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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Legislature Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal Act (Bill 31) .

Mr. Skelly. Introduction and first reading — 175

Oral questions

Return of $600 cheque to employment programmes branch. Mr. King —

Irregularities in egg marketing. Mr. Wallace — 175

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission. Mr. Gibson —

Recycling programme in greater Victoria. Mr. Barber — 176

Michell farm purchase. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 176

FIA scheme for blueberry growers. Mrs. Wallace — 176

Expansion of northern ferry service. Mr. Lockstead — 177

Grants to universities. Mrs. Dailly — 177

Zoom photography of legislative protestors. Mr. Macdonald — 177

Cancer research grant. Mr. Cocke — 178

Throne speech debate

Mr. Wallace — 178

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 188

Mr. Barnes — 194

Mr. Kahl — 201

Ms. Sanford — 203

Mr. Hewitt — 207

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon

we will have as our guests in the gallery a group of students from

Qualicum Beach Secondary School who are here under the direction of

their teacher, Mr. Eric McMurray. I'd like to ask the members to make

the students welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I hope the

House will join me in welcoming a person — in keeping with some remarks

I had to say the other day regarding committees — a chairman of the

Scholarship Committee for Medical Research, also professor of

microbiology of the Faculty of Science, vice-chairman of the B.C.

Health Research Fund, vice-president of the Cancer Control Agency of

B.C. and a panel member for the review of cancer grants: the National

Cancer Institute of Canada, Professor Dr. Julia Levi, who is our guest

today.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today — and members may have noticed his

presence yesterday as well — is Mr. Jeff McKelvey, the executive

director of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I was very

pleased to learn a few weeks ago that the present president of UBCM,

Mayor Muni Evers of New Westminster, has arranged for the UBCM to have

a much greater presence in the legislative buildings and in the gallery

during this session in order that all members may have contact with the

UBCM for exchange of ideas. Would the House welcome him, please?

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join with me in welcoming a group of senior citizens from

Burnaby who are all members of the community-centred College for the

Retired. Thank you very much.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure this afternoon, and I trust the House will join me, in

welcoming the students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School, and

their lovely teacher, seated in the balcony this afternoon.

Introduction of bills.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES

AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill 31, Legislative Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal

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.

Oral questions.

RETURN OF $600 CHEQUE TO

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES BRANCH

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

question to the hon. Minister of Labour: I would ask the minister

whether or not a cheque in the amount of $600 has been returned to the

Department of Labour employment programmes branch by one Mr. Brandl of

the North Peace constituency association.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I will take the question as notice.

IRREGULARITIES IN EGG MARKETING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask a Big Brother

question of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) inasmuch as

a northern egg producer has stated, and claims to have affidavits, that

private detectives working for the B.C. Egg Marketing Board have

secretly taken photographs on his farm of trucks being loaded with eggs

and of eggs being delivered to the local stores.

Could I ask the minister if he is aware of this practice, or has any complaint been lodged with him because of this practice?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): In answer to the member's question: just what I read in the paper.

MR. WALLACE: Well, supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the minister,

having read that in the paper, is just as disturbed as I am that this kind of

tactic might be used. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what steps

he's taking to clarify the issue and, if it exists, bring it to an immediate

halt.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'll be looking into it.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN

B.C. HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

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

question to the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware of

allegations of potential conflict of interest concerning senior

officials of the B.C. Housing Management Commission in setting up a

private strata titles management firm, and is he

[ Page 176 ]

prepared to ensure a full investigation of such potential conflicts in this specific case and in all areas of his department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I would

like to thank him for notifying me just a few minutes ago of his

intention to ask this question. To the hon. member, yes, I was made

aware of this allegation yesterday and had discussed it with senior

representatives of the Department of Housing. The matter is under early

investigation, this specific matter. Indeed, I think as we are able to

appoint other members to the B.C. Housing Management Commission board,

we can identify possible areas of conflict of interest and spell them

out quite clearly.

I would emphasize that at this point, Mr. Speaker, the question is

just that. It is an allegation and it is under review. It is known to

myself and known to the Deputy Minister of Housing and the associate

deputy.

MR. GIBSON: Just on a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I

wonder if the minister would undertake to submit a report of the

results of the investigation to the House, assuming we're in session at

the time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would undertake to report to

the House, perhaps verbally, once we have had an opportunity to

investigate the matter.

RECYCLING PROGRAMME

IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the hon. Minister

of Environment. Do you support the operations of the regional recycling

project in greater Victoria, sir?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): To the hon.

member, Mr. Speaker, I would regard that as a matter of policy at this

time. The concept of recycling has been endorsed by the department,

although not necessarily specifically to this area referred.

MR. BARBER: Would you permit a supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: Are you aware, sir, of the consideration

presently being given by the capital regional district to curtail the

operation of the regional recycling project, and, if you are aware of

this, given that the regional recycling project serves more than 30,000

residents in greater Victoria, and that it is on any scale the most

successful operation of its kind in British Columbia, is the minister

willing to intervene with the capital regional district to ensure the

continued work and support of this recycling programme?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the

member for Victoria, if this information is available to him, would

offer it to me at my office, and I can assure you that he will get a

reasonable response.

MICHELL FARM PURCHASE

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, while on my feet, if I may, in

answer to a question raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

with regard to the purchase of the Michell farm, in answer to questions

asked previously, the former owner of the farm, Mr. Gordon Michell,

approached the B.C. Land Commission to consider purchasing his farm on

February 28, 1975. An appraisal was undertaken by the lands management

branch and on October 21, 1975, Mr. Michell was offered and accepted the

price of $440,000 subject to Treasury Board approval, which was given

November 17, 1975.

The purchase agreement was signed November 15, 1975. The price paid

for the property breaks down to approximately $3,300 per acre with

improvements valued at $97,000. The Member for Oak Bay had asked if

other bids had been made. That information is not immediately available

since it would be between the owner of the farm and any other private

properties. But, indeed, Mr. Michell did approach the B.C. Land

Commission with reference to this and, for all intents and purposes,

the agreement was concluded November 25, 1975.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask a quick supplementary? I very

much appreciate the full, precise information the Minister has

provided. I just wonder if the appraisal by the lands branch...was that

the one and only appraisal? There was no independent appraisal by

anybody outside of government, I take it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr., Speaker, to the Member for Oak Bay: the

appraisal was undertaken by Mr. D.J. Clark, AACI, who was appointed by

the Department of Lands management branch. The appraisal given

suggested that the acreage at that time had a value of approximately

$4,800 per acre.

FIA SCHEME

FOR BLUEBERRY GROWERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him a question relative to the Farm Income

[ Page 177 ]

Assurance scheme. I understand negotiations have been proceeding

between the department and the Federation of Agriculture relative to a

scheme for blueberries. Could the minister answer me whether or not he

has given his approval to the negotiations that have been completed for

blueberries?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to thank the member for her concern. We are looking at it.

MRS. WALLACE: A supplementary, please. Have you approved it yet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it hasn't been approved yet. We are studying it.

MRS. WALLACE: A further supplemental. Could I ask, then, regarding the sheep growers, their similar scheme: has that one been approved?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we're studying the sheep growers...I mean the sheep growers' assistance programme. Yes, we are studying it.

MRS. WALLACE: Supplemental further: your study, has it been approved, Mr. Minister? That is my question: have you approved it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's being looked at and we're going to make a decision very shortly.

EXPANSION OF

NORTHERN FERRY SERVICE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications. In view of the sale of the Prince George which was to be used to meet requests for regular

service from Kitimat, Ocean Falls and other northern communities, is

the ministry going to use the Queen of Surrey to expand northern ferry service this summer once she becomes available for this planned purpose?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): This possibility is under consideration along with a lot of others.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary. What are the minister's intentions regarding the Queen of Surrey ?

HON. MR. DAVIS: They will be determined once the results of various investigations come in.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

going to continue to ignore the transportation needs of the people of the B.C.

coast?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a statement, not a question, Mr. Member.

GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Finance: according to the

Audit Act, special warrants should only be issued if they are urgently

and immediately required for the public good. My question to the Hon.

Minister of Finance is: would he explain to the House the urgency and

the immediate requirement for issuing special warrant 687, which was

$7,500,000 for grants to universities?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member: I'll be happy to take that question as notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It should really be redirected to the Minister of Education.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplemental. May I ask the Minister of Finance,

then: are special warrants brought forward before the cabinet without

the cabinet or even the Minister of Finance knowing what they are for?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no. That type of warrant, of

course, first goes before Treasury Board for approval. I said I'd take

the original question as notice.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, with respect

to the question from the hon. member for Burnaby North, is the minister

aware that under the Audit Act there must be a report to the Minister

of Finance before it's referred to the Treasury Board? That's in

accordance with the section. Is the minister aware of that section, and

was such a report made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister took the question as notice. I

would think that that was the type of question you might follow up

after he has answered the original one, hon. member.

ZOOM PHOTOGRAPHY OF

LEGISLATIVE PROTESTORS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the Attorney-General a question. There were no zoom cameras when

the women's rights group were in front of the Legislature, but there

were when the ICBC protestors held a

[ Page 178 ]

peaceful demonstration on the legislative lawn. Is it your policy to

allow security officers to use zoom cameras from apertures of this

building and intimidate peaceful demonstrations on the legislative lawn?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the hon.

member's question, I am unaware of the cameras, zoom or otherwise,

which you are referring to, but I would not think that we have ever had

a citizen of this province intimidated on the lawn in front of this

Legislature.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Attorney-General inquire into

it? — because there were such cameras in the hands of police officers

at the time of the ICBC demonstration. I'm suggesting that there's a

civil liberties issue here involved and that the policy of the

government should be stated to this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll take a look at it, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental on this issue. In

fact, the police chief in Victoria reported that the very purpose of

taking the pictures was to identify anybody who subsequently in the

demonstration might cause disorder. This was raised in the local press

and discussed, and I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, and I assume

he will take my word as an honourable gentleman, that it was confirmed

by the police chief that, yes, they were taking photos and that if the

demonstrators did not come before the police for any reason afterwards,

the photos were destroyed.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he would not consider that

as an invasion of civil rights — to be photographed under threat — and,

secondly, whether in the light of that dangerous precedent he will, in

fact, take the matter up with the Victoria police very soon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member — and I certainly do take

his word — has much more knowledge of the matter in question than I

have and, as I have stated to the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), I will certainly look into it.

CANCER RESEARCH GRANT

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a number of days have gone by and I'd

like to ask the Provincial Secretary if, in fact, she has withdrawn the

grant from Dr. Henry Richards.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the Hon, member: I did say a couple of

days ago that I would report to the House after my department had

reassessed it. I will keep that promise. When the department has

reassessed that grant I shall report to the House.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want to carry on from the

few comments I made last night about the political atmosphere which

brings us all to this Legislature and the very important recognition

which I think we should all have of the politically divided nature of

this province at the present time.

