1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

471 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

ICBC investment position. Mrs. Wallace — 472

Increase in B.C. schools' fire insurance deductible. Mr. Gibson — 472

Thompson River task force report. Mr. Lea — 472

Status of Newell Morrison. Mr. Macdonald — 473

Cutbacks in staff of Legal Services Commission. Mr. Wallace — 473

Information on ICBC deposits. Mr. Lauk — 474

Joint consultation on Constitution. Mr. Gibson — 474

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 475

Change of Name Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 34) Second reading.

Ms. Brown — 478

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 479

Motor-vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 32) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 480

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 481

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 481

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 482

Point of order

Correctness of procedure. Mr. Gibson — 482

Mr. Speaker — 482

Mr. Gibson — 483

Mr. Speaker — 483

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3) . Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace — 483

Hon. Mr. Mair — 483

Mrs. Dailly — 484

Mr. Lockstead — 486

Ms. Brown — 489

Mr. Hewitt — 495

Ms. Sanford — 497

Mr. Kempf — 499

Mr. Barnes — 500

Statement

Withdrawal of whip from consultations. Mr. King — 504

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 504

Mr. Speaker — 504

Speaker's ruling

Alleged pre-release of budget information. Mr. Speaker — 504

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to make welcome this afternoon a man who has

served the community of British Columbia for many years. He was the

first mayor of Langley and served in this House as an MLA for Langley

for nine years and during the last parliament that he served he was

government Whip. Please make welcome Mr. Hunter Vogel.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I trust the

members of this House can identify just a little with my pride and

pleasure in introducing my wife, my son Kenton Ted and my daughter Lisa

Rae who are seated in the gallery this afternoon.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon

at Government House His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor had the pleasure of awarding to 33 young

British Columbia men the certificates for the Queen's Venture Award. The

Venturers are senior scouts and the Queen's Award is the major award which

can be given to them. In the gallery today we have Mr. Ted Hathaway, provincial

executive director of the Boy Scouts of Canada for the British Columbia-Yukon

provincial council, who came with the boys to Government House for this ceremony.

There are also representative members of the Venturers here in the gallery and

I would like the House to welcome them and, in particular, I would like them to welcome Mr.

Alan Dudley, one of the Venturers who is a close personal friend of mine.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to

introduce in the Speaker's gallery today two residents of Gold River in

the constituency of Alberni, Mr. and Mrs. Sims as well as their

daughter-in-law who is with them.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

members to welcome June Bernard from Kitimat, Gail Johnson from Terrace

and Megan Wilson from Smithers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today are Barbara Wiskin and a group of six associates from North Vancouver

who come each spring to the Legislative Assembly to study the finer points of

parliamentary practice, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to recognize the presence of a former member of

this assembly, a former member for the constituency of Delta; then,

following redistribution in 1966, a former member representing the

constituency of Richmond, Mr. Ernie LeCours.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, with

deference to the Attorney-General, I would ask that the House recognize

everyone else in the gallery who has not been previously recognized.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments

of the member for Vancouver South, but I want to make another

introduction if I may. It's of Professor Andres and a group of

political science students who will be in the gallery at 3 o'clock from

the Trinity Western College in the first capital of British Columbia,

Fort Langley.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to be cheated of this opportunity, either, to introduce to the House...

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): You were premature.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...a group of senior secondary students

from the Howe Sound Senior Secondary School who are here with some of

the parents and teachers in order to watch the way in which their

member and all members of this assembly conduct themselves with dignity

and decorum.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the 1975 report for the British

Columbia Medical Centre, together with the audited financial statement

for 1975 which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the first annual report of the

Emergency Health Services Commission, together with a statement of

financial position as of March 31, 1975.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the Royal Commission of

Inquiry on Family and Children's Law, the 8th, 9th, 11th and 12th

reports of the commissioners and supplement in accordance

[ Page 472 ]

with the Public Inquiries Act.

Oral questions

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, may I ask you when you'll bring down a ruling on my motion on the question of privileges?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member, I hope to have a ruling by

this evening before we adjourn at 6 o'clock. I'm in the process of

preparing it and hope to have it for you before we adjourn.

MR. MACDONALD: Or tomorrow morning, possibly. I may not be

here, Mr. Speaker. I have my own constituency to think about...as long

as it is by tomorrow morning.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. Make no mistake about that.

ICBC INVESTMENT POSITION

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the

Minister of Education. I would like to ask the hon. minister what was

the total of ICBC term deposits and long-term investments as of March

30, 1976?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I'll take that

question as notice and try and file the answer by 6 o'clock this

evening. The cash position, however, of ICBC as of March 30, as the

member asked last night, was $461,000, Mr. Speaker.

INCREASE IN B.C. SCHOOLS'

FIRE INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the same minister. Is

the Minister of Education aware that as of March 1, schools in British

Columbia previously having a $1,000 fire insurance deductible were

unilaterally moved up to $1 million and not notified until a circular

was sent out by his department dated March 25? Is this an example of

consultation with school boards?

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary then, given that

that is indeed an example of consultation with school boards, since the

local taxpayer will have to suffer half the loss of any school that

burns down up to $1 million, or else pay much higher premiums, is this

part of the government's programme of shifting educational costs onto

the local taxpayer?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference at all

to the local taxpayer. One way or another the people of British

Columbia have to pay for all the school losses through fire.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on

the same issue. Has any discussion, in the light of this notification

to the school boards, taken place with the chance of making it again

optional for school boards to buy fire insurance where they please, or

will you maintain the monopoly of ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

THOMPSON RIVER

TASK FORCE REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of

Environment. On Monday last, March 29, I asked the Minister of

Environment two questions. One, has the Thompson River task force

report been released, and, if so, on what date? Also, Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary question I asked was: had representatives of the city of

Kamloops and/or representatives of Weyerhauser been given an

opportunity to see a preview of that report in the month of January. I

wonder whether the minister has that answer for me today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, yes. The report was released January 22.

I would prefer to take your second notice continuing, if I may, on

notice until, I believe, tomorrow at question time when I'll have a

complete report on that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No questions, I'm sorry. Next week I'll have your supplemental question or I can file it. It's fairly comprehensive.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that

supplemental. The January 22 report that was released, was that the

actual report or was that just a

summary of the report?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, that was the

[ Page 473 ]

final report issued, a joint report from Environment Canada and the Department of the Environment of British Columbia.

STATUS OF NEWELL MORRISON

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier

whether Mr. Newell Morrison, the former MLA of this House, has been

assisting the government in any capacity either as a consultant or in a

voluntary capacity.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding he's been voluntarily assisting the Minister of Finance.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. My second question to the

Premier is: has he been assisting in any way in connection with

preparation of the late budget — the current budget?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

Premier says: "to the best of his knowledge", and I've never known what

that means. I don't know after all these years. Will you check on the

thing and see whether or not in any respect he assisted in the

preparation of the budget?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister will be

back from Ottawa where he is presently attending a federal-provincial

conference of Finance ministers and I will take the question then as

notice for him to provide an answer on Monday.

CUTBACKS IN STAFF OF

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General a question with regard to cutbacks of staff and

financing affecting the Legal Services Commission. Since it is reported

that several of the staff members being laid off have not completed a

term of contract, could the minister tell the House how many severance

settlements are involved and what will be the amount of money involved

in these settlements?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker,

my general information — and I'm using the word general — is that there

is not any person under contract at the present time with the Legal

Services Commission. As the member is aware, this is a commission that

is autonomous and separate and apart from government.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the cutbacks and the severe impact in

the reduced financing, is the minister planning to meet with

representatives, for example, of the Vancouver Legal Aid Society, who

are just presently preparing their budget and who have reportedly made

the decision that legal aid will not be available to persons accused of

summary offences. In other words, there will be selective legal aid

depending on the offence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that question, Hon. Member, I

would like to read to the House and for your information, the amounts

of moneys that have been spent on legal aid since its inception in

1970. For that year, $221,000; 1971, $594,000; 1972, $858,000; 1973,

$1,161,000; 1974, $1,850,000; and quite an increase into 1975 of $3.737

million. In 1976, as of March 15, the figure has been given me of $4.4

million, and the estimate that has been allocated from the Legal

Services Commission to the Legal Aid Society for this fiscal period

will be $5.1 million plus an anticipated $400,000 from the law

foundation. There has been a 10 per cent increase.

Dealing with the second part of your question, Mr. Member, we have

to determine our priorities in society and legal aid cannot be an

open-ended fund. Some people are of the opinion that that would be the

best type of priority, but assessing the budgetary restraints that

we're facing in this government, the government was able to allocate in

budget, on which you can question me during estimates, $7 million to

the Legal Services Commission. They have determined from their budget

that they are prepared to pay $5.1 million.

Now the question as to which offences...well, it was a complicated

question. I think the hon. members.... If you don't wish me to answer

I'm happy to sit down.

MR. WALLACE: No, go ahead, I want to hear.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the classification of offences,

this again is something that will have to be determined by the Legal

Aid Society, and also one that is under current negotiation between

officials of this department and the federal government concerning the

federal contract. Both the federal government and the Government of

British Columbia have reached the conclusion that it will not be

possible to offer the same kind of legal aid that was offered in the

past. It may be that there will be a restriction, say, in the cases of

impaired driving, in theft under $200 and in the drug-trafficking cases.

The greatest drain of all that is placed on this legal-aid fund is

in the situation of narcotic trafficking conspiracy cases. Heretofore

there has been one counsel appointed by Legal Aid for every

[ Page 474 ]

accused and, hon. members, I think we've just got to reach the decision that this is too rich for our blood.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, and I'll try to be very

brief, although it is a big answer the minister gave. One of the

implications is that a 10 per cent increase per year was too much, when

most other things increased by much more than that.

Secondly, there was an implication in the answer by the use of the

word "open-ended." Am I to understand the minister was implying that

the increased cost has been the result of abuse of the system?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I wouldn't say it was abuse of the

system, Mr. Member. But there is no question that legal aid has been

exceptionally ready and exceptionally available, and it specifically

has in some of these very, very harsh cases. Now I think we've got to

make up our minds as a society as to whether or not it is going to be a

No. I priority to assist maybe those kinds of people.

It is a very vexing question, and it is now under consideration,

that specific topic, both by the Department of Justice in Ottawa and

the officials of this department.

