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, APRIL 7, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

631 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Mincome programme appeals. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers — 631

Report on WCB. Mr. Cocke — 632

Student summer employment. Mr. Gibson — 632

Jurisdiction over fishing vessel inspection. Mr. Lockstead — 632

Consultation on hair-length regulation. Mr. Wallace — 633

Student summer employment. Mr. Lauk — 633

March retain food price drop. Ms. Sanford — 634

FIAS for potato growers. Mrs. Wallace — 634

Meeting of Canadian Cellulose, government and unions. Mr. Lea —

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Mair — 635

Ms. Brown — 639

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

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Lea — 645

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 646

Mr. King — 646

Mr. Lea — 647

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 647

Mr. Gibson — 648

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 648

Mr. Gibson — 648

Mr. Macdonald — 648

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 648

Mrs. Dailly — 648

Mr. Macdonald — 648

Mr. Gibson — 649

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 649

Mr. Gibson — 649

Mr. Levi — 649

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 650

Mr.Cocke — 650

Mrs. Wallace — 651

Mr. Lauk — 651

Mr. Lea — 652

Mr. King — 652

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 653

Mr. Lauk — 653

Mr. Stupich — 654

Mrs. Dailly — 654

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 655

Mr. Barber — 655

Mr. Gibson — 655

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 656

Mr. Cocke — 656

Mr. Gibson — 656

Mr. King — 656

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 657

Mr. Lauk — 657

Mr. Wallace — 657

Mr. Chabot — 658

Mr. Levi — 658

Mr. Cocke — 659

Mr. Gibson — 659

Mr. Mussallem — 660

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 662

Mr. Cocke — 662

Mr. Gibson — 663

section 1.

Mr. King — 663

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 664

Mr. Macdonald — 664

Mr. Stupich — 665

Division of motion that the committee rise and report progress 665

section 1.

Mrs. Dailly — 665

Mr. Skelly — 665

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 666

Mr. Lea — 667

Mr. Lauk — 667

Mr. King — 667

Mr. Stupich — 668

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 669

Mr. Stupich — 669

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 670

Presenting petitions

Petition of the Most Reverend Jerome Isidore Chimy. Mr. Strongman —

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce to you, and through you, a group of students situated

in the gallery today from Gladstone Senior Secondary School,

accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr. Campbell and Miss Kenny. I

would like this House to bid them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you will be

pleased to know that in the gallery today we have Mayor Russ Postill,

mayor of Coldstream and chairman of the North Okanagan Regional

District; Mayor Pat Duke, mayor of the Corporation of the Village of

Lumby; Mr. Peter Mackiewich, the secretary — manager of the North

Okanagan Regional District; and Mr. Bob Ferguson, hospital

administrator for the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I wish to announce that in

the gallery today, either now or will be, a group of students from

Templeton high school, from the great riding of Vancouver Centre.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, in the House today I

have visiting Mr. Don Sherwin, alderman of the City of Cranbrook and a

director of the Regional District of East Kootenay. With him is Mr. Jim

Lamb, the administrator for the City of Cranbrook, and Mr. Dick

Fletcher, the consultant for EPEC-Western. Would you please welcome

these gentlemen to the House today?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, there is

now in the gallery, or shortly will be, a delegation of students from

the greater riding of Vancouver East, and the greater high school of

Gladstone High. I hope the House will welcome them.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, today I'd

also like all members to bid a very hearty welcome to a number of young

ladies from Sacred Heart Convent, accompanied by two counsellors.

Oral questions.

MINCOME PROGRAMME APPEALS

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to answer some of the questions which were given some days ago. The

first was a question posed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with

respect to appeals in the Mincome programme. The answer is that the appeals

in the Mincome programme are the same as those for social assistance as outlined

section 29 of Social Assistance Regulations — B.C. regulation 25975. A copy

of these regulations is available and could be tabled in the House if you so

wished.

ASSISTANCE FOR STRIKERS

The second, Mr. Speaker, was also a question from the hon. member

for Oak Bay. The question was with regard to applications for payment

of social assistance to persons who are on strike or locked out. "Have

any regulations been issued to give consideration and payment to these

applicants? If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the text of these

regulations? If the answer is no, will consideration and payment be

made to these applicants?"

The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker,

section 3(6) of Social Assistance Regulations reads as follows:

"Social assistance may be authorized by the director

for a person who is a union member involved in an industrial dispute

when there are no other sources of income or assets available. This

policy is used when severe hardships would occur to dependants, and

assistance, when granted, is primarily limited to food and emergency

medications."

Another question, Mr. Speaker, from the former Minister of Human Resources....

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member for Burrard.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi).

The question was: "With reference to the social assistance

cost-sharing formula between the government and the municipalities,

what were the total amounts paid by the government under the formula in

the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75? What were the total

amounts paid by the municipalities in these same fiscal years?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. Minister, are you answering

questions which have been put to you on the order paper? Are they on

the order paper?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This particular question was on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the proper way to reply would be by a written answer filed at the table of the House.

[ Page 632 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Okay. I'll file this answer, Mr. Speaker. (See Appendix.)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch that

questions that were on the order paper were answered during — question

period, I wonder if the official timing of the question period might

start now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerks inform me that we will add another 90 seconds to the question period today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It went longer than that.

REPORT ON WCB

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask a question of the Minister of Labour. The question is: I wonder if

either the Minister of Labour or the Workers' Compensation Board, who,

I understand, ordered a report from Touche, Ross and Associates, have

received either a report or an interim report on the Workers'

Compensation Board to date.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): To the hon. member,

Mr. Speaker, Touche, Ross have not been asked to make any report or

examination into the Workers' Compensation Board; it is P.S. Ross and

Partners. No, there has been no report received either interim or

otherwise. I will be happy to table the report in the House as soon as

it is in my possession.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Labour. On March 25

the Minister told the House that he hoped to be able to announce phase

two of the student summer employment programme within a week. In view

of the fact that classes for most university students ended last

Friday, this announcement is urgently required. Can he inform the House

when it will be made and the reason for the delay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The programme has already been advertised,

Mr. Speaker. Applications are being received. We am currently waiting

for government departments to make known their specific requirements so

that they can be fitted to the applicants that we have. This is an

ongoing matter right now. Those applicants who are successful in

achieving work in government jobs will be advised directly by the

employment branch of the Department of Labour.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. In

past years the Department of Labour has allotted money to each

department for the hiring of summer students. Could the minister advise

the House if it is correct that departments how have been told that

they must find their own funding for phase two of this programme

without special Department of Labour funding?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the previous years, Mr. Speaker,

special legislation was introduced to provide sums of money for special

employment programmes which included summer student employment. There

was $9 million made available for special funds in phase one; with

respect to phase two, those moneys are included in the estimates of

individual departments under code 04 which deals with auxiliary

employees. It is through code 04 opportunities that work in government

will be carried out this year.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a supplementary

to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The code 04 is for the normal

summer-replacement employees on a departmental basis. Is the minister

informing the House now that no special funds have been allocated for

Working in Government, the student summer-employment programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, no special funds have been allocated.