While, as I said earlier, I fully respect these decisions by the

voter, I think it would help us all perhaps to produce productive

legislation if we recognized some of the thinking which is quite

prevalent in this province.

Many people believe that the NDP had a heart but no head; and many

people believe that the Social Credit Party has a head but no heart. I

agree that this is an exaggerated appraisal of the situation, but I

think that it does reflect a remarkable amount of thinking in this

province. My good friend the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) put it another

way on a television interview. He said that the NDP knew the value of

everything but the price of nothing, and that the Social Credit Party

knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. I think that

again is an exaggeration, but it's a trend and the kind of thinking

that you run into in this province time and time again among the voters.

I hope the general thrust of this government will not be to simply

blame the NDP for all the problems of this province, including the

fiscal mismanagement, and use that as some perpetual excuse for the

next four years to avoid carrying out the kind of programmes to which

they are committed. Whatever the financial difficulties of this

province, any fair-minded person cannot overlook the national and

international economic recession which has not only been very severe

but also is much slower to improve than even the experts have

predicted. But, as I say, there are many people who looked upon the NDP

as well-motivated reformers with a strong social conscience but who

were inept and irresponsible in the administration of financial affairs.

On the other hand, the Social Credit members have the image of being

hard-nosed businessmen and capable administrators who know the value of

a dollar but, in the minds of some people, the value of little else,

and their basic businesslike credo is that there's only one colour of

ink, and that is black — regardless of the effect that that attitude and

[ Page 179 ]

conviction has on the people of this province.

I quoted last night from the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr.

McGeer'

s) remarks on Friday — and I won't impose on the House by

repeating them again — but I think the thrust of these remarks is very

disturbing, that education and health are to be deprived of funding and

that the sole excuse will be the financial debt created by ICBC. It is

somewhat surprising that this government appears to have an absolutely

unholy dread of the word "deficit", in much the same way, I suppose, as

we all have a dread of the word "cancer". The fact is that sooner or

later, unfortunately, cancer affects some people in the population, and

similarly in the economic world there are bad times when deficits have

to be the manner in which the financing of the province is carried out.

Now I'm in agreement with the basic concept that if deficit

financing can be avoided, certainly that would surely be the wish of

all of us. It is certainly the No. 1 desirable approach to the managing

of this province. I don't want to deal at great length on financial

matters today with the budget only a few days away, but I think in

this, the first debate, it should be clearly understood that I am

concerned that the deficit position of the province will be used to

excuse the failure of this government to take on many of the programmes

to which it has made a verbal commitment in the election, and to that

kind of commitment that many members have made in their speeches.

In touching on the subject of finance, Mr. Speaker, I think there was a very interesting

article in The Vancouver Sun

by one of our lady members of the press gallery. She touched on this

aspect of financing which, over the years, has seen the removal of

surpluses from an operating budget being used in large gobs of money to

build, admittedly, well-needed facilities such as ferries and other

capital expenditures. She points out in this

article that these

ferries, and other structures and enterprises involving large sums of

capital expenditure, are used over a period of time for many people —

10 or 20 years from now. It seems quite unreasonable to try to find

that kind of financing from the operating surplus from year to year.

I'm sure later on in estimates or in the budget debate that in some

detail we'll get into such matters as the financing of ferries.

The writer makes the point very clear: she says there are good and

logical reasons for borrowing for capital expenditure. Fixed assets are

usually productive over a period of time, so there's a rational

economic move to pay for them over a period of time instead of

penalizing the taxpayers in one year through a drastic reduction in

services to pay for something that their children and grandchildren

will be using.

I think the last comment was most interesting because, apparently,

one economist has said that this approach to financing is not only

pre-Gladstonian but is pre-Cambrian. I think maybe we should catch up

with some of the more modern ideas as to how modern governments should

attempt to solve their financial problems and at the same time provide

much-needed social services.

I repeat: I am no keener than the government is, or any one of us is

privately, to have to go into debt to achieve certain objectives. But

we cannot accept what appears to be the concept of this government —

and I'm willing to be corrected by the light of events. But at the

moment, from the throne speech and from some of the comments that have

been made, particularly by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

it would look as though this province will be denied an adequate...not

even any kind of super or elevated standard of services in health,

education and human resources, but will possibly be denied even an

adequate level of service because the government insists on having only

black ink on the balance sheet. I'll have more to say about that when

we get to the hospital field.

There seems to me to be, Mr. Speaker, an element of contradiction in

the throne speech, because we talk about restraint as the main theme,

yet there are various parts of the speech which suggest that not only

will the government reduce its revenue in various ways, but it will be

embarking on some programmes that will cost a lot of money.

For example, if we remove all property tax from homeowners over 65,

there is no statement of cost. But whatever the cost is, it is loss of

revenue to the present sources of government revenue.

I notice that one of the Vancouver newspapers calculated that,

taking Vancouver as an average, it would amount to $32 million lost

revenue.

As I said yesterday evening, the election campaign made various

commitments for costly programmes, some of them much-needed programmes,

but the government preached financial gloom and doom and has confirmed

that we have a deficit position. It does seem a little unusual to be

promoting programmes that cost a lot of money and, at the same time, to

be implementing other moves which result in a reduction of government

revenue.

We would like to make useful contributions to the House in debate on

legislation, and what we would like to see is social reform and human

progress in conjunction with sound financial management. If that's what

the throne speech is trying to say, then, of course, we will be much

encouraged.

The election platform left the government with quite a few escape

clauses, stating that certain programmes would be carried out when

money was available or when the economy recovered. Again, I say that

this seems to leave a great deal of uncertainty, particularly after we

read the throne speech, because there are elements of the election

[ Page 180 ]

platform that were considered fairly important — if we judge by the

Premier's emphasis on some of them — and they are not even mentioned in

the throne speech.

I have to question the accuracy of some of the advertising, because

we had the large red ads saying that property tax would be removed from

all owners over 65, and yet in an interview...and I have a clipping

from the Victoria Colonist on November 6 which I'd like to quote:

"Mr. Bennett said he favoured a programme to allow

persons over 65 years of age and the handicapped to avoid having to pay

property taxes and school taxes. Based on a means test, the programme

would incorporate many existing programmes such as the homeowner grant."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the very large full-page ads that the party used

in the election campaign to promote this programme show very, very

clearly in three lines in huge letters: "no property taxes on homes of

those 65 and over," but there's not a mention anywhere in this ad

about a means test. Now I'm not here to argue whether there should or

shouldn't be a means test at this point. I'm simply asking: is this

truth in advertising?

We have other very important matters that were omitted from the

throne speech, particularly the issue of the rescinding of mineral

royalties, which again would mean a loss of somewhere around $20 to $25

million in revenue.

I would like to touch on the question of women's affairs. I think

that the visit we had yesterday — or the day before — by thy women of

this province, in my view, has to rank as one of the best organized and

orderly and perhaps most reasonable groups that have come to the

Legislature in the years that I've been here.

I agree with some of the comments made from this side of the House

last night, that whether we understand it or appreciate it, or even

recognize it, the issues that women quite legitimately are asking

society to consider, in my view, are certainly not debatable as to the

principles involved. The details and the mechanics of some of their

proposals certainly merit a lot of consideration.

But how anyone in this House or in the province can argue against

some of the basic principles that were involved and included in the

brief, I don't know. They stated, among other things, very clearly that

responsible government deals not only with the economy but with the

human beings who live and work within the economy, and if one-half of

that population is not receiving fair and equal treatment because of

their sex, it is the responsibility of government to introduce policies

and legislation that will eliminate that kind of discrimination. I

can't think of anything that is fairer and clearer and more accurate

than that.

There are one or two particular areas in their brief, Mr. Speaker,

which I think deserve specific mention. This province should be very

proud and grateful to have somebody of the calibre of Mr. Berger, not only

for the very efficient hearings which he carried out, but for the very

clear and easily understood way in which he wrote his reports — and, in

particular, his sixth report on family and children's law is very

readable and very clear.

I think it brings into focus many of the areas which, if dealt with

correctly, will be of a most preventive nature and will avoid some of

the problems at the other end of juvenile delinquency and broken homes,

and all the social turmoil and social cost which results from the

inadequacy of much of our present legislation in this area.

The question of community property, while it again has many very

obvious practical difficulties in implementation, I would say in

principle surely is not debatable. The astonishing verdict in the

Murdoch case seems to have aroused the interest of a large number of

people — not just women, but those who are interested in a more just

society. It seems to me that Mr. Berger in the way in which he spelled

it out has added greatly to the potential for public discussions, for

dialogue with legislators, and hopefully for ultimate legislation.

I think the women's policy and the brief on education also covers

many valid points from which we can't run away. I would agree with them

that it would be well to re-appoint the special adviser to the Minister

of Education on sex discrimination, or some similar position or

approach to the problem.

But in passing I think again that any fair-minded person would have

to ask the question that, with the first step during International

Women's Year, to start looking at these problems of discrimination

against women, trying to find out some of the basic facts — never mind

what we're going to do about them. Just let's get them established to a

degree which I think does not pertain at the present time.

After one year to abolish the two offices, the coordinator and the

one I've just mentioned, I think it is really regrettable because the

kind of work that was attempted in International Women's Year, as I

read it and as I listened to non-politicians, was really the start of

work to look at discrimination against women, not the end. It seemed to

me that it is rather urgent that the government take a second look. But

I'm not suggesting necessarily to re-instate exactly the situation

which was terminated of the two workers, or the two offices. I'm simply

saying that the ladies who came to this House this week and this very

clear, short, well-documented brief are evidence enough that surely the

government must move to set up some branch or agency of government to

continue the work that was started in International Women's Year

[ Page 181 ]

with even the simplest specific purpose of relating to different departments of government.

We'll be talking at a later debate, no doubt, on the child-care

centres and the problems of child care. I think the whole issue of

human rights was put into focus very well in the

section dealing with

what has come to be known as equal pay for equal work. But the ladies

have put it much more clearly, because they call it equal pay for work

of equal value. This is a problem which I am sure the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is well aware of in relation to some of

the jobs in hospital where men and women don't do exactly the same job

but they certainly do the same job in regard to equal value of that

job. The Minister is faced with a very serious problem at the present

time in the financing of hospitals because of the attempt to pay women

the same wage for equal-value work in hospitals. I'm sure that issue

will arise several times during this session.

