changes in the structure will threaten the independence and security of some people involved. I refer now to doctors — and specifically to an article that was in the Columbian on February 16 and an article today in the Vancouver Province.

The one in the Columbian was dramatically titled, "B.C. losing top medics, local physician warns." This one is, "Top medical men leaving, doctor claims." Notice that it is the same doctor that is quoted, by the way, in both. That is an incidental remark, Mr. Speaker. Mind you, there are more than one who have that opinion.

It would appear to me that some doctors — and I believe very few really — are taking the same kind of

[ Page 558 ]

worry pills. Do you remember the ones that they manufactured in Saskatchewan in the last decade? That's the 1962 worry pill, Mr. Minister. Remember the spectre? The spectre was Medicare at that time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a new spectre that seems to be appearing and this is the spectre. I'll just quote you a couple of lines from this newspaper report: "Six to eight highly qualified people have already left this area" this doctor told the Columbian. "Considerably more than 20 others are licensed and practise in the U.S. and many are quietly slipping across the line to pick up U.S. licences…" and on and on.

"I was particularly upset with the loss of one particular brain surgeon." They name the brain surgeon who left. Oh, he left — people do leave. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, however, to those people that while they might have been involved in concerns over Medicare, I haven't heard any of them recently get up and, say that it was no good. Medicare is here to stay. It was without a doubt the most difficult birth of any piece of legislation in Canada virtually. Many of our colleagues in Saskatchewan still bear those battle scars and birth marks. But they're not opposed to Medicare now.

So I challenge any doctor or any person in this House to get up and ask that Medicare be scrapped. The protest is a result of the fear of the unknown. Let's not let that happen again. Let's communicate and understand one another, Mr. Speaker.

I'm reminded of a story. One of my campaign workers worked a little bit long and too hard in the election. Finally, the day after the election day, she went to the doctor with a sore throat.

He said, "Why did you neglect your sore throat like this?"

By way of explanation she said, "Well, I was working in an election campaign." She told him who she was working for and he really admonished her again.

He said, "Now look, you know the ramifications of that victory. That means that you're going to have to line up in doctors' offices and wait for three hours for an appointment."

She said, "Well, doctor, you know I had to wait two-and-a-half hours today, so it wouldn't be very much of a change."

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that we're not bent on any particular course that's going to lead us down the garden path. What we're doing in this province is working for the betterment of the delivery of health care, period. We're asking input from every section of society, as our ads have indicated. Naturally we're looking at community health centres along with a number of other kinds of systems.

I want to suggest right now that if community health centres are adopted — let me tell you this — the people who will work in community health centres — and we're encouraging that kind of experimentation — will be the people who choose to. Nobody's going to be forced into it. People who choose to, that's who.

So, contrary to what some doctors feel, it's a basic fact of life that many of their peers want to work in this type of situation. If they wish to, other people's fears and concepts should not deny them this freedom of choice. If a doctor wants to work in that kind of setting, or if any other person involved in health care wants to work in that kind of setting, or if the people that are deriving the benefits of health care want that kind of delivery system, then it's up to them.

There are hundreds of doctors in this province right now working for salaries. They're in our public health departments. They're at universities. This doesn't threaten the independence of doctors on a fee for service. Not at all. There are hundreds of doctors in the province who work regular hours and are never called out at night or for emergencies. It doesn't make them sluggards, Mr. Speaker.

Many, many doctors are questioning the present use of their skills and the present use of their time that they've spent training. Nine years of their lives have been devoted to advanced schooling and learning skills at a great cost in money and effort to themselves and at a staggering cost to the taxpayer.

O.K., how do we utilize this pool of talent, skill and time? Well, Mr. Speaker, how much of this superbly trained individual's time is taken up with filling out forms, recording case histories, seeing drug salesmen, administering allergy or vaccine shots, removing sutures, dispensing birth control pills, family counseling and many other tasks that do not challenge or require the level of training that the doctor has acquired? Similarly, many of our highly trained and highly qualified nurses spend their time and their careers in administration.

Mr. Speaker, in this age of specialization and technology we have resisted the change to better utilize people's skill, for fear of upsetting the sacred doctor-patient relationship. I submit that this relationship has become somewhat of a myth, Mr. Speaker, and will become more so unless we relieve the unnecessary burden of work from our medical profession. A six to 10 minute visit in a doctor's office does not promote a doctor-patient relationship, nor does a four-hour wait for sutures in an emergency ward while the hospital attempts to locate your own doctor. Practically all operations are now performed by specialists, with whom the patient had no time to build up rapport, or little time. Successes in surgery surely vindicate this transition.

But if the medical profession and the public they serve wish to continue the fee for service, that's their prerogative. Medicare will continue to support that system. This Government does intend, however, to

[ Page 559 ]

make available for those who wish to participate, some alternatives in the delivery of health care. Among these will be the community health centre concept. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that there will be no shortage of staff or patients. We're convinced that the level of care as well as the cost will be improved. That's how we feel at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most natural new services that will be tied to the community is the home care programme as well. This century's involvement toward a nuclear family concept — a lot of people feel that's an old one. But really, this is the first century of the nuclear family. In the past we cared for our older generation along with our children. Now it's just mother, father and the kids. It's a relatively new concept.

Anyway, with this concept, coupled with medicine's advances in the geriatric field — as the Hon Member across the way knows — a whole new subculture has been created. That subculture is the elderly citizens, living alone or with other elderly citizens and dreading the day when they will be forced to submit to extended or chronic care. Mr. Speaker, this Government is proceeding with all possible haste to provide these badly needed facilities.

We will also be embarking on a programme to postpone, for months and perhaps years, the time for elderly people to move into these institutional settings. We feel that that's the direction. There's more than just a suspicion among medical people that many of the illnesses that incapacitate older people are precipitated or at least become more acute because of loneliness and boredom. It's our intention to provide the care that the people need in their homes to make their lives brighter, healthier and more comfortable and to ease the demand for costlier institutional care.

Many of the services required by elderly people can be administered by home care workers with a minimal cost of training. To a senior citizen crippled with arthritis, washing one's hair or sweeping the floor or having a bath or getting a meal and disposing of the garbage is a chore of sufficient magnitude to force them to consider a rest home. That's the problem. Loss of one's independence is a tougher malady to fight than pneumonia.

Mr. Speaker, acute care hospitals are in similar situations. They find that their patient stays are frequently extended because of lack of facilities in the home during the recuperation period. So part and parcel of the home care programme would be to encourage and co-ordinate the many volunteer workers presently in the community. There are many successful voluntary organizations, such as Meals on Wheels, Canadian Mental Health, CNIB, Alcoholics Anonymous — you name them. There are many that are quite successful and many others that have shown us the way.

We feel that the Government has an obligation to provide the financing, standards and supervision, as I've said before in this House. But the community must be given the opportunity to assess and fill their own needs. We must never lose sight of the value of the volunteer workers but neither must we expect the volunteer workers to shoulder the responsibility alone.

Mr. Speaker, we plan a wide-ranging programme over the next few years on home care. We don't mean a limiting kind of home care programme that is just homemaker or just one particular section. We feel that home care has to be expanded so that it takes in all sorts of levels of care in the home — nursing care and others. Therefore, when I'm talking about home care, I'm talking about the whole programme of home care. Let's review the problem just for a second.

We could increase day surgery. We could increase out-patient surgery. This is lowering the costs of health care and it's also providing people with a less alienating experience.

The day surgery and the out-patient surgery are particularly the areas where some home nursing care is needed.

Now, in, acute care, we can reduce the length of stay; in chronic care, up to a point. We can keep people out of the institutions. It's better at home than in the institution, Mr. Speaker. Not only can we save on the cost of care, but we can provide a far more relevant level of care and also the kind of care that people want.

We often think of home care just for the older person Or just for saving some other facility. But just think in terms of the person: how about a young family woman? She's got a young family and she's had to go to the hospital for a rather major operation. If we can have some help for her in that home — a nurse and a homemaker — she can get home to those kids that she wants to be around. She can be brought back to health a lot faster in that environment than she can laying in the hospital worrying about those children.

So as soon as the acute phase of illness is over, we feel if we can provide the care: Get them home.

Mr. Speaker, the post-op man — all he would need if has care in the home is maybe a little nursing care. So why shouldn't we provide it to him where he lives as opposed to providing it for him in the hospital where it is costing us anywhere from $50 to $55 a day?

Those two examples are, of course, post-acute.

An old couple living in a home or in an apartment are relatively happy, and the thing that might keep them in that home is maybe a little bit of nursing care. Maybe she needs a little bit of help around the house, or maybe she needs some help with him. Maybe they need some physiotherapy and because of

[ Page 560 ]

the fact that it's not available at their home level, then he or she or maybe both wind up in an institution.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important area; all these examples that I cite are real needs. The real need for service is in the community and I think the community knows about that need and they can best identify it.

So who are we talking about when we're talking about…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Right on. Who are we talking about when we're talking about home-care people? Well, we're talking about nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, dietary people, counselors, homemakers, housekeepers, meals on wheels — this kind of service. Our direction must be to keep people at home as much and as long as possible.

There are so many advantages in keeping families together, couples together. We feel the major advantage is that it is just the downright, humane way to go so that it is the least alienating experience.

There's one group that I want to talk about just for a moment. I want to pay special attention today to the homemaker. Not to say that the others involved in this level of care are not important; they are important, extremely important. But the reason that the homemaker is so important is the fact that the others are well-recognized, well-defined, and can be worked into the system. The homemaker is a little harder to identify. We haven't really created a climate for the homemaker at this point.

The Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement — that mouthful, Mr. Speaker, that you have such a great deal of difficulty with. I'm not going to say it again, either. I hope they change that name. But that department and our Department of Health are working out programmes and strategy right now to develop a large core of homemakers in this province.

Our communities have many, many people — particularly women — and a lot of these women are either unemployed or under-employed, middle-aged women. This programme, in my view, will be able to draw on the maturity and expertise and the availability of many of these women.

Many of them have heretofore found that their age had relegated them to the economic scrap heap. Now it's a different situation, providing they want to go this way. I don't think there is anybody better trained as a home care worker than a middle-aged woman with years of experience in caring for people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the direction.

I don't feel that it will require an extensive training course, Mr. Speaker, Some training, of course. But most of the training they get will be on the job. We need some supervision, but that basically is it. We'll be watching; we'll be setting standards.

The government is most interested in this programme. We need the service of those women, Mr. Speaker, and they need the work. This is a work-intensive programme and we're proud to be associated with it. We'll provide a needed service and they will have a fulfilling, meaningful occupation.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 30-odd groups in the province right now that have been doing home care work, and doing an effective job as much as they could, let's say, because they really haven't had the kind of co-operation that they need. We are going to help co-ordinate the service. We're not going to drive people out of the service; what we're going to try to do is help and expand it and make it more successful.

One early suggestion that I make for the whole homemaker corps in the province, regardless of where they are in what city or what town or what village: I think they should be provided with a uniform, a really smart uniform. I think it's the kind of programme that really develops some pride, and I think they should be proud of themselves. I think that they should be displayed to the public in uniform, a smart uniform with a hat and a little badge if they want.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Badge of honour.

HON. MR. COCKE: A badge of honour on the uniform.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: We want them recognized, particularly in view of the importance of their job. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that will be one of my very first suggestions. As a matter of fact, I'm making it now publicly.

There are lots of good examples of uniforms, let's not kid about it. Who kicks about the airline stewardess' uniform, all of you fliers? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what he said!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, now we've got a nicely uniformed person employed in a highly useful occupation — and we can't forget that word "employed." That's where it's at. This will be a really labour intensive kind of service, and we're hoping that people will really co-operate and try to provide the level of care that is inadequately supplied now.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope we keep a number off

[ Page 561 ]

welfare. That will please my colleague to the left no end, won't it, colleague? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Our direction is clear, Mr. Speaker. It's going to be home care, and that's the way we are going. We're going to expand it as quickly as possible.

One thing in passing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention. Another way to keep people out of chronic hospitals we've found lately is to provide, where possible, oxygen. For a lot of people, the difference between having to be admitted to a chronic care or an extended care facility is just to provide the oxygen that they require from time to time. They don't necessarily need it all the time, but they need it from time to time.

So we're expanding this particular area. I'm not quite sure how quickly we can go, but we certainly are providing it where we see a real need and where there's a way for us to do it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, many of the Members in this House are getting telephone calls, letters and all sorts of things from small restaurant owners, campsite owners and so on — people who are involved in providing food.

As you know, I think it was November, 1971, there were three orders-in-council that were quite restrictive in that they set up some very rigid rules. We've decided as a cabinet to relax some of these rules to this extent: we're allowing under our new orders-in-council, in these three areas, the medical officer in the area to have some sort of flexibility so that he can hand out interim certificates.

This is what that interim certificate will look like. It gives the new order-in-council and the old one, and so on.

Now I'm not suggesting for one second…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: The crack-down started in the last few months because your order-in-council had one year to go before it was implemented. Of course that came in while I was Minister, so we've just relaxed it, that's all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: A little cookie from Alberta? I'm not sure of the significance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Okay.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we don't want any kind of regulations to discriminate against the small operators, and that's what was happening. The big operators had no trouble. They've got all the facilities and the money to buy facilities. It was the small operators.

Therefore, we're looking at it very carefully. I insist, however, that we're going to watch the sanitary conditions. We're going to be going on with inspections. If the inspections indicate that the sanitary conditions are not being lived up to, it won't take us very long to move in. There's no question about that.

We're not going to be rough. All we're saying to people is, "If you've got a valid argument you're going to be heard." That's where this interim permit will work out.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people around are interested in a court case that we had recently. It was the Attorney General…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: It was the other fellow, I guess, that started it. It was the Attorney General versus Stark — and the Attorney General lost that court case.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You can't win 'em all. (Laughter).

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Justice Verchere was the Supreme Court justice, and he found that the osteopath, Dr. Stark, qualified for equal treatment under Medicare — equal, that is to medical doctors. Therefore, he found that our regulation 409 (a) (6) is ultra vires. So this is the judge's findings, his reasons — and also a note from the Attorney General of this province indicating what course I should take. So this is the course we are going to take.