JURISDICTION OVER

FISHING VESSEL INSPECTION

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): To the hon. Minister of

Labour. Has the minister or representatives of the Workers'

Compensation Board met with the Ministry of Transport and fisheries

groups to resolve the question of jurisdiction over health and safety

inspection for fishing vessels?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the member. The Minister

of Labour has not met with federal officials on this matter. As the

members well know, the Workers' Compensation Board functions

independently of government in this respect. I am advised, however, by

the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board that meetings are

ongoing between the board and representatives of

[ Page 633 ]

MOT in order to resolve the duplication of

regulations under the federal legislation and that of the province, in

order that the fishermen and those involved in that industry will not

be faced with duplicate sets of regulations and double inspection.

There is a serious constitutional question which has to be resolved and

that is being considered now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As the Department of Transport has not

developed adequate inspection procedures in this matter, is the

minister proceeding with further drafts of the Workers' Compensation

Board regulations proposed in 1975 in consultation with the industry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister of Labour and his department are not involved directly in

the formulation of those regulations. That is the responsibility of the

Workers' Compensation Board. Discussions are going on with fishermen

and other involved in the fishing industry as to the adequacy of the

draft regulations which were first produced, and this is part of a

continuing study on that subject which involves consultations with the

national government for the resolution of the constitutional conflict.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a very short supplementary. I

appreciate the answer, Mr. Minister, but many fishermen are concerned

that standards will drive them out of business. Is the government

willing to consider financial assistance to fishermen affected by the

regulations?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's always a policy decision, Mr. Speaker, which we will take once the regulations are finalized.

CONSULTATION ON

HAIR-LENGTH REGULATION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We all seem to have questions for

the Minister of Labour today. I would like to ask the Minister of

Labour a question with regard to yesterday's announcement that welfare

recipients seeking employment will have the effect of their hair style

judged by social workers.

Since the minister is responsible for the protection of individual

human rights, was the minister consulted as to the application of this

regulation, inasmuch as it extends arbitrary power to social workers,

many of whom themselves wear long hair and might well penalize persons

simply because of the length of their hair?

Was the minister's department of human rights consulted at all on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will be the judge of the length of hair. No, seriously, I'm sorry.

I can't till you whether the Department of Human Resources consulted

with the human rights branch of the Department of Labour. As you are

aware, the human rights branch of the Department of Labour has already

made its position known with effect to these regulations, and I can

assure you that there will be continuing discussions.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might be

permitted to address the supplementary to the Minister of Human

Resources, because it follows from the first question.

Will recipients who refuse to have their hair cut be denied social assistance?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Take it as notice, Bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question as originally

posed to the Minister of Labour certainly wasn't correct, in that it's

not a matter of us judging, or anyone judging, on the length of a

person's hair or whether he wears a beard or otherwise. It's a matter

of when a person continually fails to obtain employment because of

attire or grooming, we then can, in fact, according to the regulation,

withdraw welfare or social assistance. This regulation has been on the

books for a considerable time. It was only a restatement of the

regulation.

MR. WALLACE: A very quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the

light of the minister's answer, could he tell the House how many such

cases he's been made aware of where the repeated failure to get

employment is related to grooming? These general statements are not

apparently documented by any research or any number of....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The regulation has been on the books

for some time. I'm sure it was never fully enforced but now that it

will be enforced we'll soon know how many will be affected and, given

some experience, I'll let you know.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Labour, who's doing so well. I don't want to leave him alone.

Is it not true that in the student-employment programme, which the

Public Service Commission is planning to implement, two people doing

exactly the same kind of job will get markedly different salaries

[ Page 634 ]

under the student employment programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not true.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary: is it not true, or is the minister

aware, that a senior forester refuses to hire any students this summer

because of a differential based only on what year of training that

particular student is involved in, and not on any other criteria?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am not aware, Mr. Speaker. I would

be pleased if the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre would make

known to me that official in the Department of Forests who is not

prepared to follow the directives of government.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

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

Minister of Consumer Services. The Anti-Inflation Board has announced

that retail food prices in Canada have dropped by 1.3 per cent during

the month of March. I would like to know if the monitoring which is

carried out by your department throughout various parts of the province

bears out that retail food prices in British Columbia have experienced

the same or a similar kind of drop during the month of March.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

FIAS FOR POTATO GROWERS

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

Minister of Agriculture, and it relates again to the farm income

assurance scheme. I would like to ask whether or not he has had time to

review the negotiations on behalf of the potato growers, and, as a

supplementary, what the status of that particular scheme is.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate the member's concern. I'll take the question as notice and get a report for her on that particular subject.

MRS. WALLACE: Supplemental....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It would be customary, I think, to hold

your supplemental question until such time as you've received a reply

to the first question. Then it may lead into further supplemental

questions, hon. member, that you would like to ask.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just would like to ask him to at the same time also give me a review on the raspberry scheme.

MR. SPEAKER: That's in order.

MEETING OF CANADIAN CELLULOSE,

GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

hon. Minister of Mines: during the election campaign, the Social Credit

candidate for Prince Rupert, Mr. Roy Last, at a public meeting quoted

from a telegram he said had come from the leader of the Social Credit

Party, now Premier, stating that there would be a meeting between

Canadian Cellulose, the unions involved and government to try and iron

out some of the difficulties, to examine and find problems, and solve

problems. That meeting was supposed to be in the first or middle part

of January. As I understand it, that meeting has not taken place yet.

My question is: why not?