I just want to end my remarks on the status-of-women issue by saying

that equal opportunities just do not exist for women in government

service. The statistics are quite impressive. With 37,701 persons in

the British Columbia public service, there are no female deputy

ministers, there are no female associate deputy ministers, and there

are only eight women at the salary level of programme manager 1 and

above.

The British Columbia public service is the structure which

translates policy-making into administrative action, and, although

there are no women involved at the decision-making level, these

administrative actions affect the quality of life of women throughout

this province. I'm just quoting from the brief because it states it so

well:

"As the largest employer of women in British Columbia, the

provincial government has an obligation to set an example to the private sector

by eliminating employment discrimination within the public service."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with one or two other

appraisals or one or two other subjects arising from the throne speech.

I notice that one of the other items that was highlighted in the

election campaign was the removal of succession duties and gift tax.

This has not been mentioned in the throne speech. I am wondering if the

government has had second thoughts in this regard.

To return, just for a moment, to the question of the apparent

contradictions in the budget. The government anticipates no great

increase in revenue. Yet, however worthwhile the plan — such as the

plan for those in need between 55 and 59 years of age and single-parent

families — I wonder, again, if one of his ministers would respond in

this debate and say what the proposed or expected costs of this

programme would be. In the same way, I have asked about the cost of

removing property tax from all those over 65.

I think the question of priorities has to be faced fairly and

squarely. If this province is having the financial difficulties it is

having, and if, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says,

programmes in Education and Health will suffer from lack of funds, I

just have to ask the question.

I have no ill will against millionaires; they're obviously much

smarter than I am. But is it right and fair? Is it a reasonable

assessment of priorities if we take property tax off wealthy people

living in very expensive homes and then turn around and say to many

people in real need for a variety of causes beyond their control:

"Well, I am sorry but we can't provide the facility, the medical care

or the education or the child-care centre or whatever."? Does that make

sense?

I have to say that while we are in favour, as a party, of removing

education tax from property — and that is part of our election platform

— we just have to ask this question: is the Premier not suggesting

priorities which could be better allocated?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There's an interjection from one of the members,

Mr. Speaker. I am not for a moment overlooking the real need of some

people in the 65-and-over age group where perhaps some graded kind of a

system related to income could be worked out. I'm just a little

concerned. It may be just simply the words that have been used in the

advertising, or as on page 3 of the throne speech says, that the

government will work towards removing taxes on the homes of senior

citizens 65 and over. "This year you will be asked to take a major step

toward achieving this goal."

All I am saying is that if we are in difficult financial

circumstances.... And I would like to touch on some of the problems

that are arising in the Victoria area because of financial problems.

All I am trying to point out is that if we have financial problems of

that degree affecting some people in serious need, maybe there is

reason to either specify in clearer terms what the government has in

relation to this removal of property tax, or perhaps delay

implementation of the initial moves.

I want to compliment the government on some of the very worthwhile,

positive measures that are outlined in the throne speech. The

description of electoral reform with redistribution of boundaries, and

a good, new, up-to-date look at the whole question of election expenses

and spending are excellent. I appreciate the government's commitment

that this will be introduced prior to the next election. The

driver-incentive plan makes great sense.

I couldn't agree more with the Member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd)

who pointed out that we have short-term plans and long-term plans, and

the only

[ Page 182 ]

likely successful long-term plan to cut down on the cost of car

insurance is to find ways and means of preventing accidents. I know it

sounds almost just too obvious to be said, but I think we sometimes

lose sight of the basic requirement when we get all uptight about a

specific premium or a specific segment of the bigger issue.

The idea of having an ombudsman is certainly one which,

unfortunately, is necessary. Again, for the very reason stated by the

Lieutenant-Govern or in the throne speech, that the individual in

society today more and more needs protection against big government, I

regret, for that reason, that we need an ombudsman, but indeed we do.

The auditor-general: it will be very difficult for anyone in this

province to suggest that we don't need an auditor-general, in the light

of recent events.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I liked the government's emphasis on taking

initiatives in the area of Indian affairs. I notice as recently as

today that there is a report by the department of human rights pointing

out the urgent need for government to look at Indian affairs on the

widest

possible basis. It states that even the survival of the Indian race

itself is at stake unless there is a more active effort by government

not only to solve the land problem, but to deal in the widest possible

ways with discrimination, housing, health and a variety of other very

basic issues as they affect the Indian people,

We have seen many examples in recent years of discrimination

affecting them — even the simplest matters of renting because of race,

or renting because they have children, or obtaining service in public

places which the ordinary non-Indian takes for granted in our society.

I applaud the government for these efforts.

I would like to repeat a question that I asked in question period

because I think it's very significant. I'm talking about the fact that

this government, quite rightly, is very concerned about the Minister of

Finance or any minister having the unilateral right to buy shares on

the stock exchange, I keep coming back to this point, and I make no

apologies for repetition: I feel that we apparently do not have the

money to provide many of the social programmes that are badly needed,

or even to maintain some of them.

I'm not just talking about expanded social programmes — and again

I'll be referring later on to the Victoria scene. In Victoria it is not

a question of not being able to expand; we can hardly hang on to what

we have, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. So what I'm saying

is that we're short of money: the government doesn't like to borrow; it

doesn't like deficits; and in principle it's opposed to any dabbling in

the stock markets. I agree with that attitude.

Now as far as I can determine from my investigations, the government

owns about 1.1 million shares of B.C. Tel, which sell at the moment at

around $11.50. The Westcoast Transmission shares of 1.15 million are

selling at around $23.50. That adds up to just something less than $40

million.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier interjects across the floor that the

B.C. Tel shares are a part of the pension fund, presumably, of

provincial government employees. One of them.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): One of the trust funds controlled by government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that

if the Revenue Act is to be changed to prevent a practice which the

government opposes, I just wondered if it wouldn't be an opportune time

to sell the shares and use that money to close the deficit, or close it

in part.

The other part of the throne speech which is a little distressing is

the fact that the economic depression related to international

circumstances is recognized. Forest revenue is down by around $100

million, according to Clarkson, Gordon.

There is an

article on the front page of today's newspaper reporting

a major federal study which suggests that the economic recovery in

British Columbia will lag behind that of the rest of Canada. It isn't

all black because — and this is a horrible pun, I guess, I didn't

intend — the situation isn't all black because the coal outlook is very

good.

But there's no question, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment is now at

8.9 per cent in British Columbia. Paper production was down 23.4 per

cent and, of course, lumber production I have already referred to. One

of the most interesting elements in this economic report is that in the

manufacturing sector of our economy in British Columbia the average

wage is 30 per cent higher than the average wage in the rest of Canada.

I would have to suggest that we all take a long look at the

tremendous impact of trying to manufacture goods in competition with

other producers in other provinces and in other countries when even

within our own country British Columbia's average wage is 30 per cent

higher and must inevitably make the end product more costly.

The throne speech quite rightly emphasizes the problems of

inflation. Publicly, before the House sat, the Premier had appealed to

cooperation from all parties in this province in trying to fight what

is the most serious problem facing the people of British

[ Page 183 ]

Columbia.

I just want to say, for my part, that we will make every effort to

support this government on its anti-inflation measures. We would just

like to make two points. One is that we would like to think that

whatever plan is brought before this House, or whatever legislation is

brought before this House, that it be more carefully and more

adequately prepared than some of the federal examples we've witnessed.

Secondly, that as far as is humanly possible, the legislation should be

fair and equitable in its impact on all parties concerned. We all know

that the labour movement demonstrated in Ottawa two days ago, and it's

quite clear that if the controls programme is failing — and I'm not

saying that it is, but if it is, and there are some reasons to suspect

that it is failing — it seems to be because the programme is clearly

all wage control and not very much price control.

The Premier stated on February 26, and there was a report in the

newspapers on the 27th that he would be signing an agreement with the

federal government on controls in the public sector shortly. I want to

pose a question. Almost a month has gone by and that agreement hasn't

been signed. I think B.C. and one other province — I'm not sure of the

other province; I think it's Nova Scotia — only two provinces have not

signed an agreement. I'm wondering if the delay has anything to do with

the fact that Ontario's agreement with the federal government has been

declared unconstitutional.

Here again, I'm attempting to take an objective and non-partisan

position when I ask this question. This isn't meant to score political

points. I think it's important to find out if our delay in signing an

agreement is a wise one, because why sign an agreement which may well

breach federal-provincial constitutional law? If that's why the

minister is delaying signing the agreement, that's a very reasonable

explanation. Or is there another explanation?

I talked a moment ago about the need for an ombudsman to protect the

individual from large government, and I see another little

contradiction in the throne speech where it states: "An independent

agency will be established to monitor the pricing decisions made by all

public service agencies and corporations." Here we're setting up

another agency of government when, at the same time, we're trying — or

at least we hope we're trying — to minimize the size of government.

The whole question of price freezes was not mentioned in the throne

speech, although under the heading of "anti-inflation measures"

obviously this would be one element. I wonder if, since the government

removed the price freeze on food and drugs, the government is carrying

out any monitoring process of its own as a means of being well informed

and up-to-date as to what prices are doing, and thus be in a position

to intervene again, as the former government did, if the need appears

justified.

The throne speech talks about unemployment, as indeed it should. It

states: "The government will act to rekindle the economy and create new

jobs so badly needed."

Who could agree more with that? But I have to ask the question as to

how.... The Premier smiles, and I've heard this question tossed back

and forth across this House by illustrious members such as the member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who has a unique way of pronouncing the

word "jobs".

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we would like to know more about the general

direction in which the government intends to go in creating jobs. Is it

by secondary industry? I've already alluded to the high wages that are

paid in the manufacturing sector in this province. It would seem to me

a dim prospect to try and expand the manufacturing industry when

overhead costs in the form of wages are far above the national average.

Does the government plan to put forward incentives and subsidies to the

private sector? The former Social Credit government always took refuge

in saying they didn't believe in hothouse industries. I remember the

present Premier's father using that word on more than one occasion, and

it might well be a justified position. Again we have to say, from this

side of the House, that some blunt acknowledgement that unemployment is

a problem is one thing, but we would like to know in which direction

the government is moving to solve the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: What about expansion of service industries,

particularly when we think of areas such as tourism and recreation?

Later on in the session we must look at the whole relationship of the

B.C. ferry system to the tourist industry.

The throne speech talks at some length about federal-provincial

relations, and I wonder what the government is doing about the subject

of tariffs and freight rates, because whenever this question has been

asked in the past of the former government, and the former, former

government, we usually got the answer that of course these terrible

politicians in Ottawa have a freight rate system which makes it twice

as expensive to send goods from west to east as it does from east to

west. So I hope, when the throne speech talks about the vigorous

approach to federal-provincial relations, that this whole question of

tariffs and freight rates will be high on the priority list of topics.