If the hon. member would like something more explicit at any time,

if he would let me know, I will endeavor to find the information for

him.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental on the same subject. Could the

Attorney-General give us any assurances he's received from the Legal

Services Commission that the community law offices programmes will not

be in any way curtailed, and that its expansion as planned will

continue?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, the hon. Attorney-General knows, it

was his statute...the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) . I'm

doing the same thing as the Speaker. It's force of habit — and you've

got my suit on today, I may say (laughter) . But the assessment of the

priority standing of the Legal Services Commission is one that it

fixes, as you know, without any intervention of government, and I

understand that funds are available for community law offices, some of

the education and information programmes and the native court-worker

programme.

I have not received specifics from the Legal Services Commission as

yet as to how they have allocated their funds. My only information is

via the press and the questions from the hon. members.

INFORMATION ON ICBC DEPOSITS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the Minister

of Education. Earlier in the question period he was asked a question

with respect to short-term and long-term deposits of ICBC. He took the

question as notice, and my question is this. Did not the minister

receive that very information either this morning, some time today or

some time yesterday from Mr. Bortnick, and if he did receive that

information, why did he take the question as notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Out of order, hon. member. The question was posed. It was taken as notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question was this: did he receive that information from Mr. Bortnick?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The question was taken as notice. I don't think....

MR. LAUK: That was not the question that was taken as notice,

Mr. Speaker. The question I asked is: did he receive the information

from Mr. Bortnick?

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order!

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

JOINT CONSULTATION ON CONSTITUTION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. We were

some time ago informed through the newspapers that the Premier of

Quebec (Hon. M. Bourassa) had contacted the premiers of the various

provinces with respect to certain constitutional developments with an

eye to working out a joint provincial programme. I would ask our

Premier how that matter stands right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was in contact with the Premier of Quebec

concerning the Constitution, the partition of the Constitution, and the

concern that the Prime Minister of Canada (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) had

announced that he would unilaterally patriot the Constitution. We came

out with the other provinces that Confederation demands consultation

and cooperation between the provinces.

This subject will be in discussion at the Western Premier's

Conference, April 28 and 29. It will be taken up, hopefully, at a first

ministers' conference to follow sometime later this spring or early

summer.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, the question period was terminated by that bell.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on the speakers of

the day list you will see that the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) is No. 3, and the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is

[ Page 475 ]

No. 4. I request your permission to reverse these.

The member for Omineca will be No. 3; the member for Rossland-Trail

will be fourth.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

Orders of the day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued)

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to your

post as Speaker, and also the Deputy Speaker. I'd like to congratulate

all members of the government who were elected in the election on

December 11, and I would like to congratulate all members of the

official opposition, the Liberal member and the Conservative member.

Each of us has a very big job to do and it requires both a good

government and a good opposition to do the job.

It was an honour for me to have been elected by the people of

Yale-Lillooet to represent them in this Legislative Assembly, and it

was indeed an honour to be selected by the Premier to serve in his

cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, the objectives of this government were spelled out

before the election, and I was elected to help fulfil these objectives.

I was elected to help provide responsible, stable government, and to

serve the people of this province...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...and this I will do.

As a newcomer to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, my initial reaction,

which may be shared by those who visit the gallery, especially the

younger people, was is this the manner in which the affairs of British

Columbia are managed?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm afraid so.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some of the things that take place in

here, quite frankly, surprised me, and I wonder is this really

necessary, all the nonsensical personal attacks, the needless

repetition and the childlike antics of so many of our members.

I've heard some good speeches in the Legislature. A couple I'd like

to mention: one was the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber); he had

some very meaningful things to say to us and I think we should all,

perhaps, pay a little more attention to what he did say.

Another excellent speech which, to me, had a great deal of real

reason, outlining our problems, suggested solutions — to me the type of

thing we really should be talking about here — was the speech of the

hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . The

minister was very specific and told us what our problems were, some of

the things we could do about it. We should consider very seriously his

remarks.

We as a government must listen to the people of British Columbia,

and also listen to the opposition, for this is the essence of

democracy. And they must listen to us, for anyone can say "no, " but if

anyone does say "no" then they have the responsibility of providing

workable alternatives.

It is easy to give destructive criticism, but this is not what we

want from a good opposition, or a good government. It requires far more

effort, more integrity and professional ethic to contribute criticism

and viable ideas, and we do have to admit to being professional

politicians. Let us conduct ourselves in a reasonable, businesslike

manner, and let us never forget that our responsibility is to all of

the people of this great province.

If, 15 months ago, anyone had suggested I would someday be a

politician I would have been very amused. Webster's dictionary

describes a politician as "a person actively engaged in government or

politics", and of politics, Webster says "the art or science of

government; the guiding or influencing of governmental policy, or

winning or holding control of government."

Today, I am a politician and at times I'm reluctant to recognize

this fact because of the general public impression of what a politician

is — a Senator Foghorn. We have heard and seen too much of Senator

Foghorn in these chambers, and I would like to play a

part in making

the term politician...

MR. WALLACE: He's talking to you, Don.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...a respected word and a goal worthy of achievement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: To do this, politicians must behave like

responsible people, both here in the chamber and outside — like

responsible people. We must be true to our political philosophy and we

must listen to those of different ideologies. We must be honest with

ourselves and honest and sincere when speaking to others. How many of

us here can really say that we believe everything we say in these

chambers sincerely? Let us make the term "politician" synonymous with

the term "leader." Let's be proud of being politicians.

Mr. Speaker, as politicians we are stewards of a democratic

governing system, entrusted with safeguarding the freedom, the health

and the welfare of the people of this province.

The people pay a considerable portion of their

[ Page 476 ]

hard-earned incomes to maintain a government

bureaucracy, and a government bureaucracy always functions efficiently

if it has good political leadership and good, responsible, honest

opposition.

Like any other leadership role, to be successful, the first

requirement is to earn the respect of those who have to be led or

motivated. I believe that this is not just a matter of the philosophy

or the ideology of the legislative production of this House, but that

it is equally a matter of our behavioral pattern and performance which

must set an example to inspire those whom we lead and, through them,

the confidence of all the people of British Columbia.

The last few years have seen a regrettable erosion take place of

this very important respect and confidence people have towards their

politicians. As a novice to the game I am, perhaps, naive enough to

believe that this confidence can be restored by hard work and sincerity.

In Canada, and in British Columbia particularly, we enjoy one of the

highest standards of living in the world. We live in a province that

has bountiful resources and which has the people, the technology and

machinery to turn these resources into prosperity, and thereby ensure

our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of government in British Columbia

only since about 1952, the year I graduated from high school. British

Columbia and the world had just come through a serious depression, a

world war and a period of post-war adjustment. We had problems with

financial difficulties then, just as we have today. But we also had raw

materials and people-resources, and we had a government that believed

in individual enterprise, just as we have today. We had a government

that knew transportation was the lifeline of industry, and that power

was essential to development. The combination of individual enterprise

and personal initiative was the catalyst which created a better way of

life over the next 20 years.

For example, the gross value produced by the forest industry in

British Columbia in 1952 was about $500 million. In 1973 it was $2.5

billion. The mining industry in 1952 had a gross value production of

$171 million, and the same industry in 1973 had a gross value

production of $1.1 billion. We had a government that initiated and

embarked on the development of transportation and power systems,

highways, railways, ferries and power dams such as the Peace River Dam,

the Columbia River Dam and the Arrow Dams. We had a government, Mr.

Speaker, which inspired and encouraged policy which led to development

of our basic industries — forestry, mining, agriculture and tourism.

These industries were developed by people who were willing to work and

people who knew that we must all put a little more into society than we

demand from it.

I hear much talk, much reference to the working people. It seems to

be a very popular phrase. "You are doing something against the working

people, " they say. But who are the working people? I think we are all

working people. It matters not whether we drive a truck in an open-pit

mine, or that we work in the forests or in offices, or whether we are

businessmen — each of us depends on the other. We are all working

people, and we are all working towards a better way of life in British

Columbia. The entrepreneur could not survive without the man who is

working with his hands; neither can the man who is working with his

hands survive without the entrepreneur. So we are each dependent on

each other.

As the economy of British Columbia grew so did our ability to expand

our social programmes — social assistance, health, education, housing,

recreational facilities. But these measures only came as we developed

the ability to pay for them. The economy grew under proper guidance

from the government of the day, and British Columbia and British

Columbians became the envy of Canada. We had used our bountiful

resources to create a better way of life for all British Columbians.

The government opposition, too, played an important role by urging

the development of important programmes. The opposition is and always

has been an important part of government. In 1972 a new government was

elected in British Columbia, a government with such a huge, social and

political obligation that they lost sight of the fact that government

can only produce what society as a whole can afford.

Individual demands grew faster than the ability of society to

satisfy them. The work ethic that built our society began to decline.

The confidence of investors was lost as the political and economic

climate of British Columbia began to deteriorate. The development of

our resources stopped, and with it the broadening taxation base that is

essential to provide the services to the people of British Columbia.

Because our economy stagnated unemployment grew and welfarism then

became a way of life for too many of our people.

Increased obligations of the government and decreasing revenue for

the government has led to the situation we are faced with today. If

government is to continue to provide the services which are demanded of

it, it must either increase taxes or increase the tax base. At the

present time we are forced to do the former. Hopefully, by creating the

proper climate in British Columbia now, we can expand our tax base.

If we are able to continue to afford expansion of social services

and benefits for people, the people who produce the wealth — the

working people and the investors — must both share the fruits of their

efforts. It is only with taxes taken from them that governments provide

the services that people must

[ Page 477 ]

have.

The decline of mining in British Columbia was caused primarily

because a short-sighted government took too much from an industry and

expanded social measures faster than could be afforded. Jobs for

working people and opportunity for investors were lost.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You don't believe that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this attitude was expressed

by the then Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) on March 11, 1975. On a

television interview he complained of the unfair treatment his

government was receiving from the media. He said: "All we want to do is

to tell the people how they can plug into the system."

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia do not want to plug into

the system; they want an opportunity to become a part of the system.

They want the chance to work and to help themselves. They do not

begrudge help to those who cannot help themselves, but they do resent

being forced to support people who are able to work but who refuse to

contribute to our society.

There are too many who just want to plug into the system and live off the workers of British Columbia.

The Premier has given me the responsibility for the Mines and

Petroleum Resources portfolio and for the forest industry portfolio.

These three industries — mining, petroleum, natural gas and forestry

— create most of the job opportunities in British Columbia and

most of the revenue for government. These industries must be

encouraged, for if they die, so does the way of life we have come to

expect in British Columbia.

