1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2197 ]

CONTENTS

Address

Hon. D.J. Evans (Governor of the State of Washington) — 2197

Mr. King — 2199

Mr. Gibson — 2199

Mr. Wallace — 2200

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2200

Routine proceedings

Energy Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 54) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading — 2201

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2201

Oral questions

Monitoring of prices affected by ferry rate increase. Ms. Sanford —

Resignation of B.C. Steamship Co. general manager. Mr. Gibson —

Egg Marketing Board problems. Mr. Wallace — 2201

Quota sale policy of Egg Marketing Board. Mr. Macdonald — 2203

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15) Second reading.

Mr. Lockstead — 2205

Mr. Shelford — 2206

Mr. Barber — 2207

Mr. Kempf — 2208

Mrs. Wallace — 2209

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2210

Mr. Macdonald — 2210

Mr. Barnes — 2211

Mr. Kahl — 2215

Mr. Wallace — 2216

Mr. Gibson — 2218

Mr.Cocke — 2219

Ms. Brown — 2221

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2223

Division on second reading — 2225

Interprovincial Subpoena Act (Bill 19) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2225

Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act (Bill 18) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2226

Mr. Macdonald — 2226

Mr. Mussallem — 2227

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2227

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2228

Mr. Macdonald — 2229

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2229

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would ask leave of the House for

the temporary use of the lights and the cameras to greet the occasion

of the visit of the Governor of the State of Washington.

Leave granted.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, before I introduce

to the House some distinguished visitors we have with us today, I would

like to advise the House that His Excellency The Right Hon. Jules Leger

and Madame Leger have honoured the capital city today during the course

of their visit to western Canada.

The Governor-General and Madame Leger have been visiting in B.C.

since May 26 and will be going on from Victoria for further visits to

Vancouver, New Westminster, the city of North Vancouver, Burnaby and

Harrison Hot Springs. I'm sure the House would want to recognize the

visit of the Governor-General and Madame Leger.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have distinguished visitors with us

today. I would ask leave of the House at this time to allow our

distinguished visitor to address the Legislature, and at the same time

ask leave for the House to defer question period to the conclusion of

his address.

Leave granted.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege

today to introduce to this assembly, and to you, Sir, a delegation from

the State of Washington, our friends and neighbours. Seated on the

floor of the House is Governor Daniel J. Evans, and in the members'

gallery, Mr. Speaker, is the official party: Chairman for Utilities and

Transportation Commission, Mr. Donald H. Brazier; Director for

Washington State Energy Office, Mr. Keith Sherman; Director for

Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Mr. John S. Larsen;

Director for Department of Ecology, Mr. John A. Biggs; Director for

Office of Community Development, Mr. Richard W. Hemstad; Director for

Department of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart Bledsoe; Administrative

Assistant to Governor Evans, Mr. William C. Jacobs; Press Secretary,

Mr. J. Fredericksen; Special Assistant for Energy and Transportation,

Mr. David W. Stevens; Director for Department of Highways, Mr. William

A. Bulley; Washington State Patrol, Col Bill Lathrop. I ask the House

to welcome the official party.

Hon. Members and Mr. Speaker, I would extend a particular welcome to

Governor Evans, who, in the 11 years that he has been Governor of the

great state of Washington, has distinguished himself as one of the

strongest chief executives in the United States. He is a governor who

has gained wide acclaim for his courage and leadership in confronting

problems caused by rapid growth and organization, and who has a

reputation for not being afraid to take a stand on a tough issue.

This is probably Governor Evans' final visit to Victoria as Governor

of his state because he has announced that he will not seek a fourth

term, but it is my hope — and I'm sure the hope of all of us — that he

will pay many more visits to Victoria and that his contribution to the

public life of his country will continue in other ways.

I have the honour to introduce to this assembly Governor Dan Evans.

HON. D.J. EVANS (Governor of the State of Washington): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, our friends and neighbours from this side of the border.

Mr. Premier, I am delighted that you have asked that the question

period be delayed until after my remarks. This is a common practice, I

understand, in your assembly. It is quite unknown in our Legislature —

to have a governor faced by the members of the Legislature would strike

terror into my heart. That's one of the differences between our systems

that I'm delighted exists. There are some other differences that I wish

we could borrow from you, such as the opportunity for a governor to

always be assured of a sufficient majority in a legislative assembly to

get his programmes passed.

It is a privilege to come again once more and to speak to this body.

I understand the privilege and the rarity with which it is granted.

That makes the invitation all that much more desirable, and I am

delighted to take advantage of it. As the Premier has mentioned, this

perhaps will be a farewell of sorts. I have announced that I will not

seek re-election as governor. In doing so I perhaps join one of that

rare breed of political leaders — those who leave voluntarily. There

aren't many. However, I'm confident that I will always retain an

interest in and, perhaps at some time in the future, some participation

in another way in public life of a different sort.

While it is a farewell of sorts, nonetheless the problems, the

challenges and the interests continue, and they will continue beyond my

government in Washington, this government in Victoria and beyond any of

our generation.

A border does divide us — an international border — but the

interests of this part of North America, both to the north and to the

south of the border, are

[ Page 2198 ]

very much the same. In fact, I suspect the

continued interests and contact of people of Washington are more

frequently with those of British Columbia than any other American

state, and I suspect the same is true in reverse, especially if you try

to go skiing at Mount Baker on some winter weekend and find that

Canadians quite outnumber those from our side of the border.

These contacts which have been made during the past several years I

hope will continue and be expanded and become a much more ordinary

thing in the future, because those issues which do join us are far more

critical today and will be even more critical tomorrow than they have

been in even the recent past.

I think most of us can remember just half a dozen years ago when

there was little thought on this continent, and in fact in most parts

of the world, that an energy shortage would exist and would plague us

to the extent it has in the intervening years.

Not too many years ago few of us would have predicted that shortages

and conflicts between various users of our marine supplies,

particularly fish, would cause the problems they have in the

intervening years.

A few years ago I doubt that members of this assembly or our

Legislature would have given great thought to the potential shortage of

land and conflict over the uses of land which could lead to great

conflict between people and the need for public action.

Gas, and the supplies of other forms of energy; fish, and the use of

them both for commercial and for sports enterprise; hydroelectric power

and other forms of power which we need in increasing quantities on both

sides of the border; land use and the expanding interest of people in

land across the border — all mandate a much more continuous interaction

and reaction between the government here in Victoria and our government

in Olympia.

But I think, even more importantly, we are at the birth of a new age

of mankind. At the risk of being a little presumptuous, I suspect that

when another 100 years, or 200 years perhaps, has passed, people will

look back on the mid-1900s as the birth of a new age, in much the sense

we now look back at the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and the

industrial revolution as typifying major shifts and major new

directions in mankind's endeavour.

Of course, this new age, begun in the mid-1950s, was the atomic age,

an age where we, at one and the same time, found we finally had the

power to destroy ourselves on a worldwide basis; and we also, perhaps,

were beginning to find the resources, the capacity and the ability to

resolve the poverty, the plagues, the illnesses and all of the other

major problems of mankind which have been with us for so many

centuries. So this is indeed a critical age, an age in which the

dangers are enormous and, I hope, the potentials even more enormous.

Energy today is perhaps our most critical problem, a problem which

plagues all of us, both supplier and user, but a problem which I

believe most strongly will be behind us for the most part by the turn

of the century, or perhaps even before. I've enough faith in human

technology, in the innovative spirit of people throughout the world and

in our capacity to believe that in that period of time we will discover

new and virtually inexhaustible energy resources, or develop those

which are now a laboratory experiment but which soon can be supplying

major sources of energy, both to this population and to a greatly

expanded world population. But it does plague us today and it deserves

the best of those on each side of our border, to attempt to assure that

energy supplies of all kinds, whether electric, hydroelectric, gas or

oil, are made available in reasonable quantities and in a fashion that

allows the economies of both our two great areas to continue to expand.

By the turn of the century, however, I suspect a new and perhaps

even more critical problem will face us and will face most of mankind.

That is how to feed and to house and provide the basics for a world

population which will be perhaps double that of the world population of

today. I guess the most striking, and in some respects the most

frightening, simple experience that gave me pause was a visit two years

ago to the People's Republic of China. I was the head of a delegation

of American governors and we spent almost two weeks in that country.

During one of the day tours outside Shanghai we visited a commune, a

people's commune, an agricultural commune. They were very proud of it

and I think it was quite obviously a commune that was the target of

most foreign visitors. But they did have a headquarters...

Interjection.

HON. MR. EVANS: It may have been at the same one.

...a headquarters building, and inside on the walls were the

measurements of production and of progress of this commune over the

almost 25 years of that communist government. That was impressive

enough, but the startling and sobering and somewhat scary statistics

were two very simple ones on the right-hand edge of the wall.

This set forth the number of transistor radios the members of the

commune owned and the number of bicycles the members of the

commune had and the geometric escalation in the numbers during the 20

years preceding that day. I thought to myself, how long will it be

before the measurement of individual gain or individual progress or

individual well-being is in black-and-white television sets and

motorcycles, and how long after that will it be in colour television

[ Page 2199 ]

sets and automobiles? When you multiply that acquisition by almost a billion

people, the statistics have to be frightening. We happen to live in an age when

perhaps we can see the end of some of the non-renewable resources of this

planet. We simply have got to be good enough and smart enough to find alternative

resources or we a will pass on to our children and to their children a legacy

for which they will give us few thanks.

I suspect that in this assembly, and certainly in our Legislature and in the

national legislative bodies of our two countries and perhaps in the United

Nations itself, too much time is spent on the immediate problems of today

with too little of our time spent on assessing the effect of those policies

on tomorrow.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. EVANS: We do have a responsibility, a far greater responsibility

than most of us realize except on rare occasions. Then again, responsibility

is not only to do well for ourselves and our colleagues and our families and

our voters, but also to recognize that we do have a major responsibility to

our children and to the generations which follow us.

As I said at the beginning, new governments and a new people will sit in this

hall in years to come. New governments and new people will sit in our legislative

body in Olympia, and new generations will inhabit these two rather special areas

of the world. We do have a unique heritage to preserve, the heritage which

has brought so many people to British Columbia and to the state of Washington,

a heritage rich in resources, rich in natural beauty, which has led to a human

richness in the unique abilities of our citizens.

We are an independent sort, people who care very much about the physical

and natural environment which surrounds us, and, I think, people who have a

rather unique concern about not only the present, but the future.

