1972 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 30th 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, OCTOBER 26, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 311 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before you rise, I want to see that a correction is made with your forbearance in the Votes and Proceedings

and in the orders of the day. Page 2 of Votes and Proceedings, the

middle of the page in regard to Bill No. 3 — it should state that the

bill is in second reading and did not move beyond that stage. Bill No.

3, actually, as I recall, and I hope that Members will assist in this,

was adjourned by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) in the debate on second reading, and that therefore should be

corrected in the Journals of the House accordingly, and will be. Agreed?

Then also I note that it said,"Bill No. 5 reported complete with

amendent." That's a printing error. It should read "without amendment".

Is that agreed?

Then, naturally, it follows that when you look at orders of the day

you would have to change that where it says "second reading". You would

put in "adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3" and delete it

where it says "in committee". Is that agreed? Thank you. The Hon.

Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often

that the representatives of the areas of the province where all the money is

produced or the wealth is produced, and it trickles down to the lower main

land, that we have an opportunity to welcome a guest from that area because

very seldom do any guests come down from the far out places because they're

so busy making that wealth. But I'd like the House to welcome Alderman Ogilvie

from the City of Kimberley.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH: (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy this afternoon through the courtesy of yourself and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to be able to

introduce to the House four people from Fort St. John who are seated on

the floor of the House to my right. Would the House welcome Mayor

Frankiw, Alderman Lorne Welsh, Pappy Galdreath and Steve Fedoruk.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to add my welcome to the Mayor and his Alderman.

When I first paid my visit to Fort St. John, the Mayor was very,

very kind to me. He gave me about an hour-and-a-half of his municipal

problems, and a half-hour of a gracious run down of the history of Fort

St. John.

I remember the half-hour of the history and I've forgotten the hour-and-a-half of problems. (Laughter),

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I

complained about the absence of a bell in the distant office in the

buildings. I would like to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on the prompt

and efficient manner in which you placed a bell there. But I have one

simple request now. Could the Conservative hordes be provided with ear

plugs? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: We're always concerned for whom the bell tolls. (Laughter). The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to introduce teacher Bill Carney and the students from West View Senior Secondary

[ Page 312 ]

in Maple Ridge. Many of these students in the

provincial and in the federal election have shown a lot of interest in

all the political parties and I commend them for their interest and

being in the House today.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we adjourned this debate and I thank the Premier for that

adjournment, because the amendments to the bill proposed by the Hon.

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) were

complex.

I've had a look now at the amendments which he put in — which I'm

afraid came before the House into my hands only minutes before I was

called upon to speak yesterday. And I would like to say that they do

not change the principle of the bill.

They do, however, make it possible to implement the principle of the

bill. And therefore I'm very pleased that I've had that time. It is, I

might add, a complex bill. I will have to go through figures once more.

It's a necessary fact. I have here a few speech notes which I might

give the Minister of Social Improvement and Rehabilitation so that he

can shake his head yes or no when he agrees with me or doesn't. Perhaps

the page would take this over to him.

Yesterday I was speaking about the interaction of these various

pension provisions. Quickly, they are of course, the basic old age

pension — a pension of $82.88 a month. Followed by a guaranteed income

supplement, a federal supplement of up to $67.12 per month for a single

person. And in addition the so-called provincial supplement which is a

welfare payment, I believe it is more accurate to call it — a welfare

rather than a pension payment which is jointly shared by the federal

and provincial governments.

I pointed out at that time that there was a possibility, in fact it's unfortunately

a real certainty, that inflation will result. Of course, the cost of living

adjustment factor increases that total, which is now at $191.10, I believe

to $200 in April of next year.

It's something which I would question the minister on now. If it so happens

that this cost-of-living escalator clause results in an increase in the federal

contributions to a pension scheme, will under his scheme — the provincial

supplemental scheme — will it also be cost-of-living adjusted? Instead

of simply having the $200 per month, will it be possible for the pensioner

to take the benefit, if you can call it that? It's really not a benefit, it's

just an adjustment for extra payments under first the federal scheme and secondly

the provincial. In other words will both be cost-of–living

adjusted? He shakes his head in agreement with me. Good! He won't have to answer that question in his speech.

I'll carry on with some of the things I discussed yesterday. We have at present

the case load of pensioners, if you can call it that — and I guess that's

a social worker's term — 208,000.

Of that, we have 106,000 of those who get the guaranteed income supplement

and

well under 17,000 of those get the joint federal-provincial welfare supplement.

Now the total

[ Page 313 ]

costs as we worked out yesterday came to

approximately, to the federal government, approximately $23 million a

month in B.C. — to the provincial government approximately $260,000 or

slightly above that per month.

A difference which means, Mr. Speaker, that on the actual money

reaching the hands of pensioners you have 98.8 per cent coming from

federal sources and 1.2 per cent coming from provincial sources. These

figures were all discussed yesterday. I repeat them only to refresh the

minds of those people who may have forgotten them.

We are, in other words, dealing with the situation in which

virtually all money at the present time getting into the hands of

pensioners either under a universal pension scheme or an income test

scheme is provided by the federal government and I commend this

provincial government for its willingness to come forward with a

substantial increase in terms of provincial funds to enrich the life of

our senior citizens and enrich, of course, the pension programme of the

federal government.

I did however, have a few questions and comments…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll carry on with my

part in this

debate. I gave you the example yesterday of a fellow who might have $50

a month from income from the investments that he has made during his

lifetime.

In other words, a man who retires and has a total income-generating

capital, if I could use that terrible term, of say around $9,000 or

$10,000. He's not a big man — he's a relatively small man in economic

terms. He may in addition own a house or he may not. But in any event

he gets $50 a month from his investment income. He again is a man with

only about $10,000 or less in terms of total economic resources. I gave

the example that he would receive at this time a basic pension of

$82.88. The standard old age pension. He would then receive on top of

that a credit of half of his investment income. In other words, $25 of

that $50 — and I trust the Minister has received the notes that I've

made. You'll find it a lot easier to follow. I find my notes make it

much easier for me to follow myself.

Anyway, he gets under the present G.I.S. programme — Guaranteed Income

Supplement programme — the

G.I.S. Is reduced $1 for every $2 for his independent income. If the person

has an income of say $50 in my example his G.I.S. would be reduced by $25,

other words 50 per cent of that total income of his.

So, back to my example. His combined pension and G.I.S. would be $82.88 plus $42.12 plus his own $50 a total of $175.

Now, I assume that under the Minister's scheme this man would

receive an additional $25. Which is correct. The Minister nods in

agreement with me. Well, what I would like to suggest, sir, is that if

that is the case we should seriously consider in this House a scheme

whereby the provincial supplement also has some sort of provision which

would permit, I don't know what you might call it, a "thrift

recognition factor" are the words that we've dredged up. Perhaps

there's a better term than we could use but anyway some recognition of

the fact…

HON. MR. LEVI: …. . certainly regulation factor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You should have my notes, Mr. Minister. O.K., that's

the term we'll use at the moment. It should be a possible for him in other

words to have some benefit from that little bit of income that he gets or from

the investment income that he gets. Because let me give you the examples — I

mentioned to you he'd get his basic pension $82.88, his guarantee income supplement

$42.12, his own income $50, and the provincial supplement of $25 and wind up

at $200.

So what value to him is that $50 investment income? Alright, let's

consider the case if he didn't have it. He would get his basic pension

of $82.88, he'd get his federal guaranteed income supplement of $67.12

and he would receive from the provincial government $50. In other

words, enough to raise him up to the $200 level, so that no matter how

much income he

[ Page 314 ]

received from his little bit of investment he would really get no benefit from it.

Now the Minister rightly stated in his speech when introducing this

bill, and I hope I paraphrase him correctly, if income is more from

other sources nothing will be taken away. I think that's true. Nothing

is in fact taken away from this man. He still has his investment. He

still has that investment income. The only difference is it's now

worthless. He has it but it's worthless. It's this thing, this feature,

which I would like to get around.

Mr. Speaker, were you that man's adviser, and I know you're not a

gambling man who throws money away recklessly, what would you say to

him? He's got $10,000 of capital. And it's worthless to him. Now what

would you say?

Well, there's a number of things you could say. "The only way you

can get around this bind is by gambling the capital on the most wild

bit of gambling you can, he perhaps will wind up with a million or

perhaps will wind up with nothing. It doesn't matter if you wind up

with nothing, because it doesn't make any difference to your income".

You could do that. Secondly, you could say: "Alright now, I suggest you

go into the Irish Sweepstakes or something of that nature to take a

real plunge. All your life savings."

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to be a little bit more restrictive in what I'm doing. My wife is in the galleries. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, now that we have

Hansard coming out so quickly, I feel that we'll have to be much more

careful of what we say here. Nevertheless I'm suggesting a hypothetical

case where you or I are advising a man with a small investment

portfolio.

The other thing you could suggest to him instead of gambling, and

instead of trying to make himself a millionaire by gambling, you could

say: "Spend it. Take a trip around the world. Go and take the Queen

Elizabeth or the France or the Leonardo da Vinci or any one of the big

liners and really enjoy it." And that would not necessarily be a bad

thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that had been arranged.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's an awful lot of comments to my right and

I hope they…. .

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Members keep order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The third thing he could do is put this

money into improving his housing. In other words he perhaps has a

perfectly adequate home — a home which may be perfectly correct, but

why doesn't he spend the extra, the $10,000, on improving his home

because it's income that counts under this scheme, it's not what you

have in terms of assets.

So you have three possible choices for this man. And none of them I

think are particularly what we'd like to see in this province.

Now, I suggest, with the encouragement of my colleagues in this

party, that the Minister seriously considers the same type of 50 per

cent credit provision for his provincial scheme. I know that some will

say: "Well, you're trying to protect investment and the New Democratic

Party is not a believer in putting aside large amounts of capital and

that type of thing." O.K., fine. But what type of people are we talking

about?Big capitalists? We're talking about senior citizens with

investment income of between 0 and $20-25,000. We're not talking about

people who are wealthy. We're talking about people who in economic

terms are relatively in modest circumstances. People whose whole life

savings may be represented by $10,000, $15,000, $25,000 — and these are

the people who will get no benefit whatsoever under this present

scheme, as I understand it, for the efforts they've made.

Now, I think this is such an obvious flaw in this scheme that I urge

[ Page 315 ]

the Minister to very quickly make changes to it because what I fear

is that the arguments that I've put forward today based on this scheme

will of course naturally be accepted by people because under this

legislation that's the sensible thing to do. But this scheme is so

obviously phoney and wrong in this aspect that two or three years from

now this government or another government will change it and we will

find there will be a group of people who acted on the basis of this

legislation and then found that later on the legislation has changed,

putting them again at a disadvantage.