This is why the Forest Service is reviewing policies and the

enforcement of unrealistic rules and regulations that add substantially

to the cost of forestry operations. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I will be

introducing legislation this session which will offer encouragement to

the mining industry, and allow this industry to once again take its

rightful place in our economy so it can provide jobs and opportunity to

British Columbians — so that it can provide jobs and opportunities and

increasing revenue for the Government of British Columbia.

Of course, government must obtain a fair share of the revenue

generated by these industries. But if too much is taken by government,

nothing will be left for wages for workers or for investors so they

will continue to invest in British Columbia and to expand our economic

base. These industries are not bottomless wells of tax revenue. If

taxation or wage demands or any other single factor make them

economically non-viable, then we will be the poorer for it.

British Columbia can be an extremely wealthy province. We have vast

resources which can be developed for the benefit of all British

Columbians. But unless they are developed, they will benefit no one. In

1973, the former Premier stated: "Unless we can get a better deal for

what we are doing, we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean it."

He said: "...we will leave the ore in the ground." That's where the ore

remained — in the ground. Today some of these resources are not

economically viable, and British Columbians and British Columbia are

the poorer for it.

When the ore remained in the ground, so did jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

The potential wealth of this province is such that we can and will,

with the proper economic and political climate, be Canada's leading

producer of minerals. We can, with the proper economic and political

climate, develop secondary industry allied to our mineral production,

and thereby expand our whole economic base, and thereby provide more

jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it's all about. That's what it's all about.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The potential of proven coal resources in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is the envy of the free world. Now that

we are once again a part of the free world, we can look forward to

dramatic expansion in the development of this resource. As our coal

resource is developed and expanded, we can and will encourage the

establishment of secondary industry based on our coal resource, and

thereby provide more jobs and opportunities for the people of British

Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We still have vast untapped petroleum and

natural gas potential in British Columbia. By creating the proper

economic and political climate we will continue to explore for and

develop this essential resource to provide for the energy needs of our

society.

Toward the end of its term in office the previous government

recognized the fact that the petroleum industry must have a reasonable

return if it was to continue to finance the development and exploration

of this important resource — towards the last part of its

administration.

AN HON, MEMBER: Death-bed repentance.

HON, MR. WATERLAND: Last year it admitted that taxes and

royalty policies were too restrictive, and they made changes which

offered some incentives to the oil companies. The result of these

changes and subsequent return to an individual enterprise

[ Page 478 ]

government in British Columbia resulted in the fact

that this year, now, we have 39 drill rigs working in the north,

whereas last year, under the terms of that government which had

established these terms two years before, we had six drill rigs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Shameful!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No confidence in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the present government will continue to encourage the

development of our oil and gas potential, and so ensure a continuing

energy supply for British Columbia and jobs and opportunities for

British Columbians.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, public bills in the hands of private members: second reading of Bill 3 1.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES

AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

On behalf of Mr. Skelly, Mr. Lauk moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker. I notice that it is not printed and you may advise....

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Is it printed? Fine.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome

the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill, even though this opportunity

came to me as the result of a double-cross...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: ...on the part of that government over there. We

sat in this House two nights ago and heard the Premier talk about the

Whip system breaking down...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: ...when this government chooses to see their Whip system break down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Will you please confine your remarks to the principle of Bill 34?

MS. BROWN: This is in support of Bill 34: we have had an opportunity to discuss it because we're seeing the Whip system breaking down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is not in order to discuss the Whip system under Bill 34, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Bill 34 deals with an amendment to

the Change of Name Act. As the Act is presently constituted, married

women in this province cannot change their names as long as their

husbands are alive — no matter what the circumstances may be, even with

their husband's permission, their mother's permission, their father's

permission or whatever.

This amendment is one which I have spoken on in this House a number of times.

It's nothing new to this province, so much so that it was referred by the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) when he was Attorney-General to the

Berger Commission. The Berger Commission brought down a recommendation in their

report No. 11, which I think was tabled in this House earlier today, recommending

that this should be permitted — that married women in this province, as long

as the changing of their surname did not in any way affect the position of their

husband's surname, should be permitted to do so.

[ Page 479 ]

There are a large number of women in this province who do not

realize that it is not necessary for them to take on their husband's

surname when they get married. Some people know this now because,

certainly, within the women's movement — through the Status of Women

council and other groups — we are beginning to publicize this, but

there are still a large number of women who do not know this. There are

a large number of these women who would like to change back to their

original names.

It really is disgraceful that it is possible for children to change

their names in this province, provided they get permission. It is

possible for men to change their surnames in this province, provided

the necessary papers are signed and that they're not doing it for any

illegal reason. But it is not permitted, as the Act very clearly

states, during the lifetime of her husband.... I'm glad you're

listening, Mr. Premier, because this is the kind of information you

should find very useful when you're not double-crossing us anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that statement. I withdraw that

statement, because this is a very important matter which I am

discussing and I'm certainly hoping to get cooperation from the

government in this respect.

When the women presented their brief to you, Mr. Premier, you

promised at that time that you would look very seriously at some of the

recommendations in that brief. This was one of the recommendations in

that brief. I'm sure by now you've had an opportunity to read that

brief. You've given me the opportunity to speak, and I certainly

appreciate your giving me that opportunity to speak. It would have

helped, Mr. Premier, if I'd come by it some other kind of way, but that

is another matter.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, the member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, if I can continue without any further

interruptions from the government benches, I'm sure that there are a

number of people over on the government benches who did not know, in

fact, that there was legislation on the books of this province which

prohibits married women — even those over the age of 21, who have

reached maturity, as we say in this province — from changing their name

if they wanted to.

The recommendation brought down by the Berger Commission is that

this Act should be amended, that in fact this

section of the bill

should be withdrawn, that there's absolutely no justification for

hurrying it on. I certainly hope that the government members are going

to ensure that this recommendation of the Berger Commission is

implemented as soon as possible.

There are a number of letters which I'll be very happy if the person

responsible, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland).... This

comes under vital statistics, Mr. Minister of Health; it's your

department that is responsible for this. There are all kinds of

materials that I could table for your benefit if you would like some

kind of advice in this regard.

But certainly the work has been done on it. The recommendation is

there and I hope the government will accept this amendment to that

really innocuous little piece of legislation, because nobody has been

able to come up with any justification or any reason why that

legislation is on the books today.

It is one of the things that certainly not just this province asked

for, but also through the declaration of human rights from the United

Nations which declared that the next 10 years should be the decade of

action for governments around the world to move towards the true

equality of women under their jurisdiction.

I hope that that government over there...you particularly, Mr.

Premier, because you did indicate that you were interested. Despite the

things done by your government so far in terms of terminating funding

to various women's programmes, you did indicate on March 22, when you

were lobbied, that you would look at the recommendations embodied in

that report and possibly consider implementing some of them.

Bill 34 is one of those recommendations, and I'm certainly hoping

that you will work to see that it is implemented. Thank you very much.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'd like to thank

the first member for Vancouver-Burrard for her introduction of this

bill. I'd like to tell her that there are instructions before the

department to review this matter in connection with the Berger

Commission recommendation, and that it's under active review at the

present time.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker: I hope I'm not out of order, but as a lady member of this

Legislature, I should just like to say that I'm deeply distressed that

the most legitimate concerns of women in this province, so ably put by

the member for

[ Page 480 ]

Vancouver-Burrard should be...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...so distorted by personal vindictiveness and personal....

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been accused

of personal vindictiveness. Would the member like to clarify precisely

what act of personal vindictiveness I have involved myself in?

MR. SPEAKER: Now hon. member, you are out of order. I already

moved the member for North Okanagan out of order in rising in her place

to try to discuss a matter which will come under debate whenever the

bill is called again.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since we've talked a lot about the

Whip system not working and since we had no notice that these bills

would be debated — I was out of the House about five minutes — I would

ask leave to revert to Bills 32 and 33.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I was just about

to ask leave of the House if we could now, while the hon. member for

Oak Bay is in his seat, refer to the second reading of Bill 33.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me. Before I put the motion, is this a point of order?

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to make a statement pertaining to the same matter which the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I am sorry but leave has been asked

for and granted for the member for Oak Bay to proceed on Bill 33. I

think I have to recognize the bill.

MR. WALLACE: I happen to be sponsoring both 32 and 33, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't matter to me which one we do first.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Member, it is proper to call them in order, so that's what I'll do.

MR. WALLACE: It's getting a little difficult to know just what is proper around here, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second

reading of the Motor-Vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976. I appreciate the

opportunity to talk just very briefly on the second reading of Bill 32

which I am sure all members of the House have individually considered.

The principle is the very important one of making the wearing of seat

belts mandatory.

We have heard the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) talk about the

activity of a committee in his area which wants to take the car out of

carnage. I think that, in one word, exemplifies the principle of this

bill: namely, that statistics from all around the world have shown that

while seat belts are no complete answer to the traffic accident

carnage, at least they have been shown to reduce not only the incidence

of death — fatal injuries — but also the diminution of those injuries

which people survive.

The one area in the principle of this bill which I am sure concerns

all of us is an element of interference with the right of the

individual in being compelled to wear a seat belt. I am sure we all

know of the gentleman in Ontario who was recently convicted and chose

to spend four days in jail rather than pay a fine. The element of

interference with the rights of an individual has to be equated with

the rights of society, the cost not only in human lives and injuries in

automobile accidents but the actual economic and dollar costs. I am

sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), above all others

perhaps, is aware of the number of people who are severely injured and

spend weeks or months in an acute-care hospital and incur a very

substantial cost to the taxpayer. One could raise many other peripheral

issues in this debate but the central one is that the statistics have

shown in almost all countries where proper studies have been done that

seat belts diminish the incidence of death and serious injury.

The only other argument that leaves me in any kind of doubt at all

is the interference with the right of the individual to choose. But in

this case it seems to me we're becoming such a mobile society with more

and more vehicles of all kinds on the highways that the interests of

society override in this instance the loss of choice which would be

incurred by the individual in being compelled to wear a seat belt or

otherwise be penalized.