Basically, the reason he gave was that osteopaths are licensed under the Medical Act in B.C. We're going to have a problem with Ottawa, because Ottawa says that osteopaths are not eligible for sharing, Mr. Attorney General. I hope that you can work us out of that one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll phone David Lewis.

(Laughter)

HON. MR. COCKE: In most other provinces, Mr. Speaker, osteopaths are licensed under a different Act altogether. But in this province they are licensed under the Medical Act and so therefore we're different in that way.

In consultation with learned counsel we've decided not to appeal the case. Therefore, Mr. Justice Verchere's findings are final as far as we're concerned. We're going to send them to Ottawa and hopefully they'll take a second look at this whole situation, Mr. Speaker. So osteopaths will be in the future treated in

[ Page 562 ]

this province under Medicare exactly the same as doctors.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What about chiropractors?

HON. MR. COCKE: That's a little different story. That's quite different. We're not even suggesting that acupuncturists be under Medicare at this point. But these things are all being discussed.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Hon. Mr. Stupich). He suggested that he was going to go on working toward fluoridation of the water in his area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, Prince George and Kelowna fluoridate at the present time, and they've had a marked reduction in tooth decay — a marked reduction. There's nothing stopping any district in B.C. from going that way if they wish.

Presently in North America 100 million North Americans are drinking fluoridated water. It seems that in the past there's been a great antipathy, however, for fluoridation in B.C. Therefore, a suggestion I made recently to the dentists was for an optional method of fluoridation. That would be to fluoridate milk — for those who wish to buy the marked fluoridated milk, they can buy it.

Now I have heard, on a number of occasions, that that is not an effective way to get fluoride into the system. But I've seen two studies recently that indicate the reverse is true; that's it's quite effective…

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's too expensive.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's expensive. Oh, yes.

Those who wish fluoride, however, could buy especially marked milk. For the adults we might have an alternative route, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, these studies do indicate that it is quite effective, and I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that it is relatively expensive. But those people that wish it can certainly have it. For those unable to drink fluoridated water, the dairies could very well provide the alternative. I'd like to see some discussions with them until such time as something else happens in this province.

Anybody that wishes the results of these rather recent surveys…one was done in Switzerland and one was done in the United States, neither of them dramatically large. The American one indicates 80 per cent reduction in caries.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'll tell you what to do. You can come over here and make policy when you're over here elected.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what we are doing — dramatically increasing our preventive dental programme. If you notice in your estimates this year, we've added 25 staff just in that particular area alone. That's not to say that we're going to stop there. We feel that this is an area of public health that needs some very quick attention.

Presently the health security programme is also looking at this particular area. They've had a number of reports. They've met with a number of dentists. We've also been promised, from the dentists' official organization, the report of their studies that are going on at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, our direction here is, again, prevention. One thing I'd like to say about prevention at this point is to congratulate the dental college for their very effective campaign, I think. They've even got me using dental floss regularly and brushing the right way after a number of years of doing it quite incorrectly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go on for a moment or two with the question of health education. We're very conscious of the fact that probably the best asset we can have as far as our department is concerned is a population that's well informed about their health. We'll therefore be adopting various measures of health education.

I remember during my speech on the throne debate I mentioned fitness. One of the areas I think that we should discuss now is this whole question of nutrition. We're active in this area — not as active as I'd like to see us, but we're going to expand. We're certainly going to get the information out as best we can.

We want to provide consumers with assistance in judging food costs and values. We've had slide shows and TV programmes and consumer cards and forums put on by our nutrition people. We'll be continuing to expand these programmes, especially as they relate to nutritionally vulnerable groups — pregnant women, infants and children, and the aged, Mr. Speaker.

The programme for the aged we put on recently was entitled "The Senior Chef," and it was shown on the Victoria TV. I think probably some of you might have seen it. That show cost us about $200 a show and it was put on eight times — so $1,600. And we got 1,515 requests for brochures as a result of that show. We're moving it all over the province, Mr. Speaker. We feel that it's very important.

We've done little bit of costing. We feel that that $1,600 we spent probably saved in the order of $75,000 to those people who took notice. That is, I think, very important.

We are considering something quite similar on pre-natal nutrition, perhaps with the National Film Board, if we can get their co-operation. This would be partly to counteract a number of myths right now that are held by old theories that have sort of carried on through the generations. These theories should at least be shown to be false. Many of them are dangerous. Some of the theories that pregnant women are faced with are dangerous to herself and

[ Page 563 ]

dangerous to the fetus. So we're trying to expand this information that should be readily available to every person in B.C.

We are also considering special programmes in infant feeding and adolescent diets. Adolescents and hamburgers are sometimes a worry more than just to the health department. Fish and chips — no, just the chips — chips and gravy.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be aiming at people who are troubled with obesity and diet problems and also any other area in which we feel there is a specific need right now. And in general information to the general public.

The same staff may be looking into qualifications of people giving diet counseling. Remember our public health nurses are around, and we've had some in-staff training already in this area. We're also thinking in terms of getting that information out to health spas and reducing salons. Sometimes they could use a little bit more knowledge than what they have to date.

I should add that we've discovered that food costs for a family of four in this area have increased over 30 per cent from 1967 to 1972. Yes, 30 per cent. For a Victoria family with two teenagers that has meant an additional $35 a month. And that has to be a concern as well. What we want to make very clear is that people have to look at the cost — costs are so relevant that they have to be very careful not to neglect their diet.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member of Omineca (Mr. Kelly), across the way yesterday complaining about doctors in isolated areas. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly share that concern over these isolated areas. As you know in the past few months we've been working very closely with our Medical Man Power Committee and they're looking at the whole province. Vancouver General Hospital has done a recent study on delivery of medical care in isolated areas. To date we've got one doctor into the Chilcotin area, which I'm very pleased about. That's almost midway between Williams Lake and Bella Coola — in that area that was very much neglected. I want to see the same kind of thing happen up in your area, Mr. Member.

We've had all sorts of suggestions you know — double the fees, and have a fee-and-a-half, and all sorts of suggestions. I'm suggesting that we're prepared to go for a salary in a situation like that. Because even if you multiplied the fees by four, sometimes it wouldn't be enough. And it's a crazy way to do it in my view. So we are suggesting that that's a course, and we're prepared to discuss it with any area.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude this brief presentation — I expected to be much, much longer. But I know you're looking tired now and you know I'm so grateful that you've given me this time, I don't want to over do it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, I'm really excited about the prospects for health care in this province. I'm really excited. And the reason that I'm so excited is because the co-operation level couldn't be higher, it couldn't be better. We are getting co-operation from every level of health care worker in this province. From the doctors to the nurses, board people, to every person involved in the delivery of health care. And since that's the way it seems at the present time I'm going to do everything I can to keep this level of co-operation up. I thank you for the time. Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members, I'm always happy to take my place in this House as the Member for Cariboo. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) for his remarks. And thank him on behalf of the people of Chilcotin to see that a general practitioner has been located in that large remote area, and remind him that it is in the riding of Cariboo. Thank you very much Mr. Minister.

I have some comments, Mr. Speaker, to make on the federal budget and how it affects the citizens of British Columbia. I would say that the federal budget that was delivered last evening in Ottawa by the Minister of Finance could be called an expansionary budget. This no doubt is because they want to expand the job opportunities and help the growth of the great nation of Canada.

It also appears that the federal New Democratic Party is going to support this expansion budget of the federal government of Canada. And this certainly is a great contrast to the budget that is before us today by the provincial New Democratic Party which is a policy of no growth, and turn the lights out.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget handed down yesterday provides for an increase of $17.12 in the basic old age pension. Previously there had been a scheduled increase of $3.73 as of April 1, 1973. It is now quite clear that the provincial Mincome plan, resting as it does on the level of income available to pensioners from the Old Age Security Act of Canada and in payments under the social assistance portion of the Canada Assistance Plan is the baseline from which the provincial government has calculated the portion it must pay to achieve a $200 guaranteed income for those over 65 years old.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government of British Columbia has an ethical and moral commitment to now use the new baseline federal figures for the calculation of income to pensioners. But the Mincome Plan in fairness now to the 100,000 — I believe the 110,000 was reported as

[ Page 564 ]

calculated by the province — should be amended forthwith to raise the minimum available to pensioners under this plan to $217.12, and preferably to $225.

Mr. Speaker, any other course would be unfair to those thousands of British Columbia taxpayers who, as a result of previous provincial action, in fact will receive nothing from the federal budget. The only gainer will be the Minister of Finance of the Province of British Columbia, and it is unthinkable that he should bring this windfall into the picture as an offset against the cost to the province of the Mincome Plan.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Some gainer.

MR. FRASER: In many previous statements to this House, the present Minister of Finance is on record that the Canada Assistance Act permits full share authority between the federal government and the provinces. And in fact he came back from Ottawa and reported by implication that he had had adjustments to accommodate the Mincome Plan of British Columbia which were not available to other Canadian provinces.

The Prime Minister on the other hand — that is the Prime Minister of Canada — indicated very clearly that what was available to British Columbia was exactly the same formula arrangement as that which applied to the other provinces. This, Mr. Speaker, makes the case all the more compelling for the $17.12 to be calculated as a part of a new base upon which both the present commitment of the province, and the present commitment of the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan should rest.

We, in the official Opposition call now for the provincial government to immediately act to amend both the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act and the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act passed in October last in this Legislature. To do otherwise in view of previous debates in this House would simply be an exercise in flim-flaming the old age pensioners of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Cariboo, there are many large cattle ranches. And all these ranches of necessity must have a brand so their livestock can be properly identified by their brand. In other words they're referred to — I think I heard one of the rural Members yesterday refer to a farm in the Okanagan as the AL Ranch.

Mr. Speaker, I've taken the liberty to apply a brand to this budget — this provincial budget and I have branded it "The three B budget" — which stands for "Barrett's Busted Bubble."

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of uncertainties connected with any study of the 1973 budget. First of course is the deliberate way in which the Minister of Finance offers uncertainty about the budget by announcing yet unavailable new directions in getting more money from our natural resources.

Historically, Ministers of Finance have had the position in our society of keeping their fiscal thought on taxation to themselves before announcements of any kind — which can in a very real sense have the effect of breaking or making an individual. Indeed, the British parliamentary system is full of recorded occasions when inadvertently or otherwise, Ministers of Finance have made off-the-cuff remarks which ultimately led to their resignations because of the impact their remarks had on the community.

I think the people of British Columbia have cause for concern, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) clearly does not understand his role.

Secondly, during the budget debate we have also been favoured with remarks from the Government benches which indicate that they really don't know where they are going. Until they find out, sufficient it will be to blame the previous 20 years of administration. This position on the part of the Government is now wearing very thin in communities throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

Thirdly, we have a parade of proposals on the part of the Government backbenchers which, if adopted as official Government policy, would be clear indication that the New Democratic Party, which is elected under the deliberate camouflage of a "nice Nellie" kind of socialism, is really a party which favours complete and total domination of the economy by the state.

The examples from Hansard are quite revealing:

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) wants the Government to go into the hotel business.

The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) wants the Government to build a 500-mile tunnel from Terrace to Vancouver which will make the 100 year dream to bridge the English Channel look like the ideas that one might expect to come from that side of the House. (Laughter).

The Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) wants to take over the real estate business in British Columbia.

The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) wants to take over the natural gas industry.

The Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wants to nationalize the fishing industry of British Columbia.

The Member for Richmond and others want to take over and dominate television stations.

The shopping list grows, Mr. Speaker, and one can only look at this budget in terms of what the implications of all these socialist ideas mean to the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Body shops are next.

MR. FRASER: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one

[ Page 565 ]

of the things which they cannot say about the financial position of British Columbia is that they found it in a mess. For years they talked about the several sets of books in British Columbia. Now they must honestly and openly confess to the people of this province that there were not two sets of books but only one. The record shows now that what they said for so many years for political advantage was completely incorrect.

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame!

MR. FRASER: In this budget we have the sad situation where the Minister of Finance has actually admitted that he does not need more money to run British Columbia but is taking it anyway because of a political philosophy.

Assessments are to rise for all commercial and industrial properties, be they business large or small. Corporation tax is to be increased by 20 per cent be the business large or small. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that all these tax increases will affect the so-called ordinary man.

This budget gives very little relief to the hard-pressed municipalities of this province, Mr. Speaker. The per capita grant being increased from $30 to $32 is not enough to even keep up with inflation, let alone provide them with much needed financial relief.

Due to the lack of an adequate per capita grant increase to the municipalities by this Government you will see municipal taxes in this province take one of the largest jumps that has been taken in many years. This certainly will hit all the ordinary citizens quite severely right in the pocketbook.

During the last six years the average increase of the per capita grants to municipalities has been 29 per cent. The increase in the per capita grant for this year as compared to last year is 10 per cent. Strictly peanuts, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) stated in this House the other day that there had been no increase in the per capita grants for some time. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this House that there have been constant increases paid by the province every year for the past six years.

In 1966 the amount paid by the province in per capita grants was $13 million. In 1967 — $23,950,000; 1968 — $27 million; 1969 — $38,700,000; 1970 — $43,700,000; 1971 — $46,700,000. In 1972 it was $53,100,000 and in 1973 it will be $58,500,000. Well, I am not happy with the amount of financial help given the hard-pressed municipalities by the provincial government. I do not buy the cries from some of the mayors and aldermen in British Columbia that grants to them are not keeping up with increased financial provincial revenues.

Let us take a look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. The provincial government revenues for the six year period from 1966 to 1972 increased 120 per cent, from $659 million odd in 1966 to $145 billion in 1972. In this same six year period the per capita grant payments increased 302 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The amount of the per capita grants paid in 1966 by the provincial government was $13 million. In 1972 it was $53 million.

The NDP Party during the 1972 election campaign had, as one of their many promises, a plank in their platform called "a new deal for the cities." This is what it said, Mr. Speaker: "Services to the people will be financed by sharing the province's resource revenue and general revenues with municipalities and regional districts."