So it's not the type of thing which should be dealt with in due

course, in the future some time. I think it's something which should be

dealt with very quickly now.

Let me repeat in case there are any Members opposite who feel that

we're talking about wealthy people. We're talking about people whose

total income generating capital is under $25,000. It may be $10,000,

$15,000, $20,000, but they're not in economic terms wealthy people. And

these are the people we're trying to help. Now, the comment was made

yesterday that:"Well, you can't do that"– and this is just before we

adjourned the debate –"You can't do that because of federal G.I.S.

provisions." Well, that, Mr. Speaker, is not the case. The federal

G.I.S. can be received and the provincial income supplement can also be

received without necessarily getting into the bind of having the

federal income supplement reduced because the provincial income

supplement is put on top of it.

The Minister knows what I'm talking about — I realize it's complex.

It's not a situation where federal legislation prevents such a

provincial scheme from taking place. It can be put into effect . Of

course, there'll have to be discussions on the modalities but it can be

put into effect under federal legislation and it would help these

people. And we think the small people who are elderly with a little bit

of savings, who are frightened about the future and quite

understandably so because of the erosion of their capital by inflation,

we think these people deserve a hand as well as the people, of course,

who would be assisted by the Minister's bill who don't have such assets.

So, I do most strenuously urge that this be taken very seriously and

it can be done. It's not something which is impossible. It's not

something which is impossible. It can be done in conjunction with the

federal G.I.S. perhaps, by making the provincial supplement a

percentage of the federal guaranteed income supplement. Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister, say for example a man receives 50 per cent

of the guaranteed income supplement. It's quite simple for you to

arrange for him to receive 50 per cent of your supplement. You don't

have to necessarily talk about dollar figures, you can talk in terms of

percentages. This, I think, would get around what lingering

difficulties the Premier had in his mind yesterday when he interrupted

me to say that it couldn't be done because of federal legislation.

It can, I assure you. It's just a question of making this work.

So, I trust that this plea on behalf of these people will be

recognized. I am sympathetic with the problems of bringing in a very

complicated bill — an immensely complicated bit of legislation which

had to be amended even yesterday and probably should be amended

tomorrow as people start thinking about what is wrong with that– but

nevertheless, such a complicated bit of legislation in such a short

time. I know you've got difficulties but this is not one that is

insurmountable and I urge that you write in this type of provision to

assist these people.

You've said, and I repeat again, if they have more income from other

sources nothing will be taken away. Well, could I just ask you to

extend that and that if they have such investments, nothing will be

done to reduce this value to 0. Reduce it to 50 per cent. Perhaps

that's also pretty savage in terms of taxation, but at least let them

hold on to some of it because as my Hon. friend from Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) pointed out, these people fear the future. They have concern

about nursing home care and as yet we haven't dealt with that problem

in this House. And they do like to hold on to that little nest egg and

they should get some benefit from it. Now, it may be that this has some

effect upon the federal payments to the province under the provincial

supplementary scheme. Now it may be

[ Page 316 ]

that it has. I think it's arguable. It certainly is arguable whether it has

or whether it hasn't and this is something which can only be worked out over

many weeks of debate between your officials, Mr. Minister, and those of the

federal government.

But let's say if the worse comes to the worse and it does affect the

provincial supplement, what are we talking about? The Minister stated,

in introducing this bill, he stated that it was a $3.7 million figure.

That's what we're talking about, that's the amount in jeopardy. Well,

it's not a great deal, it only constitutes 1.2 per cent of what the

pensioners now receive. And I think this government would be making an

enormous mistake if they allowed debate and concern and uncertainty

over 1.2 per cent of the pensioner's total income to prevent adding

perhaps another 25 per cent to a pensioner's income. In other words,

don't let yourself be blinded by any possible difficulties in this very

small financial area of the total pension scheme, or total pension

picture. Don't allow yourself to be so blinded by your confusion over

federal-provincial cost-sharing relationships that you ignore the

possibility of bringing in a genuine provincial supplement to assist

our senior citizens in this province.

We are talking of a small amount — 3.7 from the province, 3.7 from

the federal government under that provincial welfare scheme. It should

not in my mind be any stumbling block to a decent provincial income

supplemental scheme for senior citizens. There have been, I think, too

many statements indicating this is a real problem, but it's not. It's a

real problem just as perhaps the distance between here and the Empress

Hotel is a real problem if I invited the Minister to go for lunch with

me over there. It's a problem to walk that distance, but it certainly

can be done if you're willing to put one foot in front of the other.

And if the Minister is willing, as I say, Mr. Speaker, if he's willing,

and I think he is, to bear in mind some of these constructive comments,

I'm sure that he will find that the difficulties that have been

expressed and exaggerated about federal-provincial cost-sharing schemes

will not stand in the way of a good provincial supplement to the

federal scheme.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been introduced in a very curious way. It

was introduced by the Minister some time ago, the debate was adjourned

and an amendment came in which made it a very different and much better

bill and much of what I prepared for the earlier bill, of course, had

to go by the way.

Then at that stage we had the Hon. lady Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) make her contribution without knowledge of the amendment.

We adjourned the debate again and we are now on the floor. It would

have been better for all of us had all the information been available

on the floor at the beginning, but that's not the way it's been worked

out.

There has, however, been one thing added to this debate which does

affect the principle of the bill which I should comment upon. And that

is the statement made by the Premier in this House on October 24 — a

statement which I appreciate, all Members appreciate, him making. But,

with reference to that statement, all I can say is that it's an

unfortunate fact sometimes but that is that laws do have to be obeyed.

Members of Parliament who passed the Canada Assistance Plan expect

the executive of the federal government to obey it. It's not a question

of semantics and legal niceties, it is just not that. The laws of the

Dominion, in the views of my former colleagues of Ottawa, are passed

with the intention that all people obey them — even cabinet Ministers

and even the Prime Minister.

Now, I'm not going to dwell again on the need to keep executive

power curbed. We've discussed this before in this House. We haven't had

much effect upon the present administration with our arguments. So

perhaps it's best that I stop here.

I think that principle is a pretty important one and I regret that

it seems to have got lost in the Premier's statement of October 24.

What I would like to do is simply mention to the House a statement made

by a former colleague of mine, the lady Member for Vancouver-Kingsway,

the Hon. Grace MacInnis, in the House of Commons. Last March she was

commenting upon a bill

[ Page 317 ]

of this Legislature, Bill No. 49. She stated at

that time in a question to the Minister, the intent of which was clear,

and that was that if the then Minister, the former Member from Kamloops

(Mr. Gaglardi) was not obeying the federal law then the federal

government should cease to pay out funds to the Province of British

Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Now I suggest that Mrs. MacInnis, for whom I have great respect, has

a point. She was correct in stating that the law has to be obeyed by

provincial legislatures and provincial Members of this House, as well

as federal Members. She was correct in stating that the Hon. the then

Member for Kamloops, was incorrect. And the Federal Government should

not permit the law to be ignored by him.

Similarly, the same rule applies here when we are dealing with this

Canada Assistance Plan. Again the same rule is there. It may be

considered to be legal niceties but that is the law and the executive

must obey the law.

It's unfortunate perhaps but it exists and until it's amended we're going to have to learn to live with it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn now for a moment or two to the costs

of this whole bill because although we've had very little information

on this so far it's pretty important in terms of the principle of it

whether or not the province can afford it and how much it's going to

cost.

I personally think the province can afford it. I've done some

calculations on this and I'll spare my friends in the chamber my

involved mathematics because it did take an adding machine to help me.

But I came up with a figure that to bring all those people in B.C. up

to what we're after it probably would take $95 million. I calculated

$95,396,887. Oh, undoubtedly there are errors in my figures somewhere — I don't put them forward in terms of being all that accurate — but I do

think that they're ball-park figures and I do think it's important for

us at some stage in this debate to get the factual material on what

this scheme is going to cost. Not only cost the taxpayers of B.C.

perhaps, but also the taxpayers of Canada.

We haven't had it yet. We've had a statement by the Premier

originally — I should say the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) — that it might cost around $40 million,

then the Premier upped the figure to $60 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: It started at $25 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It started at $25 million. I am corrected.

Well, I don't really know — and I have my calculations here — I don't

know whether they're right but in all honesty I come up with a figure

of $95 million. Now, it may be that one-third of this approximately,

from what we've heard from the Press statements of the Premier and the

Minister, one-third may be paid by the federal government. That's fine

if it is under the Canada Assistance Plan, or whatever other, the

Social Assistance Act or something else. However, we're still left with

a bill of approximately $60 million, and I would like to know whether

the $60 million which the Premier mentioned at the most recent time

that he discussed the cost of this plan, dealt with the $60 million for

the overall cost of this scheme. We don't have that information yet.

Indeed, I know I'm boring many Members by discussing financial

matters and figures. I know it's tough for some of them — it's

impossible for everybody to follow what I'm saying, I agree. But it's

the fact of life that we do have only so much money in the province.

It's $1.3, 1.5 billion perhaps. But still it's a fact of life that this

Legislature should know the costs of programmes it is voting on. It's

the principle, an important principle, that legislatures are made aware

of what moneys they are voting the government. If we put in open-ended

schemes we should at least have ball-park figures to discuss and

determine. It's also another principle which we tried to illustrate

earlier, that legislatures should make sure that powers are given out

to Ministers grudgingly. But that, obviously, is gone.

This principle I hope I have more luck with. We should know what the

financial position is, and we don't know now. We have no idea and I

expect

[ Page 318 ]

that later in this debate, in this very curious and

involved way this debate is taking place, the Premier and Minister of

Finance (Hon: Mr. Barrett) will be giving us factual material.

But, may I ask, sir — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier — that in an area which involves complex interaction between federal and

provincial legislation and in view of the magnitude of the public funds

involved that we might get some sort of white paper on financing of

this scheme, on the various contributions which can be received from

federal financial sources as well as provincial which will give us

something to go on when we are discussing this in more detail.

I realize this may be a difficult thing to produce in a hurry. We're

going to be very generous in terms of minor errors that might be in it.

We simply want, however, something which we can use which may or may

not support my figure of $95 million. I don't know — some really

factual material which we can discuss as we vote on a bill which will

cost the people of British Columbia a substantial amount of money.

It's not that we begrudge the money. It's just a principle that

Legislature should know what moneys they are voting, how much is

involved, and what they're doing. And the principle today has been

simply not brought forward in the debate and I hope that today we can

make sure that we correct that oversight.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other questions, large areas of this

bill which I'm not too sure about. I've been trying hard to understand

it ever since I've first got it and I've been trying hard to understand

the amendments. We again are a little leery about the regulations that

are going to be permitted under this but then that's an argument that

you've heard before.