I had hoped, although we are running out of time, I suppose, that

some of the ministers on that side of the House would give us some

specifies about the attempt to create jobs through the enlargement and

[ Page 184 ]

diversification of our economy. I'm sorry that the Minister of

Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is out of the House

at the moment, because there's a very interesting bill being debated in

the federal House, Bill C6 1. It is an attempt to ensure that...coastal

vessels is the term, I understand, referring to cargo ships that will

carry goods between British Columbia ports and eastern Canada...that

they be made in British Columbia and have the entire crew consist of

Canadian citizens, a somewhat similar version of the Jones Act in the

United States.

I was disappointed to hear the provincial Minister of Transportation

and Communications bring forward reasons that made it unacceptable to

him because of the increased costs which he foresaw on goods carried on

these ships. It seems to me we've proven ourselves capable in British

Columbia of being very excellent ship-builders, and if we're trying to

create jobs, surely this is one area where we can establish a world

reputation and keep a workforce working, and at the same time create a

merchant marine. This should surely be one of the subjects where

federal-provincial relationships should be going ahead at a great rate.

The Premier is making a note, I see, and I would appreciate it, Mr.

Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport and

Communications would let us know if at least he is in active contact

with the federal government at the present time while Bill C61 is being

debated in Ottawa.

I've mentioned the mining and the Mineral Royalties Act which was

not mentioned in the throne speech. We have another headline in the

newspapers today which says that the mines are losing their shirts to

government. I quote an

article entitled: "Mines Losing Shirt to

Government." It says:

"While the return to shareholders of 21 operating mining

companies in British Columbia fell from $131 million to $103 million in 1975,

the total pay-out by the companies to the three levels of government rose 6

per cent to $148 million. Figures released by the association showed that as

well as the $148 million pay-out by companies, governments collected $59.9 million

from employees, which was up from $54.9 million in 1974. The industry return

as a whole was 10.6 per cent, down from 12.7 per cent in 1974."

These facts and figures are the result of a survey conducted by

Price Waterhouse and Co. I know the government holds the company in

high respect because they just had them do a very excellent study of

the B.C. ferry system.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to a little more about

government policy on the mining industry than we have received in the

throne speech. It was a very important priority in the election

campaign, and the government, so far in this session, has been

strangely silent on the issue. Now what will its policy be? It's quite

obvious as a primary industry, and with a great number of secondary

spin-offs, that mining is vital to the economy of British Columbia. I

would hope that very soon, presumably in the budget speech, we are to

have some clear outline of the government policy so that we can debate

it intelligently in this House.

I'm also sorry that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is

out of the House at the present time, because British Columbia as of

this day is in very serious trouble, first of all with the strike in

B.C. Rail and the strike that developed yesterday among the truckers in

British Columbia. As the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) interjects so correctly, the reason the minister isn't in the

House is that he's out trying to solve the strike. I acknowledge that

fact, and for the sake of all of us and for the sake of British

Columbia, I wish the minister great success in his efforts.

But I wonder also if the government is not evading some of the

crucial issues in regard to the labour-management scene by being more

specific as to its policy on essential services.

I notice that in the campaign it was stated that: "The Social Credit

Party would ban the right to strike by police and firemen, making their

contract negotiations subject to compulsory arbitration." I'm quoting

the writer Neale Adams in The Vancouver Sun , December 10.

I have another quotation from The Vancouver Sun of November 6. This doesn't have a by-line, but the statement says the following:

"Asked if a Socred government would take away from the

public service the right to strike, Mr. Bennett said his government

would take a look at essential services. He said: 'I am convinced in my

own mind that essential services must not be interrupted.'"

That's a pretty firm indication by the Premier that he is aware of

the damage which arises from strikes in essential services, and I was

eager to ask the Minister of Labour, were he in the House, of the

accuracy of a statement in the newspaper today regarding the very

serious B.C. Rail strike.

It's an

article in The Province entitled "Rail Talks a Shambles" and

the rather important paragraph in the

article states as follows:

"The Teamsters' Union apparently tried to get

something going in weekend talks when their top man, Senator Ed Lawson,

intimated quite clearly that his group would be willing to opt for

binding arbitration in their dispute."

As the

article goes on to say, that's quite an astounding statement

for a labour leader, certainly of the experience and stature of Ed

Lawson, in light of the union's position over a long period of time to

resist the concept of compulsory arbitration which is

[ Page 185 ]

binding.

I wonder if someone on that side of the House later on in this

debate will give the people of this province some indication of their

policy in regard to essential services, and which services they regard

as essential, and, more particularly, whether or not in this particular

strike an offer by the union to accept compulsory arbitration was

rejected.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few things about our health

services in this province, and particularly our problems in the greater

Victoria area, where I reside and represent one of the ridings.

I hope we are not again facing what I call the "black ink paranoia"

by this government that has existed in years gone by in this province.

Because that specific issue is perhaps the major, if not the only

reason, I'm standing here today. It was the incentive to try to have

health services in this province, and particularly in Victoria,

improved. That was back in 1967.

Before I try to put things in focus, it might be very interesting

for the members to hear a letter that appeared in The Victorian on

February 2. The letter reads:

"I have just read reports on the facilities available at

the Royal Jubilee Hospital. My wife was taken by ambulance to the emergency

ward on January 13, and remained in a bed in the hall all day, where they took

blood tests. They brought her some lunch on a tray, and I fed her some custard

with a spoon. After several hours they took her up to the fourth floor where

they wheeled her into a lecture room and parked her against the blackboard.

They wheeled a small table in with a child's bell on it for her to tap,

if she could reach it. Next morning I was informed that she died in her sleep."

This is the kind of situation that highlights — and could be

repeated a hundred and a thousand times over — the deplorable hospital

facilities in the greater Victoria area.

We have this kind of situation outlined in the letter. We have

middle-aged men, with wives and families, dying because they cannot get

access to the kind of heart surgery which the records show has about a

95 per cent success rate, and sustaining these persons with coronary

artery disease and enabling them to stay as independent,

self-sustaining breadwinners in a family situation.

As I said a moment ago, not only are we not expanding the kind of

facilities which scientific research has made possible; we are barely

hanging on to the situation we are now in. In recent weeks it has

become quite obvious that all the large, main, acute hospitals in the

lower mainland and in Victoria are going to be undergoing, to some

degree, lesser or greater cutbacks in service, and the kind of incident

which I read about of the person dying in a classroom because there was

no proper room at the hospital, and the young men dying because they

cannot have their heart disease treated, that will increase. I can't

see how anything else can happen with all the facts and figures that

the hospitals are putting before us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get one thing very clearly placed on the record:

the hospital staffs in this province are people of the highest motivation, and

they perform under the most difficult circumstances in a way which I think none

of us could criticize. The occupancy rate, and I'm more familiar with Victoria

than Vancouver, is always in the high 90s, even when the hospital accreditation

service in Canada believes that anything over 85 per cent occupancy threatens

the standard of care. But our hospitals have a 90 per cent occupancy or more,

and when we have beds in the hall and beds in the classrooms and beds in every

corner of the buildings, it's obvious that at times occupation goes above

100 per cent.

Yet in this statement I am about to make, and I have checked out as

recently as this morning, there are hospitals in this province where as

many as 100 employees are not approved — and I use the word "approved"

very advisedly — are not approved for inclusion in the budget by the

Department of Health. One of the reasons that some 90 hospitals have

threatened strike action arises from the fact that moneys paid to the

hospitals are calculated on the basis of approved staff. So the

administrators of hospitals are faced with this incredible dilemma: do

they cut back on service which they can safely provide with approved

staff, or do they take on the staff which they truly need to try and

meet the need which exists in the community? If they take on the staff

to meet the demand, then budgeting problems become acute.

In the case of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, and in light of the

letter which the Minister of Health sent to the hospitals a few weeks

ago making it very plain.... The letter was dated February 10. The Hon.

R.H. McClelland wrote to all hospitals asking them to "restrain costs,"

and I quote the letter: "without impairing services to the sick."

Mr. Speaker, that's a little bit like asking somebody to dig the

garden but don't strain your back. How you can cut back services when

the hospitals are operating under the circumstances I've outlines and

suggest that you're not reducing the standard of care to the sick...I

just don't know. That is a contradiction in terms.

But the Minister's letter went on to state:

"I am not in a position to give you any assurance that adjustments

will be made for any 1975 deficits. I wish to make it clear that the normal

procedure followed in past years where government has absorbed part, and sometimes

all, of the annual deficit incurred by hospitals will not automatically be repeated

at the end of

[ Page 186 ]

1976. Funds made available by government for payments to hospitals

will be included in approved budgets.

"Therefore I feel it is important that it be

understood it can no longer be assumed that government will

automatically be responsible for year-end deficits."

The Minister goes on, but I don't want to take too much time of the House.

But the minister goes on to state, in effect, that hospitals should

try to operate in 1976 on their 1975 funds available. Again, with the

greatest of respect, I don't think there is anybody in this chamber who

could live in 1976 on their 1975 income, and certainly with the

legitimate aspirations of the hospital employees to have access to free

collective bargaining, you just can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

When hospital employees bargain, as they are entitled to do, and

receive a fair return for their skills, that increase, perhaps, amounts

to almost 20 per cent, which I believe is the figure presently being

negotiated, and I believe that 1974 and 1975 increases were somewhere

in the same neighbourhood.

Now these costs are rising and they are continuing to rise and I

agree with the Premier that one has to make every effort to encourage

restraint. But at the same time we have to try and appreciate what our

primary priorities are and what some of the top priorities of any

modern government should be. In my view — and I hope in the course of

debate that members from the government side will comment — it is my

view that the approach taken to date by this government has been cold

and calculating and, as far as the hospitals are concerned, it is

utterly heartless.

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

MR. WALLACE: And the minister says "nonsense."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Garbage!

MR. WALLACE: And he says "garbage," too. Would you like to add a few more words?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll talk to you tomorrow.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that I should be so lucky that you would be

willing to talk to me about it. I have written to you, my friend. I

have been to your office. You had a letter on March 4, 1976, from me and

this is March 24, and I haven't had the courtesy of a reply. So don't

give me "garbage." If there's anybody talking garbage in this House on

health it's you, not me.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Garbage in and garbage out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did I treat you unkindly in my office?

MR. WALLACE: I am saying....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Were you able to come and sit with me in my office?

MR. WALLACE: That's right, and I was able to write a letter

asking desperately for some decision about some of the Victoria

problems, and at this moment, three weeks later, I haven't had the

courtesy of an acknowledgement.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't even seen the letter yet. How did you send it?

MR. VEITCH: By carrier pigeon.