In this first NDP budget, Mr. Speaker, let's see how they honoured this sharing that they promised. Last year the per capita grants paid by the provincial government to the municipalities represented 3.6 per cent of the total provincial revenues. This year, Mr. Speaker, it represents 3.3 per cent of the provincial revenues. Some sharing, Mr. Speaker. Some sharing.

The sharing promised in their party's platform is just a myth. Not only has the percentage share been reduced to all the municipalities, but this Government will be responsible for a heavy increase in taxation for all our citizens because of the inadequacy of this budget.

While on the subject of the financial plight of our municipalities, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this House of the heavy burden placed on them in the sharing of the welfare costs. The present formula is 50 per cent of the net cost paid by the Government of Canada, 35 per cent by the Province of British Columbia and 15 per cent by the local municipalities. I was very surprised to find no relief in sight for changing this formula in this present budget.

As a matter of fact, in this budget the municipalities had better get the message that their costs are going to be increased, because the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is budgeting for $20 million more, gross, in welfare costs for this year. So the socialists over there no doubt anticipate an increase in welfare payments, which means a further increase in unemployment and so on and so forth.

Because the NDP Government cannot reduce unemployment or come up with any creative job plans, I cannot understand why the municipalities have to be victims of your mismanagement of the provincial economy. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the position this Government is putting our municipalities in. If you cannot or will not do anything about the highest unemployment we have had in years, they are certainly innocent victims of your lack of job creating programmes.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I want to read into the record here today that the Member for North

[ Page 566 ]

Peace River (Mr. Smith) was ruled out of order yesterday about bringing up a subject of prime public importance to this House. In today's Province there is an article here quoting the Mayor of Fort St. John saying that 250 men have lost their jobs in that community. They were following the petroleum industry there. I think that this is shocking. I understand that some promise has been made, but in the meantime these people are losing their jobs. Already the Peace River area has been hard hit by a bad fall last year for the farming community. Now probably their last employment has been killed by suggestions made in this budget to increase revenue from the petroleum industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disastrous.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stop the bill.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tear it up.

MR. FRASER: As far as getting the net costs to municipalities down from 15 to 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, I referred in this House last year to it, and made a plea to the then Minister to have it reduced from 15 to 10 per cent. That Minister paid no attention to it. He didn't go to the Minister of Finance and ask for the funds to effect this reduction and I am happy to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister is not in this House anymore and I don't regret that one little bit. However, my impression about the new Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Mr. Levi) is that he is no more competent than the last Minister.

The new Minister seems to be able to find a lot of ways to spend the public's money, which is the taxpayers' money, but I really do not feel he understands what a burden this 15 per cent share of social assistance cost is to the municipalities. I now request that he immediately make representation to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for the funds required to reduce the municipalities' share of welfare costs from 15 to 10 per cent. If he does not see his way clear to make this request, I'll guarantee him the same fate that the last Minister experienced. All citizens of British Columbia were surprised when the Hon. Premier made the decision to retain the portfolio of Minister of Finance. He has always said in Opposition that if the NDP ever became Government, this would not happen. However, he has made this decision and I know it will give him much more responsibility and hard work. I want to recommend to him how the portfolio of finance can be reduced to reduce the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and, most important, to give better service to our citizens.

I never could and still can't understand why the Public Utilities Commission comes under the portfolio of the Minister of Finance. I have always felt that this administrative body did not properly belong with the Minister of Finance. In my opinion, the Public Utilities Commission properly belongs with the Commercial Transport portfolio. The Commercial Transport department is basically the police department for the Department of Highways. Their main function is to enforce the highway regulations.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Commission, through its motor carrier division, also enforces regulations on public motor carriers. This causes much confusion for the public carriers because they have to deal with so many government departments for their licensing. I'm sure if the Public Utilities Commission came under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Transport portfolio, it would give better service to the industry as well as reduce the heavy responsibilities of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier has announced that he will be making changes in his cabinet shortly. I would request him, through you, that he consider this transfer of responsibility. The public carriers of this province would be delighted if this were to happen. They have already submitted briefs to you, to the Government, recommending this transfer of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, while dealing with the budget I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance — I'm sorry he's not here, I hope he's outside the House announcing that the Mincome has gone to $217.

MR. CHABOT: And 22 cents. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, while dealing with the budget, I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance about the operation of the many government agencies in this province. The provincial government operates many government agencies in this province to provide service to our citizens who do business with the government. The hours of these offices are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but they are all closed from 12 noon to 1:10 p.m.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You know who did that.

MR. FRASER: Yes, and I've requested it before. I consider this most inconvenient to our citizens who are steadily employed. The only opportunity they have to transact their business with the government is during the lunch hour, and the government offices are closed.

Mr. Speaker, as an example, right at this present time all citizens are buying their new licence plates. When you are working steadily it is very difficult to be able to get to a government office unless you take time off work to do this, which is costly. Of course, if you don't get your licence plates, Mr. Speaker, the

[ Page 567 ]

Attorney General will sure get you on the morning of March 1 in his department.

All businesses as well as municipal offices in this province are open between 12 noon and 1:10 each day. Why not the provincial government offices? By ordering these offices to stay open during the noon hour, it would not cost the provincial treasury one red cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the liquor stores? They're open.

MR. FRASER: All that has to be done is to stagger the staff for a two-hour period of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stagger the staff at the liquor store. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: And I didn't say "stagger the staff of the liquor store," Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I have made this request before in this House. I was told that it was too much of an inconvenience to the staff to have their lunch hours spread over two hours instead of one. I cannot buy this and I will not accept it. How about the inconvenience to the general public, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that this should be the determining factor. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, whom these offices come under, to immediately direct these offices to remain open during the noon hour, so that the government can give better service to its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Cariboo has more miles of public roads than any other riding in British Columbia. It has 3,800 miles of public roads of all classes and conditions. The second largest road mileage in British Columbia has 1,900 miles. The average mileage per riding is less than 1,000 miles. Consequently, roads are of paramount importance to the Cariboo citizens. Much good work has been done in the past in the Cariboo but a lot remains to be done. I was very concerned when the government changed…(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: So were all the rest of us.

MR. FRASER: Right…when the government changed, but I was happy that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), whom I am happy to see is in his seat, was appointed Minister of Highways. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It won't do you any good. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: You be quiet. I'm coming here now. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has a summer home at Ruth Lake in my riding of Cariboo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. FRASER: Because of this, he is well aware of the condition of the roads in my riding and has been for, I believe, 10 or 12 years. I will say to the Hon. Minister of Highways that I will not recommend paving of the road to Ruth Lake but I will recommend that it be graded a little more frequently than in the past so he can get there a little faster.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: I want to congratulate the Minister of Highways on increasing the funds for the Department of Highways for the purchase of new equipment. This should have been done years ago but was not done. This allocation of funds has been increased from $3.5 million to $4.5 million for this coming year.

I feel we have an excellent Department of Highways but they have not been provided with adequate funds to carry out their many maintenance jobs properly. They are using graders, loaders, trucks, et cetera, Mr. Speaker, that are so old they belong in the Provincial Government Museum and not doing maintenance work on the provincial roads.

By increasing funds for new equipment, the Department of Highways will become more efficient and hopefully less costly.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on the subject of the purchase of new equipment, I feel that the government has not always received the best deals they should have in the purchase of new equipment. All equipment is purchased by the tender system, except for a few buses once in a while (laughter), and the low bidder is usually the successful tenderer. But is the low bidder always the most economic? I suggest not always.

I cannot understand why the forestry department of the provincial government seemed to get better quality equipment than the Department of Highways. This appears to me to be what has taken place. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is any wrongdoing going on in the purchase of new equipment. I am saying that different policies seem to exist for different departments. I would like the Minister of Highways to check and find out why the forestry department appears to be able to buy better quality equipment than his Department of Highways. I feel that the Department of Highways needs quality equipment to do their many maintenance jobs, even more so than the forestry department.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of my riding of Cariboo for a number of years have been very concerned about the lack of enforcement of our fish and wildlife resources. There just has not been enough enforce —

[ Page 568 ]

ment. Consequently, the frequency of killing our game illegally has increased drastically, causing a decided drop in their population. I might say that I agree with the remarks made yesterday, I think, by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) about tightening up on what species of animals should be shot and when. I completely agree with that as well.

I notice in this budget that the Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation has been given additional funds to provide additional enforcement personnel. The budget provides this branch with 50 additional staff, raising enforcement personnel from 156 to 206 for this coming year. This is an increase of 30 per cent and I want to acknowledge and thank this department for recognizing this long standing need.

In the past, while the enforcement officers of the fish and wildlife branch have done a good job — as good a job as possible — there simply has not been enough of them to cover this large and beautiful province. Our fish and wildlife resources have suffered considerably for this.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to show the good and bad of the budget. But it seems obvious to me that while some small problems have been resolved in this budget, the larger problems it creates to our citizens far outweigh the good parts.

The most serious errors that are in this budget, in my opinion, are the underestimating of revenues by at least $100 million; increasing taxation to all our citizens when the funds are not required by the provincial treasury, and the inadequacy of financial relief for our municipalities. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to vote in favour of the budget. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I get into the main body of my speech, I want to follow my tradition in all throne and budget debates in recent years to spend just about a minute on the Skagit.

The thing that's clear, Mr. Speaker, so far, is that the Minister responsible for this in the Government has not said a single word in this House. I hope that before the budget debate is finished…

MR. CHABOT: He won't.

MR. BROUSSON: …that he will have something to say. I tried to explain two weeks ago the problems that a number of us in British Columbia are facing — the volunteers that have been involved in this battle. We don't really know if we have to prepare to spend the money to make the presentations before the Federal Power Commission this fall, because the provincial government has not really stood up within this chamber and said what they're going to do.

Last week, on Wednesday, February 14, Mr. John Fraser, MP in Vancouver South, spoke in the House of Commons. He was addressing a question to the Hon. Jack Davis. He said, "I asked the Minister whether he or the government is prepared to say to this House, positively and absolutely now, that there is no possibility of this flooding taking place — not just now, but at all."

Mr. Davis' answer was, "I may be sticking my chin out a bit, but I would say there is no possibility of it taking place."

I want to ask again, Mr. Speaker — we don't have the daily oral question period — but I'm hoping that the Minister will be speaking in the House before the budget debate is finished and I hope he will clearly and unequivocally, on the floor of this House, answer a similar question.

It's generally forgotten I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago, when we were discussing the Social Credit budget of that year, there was considerable criticism of it because taxes were raised. In a year when there were major surpluses the Social Credit Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of that day raised taxes on cigarettes, on hotel rooms, on gasoline; and it wasn't necessary then. The final result of that was that the surplus of that year turned out to be considerably more than the amount of tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to have the same situation this year. As we've said so often in the last two weeks, it's the same script; only the players are different.

In the case of the budget, I wonder if maybe the author is the same. Surely it is not right to be raising taxes as we are doing this year, with a large surplus and right in the face of major unemployment in British Columbia.

I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, some ways we could cut taxes — ways to help the private citizen fight the cost of living; ways to stimulate employment in British Columbia without in any way hurting the treasury at this time.

One of the major platforms of the Government during the election — and of my own party — was to remove the school taxes from the land. Now we understand that the Government can't figure out how to do this. The cabinet is divided on how to do it. So they're going to put it off.

Well, I think the Conservative House Leader said he was prepared to wait a little longer. But at least, Mr. Speaker, we could help some and we could do it now, in one particular area. There is one group of citizens that is particularly hard hit by school taxes, and that's the senior citizens, the old-age pensioners — when, for a very small amount of money, their school taxes could be removed this year.

Let me read you just a few comments from a

[ Page 569 ]

member of my own constituency in North Vancouver–Capilano.

"I'm in the group referred to as 'senior citizens.' Worked hard all my life at modest wages. Never drew unemployment insurance; never on welfare, and saved a little. I made a contribution to Canada and, quite frankly, Mr. Brousson, unlike many drawing supplementary pensions who choose neither to work nor to save. My savings are in my modest bungalow in North Van. It's not news to you that we face a 10 to 15 per cent increase in property taxes. Now, at 65, I'm still fit enough to live in my home for a few years until such time as physical deterioration forces me to get out, because my mortgage will never be paid in my lifetime. As a member of Pensioners for Action Now I know many senior people in the same boat as myself. Thank you for the homeowners' grant. But sir, the health of any civilized society is measured by its concern for its aged who built the country."

He finishes up:

"Relief from school taxes is a must. Or does the government want to force us out of our homes?"

Now there's a plea, Mr. Speaker, from the senior citizens who are trying to maintain their own homes as long as they can. I think it's a legitimate, honest and sincere plea. This is one small way we could reduce taxes for that group this year.

Let's look at the 5 per cent taxes for a moment, Mr. Speaker. That's called the S.S.M.A. tax, eh — the Social Security and Municipal Aid tax. It's become quite a dog's breakfast today, if you study the regulations and the Act. It hasn't really been thoroughly reviewed for years. I think the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had a couple of ad hoc changes last year on the spur of the moment on the basis of some ladies he met on the ferry one afternoon. But that's the only kind of review it's had in recent years. It needs a very thorough study.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the 5 per cent tax. I think it's a good kind of a tax. It's visible; it's a progressive tax; it's well-administered. I know something of the way the department does administer it and I am encouraged by the way it's operated.

But it's a very fair tax only under one condition, and that's that it has the right exemptions to it. I want to suggest six ways these exemptions could be brought up to date; could be changed to help the ordinary citizens of British Columbia and several special groups that we are trying to help in other ways. But we are still hurting them with an outdated 5 per cent tax system.

Now, we already exempt foods. But there's nothing in the Act which says all the materials required for food production and, of course, for bona fide farmers, are to be exempt. There is a list of things in the section that talks about the various things on the farm that are exempt — farm implements and farm machinery. It expands them for a page. But this list hasn't been changed for years, Mr. Speaker.