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

In reply to the hon. member for Prince Rupert, during the middle of

January this government was just recently sworn in, and due to the

extreme pressure of business at the time it was felt that a more

meaningful meeting could be held at a later date after the minister was

more familiar with his portfolio in that regard.

MR. LEA: Were the unions and Canadian Cellulose management informed of that decision?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The union contacted the Premier and myself and we advised that we would be meeting with them at a later date.

MR. LEA: What date was it they were informed of that, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the House; take it as notice.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the question as notice.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the financial statements, as of March

31, 1975, of the overall Medical Services Plan of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Davis presents the consolidated financial statement of the British Columbia Steamship Company, 1975, Ltd.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 635 ]

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Consumer Services is recognized.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, I would

like to know if the hon. minister has permission from the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to speak in this debate with

that beard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said outside the House today, when I get in the shape

that the hon. member for Prince Rupert is in, then I will seek

permission from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: I meant that as kindly as I possibly can under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take my place in this debate, and

also to welcome you and the Deputy Speaker to your positions of great

honour and responsibility, positions I am sure that this House feels

confident, as I do, that you will fill admirably. I would like before I

embark upon my remarks today to pay tribute to the person whose

position I have taken in this House, Mr. Gerry Anderson, MLA. You

didn't know I was going to be that nice, did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's early in the season.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's very early in the season.

Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who gives three and a half years of his

life, and of his best working years, to the service of the public is

due tribute, and I cheerfully pay tribute to Mr. Anderson today.

I understand that it is traditional that in what amounts to a maiden

speech a member dwells for a moment or two on his own constituency, and

I am very proud and honoured to have that opportunity today,

The Kamloops constituency stretches from a point just north of Blue

River on the North Thompson River to Stump Lake on the Merritt highway

to the south; from Monte Creek in the east to Deadman Creek in the

west. It is truly a microcosm of British Columbia life both in the

economic and in the political sense.

In the last three provincial elections, interestingly enough, the

results reflected in the Kamloops constituency were virtually

indistinguishable from the overall provincial results. There is an

obvious reason for this. With the exception of the fishing industry,

the municipality of Kamloops truly is representative of the economic

life in British Columbia. The north river country — that is, from the

northern boundary of the city of Kamloops up past Blue River — is very

heavily dependent upon the forest industry. The Kamloops forest

district, Mr. Speaker, is 28,500 square miles and has within its area

40 sawmills. There are approximately 30,000 people in my constituency

who live in such lumber towns as Louis Creek, Barriere, Little Fort,

Clearwater, Vavenby, Birch Island and Blue River, all of whom are on

the North Thompson River.

These places, Mr. Speaker, depend almost exclusively upon the forest

industry for their well-being. Needless to say, in the last few years

times have been difficult indeed for these people.

The community of Blue River has particularly been hard hit by the

depression in the forest industry, since it depends without exception

upon a sawmill which is now out of business — I hope, temporarily. The

people who live in this area, Mr. Speaker, live in what can only be

described as a one-crop economy. It is essential that this government

do what it can to encourage alternative employment possibilities in

this area.

Mr. Speaker, there is another area in my constituency which likewise

depends almost exclusively upon the forest industry, and that is the

historic town of Savona, which was known in the past and was famous in

the past for Savona's ferry, which crossed the Thompson River at the

western end of Kamloops Lake.

The people of Savona in the years gone by, particularly the last

three or four years, have attempted to find another industry — a

secondary industry to supplant the forest industry that is there now.

Through problems they have found with the Department of Highways, they

have been unable to do so. Whether these problems raised by the

Department of Highways are real or not is beside the point. The fact is

that this is another area, Mr. Speaker, that I will urge upon my

government — the government I represent — as a place where secondary

industry is not only desirable but essential.

Mining plays a large role in my constituency. The town of Logan

Lake, which houses the hundreds of people who work at Lornex, is within

my constituency. Much of the Highland Valley, which includes Bethlehem

Copper, Valley Copper and Lomex mines, is serviced by the city of

Kamloops within its trading area. These areas play a large

part in the

economic life of the city of Kamloops itself.

The depression in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, has hit this

area particularly hard. A decision by the previous government to

provide a royalty taxation system, which was so onerous as to remove

the production which provided the royalty, is a

[ Page 636 ]

decision which my constituents find impossible to understand.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Afton Mines has its proposed mine site in

my constituency, and it is very much to be hoped that the ecological

concerns which have been raised by some of the citizens will be

overcome so that this advantageous addition to the economy can come

into production.

As you know also, Mr. Speaker, Kamloops is ranching country. There

are approximately 350 ranches of varying sizes in my constituency — in

the Kamloops area — handling approximately 125,000 head of cattle. The

provincial bull sale has been an annual event since March, 1919.

In addition, of course, my constituency abuts Yale-Lillooet and the

Cariboo — both represented by friends and colleagues of mine in this

government — which are world famous for cattle. The Cariboo, of course,

contains the Gang Ranch, the Chilco Ranch and numerous other ranching

enterprises, while to the south, in the Merritt area, there is the

Douglas Lake Cattle Company, the Guichon Ranch and others.

It is fair to say, then, Mr. Speaker, that the city of Kamloops is

the capital of cattle country, and it is the headquarters for the B.C.,

Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Livestock Producers' Association.

I would just state here again that it is no secret that ranching has

fallen on sorry times in this province. There is no question but that

many of the influences giving rise to these problems are beyond the

scope and control of this province and relate to extra-provincial,

national and world conditions.

This last statement is evidenced, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that

British Columbia exports its own beef and imports beef at the same time

from elsewhere. It exports its livestock and imports them back —

virtually all slaughtering is done elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, the financing of cattle operations in a tenuous

business at best. Difficulties in this regard have been seriously

compounded, I may say, by uncertain and contradictory attitudes of the

previous administration concerning grazing permits and leased land. I

am pleased to learn, and my constituents will be also, that this

question is under study by this government and that the uncertainties

of land tenure for the rancher will be overcome.

Farm income assurance, Mr. Speaker, paid to ranchers is

unquestionably a necessity in many instances. What must be recognized,

however, is that of all of our citizens the rancher is perhaps the most

independent spirited, and the one who is least desirous of government

intervention and help. It is incumbent upon us then, Mr. Speaker, to

work diligently towards the removal of the influences which make

government assistance to this hardy breed of independent entrepreneurs

necessary.