Perhaps we, individually or maybe even jointly, a can provide some

leadership to other parts of our countries, and perhaps even to other

parts of the world, in showing that people can live well with a respect

for the environment in which they live, a moderate use of our resources

with a particular concern to renew those which can be renewed, and a

concern that we not only do well for ourselves, but pass on to the next

generation an even better opportunity.

That challenge is a big challenge and I am privileged to stand before you to

share these few remarks, to hope that as future generations in Washington

and in British Columbia look back on these 1970s, they will say to this assembly,

this government, and to the government and people of our state: "Good

job. Well done." Thank you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the official opposition in the British Columbia Legislature,

I would like to extend our warmest and most hearty welcome to Governor

Evans and to his delegation from our neighbour state. I want to say

just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the words and the wisdom which Governor

Evans has shared with our Legislature this afternoon is deeply

appreciated. I think his remarks indicate an awareness and an ability

to identify many of the problems that not only beset our province and

the State of Washington, but the world over. Certainly the ability to

share those kinds of concern is welcome and I think is a worthwhile

exchange between neighbouring countries, neighbouring nations and

legislatures, and one that I hope continues in days to come.

I don't want to mention

anything specifically about the Governor's remarks other than to say

that here is an overriding issue that I am sure is shared by people of

the State of Washington and the people of British Columbia, the members

of this Legislature no matter which side of the House they sit upon

and, I'm sure, the members of the state Legislature in Washington. That

is one issue which the governor did touch upon briefly, a matter of

energy, but energy of destructive sort: namely, nuclear energy directed

as is proposed to a nuclear missile site in Bangor, Washington.

I do hope that the governor's concern over this issue — and I know

he has concern — and the Premier of British Columbia's concern, leads

to a discussion on this matter which is of overriding interest to the

future security of the peoples of this part of the North American

continent and, indeed, the people of the world. I do hope that that is

a priority for their discussions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Governor Evans and distinguished visitors, on behalf of the Liberal

Party I would first of all appreciate the governor's opening remarks.

He paid tribute to our great institution of the question period, which

is a marvellous thing, but I would suggest to him that he need not fear

too much because it's not necessarily called the answer period.

(Laughter.) But I might trade all that, Mr. Speaker, or the delicious

uncertainty of not knowing how a vote might come out in the

Legislature. There is much to be learned from both our systems.

I am delighted to welcome you, sir, the more so as my mother was an

American and I spent some years studying in your great country. We have

so much in common and so much to cooperate with.

You brought us a message of hope and inspiration, and concern for

such questions as the world food supply and things of this nature with

which we ought to concern ourselves more often. There are many problems

of mutual concern between our two

[ Page 2200 ]

jurisdictions on which, in my opinion, sir, you

have taken extraordinarily enlightened stands, such as tankers and

pollution in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Skagit Valley, the

land-use questions and other questions such as energy supplies, in

which I think both province and state want to be good neighbours and

mutually facilitate good answers.

Some time ago we had an interchange of Legislatures at Western

Washington State College in Bellingham. Your address to us today

continues this thrust; I hope it will carry on from here. I think we

all have much to learn and profit by.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Conservative Party I would like to extend a warm welcome to Governor

Evans and his colleagues. It seems to be appropriate, since the Liberal

leader referred to his American heritage, maybe I should refer to my

Scottish heritage. I note that in bicentennial year the United Kingdom

has lowered its guard a little bit and has offered a copy of the Magna

Carta to the United States.

MR. GIBSON: Only a copy.

MR. WALLACE: "Only a copy," the member interjects. I think

that strikes a note that there are no long-term feelings of animosity,

although history created battles between peoples. I think the governor

has struck a central theme along the line of the sentiments behind

Habitat, that we are living on a shrinking planet, that the global

village has to be the philosophy of all peoples on the face of the

earth in the years ahead and that the two essential facts we have to

recognize today are that man has the power to destroy himself, and that

population growth is unquestionably the primary problem facing

humanity, because in the absence of population growth we would not have

the pressing urgency of energy, land use and the development of

resources.

In that regard I believe that lines on a map are so often an

accident of fate or a consequence of history. I believe that man the

world over is coming to recognize that truth to which he has been so

blind for so many centuries. I think the kind of visit we are enjoying

today and the statesmanlike message which Governor Evans has presented

is a great inspiration to all of us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the

House Leader of the official Opposition, the leader of the Liberal

Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party for the welcome they

have extended to Governor Evans today. I can't let pass the Liberal

leader's comments about the question period and the answer period

because quite often those of us on this side feel it's the statement

period. (Laughter.)

Governor Evans has spoken to us today and has honoured this

Legislature by speaking to us a second time. The first time the

governor spoke was on October 19, 1973. I think all of us share the

governor's thoughts for the need of cooperation between our governments

in meeting our future needs.

As this Legislature knows, through the good offices of Governor

Evans, just recently we arranged a meeting with Governor Straub of

Oregon, Governor Hammond of Alaska and, of course, Governor Evans of

Washington, with myself representing the Province of British Columbia.

I think the fact that the four of us got together, while we have met

separately before, was historic in that nature. I think that meetings

such as this, when we discuss mutual problems, in fact lead towards the

type of solutions that the governor touched upon in his speech today.

We have an important job ahead of us, those of us in this province

and in this Legislature, while those legislators in Washington, Oregon,

Alaska and those in the Yukon.... We share a continent, a continent in

which two countries stand side-by-side, one a gigantic country in

population and industrial wealth, the other a gigantic country, our

own, in terms of area and potential. Yet so many of the problems the

governor outlined will demand mutual solutions.

I am hopeful that this Legislature, all the members of this

Legislature, are united in our concern and our ideal in meeting this as

a common goal. I would also like to congratulate the governor and give

him best wishes on this their bicentennial year in the United States, a

country that had a great position in the world and provided great

leadership — not all of it easy — through difficult times. I want him

to know that while some of our citizens may criticize, it's the

criticism of those who are friends and family, and it is extended only

in friendship. I can think of no other country that I'd want next door

to Canada.

Governor Evans and party, thank you for coming, thank you for

addressing us, and thank you for continuing the cooperation I know will

develop in the future for the benefit of North America and perhaps all

of society.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if there were a few introductions that

we omitted prior to the start of the address by Governor Evans, the

people who have those introductions to make may rise in their place

now. If not, we'll proceed to introduction of bills.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House could now withdraw leave for the television lights.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I just pressed the switch,

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health):

[ Page 2201 ]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I would

like the House to make welcome and give a warm round of applause to a

group of 44 grade 8 to 12 students from the Aldergrove Secondary School

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Nercessian,

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the House this

afternoon I have four very good friends of mine, four very charming

ladies: Mrs. Ivy Ford, Mrs. Eve Smith, Mrs. Jean Gross and Mrs. Janet

Clouthier. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1975 annual report of the Department of Agriculture.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis presents the report on gasoline marketing in British Columbia, pursuant to order-in-council No. 3362.

Hon. Mr. Mair presents the annual report of the debtor assistance

division of the Department of Consumer Services for the fiscal year

1974-75.

Oral questions.

MONITORING OF PRICES

AFFECTED BY FERRY RATE INCREASE

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Consumer Services. Since ferry rates on

most routes doubled today, I am wondering if the Minister of Consumer

Services is considering instituting a monitoring of prices in those

areas that will be affected by the doubling of the ferry rates?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I'll take

that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I think there's more to the

question than I originally anticipated. I'll take it as notice.

RESIGNATION OF B.C.

STEAMSHIPS CO. GENERAL MANAGER

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Has the minister received a letter of

resignation from the general manager of the British Columbia Steamship

Co.?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and with some regret on my part.

MR. GIBSON: Since the general manager in his letter makes

reference to the negative attitude and total indifference of its board

of directors towards company affairs, and since the board of directors

includes the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I would ask the

minister what steps he is taking to reconstitute the board of directors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Marguerite

is sailing again. We'll have a very full

schedule this summer. It is

being manned by a smaller crew, economies have been effected, and I

believe it will be a very successful season.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, since the general manager again

makes reference to "the replacement without cause" of a very loyal

agent in Seattle, Mr. Don McClary, will the minister cause an

investigation to be made into this dismissal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that change. However, I'll make further inquiries.

Interjections.

EGG MARKETING BOARD PROBLEMS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture seems

so eager to get into the fray I thought I would ask him a question

today. In view of his assurance during debate on his estimates that the

problems of the Egg Marketing Board would shortly be solved, but in

light of the fact that two members

[ Page 2202 ]

of the board have refused to attend further

meetings and thus will render future meetings of the egg board invalid

for lack of a quorum, can the minister report to the House what

progress, if any, is being made to solve these apparently endlessly

recurring problems in the administration of the Egg Marketing Board?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

appreciate the member's question, and I want to assure the member for

Oak Bay that all of the directors of the Egg Marketing Board in British

Columbia are elected by the producers in British Columbia, and

therefore it will have to be the responsibility of those producers to

take into consideration those matters which have recently happened in

the board. I hope that they will deal with the matter with a lot of

haste.

MR. LAUK: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since the minister....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister did make a commitment

during debate on his estimates to carry out some kind of review

procedure of marketing boards in the light of the continuing problems.

I'm not being facetious. There obviously are continuing problems. Can

the minister tell the House what specific action he has taken since the

debate on his estimates to implement some kind of review of marketing

boards?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

supplementary question, I think that he will recall during my estimates

I stated that when this matter, which has been going on for a large

number of years, was settled between the Egg Marketing Board and some

of their producers so all of the producers were on an equal basis and

everybody was equal, then we would take a look at the marketing

situation — all marketing boards. As I stated at that time, if

legislation which was produced by this House is not fulfilling its

purpose, it is the duty and the responsibility of those of us who sit

in this House to take a look at it, to examine it, and to see whether

it is fulfilling its function or not. That we are prepared to do, as I

think all legislators in this House, both in opposition and in

government, should always be ready to do.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in the light

of the minister's answer, the fact is that the elected members of the

board themselves are in deep disarray. The question I'm asking the

minister is: what action is he taking in his responsible position as

minister to review and make recommendations for changes in the Egg

Marketing Board so there will not be a continuing repetition of

problems of this nature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second

supplementary question of the member for Oak Bay: I'm sure he must

realize, as a member of this Legislature, that we put in place that

legislation, and certainly it is not the responsibility of the Minister

of Agriculture, or indeed of this Legislature, to go in and direct

those producers who, through our democratic system, elect certain

members to serve on the board. If those members have resigned, then it

will be the responsibility of those producers in British Columbia who

elected them in the first place. I'm sure that the member for Oak Bay,

in light of the democratic system that we have in British Columbia,

would not want the Minister of Agriculture to go in and interfere with

that democratic system.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A supplemental, Mr.

Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture: inasmuch as the

existing legislation does provide a supervisory body in the Natural

Products Marketing Act, is he or is he not contemplating calling upon

the provincial marketing board to review the situation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question: she has studied the legislation, as I'm sure she has, and I'm

sure she is aware that the superboard, as it is generally known, has

the right to go in and override decisions. But I cannot find in the

legislation where that superboard has the right to go in and change the

directors which are duly elected by the producers on that board.

I think if you will take a real look at it, yes, they can go in and

check regulations that are made by the marketing board, but I don't

think there is anything in there that says they can have anything in

the due process of having anything to do with the directors who are

duly elected by the producers who duly elect the board to serve them in

the first place.

MRS. WALLACE: On a further supplemental....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) also has a supplemental question. Do you defer?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It's on the same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

[ Page 2203 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was: was

the minister contemplating calling upon the superboard to take any

action there? There is provision in that Act, as I read it, for the

superboard to act on your direction to investigate, and this is really

the question I'm asking of you, Mr. Minister. Are you contemplating

asking the superboard to review the situation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question: yes, the minister can call on the superboard to check into

certain decisions which are made by the marketing board, but certainly

not decisions with regard to who is elected by the producers and who

resigns. That is the responsibility of the producers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member. doesn't want me to interfere with that process.

QUOTA SALE POLICY OF

EGG MARKETING BOARD

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister

from Clearbrook, the Minister of Agriculture — I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker —

whether or not the B.C. Egg Marketing Board has abolished the system

whereby on the sale of a quota one-tenth of that quota would be made

available throughout all of the regions of the province of B.C. so the

various regions could have their own eggs fresh produced from their own

region at a publicly set price. Has that policy been changed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the only member for Vancouver East...

MR. MACDONALD: So far!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...who is remaining....

MR. COCKE: Wait till Thursday!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That gentleman, Mr. Speaker, served as the

Attorney-General, and he knows the answer to the very question he

asked. He's trying to bring politics into a very delicate situation. I

will not be drawn into that affair, and the Attorney-General should

withdraw the question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've asked a perfectly plain

question: has the policy of the 10 per cent quota dispersion throughout

the whole province of British Columbia been abandoned by the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board which is under his jurisdiction? Has it? Yes or no?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, certainly I don't wish to

belabour this point, and I am sure that the members of the House don't

wish to belabour this point....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As the past Attorney-General knows, the

happenings in the Egg Marketing Board are the responsibility of the

producers, as the legislation sets out. If that is not working, as I

have said before, Mr. Speaker...

MR. WALLACE: It isn't working.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...we have the responsibility as legislators, government and opposition, and we will take a look at it.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We have

received no answer to that, as to what the public policy of B.C. is. I

want to ask the minister whether the B.C. Egg Marketing Board has

denied to the northern producers, who were sued in the Supreme Court of

British Columbia, the right to pay off judgments totalling $100,000

over a period of five years and have insisted they be paid forthwith,

to the detriment of the north and its consumers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, again the Attorney-General, as I said, is...

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...being completely and politically irresponsible in bringing into the House political politics in a very delicate situation...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...if, like his previous leader, he is trying to ask the present Minister of Agriculture to apply the wood to that board.

[ Page 2204 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. minister either answer the question or take it as notice?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No answers at all.

MR. LAUK: Do your job, Don.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture has successfully avoided the

question completely so far. I'd like to ask him quite pointedly, so

that even he cannot fail to understand the question: will he ask the

provincial marketing board to look into the operations of the Egg

Marketing Board?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The superboard has looked into certain

aspects of the provincial board, but I think that if we're looking at

the change in legislation and are going to take a look at the overall

marketing board situation in British Columbia, then we have to do that

as a Legislature.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That wasn't the intent or the purpose of creating that superboard, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes the question period for today, Hon. Members.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Lots of questions but not one answer!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, if you wish to waste the time of

the House in kibitzing back and forth across the floor, that's your

business, but if you want to get on with the business of the House,

you'll do so now and refrain from talking when you do not have

possession of the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders, second reading of Bill 15.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The hon. House Leader has asked for leave to

proceed from a preceding motion, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it

should be drawn to the attention of this House that the Premier is

seldom in his seat, and I want to remind....

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a proper point of order.

MR. LAUK: I'm raising the point of order now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have a visitor from the state of Washington.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that is not a proper point of order, and you know it well.

MR. LAUK: I'm raising the point of order now, if you'll be patient with me.

Standing order 8 states: "Every member is bound to attend the

service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the

House."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Do you want to delay until the Premier gets back....

MR. LAUK: The Premier has attended less than any other Premier in the history of....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: He's afraid to face the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member who has raised the point of order knows full well that

[ Page 2205 ]

attending the House does not mean that every member must be in his seat at all times. Attending the House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: He's never here and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Attending the House means attending to the duties of the Legislature...

MR. LAUK: He's a coward.

MR. SPEAKER: ...which include periods in the House, periods

in committee meetings, periods absent from the House because of

commitments that take the hon. members from the House.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He can defend himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Now if I were to draw every member, or keep a record on every member who is absent from this House....

MR. LAUK: He's the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: He's the First Minister of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: If I were to try to keep a record it would mean

that every member, at one time or another, was in violation. I do not

interpret the rule that way. I interpret the rule to mean that if a

member is absent, or is going to be absent, he advises the House if it

is for an extended period of time, and in that way it will be recorded.

But where members are only absent for a short period during the sitting

of the day, and in some parts of the precinct, that is not being absent

from the House, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not been in the House day after day after day.

MR. SPEAKER: That is your opinion, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I have sat.... Are people blind if they cannot see...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, since the former member on

his feet, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, has drawn attention to

the absence of the Premier, I'd like to say that in calling Bill 15 —

which I did a few moments ago — the member who adjourned the debate was

the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

HON. MRS McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I just say to you that

the Premier is not in his seat today for a very good reason. We have

had a visitor from the state of Washington, the Governor of the State

of Washington, in our Legislature, and surely that is good reason for

the Premier to be away.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! If a member who adjourns any

debate on second reading of the bill is not in his place, it means that

we pass on to the next hon. member who wishes to take his place in the

debate. I am prepared to recognize whoever stands in his place to

debate Bill 15, after I have recognized the hon. member for Prince

Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order raised by

the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is one worth taking. I would think

that the Premier could come in here and defend himself against those

charges...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ...instead of hiding behind the skirts of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You know that is not a point of order, Hon. Member.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Well, now that we're back

into orderly debate, Mr. Speaker, and the House is settling down

nicely, I hope, I hope to spend a few minutes discussing this bill.

I expect I'll be voting for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I really

don't know why; it's against my better judgment, but I guess I'm going

to vote for the thing. You know, really, in this time and place when

inflation.... Here we are debating a cut in our salaries when at the

moment, as every member knows, large rural areas like the areas I

represent are very large and difficult to service, and travelling

expenses to properly service the ridings are absolutely horrendous.

[ Page 2206 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I don't have to tell you; you yourself serve

a large rural area, and you are very familiar with the expenses

incurred in trying to properly serve the people of that area. I believe

this is exactly why we were elected as members of this Legislature — to

properly serve the members of our constituencies, each and every one of

us.

I believe that once again the job of serving as a member of this

assembly is going to become the preserve of the rich; I really do. I'm

wondering, Mr. Speaker, about the one-year

section pertaining to this

bill. I'm wondering at the end of that one year, one year from now,

what's going to happen then. Are we going to go back to the $24,000 a

year — $16,000 plus $8,000 — or are we going to be cut in half because

there's only one session a year? I don't know, but I'm wondering. I was

wondering if the Minister of Finance, if he was here, would tell me —

but he's not here in the House at the moment.

However, I believe that by reducing the MLAs salaries, particularly

in large ridings like mine, you are.... It's a means of perhaps

throttling members of the opposition. I believe that people in our

constituencies will not be receiving services they should be entitled

to, Mr. Speaker. I know that in some areas I represent, remote areas on

the British Columbia coast, I'm more than just an MLA; I'm the only

contact some of these people have with different government agencies —

the only contact they have. They don't have aldermen, mayors, access to

the regional board directors or anything else; I'm the only contact

some of these people have.

I really believe that MLAs should serve their constituents properly;

I believe that sincerely. Therefore I'm going to suggest that the

government consider one or two alternatives. I have had the opportunity

to travel to other parts of this country of Canada, other provinces,

and I want to tell you one or two....

Interruption.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What happened?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there's a little problem with the

microphones this afternoon, and sometimes they come booming in a little

louder than they should.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I noticed.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an electrical problem that we'll try to have corrected.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, one or

two alternative methods that the government might look at. For

instance, in several provinces, notably the province of Quebec, members

representing large rural areas have an extra expense account available

to them. Mr. Speaker, I do believe you were a member of that particular

delegation that we attended last June in Quebec. I think it's a very

fair method. It has a ceiling. Members who live within the precincts of

the capital, of course, receive no extra remuneration, but members who

live in larger ridings, as I said before, do receive a well-earned

extra allowance. I believe they should be entitled to that, Mr.

Speaker, because to serve large rural areas does entail an extra

expense. I think that every citizen of this province should have the

opportunity to seek elected office no matter what their income or their

financial circumstances and be able to pay their bills, raise their

families and do the things that other ordinary citizens of this

province do.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree in

a year such as this that restraint certainly is a necessity. I

certainly don't agree that a cut was really a good move. The only

problem I find, I think like the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

and others in this Legislature, is that if I voted against this bill,

then of course I'd be branded by the press in editorials as doing it

for personal gain. Certainly if people want to argue this issue, it has

to be the people out in the countryside themselves. I know people in my

own riding — and I certainly admire their loyalty — who suggest that

they should take up a collection for the members of the Legislature. I

don't think this is the way government should be run, but I do not

agree with the present method by which members' salaries are arrived

at. Even though we do disagree, and I think we have a very good reason,

I'm quite sure most of us will end up voting for this. I think really

an impartial group is a proper approach to this whole salary question.