I move second reading of this bill.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the hon.

member has made some very valid points in his remarks in the

introduction of Bill 32. The bill that he has presented to the House is

very, if not completely, similar to the legislation that has been

introduced in Ontario. His interest is the same as the government's and

I think every member of the House. That's traffic safety and as much

protection for the individual in motor vehicles as possible. It is a

proposal that is under consideration and study by the

[ Page 481 ]

government. There is some question, Mr. Speaker, as

to whether or not the bill in its form is in order, because it's a

possible impost against the Crown. But I am not going to raise that

today and I will move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

MR. GARDOM: Will you consider an adjournment until the other member is back?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second

reading of the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Speaker, we've entitled

this bill Freedom of Information Act but under

section I we state that

this Act may be cited as the "Macdonald-Gardom Sunshine, Act, 1976."

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: We always have a little frivolity, Mr. Speaker,

when we discuss the subject in the House. I well remember the now

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) typical humorous approach in

introducing second reading of a very similar bill on more than one

occasion. And the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

who, unfortunately, isn't in the House at the moment, had also

introduced a bill.

Again, one could talk at great length, but, very simply, it really

amounts to the fact that we all recognize the ever-burgeoning size of

governments at all levels and the distance that is being placed between

the individual citizens and various levels of authority. We're also

living in a very bureaucratic age where rules and regulations seem to

proliferate and the paper work that gets between the individual and

various levels of authority is mountainous; otherwise we wouldn't have

to buy shredders.

So there is a real anxiety on the part of many, many people in our

province and in our country that not only is the individual losing his

or her realistic access to the people who wield power over their

individual lives, but when that individual has suspicion to think that

perhaps these various levels of authority are acting either without

authority, or are acting on information which may well be incorrect,

that individual has more and more trouble getting access to that very

pertinent information. We've already had legislation, in other

jurisdictions as well as our own; regarding the whole question of the

granting of credit and the difficulty that some individuals have in

finding out why they have been refused credit.

So the main thrust of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to try and ensure

that in that whole area of government and various boards and tribunals

— whether it be school boards or parks boards or any other kind of

board or tribunal which has authority over the individual — in order to

exercise that authority over the individual — in order to exercise that

authority fairly and legally there must be complete, free access of the

individual to that authority in order to provide him or her with all

the information that is being acted up on.

One of the interesting elements we've tried to put in the bill

refers to the commitment by this government that there will be an

ombudsman created in the province. It would seem to us that where the

individual makes an attempt to find out about personal information at

any level of government, and where that person is refused the

information, this would be a very useful role for the ombudsman to fill

by investigating the complaint, and either justifying the withholding

of the information or ordering its release.

I know that the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

was quoted recently about the unhappy tendency of certain municipal

councils to hold more and more meetings in camera. I couldn't agree

more since I've had some experience in this area, municipally, myself.

I couldn't agree more that his awareness of the danger of this

progressive secrecy in government is very great.

While it may seem a small step at a time, if we ever lose sight of

the fact in this House that freedom is something that has to be

protected incessantly day by day, if not minute by minute, that each

little step which this House permits to be taken which will restrict

the freedom of the individual, then indeed we are losing sight of our

main responsibility in this chamber.

I think that this kind of bill, which I know has the whole-hearted

support of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom).... Many of the ideas

in this bill are exactly those ideas which he had previously outlined

in legislation, because I read his bill very carefully in preparing

this one.

It is a very important issue: not just the freedom of the

individual, but the freedom of the individual to protect his interests.

The individual has great difficulty protecting his interests if he

cannot have access to the information being used to either influence

his privacy or his credit capacity, or any other fact that impinges

upon his private or public life.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House will likely

wholeheartedly, without any thought of obstruction whatsoever, give the

greatest support to this bill. I move second reading.

[ Page 482 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

most generous remarks. I indeed hope the type of legislation that is

proposed by this bill will become a reality in this province, and we

won't have to see it introduced at some later stage in life as the

Macdonald-Gardom-Wallace Sunshine Act.

But I wish to say that I'm certainly all for fiat lux

in all of its forms, that the practicality and the operation of this

measure that has been suggested by the hon. member is one that must

have greatly distressed and caused considerable concern to the former

government, because they did not see fit to introduce any legislation

whatsoever along the lines elucidated within the bill and as

articulated by my friend, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . But

improved accountability, Mr. Speaker, is the clear direction of this

government. We're instituting, as the hon. members well know,

eventually the office of an ombudsman to help the citizen wade through

the bureaucratic snarls of red tape and also to help the citizens in

the case of administrative wrongs and, furthermore, an auditor-general

to watchdog the finances of the province.

The bill as it stand, Mr. Speaker, is clearly an impost upon the

Crown and, as such, it is not possible to be introduced by a private

member. It's up to you, Your Honour, as to what steps you wish to take

in that, but I would be quite pleased to move second reading now.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading, hon. member?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, adjournment.

You've got to make a few mistakes at the beginning now and then, Mr. Member. You know that. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General moves adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I just

say that while we're being very negative about procedures in the House,

this particular little session this afternoon represents a big step

forward inasmuch as private members have been allowed, at least in a

few words, to outline a bill and not be quickly interrupted and told

it's out of order so that you can't even introduce it. I think that

while that may seem a very small step forward, it might encourage a

sense of optimism about the future affairs in which this House will

operate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that, Mr. Member, it has to be noted

by the House that private members' day was not called once in the last session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I would like to respond on behalf of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

MR. COCKE: No. You allowed a statement regarding this private

members' day, and I'd like to make a statement regarding private

members' day.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. COCKE: The government found themselves in an embarrassing

position today having broken a deal, and then they had to move into

private members' day because we wouldn't allow them the permission to

go any other way. What a bunch of nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will give notice that

there will be private members' days recognized in the future in this

House by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to second reading of Bill 3.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, and seeking your guidance, I'm very, very puzzled

about the procedure we've gone through this afternoon. Once debate was

adjourned on Committee of Supply, which was first off on the orders of

the day after oral questions, we should have — except by leave — gone

on to first of all petitions — and I presume there are none today —

presenting reports from standing or special committees, and there are

none today. We should then have gone on to motions and adjourned

debates on motions, which has precedence, certainly on Wednesdays and

Thursdays, according to the provisions of standing order 27. I would

ask Your Honour to rule that while the procedure we have followed up to

now might be somewhat irregular, we can at least regularize it — before

moving on to public bills — by going back to motions and adjourned

debates on motions in order that we may follow our rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is quite correct as to

[ Page 483 ]

the position of certain motions on the order paper,

it's not for the Speaker to determine particularly the order in which

they will be taken. It's not unusual for the House Leader, either by

leave or by putting a motion, to move from one order of business to

another. In this particular case, the House Leader moved a motion that

we call public bills in the hands of private members. At that time I

put the motion and no objection was taken by any member of the House,

so I have to assume that at that point there was no objection by any

member of the House to move into that stage of the proceedings of the

House for this day. If an hon. member had raised a point of order at

that particular moment I would have dealt with the point of order then.

Interjection

MR. SPEAKER: No, you didn't raise a point of order when we

moved into the matters of public bills in the hands of private members.

We called that order of business and you, on behalf of the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), moved adjournment.

Then, by leave of the House, when the hon. member returned to his

seat, we went back to debate the bills which ordinarily would not have

come up again until such time as that order of business was again

called. Objection having not been taken at the time when it would have

been proper to take it, I assumed that this was the will of the House.

Now it could perhaps be argued; how does the Speaker determine what

is the will of the House? The only thing that I can offer to you, sir,

in reply is that when the hon. Provincial Secretary moved a motion to

proceed to that order of business I put the motion and the question was

affirmed by the House and passed. That's where we were at in terms of

order of business for today.

MR. GIBSON: I'd just like to say one thing on that point of

order, Mr. Speaker. Just as a matter of practice in the House, it would

seem to me only proper that whenever leave is required, leave should be

asked for specifically and not assumed, because hon. members often will

not appreciate that they have the opportunity of giving or denying it.

MR. SPEAKER: There are two ways. One is by leave and the

other is to move a motion that we proceed to a certain order of

business. Obviously when it's passed that is the will of the House.

MR. GIBSON: If I could understand where we are now — we now

have a motion before us that we move to public bills and orders, if I

understand it correctly, said motion being....

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 3.

MR. GIBSON: The motion, I believe, to move to public bills and orders is a debatable motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment.

I draw the attention of the hon. member to page 4 of orders of the

day. We have proceeded so far to public bills in the hands of private

members, being private members' day. We have dealt with that order of

business. We are now onto the next order of business, which is public

bills and orders. Under that order of business the hon. Provincial

Secretary has called for second reading of Bill 3.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I had only one minute left so I took time to prepare a very short summery.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 3 proves that the members opposite

are still fighting the last election. Instead of governing this

province, they have spent the past three months looking under every

stone to find every possible way to create the largest possible

operating deficit they could for 1975-76.

Now they have their backs to the wall, Mr. Speaker, and they are

asking the opposition to bail them out by giving immediate assent to

Bill 3. We are unalterably opposed to Bill 3 over on this side of the

House and we demand our rights to set forth our position under the

provisions of the rules of this House. We demand the time that is set

out in those rules to state what our position is.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I listened with a great deal of interest and admiration to the remarks

of my colleague, the Minister of Mines, and while I perhaps will not be

able to live up to all of the injunctions he gave the House, I

certainly will try to be brief.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am distressed that the only remaining

member for Vancouver East is not here today, because I think that out

of all of the statements I have heard from the other side of the House,

something that he said is the only thing that made any sense. He

advised the House that matters over $200 within his household were

handled by his wife. I have but one word of advice to Mrs. Macdonald,

whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting, and that is that on the

record of the opposition, she is extending far too much credit to her

husband.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some interesting theories of finance from

the opposition during the last number of days, and it seems to me that

they boil down simply to this, that what this government ought to do in

their submission is to finance last year's

[ Page 484 ]

expenses out of this year's revenue.

Mr. Speaker, that will work under one set of circumstances: It will work the

last year of the universe when you don't have next year to face. I am an

optimist and I think we're going to have next year to face. Under those

circumstances, to follow the opposition's suggestions would be, at the very

best, to postpone the agony, and, at the worst, to perpetuate the type of muddle-headed,

magic-fairy, money-tree, socialistic fiscal policies which have got us

into this jam in the first place.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: The worst of the advice from our friends

opposite is that they knew all this was going to happen. They knew the

trouble we were in before the ink on Hansard

in last year's budget debate had even dried. They knew what was going

to happen to stumpage in this province. If they didn't, then they are

deserving of more blame than I am presently giving them, because it was

obvious to everybody else in the province.