MR. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I try very hard to be fair and

objective and look at the facts and quote the figures. The deficit of

the acute hospitals in this province as of the end of this month is $11

million — the total deficit, by and large, of the acute hospitals. How

can the minister tell me I am talking garbage...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're wrong here.

MR. WALLACE: I said the approximate round figure for the main

large hospitals. I am not suggesting for a moment that it's right on

the $11 million. I am saying that I can tell you one thing for sure,

and I have checked it out today, and that is that the deficit at the

Royal Jubilee Hospital is just over $1 million. I can tell you that

hospitals, in attempting to show fiscal responsibility and good

management techniques, get halfway through the year before this

government gives them an approval of any kind of budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about the last government?

MR. WALLACE: Well, don't blame them. You're doing exactly the

same thing. Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. Whenever we provide

evidence, the excuse is always going to be what the last government

did. I want to know what your government is going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Stick around and

[ Page 187 ]

you'll see.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that

the government isn't prepared to look at things in a fair and objective

way in relation to the financial facts and the needs of people who

require hospital care in this province. As I mentioned last evening,

back in 1974 the Premier, when he was leader of the official

opposition, asked the government of that day why they were doing

nothing about intermediate care. And I stand here in 1976 and ask this

Premier why isn't he doing anything about intermediate care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: It's not even mentioned in the throne speech and

it happens to be one of the keys to the whole solution of the hospital

problem. Admittedly there are shortages of acute hospital beds and

there are other areas of preventive medicine which are desperately

needing action. But the one outstanding segment of the total hospital

picture which is crucial to any kind of rational and economic solution

is the provision of intermediate care and, here again in the throne

speech, not a mention. I could refer back also to some of the Social

Credit campaign ads which said that top priority would be given to the

construction of community nursing homes to fill this very vital

requirement.

I would just like to say how glad I am at the stand, so far, that

I've seen taken by two of the back-bench members of the government, I'm

referring to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) and the member

for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) who have certainly taken a public stand. There

was a very strong statement on December 15, four days after election

day, by the first member for Victoria. The heading reads: "Bawlf

Demands Action." It said: "He will demand immediate action from the new

provincial government to cure Victoria's critical hospital bed

shortage." I find that encouraging.

I've also had conversations with the member for Esquimalt. I know

that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is also very eager

that we should keep this hospital issue above partisan politics, and

have the MLAs.... Of course, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

who represents Saanich and the Islands, is more than welcome to any

combined effort we would make. But I realize that he has a twin

portfolio and it would be much more difficult for him than for the rest

of us representing greater Victoria ridings to make some very serious

and dedicated attempt to solve what is a rapidly deteriorating

situation.

The last point I would like to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, is the whole

question of the ferry system. I'm delighted that the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is back in the House.

The minister has been letting us know for some weeks now that the

ferry system financially is having its problems. It is easy to

understand that. I think rates have been the same since 1963. We're now

having to go through inflationary times, and it's now 1976; it's not

surprising that there are some problems. But I would like to sound one

or two notes as a person who lives on the Island, represents

constituents on the Island and has to travel between Vancouver Island

and the mainland not as a luxury, but as an essential part of the job

I'm elected to do.

I've already referred to the financing methods which I think should

cease under this government, and that is that capital sums of money

required to either construct new ships or ferry terminals, or plants of

any kind, should not be financed out of operating surpluses, using

money which would, I hope, otherwise be made available for some of the

programmes in Health, Education and Human Resources, which are so

frequently discussed in this House in this debate and which are about,

in many areas, to be reduced. I recognize that there is a deficit and

that the ferry system cannot continue to be operated in this way.

I have noticed that the Minister is very clever. He had told the

public of British Columbia that to break even, the rates would have to

be tripled or quadrupled. So I suppose when he announces that they are

only going to be doubled, we'll all say: "Thank God." It's the old game

of making the possible solution sound twice or three times as bad as

the one you really have in mind.

MR. G, F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): He should give lessons to the Minister of Education.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have one point, and I don't want

to spend a long time on the ferries report, but one thing that I sense

that's so central to the report, and which barely receives any mention,

is the automatic assumption that the use of the ferries will continue

to increase by X per cent. I agree that it would have to be an

estimate, but I see very little in the report to acknowledge that

increased rates might decrease the number of vehicles, or at least

level off the use of the ferries at the same number.

The report goes out of its way.... I acknowledge and congratulate

the minister in being very frank in his introduction to the report. He

says:

"This examination does not constitute an audit of B.C.

Ferries. Many of the figures contained in this report are estimates,

and those relating to wage negotiations, fuel prices and traffic

volumes depend upon a number of assumptions which are largely

conjectural in nature."

[ Page 188 ]

Price Waterhouse repeats that same message:

"The estimates contain important assumptions, such as

those relating to wage negotiations which have only just commenced,

fuel prices and traffic volumes. The actual 1976-77 revenue and

expenditures could be significantly changed from the estimates

depending on the validity of these assumptions."

So while I'm sure these figures will be referred to again and again

in the budget debate and in estimates, I think it's important at the

outset to get that fact established, that we're dealing with many

factors which are merely assumptions or conjectures.

I would hope, if the minister enters this debate on the throne

speech, that he would give us some comment on the projected use or

increased use of the ferry system if rates are increased, or whether he

has two or three options — that if you double them, the use will be

such and such; if you triple them, or if you increase it by 50 per

cent...or whatever, because there's one very important figure in that

report. It states that the average passenger-vehicle revenues have

increased by an average of 10 per cent over the past five years. But in

1975-76 the vehicle growth was 5 per cent, the passenger growth was 3.7

per cent, and that's with the rates as they are right now. So I think

the whole concept of appearing to increase rates simply to reduce the

deficit has some very dangerous fallacies if we assume that everybody

will continue to use it as frequently if you triple or quadruple the

rates.

I think we have to remember the $1.49 concept, that the only reason

prices are reduced in stores is to try and attract more people in. I

think the reverse can happen — that if you put the price up too high,

the customers don't show.

So I hope that as part of the minister's plans for the ferries that

he will look at the question of incentives in an attempt to increase

the use of ferries at times where they are customarily not well filled.

On top of the figures I have just quoted, the report says that the B.C.

ferry system itself estimates in 1975-76 an increase of 10 per cent in

summer traffic and 15 per cent in off-season traffic. This seems to me

a very optimistic estimate.

The last point I think is very well worthwhile making, because it

relates to another principle that we've touched on this afternoon, and

that's unemployment. The ferries report makes it plain that scheduled

overtime is normal, that the scheduling of employees takes into

regular, continuing account the fact that most, if not all, of them

work overtime and have negotiated a 35-hour week.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't object to anybody, as an employee, trying to

get the best bargain they can for their labour. That's what collective bargaining

is all about. But I think to take this approach, that a 35-hour week will be

the accepted norm on the ferry system and then pay a high number of the employees

overtime, raises many questions.

At the bottom of page 10 of the report, talking about eliminating

overtime — excuse me, on a previous page — the point is made on page 9

about regularly scheduled overtime. If overtime on the ferries was

eliminated, B.C. Ferries would have to hire between 400 and 600 new

employees. The next sentence really stops you short in your tracks:

"This in itself would not significantly increase costs. It could cause

a substantial reduction in the take-home pay of the employees who would

no longer be working overtime."

The report, just to finish that paragraph, reads that B.C. Ferries

believes that such a reduction in take-home pay would not be acceptable

to the affected employees, and that some alternative arrangements would

be required.

But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this should be brought out for

public discussion and a lot of debate in this House, because we're

talking about unemployment, and on the Island it is as serious as in

any other part of British Columbia. Here we have one area where a

collective agreement has provided a work week of 35 hours when the job

just cannot be done in 35 hours.

I know I will win no popularity contest with the present employees

on the ferries when I say that from the economy's point of view as a

whole, if any employee wants to negotiate 35 hours, it should not be

with the little reassuring condition that, of course, the job cannot be

done in that time and that they will automatically be paid overtime at

a much higher rate. It seems to me, both ethically and economically, to

make a great deal more sense that if it's a 35-hour week, so be it. If

you need another 400 to 600 employees to complete the monthly work, or

the weekly work, or the daily work, then this would provide much-needed

employment.

Mr. Speaker, I realize I've talked a long time, but as the one

representative of the party in this House, I feel that it is not

unreasonable to try and cover what I see to be many of the main issues

arising from the throne speech. I appreciate your very courteous

attention to my efforts.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place in this debate and to make a few

observations which I trust will be of interest to you.

May I first of all, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your elevation

to Speaker of this Legislature, and also, with your permission, to your

Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I wish

both of you well in maintaining relative order and calm in this

occasionally stressful place.

Perhaps as someone who's been here for just a

[ Page 189 ]

short while longer than the new members, I could offer my own

congratulations to newly elected members from December 11th on both

sides of the House. I know that they will come to feel, as I did very

quickly, that it is indeed a privilege to participate in the activities

on the floor of this assembly, and to represent a provincial

constituency, even when the workload is heavy and the hours are long

and the days seem to stretch on into a typically beautiful Saanich and

the Islands spring.

Before I turn to the main point I wish to make today I think that it

should be noticed that the government caucus offers, among other

talents, extremely strong representation in terms of previous municipal

and/or regional district experience and, as Minister of Municipal

Affairs, I certainly welcome that aspect of the talent and skill which

is being brought to the government side of this House.

I realize that you are not a member of the caucus, Mr. Speaker, but

I note also that you've had municipal experience. The list for the

government side includes the hon. members for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree), Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt),

Kootenay (Mr. Haddad), Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), Victoria (Mr. Bawlf),

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Minister of Consumer Services, Langley

(Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Health, Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Labour,

Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Human Resources, and

Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), Minister of Highways & Public Works.

Indeed, I'm very pleased that the Minister of Highways & Public

Works shares with me another little note regarding local government in

British Columbia and that is life membership in the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. I think that when representatives of the UBCM are

appearing before the caucus or a committee of caucus or the municipal

affairs committee they will have very sympathetic hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I have found that there are so many things that I would

like to speak about today that I really want to narrow down to just one

or two, participating in this debate and hitting on what I think may be

one of the problem areas which typifies the problems which we have all

encountered. I have found, as I am sure that all other ministers in

this new government have found, that we have inherited an almost

incredible mess — a mess, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from preparing for

this session in terms of estimates and legislation, from meeting with

all the delegations which understandably seek appointments with new

ministers in a new government after a general election, a significant

portion of our time has been taken up in an effort to untangle so many

of the problems which were left by the departing government.

We are quite clearly, quite accurately described, for the first part

of our mandate at least, as a clean-up crew, I think that activity,

unfortunately, is going to have to carry on for several months before

we're able to introduce the policies and programmes which we believe

are important to the people of British Columbia and the province as a

whole.