One thing I would point out for people who think MLAs are overpaid

is that if anyone in here can stand up and say they can stay in

Victoria for less than $1,000 a month, I'd like to know where they

stay. The way sessions are going, it looks like we'll likely stay in

Victoria roughly five months in a year. So you deduct $5,000 from your

$21,000 salary and then you can further deduct a further $3,600 in

income tax, which brings is down to just over $12,000. Then if you

travel around a riding as large as that of my friend from Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead), which you could drop in Omineca about four times but

which is still quite a large riding, and if you took the type of travel

allowance that civil servants get at the present time, which is 23

cents a mile, that would come to a further $4,600. That only leave less

than $8,000 for an MLA.

I could go on and on if I really wanted to, and it does require a

subsidy — let's face it. It's a subsidy that we have to put in. The

people who are hurt are not the members sitting here, but the families

sitting

[ Page 2207 ]

back home. My wife hasn't been down here except for

the opening of this session, and the simple reason why she isn't here

is because I can't afford to bring her. It's as simple as that.

Now the figures that I've used this afternoon don't include

travelling to Victoria with delegations. I know some smart guy will

come out and say: "Oh, that doesn't mean anything; it's only a

part-time job anyway, because you can travel free by air." I've yet to

see the day when that air ticket buys me a room in the hotel down here.

It doesn't happen. Certainly you can add another $2,000 in a year to

your total expenses easily, and I could even do better than that if I

wanted to take some time.

So I would say the average MLA from an outside area — and this

includes areas pretty well all over the interior — is getting paid

approximately $6,000 — less by half than a janitor in a school

receives. I agree with my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — and I

don't often — that we certainly shouldn't lose sight of the fact that

the average person should be able to run for office and not have to

subsidize his salary. I've always been fortunate enough to be able to

sell my farm and live for a few years while the gas inquiry was going

on and sell other properties, but I don't think this should be required

for members.

I think it's a full-time job. I think they should get out and do

that job. If you want to go to a legitimate expense account, I'm all

for it. I would get twice as much as I do today.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I admire very much the

remarks and the candour of the member who just spoke. It is, as I have

observed over the years, typical of his performance in the House.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, would be willing

to permit a free vote; I wonder if the cabinet would be willing to

permit a free vote on this issue. The reason, I think, is very

straightforward and very simple. The problem of salaries and

remuneration for members crosses party lines and has nothing to do with

ideologies at all. It has nothing whatever to do with ideologies. We on

this side of the House are well aware that a considerable debate has

raged within the Social Credit caucus on this very question, as I am

sure you are also well aware that a similar debate has raged in our

caucus.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): There's no debate in our caucus. It was unanimous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. BARBER: I was just listening to the member who just spoke. Were you here?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: If you had heard him, you would know of what I am speaking.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, — if I might speak personally for a moment —

that as the youngest member of this House with no mortgage and no

family, I find it easiest of all to accept a reduction in my salary. So

perhaps because I have less self-interest than anyone else it is fair

for me to say that I wish the provincial government would take a second

look because I have come to appreciate the very extraordinary demands

placed on the northern members, especially, of this Legislature in the

performance of their duties. I was never aware of that before I came to

this House, Mr. Speaker; I am most certainly aware of it now. It is

easy for a capital-city MLA to support this bill. It is almost as easy

for a Vancouver or greater Vancouver MLA to support it as well. It

doesn't really affect many of us. We live here year-round and there is

no tremendous expense associated.

But I think, though, Mr. Speaker, that out of respect for those

members who serve this Legislature from the northern ridings in this

province we ought to reconsider. I think that it would serve this

Legislature well if the government agreed to a free vote. The remarks

the previous members made are, if I may repeat, candid, and I am sure

they are accurate. No member in my position who lives in the capital

city can possibly appreciate the time and trouble and extraordinary

expense that must be incurred in the performance of the jobs of

northern members of this House. I think this is going to hurt them very

badly, and I think the final result of this is that it could hurt just

as badly the democratic process, because what it does inevitably is

rule out the possibility that ordinary men and women might ever run for

public office.

There is a member in this Legislature who once said that in his

career as a member here he had subsidized the Government of British

Columbia to the tune of some $60,000 for the privilege of serving the

people in his own constituency. This is a very expensive job, Mr.

Speaker, for those members who do not happen to live in the capital

city or the lower mainland. I think it would be commendable — it would

be meritorious indeed — if the government did permit a free vote.

I want to say for the second time that there are no grounds of

ideology here. This has nothing to do with party lines; this is not

politics. We, by this bill, may make it possible that we are ruling out

of order the opportunity to participate in this Legislature that a

number of ordinary men and women might want to take. More prosperous,

more well-off people don't have that problem. They can subsidize

themselves. Some of them can write it off as business expenses. We

believe, Mr. Speaker, that any citizen of this province should be free

to run for public office.

[ Page 2208 ]

I support the remarks of the previous member and would support the

remarks of any member from northern ridings that we should be very,

very careful before we jeopardize and damage even further their right

and their opportunity to participate in this Legislature. I call on the

Provincial Secretary to call a free vote on this one. Call a free vote.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Every vote is a free one.

MR. BARBER: We know better than that, Mr. Attorney-General. Every vote is not a free vote.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Call a free vote, Mr. Speaker, and I think we may

find an honest and a candid and a brave expression of opinion on the

part of a number of members who believe, as I do, that we are going to

be criticized if we vote against it and who believe as I do and as

others do that we may in the long run be even more criticized for

putting more into jeopardy the right and the opportunity of the

citizens of British Columbia to participate in this Legislature.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I take my place today

to speak in favour of the Constitution Amendment Act, not because I

favour a 10 per cent cut in my salary or that of any other salary of

any other member of this House but rather because I am proud and

honoured to be a member of this Legislature...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): You're not going to get a cabinet post anyway.

MR. KEMPF: ...not because I am a millionaire, a wealthy

insurance agent or landlord, as I am given to understand some of the

opposition members are. No, Mr. Speaker, I speak in favour of Bill 15

because I am proud to be a member of this Legislature, proud and

honoured to have been selected by the people of Omineca to be their

representative in this House.

To me, a farm boy of meagre beginnings, that's a privilege, hon.

members, through you, Mr. Speaker, a privilege on which I can place no

monetary value, a privilege that many of us, on both sides of the

House, tend too often to forget.

I have to be honest and say that I am not in favour of the cut, nor

were many of my constituents who spoke out against it, knowing full

well that it is not easy to be a responsible member who responsibly

represents a constituency as far away from Victoria as Omineca. But I

was quick to respond and to say that if we as government expect them to

tighten their belts and pay higher sales tax, higher ferry fares and

higher hospital rates, then we as responsible representatives must also

act accordingly.

I heard a member of the opposition say yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that

it was a farce, a token gesture not worthy of mention. Well, I do not

believe that to be true. A 10 per cent cut when, even under the

Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, labour is getting upwards to 50 per

cent raises...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. KEMPF: ...I hardly feel is a token gesture. We as a

responsible government are attempting, after three years and over three

months of irresponsible administration, to set an example for British

Columbians.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): We've just had three months of irresponsible government.

MR. KEMPF: We are asking the people of this province to join with us in an attempt to restore stability to our economy.

We hear opposition members rave on about bottom-line politics, Mr.

Speaker, but the people of this province know that we cannot go on

forever hiding mistakes, incurring debts and covering up. We as

government must lead the way in restoring in British Columbians

confidence in their leaders. This we do with Bill 15.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): What nonsense!

MR. KEMPF: In Bill 15 we call out to the workers of the BCR

to have faith in us and join with us in restoring a stable economy to

Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George and Fort St. James before the

northern members, of which I am one, must induce pressure to force this

to happen.

In Bill 15 we call out to the ferry workers to follow our lead, to

give up their overtime so that their brothers and sisters may have jobs

and feed their families.

In Bill 15 we call upon the opposition parties of this province, who

know full well what the financial position of the province is, to join

with us in showing leadership.

In Bill 15 we call out to the Noranda Copper Co. at Granisle in my

constituency, to be responsible and find the means by which operations,

on strike since February 7, may return to work and restore stability to

that community of Granisle...

MR. MACDONALD: What do you say to the mining companies?

[ Page 2209 ]

MR. KEMPF: ...now plagued with many, many hardships.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to lose $2,400 from my salary by

this reduction, a salary which I intend to use in its entirety, hon.

members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to serve my constituency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. KEMPF: But, Mr. Speaker, I will not in any way lessen the

level of service which I intend to give to that constituency. If the

people of this province must sacrifice, then we all must sacrifice, and

I'm sure that the hon. members opposite know what that means. It is

their philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the hon. members of the opposition,

especially — and he's not in the House today — that sanctimonious

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), trying to speak against the bill by

speaking in favour of it. I am amused because it is doubly hard for

them, because they know who caused the restraint and the hardship we

now experience in the province of British Columbia. They know only too

well. Why do you think they all — to a last member — walked out during

a debate on Bill 45 if they didn't know, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. KEMPF: They know who cost the taxpayers of this province

$541 million, and why there is a need for restraint in Canada's richest

province. Hypocrites, Mr. Speaker? No, I wouldn't call them that;

that's unparliamentary. But I leave it up to the people of British

Columbia to decide.

Getting back to Bill 15, Mr. Speaker, I guess what I am asking the

people of British Columbia is to show some patriotism, some pride in

this our province.

MR. LAUK: Spiro Agnew.

MR. KEMPF: You know, we don't take patriotism very seriously

in this province, and we do have a great country and a great province

of which we should all be proud, all the members of this House, all the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure the other day to watch a parade down Douglas Street in the city of Victoria...

AN HON. MEMBER: Demagogue! Jingoist!

MR. KEMPF: ...and I noted during that parade the high school marching bands from across our border in Washington and Oregon.

I also noticed, Mr. Speaker, how proud those people were, how proud

they marched, how proud they played, and how proud they waved the flag

of the United States of America. That pride is something we are lacking

in the province of British Columbia — proud of their country, proud of

their state. We should be also very, very proud of the beautiful

province of British Columbia.

We must start by not asking of this province more than it can give.

We cannot continually demand wage rates and hours of work that our

natural resources cannot support. We in British Columbia already have a

standard of living envied all over the world. We have this in an

atmosphere of unpolluted air, with unpolluted rivers and lakes, and

under a system of government in which all enjoy freedom of speech and

freedom of movement and the right to live as human beings whether we're

handicapped, disabled or old — something to be proud of, Mr. Speaker,

something to be patriotic about. That is why I must support Bill 15.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I'm going to forgo saying anything about the last speaker's remarks.