For instance, it still says that, "wagon boxes or tanks and vehicles, if horse-drawn, are exempt." Now supposing it's a wagon box or a tank or a vehicle pulled by a tractor? Apparently you pay 5 per cent tax on that one, as this Act reads. There's no provision for that. That's how out of date it is.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't have those long and detailed lists because technology changes from year to year — obviously it changes. New things are thought of that haven't got into the Act yet. There should be a method of making declarations, certificates such as are used in the administration of the federal sales tax, to exempt whole classes — such as classes of products that are purchased for the production of food and for the use of the bona fide farmer.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not only clothing for children should be exempt from the 5 per cent tax. A lot of poor people have to buy clothing who are more than 15 years old. I think all clothing should be exempt from the 5 per cent tax.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we do try to exempt a great many health products — drugs and miscellaneous items. They're all detailed at great length. But there are some specifics, Mr. Speaker — because we go through this listing of item by item by item — there are some specifics, such as supplies used by certain diabetics and a variety of things of that kind, that still pay 5 per cent tax. I suggest that all products required in the care of health should be exempt.

Now we talk about educational supplies being exempt. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, anything used in education should be exempt. For instance, if a mother goes to the store to buy home economics supplies for her daughter for home economics class, she pays 5 per cent tax on it.

On a text book there's no tax. But for the materials and the supplies that she has to use for this training course, that the teachers say that she has to have, she must pay 5 per cent tax. I suggest that all educational supplies that are going to be used in the schools should be exempt. Let's go one step further; we have an exemption for magazines, newspapers, periodicals. So you buy a girlie magazine — I'm sure some of the Members on the other side buy girlie magazines. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: No? Not any more? Oh. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Do you buy girlie magazines Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 570 ]

Anyway, all magazines are exempt, regardless of what's in them. But hard covered books, or soft covered books, culture, good books, bad books, — you must pay the 5 per cent tax.

My point here, Mr. Speaker, is that we shouldn't differentiate between a magazine or a periodical, and a book that's only printed once. Everything in this area of literature, culture, should be exempt from the 5 per cent tax.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Playboy?

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. You always have a good line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're trying to encourage housing, the building of houses. We're trying to reduce the cost of housing by all kinds of complicated plans. We discuss this at great length. It's a very difficult thing to do. But a very large cost in every new home built today is the 5 per cent tax that's collected by the provincial government on all the materials that go into that house.

Now if the provincial Government is sincere about trying to help the homeowner, trying to help the man build his home or his apartment block, why should that not be exempt the 5 per cent tax — providing it's residential.

I'm not suggesting any exemption in construction materials for commercial or industrial building. But for the residential construction, it should be exempt the 5 per cent tax. There is a saving there in the price of the home of great significance — perhaps $500, perhaps more in many cases. That's a substantial decrease in the cost of a home for many people.

Finally, let's look at the municipal area. Remember that this is the S.S. and M.A. Tax, Municipal Aid Tax. The municipalities, when they buy all of their needs in British Columbia, must pay a tax on everything they buy. As an example, the City and District of North Vancouver combined, in 1971, paid approximately $138,000 in 5 per cent provincial taxes. They received from the provincial government in the same year about $2.25 million as a grant.

In other words, in 1971, they gave back to the provincial government in 5 per cent taxes over 6 per cent, almost 6 1/4 per cent, of the grant they received. That seems to me to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It's over 6 per cent, and I'm told that this is fairly typical across the province.

Of course that's directly reflected in the taxes on the homeowner, the property taxes within each municipality. It's a general rule, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government does not pay federal government taxes. The federal government doesn't pay provincial taxes. One level of government doesn't normally pay another level of government's taxes. So, why not exempt the municipalities from giving this money back to the province after they've got it.

We're giving them an increase this year in the budget of $2 per capita. What I'm talking about is approximately $1.25 per capita. It would eliminate a great deal of money being handed back and forth.

None of these items are large in themselves, Mr. Speaker. But taking these six suggestions that I've mentioned, taking these taxes off, would help the home buyer, it would help the sick and it would help the local taxpayer. It fights inflation and it fights the cost of living. It wouldn't cost more than something of the order of $15 million to $20 million for that complete package that I just outlined — far, far less than is being collected by the tax increases going into effect in this budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to another topic. I was very grateful last week that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) reacted to comments I had made previously on the subject of mortgages, and financing. I was disappointed to an extent in his reaction. When the Hon. Attorney General was on this side of the House, he used to come on like a tiger. But the other day, Mr. Speaker, I thought he was like a pussy cat.

He could have served notice on the crooks in this kind of industry to reform or to get out. But he didn't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give them their walking papers.

MR. BROUSSON: Instead, he talked about the ones he cancelled. It turned out afterwards, Mr. Speaker, after we found out who the mortgage broker licenses were that he'd cancelled, Mediscrip and Westex — that one of them had been bankrupt for six months, and the other one had been suspended because it wasn't operating any more. Big deal.

Then he promised to investigate, but he said he was investigating — he was doing a lot of investigating. He just blithely then left the whole subject and he got on to talk about real estate salesmen and all of their problems. He spent equal time on the real estate salesmen as he did on the mortgage brokers. I wonder whom he frightened, Mr. Speaker.

You may remember that two weeks ago I showed you some of the things that happened in the advertising under "Money for Mortgages," and "Mortgages for Sale" and this sort of thing. I read some of the columns from the Vancouver Sun as they were two weeks ago. But I am talking now about Saturday, this past weekend. There were 75 column inches in the Vancouver Sun, just five inches less than two weeks before — before either he or I spoke on the subject.

Most of the same people are still in here. For instance, the one that I read at some length to the House was called Provident Mortgage Corporation Limited. That's the one that is owned by that fellow

[ Page 571 ]

Mike Poppel. I read some of the examples. It's still in here with exactly the same wording, the same misleading kind of advertising to suck people in. It's still in the paper after that fiery speech from the Attorney General.

Mr. Poppel has removed one ad. Maybe that's the five inches less this time. He took out his other company, Trinity Mortgage. It's no longer in here. That's really the only difference. That Provident Mortgage is still 15 1/2 inches.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you investigate the dates of renewal of registration by the registrar of mortgage brokers in the Securities Commission office, some of the people that are clearly the bad boys…and I named some of their names the other day and I'm going to name some more in a couple of minutes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds?

MR. BROUSSON: You can do it in your Act right now. You can suspend them right now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds?

MR. BROUSSON: I'll get to the details, Mr. Speaker. Some of those bad boys had their licences renewed in January and February of this year. They're not frightened yet. They're not stopping. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to be constructive, sincerely…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to know on what grounds you'd prevent them from doing business.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to be constructive, Mr. Speaker. Nothing that I have done politically in the four years that I have been in politics has produced such a direct personal response as that one speech I made on this subject. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I never dreamed that the problem was as widespread, with as many different facets to it, as it turned out.

I'm not normally involved in this sort of area. I say very frankly, since I spoke out I've had a flood of phone calls and letters, and they've come, strangely enough, from as far away as Ontario — people speaking of specific B.C. problems, but writing from Ontario to talk about them.

I want to use a few more examples to try to demonstrate what the problem is and the areas these come in, because I think we need that kind of thing to prove the seriousness of the situation.

Some of these I'm going to run through very quickly because they're just repetition of old things. Some of them illustrate specific new problems that I certainly hadn't been aware of before. But as an example of how bad they can get, there is currently an action in the Supreme Court for Galaxy Investment — that's another Mr. Poppel's companies. He is being sued for fraud. Galaxy Investment advanced $20,000 on a third mortgage…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm just quoting the precise facts that you'll find as a matter of public record.

MR. SPEAKER: I still point out to you, Hon. Member, that in cases of that kind, even quoting and reciting the fact that there was fraud would be…

MR. BROUSSON: The example I was going to give was a $ 10,000 bonus on a $20,000 mortgage, just to illustrate the point, and a 24 per cent rate at the same time.

Now I want to go to a totally different kind of problem. This one is a very difficult one to handle. The company concerned here is a national mortgage company. The gentleman concerned is a senior citizen. He's a retired squadron leader here in Victoria. Because his wife had an accident, the doctor told him to move to a different kind of house without an upstairs — a smaller house, all on one floor. So, in effect, he traded one $35,000 house for another $35,000 house, in the same block even.

In doing so, he found that he was assuming a $20,000 first mortgage which was only about a year old at this point. This mortgage was written by National Trust, a well-recognized, ethical company. The gentleman found that he was paying 9 per cent interest on the $20,000 mortgage.

He's got very, very limited funds; he's carefully husbanding these to take care of his old age. The best he can do is to invest these funds with National Trust and they'll give him 7 per cent. Then he has to pay federal income tax on that 7 per cent interest that he gets. He has to pay National Trust 9 per cent. So you can see he's going to fall a little further behind each month.

He went to National Trust and said to them, "I have enough cash. Can I pay back my $20,000 mortgage to you so I have my house clear title and then my pension would take care of me?"

National Trust said: "We're very sorry, sir, but yours is a new mortgage. It's only a year old. There's no provision of any kind at all in it for it to be paid back in less than five years. You can wait five years and pay it back."

Now this man is a senior citizen. Can he wait five years, losing several percentage points each year on his interest?

So he pleaded with the manager of the National Trust, who said: "Well, all right. I'll agree to your paying it back but it will cost you six times the monthly payment. The monthly payment is $178. It

[ Page 572 ]

will cost you $1,068 as a bonus, as a penalty, for paying that mortgage off."

That is completely legal and I can understand the reasons why that mortgage is locked in in that way, because it's got an attractive rate today. But it seems to me this is not the kind of milk of human kindness that we want to encourage within the financial community in this kind of situation. That's why I tell that story, Mr. Speaker.

Another company that's a public company is involved in this one. It illustrates a very particular kind of problem. The story comes from Valemount, in north central British Columbia, a couple of hundred miles or so north of Kamloops — really in the country.

Reading his letter, you can read between the lines the problem this gentleman and his wife have had building their own home in their spare time. He's got it virtually finished, just a tiny bit of plumbing and a tiny bit of wiring left. He has no financing at all. He's been able to get a little advance from his bank. He's run some credit accounts around the community.

Then he's offered a tractor to purchase on a repossession basis which is perhaps a third of the value of the tractor. So he is very anxious to get the tractor. He put a $500 deposit down and then discovered that the bank in Valemount wouldn't advance him any more money.

So somehow the representative in Kamloops of Burrard Mortgage Investments Ltd. heard that he was looking for money and came up to see him. He said, "Sure, we'll give you a first mortgage. It'll cost you about 13 or 14 per cent." He said, "Well, that's not too bad." So he said, "Get the papers fixed up."

About 10 days later the representative came back. Then my friend, the builder in Valemount, discovered at this point, having got his $500 deposit down, having himself committed to go through on the purchase or lose his deposit, having told his neighbours in the village that he can now pay them off and pay his little bank loan and so on, that Burrard Mortgage Investments Ltd. is socking it to him with a heavy bonus. Now he discovers it. He hadn't signed the papers yet but now he's stuck. He's got to have it or lose his $500 and the chance to pay his bills back.

So he agrees, on proceeds of $5,905 — just under $6,000 — to a $1,300 bonus, about a quarter. Up until now he hasn't even been able to get the provincial government second mortgage because to get that he has to have a first mortgage. So he hasn't even used that.

The clear problem here, Mr. Speaker, is this: there is no provision for the man in the country, in the rural area, who is building a new home and needs this kind of financing. There's no provision for it and this is something we have to develop.

Here's another one. It's from North Vancouver. The mortgagee is a firm called Sheraton Homeowners Finance Ltd. The major shareholders are Rusin brothers: John Rusin, George Rusin; Andrew Rusin is a director.

This man had a very small home in North Vancouver. He didn't have any credit problems but he wanted to finance a truck and a car. His house was only 750 square feet and he wanted to add on to that a little bit and make it bigger. Because of its size, he went to Canada Trust and they said, "It's too small. We can't finance you at all."

So he shopped around and he talked to one or two people who demanded high bonuses and various things. He got away from them. He didn't get sucked into them.

Then John Rusin came along and somehow he sweet talked him a little better. He borrowed $8,900 but listen to what else it cost him: a $3,000 bonus and a $1,200 inspection and appraisal fee going to Rusin Brothers Realty. So the total thing was a $4,200 bonus on $8,893 principal proceeds.

He says that he clearly realizes just how stupid he was. But he said, "I just hope you'll talk about this. Maybe somebody else will learn to look first." That was because the house was a little too small to meet conventional financing. As he went wandering around looking for it, he got sucked in with one of the fast talkers.

This next one I mention particularly because the mortgagee was Midtown Securities Ltd. in Surrey. There was a bonus of $500 on $1,500 — a one-third bonus.

But the mortgage was sold to a firm called Western Organ Sales. Western Organ Sales' address is 430 Columbia Street. I mention this particularly because that address keeps recurring and recurring and recurring as you go through exploring the people who are in trouble in this field.

That was a 24 per cent one; it was only a second mortgage. He borrowed $2,500, paid out $500 in legal and taxes and the bonus of $500, and got $1,500. They had to have a second car because both worked and they had children to get to school and so on. It was sold to Western Organ Sales. I'll come back to Western Organ Sales.

There was a gentleman who phoned me last night from 100 Mile House. He used to have a mortgage with a firm called Tower Finance. Tower Finance used to be one of the bad ones but they're out of business now. In this particular case, the Tower Finance mortgage was O.K. He had no complaints about that.

But in 1969 he was badly hurt in a logging accident. Because of that, he couldn't work and his debts piled up. As a matter of fact, he's now on full disability pension.

Tower Finance was foreclosing in November, 1970, so he went to what turns out to be one of the most infamous of all the people in this industry,

[ Page 573 ]

Modern Finance.

Modern Finance, if anybody's forgotten from two weeks ago, has a new name now. It's now Modern Mortgage and Loan. It had its registration renewed January 12. It has offices in Kamloops and Vancouver and I think the Victoria office is closed. The principal is Mr. Herbert Lawrence McCallum of West Vancouver.