We feel it's important that the thrift factor be brought to bear and

that some credit be given where credit is due for the senior citizens

who have strived very hard to take care of themselves in their later

years. We trust that the Minister will go ahead and deal with that.

I would, however, like to comment on one other area which deals with the general

principle of the bill and that is the number of opportunities there are to

assist senior citizens without necessarily funding them directly – and I'm thinking

in particular of low-cost housing. The amount of low-cost housing in Canada

I would say probably has substantially increased in the last four years — I

believe more in the last four years than ever before in our history — and

yet the Province of British Columbia has not taken full advantage of the Central

Mortgage and Housing scheme,

section 15 in particular, which permits cost-sharing

programmes and which permits assistance to the elderly in this form.

There are probably two reasons for this. One is that the

administration is simply not as good at the present time as it is in

Ontario and other provinces and secondly I think because of a certain

unwillingness on the part of the previous government to make use of

this way of assisting senior citizens. In other words, one reason is

administration, one is policy.

I would urge this present government and in particular the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, who I think has made some careless statements on

this matter, to go back to the drawing-board and look at this very

carefully, because there is financing available for senior citizens

housing under C.M.H.C for the Province of British Columbia which has

not been used.

It was mentioned that this, of course, may create ghettos. That the

federal legislation requires that all these people live in the same

building or in the same area. Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation which

I looked at closely when I was a Member of the federal House, in no way

requires that to happen. It in no way sets down requirements which

insists upon elderly people living either together in a block or in a

single building. Indeed at the present time in Vancouver, and I was

surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was unaware of it, at

the present time in Vancouver there is a scheme under the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. A scheme whereby 300 houses-scattered

throughout the city are being used for low-cost housing.

Now, this could also apply to senior citizens' housing. There is no

need for them to be put together if they don't wish to be. It is a

question of what the province wants. It's a question of what scheme the

province

[ Page 319 ]

itself goes into, which in turn determines how this

money is spent — and I urge that this way of assisting senior citizens

be properly explored and I deplore remarks as quick and glib as the one

we got from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Because the money is

there. It is available.

If he in his turn will make sure that the housing authority in B.C.

will make use of it, we can do a great deal in this area to assist our

senior citizens. It's a great deal better, I think, to do it that way

than simply to get up and huff and puff about naming names if rents go

up. That may be embarrassing to the person whose name is named, but it

may not reduce the rent and it's reducing the rent that counts. I think

that we can do most by using large amounts of money that are available

on a joint basis with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to

assist senior citizens in that way.

A couple of other things. The Premier, when he introduced or first

proposed that this session deal with this particular bill, which we

seem to have taken a fair amount of time to come to, stated that it was

because of rising costs, and that's quite correct. I think that it's a

correct analysis. Well, two things that we can do about that — the

first is one I mentioned to the Hon. Minister — putting a cost of

living factor into pensions. The second is to start using some of the

powers and authorities under the provincial jurisdiction to start

affecting the cost of food. Nothing has been brought forward in this

session from the government side on this point. We do have, as I

mentioned in the throne speech debate, we do have authority to control

freight rates on B.C. railroads, we do have authority to control

marketing boards, we do have authority to control, for instance, the

price of electricity. All these things are well within the provincial

power and yet the only things we have done so far have been I think

inflationary for one reason or another. I'm not necessarily critical of

this, but nothing that we have done in this Legislature so far has done

anything to reduce the cost of living. I think it's an important factor

and I'm surprised more attention has not been devoted to this by all of

us here in this chamber. Well, I'm pleased as I mentioned, and my party

is pleased that this bill is before us. It's a bill that if we had won

the election we certainly would have brought forward as the Hon. Member

for Point Grey made clear many months and years ago.

We feel, however, that to debate it intelligently, to debate the

financial aspects of it intelligently, we are going to have to have

some sort of financial paper from the Minister of Finance which we can

all have on our desks.

To go through it and see how it's going to work is going to require

another statement if not by the Minister by leave of the House, and

perhaps by some other Minister. Because after all, Mr. Speaker, since

the Minister has spoken the bill has been radically altered by an

amendment.

Now, I think it would be a good idea if we gave leave to the

Minister to make another introductory statement dealing with the bill

as amended, because simply to leave his remarks on the unamended bill

gives the Members on this side of the House not a very great deal to go

along on.

I don't know whether I could propose it at this time, perhaps not.

But perhaps at an appropriate time later in this debate and not very

much later we should permit the Hon. the Minister to once more make a

statement without closing the debate. This could be easily done without

amending the rules. It can easily be done by unanimous consent and in

my view the consequences of the amendments brought in and the need for

further information to inform the people of British Columbia about

something that may cost between $50 to $100 million is required.

Mr. Speaker, I will consult with the table officers and at the

appropriate time I will be requesting that this House give unanimous

consent to the Minister making another full statement without closing

the debate.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This

indeed has been a very complicated bill to understand and as the days

have gone by and there have been amendments it hasn't entirely made

things clear, although

[ Page 320 ]

I think the former speaker who has just taken his place has added a great deal to clarify some of the confusion.

I will in my remarks at least try to stay away from the detail and the figures

which I think should be on the record but certainly don't need to be repeated.

I feel from the discussion that has taken place already, that all parties in

this House, and in fact certainly the Conservative Party and the Socred Party,

in the campaign stated figures to which they would go in their election platform.

Therefore I think that in debating in principle we are talking not so much

about the goal as we are about the means to the goal. And the means spells

out one vital phrase and that is "federal-provincial relations",

and what is really essential to this whole debate, in my opinion, is the formula

or formulas which are involved in implementing the principle of this bill.

There must inevitably be federal-provincial negotiation and I think

it might clarify things for the public-at-large in discussing the

Canada Assistance Plan, which is a plan dependent on a

federal-provincial agreement signed some years ago and which the Prime

Minister of Canada, in his

interpretation of that plan, feels cannot be

changed unilaterally at the wish of one province.

As is probably well known now, the Prime Minister of Canada

suggested that the intention of this government could only be

implemented through its own provincial Social Assistance Act.

I think in fairness to the Prime Minister of Canada, and certainly I

won't want my remarks in any way this afternoon to be construed as

meaning that I am going to vote for him in the federal election — vote

for his party I should say — but the fact is that he takes what I think

is not an unreasonable stand. He has signed agreements with all the

provinces and it would create a very difficult precedent for him in his

responsibility to the federal treasury to agree to the unilateral

requests, not just to the British Columbia government, but anyone of

the 10 governments provincially whereby he would commit federal money

50/50 for any chosen amount that the provincial governments could

readily follow suit and before long the federal treasury could perhaps

be burdened by an enormous escalating cost.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the whole question of

federal-provincial relationships and cost-sharing programmes has been

very clearly stated recently, in the past year or two at any rate, by

the Trudeau regime.

This applies also, as Mr. Premier of this province well knows, to his attitude

to health costs and the fact that this is one of the big obstacles in the subject

that we touched upon yesterday affecting senior citizens — namely

providing facilities and coverage for those citizens who require intermediate

health care. There again, the former administration repeatedly said that the

reason that it was not attempting to provide such coverage was that there was

no cost sharing forthcoming from Ottawa. That's been said many times and I'm

sure our present Premier is well aware of the fact that federal policies in

regard to cost-sharing programmes are essentially those of retreat and restriction

and an unwillingness certainly to increase, in any respect that I can find,

other than perhaps giving the Province of Quebec a greater degree of its own

autonomy in deciding some of the formulas adopted.

But generally speaking, in terms of hard cash, it's quite clear, Mr.

Speaker, that the federal government is restrictive in its

participation in these policies whether it's to do with welfare or

health care or any other cost-share programme.

And, as I said earlier, this is not to defend or attack the federal

government. It's to attempt to bring some light to bear on this debate

and the actions of the socialist government. The criticism, I think,

can be raised that the Premier of this province acted in haste by

stating that the provincial assistance would be increased to guarantee

a minimum of $200 a month to those who are eligible. But I think again,

as I've said in this debate in this session, the Premier conducted his

campaign on certain promises and I recognise that, to the best of his

ability, he is attempting to implement the promises he made in the

election.

And if we take that fact into consideration, together with the point

[ Page 321 ]

I've just made, I think it's very unlikely that

Ottawa is going to give us very much money to share the cost of the

increase. Personally, I may be cynical, but judged on its attitude

towards health costs and the point I've already mentioned regarding

intermediate care, which is a desperate need all across Canada, for a

national government claiming to create a just society, its neglect of

that segment is appalling. Nothing short of appalling.

If the federal government is showing this degree of neglect for that

very vital segment of our people in need all across the country, with

respect, Mr. Speaker, I just can't feel as optimistic as the Premier

does that in the long run, by continued negotiation, we will be

receiving sharing from Ottawa. I'm much less optimistic personally.

But nevertheless, to get to the end of the road and the discussion,

the fact is the Premier has committed this province to go it alone if

this proves to be the only alternative. And as far as I'm concerned,

personally — I'm not necessarily speaking for the party when I say this

— I recognise that initiative and applaud the initiative. And I think,

at least in one respect, when we consider that the Premier of this

province went out to the airport and discussed the matter at first hand

with the Prime Minister of Canada in an atmosphere that was cordial and

friendly I really, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, can hardly

imagine that having happened under the former administration. I think

the point must be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, of costs. And here I feel,

despite the lack of time that this government has had, that they could

have done better in providing more specific figures as to the cost.

Certainly, the people we represent as M.L.A.'s, in general, feel as

the parties in this House do, that the need is there to increase

assistance to these elderly people. I don't think the man-on-the-street

doubts that. But it certainly creates an impression of concern in his

mind when we use the phrase "ball-park figures". When you're talking in

$10 and $20 millions the man in the street says to me, "I don't like

your

interpretation of 'ball park'". It seems to be that the average

individual feels that the government is scrambling around somewhat in

the dark for a very desirable goal.

But in trying to tell this House and in trying to tell the people

what it's going to cost, there is tremendous discrepancy and tremendous

confusion almost from day to day as one figure is quoted and the next

time it's up by another 50 per cent.

Now, this may relate to the fact that the Premier was uncertain as

to the outcome of further negotiations with the Prime Minister of

Canada. But I really feel that the government must be criticised in

this particular respect no matter how well-intentioned. I think the

very sloppy way in which large sums of money have been mentioned must

inevitably have people asking where it's to come from. And if the

government is so ill-informed as to the absolute sums of money involved

maybe it's not too well-informed about some of the mechanisms and some

of the ideas that are to be used to implement it.

I would like to comment also, on a point I've raised in this House

before — a direct experience almost all over the world shows that just

giving people money is not in itself the answer to poverty. I'm not

sounding any wonderful phrase when I say that. It is just that

experience has shown in many countries, as much as any as Britain where

there is a wide range of social legislation and programmes of this

nature and yet Britain still has an incredible amount of poverty.