I want to talk about some of the remarks that were made by the

member for Mackenzie and the member for Skeena. I think that those two

members, coming from opposite sides of the House as they do, pointed

out a very critical problem with this kind of a bill. The remark was

made that the riding of Mackenzie would probably go four times into the

riding of Omineca. I suppose my riding, the riding of Cowichan-Malahat,

would probably go at least twice into the riding of Mackenzie.

I think my riding is perhaps close enough to the metropolitan area

that the few remaining metropolitan members here would recognize the

kind of scope I'm talking about when I say that I have to service an

area from the Malahat north to the Nanaimo River, and from the

coastline, including two of the Gulf Islands — I do have two of the

small islands — across the mountains, such as they are on Vancouver

Island, into the Nitinat Indian reserve.

Now the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicated that

perhaps, as one of the youngest members in the House, the financial

burden on a younger member was not too great and it was not his own

personal concern. Perhaps I come at the other end of the scale, Mr.

Speaker, where I had taken an early retirement and was living quite

comfortably and quite happily. I find that since taking this job I have

not yet even caught up on the financial burden that this job has put

upon me. Hopefully I will catch up before the end of the year.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that burden is, even in my

riding, a very expensive burden, getting around to those scattered

constituents in those various areas and doing the job, that we all take

for granted that we're going to do, of serving those constituents.

[ Page 2210 ]

I think that again I would state it is an unfortunate thing that we

are put in the position of the member for Mackenzie and the member for

Skeena in having to make this decision on the floor of the House.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The trend has been set in other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker — in

Australia, in New Zealand, in the province of Alberta right next door —

where that decision is made not by the members of the Legislative

Assembly but it is made by an independent tribunal or independent

commission. I would urge the government members to take cognizance of

this fact — and before we again are faced with this very difficult

position of having to make a decision whether or not we are going to

work this kind of an economic hardship upon the members of this House

who sit in ridings and constituencies which are very difficult to serve.

Whether we are going to work that kind of a hardship on then or join

forces to try and in some way compensate for the very heavy tax load

that has been put on the average citizen of this province and go along

with this thing, I would urge upon the government members, before

another year goes by, to give some very strong and serious

consideration to introducing a new bill into this House next year that

will provide for that kind of an independent tribunal or that kind of

an independent commission that will take this sort of decision out of

this area of government.

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the points that we must never forget is that

monetary success is not necessarily a criterion of ability to act as a representative

in this House. It is not necessary to have sufficient funds to be self-supporting

to make a good and able MLA in this chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a right that

we must protect for all citizens of British Columbia: the right to offer their

services and the right of voters of this province to decide who they want to

represent them. This should not, in any way, shape or form, be tied to that

particular person's ability to help support themselves.

Again, I would urge upon the government to consider some form of independent tribunal or commission before another year is past.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I rise to

make one or two brief comments on this bill. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the people of Kamloops, my constituency, are called upon

this year to tighten their belts. Their member certainly could stand a

little belt tightening, I concede, but they are called upon to tighten

their belts. Mr. Speaker, they are called upon to give up the hopes

they have had for new roads, new bridges, a long-overdue courthouse

and, goodness knows, many other things that they felt themselves

entitled to. If they are, Mr. Speaker, like all other constituencies,

prepared to share the burden of restraint, then goodness knows we in

this Legislature must do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some comment as to what a legislator is

worth, both in opposition and in government, as well as on the

government benches. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, having watched my

party in opposition — not having been privileged to be here, but having

watched them in opposition the last three and a half years — that they

earn their pay, that they work very hard, and that the money they

obtain for doing so is not by any means too much. Similarly, it can be

said that the members on the government side very definitely earn their

money, and I certainly know, Mr. Speaker, that those in the government

earn their money.

That's not the point, Mr. Speaker. If it were the point, then the

cheap political shot taken at the Premier today would have some merit.

The cheap shot was taken at a man, Mr. Speaker, who works harder than

any man I have every seen in my life, and who was taken to task in a

cheap political shot to obtain publicity at a time when good manners

and good common sense would have dictated a sober approach to the

situation. But no, Mr. Speaker, we hear, under the guise of this bill

and other matters, a cheap shot, a cowardly attack on a man who works

long hours.

But you see, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point of this bill. The

point is not how hard we work, and the point is not whether or not we

are entitled and we are worth the money that we have hitherto been

paid. The point is whether or not we are prepared to stand before the

people of British Columbia and indicate that we, too, are prepared to

be restrained; whether we, too, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to assume our

share of the burden that is ours, as British Columbians, to bear. The

cause of this is not important; the fact is we have a burden to bear.

We must all bear it, and it is our duty to take our share of that

burden.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I am

supporting the bill, but at the same time I'm standing up for the

democratic principle that the ordinary people of the province of

British Columbia should be able to be elected to this Legislative

Assembly and survive in terms of their family and their budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know who they are.

MR. MACDONALD: I've listened to the bottom lines back there, particularly the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who appeals to everybody to

[ Page 2211 ]

sacrifice, and yet the multinational resource

companies have increased their profits. Yep, that's right. You laugh.

They take the coal out of this province at an increase last year of 300

per cent. Was that a 10 per cent reduction?

AN HON. MEMBER: The same old crap.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me go into the Omineca riding and I will

debate this thing with him, because if there is going to be sacrifice,

let it be equal throughout this province. There is nothing like it in

terms of equality of distribution.

The bottom lines, Mr. Speaker, stood up on their feet, and when

somebody from B.C. Hydro received a pension of $10,000 a year, they

thought how dreadful it was that somebody engaged in the public service

in the province of British Columbia should receive that kind of a

pension when people walk out of MacMillan Bloedel every day through

that revolving door with pensions over $60,000 a year. Not a peep on

that, nor when the president of MacMillan Bloedel increased his salary

in one year from $160,000 a year to $220,000 a year during the period

of restraint.

So what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, is that restraints should be

practised equally and should be practised by the overprivileged in this

province as well as by the ordinary people of this province. That is

the message that has not sunk through whatsoever with that government

opposite.

MS. BROWN: There they are, the fat cats.

MR. MACDONALD: So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm

supporting this bill, but, as all of us in this chamber should, I've

also got my eye upon the larger issue that we are really debating here,

namely the gross inequalities of income throughout the society of

British Columbia, and the gross overprivileges of the few compared to

the underprivileges of the many. And if you think we will forget that,

I say that you're greatly mistaken. I support the bill.

Interjection.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That's interesting, Mr.

Speaker. I was curious as to how you are going to arrive at who was

going to be recognized. It's interesting.

I'm only going to make a few comments. I was motivated to come into

the House after hearing the Minister of Consumer Services talk about

how we should all practise restraint by setting an example. I wonder

how many of those members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, are prepared

to set an example in terms of their total income, not just what they

are earning in the Legislature. I would challenge them to demonstrate

their good interests by cutting down on the profits they may be

receiving as well in some of their businesses. I don't want to have any

personal attacks on anyone, but that's just an open challenge.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: If those hon. members.... Of course, that goes

for me too. Do you want to challenge me, Mr. Member for Coquitlam (Mr.

Kerster)? I'll tell you what I'll do.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What about you, Mr. Premier? Would you accept my challenge?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Anything I have I'm prepared to put on the table.

It's not very much, but with what I do have, I am prepared to

demonstrate my sincerity...not just 10 per cent of my salary but 10 per

cent of the whole works, as long as we can set an example that

everybody can follow and believe that we're sincere, because really

this is a token gesture.

I would challenge the Premier to stand up and explain to this House

how he arrived at 10 per cent. That would be very interesting. Come and

tell us what basis or what formula he used in arriving at 10 per cent.

Why not 50 per cent? Why not 75? How did he decide to raise the social

services tax by 40 per cent, or ICBC by 300 or 400 or 500 per cent?

What formula are you using?

What about an impact study on the economy when you come out with all

these great ideas and all these figures out of the sky? What fiscal

responsibility do you really have when you make these gestures about

how you're going to change the rules?

Now you are the people who know; you are the experts. I'm merely a

social worker asking questions. But I wonder seriously if, when you

make these pronouncements about setting an example, you really had

thought about the implications of what you're saying, because a lot of

people out there don't believe you. It's great for a millionaire to

talk about cutting back 10 per cent of what he gets....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you're not a millionaire. Are you saying that you're not a millionaire?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you'll get your chance. You

[ Page 2212 ]

know, we now have ways of looking into people's

overall financial ability and we'll be checking you out. We'll probably

find out that you people are in pretty good shape on that side of the

House, and whether you work here or not, you are not going to starve —

very few of you.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you one thing, it's because we're

working people. Well, most of us work for people; we don't have people

working for us. That's the truth and a fact.

So you don't really need this place; this is a part-time job for you

— it's something you do as a hobby. You're looking after the people's

interests, right? — because you were chosen and ordained with this

authority to look after the people who can't look after themselves.

They can't look after themselves. All of you know that you sit there

and say: "Well, I'll tell you what we'll do; we'll see if we can work

something out for for you, you poor, ordinary people."

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, I can tell you that I would be more than pleased to put everything I have on the table, not just my earnings.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: These are the only earnings I happen to have.

Anything that I have accrued, acquired or am likely to acquire, put it

on the table and say, fine let's take a look. Let's work out a formula

and really put a grip on inflation. Let's really stop things. Let's not

say that we'll do it in the Legislature when all the time you fellows

are out there making all that money on the side that's not subject....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you why I'm suspicious about your

motives. It's because you've got this programme that you call the

anti-inflation bill that you're going to work with the federal

government. But the only reason you're bringing the bill in now is

because you've made all the inflationary measures you intend to make

for the next little while.

You've already done everything you're going to do. Sure, you can bring the bill in now, but this is where....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but you do understand

this is something that gets you pretty excited when you think about the

game these people are proposing. They're telling me to go and watch the

barn and they've let all the horses out. When you think about that,

that's a dirty trick to pull on someone who's seriously believing that

there are some horses in the barn. They tell me to go out there and

stand on guard and I'm out there and I never look inside to see the

horses are all out. You guys are pulling a fast one again. They're

trying to tell the people, "Here we are, your government, and we're

going to set an example for you by taking off 10 per cent of our

income" — when they know the only people they're going to hurt are

those guys in the opposition.