They knew, Mr. Speaker, that mining royalties to the government had

to be down — everybody told them that. Everybody in the province from

the prospector up told them that, but they went on, hoping that

something good would happen. They knew that their expenses were up.

What they thought was simply this: maybe if we delay it we'll either

win an election or something will come along to get us out of our

difficulty; in any event, let's not face it until we finally have to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waiting for a miracle.

HON. MR. MAIR: Waiting for a miracle is right; waiting for a

miracle and waiting for somebody to blame. I said the other day, and I

say it again now: we have the people who ran up the bills blaming the

bill collector — it's as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief and I shall be brief, but

I must comment, if I may, upon the remarks made by the hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) last night when she came to the defence

of Robert Bonner, chairman of the board of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Bonner's service to this province is in itself eloquent enough

answer to the charges which were leveled against him. He deserves the

defence of this House, but he doesn't need it. I know that I am new in

this House; however, God willing, time will take care of that. But if

at any time, in order to make out an argument, I must stoop to

resurrecting events which are 15 or 20 years old, if I must hurt people

who have more than paid for their transgressions and are now living

quietly in private life, I will conclude that my argument is totally

without merit. I conclude, therefore, that the argument of the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was without merit and ought to be rejected

and held in shame by this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill calling for money, not personalities; it

is calling for present action, not past retribution. This bill is

deserving of the approbation of this House.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I thought that

for the benefit of all the people in the galleries who perhaps were not

here through the last two days I would just run over briefly — and

maybe for the refreshment of the members of the House — exactly what

bill we're debating, because I know when you say "Bill 3", to many

people that means very little.

I believe that, basically, the intent is written in front of the

preamble to the bill: "The purpose of this Bill is to authorize the

Minister of Finance to borrow up to $400 million to make good the

anticipated deficit in the 1975/76 fiscal year." That is the purpose of

the bill. Of course, we in the opposition completely reject this bill

on a number of points. Before I elaborate on some, and hope that I will

not be too repetitious, I would like to refer to the remark made by the

hon. minister who just took his seat, the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Mr. Mair).

He had a rather interesting line there, a slogan, I gather, which he

hoped would be picked up: That we shouldn't be blaming the government,

they are simply the bill collectors and paying the NDP bill. I would

like to reply, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that this

is the whole basic point at issue in this debate, that this is a Social

Credit bill which should never be served on the people of British

Columbia. There is no reason for this bill to be served — that is the

point of issue in this debate.

We reject this bill. This has been elaborated on, I think, very well

and lucidly by a number of my colleagues on a number of grounds, so I

certainly won't go into those details again. But, basically, we

consider this bill a straight revenge, political bill. It is the old

bookkeeping Social Credit type of thinking which is behind this bill.

I found it very interesting last night to hear from one of the

ministers, whom we have not had much opportunity to hear, and who sits

in his seat barely smiling — I hope that somewhere before the end of

the session he will join the rest of us in showing some sense of humour

— the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) .

Last night he made the point of referring to when the Social Credit

first came in 1952, pointing out that when they came in, how well they

did, et cetera, et cetera. He failed to mention that in 1952 we had

[ Page 485 ]

the first sign of the fiscal bookkeeping cover-up

type of financial, I consider, irresponsibility on behalf of any Social

Credit government that we have seen in this province.

They set the tone which is now being followed by the Social Credit

government of 1976, because in 1952 — I'm sure we all remember that

when the Social Credit took over from the coalition — one of their very

first steps was to take $40 million out of the sinking fund to apply to

direct debt. And why did they do this? Straight ulterior motive of

again attempting to try to discredit the former government which at

that time, of course, was the coalition.

So here again we have this same attempt to discredit the New

Democratic Party government. You know, it sometimes makes you wonder

that if the NDP did not exist, I'm sure the Social Credit would have

had to invent us so they could find some party on which to blame the

fiscal situation of this province, which they are trying to convince

the public of British Columbia is desperate.

We know, in looking across Canada at the situation in every other

province, that British Columbia actually did exceptionally well during

the last three years, economically, in comparison to other provinces in

Canada.

Now aside from the straight political vendetta, which is inherent in

Bill 3, the bill is basically really fiscally irresponsible, yet this

is the government that came rolling in on a sizable majority strictly

by convincing the public that they alone could handle the finances of

this province. Yet some of their first major policy steps which they

have taken have shown complete fiscal irresponsibility. To borrow money

at a time in this province when it is not needed and will deliberately

affect the borrowing power of other agencies in this province, such as

the municipalities, is highly irresponsible. To create an impression

across Canada and the world that B.C. Is in terrible, dire, financial

straits is certainly doing nothing to increase the economic growth of

the province of British Columbia.

So I therefore accuse this government of being financially

irresponsible, very financially irresponsible, Mr. Minister of Consumer

Services. I think, when we are all out on the platform, that people

will judge after a number of years that our words were correct.

Again, we know that they have said that they're going to produce

quarterly statements, but I notice that, ultra-conservative, one of the

editors of the Vancouver Province , even questions at times

whether this government perhaps may be moving and embarking on the old

building up of surpluses. He doesn't like to criticize this government,

but he does show concern that this is what may be behind this.

So we have the old bookkeeping game. It's not only the game; it's

unfortunate that this government is, I think, basically a very

ultra-conservative government. No question about it. And their

ultra-conservative financial policy at this particular time, when we're

facing recession to some degree and inflation, will do nothing but

further depress the economy of the province.

For example, we even have a comment from the Employers Council of

British Columbia — William Hamilton's statement on the budget.

Certainly there are some positive statements; we couldn't expect

anything else. He has very positive statements. But on the other hand,

he makes some serious statements re the — as has been suggested by one

of our press writers — perhaps rather pre-Cambrian economic philosophy

of the Social Credit government when it comes to this grave concern

over paying as you go and the whole matter of how you deal with capital

and operating.

If I may quote from someone in the gallery, Frances Russell, I

thought, wrote an excellent

article on this whole matter of staying

with pre-Cambrian economics, which the New Democratic Party, to some

degree, stayed with. But I do also wish to point out that we were

making definite moves to get in line with the other provinces of

Canada. Yet this government has shown absolutely no signs of moving

into line with some of the more up-to-date, necessary economic policies

for 1976 and the coming years.

Certainly the federal government.... At no time am I suggesting

moving into line with them in their economic policies; I'm talking

about them in the matter of capital and operating....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) does not see the point that in deficit financing today,

if you look across Canada and notice the federal government which has

gone into deficit financing, I agree...but the point I'm making is: are

your policies and are the policies of the federal government going to

improve that position, or are they going to create even worse areas of

deficit? My contention. Is that your policies, and the federal

government's, are not going to make any improvement.

First of all, referring to the federal and this present provincial

government, both have been moving in on tax increases in a time when we

know that recession has cut into revenues, but inflation keeps

expenditures growing in spite of efforts to cut back. So therefore tax

rates are pushed up to keep deficits under control.

All right, now what are the immediate effects of tax increases? The

immediate effects of tax increases are to add to inflation, as well as

putting the brakes on economic growth. In the longer run slower growth

may mean less inflation, but it is a painful way to get

[ Page 486 ]

there.

So the point I am making is that to move in on tax increases is not

going to improve the economy of this province. There are many, many

other ways in which the economy of this province can be improved

without imposing these tax increases, which have been shown by

economists to simply depress the situation and not improve the economy.

When we come to the matter of capital and operating expenditure, I

think we should realize, and to quote from the

article by Frances

Russell:

"Current capital expenditures are those that result in

acquiring fixed assets, such as ships, buses, power dams, et cetera and

government buildings, anything that is purchased for a price and is

used and presumably retains a market value.

"Current expenditures are those that provide various

government services, such as health care, Pharmacare, the cost of the

civil service, education costs, expenditures generally that do not

result in an visible or tangible assets."

Now other provinces in Canada, and Ottawa, normally borrow for

capital expenditures. Now I don't know if the Minister of Labor,

through you, Mr. Speaker, considers that a bad thing to do. We do know

that, although he is now in the Social Credit, he was a former Liberal

member, and at no time did I hear him complain about that particular

aspect of the Liberal government's financial policies.

Other provinces do normally borrow for capital expenditures. They

amortize the cost over a period of years and they levy taxes for

current expenditures. Some provinces, notably Ontario, choose to run

deficits even on current accounts as a matter of fiscal policy.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: It's quite obvious that you do not, Mr. Member.

You are the government; we are not! It is a technique known as

pump-priming, a period of borrowing for current expenditures to leave

more money in the hands of the public during a recession. Surely, to

the hon. Minister of Labour, again through you, Mr. Speaker, your

objectives should be to get to the pump and prime the economy and leave

more money in the hands of our citizens. But instead you have decided

to become a member of a government which believes in exactly the

opposite. They are going to depress the economy, not stimulate it, with

their fiscal policies.

Now in B.C. the picture is quite different.

AN HON. MEMBER: You depress everyone.

MRS. DAILLY: Not only must most normal capital costs be

financed out of general revenue; this government has completely

rejected, as fiscal policy, ever undertaking deficit financing. So

therefore a stringent economic policy is followed, and government

soft-ware, the so-called non-productive side of government spending,

such as health, education and welfare must bear the brunt of fiscal

belt-tightening, and that is exactly what we see in this province.

The areas of health, education, the social services, that are so

badly in need, are going to bear the brunt of this government's very

irresponsible fiscal planning and policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ban the belt!

MRS. DAILLY: We also find in the whole area of refusing — as

this government seems to be very blind about it — to move from their

operating into capital, we have the result of their basic arguments

when they stand up and try to defend Bill 3.

We can just briefly run through it again. They insisted on the

repayment of loans: BCR, $35 million; B.C. Harbors Board, $25 million;

B.C. Cellulose, $16 million; Ocean Falls $4 million, et cetera. Even

Clarkson, Gordon stated that if a Crown corporation requires cash it

may borrow from commercial lenders and will not affect the provincial

surplus. Or it may decide to give the corporation a grant or advance,

which, of course, will affect the surplus.

Then they go on to say — the point they didn't say, but a point our

members make and we think is vital to this whole discussion — that the

decision of this government to present this bill before is basically a

political decision. That is backed up by the Clarkson, Gordon report.

So, on behalf of all my other colleagues here, we simply reject this

bill because of the fact that it is going to harm the citizens and the

economy of this province. We're dealing with the government.... It is

obviously blinded, and it's blinded unfortunately by malice and revenge.