Mr. Speaker, no reference to my constituency would be complete

without reference to the tourist industry. The city of Kamloops enjoys

a unique geographic position in that it is about one-half way between

Edmonton and Calgary on the one hand, and Vancouver on the other.

Accordingly it has a very large hotel-motel industry.

The world-famous Kamloops trout, Mr. Speaker, a strain of rainbow

trout, abounds in the hundreds of lakes which exist within the

boundaries of my constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you a fisherman? Really?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): In other words, all the roads lead to Kamloops! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: It is crucial then, Mr. Speaker, to my

constituency that great care be taken when encouraging industries not

to upset the delicate balance of nature. More and more, resource

industry in my area is anxious to cooperate with conservation-minded

people. A cynic might argue that this is because the government has

forced industry to act in this way. However, the cause is not

important; it's the effect. The fact is that government has an

important role to play in ensuring that our resource industries handle

their affairs in a manner compatible with the surroundings in which

they operate.

Furthermore, it will become more important, Mr. Speaker, that our

recreation facilities are managed in a careful manner indeed, ensuring

that all types of recreation can be accommodated. Increasing pressures

of population, Mr. Speaker, make careful management in this area

obligatory.

In and around my constituency there are a number of large lakes,

such as the two Shuswap Lakes, Mabel Lake, Mara Lake and Adams Lake,

which can easily accommodate intensified uses such as boating and

water-skiing. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there are a great many

lakes — and the government of British Columbia has recognized this —

which ought by nature to be restricted to much less vigorous pursuits

such as fly-fishing only.

There is now a policy, I am told, to provide trophy lakes which,

while not restricted to fly-fishing, are restricted to light-tackle

fishing with a greater limitation on the catch.

All of these matters, Mr. Speaker, can be solved by good management,

and the people of my constituency look to this government to provide

the necessary leadership.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): Good luck!

HON. MR. MAIR: They'll get it!

[ Page 637 ]

Allow me if I may, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a problem specifically

affecting the city of Kamloops itself. In assessing the current and

future problems of the city it is important, Mr. Speaker, to understand

that it now has a population of close to 70,000 people. At a 6 per cent

growth rate per year it will, by 1996, have a population of 200,000

people. What is even more frightening, Mr. Speaker, is that if the

growth rate continues at its present rate of 9 per cent, that 200,000

mark will be reached by 1988 — 12 years from now.

The present city of Kamloops, Mr. Speaker, was incorporated by

letters patent on May 1, 1973. Prior to that, in 1968, the cities of

North Kamloops and South Kamloops were amalgamated — these two areas

being separated by the Thompson River.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are not familiar with the city I have the honour

to represent, allow me to point out that it is in reality a city of three rivers:

the North Thompson, the South Thompson and the Thompson River itself; and to

visualize the geography, Mr. Speaker, if one were to visualize the South Thompson

running into the Thomson River in a straight line running east and west, and

the North Thompson' intersecting it from north and south, one would have

a fair idea of the geography.

On the south shore of the Thompson River itself are the communities

of what used to be Kamloops proper, along with Dufferin, Valleyview,

Dallas, Barnhart Vale and Knutsford. Across the Thompson River to the

northwest are the communities of North Kamloops, Brocklehurst and

Westsyde. Across the river to the northeast, separated from the rest of

the city by the Kamloops Indian reserve, are Rayleigh and Heffley

Creek. The whole area covers 140 square miles. To give the House some

idea of what this means in terms of transportation, allow me to point

out that it is 15 miles from the centre of the city to the border of

Westsyde, and some 20 miles to its centre. It's approximately 15 miles

to the border of Westsyde, which means that many residents of my city

must travel in excess of 20 miles to go downtown, neither of these two

areas being serviced by bus.

The Brocklehurst suburb of 11,000 people is serviced by bus only

once an hour. As this House heard from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) a few days ago, the transit system throughout

the province of British Columbia is in a state of chaos. The previous

administration promised Kamloops a transit system and provided the

machinery and men for it. However, as my colleague, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, no funds were

allocated for its operation. This is regarded in my city as no more, no

less, than a cruel joke.

The areas of North Kamloops, Brocklehurst and Westsyde, which now

account for about 50 per cent of the population of the city and which

are growing at an unprecedented rate, are connected to the city centre

over the Thompson River by the Overlander Bridge. So that members of

this House can appreciate the strain that is placed on this bridge,

permit me to point out that in 1964 the daily average number of

vehicles on this bridge was 18,000. This increased in 1972, Mr.

Speaker, to 38,500 and in 1975 to 45,400. Obviously, second and third

crossings of this river are of crucial importance to the city. I may

say that this will require, in all likelihood, extensive negotiations

with the Kamloops Indian band. I might say further, Mr. Speaker, that

we are in a particularly good position to deal with this band due to

the decisions made by this government in the first three months it's

been in power.

The Kamloops Indian band was taken into the city of Kamloops without

any consultation with them and against their will, on May 1, 1973, by

the previous government. For three years they complained. In three

months we took them out of the city. I think now we can talk to them as

man to man, as equals, as woman to woman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I should say woman to woman because the chief, my colleague points out very accurately, is a lady — and a very good chief.

Kamloops is the administrative and judicial centre of an immense

area. The Kamloops division of the Yale district extends as far south

as Osoyoos and goes as far north, almost, as Williams Lake. The county

of Yale, of which Kamloops again is the judicial centre, is enormous.

In this context, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House might be

interested to know that the Kamloops courthouse, with its one

courtroom, was built in 1908 when the city was less than 4,000 in

number. To say that the courtroom situation in Kamloops is critical

would be to put it far too mildly.

MR. GIBSON: Lawyers have to talk faster.

HON. MR. MAIR: We do, Mr. Member. We have to talk in the streets, and we have some cold winters.

The Department of Public Works and the Department of the

Attorney-General have done what they can to provide alternate courtroom

facilities throughout the city, but, Mr. Speaker, let me say now that

the city of Kamloops requires a new administrative centre, including a

new, modern courthouse, and it requires it forthwith,

Let me turn now, if I may, to a more strict and direct evaluation of

the budget brought down by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . We're passing judgment on a budget of more than $3.5

billion and we must, of course, estimate

[ Page 638 ]

with great particularity in many areas of income and outgo. We must

take great care because we are on the people's business and we are

handling money which does not belong to us. We are, in every sense of

the word, handling trust money. And what do our critics say? They say,

Mr. Speaker, that we're a bottom-line government, that we know the cost

of everything but we don't know the value of anything. I'm telling you

that that's not so. I would ask those who thump their desks and who

make those statements to look at the budget and see the vastly improved

situation in housing, particularly as it relates to senior citizens.