I welcomed the introductory remarks of the Minister of Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) when he stated that they were very well

aware of two particular items, namely food and shelter.

And I would like to clarify a statement that I made, Mr. Speaker, in

this regard when I spoke about rent and the need for amendments to the

Landlord and Tenant Act. And I did not mean to imply, if I did, that

this government is being asked to bring in rent control as such. I want

to make it very plain that what I was trying to say, and what I will

say very clearly now, is that a landlord is just as much in the grip of

inflation as the tenant. But all I was trying to suggest was that if a

landlord does increase rent there should be some mechanism where he has

simply to justify or that the

[ Page 322 ]

existing legislation needs review in as much as

there are not adequate safeguards for that being done, namely

justification of changes.

I've also spoken in the House on the question of low-cost housing

and the Liberal leader mentioned this also. The figures are on record

from the last debate we had on this, that indeed the former government

did leave a lot of money on the table in Ottawa that could have been

used in the financing of low-cost housing.

The question of incentive to thrift has also been raised. When one

again listens to the man-in-the-street — this is another recurring

theme that I come across — that if governments are trying to do more

and more for people in the way of cash benefits, or "handouts" as the

phrase is often used, there is real concern amongst many people in this

province that in a persons earlier years there is less incentive to

save, there is less incentive for him to be responsible for his own

retirement and his own later years.

Certainly there is a very strong conviction in the Conservative

Party that if you take away a persons incentive he'll reduce his own

feeling of responsibility for his own future and you are indeed

creating a dangerous situation whereby larger and larger numbers of

people will feel that they can simply be dependent upon the state and a

smaller and smaller fraction of people will be trying to carry that tax

burden.

Now, Mr. Premier, I know that sounds like an old, hardline

Conservative philosophy and you may feel it is. But I think it's clear,

or it should be made clear to the people of the province, that since

this government took office there has been — again, well-intentioned

statements as to how certain benefits costing approximate amounts of

money will be made available to the people of this province.

And I'm not criticising the aims. I'm simply saying that people all

over my part of the neighbourhood are saying to me that this seems to

be leading only to an increasing tax burden for a smaller and smaller

fraction of society to provide these benefits, greatly required though

they may be. This confusion and concern is increased by the point I

made earlier, that if we're going to talk in figures of many millions

of dollars, we feel it has been done in haste and that some delay would

have been advisable if the figures ultimately announced were valid and

accurate.

Another point worth mentioning in terms of a guaranteed income and

in terms of this bill is that people are concerned that if this is

implemented immediately and is a greatly better provision of income

than in neighbouring provinces that we will have an influx of elderly

citizens from other provinces to appreciate the better benefits in B.C.

as compared to the benefits elsewhere.

And I think this should go on the record — this provincial

government has no choice in the matter whatever. I've made some

inquiries and on one point the federal government is absolutely

inflexible and that is there shall never be, in their opinion, a

residential requirement in terms of granting aid and assistance to the

senior citizens. So while we can't change this I think at least it

should be put on the record and also help to clarify the concern of

many citizens who have spoken to me.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support this bill in

principle. As I've said earlier, it emphasised the tremendous

importance of federal-provincial negotiations in a matter that affects

so many deserving people and affects the province's

population-at-large, because the taxpayer who is in the taxpaying group

certainly has to be the base on which this money is to be found.

I think it's also clear that, while this is well-intentioned and a

step in the right direction, I would finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by

appealing again to the Premier to with all haste enter into

negotiations with the federal government to try and devise a nationally

co-ordinated guaranteed minimum income. The various hodge-podge and

interrelated agreements such as the Liberal leader outlined create only

confusion and complexity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

[ Page 323 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think I'd best put some of

this in a little historical context and then reply to some of the

comments that were made.

In February in the year 1971 I introduced to this House a bill called

An Act Respecting A Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens .

Here's a photostatic copy of that bill. It says very simply, "This Act

may be cited as the Senior Citizens Guaranteed Income Act. Any resident

of British Columbia 65 years of age or over who has an income of less

than $200 a month shall receive an allowance sufficient to bring his or

her total income to a minimum of $200 per month."

Inflation has already hurt that particular aim of mine of two years

ago. The funds were available out of surplus revenue alone. We had

surplus revenues in this province — we've had them for many years. And

I'm saying very clearly that we've never believed in a policy of

taxation for surplus revenues. We believe taxation should be used for

the purposes it is collected for — for the people of British Columbia.

There is a surplus in the revenue now that can handle this. And with

no adjustment in taxation and with prudence we can handle it for years

hence. But the point that has been made is that a government collects

taxes to serve people. Not to play fiscal games. And we've always been

through an experience with this province and the government that

over-estimated its expenditures and under-estimated its revenues and

had a surplus every year. And people went hungry because of that

surplus. And I say that's wrong. O.K.?

Now, let's do some more historical review. When this debate took

place in the House it became a matter of attention for the pre-election

campaign in 1972.

The former Liberal leader of this province, although we don't agree

in terms of fiscal approach in raising revenue, agreed with out

position on $200 per month. He said so in the House and made the

position clear in that debate.

He was attacked along with myself in an

article written by the

former Hon. Minister without Portfolio, Grace McCarthy, in an

article

of the voice that speaks for the B.C. elderly, the Elder Statesman:

"British Columbia socialists and Liberals are trying

to hoodwink the elderly citizens of British Columbia — June 1972."

Grace McCarthy says in this

article from the Elder Statesman: "The

socialist leader, Dave Barrett, and the Liberal Leader, Pat McGeer,

have both claimed that the Social Credit government administration

could raise the old age pensions to $200 a month. "This is another

admission by these two parties that the Social Credit government has a

sound financial policy to enable it to embark on these programmes.

"But these two Opposition parties are perpetrating a

hoax on the senior citizens of British Columbia. Only too well do they

know that if British Columbia raises supplementary allowances to $200

per month every senior citizen in Canada would flock to British

Columbia to take advantage of it."

During the election campaign they came out and then said they were

going to raise it to $225, $225. And who were they talking to in the

Elder Statesman and who were they talking to a couple of months later?

So any argument from that group has to be automatically dismissed as

political claptrap and that's all it is.

Now to deal with the very valid analysis by both the present leader

of the Liberal group and the House Leader of the Conservatives. I won't

go into the details of my discussion with the Prime Minister. There

were no witnesses. We had a very amiable discussion. And I said

frankly, "I'm not going to vote Liberal" and he said frankly he's not

voting N.D.P. either. He's not voting N.D.P. and I'm not voting

Liberal. And on that basis we had a very frank discussion. Interjection

by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 324 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Frank was sitting there, yes.

The only comment I'll make about that is we both made statements

since and he made a statement that I don't like. Perhaps he doesn't

like mine — he's entitled to say anything he wants about it afterward.

But this is what he said on the television show, "He", — that was

Barrett, "can do what he wants with what he wishes was his money but he

can't do that with our money". That's his privilege. But I want it

clearly understood that this isn't "my" money in my opinion and that

isn't "his" money in my opinion. That's the money of the people of

Canada.

We're here to administer those funds. It wasn't the previous

government's money. It's not this governments money. It's the people's

money that we're dealing with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't it theirs?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I found out that it was really ours all along. The people's. The people's money all along.

AN HON. MEMBER: They fooled us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For years the Queen's Printer has been

suspect. But there's no reason to believe in those suspicions. It is

the taxpayer paying the money in this province, not the Social Credit

money tree or funny money or any other thing you want. And they've been

paying through the nose, some taxpayers. And my friend is absolutely

correct when he says the middle income group are being taken for a

ride. If the federal administration had taken a good look at the Carter

Commission there might be a more sensible distribution of taxes in this

country.

It's there. It's their comment to say where you're going to get the

money from. I was asked that during the election campaign and I said

then and I say now that the money must come from the natural resources

of this province. Last year we shipped out $130 million worth of copper

concentrates from this province with absolutely no royalties. And I

tell you that is wrong.

Those resources being shipped out of this province in a raw form

must pay a fair share of taxes and those taxes will be used for the

social benefits of the people of British Columbia. Why the argument?

Because I like to believe in politicians. I've avoided cynicism in

public life, and believe me, I've had 12 years of opportunity to become

acquainted with some degree of cynicism.

I want to read from March 13, 1967….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Lies, lies, lies.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …. of the House of Commons debates. The

first statement I want to read is June 14, 1966 from Hon. A. J.

MacEachen, then Minister of Health and Welfare, when he was asked

questions about the Canada Assistance Plan. And it is complex. It is

complex. I work in the field and I'm completely confused by many of its

aspects. Even the people who are to administer it are confused. If you

could see the memos flying back and forth and the negotiations and

interpretations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want to see some of them? There's really nothing secret in any of them.

This was a statement by MacEachen when he was discussing this, and

he says, "briefly stated the Canada Assistance Plan will provide a

basis for co-ordinating public assistance programmes in Canada, federal

sharing for the first time in mothers' allowance programmes, federal

support for the strengthening of administration of welfare services

relating to social assistance programmes," the route we're now taking,

"emphasis on developing, improving and extending services designed to

lessen the amount of dependency,

[ Page 325 ]

federal aid for buttressing child and youth welfare

services, federal sharing of health care costs for social assistance

recipients and, " listen to this, "no federal ceilings on benefits

under this new programme and full sharing of payments made on the basis

of need to improve the level of benefits now being paid to the aged,

the blind and the disabled."

And the hang-up is around the word "need". That's where the hang-up

is. And we say that that hang-up is a semantic hang-up, that there are

regional

definitions of "need" in this country and we can make an

excellent case for a regional definition of "need" in the Province of

British Columbia. Because the cost of living is relatively higher in

the Province of British Columbia than some other areas of Canada — the

highest food costs in North America. Now we believe in equalisation

payments — unlike the previous administration. We believe in

equalisation payments but we believe it should be a two-way street. If

there are going to be equalisation payments for other provinces in

need, then there should be equalisation payments in reverse under the

Canada Assistance Plan so that we can have a regional

interpretation of

the word "need" and that's what the argument's all about.

At no time have I become involved in an emotional political exchange

with the federal government, or the Prime Minister. I have no

intention, whether he is returned or another party is returned, to get

involved in that classic rhetoric that has marked British Columbia

politics for years in attacking Ottawa.

I want to make it very clear that I do not intend to stand silently

by when I think British Columbia has a case. And in this instance I

think British Columbia has a case.

I welcome the route of going through Social Assistance because it's

going to cover 70 per cent of what we thought the federal bill should

be. But there is a matter of principle involved as well and we intend

to pursue that particular principle. We even have Mrs. Margaret Rideout

saying on March 13, 1967 and I quote: "It has been made clear to all

provinces, Mr. Speaker, that where the combined old age security and

guaranteed income supplement are insufficient to meet the needs of

pensioners, the federal government will continue to be prepared to

share with the province in the costs of additional supplementary

allowances based on need. There is no ceiling on the level of federal

contributions for this purpose."