Last Friday, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in his

capacity as minister responsible for ICBC, graphically outlined, and

then a number of us debated, the difficulties with which he was faced

in his first weeks of ministry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure him,

through you, he is not alone,

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Oh, poor fellow.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In both departments — in housing and

municipal affairs — we continue to uncover an incredibly long list of

unfinished tasks, instances of poorly considered or uncoordinated

activities. It would be tempting indeed to talk today for as long as

the clock would permit to outline all of them. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to take just a few minutes to speak to you and to the House

about public transit and motor coach service as operated by the

Province of British Columbia, because, in my view, it is typical of the

problems which confronted this new government in its first 90 days in

office.

I was pleased to note, as my later remarks will, I hope indicate, in

the throne speech the statement by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

"Members of this assembly will be asked to consider legislation which

will establish for the first time a provincial auditor-general. This

office will provide an independent watchdog over the finances of the

province which will guard us against errors of the past." Errors of the

past — and they can be documented in my departments as well.

During the month of February, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it was

revealed in Clarkson, Gordon and Co's report to the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that capital expenditures and firm commitments — firm

commitments, not far off in the distance — had exceeded the amount

authorized by this Legislature of $42 million.

Now of this, Mr. Speaker, $25,274,161 has been provided in recent

weeks by special warrant to meet bills which were stacking up in the

Department of Municipal Affairs, or in the various consultants' firms

associated with some of the transit activities of this province.

Detailed discussion of departmental estimates will take place later

on during this session, and government fiscal policy will be revealed

at the time of the presentation of the budget by my colleague, the

Minister of Finance.

Nevertheless, as the minister responsible, as of December 22 last, for the administration of transit

[ Page 190 ]

services, I feel obliged at the earliest opportunity — which is

today — to report to this House on the state of affairs as I found them

on assuming office.

With your permission, just a little bit of background relating to

statutes, Mr. Speaker. There are several Acts which are intended to

govern or guide the minister responsible for transit. The Provincial

Transit Fund Act, which was originally known as the Third Crossing Fund

Act, in 1968 placed $27 million aside in a fund for, as I say, the

third crossing. This was given a name change in 1974 and, Mr. Speaker,

the $27 million was completely expended by that group over there, by

the NDP government.

The Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act was adopted in 1972 to

provide assistance to municipalities and regional districts involved in

public transit. The Transit Services Act, adopted in 1974, is the

principal Act, as I see it, governing transit activities; and by

order-in-council, as it will be realized, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is the minister charged with the administration of this Act.

The members will know that the minister so designated has very wide

powers under this Act, and it's my intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce

— at an appropriate time — amendments which will have the effect of

limiting these very powers. So much for the legislation.

In view of the many millions of dollars, multi-millions of dollars

of public funds being expended or committed on public transit,

motor-coach operation and so on, it seems that one would naturally

expect to find a fairly sophisticated organization, a structure in

place to ensure that expenditures were in accordance with amounts

authorized by this House, and that the activity was conducted in an

orderly and efficient manner.

Does that not seem reasonable? It's a multi-million dollar

operation; you'd have that kind of structure in place, and you would

make sure all the parts were working all together and coordination was

there. No, it was not.

It is my hope, and I think it's the hope of this government, that

the gross over-expenditures which have now come to light in recent

weeks were not a deliberate disregard of the budgetary constraints

placed on the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) in the

approved estimates for his department for the fiscal year just ending.

It's been very difficult for us, Mr. Speaker, to evaluate the

activities of those who were in elected positions of responsibility,

let alone justify the logic of some of the decisions taken or decisions

left on the table.

For example: the former Minister of Municipal Affairs in the New

Democratic government, through the bureau of transit, acquired a number

of formerly independent bus companies. It's a lengthy list. It seemed,

as we were uncovering it, to go on and on.

Now these are Victoria-based companies, almost without exception,

under an umbrella established by the former government, an umbrella

company named TS Holdings Limited, and the list includes — and these

are all provincial companies, owned by the Crown: Vancouver Island

Transit Ltd., Thompson-Okanagan Transit Ltd., VIT Holdings Ltd.,

Vancouver Island Transportation Co. Ltd., Vancouver Island Coach Lines

Ltd., Imperial Charter Service Co. Ltd., Gray Line and Empress Taxi and

Sightseeing Co. Ltd., British Columbia Parlour Car Tours Ltd., and

British Columbia Tours Ltd.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, we are still, to the very best of our

ability, and with the assistance of senior departmental people, trying

to determine the rationale behind all of these acquisitions. Some of

them are understandable; all of them are not.

The position is much the same in centres such as Prince Rupert,

Kamloops, Trail and others. But here, Mr. Speaker, in the case of these

communities, other than metro Vancouver and metro Victoria, the real

tragedy is that transit planning in those communities remained in a

turmoil, an absolute turmoil, caused first of all by meddling in local

affairs and not establishing proper relations with the municipal

council or the regional districts, or both in some cases, and also by

the almost total absence of any organizational structure to administer

the acquisitions.

I found it necessary, Mr. Speaker, very soon after assuming my duties, to seek approval....

AN HON. MEMBER: To take a bus ride?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You took the province for a ride, all right!

I found it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to seek cabinet approval for the

appointment of a special adviser, W.K. Smith, retired Deputy Minister

of Municipal Affairs, for a period of three months at least.

Cabinet quickly granted that approval and I hoped that Mr. Smith

would be in a position to examine a variety of programmes and policies

relating to the Department of Municipal Affairs.

I can tell you and this House that the very large percentage of his

time, and others in the department, has been taken up with sorting out

this transit tangle which was left.

We have a situation that would read as poor fiction. I think that it

must be especially frustrating to municipal councils and residents of a

number of communities. But Kamloops is just one, Mr. Minister. Kamloops

comes to mind immediately. These communities now must wait,

unfortunately, for the provision of transit service. I regret that the

delay has occurred, particularly when expectations were raised to the

point where individuals expected to see, Mr.

[ Page 191 ]

Member, a bus coming around the comer within the next day or two.

The vehicles are there, the men are able to operate the system — just

hang on, stay tuned, Mr. Member.

Again, Mr. Speaker, negotiations were not complete. All the pieces

of the operation were not put together, and still the impression was

given by the former government that the service was about to start. It

was: "Okay, gentlemen and ladies, we'll have the bus running down the

street in just a few days."

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Then you fellows came in.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Members of the former government in this

House, in my view, Mr. Speaker, should apologize to individuals in

those communities, for permitting the communities to be misled, to

expect transit service when some of them at least, Mr. Speaker, knew

that the service could not be provided right away and when it was

known, as with ICBC, that the money was not there to pay for the

service. We'll see if there's an apology....

Well, Mr. Speaker, now it's important, I think, to turn to the part

played by British Columbia Hydro. While I have no responsibility for

B.C. Hydro in this House, that being the responsibility of the Minister

of Transport and Communications, I want to speak about that Crown

corporation in the context of its transit activities only.

MR. LAUK: Got his permission?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a matter of fact, I don't know how you

handled it, but we're very courteous to each other. As a matter of

courtesy I checked with the Minister of Transport and Communications

and indicated to him in advance that this was what I intended to do.

I'm speaking about Hydro transit only, Mr. Speaker.

The transit division of B.C. Hydro employs something in excess of

3,500 individuals in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, engaged in

all areas of what we commonly call public transportation. Many of these

people have long and valuable experience in this field, years of

experience built up in the operation of buses, trolley buses and other

vehicles, and it's difficult for me as a new Minister in a new

government to understand why some recognition was not given to this

fund of knowledge and expertise — why it was ignored or overlooked.

It's very clear from the record which has been made available to me

that there was no intention whatever at any time on the part of my

predecessor in this ministry of consulting or permitting the

consultation — meaningful consultation, at least — with the

knowledgeable people of Hydro Transit, Pacific Stage Lines, Vancouver

Island Coach Lines, or anyone else fully familiar with transit problems

in British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, relating to an acquisition which took place —

I'm subject to correction a month or two either way — about 18 months

ago, the general manager of that particular transit operation came to

my office — it was the first time he had been near a minister's office

— regarding a government acquisition in transit.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What was his name? What was his name?

HON. MR. CURTIS: So that's the problem, one of the problems

that we have encountered: this disregard of British Columbia Hydro's

transit capabilities and expertise. Similarly, and this is of concern

to me, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its member

municipalities, and the capital regional district and its member

municipalities, were almost totally ignored. The member last night

spoke about this. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

spoke about this with respect to the city of North Vancouver, and he

nods in agreement. That's just one case, Mr. Member, of member

municipalities and the regional districts almost totally ignored by

those responsible for transit through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

They wanted to contribute. They were willing to expend the effort to

put positive input into transit planning in the areas which they

represent, Small wonder that the elected people at the local government

level became completely frustrated in their efforts to resolve the many

problems relating to regional transit. In fact, as I said earlier, that

frustration extended into the most senior offices of B.C. Hydro itself.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you tell us his name?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'll hear in due course, Mr. Member. You had three and a half years. We haven't had three and a half months.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the interjection is so poor as

to be beyond humour. We have some solutions. But first of all we have

to uncover the problems, and that is what we have been doing for these

90 days plus.

I want to go back to 1973, Mr. Speaker, to briefly quote from a

letter from the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, to

Mr. David Cass-Beggs, chairman of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority: "...

and it would appear that things were going to work very, very well. I

write to...."

[ Page 192 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it was probably before the pension. We'll never really know, will we?

"I write to officially advise you and the board of

directors of the public transportation programmes of the province of

British Columbia, and to outline how we would wish these to relate to

the various transit and motor coach operations of the British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority."

At the bottom of this first page of the letter from Mr. Lorimer to Mr. Cass-Beggs:

"We will be pleased to maintain close liaison with the

B.C. Hydro managers of Victoria and Vancouver transit operations in

this programme."

And the closing paragraph:

"In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are anxious to go

forward with our new objectives for public transit in British Columbia.

We are well into the difficult stage of working out the organizational

form, responsibilities and financial arrangements for public transit.

May I close with the thought that we have the continuing cooperation

and assistance of B.C. Hydro during the programme. Yours sincerely."

That was May 8, 1973.

MR. GIBSON: Would you table that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is my working copy. I'll certainly table the letter, happily., Mr. Member. That was May, 1973.

MR. LAUK: '73? What are you going to do?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Several days later the alarm went up, This

is a memorandum from Mr. David Cass-Beggs, to Mr. J.W. Wilson, in B.C.