In my own Department of Consumer Services, there will be new

legislative thrust to ensure fairness in the marketplace for all.

Education: up nearly 11 per cent. Health: expenditures up 20 per cent

or more. Human Resources: up over 22 per cent.

Injection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Speaker, if being a bottom-line

government means that by careful management of the province's money we

can put more money where it is most needed, we plead guilty.

Yesterday, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) put a number of

questions to the government, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to put a few back.

MR. LEA: What about answers?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the questions have to be questions before answers can be provided.

Mr. Speaker, how come the opposition couldn't take an insurance

monopoly, with a built-in clientele of one million people or more —

people who had to buy the insurance whether they liked it or not — when

they had the right to set rates, and couldn't even break even?

The excuse offered is that Allstate and State Farm lost money in the

United States of America. They didn't have a monopoly, Mr. Speaker;

that group had a monopoly and couldn't even break even.

Mr. Speaker, they had the ball game to themselves: they wrote the rules, they

refereed the game, and they even got to keep score — and they couldn't even

come up with a tie, much less a win.

How come they didn't tell the people that they were playing politics

with ICBC? We heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the

Premier outline the game that they played — the things that they heard

that they didn't tell outside the cabinet room. They knew we were

losing money, and they lowered the rates at the same time. Mr. Speaker,

they kept the facts from this House, and they kept them from the

people, and they still don't want to come clean with the people, even

now.

I heard the hon. Premier speak the other day. He talked about the

promises of the NDP to keep the money in the province, and he outlined

where it went to the chartered banks of Canada. I heard it over there,

Mr. Speaker. They said: "Yes, but it went to Victoria branches." Did

they think that the branch manager kept it in the branch mattress?

(Laughter.)

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): That was the member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. MAIR: He thought it was in the branch mattress, kept

there for later use. Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the thinking that

we had to live with and, thank God, no longer have to live with.

How come these new, self-styled financial experts didn't know in

April and May and June of last year the financial trouble that this

province was in? How come they didn't know that stumpage was way down

and that mining royalties were way down and that their expenses were

higher? The opposition knew. Business knew. The loggers knew and the

miners knew — but not the government. These Johnny-come-lately

financial experts thought they could pull off a winning election before

the public got wise, and then they hoped the voters would forget four

years later.

How come these financial Merlins, when they were in power, with

their own Treasury Board, allowed a $ 100 million little error to occur

in one department?

HON. MR. BENNETT: They called it "clerical."

HON. MR. MAIR: A clerical error. Mr. Speaker, I very much

doubt if an error of $ 1,000 could happen in a department with this

government and this Treasury Board, and yet $100 million was typical of

what we had for three and a half years.

How come these people, when they were in government, in the face of

all advice — including advice from their own party, advice from their

own experts — kept on the books mining legislation and royalty

legislation which decimated the second largest industry in B.C. and

nearly brought my constituency to ruin? How come?

Mr. Speaker, human beings have short memories. The Creator in his

wisdom no doubt felt that a short memory was a mercy in most cases.

Regrettably, the Creator did not have the previous administration in

mind when he made that decision. I consider it the duty of this

government and my duty to remind the people from time to time, as is

necessary, of what went on for three and a half years.

We will come out of this crisis and British Columbia will prosper again.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): How could you stoop to such tactics?

[ Page 639 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Gary. (Laughter.)

No one knows the value of a dollar better than the man who doesn't

have one, and nobody ought to know the value of a dollar better than

the man who is handling somebody else's money. We're handling somebody

else's money, we know the value of a dollar, and through good business

management and sound fiscal policies we mean to get that dollar into

the hands of the people who need it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in his text the Minister of Consumer

Services indicated that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) stated that it was our belief, as far as the NDP were concerned,

that the short-term investments of moneys from ICBC would remain in

local branch offices. That was never stated or purported, and it was

never claimed by this side of the House. I fully understand what

short-term investment means...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order!

MR. LAUK: ...and, of course, centrally located chartered banks

do certain things within the provincial jurisdiction in order to invest

that money in short-term.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is an increasing tendency

among members from both sides of the House to rise on points of order

and immediately launch into what is really a speech. A point of order

is just that: a point of order taking exception to words or a word that

has been uttered in debate, a point of order that you do not believe

the person who has just taken their seat fairly expressed an opinion or

statement made by one side of the House or the other. But I hope you

would keep your points of order to points of order in the future.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to rise on behalf of the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard and take my

place in this debate on the budget. Before I can do that, however, I

think maybe I should answer a couple of the questions raised by the

hon. Minister of Consumer Services, since he is a new member to the

House and obviously doesn't know some of the facts about what actually

happened when the Social Credit was government before.

One of the questions he raised was: "How do you explain the fact

that that government" — namely the NDP government — "could have a

monopoly corporation and not break even or make a profit?" The answer

is quite simple, Mr. Member. We don't believe that you balance books by

soaking people.

That's quite simple, Mr. Member, when you are starting a

corporation. We started a corporation that charged fair premiums. We

did not try to drive people into bankruptcy so that they could pay

their insurance corporation.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Another question raised, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: ...was about the overrun in the Department of Human

Resources. Does that member not realize that every single year the

Department of Human Resources has an overrun? Under your Mr. Gaglardi,

Mr. Member, the person who was replaced by the person whom you

replaced, there were overruns year after year after year, and your

government, when it was the government, covered them up. We were too

honest; that was our problem. We told the truth about what was going on

in this department. We didn't cover it up the way it used to be covered

up.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What did Gaglardi say when he was questioned?

However, the real reason I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, is to speak to

the issue of the budget on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard.

I want to start out by saying quite clearly that I'm going to be

speaking on the first edition of the budget, the unabridged,

unexpurgated issue of the budget. No expletives, nothing deleted. Now I

recognize that we are aware of at least two budgets. There may be even

more; there may be three or four, but I want to deal specifically with

the first edition.