It has obviously, through these days of debate, been deaf to any

rational examination of the true picture of our province's finances. In

fact, in only three months this government, Mr. Speaker, has shown that

it is unfit to manage the affairs of the province.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Before I start into my speech

I will ask the hon. members to excuse my voice as I have had some

severe dental work done this morning.

Anyway, I am pleased to take my place in this debate, Mr. Speaker,

but before I do, before I proceed with my address, I, too, would like

to congratulate yourself on your election as Speaker of this assembly,

and to the member for Chilliwack as

[ Page 487 ]

Deputy Speaker. I have always found him to be a gentleman in the chair and out of the chair.

I would as well like to extend my congratulations to all the new

members in the House and all members who were re-elected, and all

members who were elevated to the cabinet. My sincere congratulations to

all of you.

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, in many, many years, this new old

government and possibly inept government, because they are already

proving themselves to be reasonably inept in financial matters — an

area where they claim to be expert — is asking us to pass a bill that

could, for the first time in the history of this province, put us into

a $400 million debt.

This is a very serious matter, and not to be dealt with lightly, Mr.

Speaker, particularly when, in my judgment, this particular bill is not

warranted. It is, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, just more Social Credit

flim-flam.

You know, this government is kicking the slats out of the working

people with its policies — the elderly, the young and the poor. These

people won't forget, Mr. Speaker. They will not forget.

I would like to quote the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, March 3, 1976, Mr. Speaker, in part. They say:

"Bennett, with a great deal of gravity, talks about

times of hard sacrifice ahead. 'This is not a time to make demands.

This is a time for sacrifice and service, a time for each of us to

think of the common good. We must rededicate ourselves to the future

not by leaving a record of angry conflict, but by establishing a

tradition of self-sacrifice and cooperation with others....'"

And on it goes.

The first impression any British Columbian would get from Bennett's

impressive figures and Churchillian words is that the New Democrats

were wastrels with the public purse and liars to boot.

Indeed, the new Premier now proclaims that if the election had been

held any later, the NDP would not have won a seat. What garbage! Over

40 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the people of this province voted for this

side of the House. Now I'll tell you that next time it'll probably be

about 60 per cent.

To continue my quote — "As in most other things political, the truth is not exactly as it seems." Oho! Remember, this is the Montreal Gazette , not one of the provincial papers.

"The figures used in the Clarkson, Gordon report were

supplied by Social Credit ministers and officials and obviously were

aimed at producing the worst possible financial picture, and more than

half the total deficit envisaged by the firm of chartered accountants

comes from financial decisions made by the Social Credit government.

For weeks defeated NDP cabinet ministers have been saying privately

that the new government was spending like crazy to increase the

deficit."

Oho! Special warrants? Have we received all the answers to those special warrants, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR.LOCKSTEAD:

"They may not be exactly true, but it has certainly made some very political decisions to get the debt back to $500 million."

AN HON. MEMBER: Political decisions? Hmmmm.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

"The most substantial of these, of course, was to pay

off the $175 million accumulated deficit of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia in one fell swoop. This money is being taken away from

the general treasury even though the insurance corporation is expected

soon to have $500 million cash on hand, including $300 million from the

increased 1976 premiums. On top of this, the government has agreed to

cover B.C. Hydro's deficit for the year now ending, even though, in the

past, this Crown corporation has carried deficits on its own books

until wiped out by surpluses.

"The Clarkson, Gordon report, which is not an audit,

as first announced by the Premier, shows that the defeated Barrett

government kept within its spending estimates and that the gap has been

created by Social Credit spending. Where Barrett fell down was in an

estimated revenue of more than $300 million higher than has now come

into Victoria."

We're all aware, Mr. Speaker, that the decline of the forest

industry, the dislocation of the forest industry, particularly this

summer, had a severe effect on revenues to the province for the last

fiscal year.

"Premier Bennett says that the NDP leader did this

deliberately to cover the poor economic state of the province, and try

to save the skin of the former government going into a year which only

the NDP knew would bring an election. That may well be true, but the

Clarkson, Gordon report, based on Social Credit figures, also reveals

how clever the new government is in trying to manipulate public opinion.

"Every apprehensive British Columbian, trying to sort

through the evidence of the province's financial...should remember that

the first accountant appointed to do the study

[ Page 488 ]

had to withdraw in embarrassment after it has been revealed he was also a Social Credit bagman."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, how did the Social Credit government arrive at its figures?

On February 20 the Premier claimed the province would face a $541

million deficit this year. This is $500 million higher than the

financial prediction made by the New Democratic government before

leaving office in December.

So how did they arrive at this figure? Well, let's see. One: by

underestimating sales tax and forest revenue by $80 million. Two: by

considering as grants loans to Crown corporations that should have been

paid back to the province, $82 million. Three: by rejecting the

federal-provincial rail agreement, $30 million. Four: by not

transferring to the province cash earned by the B.C. Petroleum Corp.,

$27 million. Five: by making totally unnecessary grants to ICBC, $181

million. Actually, I had $175 million; I only knew yesterday that

they'd evened up that figure to $181 million that they didn't need.

Six: by making totally unnecessary grants to B.C. Hydro, and the

transit bureau, which have adequate borrowing authority to meet their

needs, $ 59 million. Seven: by refusing to use the housing corporation

to finance capital expenditures on housing, $62 million. Eight: by

calling a recoverable loan to the B.C. Credit Union a grant, $2.5

million, for a total of $518.5 million.

The Premier, or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), proposes

to borrow $400 million to meet this so-called deficit. We will have to

pay interest on this money, Mr. Speaker — I think someone said

approximately $40 million a year; I'm not quite sure of that figure.

With $ 181 million the Premier plans to give ICBC — or has given ICBC —

plus the 1976 vehicle premiums and investment income, ICBC should have

approximately $712 million available, plus its existing line of bank

credit.

The Minister of Finance could get this $400 million loan from ICBC

and still leave the corporation with enough cash to meet all of its

obligations on a long-term basis, in my opinion.

If we in the New Democratic Party when we were in government had

used the same line of reasoning we could have claimed they needed to

borrow $1 billion — they being the former Social Credit government

prior to us becoming government — to borrow $1.045 billion to meet

deficits left by the former Social Credit government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I should spend some time in this address on

"where does British Columbia really stand?" and "how did the Social

Credit government arrive at their figures?"

The Premier predicts revenues will be more than $300 million lower than the

original budget estimate, a short-fall of 10 per cent.

In December, 1975, the former Premier and the former Minister of

Finance predicted a shortfall of $160 million, 5 per cent from the

original revenue estimate. The New Democratic Party estimate of

budgetary revenue: $2.980 billion for the last fiscal year. Clarkson,

Gordon estimates: $2.900 billion. That is an $80 million difference,

accounted for by the present Premier's estimate that sales tax and

forestry revenues will not be recovered, and loans and advances to

Crown corporations amounting to $60 million will be repaid — BCR, $35

million; B.C. Harbours Board, $25 million.

The Premier said that the BCR loan was a grant. BCR minutes

contradict this statement, Mr. Speaker. The decision not to recover

this amount of $60 million was a Social Credit government one — that

is, a political one. This costs us $60 million.

Repayment of loans and advances from Crown corporations: B.C.

Cellulose, $16 million; Ocean Falls, $4.5 million; Panco Poultry, $1.5

million. Again, Panco, a political decision not to recover this,

another $21.5 million dollars, Mr. Speaker. This costs us $21.5

million. The signing of the rail agreement with the federal government

would have meant a payment of $30 million to B.C. In this fiscal year

alone. The agreement has been rejected by Bennett, supposedly because

it is a bad agreement. After years of negotiation by government

officials the recommended agreement has been rejected without even a

study. Another political decision and this costs us $30 million.

Additional cash earned but not transferred: B.C. Petroleum Corp. It

was the NDP policy to transfer all BCPC revenues to government

accounts. The Social Credit government will not make this transfer.

This costs us another $27 million.

On the expenditure side, the Premier predicts the budget expenditures will amount to $3.44 billion.

In December the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance

predicted that with belt-tightening the budgetary expenditures would be

pared to $3.6 million from the original estimates of $3.22 billion. Now

how is this government going to spend its $3.4 billion dollars?

The Premier has publicly admitted this case will not be needed right

away. $181 million to ICBC, Mr. Speaker — money that they don't need.

Grants to the transit bureau, totally unnecessary. This Crown

corporation has $50 million borrowing authority, which. could be used

for capital expenditures. This costs us another $26 million.

The grant to B.C. Hydro — Clarkson, Gordon states: "We have been

advised, that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it

is included, therefore, in the current year's expenditures." Another

$32.6 million, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 489 ]

The Housing Corporation transfer. Under the NDP, capital

expenditures, under the Department of Housing, would have been handled

through a housing corporation. Legislation had been prepared. This has

been rejected by the new government and this costs us another $63

million.

Well, all in all, I guess I could go on and on these figures. But

what I'm really saying, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is that I will not be

supporting this bill, because the money is not needed, and with proper

administration by this government the necessity of this province going

into a deficit position at this time is not warranted. I can tell you,

from the report issued by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Economic

Development in February of this year....

What are the facts for 1975 according to the minister's figures? The

hon. member for South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as minister has issued

his annual

summary of economic activity for B.C. In 1975. What does it

show? It shows that the government had an outstanding year last year in

direct contrast to what the new Premier has been telling the public. A

few of the highlights of that report, Mr. Speaker, are as follows:

"The British Columbia economy withstood the shocks of

world recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well.

Personal income growth, estimated at 16 per cent, was the major factor

contributing to the anticipated 10 per cent normal growth in the gross

provincial product.

"Attesting to the relative strength of the provincial

economy is the fact that employment increased by approximately 3 per

cent with the net addition of 29,000 jobs over the previous year. This

compares to a gain of 2 per cent for the nation as a whole.

"Average weekly industrial wages increased an

estimated 15.2 per cent in 1975. Personal income on a per capita basis

is estimated at $6 billion compared to the $5 billion, approximately,

in 1974. Wage and price controls instituted in October could result in

moderation of both price and wage increases in the coming year.

"In 1975 the level of capital and repair spending in

British Columbia was estimated at $5.7 billion, or 9 per cent over

1974. The value of construction projects accounted for $3.4 billion

with machinery and equipment purchased amounting to $2.3 billion. The

average capital and repair expenditure per person in the province was

$2.36 billion compared with the national average of $2.56 billion."