Hydro. Attached is a copy of the Hon. James G. Lorimer's letter of May

"The letter makes it abundantly clear that while the

physical operation, maintenance and financial responsibility for the

public transit systems is to remain, at least for the time being, with

B.C. Hydro, all matters pertaining to the design and planning of the

system are transferred to the bureau of transit."

Later in the letter:

"At no point does the letter" — that is, Mr. Lorimer's

— "suggest that the bureau is in any sense advisory to the

transportation authority, namely, B.C. Hydro. It is quite clear that in

all matters but day-to-day operation, the bureau has been given the

management prerogatives. It is quite unrealistic to assume that Hydro

or the board of directors have in fact any latitude in this matter.

This position, as spelled out in the letter, is entirely new to me.

Possibly all the details were determined before I assumed the

appointment as chairman. If I had been informed of the plans at an

earlier stage I would certainly have pointed out the more obvious

difficulties in proceeding in this fashion.

"The great difficulty I see in this procedure is that

management" — of Hydro, that is, Mr. Speaker — "is, in effect,

decapitated, and B.C. Hydro and the board of Hydro are left with

financial responsibility, and responsibility in the eyes of the public

for running a system which in fact it does not control, The board is

going to be in a position of rubber-stamping programmes. While it is

quite possible to maintain the day-to-day operations of the system, it

will soon become evident to both the employees and the public that B.C.

Hydro is, in effect, not in control."

Interesting close to this letter, this memorandum from Mr. Cass-Beggs to Mr. Wilson:

"The foregoing is material which I may embody in a

letter to the minister, after considerable editing, and probably, no

doubt, toning down. It expresses my present view of the situation

which, however, may be modified by discussion with yourself and others

who have a better appreciation of the problems in B.C. and of the

government's solution to them."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was 1973....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The suggestion from the minister to the

chairman of Hydro at that time was that everything was going to be

great, communication was going to be fine. It did not work out, Mr.

Speaker. It did not work out.

MR. GIBSON: Are you going to table the letter?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Here is a letter to me from J.W. Wilson,

director of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. This is January 7, as we

started to sort out this incredible situation relating to transit,

commitments made in other communities, the problems with Hydro, and the

problems with the companies which had been acquired:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

"Following my visit to you in your office yesterday, I write to document a number of the matters which we discussed.

"Despite constant prodding, the last government never

made its position clear on Hydro's transit deficits, although it was

understood from the beginning that Hydro would not be left to carry the

mounting deficit.

[ Page 193 ]

The most precise statement we ever got is recorded in the board

minutes of September 8, 1975: 'The minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

informed the directors that B.C. Hydro can expect to receive a total of not

less than $12 million as a transit subsidy front the Crown for the current

fiscal year.'

"We were never, at any time, informed of the broader plans of the bureau of transit or its overall budget."

And the closing paragraph of this particular letter:

"I trust that these comments will be of assistance to you.

"If we had spent some time in the classic bureaucratic

exercise of protecting our rear during the last three years we would

have been able to provide you with many examples of the cavalier

treatment which the Hydro transit operation received from the bureau

backed by its minister."

A minister, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, who was also of course, as you know, on the Hydro board of directors.

AN HON. MEMBER: A real tiger.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This brought me to write to the Premier and members of this cabinet on January 14, pointing out the mess that we had uncovered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have at great length, and I think time

prohibits me from reading it, a memorandum from William H. Boyce, C.A.,

departmental comptroller in the Department of Municipal Affairs,

January 16, 1976.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Boyce, finally given an opportunity by a new minister, by a newly appointed

deputy minister, to get down to the bottom of the transit confusion in British

Columbia, says at the bottom of the first page:

"It should be pointed out that while the writer has

not at this point gone beyond the point of reclassifying for immediate

purposes the status of various types of financial involvements, he has

at the same time gathered a wealth of background information concerning

the basic concepts of the bureau of transit services, its

organizational pattern, its personnel, and its long-range plans. Much

of this information, I feel sure, was prepared for your predecessor,

Mr. Lorimer, but has not been known generally to other officers of the

Department of Municipal Affairs.

"It is evident, I think, that new channels of communication are required in addition to new standards of financial control."

This is a career public servant speaking: "new standards of financial control."

"As departmental comptroller, I would be interested in

pursuing this latter function as soon as the question of authority and

future bureau of transit services activity is clarified..."

Mr.

Speaker, this is only part of the story.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Same old mess.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "...without in any way detracting from

the seriousness or extent of the other areas of expenditures which were

not approved by this House."

Not approved by this Legislature.

HON, MR. BENNETT: Shocking!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let me recite just a few facts relating to

the Burrard Inlet ferries which you didn't hear about during the last

session, during any discussion, but which you've learned something

about through the news media.

Commitments and actual expenditures made by the former government

amounted to $19 million for the construction of ferries and docking

facilities. It's estimated that a further expenditure of $10 million

would be required before these ferries will become operational. These

amounts do not include, Mr. Member, any allowance for any operating

deficits which may arise from the operation of these ferries. Nor do

they include any amounts which inevitably are going to have to be

expended for bus service connections at both terminals, North Vancouver

city and in Vancouver, and other related activities.

I think we conclude that the amount of operating loss is going to be

substantial, In view of the amount expended to date, in view of a very

careful review undertaken by British Columbia Hydro, by the Department

of Municipal Affairs, information provided by the bureau of transit, it

appeared that really we had no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to continue

with the project. I hope it will be a good project.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope it will be a good project, but that

does not excuse the former government for spending money without the

authority of this Legislature. That's what makes me angry, and that's

what makes the people of British Columbia angry — expenditure without

authority.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic

[ Page

194 ]

Development): Dictatorships!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Expenditure without authority. I hope the

service will prove satisfactory, and I hope the service will be well

used by the people of B.C., but that does not erase the initial error.

MR. MACDONALD: You should ask for a transfer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, my reference to the ferries,

being just part of the story, refers to the fact that while a capital

over-expenditure of $42 million for a variety of transit activities,

including the ferries, is exceedingly high — $42 million

over-expenditure — it is not as high....

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. CURTIS: A $42 million over-expenditure in money

spent for commitments made by the former government for transit,

including ferries. It does not include the projected operating deficits

of all the various systems, including Hydro, for the coming year, which

are estimated to be in the area of $60 million, and that figure could

be low.

The total transit programme, Mr. Speaker, the total transit

programme over the past two or three years by that government when it

was sitting over here can best be described as a galaxy of errors. A

galaxy of errors! There is no excuse for ignoring the authority and

supremacy of this Legislature. We have under study several proposals

relating to transit planning and operation...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Backward politics.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...and to relate these more closely to

areas which the transit systems will serve, possibly through the

creation, and I emphasize possibly, through the creation of a Crown

corporation which will have substantial input, active input, and

representation from the municipalities and/or regional districts

involved where transit systems will be in operation.

Let no member on that side of the House suggest otherwise. This

government is cognizant of, is aware of and recognizes the importance

of public transit, motor-coach service — whatever form it may take —

not only in the two metropolitan areas, but in other parts of the

province as well.

Within the limits of our resources, and where there is proven public

demand, transit or motor-coach service will be provided. But to reflect

again briefly on the past, Mr. Speaker, that group, having decided to

greatly expand transit services in the metro areas and in other

communities in British Columbia.... Did it never occur to the former

government — to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs — that very

careful, well-prepared coordination was essential if the expansion was

to take place in proper sequence and with the best possible use of

public dollars? Not the NDP's dollars, public dollars — that's what

we're here for.

Where was the accountability? Where was the accountability, Mr.

Speaker? Where was the realization that the bills had to be paid? I was

presented with stacks of invoices within a few days of taking office,

mainly related to the Burrard ferry system, bills which had not been

paid from October and earlier, during that group's administration.

Of far greater importance than the dollars themselves is the degree

to which this Legislature was ignored and circumvented. Never again,

Mr. Speaker, never again, regardless of the party in power, should

British Columbia approach this or any other problem in the manner which

we have uncovered in the last 90 days in the Department of Municipal

Affairs.

Never again! Never again should that type of authority, that broad

authority, be given to one minister or two ministers, and certainly

never again should one branch of one department of the provincial

government be permitted to conceive, to commit funds for and to

partially activate new and extremely costly programmes in almost total

isolation and without regard for the supremacy and the spending

authority of this Legislature.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. I have no wish to interrupt

the minister in the course of his very interesting speech, but I would

ask him.... He cited a number of documents: first a letter which he

specifically agreed to table; thereafter a letter from Mr. Cass-Beggs

to Mr. Wilson; a further letter to the minister from an author I did

not hear, and then further, a memorandum from Mr. William Boyce of

January 16, 1976, and another which he might consider private, a letter

from the minister to the Premier and his cabinet colleagues. I wonder

if he would be prepared to table these documents in the Legislature.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the one to which I

referred relating to my memorandum to the Premier and members of the

cabinet is, I consider, a confidential document. I will certainly table

those documents which I feel will be of assistance to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Yes. I was looking at the

list that we had on the end tables, Mr. Speaker, and it confused me. I

thought there was a typographical error, and I guess I was right,

according to the list. That's fine. Just give me a

[ Page 195 ]

second, please.

First of all, I would like to recognize the presence of a friend,

Mr. Speaker. I wasn't really quite ready, but I am getting ready. I've

got to find out the name of the person, and I want to ask the House's

indulgence while I attempt to do what is, perhaps, a little irregular

in attempting to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you're not ready, do you want to come back tomorrow?

MR. BARNES: That's all right now, Mr. Premier. You be nice. I stand in good humour this afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're never ready.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to say anything that would be uncomplimentary; I merely wish to stand up and make a few observations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House if it would permit me to

recognize the presence of a person whom I haven't seen for about 27

years. I am not sure if he and his wife are in the galleries this

afternoon, but I know they were scheduled to be here.

Dr. Thomas N. Poulson, PhD., professor at Portland State University,

was in the graduating class, along with myself and his wife, in June of

1949, a long time ago. I forgot he existed until he came in the chamber

the other day. At least, he was outside, and he said: "Do you remember

me?" It is amazing how some people get old — I look the same, but I

don't know what happened to him. His two fine teenage children were

with him, one daughter and one son. I would just like, for the record,

to recognize his attendance in the proceedings of this Legislature

yesterday. I believe he may have been here at one time or the other,

and I am going to send him a copy of Hansard so that he will know that

one of his ex-classmates is now doing a service on a broader scale

instead of on the football field. That was a long time ago.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want me to write your speech?

MR. BARNES: Now you behave yourself.

I promised, Mr. Speaker, that I would only stand to make some

observations, and make no attempt to be insulting or demeaning, because

I feel that this is a very serious time that we are faced with. I am

very cognizant of the throne speech and the points that were attempted

to be put forward by the Lieutenant-Governor in giving direction to

the government.