Now the minister, when he was asked about the second edition of the

budget, told the press that his reasons for abridging the budget were

for the benefit of the business community and for distribution around

the world. He didn't want the money markets of the world to read the

statements pertaining to New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, and

after this opposition brought to his attention the error of his ways,

that minister recognized the folly of interfering in the internal

affairs of Commonwealth nations and recognized the folly of spreading

around the world inaccuracies pertaining to the B.C. economy.

He decided it was okay to pretend for the residents of this province

that B.C. was broke, that our productive effort was crippled — and here

I'm quoting from the budget — "and that the province was in a state of

financial disaster." But certainly he

[ Page 640 ]

didn't want that kind of inaccuracy spread through the rest of the

world, certainly not to the borrowing markets of the world, for what

financial institution in its right mind would loan $400 million to an

economy that was crippled, as we read this economy is supposed to have

been crippled on page 35 of this budget?

In any event, Mr. Speaker, since the government knows that the

statements made on page 34 and page 35 were patently untrue, it waited

until that minister had left this province and had gone to Ottawa on

business, and then some mystery person or persons gave the order to

expurgate the budget. Now this person or these mystery persons hoped

that the minister would not notice, but the hon. member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) blabbed, and the press blabbed. They blew the whistle

on the deal and the Minister of Finance had to confess that he was

unaware of the expurgation and that he certainly had no idea of who had

authorized that the budget be changed in his absence. However, he

agreed to take full responsibility for the deed, for reasons best known

to himself. He shouldered the responsibility without knowing the true

architects of that deed.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I accept that the government and the

minister are more familiar with the first edition, the unabridged,

unexpurgated edition, and that is the one with which I choose to deal

since that is the one with which I too am familiar and indeed is the

one which was delivered in this House.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to say that

I wish that I had had the chance to assist in the expurgation of that

budget, because the first thing that I would have expurgated was the 40

per cent increase in the sales tax. The sales tax, Mr. Speaker, is

regressive and unfair, and this is not just my opinion, because I

accept that I am no economist. It is the opinion of scholars in the

field like Samuelson and Scott, authors of a basic economics text, who

wrote: "Sales taxes are relatively regressive in that they take a

larger fraction of the poor man's income than they do of the rich."

Since most of the poor people in this country, including the

constituents of Vancouver-Burrard, are women and children, you can

imagine what the sales tax does to their income, Mr. Speaker.

The White Paper on tax reform prepared for the federal government in

1969 also took the same position, and it stated: "The sales tax is

inferior in fairness to the graduated income tax." Even that

government's own Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Davis), the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, is quoted in the Daily

Colonist of March 17, on page 20, as saying:

" 'I think sales tax bears more heavily on people in

low-income brackets while those with higher income make their

contributions through income tax,' Davis said. 'I see a levy for the

schools through income tax rather than through the sales tax.' "

A split in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker...I should say another split in

the cabinet, because in delivering the budget address the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) stated, and here I'm quoting from Hansard :

"Next, a rather insignificant item." He called it an insignificant

item. "The social service tax or sales tax is to be increased two

percentage points to 7 per cent." A 40 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker,

is referred to as "insignificant." The government of the people

certainly gave it to the people that time.

Have you any idea what this means to the average family? The Victoria Times , in a conservative estimate on March 27, tells us:

"The family of Mr. Average has been paying about $175

a year in sales tax, but this year it will go up to $245 effective

immediately, and this assumes no major purchases during the year. If

Mr. Average buys a new car for $4,000, the sales tax on that alone goes

up to $280, an increase of $80 over the original tax. Mr. Average,

starting today, will face a penny tax for store items priced between 15

cents and 21 cents. Under 15 cents is free."

It goes on to show that on every purchase you make on goods, as long

as they are not food, this regressive tax, this iniquitous tax is

added, and as usual the burden is on the people who can least afford to

pay it.

Again, Mr. Speaker, and I hate to belabour this point, but I want to

quote from the textbook of Samuelson and Scott. It says: "The sales tax

does not penalize the wealthy." The sales tax does not penalize the

MacMillan Bloedel presidents of this world, Mr. Speaker, but it

certainly works a hardship on the average citizens, and many average

citizens live within the borders of Vancouver-Burrard.

It goes on to say:

"Most people feel vaguely that there is something

immoral about tobacco and alcohol. They somehow think two birds are

being killed with one stone when these articles are taxed — the

province gets its revenue and a vice is made more expensive — but the

same moral attitude would hardly apply to a 5 per cent tax on

everything that a consumer buys; be it shoes, soap, a church candle,

rich and poor are taxed alike on each dollar, and since the poor are

forced to spend a larger portion of their total dollar, one sees that a

sales tax on non-luxury items is a regressive tax for taking a larger

fraction of low income than high income."

Also, I want to quote from Daniel Morgan who tells us:

"Low-income people spend all or more of their income, thus ensuring that a higher

[ Page 641 ]

proportion of what they have goes into the sales tax than people

of higher income who are in a position to exercise discretion and thus spend

a much smaller percentage of their income on this iniquitous tax."

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) tells us, and here I'm

quoting from the Province of March 27: "It's basically a fair tax. It's

right out front where everybody can see it." When a gun is held to your

head, Mr. Speaker, it also is "right out front," but that does not

make it fair.

In fact, the fact of the matter is that the sales tax is a poll tax.

It penalizes only the poor and, in the final analysis, it is

inflationary. It exacerbates the problem that it is supposed to cure.

Only yesterday when the budget was brought down in Great Britain we saw the headlines in the Sun

that the United Kingdom Slashes the Sales Tax to Fight Inflation: "In a

move to spur production and yet restrain inflation, the British

government today reduced the retail sales tax by 1.5 on a wide range of

consumer goods."

If that government was genuinely concerned about shortening the

budget, about abridging the budget, about expurgating the budget and

cleaning it up, that is where they should have started, by getting rid

of that 40 per cent increase in the sales tax. It is becoming

increasingly clear that the average citizen in this province cannot

afford that free-enterprise government over there. Only the MacMillan

Bloedel presidents of this province can afford them.

Again I quote from the Victoria Times of March 20: "Life is costlier

under the Socreds." It goes on to tell us that the average family of

four will have to come up with an additional $ 5 5 0 this year as a

result of increases brought in since January by the Social Credit

government. It warns us that there are more price hikes to come,

including higher ferry rates and any increase on alcoholic products —

and it goes on and on and on — including, of course, the increase on

health and other vital services like that.