Modern Finance loaned him $3,500 for his mortgage and to consolidate his debts, and a $2,000 bonus on top of that. So he borrowed $5,500 at 20 per cent — and that's a first mortgage. He made payments on that for about a year. He still couldn't work and his debts were piling up. He hadn't resolved his problems. He borrowed a further $1,500 plus a $500 bonus — so that was $2,000. Now it was up to $7,500.

This guy was lucky because one year ago, on January 28, 1972, the house burned down. The insurance company paid off $15,000. I explained that he borrowed $3,500 plus $1,500 — that's $5,000 cash that he'd got; $2,000 and $500 bonuses, that got it up to $7,500. They made him pay $8,400 out of the insurance to pay it off because of the cancellation clauses that were in there on so many months of interest for paying up. Well, at least he got completely clear.

That was January 28, 1972 — a year ago. I said, "Why did you call me? You're in the clear now."

He said, "I just wanted you to know the kind of things that go on. We live in the country. When we're hurt or in trouble there's no one to help us. There's no money available."

I said, "What are you doing now?"

He said, "I'm on disability pension. With my son's help and some other help I can still get around a bit. I've built a new home." This guy's got guts. He built a new home.

I want to give credit. I've given some bad names to some mortgage companies. I don't know who these people are, but I want to give them credit — Alpha Mortgage of Kamloops has given this man a new first mortgage of $10,000, no bonus and 12 per cent. So there are some good people in the business, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about credit unions?

MR. BROUSSON: I'm glad you mentioned that. I want to talk about credit unions.

This gentleman said he knew clearly what was happening to him but he was desperate and he didn't know where to turn. He didn't know where to get advice. So he accepted the usury.

The next gentleman, Mr. Speaker, lives in Vancouver now. The property on which this was written is in Calgary. It was written in Calgary by a firm called Midtown Mortgage and Loan Ltd. of Calgary. I mention this one particularly because it's another firm owned by the same principal as Modern Finance — McCallum. He also is the principal of this firm in Calgary.

It's a second mortgage of $5,000, of which there was an $1,140 bonus, there was a first mortgage on there of $11,700. The house sold recently for $25,000, so there was lots of equity. But there was a second mortgage at 21 per cent, $1,140 bonus, and he got proceeds of only $4,200.

He had made five payments and then wanted to sell the house. In the meantime Modern Finance had sold the mortgage to Safeco Mortgage and Loan Company — which has that same address again, 430 Columbia Street in New Westminster. So, having sold the house, this gentleman, after five payments, he said, "I've got to get paid off out of the proceeds." The new owner didn't want this kind of thing hanging over his head. He wanted a clear title.

Well, listen. He borrowed $5,500, including the bonus. He made five payments, which is $485. He paid to Safeco, to get off the hook, again in bonus clauses on interest, $6,600, or a total of almost $7,200. So for 240 days this works out to 106 per cent interest. That's what Safeco Mortgage and Loan made him do. The next one, Mr. Speaker, is in Victoria. Strangely enough it's from a lady who lives alone in Victoria on a little farm. It's a lady that I went to school with a long time ago.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You say this is a little old lady? (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: I never quote ladies' ages.

This was a first mortgage on a property worth about $14,000. Twenty-one per cent, a bonus of $1,500 on $4,300 proceeds — over one-third bonus. This was another Modern Finance deal. Three weeks after Modern Finance issued this in 1971, they sold it to Jackstan Securities, of 430 Columbia Street in New Westminster.

This one had a lock-in clause for one year and then a penalty clause of three month's interest. I've listened to the lady's story. I've listened to the stories of some of her friends who talked about it. It's very clear she didn't have any idea what she was getting into.

Strangely enough — and I'm glad the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) mentioned this — one of the Victoria credit unions has agreed to refinance this today at a reasonable rate of interest, at reasonable payments, and it's being done that way.

And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that right now I want to pay tribute to the credit unions of this province. Because they're providing a tremendous service in this field.

The story that I mentioned two weeks ago — they're being rescued by a credit union in Vancouver. I want to pay tribute to them. They're doing a fine job, and I've talked to a number of their people.

The interesting thing about this one is that she hasn't yet signed the papers with the credit union and

[ Page 574 ]

some of the other mortgage companies have heard that she's trying to refinance. Boy, are they after her. They're phoning her and they're writing to her because they know she's a prime target.

A gentleman who used to be manager of Modern Finance in Victoria now has his own company. He found that this was pretty good. He quit working for anybody else and he formed United Mortgage Ltd. of Victoria. He sent a letter to this lady;

"Dear Miss So-and-so: as you are probably aware, due to the inflationary trend, borrowing money has become increasingly difficult. United Mortgage Ltd. is engaged in placing mortgages regardless of credit rating or personal circumstance. If you are a homeowner with a mortgageable equity, we can be of assistance to you in making funds available to consolidate your outstanding bills and/or for needed home improvements. Phone today for a confidential interview.
Yours truly, V.R. Kruschel, General Manager."

And he distributes a nice little pamphlet. Look at these examples. "Savings when you borrow the United way."

That lady is going to be looked after by the credit union.

Here's another one. This one came all the way from Pembroke, Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

"My sister and her husband borrowed $2,700 from Modern Finance on May 10, 1971. They needed $2,200 so borrowed $2,700 and Modern Finance got that first $500 as a bonus. Payment was to $57 per month at 24 per cent."

And they go on over the details:

"Assignment of the mortgage was made to Penney Holdings Ltd."

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's strange. I can't even find Penney Holdings listed by the companies office. They have no listing for Penney Holdings. So I don't know who they are. I am told their address is 430 Columbia Street in New Westminster.

Anyway, "At the end of one year my brother-in-law tried vigorously to pay off this loan because it was obvious that it was a bad one." Since last May of 1972, when the loan was one year old, these people and their lawyer have been trying to get it paid off.

This had a lock-in clause; beyond that three months' interest as a penalty for paying it off.

So at the end of one year they had paid 12 times $57.44 a month — that's $689. The lawyer had a local computer firm, DataTech Systems, run one of those computer tapes on this to calculate what the balance was. Out of $2,700, with the additions for the premium of interest, at the end of the year; it came to $ 2,794.10.

So he gave them a cheque last May for that amount and he has been unable, as of this date — eight months later — to get any satisfactory statement out of Penney Holdings, explaining how they arrive at the amount due, nor any release on the third mortgage. But, including the monthly payments and the amount of the clean-up cheque, they paid a total interest of 62 per cent on the actual amount that they borrowed. And still not released — Penneys won't release it.

The last example I want to give you brings out another very special problem. This one, Mr. Speaker, comes from a gentleman — I'm not going to name him. He's known to many people in this room. He's a strong and active member of the NDP — that's one of the reasons he has problems, as a matter of fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll tell you why. In May, 1972 he wanted $1,000 to finance a car. He went to the AVCO office in New Westminster. Now AVCO is a well respected name — a national finance company. But when he went to borrow $1,000 — this gentleman is not very smart about finances I'll tell you.

They persuaded him that he ought to have a little extra cash — like maybe $361.13 to put in his pocket. Then they thought he ought to have a little life insurance, that cost $73; and a little accident and health insurance, that was another $73; a little fire insurance at $46; and then there were filing costs $10. So that was $203 all told.

He wanted $1,000 — he got $1,361 then they added $200 extra, the insurance and filing costs and so on. Now we are at $1,564.41. We are over that limit that the Attorney General was talking about last week. Now it is 24 per cent and that is the problem, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General said we need action on this at the federal level and he is right. We must press for this, to get the control above that arbitrary, far too low $1,500. Below $1,500 they couldn't do that, above $1,500 they can. So that is how they ballooned $1,000 to $1,564 and I think people had better learn this.

This guy didn't know that till I explained it to him the other night. He didn't know this had happened — "Gee, I didn't know that."

September 1972; this fellow is a logger and he has had some problems all summer with the IWA — they were on strike I think. Unfortunately because he is a member of the NDP, he has been working very hard in the election of August 1972 and he is having financial troubles, Mr. Speaker. You know, I'm being a little facetious, but this is God's truth, this was one of the problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: He shouldn't deal with Liberals.

MR. BROUSSON: I will tell you why he came to a Liberal. He said, "Sir, I want you to know that I am an NDP but I came to a Liberal Member because I

[ Page 575 ]

heard him speaking out — and I don't know who else to go to to explain this problem to on the NDP side."

MR. BROUSSON: Anyway in September, Mr. Speaker, he wanted another $700 because of the election work and because of the IWA he's out of work — all of these problems. So he wrote a letter and AVCO agreed to give him another $723.72 or something. And they upped the insurance a little bit more — they increased the insurance by $52. That's life insurance, $52 more; accident insurance $52 more; property insurance — that's fire and property — up another $15; another filing fee, $3 this time — it's a cheaper one; and he got his little bit of cash. Now it is up to $2,085. All he wanted originally was $ 1,000 and he got $700 more — so he wanted $1,700. But he is up to $2,400 now and still… Did I tell you the rate of interest? Twenty-four per cent. Still 24 per cent.

Well, the car that he had, he got into an accident with it and it was a total write-off. The insurance paid off the original loan with another finance company. But he is left now still owing AVCO $2,400. Now he has to buy a new car, so he went to Johnson Motors and picked out the car he needed, November 22 last.

Then he borrowed another $4,644, for the car this time. Then they added life insurance, $229 more; filing fee $3.50; so the total now has gone up to $4,877. That's not counting the other $2,400 — he still has that account over here. And this is at 24 per cent still.

Well, he doesn't know how this happened. He literally doesn't understand what happened. But AVCO now decided they had better put a second mortgage on his house because this is getting pretty big. They haven't much security, just this guy on his personal note now. They've got him for $2,100 plus $4,900 and all they have is the car and his personal note.

So they wanted a second mortgage. But he already had a provincial government second mortgage of about $1,900 I think it was — yes, $1,800 — and that's at a pretty low rate of interest. So they said, "Look we will write a new second mortgage and we will pay off that provincial government second mortgage," — at what is it — 5, 6 something like 7 per cent I just forget — "and we will write you a new one at 18 per cent." So how did AVCO do this one?

We had an appraisal fee of $110. There was an investigation fee of $50. There were legal fees of $118. There was life insurance of $523.90. There were some taxes had to be paid, they were a bit behind. They paid off the provincial government mortgage of $1,847 and the proceeds of $4,100. Now he's got a second mortgage of $7,000.

And they paid off out of the second mortgage that old $2,400 of that money that he first owed. So that leaves him now — I know you can't follow the arithmetic — but that leaves him now with a second mortgage of $7,000 at 18 per cent and a loan of $3,000 at 24 per cent.

So to summarize this one, because it is a beauty, he paid toward the two cars $5,600. He repaid the government mortgage, which he didn't want to repay, they made him, $1,847. There were taxes of $190. He received cash of $1,137 only $700 of which he asked for; and there were filing fees, legal fees, appraisal fees, and insurance of $ 1,248.

But here is the kicker — this mortgage is a 10 year mortgage. He pays it at $123 a month. He has no rights of repayment for the first two years unless he pays full interest for that 24 months. He must pay the full interest, plus an additional bonus of six months interest. So he can't get by on less than 2 1/2 years interest at 18 per cent. After 2 years he can get rid of it for a bonus of 6 months interest; after 5 years only 3 months interest.

Now that AVCO Financial Services or whatever their proper title is, has got to be a rip-off. I don't like the name rip-off, but there is a beautiful example.

This gentleman is so determined — on the face of all this he said, "Everything I have done, signed, I know it is legal." But he said, "My house is for sale — I make good money — I am going to sell that house, pay that off regardless of all those bonuses and start again."

I said, "Hold up. Maybe there are some other ways to do this. Maybe AVCO would consider some different arrangements if you were to have found some additional means of financing, but I don't know."

And I think that story is worthwhile understanding because it is the only one of that particular kind I have, but I suspect there are others like it.

Mr. Speaker, I have had letters from a number of people, beside those in trouble with mortgages, on this subject. I have had letters from the Real Estate Board in greater Vancouver giving me copies of letters sent to the Hon. Leslie Peterson March 10, 1972. I have had copies from other mortgage people who could be called legitimate, I think, in the mortgage and real estate field, giving me copies of letters to the Attorney General's department — going back in early 1971, outlining the problems, suggesting what should be done — and I know there were a great many meetings.

Anybody who wants to study this subject, the current issue of Harper's magazine has an article called "The Great California Mortgage Scandal." It is worthwhile reading. It talks about some of the same principles — that one of the most profitable parts of this field is to sell insurance on the side — like the last one I read to you.

I would like to read to you a few words from a mortgage broker in Calgary who phoned me and then

[ Page 576 ]

wrote me a letter. He said:

"The reason again for our call was our great concern over the newspaper releases regarding unethical practices by certain people in the mortgage field. This has concerned us for some time inasmuch as it has been our desire for over two years to open offices in Victoria and Vancouver. Because of lack of an adequate Act initially, and later because it was obvious the Act was not working, we delayed this expansion. There is certainly no desire on our part to be painted by the same brush and we are sure there must occur some guilt by association for the ethical people in the field."

I want to emphasize again there are many many ethical people in these fields.

"Ourselves and four other brokers plus seven national lenders, along with Mr. Ron Ghitter who is an MLA from Calgary, have held several meetings to have the Alberta Act amended to cover the same problems you have disclosed. The basic changes will cover bonuses and a maximum limit on fees. These have been proposed and agreed to by all in attendance at our meetings."

The necessity for this has arisen because of the actions of one company, which he tells me is the only company in Alberta causing problems, which is owned by the principals of Modern Finance, namely Midtown Mortgage and Loan, and I have mentioned these names before.

Mr. Speaker, surely, all of this has got to be an indictment of the former Attorney General and the former Social Credit Government. This information has been in the hands of the Attorney General's department for so long a period of time, it leads me to real concern as to what is going on in the Attorney General's department. They have known of these things but clearly they have not pushed.