Well, it goes into facts and figures here for some length, Mr. Speaker, but

I guess what I am saying is that your own government department — the Department

of Economic Development — states that this province is in a fine and healthy

financial condition.

I really can't understand why this government feels they need the

money at this time to go into deficit financing. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

this government, this province, is in better shape than most other

governments within Canada — most other jurisdictions in Canada at this

time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is an insult to the people of

British Columbia. I think it's sheerly political and there is just no

way I can support this bill. I will be voting against it; I think it's

totally unnecessary. Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, we were told

that this piece of legislation had to get through by midnight on March

31. We said that we did not believe that, that it was not necessary.

March 31 has come and gone and it is not through. It has been proven

that this is an unnecessary bill.

Also, I think that this government goes into unnecessary debt, and

that it is not necessary either on March 31 or April 1, or whenever,

for this bill to go through. It would be irresponsible for us to permit

the government to plunge this province into $400 million worth of debt

that they don't have to go into. We cannot support this; we cannot

support this piece of legislation.

By simply asking for this amount of borrowing power and by simply

introducing this bill at this time, this government has again bared and

shown itself as a monument of poor accounting practices — that's what

it is.

They talk about being good business people, Mr. Speaker, and about

balancing the books and cleaning up the mess that's left behind them.

In fact, all that they're doing and all that they've done since they

have become government is one burnble after another, one inept thing

after another. It is the job of this opposition to see that they don't

destroy this province totally for the very short time that they are

going to be in government.

We were told, Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced that we

have to pay as we go to ensure that our children do not inherit our

debts. Now it seems to me that there is one thing that they haven't

learned yet and that is that debts are not always financial. Debts are

not always measured in terms of dollars and cents. Sometimes in order

to pretend to balance an account, we could plunge ourselves into a cost

that is more expensive in terms of its social significance or its

educational, health, or moral significance to us as a community. Aside

from the fact of the question able accounting principles involved in

submitting this bill at this time, there is a moral one as well.

[ Page 490 ]

Let us look, for example, if I might, Mr. Speaker, at some of the

debt that has been laid on this province by that government when it was

in previously. In order to build up enormous surpluses, in order to say

that its books balanced, this province was deprived of good educational

facilities; it was deprived of good health facilities, and its poor

people and its old people had to go without — in order to show year

after year what great business people they were and what large

surpluses they could build up for themselves. What they are saying to

us is: "Let us go into debt. Let us borrow a lot of money so that when

it is all over we can show we've got this massive surplus." At the same

time, the Premier is saying to us that we have to show restraint and,

if I can quote him, he says: "I don't want anyone in this province to

misunderstand the type of restraint that I'm talking about. When I say

'restraint,' it's going to be more than restraint." That's the exact

quotation of the Premier.

This book, Mr. Speaker, tells us something about the kind of debt

that we can run up in this province when we try so hard to balance

books only in terms of finances and economics. The story about the

children in British Columbia and the kinds of nutritional damage that

has been done to them, the lack of decent educational facilities, the

lack of child-care facilities — that's the kind of thing that we should

be looking at, Mr. Speaker, instead of encouraging this government and

supporting this government to plunge us into unnecessary debt in order

to play all kinds of bookkeeping games with themselves. We will not do

it. We will not do it!

AN HON. MEMBER: You had three years to look at it.

MS. BROWN: This is a ridiculous bill, Mr. Speaker, which I am

hoping the Premier, because he has indicated that he is willing to

listen, will have heard us say over and over again is unnecessary and

he will convince the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to withdraw

it before it actually has to go to a vote. It is not necessary. It is

not necessary — and this is not just said by the members of the

opposition alone — that we have to pay as we go always in terms of

dollars and cents.

Let me quote from the Employers Council of B.C. It's been quoted

once before and it is worthy of being repeated. It's certainly not a

group that I am in the habit of quoting from, Mr. Speaker, but it seems

that they, too, agree with this opposition about the kind of financial

irresponsibility that that government has embarked on since it took

office in December, 1975. It says:

"We have serious reservations about the government's

policy of funding all of its own capital expenditures from current

revenue. We believe there is a place for borrowed money to pay for

major capital expenditures which spread their cost over the period that

people benefit from them instead of loading them all onto the taxpayer

in one year."

That's what that government over there is trying to do. It's bad. It's poor bookkeeping.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) last night told us

about kitchen-table bookkeeping. He obviously knows absolutely nothing

about kitchen-table bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker, because anybody who has

ever had to run a family and balance books knows that you don't go out

and borrow money to put in the bank just to say that you've got a

surplus. That's irresponsible. That is irresponsible, and this

opposition is not going to condone that kind of irresponsibility on

your part.

I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, from somebody who, I can assure you,

is not a member of the New Democratic Party of B.C. She is a member of

the press and, as far as I know, they are not allowed to join political

parties. There was an

article in The Vancouver Sun

on March 8, 1976, written by Frances Russell, and it seems that she

also shares the opinion that the kind of programme that this government

has embarked on in terms of getting the taxpayers of today to carry the

burdens of the programmes of tomorrow is an irresponsible one. She says:

"There are good and logical reasons for borrowing from

capital expenditures. Fixed assets are usually productive over a period

of time so it is a rational economic move" — a rational economic move —

"to pay for them over a period of time instead of penalizing the

taxpayer in one year."

And who gets penalized? Who usually gets penalized when governments

decide to go into debt and in order to pay off the debt increase things

like the sales tax? It's the people who can least afford to pay. Those

are the people who get penalized, Mr. Speaker, not the affluent. As we

heard in this House before — I think it was the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) — it's certainly not the corporations,

because they just pass on these increases to the consumer.

It's the people who can least afford to pay who end up paying the

bills for an irresponsible decision, like borrowing money when we don't

need it, in order to show a surplus at the end of the fiscal year.

We've been given all kinds of reasons why this money is needed at this

time; but none of the economic arguments, none of the figures that have

been presented, have been able to convince us that at this time the

province needs $400 million.

Again I quote from Frances Russell:

"The kind of debt which is shown in the Clarkson, Gordon report, and in your own reports, as justification for borrowing this

[ Page 491 ]

money at this time...it is not necessary for the province to

place any of this debt in its current budget."

It is not necessary. You're

embarking on unnecessary budgetary footwork, unnecessary budgetary

footwork, in order to bring in an irresponsible piece of legislation

allowing you to do an irresponsible thing — borrow money when you don't

need it — in order to play political games with the voters, and we're

not going to let you do it, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker.

"It is a rather frightening prospect for British

Columbia, if this kind of accounting procedure goes on, because it

indicates a fundamental attitude to government that is hardly in

keeping with the demands on the modern state. It views the government

as a completely neutral force. It is not to be a positive tool for

social and economic betterment. It is merely, in rhetorical terms, to

keep the trains running on time and operate the post office."

It is our responsibility, as opposition, to see that you are the

best possible government that it is possible for you to be, and by

refusing to endorse this bill we are taking a major step in that

direction, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Now the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in speaking against this

bill, introduced, at that time, an idea under which we would support

the bill. He said that the opposition — and he was speaking for all of

us when he said that — would support this bill if it was legislation

that was needed to help the government adopt a fiscal policy that would

deal with unemployment.

That's the government over there that made all those promises about

lowering the unemployment in the province, Mr. Speaker. They were going

to create jobs. They were going to do all kinds of good things. For

those people who couldn't work, they were each going to be given a

shovel by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

Now this piece of legislation comes down, and it does not in any way

indicate how it is going to deal with the recession that this province

is in at this time. This would not have been unusual if there had been

a

preamble accompanying this bill, showing us the ways in which it was

going to be used to deal with unemployment and to stimulate the economy

of this province. On other occasions in other legislatures this has

been done, and it has been acceptable. But this bill before us today

does not do that. It is a limited bill and an unnecessary bill and a

useless bill. For those reasons we cannot support it.

But this could have been a useful bill. It could have included the

kind of

preamble that would have said to us, for example, that it was

going to ensure the extension of some really vitally needed services in

this province. It's the kind of bill that would have said to those

day-care workers who were demonstrating in front of the court house two

days ago that "additional funds are going to be made available, so that

you can make a decent wage, that it is not necessary for you to have to

subsist on an income of $475 a month," as some of them are doing.

It is the kind of bill that could have said to the hospitals in this

province, to VGH and to Riverview and Crease Clinic, that you don't

have to cut back so drastically on your services, you don't have to lay

off all of your part-time workers, some of whom have been working

part-time for 18 and 20 years, and depend on that kind of income. You

don't have to cut back on your food services; you don't have to run

into problems in keeping the standard and quality of health care in

this province at least at the level that it is, and not allowing it to

slide, as is beginning to happen.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

It could also have said, this bill, something about the ways in

which needed services like transition houses are going to be funded.

The Minister of Human Resources has admitted that he has finally come

to the realization that, indeed in this province, there is a need for

the kind of service which transition houses offer. This bill could have

carried a

preamble that showed that some of this money — or some money

— was going to be spent in this way. But no such thing happened.

In fact this government could borrow money to expand and maintain

services, it could borrow money to improve the quality of health care,

it could borrow money for education, for the day-care centres, for the

transition houses, without this bill. That is what I mean when I say

that this is an unnecessary bill.

The kind of legislation that we could have supported would have

hastened the expansion of these services and the maintaining of them.

But not this kind of legislation, because this is pure politics; it has

no bearing on reality; it has no bearing on the needs of this province.

It's a retrograde piece of legislation and is not worthy of our

attention, much less our endorsement.

It has been referred to by a number of other members as political

revenge, and I think that's a very accurate way of dealing with it. But

certainly it's revenge on the province rather than revenge on the New

Democratic Party. There has been no proven case for the need of this

money, and we will not be willing to support it.

But, in fact, what would happen if this bill were passed? Where is

this money going? In an attempt to find out what sort of plans this

government would have for the money, I rifled through some of the back

speeches made by the Premier during and after the

[ Page 492 ]

election campaign.

In The Vancouver Sun on February 25 of this year, I came

across an interesting statement of his: "I remember when we were the

Texans of Canada. We used to go around and there was no place bigger or

better, or had more opportunities available than in B.C. That's the

type of climate we're going to create again." That was the Premier's

statement.

Having read that, Mr. Speaker, I got really curious about Texas and

decided to do some research on the province this government is trying

to emulate and design for us. I want to start out by saying I have

absolutely nothing against Americans from the south. I love them, quite

frankly; I married one, so I don't want my comments to be taken as

being in any way critical of Americans from the south.