Had the Minister of Finance consulted me on the expurgation of the

budget, the other area that I would have deleted was the increase in

payment for health services — MSA as well as hospitalization.

Tell me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, now that it has

been brought to your attention that a directive went out last year

cutting extended-care patients off welfare, thus ensuring that they

could not build up large estates for their families, why have you not

removed, why have you not reversed your decision on the $7-a-day

extended-care bed cost, an increase which, if we accept the

calculations of the Victoria Times , means an increase from $365

annually for someone in extended care to $2,555?

Those people in extended care who are not on welfare now face a bill increase

of over 700 per cent. What of those parents of handicapped children in Sunnyhill

Hospital and other extended-care hospitals? What of those parents of adolescent

and young children facing many years of extended care?

Your purpose has been served, Mr. Minister. People in receipt of

welfare can no longer build up large estates while they are in

extended-care units. Can you tell us what now is your justification for

retaining this oppressive increase? Why will you not delete it from the

budget? Why not expurgate it and remove it from the backs of the

already overtaxed taxpayers of this province? I ask you, Mr. Minister,

to consider this. Many parents of chronically ill children, many

families of chronically ill parents, would be grateful for this act.

If ever you decide, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to once

again expurgate areas from this budget, or delete sections from it,

start with the $7-a-day extended care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the government, through

you, an excerpt of a letter from Dr. Lotta Hitchmanova of the Unitarian

Services Committee of Canada:

"I keep asking myself the same important, haunting

question over and over again as I write to you from the stillness of

Nairobi, my present stop. How much does the average Canadian know about

hunger?

"I do not mean the kind of hunger you feel after an

invigorating walk, or a fast game of hockey or a day of skiing in the

mountains. I am speaking of that obsessing, never-ceasing ache in your

stomach because you cannot afford a balanced, sustaining meal even once

a year — that terrible weakness which is your constant companion, and

the immense effort even the smallest assignment demands. Your eyes

blur, your limbs swell, your mind can focus only on one single

question: where will the next meal be coming from?"

Then Dr. Hitchmanova goes on to say that last year in Lesotho the

Unitarian Services Committee was able to build what they refer to as

"egg-circles," which are marketing cooperatives entirely run by the

1,450 village women in nine districts. She says:

"According to the Ministry of Agriculture, this

project is the most spectacular success on record in the field of food

production. It has made eggs an excellent and cheap protein substitute

for meat, which is very expensive."

And she goes on, Mr. Speaker:

"We are grateful to the government of British Columbia which generously funded part of this imaginative project."

The Member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), Mr. Speaker, while

heckling the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) during his speech on the

disbanding of aid to developing countries fund, told us that charity

begins at home.

[ Page 642 ]

I now ask the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker: does it also

have to end at home? Does he believe, or does that government believe,

for one moment that this province is an island unto itself'? Does he

believe, or does that government believe, that we can continue to adopt

an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude to the rest of the world? Does that

government have no moral commitment whatsoever to anyone but itself,

the corporate structure and multinational investors?

Throughout my campaign, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the sisterhood

and brotherhood of peoples and races who share this planet. I spoke of

our collective responsibility for and to each other. The people of

Vancouver-Burrard are proud of Canada's role in helping the emerging

nations of the world. They are proud of the role that the previous

government played in this area, and they experienced shame and sorrow

at the pettiness of a government, blessed with the abundance that this

government is, that would turn its back on the needs of other nations.

It is to our shame that this section...and I quote what it says:

"Recapture the funds." Recapture, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words used

for money being spent to help to feed the world's hungry people.

"Recapture the funds." Why was not that

section deleted from the new

abridged, expurgated edition of the budget? As Lord Ritchie-Calder

pointed out in the last issue of The Humanist : "There is a sombre

reminder that we are all in this together, in an interdependent world,

as we have seen in the oil crisis. Even the advanced countries are not

immune in these circumstances."

I want to read also, Mr. Speaker, some letters, of which one was

sent to the Premier by Mrs. Freda Coombs — and she sent me a carbon

copy — and another letter from Mrs. Llewellyn. Just to mention, she

says in speaking about this fund: "I am convinced of the moral

necessity of being our brothers' keeper while helping them to become

able to help themselves." Because that, in fact, was-what this fund was

doing. It was not just sending money to feed people, Mr. Speaker. It

was an aid to agriculture. It was helping them to develop the means of

feeding themselves.

Another letter from, as I said before, a Mrs. Llewellyn, to the

Premier and a carbon copy to me, again pointing out the deep concern of

many people in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard for the fact that

this government has seen fit to, as it says, "recapture" this fund.

The combination, Mr. Speaker, of increased taxation accompanied by

severe cutbacks in essential services has had a devastating impact on a

number of areas in my riding, and I would like to touch very briefly on

four of them. The first one is housing, the second will be the whole

unemployment situation, and then specifically the Vancouver General

Hospital which is located in my riding, and the whole question of

information centres.

The housing policy put out by the city council in Vancouver reads as

follows: "There is mounting evidence in Vancouver that people of modest

income are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for the cost of

accommodation adjacent to their employment and equally difficult to pay

for the cost of commuting from outlying but affordable housing to

inner-city employment." That is the crisis area in the riding, Mr.

Speaker. We have no shortage of high-priced housing in

Vancouver-Burrard. We have high-priced condominiums and townhouses

standing vacant in that constituency, while people looking for modest

accommodation cannot find any accommodation to rent.

Mr. Speaker, it is family housing that is in short supply. It is

family housing, young families starting out, people with small children

— that's the kind of housing we need in that constituency, not housing

for the rich, not housing for the wealthy; and the private

section has

demonstrated that it is not interested in supplying social housing, Mr.

Speaker.

When I speak on behalf of this constituency and its housing needs,

I'm addressing myself specifically to a government who found it — in

its wisdom — correct to downgrade the whole concept of housing and put

the Department of Housing as an appendage to another department.

A couple of innovative things in this area have been tried. Some of

the people renting accommodation in the constituency have come together

and formed themselves in a co-op and tried to buy the building in which

they were living so that they would be able to cut out the profit

motive on behalf of some outside force. What happens to that? I'll tell

you what happened to it, Mr. Speaker.