That's it, and it's stated again and it's the same question around

"need" and we have a case we believe to say that there is regional

need. For that argument, and I'm sorry that the House Leader of the

Conservative Party has fallen into that argument, I noticed the

Liberals avoided it– the argument that the elderly will swarm to

British Columbia, or perhaps the fear is out there.

Let me tell you, on $200 a month per person it's very difficult to

live in British Columbia. Two hundred dollars a month hardly meets

rental costs, food costs, and many, many of our elderly will still be

suffering even with this minimum $200 a month guarantee.

That's why we've gone further by saying that we don't believe that

people who are living as man and wife should be punished for living as

man and wife. Under the previous administration there was a 40 per cent

penalty for living as man and wife. Common law was O.K. if you didn't

get caught by the social worker. But living as man and wife, we say

that both the husband and wife are entitled to the same $200 minimum

guaranteed income.

One old fellow got up at a meeting I was speaking to to explain this

point and he said: "Don't you think that we should get a little reward

after having lived together all these years?" I said each case has to

be judged on its own merits. But I made the point that we would not

penalise these people by that 40 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double for Shirley! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: That part of my speech was written… The

other point about people coming to British Columbia — it costs a lot of

money to pick up and leave their children, and their grandchildren in

Nova Scotia or in Ontario for the difference of $20 or $30 more a

month. I believe

[ Page 326 ]

Canadians have more filial love than that. I really

do and I can't see people uprooting themselves over that argument. And

the argument advanced by the former Minister without Portfolio was

incorrect.

Now, I want to make a statement about your philosophy. And you'd be

surprised, as many people are surprised, to find that socialists and

Tories frequently have a great deal in common. We look upon the Liberal

Party in Canada as not so much a political party, but more as an

alliance for power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. Nay, nay! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have been on the federal scene for so

long they feel almost like they have the divine right to rule. And I

can remember how upset they were when that great Canadian, John

Diefenbaker, lead the Conservative Party to a sweeping victory in

Canada. It was more a spanking of the Liberal Party than anything else.

And perhaps it's time they had another little public spanking.

When you say that the incentive has gone because of the welfare state, I agree

with you. There are inherent dangers in welfare states that are applied in

response to problems rather than a total look at the social structure that

that money is applied to. You made mention about the fact that money doesn't

solve the problems of the poor. There was an eight-year study done by Professor

Cloward at Pittsburgh University on this whole business, on the private dollar

and the public dollar in charity and the minimum income and Cloward said that

one of the major problems with the poor, after this study, one of the major

problems with the poor is that they don't have enough money. It's interesting

when you analyse the costs of all the delivery services. In terms of the agencies,

and social workers, and interviews, and letters, and screening and everything

else that goes on, by the time the money allocated gets down it's pretty thin.

That's one point.

But the point I agree with you is on this business of incentive. In

North America we have always looked upon the handling of money with a

puritan ethic. Sometimes to our own disadvantage. We have built up a

patchwork of welfare services that has deliberately driven some people

in some instances to dissipate their savings so they could take

advantage of the welfare service available. And we're confronted with

that here in Canada in some of these supplementary programmes of senior

citizens. That's why one of the first things we've done, one of the

first things we've said is that we want to reward those people who have

saved some money, who have put aside a little nest egg, and we want

them to be able to protect that nest egg. That's why we're saying the

exemptions will go up to $2,500 cash, for the single person, and $5,000

for a married couple. Let them have that cushion, they're entitled to

it, and

AN HON. MEMBER: And the boat ride.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And the boat ride if they want to. And I'll

tell you something. My friend, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is no social worker, but his suggestion

that people go to Hawaii, the aged go to Hawaii on trips, is not

uncommon in some countries like Sweden and others. But the point that I

am trying to make is that I agree with you, we have taken away some

incentive but it's been the nature of the social welfare programme

that's taken away the incentive. And I say that must end and this is

our first halting step to end it.

What are the consequences of doing what you suggest, and what I

believe in? I'll tell you what the consequences are. If you've ever

worked in a geriatric field, as you do as a doctor, the first thing

that the aged become concerned about is insecurity, the lack of

long-term planning, the destruction of family as they knew it, and

their changing role as they get older, and the whole business of, "What

do I do now?" — you know, the decision-making process.

It's frightening. You give an aged person in some instances a form

to fill out and that's almost a traumatic experience. When their

security gets threatened you know as a medical practitioner that there

develops psychosomatic

[ Page 327 ]

illnesses that are compounded by their very age.

And when the aged develop psychosomatic illnesses it's not long before

they become chronic and then terminal.

Because of our foolish approach in the handling of funds for the

aged, it is my guess that we could make a correlation between the

increase in the need for chronic care and resthome care to the degree

of insecurity that the society has created for the aged.

We are trying to not only give $200 a month to these people, we're

trying to have them hang on to the amount of money they have in their

home. But we're trying to create a psychological atmosphere for them

that gives them a sense of security, that enables them to stay in their

own homes, in their own communities living a more decent, sensible,

balanced life rather than rushing into an institution that becomes a

comforting mother in their last years of life.

Rest homes, nursing home care, chronic home care, does not need to

be the inevitable end for the longer lived North America. And if we can

design programmes to lessen the chances of that happening, then that is

good for all society. One of the worst aspects of North American

society is its septic suburbs in a sense of age grouping. The suburban

areas in North America have a starving need for aged people living

right there in the suburbs. And if this programme in a small way can

start changing that, it can have an impact on our society.

I'm not saying it's going to revolutionise our society, but if we

start designing our programmes in the direction you're talking about in

terms of incentive, in terms of individual roles, we'll be helping

society. In that sense the Conservative philosophy and the Socialist

philosophy is right on together. We respect the individual. The

bolstering of the individual is a difference in means, of methods, and

that's what separates us.

But, the goal is the same. I didn't intend to get into that lengthy

philosophical discussion but in my opinion the goal is the same.

We don't know at this point the exact figure that we are dealing

with. But, in ball-park figures, if I may use your phrase, we have a

pretty good idea and I want to say, very clearly publicly we can well

afford to do this, right now. We can well afford to do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much? You got the figures?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister will give you the figure, as

we stand now in terms of the new "goalpost" that we have after my

meeting with the Prime Minister.

He'll give it to you as best as he's got it. We really won't know

until after a year of performance. I'll tell you why we really won't

know the kind of exact figures that everyone is entitled to know — simply that there are a lot of aged out there who will not come and

make themselves available for this programme. Because they are so

conditioned with the idea, of you know, staying away from government

help, they believe that this kind of supplement is somehow caving in to

the welfare. Psychologically that was one of the reasons why we did not

want to go the social assistance route. But, now we've had to go that

route. I want to tell people out there, if they qualify for this

programme they are not to have one shred of guilt or doubt about

applying for these funds. It is their right. They have been paying

their taxes for years and they are entitled to this particular return

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your best statement of the session

HON. MR. BARRETT: …. . and I'm not even 65.

The whole purpose of this is that it is a social measure. It's going

to be watched very, very closely. Not only by the people in our

department but by the people right across Canada – I hope in some areas

of North America, because this has been a theoretical goal of many

people in the field for years.

I feel very, very happy about the debate, I feel very, very happy

about the fact that British Columbia has reached the point that we're

able

[ Page 328 ]

to do this.

I must say in closing it is a moment of very great personal pride,

in terms of my own 12 years of politics, that circumstances would have

it that I'm in the position to participate in a debate that is going to

see this action take place. I feel very, very good about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment

the Premier on a very sincere and impassioned speech. Which I know will be

taken to hearts of our senior citizens everywhere in the province. When I came

forward earlier this year, with our charter of rights for the elderly, it was

to do precisely what the Premier suggested needed to be done. Namely, to provide

security, confidence, and appreciation among the elderly of the province.

We in the Liberal Party recognise the immense administrative task

that the Minister of Social Rehabilitation has taken on, in

implementing this programme with so much rapidity. We certainly wish

him every success. We know you're going to have a great deal of

problems in making the details of this work.

We suspect that there will be a lot of amendment to the bill

required, as the administrative tangles of trying to dispense fairly

the amounts of money that are involved begin to reveal themselves in

the coming weeks. I think every Member of the House should anticipate

that this is going to happen and recognize that it is better to get on

with the job, after 20 years, than to wait until all of the

difficulties can be properly anticipated. So we are with you in that,

Mr. Minister.

The subject of rest homes has come up in this session, the subject

of chronic hospitals. But, there are still a couple of areas that I

think need to be considered by the government now, in addition to these.

One of the prominent points in our charter of rights to the elderly is that

they should have the right to free drugs and medical appliances, including

hearing aids, batteries, eyeglasses, false teeth, crutches, artificial limbs,

wheelchairs and so on.

The reason for specifically mentioning these things is because the

Premier and the Minister and everyone in the House who's had any

contact with the older people of the province, recognises that

circumstances often take away what meager income they have, for what

becomes an essential necessity of life. The profits for providing these

necessities of life are very high. Therefore if we are to give the

elderly of the province a genuine $200 a month income, then we need as

well to make provision for these extra necessities.

The second item I would specifically like to mention for the

Minister's and the Premier's attention, Mr. Speaker, is the need to

make greater provision than we have for property taxes of our elderly

citizens. We've specifically stated that they should be forgiven

property taxes in this province, later to be repaid to the government

if that were deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for older people to be able to

maintain their home and place of residence. Despite the increase in the

Homeowners Grant, we have many, many people who face the loss of what

is the most important thing for them, next to life itself – that is the

nest that they've had for many many years.

Beyond a certain age you simply cannot readjust to a new living

situation. The Premier himself has said that people will not be

flooding to British Columbia from other parts of Canada because of the

generosity of this government in giving them the guaranteed supplement.

Family is important, home is important too. So we should do

everything we can to maintain the senior citizens in their home,

because they have a right to it and that is where they belong.

A great deal has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the relationship of

the federal government and the provincial government with regard to the

financial

[ Page 329 ]

arrangements. We're right with the government, Mr.

Speaker, in trying to get as much as we can for the Province of British

Columbia.

There are constitutional and legislative difficulties that prevent

us from getting our way with the federal government. But, one thing I

think might be considered by the government, and I don't want this to

be interpreted in any way as a separatist statement, because nothing

could be farther from the truth. If there is a federalist in Canada,

it's me. But, we are entitled to opt out of any programme where we

think we can do a better job of administering it if we just take the

money from Ottawa.