I came across a special issue of the Atlantic Monthly which was

dedicated to Texas. I learned that in many ways Texas is, indeed, like

British Columbia. Texas is No. 1 in gas production, in cattle, No. 1 in

cotton, in mohair, pecans, citrus fruits, wheat, sorghum, soybeans,

spinach, lumber, sulphur, et cetera, et cetera. Texas ranks top, or

near the top, in nearly every form of natural resources. It is a state

that boasts of its natural, as well as its man-made, wealth.

I found out some other interesting things about Texas, too. In

almost no area of social service does the State of Texas come anywhere

near the national average. It is one of the 17 states that does not

supplement aid to the aged, the blind, or the disabled. It is 37th out

of 50 in its expenditure on education.

Now this is the state that we are emulating. This is the state that the Premier....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm referring to Bill 3, because this government

is asking us for permission to pass Bill 3, and I'm saying: what are

you going to do with this money? I've found that we're going to try to

be like Texas.

In 1969 Texas was No. 1 in infectious syphilis in the United States.

But what is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that Texas is a state

that is rife with poor people. Nineteen per cent of its people live

below the poverty line — and Texas balances its budget every year; if

has no deficit budget; it balances its budget every year — and the

national average for the United States is 13 per cent. But there are

other ways, Mr. Speaker, in which I am concerned about this attempt to

emulate Texas.

The Texas Legislature, for example, we are told consists of 181

people who meet once every two years. Is this a statement of future

policy? Is this what we have to look forward to, Mr. Speaker, in this

House — that we are going to be cut down to meeting once every two

years? That's not as unusual as it sounds, because one of the other

ways in which we are very much like Texas is, as it says here in this

article, that the chief reason for this is because the Texas

legislators are underpaid. There are no full-time Texas legislators.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have just reviewed the bill

again, and I'm trying to relate your remarks, ma'am, to the principle

of the bill, and it fails me. Could you please explain to me how you...?

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to show....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No. Yes, it's quite fair. Bill 3, Mr. Texas.... (Laughter.) I withdraw that statement.

Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is asking us to allow this government to borrow

$400 million, and one of the rhetorical questions I asked was: why?

What for? In my search I came across a statement of the Premier's

comparing us to Texas and saying that's what we're going to create

again.

Out of a sense of curiosity to see what kind of a province we are

emulating, I did some research. I did not have the benefit of Mr.

Weeks, but I have still managed to do some research on Texas. This is

how Texas came into this, Mr. Speaker. It has everything to do with our

decision about whether we should support Bill 3 or not, and allow this

government to borrow $400 million.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. Member. I'll be listening closely to make sure that it's relevant.

MS, BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Texas balanced its budget, and that's the.... You know, Mr. Speaker,

I want to specifically compare this kind of legislation to some of the

interesting pieces of legislation that were passed by the House in

Texas.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 that House passed a

resolution honouring Albert de Salvo, the Boston Strangler, for his

efforts in the field of population control. That was as irresponsible a

piece of legislation as this government is now asking us to pass here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that that House

also...the representatives got permission to get through that House a

bill which allowed retailers to sell bread by the half-loaf? As

irresponsible as Bill 3, which this government is asking us to pass

now, although to their credit they

[ Page 493 ]

failed to pass legislation allowing them to sell chicken by the piece.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. Mr. Speaker, this is the state that we are emulating.

HON. MR. McGEER: But you've got another 49 states to go.

MS. BROWN: No, the only one we've been compared to, Mr.

Member, is Texas. I think it is only fair that we should know something

about the state to which we have been compared.

Texas, Mr. Speaker, also has some problems similar to the ones we

are having with environment control. I'm really glad that the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is here because I am hoping that he

does not support his Premier's position on trying to create a Texas

here in British Columbia.

Texas, of course, has an asbestos plant, and they are having

problems with asbestos fibre. But the elected representative for that

state said: "I think we are all willing to have a little bit of crud in

our lungs and a full stomach rather than have a whole lot of clean air

and nothing to eat. I don't want a bunch of environmentalists telling

me what's good for me and for my family."

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the State of Texas to which we are being

compared, and we are being told that the Premier is trying to create

that kind of climate in this province.

But the Legislature has its priorities. In introducing Bill 3 at

the beginning of the session, this Legislature has demonstrated its

priorities; that is the link, Mr. Speaker, between Bill 3 and what I am

now about to tell you about Texas in terms of its priorities.

In a state that has no corporate tax, no income tax, no corporate

profit tax, no natural resource severance tax — well-head taxes on

natural gas and oil fall far below the national average — and a large

corporate franchise tax, where does the largest chunk of Texas money

come from? Question: where does the largest chunk of Texas money come

from? It comes, Mr. Speaker, from a regressive sales tax introduced in

that state when more money was needed for revenue. No corporation tax,

no natural gas, no oil — you remember them all, Mr. Speaker. Again,

another way in which we are like Texas. The Legislature's first thought

when it needed more money was to extend that tax to food and drugs — to

extend the sales tax to cover food and drugs.

What are we to think about a government that says that is the type of climate

that we are going to create again here in British Columbia? We cannot endorse

that kind of position; we cannot endorse this bill.

This is the province which the Premier has committed to turning into

Texas. Stephen Leacock said, in speaking about it after a visit — true,

that was a long time ago — but he said: "If I had know what British

Columbia was like, I wouldn't have been content with a mere visit; I

would have been born there."

The responsibility is on us, Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition

to see to it that the Premier's dream of turning this province into the

State of Texas never is realized. Our refusal to endorse this bill is a

first step in that direction.

But after all the economic arguments have been heard and after all

the financial reasons have been given, there still has to be some

reason as to why we will not and cannot support this destructive piece

of legislation, and that is because we really are different on basic

philosophical grounds. It's not just that we sit across the aisle from

you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker; we really are different. I

think in order to understand why we are not supporting this bill you

should know a little, bit about our differences.

We have a different philosophy toward the community in which we live

than the government over there, Mr. Speaker. In order to understand

that philosophy you have to know who we are and why we cannot support a

fiscal policy that will bid up surpluses on a black-sheet, whatever it

is, bank account by denying services or by permitting unnecessary

borrowing of money in order to score fine political points.

In 1972 when we became the government in this province we inherited

a province that had been starved for educational facilities, deprived

of health facilities and was not meeting its needs neither to the

children of the province, the old, the poor nor the handicapped. It was

a great place to live if you believed in exploiting the land, resources

or people. But it was a sad place to live if you were unemployed, over

the age of 50, a single parent, a student needing the use of libraries

or a gym, the parent of a child needing special assistance in school,

an old person needing drugs or the use of an ambulance to get to a

hospital in a hurry, or just an ordinary person needing public

transportation. It was a terrible place to live when we became the

government in 1972.

Once again it has become a terrible place to live. Major cuts in ambulance services....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, it made no difference where you

looked. It made no difference where you looked — services to people had

been neglected and ignored. We were told — yes, we were told — that we

were in great financial shape; not only were the books balanced, but

there was a surplus. That's what we were told.

[ Page 494 ]

Yes, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that in those three years of

government we spent money. We spent money to ensure that everyone in

this province over the age of 60 was guaranteed a decent income on

which to live. We spent large sums of money to build and improve

schools and libraries; large sums of money to improve health, to

develop a public transportation system and to introduce the kind of

ambulance service which you have now decided you are going to cut back.

We were determined that the people of this province were going to

share to some extent in its resources as well as in its riches. This

all has to do with Bill 3; I'm giving the reasons why we can't support

Bill 3.

I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, as I said, to talk about some of the

reasons why we are different philosophically. My decision to do that

was because there are so many new members in this House — not just new

to this House, but new to the Social Credit Party — who themselves

don't even understand why they are Social Crediters. But I think they

should understand why we are NDPers, and they should understand why we

cannot support this bill.

This party grew out of a group of working people who came together —

mostly miners who mined in and around Nanaimo and the Wellington area —

working people who were being exploited at that period. They came

together in 1886 and formed the Working Man's Party of British

Columbia. That's our roots, Mr. Speaker. They are very firmly embedded

among the working people of this province. That's one of the reasons

why we certainly cannot support the kind of legislation which would

plunge this province into unnecessary borrowing of large sums of money

that they will have to pay back.

This party came out of those roots of 1886, and out of the

Depression in 1933 — born in the Depression and of the Depression,

concerned with the plight of people caught up in the turmoil of

decision, dedicated to the balancing of books at the expense of people,

caught up and exploited and then discarded by a system that cared not

one whit for humanity, but only for profit and dollars and surpluses.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: This legislation, Mr. Minister of Environment....

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Garbage!

MS. BROWN: I am sure that to you it is garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's his job.

MS. BROWN: Yes. As the member says, that is your job; you have to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, out of these roots and out of this commitment we

developed as a party which, in 1972, became the government of this

province, and developed programmes committed to serving, to the service

of people, to the protection of the environment, and to the acceptance

of our social responsibility to each other and to the rest of the world

as a cornerstone of our endeavours.

Our policies and our programmes, Mr. Speaker, which were developed

and introduced during the three years that we were government, are part

and parcel of the kind of reason why we cannot support Bill 3. We

cannot support a piece of legislation which will now allow this

government to plunge us into chaos and put a debt on this province — a

financial debt that is going to be paid for in terms of the very

services that we worked so hard to introduce in this province. I don't

need to list the programmes because I know that you have heard them.

You know the kinds of things we did in terms of increased child-care

facilities, in terms of ambulance services, in terms of not penalizing

young people just because they are young, and that is the reason why.

It is because of our relationship with people and our commitment to

people that we cannot condone the financial actions of that government

and support this piece of legislation.

Again I want to quote from Nick Hill who, I can assure you, is not a

member of the New Democratic Party. He said, in talking about the

financial behaviour of that government: "It has certainly made very

political decisions in order to get its debt over the $500 million."

Political decisions — and this Bill 3 is another indication of those

political decisions. He again says, in referring to the Clarkson,

Gordon report: "It reveals how clever the new government is in trying

to manipulate public opinion." We cannot stand by, Mr. Speaker, and

permit that to happen. To do that would be to allow this government to

continue as it has started in terms of its relationship to people.

I want to talk a little about the record of the new government

because Bill 3 fits very much into the record of the new government. It

was during the dying days of the election campaign that the Social

Credit leader, Mr. Bennett, before he became the Premier, ran an ad in

the Victoria newspapers, under his own signature, assur