You're not going to suffer. None of you are going to suffer. Put

some money up on the table — some real money, fellas. Let's put some

real stuff on the table, and I'd be more than willing to go along with

you.

HON. MR. MAIR: What are you talking about?

MR. BARNES: You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Minister, because you of all people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, kindly address the Chair, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry for neglecting you. I hope

that when you are not in the chair you, too, will come down and defend

the position I'm taking, because I believe you're a man of honour. You

stood over here the other day and spoke very highly of the first member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and you said that woman spoke the

truth when she talked about togetherness and forgetting about party

lines and being concerned for the first time about the people of this

province — the same kind of things that Governor Dan Evans was talking

about this afternoon.

We're going to have to forget about politics, take a look at the

serious consequences of our political actions, and be concerned about

the people. It's going to take some real definitive action to make a

real difference to the people, because we are playing games.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You are.

MR. BARNES: Let me tell you something — this is no game I'm

playing. You think I'm playing games? I'm telling you, Mr. Member,

personally, through you, Mr. Chair....

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't if I were you.

[ Page 2213 ]

MR. BARNES: I hope the press is listening. I'm a hard-working

man; I've worked hard all my life. That member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

told the other day about how he came off the farm and how hard he

worked for 18 years. I remember that. I'm working hard too.

I'll challenge all of you to get up when I've finished speaking to

tell me that you're prepared to put all your assets on the table and

demonstrate to the people of British Columbia that you will take a cut

right across the table. I hope your Premier and the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) will follow you, and that the whole

works of you — all you car dealers and everybody — will say fine, we're

going to stop this business right now. I'm certainly prepared to do it.

I've got some land. I'm prepared to turn it over to the government. Are

you, Mr. Premier?

The government said that we could begin to demonstrate our

sincerity. In this province of British Columbia right now in the city

of Vancouver, we're hosting Habitat. Let's have some real leadership by

the Premier who has gone now to help them open Habitat, by

demonstrating his real commitment to doing something about the problems

that we have as far as land is concerned and resources and distribution

of the wealth to the people.

You guys are just playing games, but the time is going to come when

you're going to have to pull up, or you're going to be trying to

protect a House that no longer exists because it's eroding underneath

us. We have a serious problem right across the whole world, not just in

British Columbia, and this 10 per cent thing that you're doing is

really a hoax. There are people out there who can't get jobs, who are

begging for jobs, and you're talking about going out and getting all

these people jobs. You're going to give everybody a job and guarantee

them a minimum income. That's another joke. There's a human factor

involved. There's a realistic factor that you just can't take people

and put them on jobs and pull them off welfare and tell them everything

is going to be all right

How much do you really understand the effects of your actions? We

talk about impact studies on the environment when we've got to bring in

a new plan, whether it's a Hydro project or some other kind of project.

But what do you really do about your fiscal responsibility? Do you know

the effects of bringing in a 100 per cent increase on ferries? Do you

know the impact of that on the community? Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the

impact of telling those people that they can no longer drive their cars

because it costs too much money, so they leave their cars and you end

up with a load of cars at the parking facilities? If you don't have

parking facilities, you cut down on the number of people who will be

using the ferries, because they can't afford to pay. You say you think

you're going to maintain the same number of people using the ferries

with those prices. You're going to cut down, so if you cut down you

don't have the service, but you jack up the prices and you still don't

have that much difference in revenue, so what kind of service is that?

Have you really analysed that before you made those decisions? Are we

going to find that in six months we have destroyed a system that was at

least providing services? You're trying to save money, but you may end

up losing the money and also have a decrease in the service.

These are the kinds of things where I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this

government is playing games. It's making a lot of political decisions

that have absolutely no relationship to the realities that the people

have to face, Whether this bill brought a 10 per cent or 20 per cent or

30 per cent cut, I would like to know how you arrived at that formula.

Why not 15 per cent? I think you have a responsibility to start

accounting. You've been preaching to us about accountability and about

responsibility and about fiscal management and so forth. What do you

know about it? How much study have you put into the effects of these

decisions that you're making? That's a thing that you're going to have

to start doing, because it's just the same thing as telling us that

we've got to decrease the cost of one thing while you jack it up on the

other end.

You guys are playing that game. Most of you play that game in

business because you know how to rook the public. You say: "Okay, we'll

give you a discount because if you trade this item in, we'll knock off

so much for it." You tell them you're going to give them 50 per cent of

what they paid originally for something they're trading in and you jack

it up by the same amount on the other end and say: "Well, you see,

you're saving money."

But that's games — you're just playing games. It's the end product

that counts, the end result; it's the end result, the end effect.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Do you really know what you're talking about?

MR. BARNES: I know very well what I am talking about. You

stand up and challenge me on my earlier offer that I will put my land

up — everything that I own. I am prepared to sit down and deal with a

formula that will really try and control — really try and control —

because some of you people, I am sure, have more than your share.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What about Rosemary?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, look, when I challenge in this Legislature, Mr. Member, I challenge everybody, and

[ Page 2214 ]

it is about time. It is about time we had some real

challenges, because it makes me sick to see people stand in this House

and make speeches which mean nothing. You have a 9.7 unemployment rate

in the province of British Columbia today. Those people out there

aren't interested in you talking about taking a 10 per cent cut from a

$100,000 income. Who are you kidding? You're not so funny. You're going

to take a 10 per cent cut....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Look, it's all relative, my friends; it's all

relative. What you should be doing is saying: "We have looked at the

whole situation, the whole ecological problem, and we have come up with

a formula whereby we can begin to solve the problem." There is no

solution to what you are doing. All you have done is accumulated wealth

for the government, the last place you want to accumulate wealth.

You're going to end up with a surplus at the end of this fiscal period.

You're going to end up with a surplus in ICBC and in general revenue

and everything else....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. BARNES: The reason we are going to end up with a surplus

is because we are taking money from people in an inflationary period of

time when they cannot afford it. With the unemployment and the

inability to participate, the only person who makes money is.... It's

like the old card game, you know; the house man makes all the money.

Everybody else is being taken. If you don't believe it, you watch —

we'll see it. You'll be coming out with these giveaway programmes

trying to put the money back into the economy when you should have put

it in and left it in with a deficit programme.

MR. KERSTER: What about the Taj Mahal?

MR. BARNES: You finally realized that with your idea on Bill

23 and a deficit programme. You're doing it with the building

corporation, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. First Minister, you are smiling as you are

writing, but I'll tell you one thing: you are not going to lose any

sleep, because you are in good shape. But you go out and talk to those

people who are unemployed. Talk to the people out there who are on

welfare and the ones who are trying to duck the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who is squeezing them and telling them

they can't even move freely in this province any more. These are the

kinds of things you should be concerning yourself about instead of

gestures like 10 per cent discounts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. But I tell you,

it is very appalling. I think it is about time you people on the

government side were told that we aren't fooled by your gestures and

your jokes. I'll tell you, when you go to Habitat and you listen to

what those people are saying out there — the problems of land hoarding

by very small numbers of people so there is not enough potential for

building lots, of insufficient facilities respecting water supplies and

energy — and you are sitting here fat and in good shape talking about

cutting your salary by 10 per cent!

MR. KERSTER: How much land have you got?

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you one thing: what I've got, I am prepared to give up. Are you?

MR. KEMPF: I'll trade you.

MR. BARNES: I'll deal with the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, would you please...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Would you please make a personal commitment that

when you leave here you will not only take 10 per cent off of your

salary but you will go and look at all of your assets, inherited and

otherwise, and you will say to the people of British Columbia: "I will

show you that I am prepared, on an equal basis with you, to give up

something that really matters."? Will you do it...?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Hon. Provincial Secretary (Mrs. McCarthy), would you do that?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you what is going to happen if we

don't. If we don't do it in a very short course of time, we will have

the wealth in the hands

[ Page 2215 ]

of very few people and most of the people in the community will have no means...

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: ...they will have no means whatsoever of surviving, and the welfare system will grow. Instead of getting smaller, it will grow.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: So as far as I am concerned, I think the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who was suggesting that we have a

free vote, is certainly in order, because this is a facade. Do you want

to make it 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker? Do you want to make it 15, 20, 25,

50? You don't give any reason for why you are doing it. You just say:

"Well, we will just make it 10 per cent." What an arrogant attitude to

come out and say: "Oh, I think 10 per cent is fine"! "I think 10 per

cent is fine," the Premier said. I don't recall him consulting with

anybody about whether it should be 10 per cent, 2 per cent or 15 per

cent. He just decided 10 per cent should be fine: "Those guys will be

glad because we had told them that we might cut it 25 per cent."

MR. KEMPF: Didn't we ask you?

MR. BARNES: But the thing is, what does it relate to, that 10 per cent?

MR. KERSTER: It relates to cleaning up your mess.

MR. BARNES: What does it relate to?

MR. KERSTER: It relates to restraint.

MR. BARNES: Can you give us some of your actuarial figures as to how the 10 per cent is going to relate?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you how it relates: like most of the

things you have done, it is seat-of-the-pants legislation. The member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) used to refer to our side of the House

when we were government as the "seat-of-the-pants" government. Well, it

looks as though you people are trying to emulate as best you can what

that member was talking about. But I am afraid that with what you are

doing there won't by very much left by the time the next election comes

around, at the rate you are going, because you are going to have

everybody on welfare. There won't be any way. Everything will dry up.

Inadvertently, you are going to become a very wealthy government.

Perhaps you think that you are going to balance the books, but you have

all the money. Perhaps you'll leave a little bit for your friends.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: I'm not sure about that, Mr. Speaker. Well, I

only intended to talk for a minute or two, but you know, when you think

about the game that's being played, it's pretty obvious that they hope

that people will say: "Well, the government is prepared to take a cut

at a time of restraint when everybody else is going out and not being

able to survive. They're going to show, too, that they can take a cut."

When you analyse the effect of the cut, it means very little, Mr.

Speaker. I'm sincere. I don't know what their tax brackets are, but I

suppose by the time you take a look at what that 10 per cent really

means in terms of lost dollars, net dollars, disposable dollars to any

of us after taxes, I doubt if it's that much difference. It's a good

political ploy on behalf of the government to make that gesture when

most of the members, I'm sure, aren't going to suffer that much. Why

don't we feel the pain? Why don't we seriously talk about feeling the

pain?