It may be that if we want to be in advance of the rest of the nation

in some social field, we would be better off opting out and developing

entirely our own administrative scheme.

There is no reason why this province or any other province shouldn't

explore those alternatives. For example, I mentioned at the last

sitting of the Legislature, where it might be wise for us to take over

all of the retraining programmes for unemployed people. Put it under a

single administration, tailor it to the needs of British Columbians, so

that you don't have constant friction between two levels of government

with the people falling in between the two stools.

It may be that this is a completely wrong approach. It may be that

this is a completely wrong approach. It might be that financially,

we're better off even to go through the awkward route of social

assistance.

Or that we're better off to try and press at federal-provincial

conferences for some kind of a new deal. But among the alternatives

that I think we can afford to explore is the one of simply opting out

in a programme and taking over the complete administrative

responsibility.

I want to support the suggestion made by the leader of the Liberal

Party that we have to give some kind of recognition and reward for

thrift. And there's little doubt that the setting of a $200 a month

line is going to be wasted from that point of view of providing income

and security.

It strikes us that there's something just a little bit unfair about

that. It creates greater problems administratively, we understand that.

But in the long run it will probably make for a better scheme.

These are details, Mr. Speaker. We heartily support the main

principles of the legislation and we wish the Minister well in what we

know will be the growing pains of an important new programme in the

province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD(Comox): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this

bill to provide a minimum income of $200 for the pensioners of British

Columbia. This bill No. 3 makes me very happy. There are other Bill No.

3's that wouldn't have made me so happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: There have been.

MS. SANFORD: Just after the results of the election of August

30 were known there were many who said to me, "it's like a breath of

fresh air to have a new government in this province". That remark was

made to me as late as yesterday again.

MRS. JORDAN: There's a lot of hot air over there.

MS. SANFORD: I felt more than a breath of fresh air that

evening. I felt a breeze. A pronounced breeze, and I think that that

breeze was the result of the combined and the collective sighs of

relief that came from teachers, social workers, school boards, minimum

wage workers, regional boards, council government employees — to name

just a few. And for the old age pensioners of this province.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you speaking for all of them?

[ Page 330 ]

MS. SANFORD: It's inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, that in a country

as wealthy as Canada the old age pensioners have had to live in

substandard conditions because of insufficient funds. The old age

pensioners have needed this legislation for a long time.

And I fail to understand why the previous government didn't act when this

need was brought to their attention by the then Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, and us and us.

MS. SANFORD: Nor do I understand why the federal Liberal

government chooses to interpret the federal legislation in such a way

that they are not now paying the optimum permitted under federal laws.

If they showed the same concern for people that this government is

showing through this bill they would have jumped at the opportunity to

participate fully with us in providing the benefits contained in this

bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, the need for this bill is greater in some parts of

the province than it is in others because of the high living costs.

This was alluded to earlier by the Premier and by some of the Hon.

Members. The need in some parts of the province is even greater, I say,

because of the particular high living costs. The freight costs, for

instance, to Vancouver Island increase the cost of living here.

Why are those freight costs so high? Why does the $2 box of apples bought up in the Okanagan cost $6.75 in Courtenay?

I would ask the government to investigate those freight rates with the view to having them decreased.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've done it already.

MS. SANFORD: To provide relief to the people that are living

in the remoter part of the province. Even within my own riding the cost

of living varies significantly. Goods are cheaper even in Courtenay

than they are, say, in a place like Port Hardy. To reach Port Hardy

goods can be transported between Kelsey Bay and Beaver Cove on the

ferry known as the "Island Princess." Also referred to in our riding as

the "Turtle Princess" because it travels at a full 10 knots when the

sailing conditions are good.

MR. GARDOM: Order, order!

MS. SANFORD: Rates charged on that ferry are high. Too high I think.

MR. GARDOM: Order, order!

MS. SANFORD: All right — I'm trying to point out that the

need for the cost of the need for these increases in minimum incomes to

the people of the province, to the pensioners of the province are

greater in some areas than they are in others.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you keep it in second reading, please?

MS. SANFORD: There is one specific thing I think which raises

that cost of living and which makes the people of the northern end of

the province more affected than others by high living costs. That is

that the only road, Mr. Speaker, only public road, which leads into

that north end of the island is a gravelled one and on that road the

transport vehicles, and commercial vehicles are required to pay a fee.

This is a road which is controlled by logging companies. It is 100

miles of gravel, is narrow, dangerous, and the people travelling on it

must pay through a gate erected by the logging company.

MR. SPEAKER: I do think that you're straying from the debate before us.

MS. SANFORD: Okay. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that the

[ Page 331 ]

ferry rates up that way should be reduced to help

the cost of living. I feel that the fee which the commercial vehicles

are now paying to cross that road and the freight rates are things that

we could look into in order to make $200 a month which the people are

going to get more beneficial to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the pensioners of this province will be

applauding this legislation. And I think that for those who are living

in remoter areas the applause will be even louder. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there's no question of a doubt as

the Hon. Premier said and many of the earlier speakers, that the

province is what it is today by virtue of our senior citizens'

contributions. They earned expensive dollars and they now have cheap or

perhaps no dollars to spend and they've been completely eroded or

almost completely eroded by inflation. But you know, they're asking two

questions, Mr. Speaker, concerning the outcome of this bill which will

before the end of today become the law of the Province of British

Columbia.

And the two questions will be these. They're going to say this. "How

much am I entitled to?" and "How do I get it?" I think the government

has got to provide for them, Mr. Speaker, something that very clearly,

very simply, and very concisely explains that very thing. I would

suggest the Hon. the Minister put out a chart with large letters on it

so they don't have to use a magnifying glass and tell them exactly what

they are entitled to, what the ground rules are, where they get it,

where they receive it from. What steps they are able to take and who

they can reach if it is not received. I say make it a very simple kind

of a chart, perhaps a couple of columns indicating the amount available

and the requirements for qualification and then go ahead and set forth

the when and the where and the portion which may or may not be subject

to income tax.

Because the pensioners should not have to be more confused by this

legislation. They should be better accommodated by it. And that's the

intent of the legislation. And that's the kind of treatment they indeed

deserve and I would very much urge upon the Hon. the Minister if he

would give consideration for this request.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.F. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill and I really didn't think you were going to let me do it.

But first, I wish to congratulate you on your election as Speaker to

this House by your fellow Members and to say, Mr. Speaker, that I

consider your choice to be a wise one. I have had over the years the

opportunity to sit in the gallery of this House and look down from

above and to observe the keen interest and the concern for the proper

order and the conduct of the business of this House that you showed at

all those times. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will maintain that

concern from your new position.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill and I take particular

pleasure in doing so especially on this my first occasion to speak in

this House. Let me convey to all those who may hear and to those who

may not my great feeling of honour and appreciation in being a Member

of this historical chamber, representing as I do the constituents of

Esquimalt.

This bill is of particular interest to this area which I have the

honour to represent and indeed to the whole capital region of Victoria.

For here in the whole general area of the capital, the per-capita

percentage of pensioners is twice that of the national average. So

there can be no doubt of the importance of this measure to this area,

and it seems to me that nowhere in our society is the misdirection of

human attention so evident as it is in the treatment our society gives

to its senior citizens.

Years ago, when you became older you lived with your family, you

lived with your children, and felt uneasy. You felt as if you were

getting charity from your children and if you didn't do that, then you

lived in a squalid

[ Page 332 ]

room, spending the day on a corner and trying to

eke out a living, and that was before we had pensions of any kind at

all. There is still today a great deal of apathy to our senior citizens

which is a left over from a less enlightened age, and we still regard

whatever we do for the senior citizens as a piece of charity which we

do out of the generosity of our hearts, and that the object is to keep

body and soul together for the senior citizen.

Mr. Speaker, that attitude is inhuman, it is wrong, and it is

immoral. Those men and women who have given their lives to building

this country deserve not just enough to keep body and soul together but

deserve a senior life of leisure, respect, dignity as their right — not

a privilege, their right. Not, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of charity from

the government, or

an act of grace from some people, for that which

they have earned in building this country they have earned through a

life time of work.

The vast majority of them are or were working people. It is no exaggeration

to say that senior citizens of our country only get a share of the rising standard

of living — that is the vast majority of them — when

the government grants a very small increase in the old age pension. For the

overwhelming majority of them have not been able to save up enough to take

care of themselves, and make provision for later years. There are over 1.7

million pensioners in this country of ours. Over half of them — 900,000 — are

so poor that they qualify for either part or all of the guaranteed supplement.

Citizens who have little of their own that they are able to qualify for part

or all of that supplement. Because of this situation, the old age security

pension should require regular review in order that it be kept in line with

the increased cost of living, but also with the increased standard of living

enjoyed by the rest of us.

That measure we shall ensure here. Our senior citizens have worked

all their adult lives, struggling to build the economic progress of

this country and they must share in the benefit enjoyed by others.

Because of high rents, high cost of clothing, drugs, etc., the meagre

allowances are gone before the month's end. They often spend the last

week of the month existing on tea and toast and dog food, and that is

substantiated and documented for anyone who wants to know. And let me

point out there is no quality control on that particular food product

which has been known to contain rat meat.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, all those over 65 who qualify receive the

very inadequate and totally unrealistic amount from the federal

government of $82.88 and over half of our pensioners are so poor that

they receive part of or all of the income supplement of $67.12.

At this time in British Columbia, out of some 200,000 pensioners

only some 16,000 to 17,000 are in receipt of all or part of the

provincial supplemtary allowance. And only 1,300 of those qualify for

the full provincial supplement. Mr. Speaker, it is the commitment of

this party through this government to proceed to raise the living

standard of the senior citizens so that because they are no longer

producers, we shall not from now look upon them as second-class

citizens. We desire to raise them to a meaningful first-class citizen

in our society. Funds paid out to pensioners are spent in the local

communities on the necessities of life and that's just good business.

Let all those in this province, in this nation, take note that here at

last a people's government has set out to correct the long record of

unfair and callous treatment of our senior citizens by Liberal,

Conservative, and Social Credit governments alike. No longer, Mr.

Speaker, not in British Columbia, are we going to banish our senior

citizens to cheap, dingy, squalid housing and shocking inadequacy of

the necessities of life.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasise that this party and this

government have a comprehensive programme for the senior citizens and

we have the commitment and determination to see it a reality.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I would like to join briefly in this, debate to indicate my support

for this bill. I suppose that I would like to agree with the Hon.

Member from Esquimalt, with perhaps some regret that we, are today

debating second reading of this

[ Page 333 ]

kind of bill. It is legislation which in this

wealthy province should have been on the statute book many, many years

ago, and it is I suppose one of the most telling criticisms that one

can voice in respect of the previous administrations. The Second Member

from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made a request to the Minister

in which I join. Senior citizens, pensioners over the age of 65 years,

like so many of our citizens who are younger than they, are confused by

the language of the government, the words — the "guaranteed monthly

income," "G.I.S.C.A.P." — all of the vast litany of words, phrases and

abbreviations that we use when we try to describe what is really the

simplest of matters. I suppose it is a failure of all politicians and

something that we're justly criticised for.