It clearly must be an indictment of the financial community of British Columbia. I think also, and I say this very carefully with a good deal of thought and consideration, it must be something of an indictment, unfortunately, of many people in the legal profession. Many seem to have adopted the policy of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil because they are following the instructions of their clients. They are very reluctant to proceed further in this field and to talk about it.

People such as David Youngson can in no way be regarded as upstanding members of the B.C. Bar. I suggest, and I want to do this very carefully and in public, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want to tar in any way with a broad brush the legal profession but I have already had …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I said as a whole. I have already had an offer from some of the people in the profession to go into this and I suggest, and I want to suggest this publicly, that the Bar Association of British Columbia should set up a special committee to study this particular problem and resolve how their members should properly deal with it.

I want to make suggestions, and I promised the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that I would be very specific about things that I think should be done. I am going to propose a four point plan to the government.

First, and most important, must be legislation and enforcement. These include some problems at the federal level and there clearly must be some changes at the federal level. The Attorney General mentioned one the other day and I have described the effect of it, in more detail just now.

I will do anything I can to support the Attorney General in putting this forward. I don't know of any proposals made by the provincial government to Ottawa yet on this subject. I hope they will be made.

Second, I would suggest that the conventional mortgage — I am talking now about the conventional mortgage such as I described with Canada Trust — should be locked in for only one year. Not these long periods of lock-in — five years and so on. It should be locked in for only one year and after that the penalty for paying it off should be no more than three months interest.

Other mortgages besides the conventional mortgage — let us say the so-called unconventional mortgage, these are mostly what we have been talking about — should have no lock-in whatsoever by law. The penalty for short term pay off should be no more than three months interest.

I have discussed this with a number of people in the industry. Some would change it slightly but I think that would meet at least reasonable approval.

  I suggest that the Mortgage Brokers Act, Mr. Speaker, should be amended to insist that everyone who is a mortgage broker, when he advertises, must so state — so that he cannot get away with these private phone numbers. You can't tell from reading the ad whether he is a private individual or a mortgage broker. He must so state that he is a registered mortgage broker.

Also on advertising, I suggest that a very strong clause needs to be inserted on false and misleading advertising. There are certainly plenty of people in the Attorney General's office who can write that sort of clause.

There should be a clause as there is in Alberta that the registrar may require bonding of mortgage brokers. It doesn't say he shall require bonding; it says he may require them to be bonded. I would suggest that the same thing should be in our Act.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that could be done right now because the Act reads that he may do

[ Page 577 ]

almost anything he wants as registrar of a mortgage broker, so he could still do it right now in a specific case if he wished.

I suggest that there should be a 72 hour cooling off period after the client, or the mortgagor, receives his copy of the mortgage. We have a 72 hour cooling-off period after a person receives an agreement for sale on an appliance or something of that sort. I suggest there should be a 72 hour cooling-off period after the mortgagor receives his copy. There could be some costs in that case; he might have to pay them. That's fair enough, but he would be entitled within that 72 hour cooling-off period to cancel the whole deal subject to whatever costs and fees had been incurred.

Next, Part II of the Act must be proclaimed the disclosure section and I suggest we need a disclosure document. This, I am told, is where the hang-up has been for almost two years, because they couldn't figure out a disclosure document. It's easy — Alberta's got one. It could be one very similar to Alberta and other parts of Canada.

It must clearly state whatever bonus or fee or similar things that are included. It must clearly state the date the mortgage is due and how much will be due if he has made all the payments on time for that five years.

Remember the number of cases we have looked at where they were only paying back $5 a month, or $2 a month — that kind of thing. I think there was one case where they were paying only interest, at the end of five years he still owes the whole amount. That's because they don't understand and that must be spelled out: on the due date this is the principal still due if everything has been paid on time.

It must be clearly spelled out precisely what the requirements are to pay it off ahead of time. The disclosure document in my view, Mr. Speaker, must be attached to the mortgage document and not buried away. It must be attached to the mortgage document so that if someone comes along later to buy that mortgage, they clearly understand what the bonus was and what the fee was.

Finally, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a copy of this disclosure should go to the consumer protection branch of the Attorney General's office for him to examine and keep on file.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we must enforce it. The fact is, the present Act is not being enforced the way it is written. It has never been enforced yet and it can be enforced. It's very weak; there are many more things that have to be added to it as I have outlined. But the present Mortgage Brokers Act can be enforced.

The registrar has the right to suspend their licences and ask them to show cause as to why they should not be cancelled. He has not been making any effort to do that as far as I can discover.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds can you suspend?

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Mortgage Brokers Act, it spells out a great deal of information that a mortgage broker has to fill in on the application form in terms of his background and all the things he is doing, how ethical he is and how he operates. It must also always be carefully detailed when filling out the application.

Clearly, he must be of good character and operating in an ethical manner. If these kinds of cases that I have outlined illustrate good character and operating in an ethical manner, I don't think I would agree with the standards of the Attorney General. I would think the Attorney General has adequate grounds to call those people in and take a look at them right now.

Mr. Speaker, it's in the Mortgage Brokers Act and it says that, "No person shall carry on business as a mortgage broker otherwise than in his registered name, or elsewhere than at or from his registered address." "No person shall carry on business as a mortgage broker unless he is registered." The definition of a mortgage broker is "a person who, during any one year, lends money on the security of 10 or more mortgages." That's part of the definition.

Mr. Speaker, here in the advertisements, in Saturday's Vancouver Sun — and it has been there for all these weeks — is an ad:

"Attention Builders! Interim Financing Money Available — Purchase Mortgages — Agreements for Sale — 687-9691, Northguard Financial Group, 2420 Pacific Centre,700 West Georgia."

That's a pretty good address.

It says, "We are not a broker." Those people are not listed here; they are not registered as brokers in any way. I called them this morning and spoke to them and the gentleman who told me he was the manager said, "No, we're not a mortgage broker; we're not registered. We don't have to be, we're not a broker." But they are advertising and the Act reads quite clearly, as I interpret it, that a mortgage broker means a person who, during any one year, lends money on the security of 10 or more mortgages. There's a whole series of definitions.

Clearly, those people are not observing the law — it's flagrant. Now, they're from Winnipeg, so maybe they don't know our B.C. laws, but I think the Attorney General's office should get busy and explain them. There are a number of other situations of this sort that could easily be found with a little bit of detective work. So, number one, Mr. Speaker, legislation and enforcement.

Second in my four-point programme, I suggest that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Government must work with the financial com-

[ Page 578 ]

munity — the mortgage industry, if you like. The Vancouver Real Estate Board suggested last year to the Attorney General that some kind of mortgage advisory council should be set up. There are two or three associations in the business. Some of them are trying to police it, with a good deal of lack of success, but they are trying.

I would suggest that if the Attorney General would follow the Vancouver Real Estate Board's suggestion of appointing a mortgage advisory council of people within the industry, we might be able to set a standard of fees, a schedule in this field, a standard of ethics. I would be very reluctant to include in the Act what Alberta is now considering — an actual ceiling. I don't want to see ceilings and controls of this kind if they can be avoided. But I think that perhaps industry involvement in this way could set those standards and those ceilings.

Second, in terms of working with the industry, the Attorney General the other day suggested a pool of credit lending. Well, Mr. Speaker, the one thing the Attorney General didn't do was give credit to the man who's been talking about that for months. That's Frank Mazko of the Legal Aid Association in Vancouver.

Frank's made speech after speech on this subject and written letter after letter. When the Attorney General spoke about this, he didn't give the courtesy to Mr. Mazko of naming the man who had been promoting the idea. I think such a pool of credit lending is needed for these rural areas that I talked about. Clearly, these are difficult problems. There are poorer risks. There are special sizes of homes, unconventional homes and so on. There are problems.

Maybe an organization like MIC (Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada) might be used in this area. It might be set up to actually insure such mortgages that would enable more people to get into these more difficult areas in the remote parts of the province, in the more rural areas and so on — the poorer risks. Maybe that's the way to do it. The way to do that is to get the industry involved. Bring them in. Let's do something.

Third — education. There should be a programme as part of the Department of Education's curriculum in the high schools to explain what mortgages are all about. You know, when the schools usually discuss problems of the business community and mortgages and borrowing money and interest rates and so on, they talk about it in a very simplistic way. It's all a beautiful kind of Garden of Eden. I don't think that any legislation is ever going to legislate out human cupidity and greed. That's always going to be with us even in the millennium of the NDP socialism.

I think we have to educate people on the practicalities of life, to show them the problems that exist here — not only in the schools, but it has to be taken to the community. I would suggest that the consumer protection branch is ideally set up to develop, perhaps, films, slides, lecture series, literature, pamphlets, to help in these areas — in the schools and in the communities. I want to pay special reference to the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) who, I think a week or so ago, spoke on this kind of subject — on the consumer protection branch and the work they were doing and the suggestion that this kind of education was badly needed.

Fourth and last in my four-point programme, we need an advisory service in these legal and financial areas. Over and over again in phone calls and letters that I have received, people have said, "Well, I didn't know where to go." These are very often people who have had little education. They're unsophisticated. They haven't had much experience in the business world. They're afraid of lawyers. They're frightened of the banks and the fancy offices and all of these things. They don't know where to turn so they get sucked in by these people. They're desperate. They don't know what to do. They need legal help and they need financial help.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need a programme of storefront consumer adviser offices across this province in every major town in British Columbia. I suggest that the consumer protection branch could develop this programme. Maybe some bright young lawyers would find a wonderful wealth of legal and human experience if they were to be set up. This is the kind of thing that I see as being the services for people that that Speech from the Throne talked about so grandiloquently a couple or three weeks ago — services for the people.

But there is nothing in this budget to do this, Mr. Speaker. So where do the people turn? What do I tell these people who write to me and say, "I didn't know who to talk to but you sounded like you knew something about it. So can you help me?" I'm not equipped to deal with these people. I haven't got the time, apart from anything else. What do I tell them? The budget isn't telling them anything about it.

Well, I'm going to mention two or three organizations that have told me that they'll try to help. I hope the Press will perhaps publicize this. Maybe it will help a few people. I'm going to send the file on all the people I've got here, when I can get these files organized — they keep coming in so fast. I'm going to send this to the Attorney General's office. I'm going to send it also to the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, 527 East Broadway. They have offered to provide assistance and advise people in these areas. They work in co-operation with the Legal Aid Society and they'll share the legal load between them. I'm told that they also have with them another organization called the Consumer Action League that will try to provide the kind of financial advice that these people need as well as pure legal advice.

[ Page 579 ]

Quite frankly, I'm going to suggest that in many cases if the people with these kinds of problems will go to a credit union, they'll get good advice. That's been my experience from the people I've talked to. But the credit union is not equipped to handle these kinds of legal problems and they're not really in the financial advisory business.

But certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, the Vancouver Legal Aid Society and the Consumer Action League in Vancouver can. I suggest that the people in Victoria who need this help better go down into the basement in the Law Courts building, They can wander through the hallways and find the Consumer Protection Office. There's not many people in there. It's pretty small. I hope a lot of people in Victoria who have a problem will go and see those gentlemen and take it up.

But what do we tell the people of Valemount, Prince George and 100 Mile? Where are they going to go for this kind of help? It's not in the budget, Mr. Speaker, and we need those offices across the province — the storefront consumer advisory and protection offices.

Mr. Speaker, 2,000 years ago Christ went into the temple in Jerusalem. He found there money changers and usurers. He made a scourge of small cords and he drove them out of the temple. That's what the Attorney General should do in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you.

Although I have spoken in this House two or three times before, as circumstances would have it you were not in the chair so let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your responsibility of being elected as Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the budget. I believe that this is a good budget, a budget which is designed to serve the needs of the people of British Columbia. I would like to speak briefly on some of the ways in which British Columbia and the constituency of Mackenzie could benefit from its implementation.

For instance, in my constituency the inclusion of a fund of $10 million to assist in the financing of community recreation facilities is of particular interest to the people of the Gibson-Sechelt area. On the whole of the Sechelt Peninsula, from Howe Sound to Pender Harbour, there are at present no such recreational facilities. I am now hopeful that the 9,000 people of the peninsula will be able to plan for such facilities in the near future.

It has been a legitimate concern in the past, that the provision of recreational facilities, especially in the rural areas, might prove to add too heavy a burden to the homeowner-taxpayer in the form of increased mill rates. For this reason it has often been difficult to convince the general public that needed recreational facilities should be constructed.

It can now, however, be pointed out that such construction programmes are feasible. First, there is the Recreational Grant Fund to assist in the financing of construction. Second, there is this Government's commitment to phase out within five years the educational tax from the homeowner.

This programme, as you are all aware, is under review. It is now clear that areas such as the Gibson-Sechelt region can seriously tackle the problem of providing recreational facilities for young and old.

I am especially pleased with those parts of the budget which will assist homeowners aged 65 and over through the provision of homeowner grants to a maximum of $200 per year and a guaranteed $200 per month income plan. These are of particular significance to this Gibson-Sechelt area which, with Powell River and Texada Island, are known as the "Sunshine Coast."

There are increasing numbers of people retiring to the mild climate of this coastal area, and I have remarked before in this House of the problems arising from the rapid increase of population along the Sunshine Coast. I would like to stress once more the need for a careful study and prompt action to deal with the already overcrowded highway and ferry facilities, to ensure the best possible use of available coast real estate, to plan wisely for adequate health facilities, and to curb land speculation.

Five million dollars have been set aside in this budget for a provincial research and economic studies fund. In my reply to the Speech from the Throne I pointed to the need for a major study of the resources of our whole coast area. Funds are now available for such studies to be made, and I will continue to press for a detailed study of the resources of the Mackenzie constituency.

There is another urgent need in this constituency which should be undertaken with resources from the Economic Studies Fund. We must begin the job of providing a sound economic basis for the lives of all our people, and particularly for our Indian people in Mackenzie and throughout the province.