I can assure you that my impression of that document, lean though it

was in some areas, but not in all areas.... Certainly it didn't leave

anything to be desired; it had something to say. Not to be suggesting

that it hasn't considerable way to go, because I think you had some 100

things that you intended to do during the campaign of last December,

and which you suggested we could all look forward to seeing. I don't

expect that it will happen overnight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Five years.

MR. BARNES: I am just going to comment this afternoon on some

of the things as I saw them and not go through again those promises, at

least not all of them, although they were considerable.

I listened with great interest last night to the hon. member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who took the time to enumerate

one by one the many promises that the government intended to follow

through with. But let's just take a look at a list of some of the

excerpts I took from the throne speech.

I must say, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if your

government is able to follow through unerringly with this limited plan,

I'll have a very difficult time voting against you.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't believe this House should

be divided. I think we are all here to do the people's business, and I

don't think there is anyone in this House that would disagree.

Sometimes we get carried away and we yell for "division". We want to

try and expose certain members of this House as having partisan views,

not willing to work collectively towards the furtherance of various

forms of work that we've all been charged to carry out.

Here is a statement, the first one I note from the throne speech debate:

"British Columbia is in a period when both government

and the private sector must practise restraint, when the demands that

each makes on the other must be reduced, and all must strive to bring

greater effort to bear on the problems which beset our province,

Leaders in both sectors must set the example...."

Now how can I vote against something like that, Mr. Speaker?

Let's take a took at some examples. The government, ICBC — we

discussed that already on an amendment. (Laughter.) I don't want to

raise that, Mr. Speaker, but, you know, let me see what I've got here

on that. I might have something here that might help us to elucidate a

bit. Oh, here is an interesting....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hallucinate?

MR. BARNES: No, not hallucinate — elucidate, or something like that.

The Anti-Inflation Board was raised as a matter of serious concern by the B.C. Teachers Federation in

[ Page 196 ]

their newsletter just recently, and they were upset. Now they

represent the working people. Now this is a group of people who are out

to make sure that our youngsters receive a proper opportunity, through

training and education, to participate in our economy and in our

society. But these teachers are very upset.

They agree with the idea that both government and the private sector

should work together collectively to try and exercise restraint, but

the government has got them upset. They're worried. They feel that they

have been given one side of the proposition and the principle that we

should work collectively because they're suspicious that the Premier,

and certain of his cabinet ministers, made a trip back to Ottawa and

made a deal with the Anti-Inflation Board.

I know you wouldn't do it, and I don't believe you did it, Mr.

Premier, because there is no evidence of it in anything I've read from

your office. But they're upset. They think that there was. They believe

that somebody said ICBC should be exempt from the AIB but that we're

stuck.

Now I don't know how that happened, but the idea that you have here

in your throne speech makes sense, and I agree with it. I don't want to

find any faults.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. BARNES: I am sure that the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) will be glad to jump up and try to clarify

this to us, and I am sure that the people from BCTF as well will be

just as anxious to hear your explanation.

But I'll tell you that most important of all of this, the drivers of

British Columbia are going to be interested to hear what you've got to

say, because they're the ones who have to pay.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The BCTF is only saying that they think that you have two standards: one for yourselves and one for the working man.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: But as far as the people who have the insurance

out there, who can't afford to buy proper coverage — because, you know,

it costs too much money — they're just barely getting by. They bought

PL and PD; that's all they can afford — property damage and public

liability. That just barely gets them through so they won't get sued

for their last sou, but they can't afford to buy any collision, not at

those prices. Don't start to talk about comprehensive.

You know what you've done? You say: "Well, we're making it possible

for you to have alternatives. You have a choice now. Nothing is

compulsory, exactly..."

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Nothing is free, either.

MR. BARNES: "...just a little bit. So we say you can

choose." But you've actually forced people to become criminals because

they're now breaking the law. They are being forced to be

irresponsible. Pardon me, I guess they're not breaking the law, because

you're not making it necessary for them to have collision. I'm sorry,

I'll retract that, Mr. Speaker.

But you have made it totally incumbent upon them to decide whether

they are going to protect the public, and you know that you should take

that responsibility.

But that's quite an interesting thing that you've done anyway,

because what has happened is that even the agents are getting more

money when you've cut them down. You say, "Well, you're getting less

percentage now." But less percentage of more is still more.

Anyway, I liked what you said in your throne speech. It was an

excellent statement. I would like to support it, but if we were voting

section by section, I would have no say on that particular count: "Not

this time. But don't give up."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, there's another one:

"My government agrees that security of employment is

the only effective income security that a free citizen can afford for

the vast majority of its citizens."

Well, again, I think that we should all have job security. But not

all of us out there agree that that's the case either. Again, the hon.

member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) — I believe that's the correct

constituency, the Minister of Consumer Services — doesn't even need

travel expenses. He doesn't have to worry about it. Doesn't need an

automobile on behalf of the people because he's in good shape. But just

let me take a look at some of the people who aren't.

West End Services to Seniors. That's a group in my riding. They've been doing all kinds of things; they're very upset.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you got a car, Emery?

MR. BARNES: Getting our priorities straight. This is for

those 65 and up. I think there's something also in this long speech

that says "we're going to look after those senior citizens, too." We'll

see, I might get around to that. I just want to make a few points; I'm

[ Page 197 ]

not going to stay too long, Mr. Speaker, Don't worry. I think you get the message.

They say that about 400 of our west-end people, fragile elderly

citizens, are in danger of losing considerable essential attention from

the West End Senior Citizens Service, and if that happens we shall all

scream at the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

AN HON. MEMBER: Not again!

MR. BARNES: I don't think that they should pick on him. I'm sure he's getting pressure from his colleagues to cut costs.

HON. MR. MAIR: Pick on the people that caused the problem.

MR. BARNES: It is very difficult, I'm sure, for people who

think of balancing budgets and actuarial charts and schedules. It gets

difficult because they think in terms of: "Well, if we're going to

expand something, we've got to find some way to generate something." I

guess it's difficult, when it comes to people, to find out what you're

generating. You've got to try and say: "Well, how do we equate human

values?" Also, Mr. Speaker, I noticed something about human values in

that throne speech. There was some reference to youth as being our most

important resource. But now how do you equate that attitude with that

one where you tell them they will be relegated to something less than

equal citizens when it comes to automobile insurance if they are 25

years of age and under? That's confusing, but I'm sure that you've got

it all worked out on your charts.

I didn't bother to bring in the large box of petitions that I have

from these people. But, as I told you the other day, they aren't going

to forget. Believe me, they won't. I think you should be concerned

about that because I don't think you went out on a campaign to unjustly

treat these young people. I think you sincerely were attempting to work

out a scheme whereby you could live in good conscience and with

responsibility for providing a programme that would work for the

people of British Columbia. But you just don't understand.

MR, J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): We will; stick around.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of, I think, entirely

malicious intent — although you are capable of being ruthless if you're

put to it. I know that.

Let me tell you something, my friends. I don't think any of us in

here really want to do any harm to our constituents. It's just that

sometimes we think that we are personally ordained — privately,

singularly or collectively — with this exclusive skill and right to do

the directing, and sometimes when we get like that we don't listen any

more. I know that we don't mean to not listen; we just get carried away

with our own ambition, with our own plans.

But we should listen. You had people standing out there trying to knock the door down to tell you: "Don't raise those rates."

HON. MR. MAIR: You fumbled it.

MR. BARNES: Don't raise those rates.

MR. KEMPF: Don't you agree with that?

MR. BARNES: Let me tell you, my friends, we'll see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Half the province is still NDP.

MR. BARNES: That's all right. "Recognizes the urgent need to

look after the health care needs of all the province's young people,"

it says, "Our greatest resource." Well, that really doesn't need very

much comment. Not if you're a young person, and especially those who

are really in need of enlightenment in our schools.

You know, when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) stands up and says to those people who were here for the women's

rally the other day: "Look, I was appalled" — pardon me, you may not

have been appalled, but you used something to that extent — "that my

son would take a cooking course. He must be nuts. The guy is crazy...."

I think he meant that well; he meant what he said. But like I said before, we've got to educate the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: You know, that's all; we've just got to educate.

Now you know, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, you and I should

really compare notes some time because I have three daughters and one

son. You see, I had to be adjusted and developed early. I had to learn,

because I was a football player — all that he-man stuff you know —

raised down in the States where you get 'em, boy. You know, you tear

'em up. Then I get all these daughters — all these daughters come

along, you see. So I had to get an education at an early age. You must

have all sons.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Two and two.

MR, BARNES: What, aren't your daughters

[ Page 198 ]

talking yet? (Laughter.) You just wait my friend. That's all right,

we all got to have a good time; we all gotta learn. I'm sure in the end

the people of British Columbia will benefit. (Laughter.)

That's all right.

But that's right. We're not going to get irresponsible in this

House, and I'm sure that although you rather hastily dismissed that

young lady that was the adviser to the Department of Education on

sexism...I think you fired her and hired her, wasn't it? But she's not

doing anything, is she? He brought her back until June?

Well, what you should do really is say: "Look, we've looked it over

and, really, maybe there is some validity in having ongoing

investigations in that." Even if there's the remotest possibility that

young people are being "teached" that they can relate to each other

purely on sexual impressions and

interpretations instead of as human

beings, we want to try and rectify that; and if there are any of those

books around, any literature that would cause young people's minds to

be confused, we want to change it. Oh yes, it's very cheap too. She's

working by herself, isn't she? Not that much money involved.

Why would you do that? You guys shouldn't do that. That's not nice, you know, not really nice at all.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But I would think that you would be very anxious

to save that programme like.... Mr. Member from Kamloops (Hon. Mr.

Mair), somehow this afternoon you're my favorite. Maybe it's because

you have one of the most important portfolios of all. I'm going to ask

you some other things too, related to consumers.

He's talking about the days, Mr. Speaker, before we involved

ourselves in the serious business of taking care of the public's

affairs. You see, we used to do all kinds of little things on the side,

and I'm sure we will continue to have enlightening experiences in

exchange.

I would suggest that you might want to seriously think about this

adviser to the Department of Education who now has a job until June but

no terms of reference in relation to what she was doing before she was

discharged. Because what she was doing, in fact, was ancillary to your

portfolio. She was helping you, because if she is successful in

uncovering any evidence that there are misleading concepts being

developed or perpetrated in the school system that impairs the thinking

of young people in respect to their sex, then I would think you would

be very concerned.

You know what you would do? You may be the leader in the field of

liberating the minds of all of our young people from being brainwashed

by those commercialists who try and tell them that "sex is where it's

at, so forget about your mind and your morality and your soul; all we

want to do is exploi