But I think that it's easy to explain what this bill does and

perhaps in the explanation it's also easy to see some areas where

improvements must take place. But simply stated, a senior citizen, old

age pensioner, whose income is so low that he or she receives the

guaranteed income supplement from the federal government qualifies for

some assistance under this legislation, and when you look at the limits

which permit you to get the guaranteed income supplement from the

federal government and therefore qualify, we see how astoundingly

little really is being given by this province to these pensioners at

this time.

It works out simply that for a single pensioner, if they happen to

have income annually of their own in excess of $1,611 then they don't

get anything under this Act. It's as simple as that.

If they fall below the level of that income, by even a dollar, then

they qualify. It is in this respect that I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Hon. Minister, that some early consideration must be

given to removing the inequities which inevitably arise when we

establish these arbitrary limits, because there are people, there are

senior citizens, who fall just outside the limits who really need help

in the same way as there is the older person not yet 65 years of age

who really needs the help that the pension could give. Just the same as

when we established qualifications that enable elderly citizens to

obtain accommodation in low rental housing projects there is that

person who falls just outside that limitation and can't get in, or is

just too late and has to go on the waiting list.

The tragedies that result from placing people just outside those

rigid boundaries are sometimes every bit as great, if not greater, than

what the programme was designed to provide. And I hope, once this bill

gets working and the government recognizes how it will function

financially and how it needs to be administered in the community that

we can move on from this kind of formula to one which will begin to

meet the need of the senior citizen who may fall just outside the

boundaries which this legislation establishes.

There is one very specific area that gives me concern about the bill

and I raise it with the Minister now. Mr. Speaker, I won't deal with

the specific section, but there is provision where the minister can

make adjustments in the assistance provided in the event that the

federal supplement rises by reason of the cost of living formulas. May

I ask the Minister, when he closes this debate, to indicate whether he

believes that the present regulatory powers also give him the authority

to change the assistance if, in fact, the basic federal supplement is

to be raised.

It occurs to me that, in the discussions which are bound to go on

governments of the several provinces, that there is the possibility

that the federal government may see fit to adjust the basic guaranteed

income supplement. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would not want

to find himself in the position that because the basic supplement was

increased under this legislation he was not able to make the same

dollar grant to each individual recipient of assistance under this bill.

I, too, must join with the Premier when he said that he did not

believe that the passing of this legislation was going to encourage

senior citizens from other parts of Canada to come to British Columbia,

and he gave many reasons why — costs of living and so on. There is

another very basic reason of course and that is that senior citizens

would prefer to stay in their own communities — communities where their

friends are, communities with which

[ Page 334 ]

they are familiar, communities that they helped to create and to build. That's where they want to be.

I suppose that it was not too hard to believe that the former

administration, the former government, did feel that senior citizens

might flock to this province if such a bill were passed, because if

there was one thing that the previous government did it was to drive

senior citizens out of their own communities. Now the laws of this

province, and I'm speaking of the laws relating to the taxation of real

property, contributed to just that result. It forced senior citizens to

dispose of their homes and in many cases, having disposed of their

homes, they were obliged to find accommodation in some other community.

And those laws, as I say, are still with us.

I trust that, as a companion to this bill, we will shortly have from

this government legislation which will stop that trend, which will

permit and which will encourage senior citizens to live in their homes

and in their own communities. Then we will really be making a step

forward towards the day when the senior citizens in this province will

really be improved. Dollars are not enough.

There are many other steps to be taken as well, but the first thing

we must do, having provided some assistance in order that senior

citizens may live at the sustenance level, we must then move to keep

them in their own communities — places where they are familiar, where

they are happy and where they will be able to spend the remainder of

their lives justly enjoying the rewards which are theirs for the

contributions which they have made to this province.

I, too, urge the Minister to reward the thrift of our senior

citizens. A thrift merit plan would be something that this government

should offer to the senior citizens. And as I read the regulations I'm

convinced that the Minister has that power right now under this bill,

once it becomes law, to do just that.

And I know the Minister with his experience, and his experience is

far greater than mine in dealing with senior citizens… But I meet

lots of them and I know them to be fiercely proud people in many cases.

People who say, "Look, I made my contribution, I've made my savings, I

can look after myself." And they shun any suggestion that what they're

getting is charity or welfare.

I suppose this is one reason why I regret the amendment had to come

in which makes reference to the Social Assistance Act. Many senior

citizens do not want to feel that, after a lifetime of contribution,

some how or other they are placed on the roles of social assistance.

And therefore they have been thrifty. They've got that little nest egg.

It's very important to them. They will hide it, in many instances,

rather than have it suggested that they are taking social assistance.

I just think that this impediment to the enjoyment by all senior

citizens who qualify for the assistance which this bill gives should be

removed. We should extend fully to them the benefits to which we

believe, the government believes, these citizens are entitled to in

principle. And that's why we're debating this bill in principle today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER: (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

support this bill which I consider important. As we're all well aware

in this House, the grant of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month

for senior citizens over the age of 65 who are now living below the

poverty level is of utmost necessity. The senior citizens of this

province have waited too long for a better deal from government.

They've been thrifty throughout their working years to save for their

old age only to see periods of inflation take away what they have

saved. But they have not given up. They want to share the good life,

they want to share what this affluent society has to offer in their

declining years.

The previous speakers have all agreed with this. So let us not delay

in giving them something like this just because all the details haven't

been worked out completely.

[ Page 335 ]

They have finally become militant and formed pressure groups of

their own. Pensioners for Action Now, a pressure group started by

senior citizens, began in January or February of this year. Within

several months, in British Columbia alone, its membership swelled into

thousands. During the provincial election campaign they lobbied with

every political party to make their demands known. Mr. Speaker, many of

them were at the opening of the House in Victoria. They crowded into

the reception room at the Empress Hotel to shake hands with and to

speak to their newly elected representatives. I have never seen so many

happy faces on old people looking with hope to the future.

Many of them have been in the gallery every day. Some of them are

here today. We have seen them come and go in these public galleries all

afternoon and they are waiting for an answer from us. Those who are not

here, Mr. Speaker, are at home listening to their radios waiting for an

answer. They are waiting for the passage of this bill granting them a

minimum guaranteed income of $200 a month.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it isn't heaven on earth but it's important

and a great improvement over anything they have ever had before. They

know, and we know too, that income security can do much to lengthen and

brighten their lives.

It will help them overcome loneliness and isolation. In the past,

grandparents remained as part of the family. They were not only cared

for but they were made to feel useful. Grandma helped look after the

children, assisted with the cleaning and with the cooking. Grandpa

often did the repair work around the house or tended the lawn or the

backyard garden. A great deal of this has gone now.

The first old age pensions, as a result, were really intended as a

small supplement to their income to make life a bit easier for those in

dire need. It was given on a means test basis and during the 1940's and

1950's the amount of the pension was slowly increased and eventually

the means test was removed. In other words, it became a universal old

age pension. However, even at the time, the intent of the pension was

never implied to be the sole means of support for senior citizens.

Changes in our way of living since World War II have created new

problems for the elderly with inflated land and housing costs. We have

travelled into an era of small homes and apartment living. Families can

only afford accommodation for the nuclear family — the father, the

mother and the children. There is no longer room for the old folks.

They are forced to be independent. I agree with the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) when he says that just giving people money does not bring

happiness but believe me, for many it means the difference between

being able to meet monthly bills or living hand-to-mouth. In preparing

what I was going to say I looked through some old files and

I found Time magazine of August 3, 1970. It's one that is dedicated

almost entirely to the elderly and Patricia Welbourne, in an

article on

being old in a society that worships youth, has this to say, "being old

in a society that adulates youth is not only undesirable, it is

offensive and an unwelcome reminder that living is a journey towards

dying."

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the offense is sharpened in direct

proportion to the degree of poverty and privation. But how soon before

this grim thought is forgotten will we have the wherewithal to make

life a little more enjoyable.

Not only is the cost of food rising but the cost of clothing is

rising, the cost of housing is rising. These are the basic necessities

of life, but besides that, the cost of medicines and drugs are also

rising and for senior citizens, for older people, medicines and drugs

are very often also a necessity. Many of them live in fear of illness

that could put them into hospital for an extended period of time. The

private hospitals are prohibitive. At present, one out of five acute

care beds in our general hospitals are occupied by old people who

cannot afford extended care.

To offset the yearly rise in the cost of living, the federal

government in 1970 introduced an escalative clause into the basic old

age pension which at that time was $80 per month. Allowing the maximum

of 2 per cent per year but that same cost of living has been rising at

the rate of 5 per cent or more.

[ Page 336 ]

Last winter, under the Local Initiatives Programme instituted by the federal government, a Vancouver relocation

service was established. Its primary intent was to assist the elderly

and the handicapped, that is, those who could not help themselves in

finding a place to live. This service set out to find reasonably priced

housing for those forced out by demolition of their premises or by rent

increases. The biggest problem, according to the director of the

service was to find rentals in the $70 a month income bracket — all

that most could afford to spend. She said, "the average rental they

were able to find was $98 a month. Many were willing to pay more than

that because they were desperate and as a result, they frequently were

living basically on three or four major meals per week plus tea and

toast."

Why? All because they have little more than $500 in liquid assets,

all that the government will allow before they qualify for a

supplementary assistance beyond the old age pension. Let me point out,

Mr. Speaker, that of the 205,000 people in British Columbia over the

age of 65, only about half receive all or part of that guaranteed

income supplement. Now these are figures that have been repeated this

afternoon but I think they are worth repeating again. Only about

one-half receive all or part of the guaranteed income supplement

raising their pensions to $150 a month. Yet for the past four years,

Stanly Knowles, the federal Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North

Centre, an N.D.P. Member, has been advocating a universal old age

pension of $150 per month. This is what the pensioners themselves asked

for. To date it has not become law. The guaranteed income supplement is

still on a means test.

For those in real need beyond the basic pension plus the guaranteed

income supplements, there is the third phase of the supplementary

social allowance which is shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the

provincial and federal government. In British Columbia the maximum rate

is $41.10 which would raise their benefits to $191.10. As has been said

previously slightly more than 16,000 pensioners receive all or part of

the supplementary allowance. In fact, only 1,254 receive all of it.