There are some 10,000 status and non-status Indian people in Mackenzie constituency, Mr. Speaker. For those who are not clear of the distinction between status and non-status Indian persons, I would like to say that the distinction is an artificial one. The term "non-status" is an arbitrary distinction imposed on the people by federal legislation. It is possible under this legislation for a person to lose his Indian status and its attendant rights and privileges.

A non-status Indian is a person who, although genetically and culturally an Indian, is not registered as such by the Department of Indian Affairs of the

[ Page 580 ]

federal government. The Canadian government, through the Indian Act, has laid down certain very definite rules for defining who is and who is not an Indian. This "race by legislation" Act has given rise to many strange cases whereby a person with no Indian blood whatsoever may legally be classed as an Indian, whereas a full-blooded Indian may legally be classed as a White.

There are three main factors that determine the classification of an Indian as non-status: (1) Initially there were many Indians living in extreme isolation who were simply never registered. These were the first non-status Indians. Included in this group were the Metis, or half-breeds, of the prairie provinces; (2) The Indian Act provides that a female Indian who marries a person who is not registered as an Indian, has her name automatically removed from the Indian registry, thereby becoming a non-status Indian. In the case of a male Indian, however, should he marry a person who is not registered as an Indian, he not only retains his Indian rights, but also has his wife registered as an Indian — a glaring example of discrimination because of sex in contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Indian Act has a provision whereby an Indian may voluntarily become enfranchised. Upon signing the proper document and receiving a small sum of money as his share of the band funds the person is told that he or she is now legally a member of the white race and is led to believe that he now may share in the "good life" that is enjoyed by the rest of society.

However, it soon becomes painfully evident that in most cases rather than having advanced, the enfranchised person has dropped into an even lower niche in the social scale. Not only does he or she still retain all of the problems he had as an Indian, but he finds that he must now do without the help that is available to his registered Indian relatives.

In addition to this, he finds that all of his sons and daughters, regardless of their age or their wishes, have automatically been stricken from the registry.

These, then, are the factors which have been responsible for creating the group of people that are designated as "non-status" Indians. They have for the most part been completely ignored by all levels of government and government agencies. Various factors have combined to deny them access to the social, educational and health benefits that are available to other citizens.

I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the Hon. Eileen Dailly (Minister of Education) and the fact that she does recognize this problem and has designated people to study this very, very serious educational lapse in our society in regard to our Indian people.

When I speak of the problems of the 10,000 Indian people in my constituency, I am speaking of both status and non-status Indian people who live in the four major communities and several smaller ones in Mackenzie. These people are still in a period of transition — a period in which their culture is being progressively altered, and in many cases destroyed, by the encroachment of the white man's way of life.

The history of Indian affairs in British Columbia for the last century has been the history of a century of injustice. It began when the white settlers took Indians' land without their consent and without compensation. Then they herded the Indian people onto the Indian reserves.

B.C. reserves were established in the 1860's and 1870's. They were smaller in size than the reserves on the prairies, 120 acres were allotted for each Indian family. In British Columbia, however, the government of the province, once B.C. had entered Confederation, was prepared to allow only 10 acres for each family.

After the federal government, on one of the infrequent occasions when it roused itself and came to the defence of the native people, had remonstrated, this was eventually fixed at 20 acres for each family — one-sixth of the allotment of the prairies.

These restrictions eventually made it impossible for the Indians to roam far and wide in search of game and fish. While their ability to pursue their own way of life was thus curtailed, there was no means provided for the Indians to enter white society on an equal basis — or on any basis, for that matter. They were confined to the reserves.

But even then the requirements of the white settlement were not satisfied. By the turn of the century the government of B.C. was insisting that Indians did not require all of the land on the reserves. As the result, the McKenna-McBride Commission was established to redistribute the Indian reserves. The commission decided to cut off much of the valuable lands held by the Indians and substituted for the cut-off land land that was in many cases virtually worthless.

We have seen a century of degradation and neglect. When the white man came to B.C. there were 80,000 Indians living here — a proud race, leading a communal life. They believed each man was his brother's keeper. They were a society of hunters and fishermen, it is true, but their society was sophisticated in the complexity of its social and ceremonial ritual. It was adorned by works of art that have endured for a century.

The white man's diseases decimated the Indians and, by the turn of the century, there were only 15,000 Indians in British Columbia. Apartheid could have led to the destruction of the race, had it not been for the capacity of the Indian to endure and to survive.

Even today, Mr. Speaker, the Indian population of

[ Page 581 ]

British Columbia is approximately 50,000 people — just a little bit more than half, I believe, of what it was 100 years ago.

In many ways the plight of the Indian today is as wretched as it ever was. The Indian Affairs branch reported to the Conference on Poverty held in Ottawa in December, 1965, that "the life span of the Indian in Canada is 30 years" — it's a bit higher now, Mr. Speaker, I believe —

"while that of the white man is 60 years. The Indian dies of colds and pneumonia owing to the wretched housing on Indian reserves, while the white man dies of heart disease. The refusal to provide an Indian with an adequate education has had its results too. There are virtually no Indians in law or medicine. They have been excluded from the white-collar occupations. In fact, until recent years only a few of them were employed in the Indian Affairs branch itself."

The catalogue of injustice is endless and we in our party, Mr. Speaker, intend to do something about it. I know the Hon. Frank Calder, Minister without Portfolio, is working very hard at some of these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's usual not to refer to any Member of the House by name — just his particular Ministry or his constituency.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Humble apologies.

Our party has adopted, Mr. Speaker, a 7-point programme in terms of helping Indian people: (1) giving assistance to Indians in finding land for housing; (2) designing educational programmes for Indian needs; (3) respecting the civil rights of Indians and implementing programmes to assure Indians legal aid counseling; (4) placing Indian children who have become public wards in Indian foster homes wherever necessary or possible; (5) strengthening the Human Rights Act to protect the rights of Indians; (6) offering low-interest loans to Indians for economic development; and (7) encouraging the hiring of Indian staff members for meaningful positions in all government departments.

I feel very strongly that the responsibility of this Government is to assist them to find a new way of life which will, to some extent, be a compromise between the values of their old society and the new society in which they are now involved.

There is today a new and vigorous leadership among the Indian people. They are to be encouraged. They must be assisted to find ways of achieving equality of opportunity with their white brothers in this province.

It is unfortunate that today there is less opportunity for employment in the Bella Bella area, for example, than there was 10 years ago. This is the result of changes in the methods of operation of the major fishing and logging companies.

Two large companies dominate the fishing industry in this province, Mr. Speaker. This is, in effect, not free enterprise but corporate enterprise. It has become more economical to transport the fish to packing plants in the lower mainland than to process them in the area where they are caught. Consequently a large number of our people — and particularly local people — are unemployed in the central coast area.

It is my desire to see, and I hope that the government will participate in, the setting up of a fish processing plant in Bella Coola or Bella Bella.

Once again, I call on our Government to consider a provincial Department of Fisheries to determine the needs of all our fishermen and other people employed in the fishing industry.

I have been speaking of cases in the fishing industry and the logging industry and there are similar cases in the mining industry where the big companies which dominate the industry of British Columbia today have adopted changes in their methods of operation without sufficient attention being paid to the needs of the people or of the environment which is closely associated with that industry. They have not, in the main, displayed good corporate citizenship.

I am thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the Bella Coola valley, where a large logging company was allowed to go into this valley, take all the timber out for many, many miles, right down to the river's edge, including Tweedsmuir Park. As a result of this there was serious flooding. Bridges and roads were wiped out as well as hundreds of acres of farmland. Approximately 80 per cent of the fish spawn will never return. In some areas there will be no trees able to grow on these mountainsides, because of the various mudslides. This is what I mean, Mr. Speaker, when I speak of good corporate citizenship.

A good corporate citizen in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, would, without any kind of help from the government, have considered this on their own, left greenbelt strips and protected the fish spawning grounds. It could have been done; we could have had logging and fishing both.

It is because of that, Mr. Speaker, that I call at this time for a total review of the logging industry in British Columbia. I believe the terms of reference should include:

(1) how we can have more of our people participate in this industry that has been more and more dominated in recent years by a handful of super-companies.

(2) how the people of this province may receive a greater share of what we all own.

(3) what methods should be employed to protect the environment; and particularly the fishing industry.

(4) how best to see that this valuable resource

[ Page 582 ]

should be renewed.

I think, too, that such a review should include present and future marketing problems at home and abroad and particularly in the Pacific Rim countries, and the setting up of related industries to supply our lumbering industry with the tools and equipment necessary to operate with, rather than purchasing nearly all of it from foreign manufacturers. What we must realize is that there is one overriding motive for the behaviour of any corporate structure, and that motive is the making of profits. A corporation is like a computer. It is programmed to do certain things and it will be a good corporate citizen only if controls are built in which will, in effect, act as its conscience. This is the job of government, Mr. Speaker.

Resources which are being tapped by the great companies are the property of the people of British Columbia. It is the right of the government to insist that the development of these resources shall proceed in a manner which will neither rob the people of their legitimate share in the return; nor destroy in any way the environment for other resources of our province.

Great logging profits must not be made at the expense of the fishing industry. The past two decades have seen a systematic exploitation of our forests, the skimming off of the cream of these previous resources, and at the same time the tragic decline of our fishing industry. It is because of this that I have asked for the establishment of a provincial Department of Fisheries. The spawning streams which have been destroyed by logging must be revitalized. More hatcheries must be provided for it. And, Mr. Speaker, we must make a systematic attack on the problem of dogfish infestation of our waters.

Controlling the giant corporations is not limiting free enterprise. Free enterprise has already been "limited" almost out of existence in British Columbia by the uncontrolled activities of the giant corporations. Where is free enterprise when a man who has spent his savings on a boat to go fishing is squeezed out by the fish canneries? Where is free enterprise when the truck logger is squeezed out of business by the corporations who have received their timber leases by the hundreds of square miles?

British Columbia is still, to a large extent, the land of untapped resources — human resources, recreational resources, water and energy resources, forest, mining and agricultural resources. We have, perhaps, the richest heritage in the world. With these riches we have also inherited the heavy responsibility to develop these resources for the maximum benefit to the people of our province, in this generation and for generations to come.

I have been discussing the Provincial Research and Economic Studies fund and the objectives I see for such a fund. I have been stressing the need for comprehensive studies to be made of our natural resources. Our greatest resource is, of course, our people, and our greatest untapped resource is our youth.

I know that every Member of this House, regardless of political affiliation, shares my deep concern that so many of our young people are failing to find a constructive role to fill in our society today. Unemployment is one of our most serious problems in British Columbia, as it is in the rest of Canada.

Unemployment is a problem which must be tackled with courage and, if need be, with resolve to make sacrifices. I believe that in many parts of this province — Powell River and Ocean Falls are good examples — we must plan for the development of secondary industries. We must study the possibilities for sawmills, fish processing plants, smelters, shipbuilding, recreational development, secondary industry of all types. We must encourage such industries where they are viable and where it can be shown they will not destroy the environment. Then, if there are still not enough jobs for the people of British Columbia who need them, we must seriously consider a shortened work week as a job-producing alternative.

I do not believe that this need result in any serious reduction of our standard of living. If some sacrifice is necessary to ensure employment for our young people, that sacrifice should be made. The alternative is unthinkable. And the alternative is what we are facing now.

Not to employ a large percentage of our young people is to produce a whole segment of society which is anti-social and counter productive. We not only waste our untapped human resources, but we produce expensive social problems which will be reflected in enormous costs of welfare and rehabilitation. There is no way that we can afford to ignore our unemployment problem.

One more topic that has not been discussed at length in this House, Mr. Speaker, is that of the arts in relation to rural areas. And I thank my good friend, Jack Wise, prominent Canadian and British Columbia artist, for his contributions to my following remarks.

Some of the most unlikely persons have shown a genuine interest in the arts — loggers in woodcarving, miners in painting, pensioners in poetry, engineers in music, fishermen in poetry and what-have-you. Culture may not be foreign to the country, yet it is little in evidence because of the assumption that culture is not for the country — it is for the big city.

I am sure we all have friends from the city who assure us that, after all, culture is what makes the city tolerable or exciting. Then they ask us, "What do you people do with your time? Culture is the soul of the city and the province of the wealthy."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this should not be so. I happen to feel that culture, if it is manifested in the

[ Page 583 ]

No citizen of the Province of British Columbia should be denied access to those activities which give fuller dimension to his or her understanding of life. It is argued that television fulfils that function, but anyone who has watched a live theatrical performance or live music, or who has closely examined a piece of sculpture or painting, knows that TV is a pale and spotty imitation of life — better than nothing, but barely.

On June 28, 1971, Dr. Paul Schaeffer was commissioned by the British Columbia Centennial Cultural Fund to undertake a cultural survey of British Columbia. The major objective of this survey was to determine the most effective means of developing the province's cultural resources, to examine and describe the role of the Cultural Fund in stimulating cultural development in the province, and to ascertain the most suitable means of providing representations from the cultural community with an opportunity to actively participate in future cultural directions. In January of 1971, the report was submitted to Victoria and shelved. It has just recently been released by a new enlightened government.

Now a lot of this may seem high sounding prose and a bit beyond the realities of everyday life in rural areas. But I put it to you — what does this country offer citizens in the way of culture?

To quote Dr. Schaeffer,

"Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the drug situation. Young people are desperately searching for ways and means of expanding their awareness and dimensions as human beings. The arts represent an avenue, perhaps the most feasible and fertile avenue to expand awareness and human growth. Given the low priority that has been placed on artistic and cultural activities, aesthetic and humanistic awareness, is it any wonder that young people turn to artificial stimulants? An increasing number of people are becoming interested in developing more profound insights into the nature of the artistic process. As a result, there has been an increasing concern expressed about the need to concentrate more on the quality of life, and the nature of our environment. It will be one thing to reduce or hopefully eliminate air, water and noise pollution, but can anyone really admit that, if by some miraculous task pollutants could be eliminated, the job would be done?"

We in the country live in a rather unique position, in that country life, cut off through inaccessibility to the larger centres of population, must be more self reliant. So if there be any genuine desire for cultural variety, it must be generated internally and manifested locally.