We talk about restraint. We are going to hold the professions to the

guidelines. We are going to hold all of the various retail outlets and

tell people on salary that they've got to hold the guidelines. Now why

don't we hold the guidelines ourselves? Seriously, why don't we take a

look at what's happening around the world and learn something from what

they're trying to say at Habitat? Take a real serious look. Let's feel

it. You want to do that. Make an amendment to this bill. Come out with

a formula and then challenge yourselves. Let the Premier be the first

one to come forward with a personal challenge to himself in terms of

his real capacity. What kind of real punishment has he taken by this

bill?

When we do that, then I think the people out there will say: "Boy,

we have got a government that has put politics aside, a government that

is truly humanitarian, a government that is, believe it or not, even

altruistic." That's a word that I'm sure none of us believe exists any

more, but maybe altruism has a place. But I don't think it has a place

on that side of the House.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I really didn't have

any intention of speaking on this bill. I really thought that all the

members of the House would be in favour of it. However, in listening to

some of the comments from the other side, it's easy to understand why

they should oppose it. Those people who are on the front bench there

gave themselves 100 per cent raise in salary when they were on this

side. I'm sure that the....

[ Page 2216 ]

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): What about your members? Didn't they share it?

MS. BROWN: They voted for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

MR. KAHL: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that it's difficult for them

after receiving that 100 per cent increase in salary to align

themselves with the 10 per cent cut. That's a difficult task for them.

After all, we have to take a look at the Cadillac socialists on the

other side of the House. The Point Grey socialists on the other side of

the House: we have to take a look at them. They talk about sincerity —

and we heard the previous member, who, incidentally, is a constituent

of mine. I don't want to get into any personal attacks here. That's not

the purpose of this House.

He talked about, "Let's donate what we have to the provincial

government." Now I want to tell you that constituents of mine and I are

busy trying to get property for a park, and the member who spoke

before, a constituent of mine, who represents Vancouver Centre and

lives in my constituency, I want to tell you that he's a shareholder or

partner in 108 acres, approximately, in my constituency. All that land.

MR. BARNES: Imagine that! All that money!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. BARNES: That man is attacking me personally. I think that

unless he's prepared to follow through he should withdraw, because I

admit it. I will give every piece of that land up today to this

government if he's prepared to match me and if the Premier is prepared

to match me. That is unequivocal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have upset the member

for Vancouver Centre. I don't think I did. He's laughing again. But I

was going to say that we've been trying very hard to get a park in that

particular area where he lives.

MR. BARNES: You've got it. Just follow through.

MR. KAHL: I want to say that we would be most happy to have

his share of that 108 acres as a park. If he would like to donate ii to

us, we would like to have it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: When the member for Vancouver Centre was speaking,

some of them were even applauding what he said. Some of them were even

applauding what the hon. member was saying from the galleries. I don't

know if they were sympathizing with the...

MR. LEA: Sit down while you're behind.

MR. KAHL: ...poor socialists or Cadillac socialists over on

that side of the House. I'm not sure of that. They continually talk

about the 100 per cent that the insurance went up or the ferries went

up. I would like to ask them what that money will be spent for, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: That money will be spent on bills that the NDP left. That's why those raises are there.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: I'm sure, as parents, as coaches in the community

of various minor sports.... I taught school, as some of the other

members have. The best way to do things is by example, and that's why I

support the 10 per cent cut in our salaries. I can tell you of an

example of an organization that applied to the Department of Human

Resources for a grant, and the grant was out of line. They wanted a

considerable increase in salaries, and after reviewing it the

organization said; "In view of what the members of the assembly have

done, we can also take a cut." — in order to get their grant. That's

the kind of thing that's happening in the province because of this 10

per cent cut we are talking about. That is financial responsibility,

not the 58 per cent in government spending that we saw and the 45 per

cent in the government spending that we saw in the previous two years,

Mr. Speaker, I only want to point out again that I would hope the

lawyers from that side of the House, the Cadillac socialists from that

side of the House, will support this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The first

[ Page 2217 ]

problem in dealing with this bill, in my view,

relates to the fact that this House should not, in the first instance,

be setting its own salaries. It seems, from public opinion and from

many of the debates at the federal level, that it places, if not

pressure on the elected representatives, certainly difficulties in

appearing to be objective in reaching the final figure they award

themselves.

This is particularly ironic, Mr. Speaker, in our society today when

we all emphasize, particularly the members of this House, and rightly

so, the value of arbitration. Beyond the walls of this chamber,

repeated disputes develop between employer and employee which cannot be

resolved by negotiation and the problem is solved by some arbitration

mechanism. While I'm aware that at the federal level some such

mechanism was attempted when a committee was set up to make

recommendations regarding MP's salaries and that it was not totally

successful, I do feel that in speaking to the principle of this bill

members, if they accept this very basic first step, would, perhaps

collectively through one of the committees of the House, agree to

review and discussion of a suitable mechanism of obviously objective

and non-political people being appointed by the Legislature to bring

back recommendations as to how the matter of salary should be decided.

We all avoid discussing money until it's absolutely thrust upon us,

and probably none of us would be taking

part in this debate if it were

not for the fact that our political responsibility compels us to stand

up and take our place in the debate. But individuals and families and

human beings in our modern society try very hard to avoid discussing

their personal finances in public. The premise of this bill is very

simple, and that is that the MLAs of British Columbia are overpaid.

There is no other premise to a bill which suggests that our salaries

should be reduced.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I hear calls of "Nonsense!" from the other side

of the House. If they would be so fair as to listen to the reason, I

would like to outline for the premise that I have suggested attaches to

this bill.... That is, that even to hold the line would have been a

symbol of responsibility, because I would like this government to quote

any group of salaried persons in the whole of British Columbia, and

perhaps the whole of Canada, who in the last several months have agreed

to a reduction in their income.

The question which is being debated fast and furious in this

province and in this country is whether or not a 10 per cent increase

is a reasonable guideline for salaried employees of this country.

Therefore if this government had said that for a minimum of 12 months

it would ensure that elected representatives would not even receive the

10 per cent guideline increase, I think that would have been a very

responsible and very credible suggestion. But, in fact, the suggestion

of a 10 per cent reduction which is so contradictory to any sense of

fair play, unless the first premise is that we are overpaid in the

first place.... That is the only basis on which I can accept the

principle in this bill, namely that we are overpaid in the first place,

not that we are setting an example particularly to the rest of the

country.

In my view we would have been setting a very reasonable and credible

example if government had said that even although everybody else in

society is receiving at least 8 per cent increase at the very least

under the guidelines of the federal government, we believe that MLAs

are adequately reimbursed and they shouldn't even receive the 8 per

cent.

There is no question in my mind that government is attempting to set

an example — and for that they are to be commended — in the battle

against inflation, but for the reasons I have just mentioned I don't

believe that it will be effective. There is no evidence that it is

being effective, and there are several other factors that I think

should be mentioned in this debate.

There is a great deal of cynicism throughout the electorate about

politics and politicians, and we needn't prolong this debate unduly by

reciting all the many influences which I am sure members are well aware

of. But that cynicism in many ways is related to the susceptibility of

MLAs to conflict of interest. Perhaps I am personally more sensitive to

that because of an accusation in recent days by another member of the

House about my particular integrity in regard to an issue in the

greater Victoria area.

But be that as it may, voters seem to want, and rightly so, the best

kind of representatives they can elect. Time and time and time again in

election battles we are all told: "Your party would do better if you

had better candidates." The kind of explanation you get when you ask

exactly what the voter means when he or she is seeking that better

candidate very often relates to the background and the capacity of the

nominated candidate to serve the widest interests of the province.

It seems to me very clear that you can very readily fail in either

direction. You can pay an MLA too little, with the result that it is

simply impossible for certain individuals to seek office, or you can

pay them too much and the very salary itself becomes a goal in itself,

and you may well attract unprincipled individuals who simply want the

job to get the very good salary.

So that is, Mr. Speaker, yet another reason why I believe we could

have some kind of objective group of responsible people, appointed by

the Legislature as a whole, in much the way that we are about to

appoint an auditor-general, who would make this kind of decision as to

what indeed represents a

[ Page 2218 ]

reasonable middle ground between paying an MLA too

little and dissuading very good candidates, or paying an MLA too much

and running the risk of having people seek office purely for the money.

One of the elements in this debate which really has not been touched

upon, that doesn't just relate to money — and again I make no apology

for perhaps reflecting from my personal point of view — but there are

other sacrifices, Mr. Speaker, which many members make. I'm thinking

particularly of members who cannot on the day that they are defeated or

decide not to run again simply step back into their profession after

perhaps five or eight or 10 years in this Legislature.

So it is not simply a matter of the money in dollars that the member

sacrifices for the number of years he or she is in this Legislature but

the kind of difficulties that are encountered or can be encountered in

the member re-establishing himself or herself at his previous calling,

and I'm not just, by any means, relating to professions.

There are many other aspects of the MLAs salaries which have not

been mentioned. It is, if not the most important, certainly, in my

view, very relevant that there is no assurance as to what degree the

MLA salary will be adjusted if he or she spends two or three terms in

this House. There's certainly no guarantee of indexing in this

situation unless, of course, we had some neutral body to make that kind

of decision and have it incorporated in legislation.

There is a gap in a career, as I've mentioned, and I would speak

most strongly for the point of view of the rural and northern members

who certainly have a great financial penalty compared to members such

as myself who live in the greater Victoria area and perhaps don't have

a quarter of the expenses — at least if I were just the MLA. But in my

particular position as an MLA and not a party leader I would strongly

place on record the fact that my expenses would be much less than the

rural or northern member.

I've referred already, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that Legislatures,

to be truly effective, should have the widest possible diversity of

members in relation to their particular background, their training,

their expertise and the particular fields of interest from which they

came to this Legislature. All of these potential members presenting

that kind of diversity come from a great variety of financial

backgrounds. I feel there is no question that the electorate is liable

to get the members they deserve. And if in fact the member's salary is

to draw certain comparisons with relatively unskilled occupations which

perhaps earn large sums of money with a great deal of fringe benefits,

then you are debasing, in my view, the true value and importance,

credibility — and, perhaps, the integrity of an MLA.

This really, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the last point and that is

the heart of the question: what is an MLA worth to the people of

British Columbia? The way in which society has moved in recent years,

it has become more and more obvious that to fulfil all the functions

which the voters expect, and for the member to provide voters with the

access to their representative, in my view, it is without any doubt

nowadays a full-time job. On that basis, taking into account the lack

of any clearly defined number of hours of work, the responsibilities

which are involved well beyond this chamber — Saturdays and Sundays,

summertime, any other time — it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's

hardly unreasonable, taking all these responsibilities, hours of work

and inconveniences into account, that when you look at comparable wages

it seems to me quite fair to place on record that a Member of the

Legislative Assembly is worth $24,000 a year.