In case both partners of a marriage qualify though, they only

receive together a total of $52.20. Also, in their guaranteed income

supplement they only receive, along with their old age pension, a total

of $285. That means that rather than getting $191 each, they get only

$337 as a married couple. Should they be penalised because two can live

more cheaply than one? Under the new bill practically all the 110,000

senior citizens now receiving all or part of the guaranteed income

supplement would be covered to raise their basic minimum incomes to

$200 a month. I understand that this will cover about 95 per cent of

these pensioners regardless of whether they are married or single. The

remaining 5 per cent more or less do not qualify as they are already

receiving $200 or more through their old age pension, their guaranteed

income supplement and other sources of income. The exact number is not

yet clear. Final totals are still being worked out statistically. Mr.

Speaker, this is a very important measure. I urge every Member of this

assembly to give it full support. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD: (Mackenzie) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I

add my congratulations to Mr. Speaker on being elected to this very

important post, to all the Hon. Members who are elected and re-elected

and to your self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the arduous task that you

will have in this House.

I will be very brief. I rise to speak in support of this bill

because it is a good bill. This bill will provide our senior citizens

with the start of a decent living allowance. Too long have our retired

people, the very people who made it possible for all of us to enjoy the

advantages we do today, been neglected by the federal and former

provincial governments. I know of literally dozens of people, as I am

sure you do, that have been living on the verge of starvation. This is

a situation that our government is going to put an end to.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister and that our

civil servants involved in the administration of these funds go to

every length

[ Page 337 ]

to make sure that everyone that is eligible to receive these funds receives all the help and assistance that they possibly can.

I thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, may I take this

opportunity first to welcome Alderman Ernie Novakowski and his class of

grade 10 students from McRoberts school in Richmond.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams)

expressed concern about people just outside of the limit in receiving

this supplementary pension and likes to suggest that this is exactly

what the pension is geared to do — to increase the outside limits so

that more people will be able to receive the pension. This is a problem

that we will always have to look to. There will always be somebody just

outside the limits. We have to consider this from time to time.

I would like to suggest, however, that if the federal government

were to increase the basic pension then many of those people just

outside the limits for supplementary pensions would receive more

adequate help. If for example, the present Liberal government were to

increase the pension by $150 then people would be able to receive that

much without a means test and, if they were to pay their additional 50

per cent share, we would be in a position to increase the pensions, the

basic minimum income in this province, to between $250 and $300 per

month. I think that is where the pensions should be and if we get the

support from the government in Ottawa that's where they will be. The

second point I would like to make is that to make this bill more

meaningful not only do we have to consider regional disparities, as one

of the Hon. Members has already mentioned, but we have to consider that

some old age pensioners have other problems such as medical problems.

Once we're able to provide free drugs and medical-dental treatment to

the old age pensioners we'll be able to assist those who have health

costs that are so great that even an increase in the minimum income

will not help them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill and hope that we can look to even better things in the future.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support

the bill. The bill gives me a lot of pride to belong to the party that

put this bill forward. But one of the areas that gives me a great deal

more pride is the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) pointing out to the people of British

Columbia that not only will this bill go into effect, but he will

personally look into the problems that are facing senior citizens in

this province, into the situation that the people are living in and do

a complete study and come up with some answers — an area that hasn't

been done properly or touched upon by previous administrations.

I think that we should also examine the age that we say people can collect

pensions from a federal standpoint — the

age of 65. What terms of reference is the Liberal government using to decide

that a person should be 65 in order to be eligible to collect pension?

What I'm going to tell you now I would suggest is the truth. I heard

it on C.B.C. Radio, and having worked for C.B.C., I'll take it on face

value. Now, a programme that I heard, going back to the early times

when the age '65' was first determined, was in Germany after the First

World War.

There was economic chaos. The government that was in power at that

time was trying to find some solution so that there wouldn't be a lot

of unrest within the working forces. They couldn't do anything

immediately that would relieve the situation so they said, "Look, let's

promise them something later on. Let's promise them a pension after

they finish working all their lives." I said, "That's a good idea but what age are we going to use as the

criterion." So they put a commission to work to find out what the

proper age should be. They found that in those days a person very

seldom lived longer than 65 so they could collect all the money and not

have to pay it out. They said,

[ Page 338 ]

"Look, let's make it 65."

Now I would suggest that the federal government must be fairly lax

in its duties not to have updated the age 65 from those times after the

First World War.

It particularly galls me to hear Liberal people in this House

suggest to this government that we don't know what we're doing, because

we're only going by a set of rules that has been handed down to us by

the federal government.

Rather than suggest to us, I would suggest to them that possibly

they should sit quietly, listen to the debate and then vote with us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

support this bill. I think that this $200 a month guaranteed income to

the pensioners is a good bill. I would have been much happier, of

course, if it could have been $300 a month or $400 a month because, in

fact, far from making all the senior citizens of this province very

wealthy, in most instances it's only going to serve to raise most of

them just above the minimum, the very lowest that it would be possible

to live on.

I recognize a lot of the criticisms leveled at the bill in terms of

the people who will not be getting this minimum wage. As a social

worker myself I recognize that if it would have been possible to make

it universal — that is, everyone over 65 getting this $200 a month — that would have been better. However, it seems that we have had so much

difficulty getting any cooperation whatsoever from the federal

government just to give this $200 a month to the people who really need

it that if we had attempted to make the $200 a month universal surely

we would have never gotten this thing through the House at all.

The other area of the bill that I would really like to address

myself to is

section

Section 4 says that, where a person is

dissatisfied, they can appeal against this decision before a tribunal

and I think that this is a very forward-looking step. No one can accuse

this government of taking on to itself, and certainly cannot accuse the

Minister of taking on to himself, unlimited powers. He has established

a tribunal before which people can go if they are not satisfied with

the ruling.

The third thing that I'm really pleased about in the bill is the fact that

we have no residence requirements. I think that if there are any senior citizens

living anywhere in this country who choose to make their home in British Columbia,

they should be welcome.

I think we tend to forget that it was largely their sweat that built

this country and we should not try, in any way, to keep the older

people of this country out of this province. This is not a separatist

state, Mr. Speaker.

In his introduction to the bill the Hon. Minister mentioned his

concern, and I'd like to add mine to it, too, about the rising cost of

living and the cost of housing. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if, as soon

as this additional sum is placed in the hands of the senior citizens,

their rent goes up, all that we will have managed to do is to subsidise

the landlords of this province. So I would like to ask the Minister, in

his summing up, to once again appeal to the landlords of this province

not to immediately raise the rents of these senior citizens as soon as

this bill comes into effect.

In my own particular riding of Burrard I ran across, on more than

one occasion, instances where this occurred the last time that the

senior citizens got a raise. As a matter of fact, in most instances the

rent went up higher than the raise which they received and the senior

citizens ended up being worse off than they were before.

I can think of one particular case in which the boarding house in

which an older woman was living changed hands three times in the period

of twelve months and each time her rent went up. In that period her

rent went up $25 a month.

So this is why I would ask the Minister, in his summing up, to

reiterate that he will do — he will address himself to legislation — or

by whatever

[ Page 339 ]

means possible to see that this additional sum of money, when it

goes into the hands of our senior citizens, does not pass through it

into the hands, not only of the landlords, Mr. Speaker, but of the food

chains and other areas, as consumer cost tends to go up.

And also I would like him to say one or two words about health and

dental care for senior citizens and whether he is giving any thought to

any help in these areas for the senior citizens of our province. Thank

you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

rise, speaking in favour of the motion of the bill. I would like to

make one point and that is my concern that in the past, when there has

been an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, persons living in

chronic-care hospitals, either public or private, have an increase in

their ability to pay and thereby are charged more from this by the

government. It is, in effect, the handing-out on the one hand to the

person and taking-away with the other. What I am talking about is the

comfort allowance that people with minimal incomes receive in

chronic-care institutions.

Now it is very difficult when there are increases and people hear of

increases in pensions, whether it be only $8, and they realize none of

this increase. I know it is a very difficult matter but I would like to

know just how this is going to be taken into consideration in the

execution of this bill. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no other member who wishes to speak the Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON MR. LEVI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems so long ago

since yesterday to the fact that we had to withdraw some amendments and

re-do the bill and it was a terrible thing because we were

inexperienced and really didn't know what we were doing. Well, I'd like

to remind the Hon. Member that on March 22, 1972 the former Premier

stood in this House and said, "Mr. Speaker, we have now a new amended

Bill No. 25. We've replaced No. 25, the Gift Tax Act, and I ask leave

of the House to withdraw existing Bill No. 25." Now, in case she's

forgotten, just take that over to the Hon. Member.

After 20 years they couldn't even do a Gift Tax Act. In six weeks

we've produced a piece of legislation which is going to give us

trouble, we admit, but which, I think, in view of the amendment, is

clear and fairly concise about what we're going to do.

The Premier has said it, and I've said it, that we're going ahead

with this thing and we'll continue to discuss with Ottawa the exact

percentage of the sharing. And that's the situation at the moment.

In respect to the statements by the Liberal leader, I think he's

done a great deal of research. By and large, he was very accurate in

the kind of information he was giving to the House. However, his

discussion about people with $10,000 worth of assets, in terms of this

bill, isn't terribly appropriate because the people that we're trying

to get at in terms of existing legislation have nowhere near $10,000 in

assets — in fact, they've never seen $10,000 in assets.

However, I appreciate very much the whole concept of thrift that

they were talking about and I think the person who has been thrifty and

saved money should not have to spend their life-savings in order to

come down to the level where they have to qualify for our supplementary

assistance. As the Premier pointed out, we're actively discussing with

Ottawa the raising of these levels to $2,500 per person.

The Hon. leader also referred to future costs in terms of this kind

of programme. In my opening remarks about the bill I said that we were

dealing in the main with people who did not have enough opportunity,

because of a very serious depression, to make satisfactory provision

for their retirement. However, in the last 25 years in this country

there have been a number of provisions introduced. We have the Canada

Pension Plan which really comes into force January, 1976. We have a

number of private plans that workers

[ Page 340 ]

are participating in where they work and this is going to make some

considerable difference to the people who are coming to the age of 65

in terms of retirement. It may be that for some years we will have to

maintain the levels that we're at now but eventually it is going to go

down.

The Hon. Member was asking about the cost of living increase and I

would say to him that in the bill there is provision for that. I have

said that what we want to do is not only make that provision of 2 per

cent, but we'd like to take a look at the realistic increase in the

cost of living and add that to it because the 2 per cent is usually

about 3.5 percentage points off what the reality is.

There has to be in the discussions that we have with Ottawa the

whole question of assets — the whole question of people who have money

yet live marginally because it gives them some income. I'm looking

forward very much at the end of next month to meeting with Mr.

Castonguay, the Minister of Social Affairs for Quebec, who has done

some very interesting papers on the whole subject of assets in respect

to welfare systems.

Just one more question to the Hon. leader of the Liberal party. I

must