Well, Mr. Speaker, to sum up, it is because this budget begins to tackle the problem of unemployment that it deserves the support of every Member of this House. $33.5 million has been provided to the Department of Highways for more jobs, $5 million to the Accelerated Development Funds for more jobs, $5 million to the Accelerated Reforestation Fund for more jobs. The $10 million for community recreational facilities will produce more jobs, as will $50 million added to the Provincial Home Acquisition Fund. Additional funds granted to schools, colleges and Hospitals will produce jobs.

But above everything else, it is the establishment of the Provincial Research and Economic Studies Fund which should, in the long run, be the first important step on the road to a controlled economy and full employment in British Columbia. It is in the establishment of this fund that we recognize that the problem of providing meaningful employment for all of our citizens is not one that can be met through a programme of high economic growth alone.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is a good budget. It is a socialist budget and I support it fully. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has termed this budget a cautious budget, and has indicated that there well may be surpluses in budget. I would agree with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that it's a creative and forward-looking budget. I also think that this budget reflects a concern for the needs of the people of British Columbia, a concern that's been neglected for far too long in this province.

Mr. Speaker, if there are surpluses, I would like to suggest a few areas where these surpluses might be spent. I recommend that because there is still a multitude of needs out there, even after we have initiated the services that are outlined in the budget, those surpluses could be used and that they should be spent. They should not be salted away.

I've referred before in the House, Mr. Speaker, to the lack of services in the north island. I can understand that sometimes there's a shortage of trained personnel to put in these remote areas, or that there is a shortage of office space. I would like here to thank the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) who has agreed to travel up to the north part of Vancouver Island in order to seek out facilities which could be used for provincial offices, as needed up there.

There are other Ministers, too, who I would like to thank at this stage for showing an interest in the neglect of services that has taken place on the north end of the island for so long.

[ Page 584 ]

The riding of Comox covers about one-third of Vancouver Island. In addition, it has other smaller islands within the constituency. The population of northern section is now about 10,000 people, and it's growing rapidly.

Let me cite a few examples, Mr. Speaker, of how the services have been neglected in that part of British Columbia. There are two social workers who split the whole north half of Vancouver Island, and they fly up there from Campbell River on alternate weeks.

There is no Motor Vehicle Branch up there, as such. Therefore, anyone who wishes to have a driver's licence enabling him to drive south of Beaver Cove must take a seven hour trip down to Campbell River in order to get a licence to drive in this Province.

There are two conservation officers in Campbell River, and they service that whole north half of the island. There's one fish biologist stationed in Nanaimo for the whole of Vancouver Island. There is one wildlife biologist stationed in Nanaimo to service the whole of Vancouver Island.

There are proposed provincial parks for northern Vancouver Island, but as yet none exist.

There are no mental health services available, except as provided out of Courtenay. The nearest probation officer is at Campbell River, and legal aid is available only from Campbell River.

Now the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has indicated that they are hopeful of putting social workers right up in that north end of the island soon. I applaud it. I understand that there's a probation officer soon to be stationed up there, and that a conservation officer will be moved in very quickly into that area. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts made by these Ministers in order to get some of those services in there.

People were talking the other day about the uncontrolled wolf problem that exists. In this House they were talking about it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. SANFORD: But without any conservation officer in the north end of the island, my constituents up there have been talking to me about the uncontrolled hunter problem. There's been no one to supervise them. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the north end of the island it is a rare occasion to find a road sign that does not at least have one bullet hole through it? That is what they meant by "uncontrolled hunter problems."

With a rapidly rising population that is taking place up there and such a lack of services, serious problems develop and these problems could be minimized if we had adequate services. In the definition of adequate services, I would include recreational facilities. I know the people at the north end of the island will welcome the $10 million fund which has been established so that they can use this money in order to build these necessary facilities.

At the same time I would like to commend the councils and the concerned citizens in the area who have already made a major effort to provide recreational facilities and keep them operational. It is an expensive undertaking for them up there.

Mr. Speaker, I was also gratified to hear that future highways will be built in this province on the basis of need rather than on political considerations — that puts Comox riding right near the top of the list. If there are surplus funds, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that they are spent here.

I realize that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) faced a $35 million over-expenditure in his department when he assumed that portfolio. I also realize that there is a shortage of ferries in the fleet, and I also realize that right now large sums are being expended in the riding of Comox in order to provide at least one road through to the north end of the island.

But aside from the fact that there is no public road to the north end of the island as yet, the Island highway from Nanaimo to Campbell River is a menace. I know we all complain about our own pet highway problems, but I think anyone who has travelled this route will agree to its uniquely frustrating and dangerous character.

About a year ago in the Courtenay area there was a group of citizens who were so concerned about that highway that they formed an organization called SMASH: Society for Making A Safe Highway. They tried to focus public attention on the need for improving that highway, building a second highway, or at least improving the present one.

My constituents tell me, Mr. Speaker, that when our policy talks about the provision of bicycle trails, what we need in our area are not bicycle trails — we have those. What we need are highways.

Like other speakers yesterday, I am pleased that this budget provides an increase for the Fish and Wildlife Branch. I think that any surplus might well be applied to this department for it has been starved financially for years. How can we expect one wildlife biologist to cover all of Vancouver Island? How can we expect him to know what is happening to every species of wildlife on the whole island?

Unlike the other speakers yesterday though, Mr. Speaker, and especially the First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) who wished to use the money to build up herds so that more hunters can come and spend more money in the province so that we can stimulate our economy, I am keen to see this money spent so that biologists can, firstly, more fully understand what our relationship is to wildlife.

What species are endangered and how important is wildlife in the whole scheme of things? What is

[ Page 585 ]

the environmental impact of man's activities on our wildlife? We don't know enough about these things and this is where I think we should be spending that money at the moment.

When wolves become a problem to sheep farmers our first inclination is and has been to destroy the wolves. Is that the best approach or should that only be a last resort?

We need to know far more about the interrelationships between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. I feel we are making a start in this direction, Mr. Speaker, by providing the Fish and Wildlife Branch with personnel who are to concern themselves with the environmental impact of our actions and decisions on the wildlife of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the excitement that I am feeling about an announcement which was made this morning by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The Minister announced this morning that an area which is located in my riding, the Tsitika-Schoen area, will be set aside for study purposes. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an important, exciting thing in this province.

This area in my riding constitutes some 220,000 acres and is in a tree farm licence, but it is the last, untouched watershed on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island. The Tsitika River represents the only one that is left; the Schoen is a beautiful lake area which, I am pleased to report, the Minister has now indicated will be studied before logging takes place in there. We must begin to have this kind of integrated-use study of areas take place before we forge ahead.

In comparison with the Tsitika which is as yet untouched, every other valley on the east coast of Vancouver Island has to some degree or other been cut over and changed. In all these eastern watersheds we have inadvertently, and often drastically, altered the natural, ecologic communities and their intrinsic balances. This is the kind of thing that I would like to see the wildlife people get involved in.

We have markedly changed the landscapes and the water run-off patterns. We have often so affected the critical wildlife habitats as to completely threaten the population of animals that have long lived in these lands.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, when we find ourselves on the verge of destroying our last intact valley, people such as the Minister and myself and the Fish and Wildlife Branch must point out that we should seriously consider the merits and costs of saving this last sample, for scientific reasons if nothing else.

We have altered nature so extensively on the east coast of the island that we need an untouched area such as the Tsitika which is in the northern part of my riding to act as a test plot to be a yardstick by which we are able to assess the seriousness and ramifications of those landscape alterations which have been imposed everywhere else.

For example, if in other watersheds we find we have gone too far and have destroyed something valuable — speaking ecologically — we need to have on hand a genetic bank such as the Tsitika from which we can draw the lost organism or species if it has been endangered, or to re-establish it where it has been destroyed. It is hard to illustrate the importance of establishing an ecological reserve in a place like the Tsitika. We must take the word of some of the most enlightened ecologists of today who are telling us that this is the kind of study we have to undertake before we forge ahead anymore.

The Vancouver Island Roosevelt elk is internationally recognized as an endangered species at the moment. We have destroyed its habitat through poor logging practices; we have driven it back and reduced its numbers severely.

Today it's Tsitika that offers us a chance to see one herd survive in its natural state. Perhaps in Tsitika we may learn enough about elk habitat requirements to allow us to successfully re-establish herds in areas that are now depleted or in areas in which they are in danger of being depleted.

The Schoen area is one of the most tremendous areas for park potential in the province. It is certainly one of the scenic and recreational highlights of the whole island. It has rugged ridges. It is alpine. It has high and low level lakes, extensive low level meadows — something we've all but wiped out on the island. In Schoen there is all sorts of recreational opportunity.

With Tsitika-Schoen we are talking about an area that happens to have very exciting land-use possibilities. I must say this afternoon I'm delighted that that study is going to be undertaken.

The area right now is presently under forest management and it is certain that logging values in parts of the area are also significant. Thus, we can't afford to plan this land in terms of one use or another use only. We intend now to study Tsitika-Schoen, giving full weight to all resource users. We are striving for integrated resource use — the wisest use of land, something I'm afraid that's not been sought after in the past.

Under Social Credit, land was a commodity that was doled out in order to make the fastest buck in the shortest time for free enterprise. This policy always favoured economics over more intangibles, such as ecology.

Thus, very often logging or mining would occur in an area of high park potential. A recreation resource would be callously lost. This was the rule before. In fact, the past government was so bent on single economic uses that it allowed logging and mining and

[ Page 586 ]

power generation to go in beautiful parks such as Strathcona.

I would also like to point out that the past government cancelled over 15 million acres of parks in order to allow forestry and other users in.

Today we are trying to recover from those Dark Age policies of land use. The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) the other day mentioned the need for massive forest reforms in the manner in which the B.C. forest industry and its regulator, the Forest Service, operate. I would agree that this change is needed.

But I believe that the Minister, in declaring Tsitika-Schoen an integrated study area, is clearly saying to us that no longer will the industry simply do what it alone considers to be expedient, regardless of other resource users.

Through proper logging operations in the Tsitika-Schoen area, I am convinced that not only can such abuse be rectified. Not only can an integrated-use plan of Tsitika-Schoen be undertaken, but employment and forestry production need not be affected, if the industry is made to log more comprehensively in regions which are right adjacent to that area we're setting out in the study.

Integrated planning and land use as will be displayed in Tsitika-Schoen will likely become a major policy for public lands throughout the province. Then the people may at last realize the optimum use of their land resource. I welcome this announcement today, but it's getting late and I'll keep my list for another day. I would just like to point out that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) said yesterday that it's important to note not only what increases are included in that budget, but how those increases are going to be spent. I agree.

I feel that this budget reveals not only the Government's concern for the people through services to people, which it obviously intends to provide, but it reflects also a growing awareness of the public concern for the environmental consequences of unplanned growth. Mr. Speaker, I shall support this budget.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Levi files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we adjourn, a matter was raised on Friday, February 16, 1973. The matter of Members obtaining copies of bills was raised as a matter of privilege. The Member concerned and I, I am glad to report, met yesterday, February 19, with the Sergeant-at-Arms to look into the procedure of distribution of bills.

We were advised that when a message bill is first introduced in the House, the Queen's Printer unlocks the case containing bills for distribution. There are 150 bills normally ordered by my office to supply books on the 60 desks in the House or connected to this chamber, a further 28 bills for caucus rooms and 22 bills for the accredited Press gallery.

These bills are taken directly to each caucus room — Opposition first, Government second — the staff dropping off 22 copies at the Press gallery en route to the Opposition office. The balance of bills remaining are available in their slots in the Sergeant-at-Arm's office as spares for MLA's or members of the Press gallery, but not for the public, who must apply for them from the Queen's Printer.

The above policy and procedure was worked out by the previous administration under the then Speaker, Mr. W. Murray. The Government has no part in the issuing of the requisition for these bills, nor in their distribution. The Sergeant-at -Arms and his staff are the servants only of this assembly and not of the Government, and are under the direct supervision of the Speaker only.

Our duty is to see that Members have sufficient bills to do their job, both in the House and in their respective offices. There is no favouritism or discrimination in distributing them as soon as the particular bill is introduced. No bills are released by the Queen's Printer prior to the bill being placed on the table of the House, except for proof-reading copies guarded by the Legislative Counsel. You must understand they have to see them to see that they're properly proof-read.

After a bill is introduced, each Member has 20 copies mailed out by the Queen's Printer to persons listed by each Member. Thus, so far as the procedure is concerned, the only problem arises when a bill attracts such trade that Members demand numerous copies. The bills in question were bills 34 and 35. One Opposition Member wanted 100 copies. Another asked for 60, and now the Opposition office has requested a requisition of 500 from the Queen's Printer. Further requests have come from Government Members.

These requests can be granted, provided the Members accept the necessity for larger appropriations than the previous administration allowed. I have therefore, on my own, ordered substantial quantities of bills 34 and 35 as requested. I trust this puts the matter at rest. But I must acknowledge now the unswerving loyalty of the Sergeant-at-Arms and his staff and the Queen's Printer in fairly doing their duty by all the Members as true servants of this assembly.

[ Page 587 ]

MR. CHABOT: A brief comment on that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Apologies.

MR. CHABOT: Pardon? I have no apologies to make. Why should I apologize?

I'm certainly happy to see that you have clarified that matter of distribution of bills. I want to assure you that there has never been any reflection on the part of the Members of the Opposition relative to the means by which the Sergeant-at-Arms and the attendants of this House have carried out their duties, their responsibilities and their directions.

You have made suggestions here that instructions of the previous administration were such and such. I want to assure you that you are now the Speaker and you issue your directive as to the procedure of distribution of these bills.

As you mentioned a little earlier, we did discuss the distribution. I agree that the matter was well in hand and I agreed with the method which you so gracefully went out of your way to make available — fair treatment to the Members of the distribution of these bills.

However, there was an incident that did develop at that particular time, wherein a Member of this assembly had access to a particular bill and another Member was denied. I am glad to see that you have now straightened this matter out and we know what the procedure will be in the future.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.