It isn't, as I said at the outset, at all easy to discuss one's

salary or to discuss one's personal financing in public, and for that

reason some members — not of this House, but members in municipal

government — chose to resign when the Disclosure Act was brought in. I

go along with that Act and support that Act, but I think that in this

issue, the specific issue of members' salaries, it has nothing whatever

to do with whether we have millionaires on that side of the House or

this side of the House. It has nothing whatever to do with some of the

personal financial circumstances, big or small, of any single member of

this House. It rises far above any personal or personality issue.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is: how do we strive to give the electorate

two particular opportunities? One is the option for each individual to

seek office and to be adequately rewarded for the kind of work he or

she is supposed to do, and, secondly, to succeed in drawing into this

chamber the widest possible diversity of backgrounds, training,

education and experience so that whatever emanates from debate in this

House, it will truly represent a very positive and well-considered

consensus of opinion throughout the province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

think the hon. member for Oak Bay has made an awfully good statement

and an awfully good case. In considering my own position on the bill, I

looked at it very seriously and I said to myself: is this

an act of

leadership in this province? Is this really something with which the

government and this Legislature can say: "This gives us greater moral

authority in dealing with people."?

Mr. Speaker, after thinking about it for a long time, I came to the conclusion

that it is not; what is required for that moral authority in holding the line

in expenditures in this province is holding the line in our own expenditures.

So then I said to myself:

[ Page 2219 ]

"Then why this bill?" Mr. Speaker, this bill was

devised as good slick politics for the government, as a way of saying

to the people of British Columbia: "My, aren't we virtuous! Look at the

sacrifices that we're prepared to make on your behalf."

The purpose of this bill is to attempt to give some colour of moral

righteousness to the savage attack on the people of this province by

the government in some of their legislation so far this session. Mr.

Speaker, to the extent that it would give any colouration of moral

righteousness to the government in those actions, I cannot support it.

I cannot support a bill that would allow the government to go to the

people and say, "this justifies our raising your sales tax by 2 per

cent," because it doesn't.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Where does it say that in the bill?

MR. GIBSON: I can't support a bill which would allow the

government the moral authority — the pretended moral authority — to go

to the people and say: "Now what we've done to you on ICBC is justified

because, after all, we've cut our own salaries."

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why don't you vote against the bill?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I can't see that, Mr. Speaker. It's a

hypocritical bill and, for that reason, I reject it, Mr. Member. Let me

leave you in no doubt as to how I'm going to vote.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: This is not a bill of moral leadership. That's

obvious when you look at the spending increases in this budget — the

budget that we debated earlier on this year and that I voted against,

and would do so again.

What's the real effect of this bill we're talking about here as far

as members' allowances are concerned? About $88,000 in sessional

allowances and a bit more in other salaries. And while the government

is proposing to do that, Mr. Speaker, they're taking over $1 billion

extra out of the taxpayers' pockets around this province, and then

they're going to go out waving this bill and say: "But it's justified

because we cut our own salaries." I say that's completely phony, Mr.

Speaker. Just completely phony.

What kind of a government do the people of British Columbia want? If

they want a government which is made up pretty well exclusively of

people who can afford it from their own private means, that's fine. But

I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia want. I think

they want a Legislature that is full of people who can afford to be

there, from whatever station of life or area of the province from which

they come, because they are properly compensated in that regard.

The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that people get the

members they deserve and the government they deserve. Mr. Speaker, the

people deserve the very best government that can be found, but they

don't just get that. They get the kind of members and the kind of

government that they earn, and part of the kind of member that they're

going to get to run for this chamber, and to serve in this chamber,

part of the reward, is the ability to achieve something. And, God

knows, in the partisan atmosphere of this particular House, that's

difficult enough.

Part of the other incentive to try to come here and do something is

the ability to be able to secure your future at least as well as you

could have done had you remained somewhere in private life. This bill

attacks that principle unnecessarily, in my regard, with all the

difficulties and insecurity of the game of politics, which is one of

the few businesses in which there's around a 75 per cent unemployment

rate all the time.

For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is an

attempt by the government, as I say, to give some kind of moral

colouration to their actions against the people of this province; a

moral endorsation that I do not believe they have earned and a moral

endorsation that I am not prepared to condone by supporting this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I certainly very much appreciate the last two speeches we've just heard.

I think it's very difficult for us to look at this question with any

kind of objectivity. I listened with real interest to the member for

Skeena (Mr. Shelford) — and I know that the member for Skeena has given

a great deal in his political life, not only this time but in other

periods of his political life — and I know the word is widespread that

people, particularly in the rural ridings, have to cover a great deal

of distance.

One of the questions that concerns me from time to time is that we

stand here and we talk about a salary of $24,000. Mr. Speaker, that's

not quite true. That's total income, including all expenses, for an

MLA. So why do we continually call it "salary"? It's just ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge upon the government the possibility of

them looking at a device which would take this question right outside

of parliament. The question should not be resolved on the floor of

[ Page 2220 ]

this House, because....

MR. SKELLY: Bill 31.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Bill 31 is before us now — a private member's

bill. But how can we resolve the question? This debate this afternoon,

Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland)....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Minister of Health, we made full-time MLAs out

of MLAs who were working part time. If you don't like it, why didn't

you turn your money back? But you didn't — none of you did. You all

said you would be full-time MLAs. But why don't we get back to earth on

this bill?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it was part time before. You were doing your

thing and I was doing mine; you were acting as a lawyer, Mr. Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), and I was acting as a consultant between

1969 and 1972. Don't give me any rot! You know, that's one of the bad

parts of this whole question: some can do it; some in the professions

can do it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Jabber, jabber over there. I thought that possibly

there was one chance in a million I could get up in this House and make

some remarks without those kinds of snippy counter-remarks being made

by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, what they are doing — and I had hoped they

wouldn't — is reflecting the kind of stuff that we got from the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who got up and said that he was proud that a

lot of people in his constituency criticized the fact that we were

having a reduction — the only people were his family, Mr. Speaker. And

if they criticized, it was that member doing his political moonlighting

by being mayor and member at the same time. That's just....

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes.

MS. BROWN: He's not being paid to be mayor!

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. He's a political moonlighter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, aside from all that, why don't we

once and for all resolve the matter and go to a situation where an

independent tribunal makes the decision? Because we'll always get into

this kind of wrangle — always. People will be voting for their

political reasons, and others will be voting.... Such as myself, for

instance; it doesn't really make a lot of difference one way or the

other — I cover a very small constituency, can do it with a limited

amount of expenses and can get around on my own shoe leather. It

doesn't really make that much difference to me. But it makes an awful

lot of difference to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), the

member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and a number of other members who have

to even rent planes to get into Bella Coola, Ocean Falls and places

like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrace — the Cariboo.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. So really what we are discussing

here is a situation that cannot be resolved on the floor of this House

— not properly and never will.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker: Why, why, why? The question is....

MR. LEA: Why did they vote for it?

MR. COCKE: That's right; they voted for it. You had no

objections. But we are suggesting now that there is a better way.

Certainly to have insipid debate, going over....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the car dealer who is talking about

us wasting money, who has a very nice little dealership up in Dawson

Creek — I have seen it — should really content himself with dealing

with this particular bill.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Wrong again.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. You sold it, did you? Well, isn't that interesting. That's a recent....

[ Page 2221 ]

MR. LEA: Was it an inter-caucus sale?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what we should be having here is a

cooperative effort to get this turned over to another jurisdiction — an

independent jurisdiction which can make a non-political decision around

a very, very sensitive question. There aren't two people in this House

who are affected exactly the same way.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) really is having himself a bit of a hey-day.

MR. LAUK: The old crocodile.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you do something about your hospitals

that are going goofy? Why don't you go and do something about the rest

of your system instead of sitting there making remarks that are totally

worthless? The fact that there wasn't a decision in that direction

before doesn't justify the f act that there isn't now. It was a very

straightforward decision before; it was making a full-time job out of a

part-time job. That's all there is to it.

So, Mr. Speaker, the option is there to look at a new way. I know

that the government won't this time, but I am certainly very

sympathetic to those people in this House who are going to be seriously

affected. Their situation is never going to be resolved as long as we

have this kind of circumstance.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in speaking

very briefly to this bill, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

If the government is really all that serious about dealing with

inflation, and if the government is really all that serious about the

kinds of salaries and income people make in this province, why did they

not introduce legislation that deals with the really large salaries and

the really large incomes being made by some sectors of the community?

Maybe when the minister is closing debate we will get an answer to that.

Why was there not legislation brought down, for example, in the

forest industry to deal with the fact that the president, who was fired

or retired recently, was paid over $200,000 a year? In fact, last year

he got an increase in his income of over 32 per cent. If you're really

serious about the kind of income that people make in this province, you

don't pick on $24,000 a year; you pick on a salary like $220,000 a

year. That's the kind of salary if you're really serious about what you

are doing.

What about the salary that Edgar Kaiser made last year of $208,000?

If you're really serious about people's income, that's where you start

— at the top. You don't start at the bottom, Mr. Speaker. You start at

the top. You start where the real salaries are. You start where the

real money is being made. You start with the people at MacMillan

Bloedel, which tells us that in order to meet the pensions of the top

people in their company it is going to cost them over $2 million.

That's where you start, if you are really interested in inflation.

Inflation isn't caused by the MLAs of this province, 55 people earning

$24,000 a year.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) tells this House that he's giving

everything he has to the service of his country, and forgets to mention

that he is being paid to be a part-time mayor! Who is looking after

your city while you are sitting down here in your waistcoat, Mr.

Member, telling us that you are giving so many things to the world and

forgetting to mention that you're on full salary up there? If you are

going to reveal, you have to reveal everything. Let's not have any of

this half-and-half revealing. I know it upsets you.

Every time one of you gets up to speak I have to listen to a long

lecture about the fact that I live in Point Grey rather than in some

ghetto of your choice. Of course it upsets you, and I hope it continues

to upset you, because I am going to continue to live there. So go and

eat your hearts out.

But I'm speaking specifically to the minister who is responsible, Mr. Speaker, through you, for this piece of legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to allow the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) to di