The government, that government over there, phased out the co-ops

area of its Department of Housing and fired the person responsible for

the whole

section on cooperative housing. I am speaking about Mr.

Donald Davis.

It has no policy on cooperative housing. Co-op housing is the only

hope that exists for people of medium income or even above medium

income securing any kind of good accommodation and good housing within

the borders — the perimeters — of the Vancouver area.

Because it is true: land is expensive; housing is expensive. What

people are looking for, Mr. Speaker, is not new housing. There is good

housing in there. What we want is that the housing should not be

demolished. That housing should not be torn down and be replaced by

these high-priced townhouses and high-priced condominiums that only a

few can afford.

The whole personality of the riding is changing, I have statistics

here that are alarming in that they show that children are disappearing

from the riding

[ Page 643 ]

because young families — people with small children — can no longer

afford to live in the borders of the Vancouver-Burrard constituency

because housing is too expensive. In fact, they are being replaced,

again, by families where both people are working and there is a major

income involved to be able to afford that.

Some of the people in the Fairview-Mount Pleasant area came

together, Mr. Speaker, and drafted a policy — a plan that they would

like to see. This is what they asked for: preservation, first of all,

of existing housing stock and retention of the existing population that

is currently living in the riding.

None of this is going to be possible under the kind of

recommendations made in the budget because what the budget is aiming at

is the building of new housing. There is good housing in that

constituency now; there is superb housing. What we would like to see is

that housing remain that way and that people on medium and fixed

incomes be able to afford it.

But we also want to see, Mr. Speaker, that the division of

cooperative housing be reintroduced. Co-op housing is one way of people

working to help themselves. That government over there is always

talking about people working to help themselves. Better a department of

cooperative houses than worrying about giving shovels to people who are

unable to find employment.

Another group, the Community Alternative Co-ops who came together to

try and fund their building, went and met with CMHC. Again they were

told by CMHC that they could not get into any kind of lending or

mortgage deal with them because the provincial government has no policy

— has not made any kind of decision that has to do with cooperative

housing.

So I am appealing to the government to reopen its office — its

department — on cooperative housing and to permit people who want to

remain in the area and to purchase their own homes to be able to do so.

The NIP programme, Mr. Speaker, is an excellent programme, and I think

the provincial government should be encouraged to support it,

The other area pertaining to my constituency that I want to talk

about is the whole business of unemployment. Decisions made by this

government in its first three months in office have been absolutely

devastating in terms of employment throughout the province, really —

not just in my constituency, but throughout the province. Everything

that they have done to date, whether it is in the cutback of

services....

When you cut back a service, Mr. Speaker, you've not just cut back a

service, but you've put the people who are delivering that service out

of work. That's not fighting in employment; that is encouraging

unemployment; that is expanding unemployment.

When you cut back a service, as is done.... When I talk about

Vancouver General Hospital I'll go into more detail about the kinds of

services being cut back there. What do you do? Again, the whole

business of what happens to the nursing staff and what happens to the

support staff in that hospital.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not here. We are told

by the teachers that there is a threat that there will be 5,000

teachers out of work in this province. That is the government that

tells us it is so concerned about employment and wants to stimulate the

job market and find jobs for everyone so 'that there isn't a run on the

shovels, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

promises for anyone who doesn't want to work or who won't cut their

hair every morning before going to look for a job.

I had a visit from a group of women, Mr. Speaker, who were

previously on welfare. Under the last government they were encouraged

to go to Vancouver City College and take a one-year course on social

services. These women are now graduating; they are going to be

graduating this spring. There is no work out there for them to go to,

Mr. Speaker, because the areas that they were planning to work in have

been out back.

The information centres, where most of them were planning to work —

their funding has been cut off. The community centres — their funding

has been cut back. The child-care centres — their funding is in

jeopardy. Support in the schools — the schools can no longer afford the

kind of support services that these women would be able to offer.

So here we have people going through the system taking the

educational courses in order to get off of welfare and when they have

completed the courses there is no job out there for them — courtesy of

that government over there which tells everyone that they are the

government of the people.

Here is the Registered Nurses Association "viewing with alarm that

the lack of funding may kill the nursing programme" right here in the

City of Victoria.

I have another case history, Mr. Speaker, and I have to bring these

case histories out because that is the only way, I think, that the

reality of the problem is brought home to people.

Two years ago we were told that there was a tremendous shortage of

nurses in this province, and in my own constituency I got a call from a

couple, both of them, male and female, then entered the nursing class.

They are graduating again this year and out of a class of 23, Mr.

Speaker, only two of them have been able to find nursing jobs so far.

Two people out of a graduating class of 23, and the two people who are

being hired had previous experience of psychiatric nursing and are

going back into the field of psychiatric nursing.

The problem is complicated because there arc so many nurses coming from Ontario and Nova Scotia

[ Page 644 ]

and other provinces that are also experiencing a cutback in their health services that are flooding into this province.

I'm speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) who I see is really listening very closely to

what I'm saying. We really are concerned, Mr. Minister of Health, at

the fact that there are no jobs out there as the result of the

decisions being made to cut back on health services, yet there is a

need for it.

I was in the Peace River this weekend, Mr. Minister, and they

desperately need nurses up there. They desperately need that

mammography machine that was promised to them up there. They need all

these things, but here we have not just an increase in taxation, not

just an increase in personal income tax, not just an increase in

medical premiums, but we also have a cutback in services at the same

time. So you know they really are being caught in the pincers of that

Social Credit government over there.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Which government cutback?

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, aside from unemployment in a

number of areas, I also want to speak specifically, since the Minister

is listening, about VGH, and really Vancouver General Hospital is in a

pretty tragic situation at this point.

One of the things that they are doing in order to meet the kind of

directives that you are sending out to them to the Minister of Health

through you, Mr. Speaker is to cut out all of their part-time employees.

Now there used to be a myth circulating through the community that

part-time workers were women who were just working to keep themselves

out of mischief. But that's not true. We now know as a result, and I'm

sure you will agree with me, that people who work, work because they

have to. Included in some of these part-time workers who are being cut

back is one particular woman who has been working, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, part-time for 18 years. The reason she has

been working part-time is because her husband is an invalid and she has

to care for him all day at home and the only time she can work is five

or six hours in the evening when he is asleep.

That is their sole means of income, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker. Now she is going to lose her job as a result of the direction,

the decision to cut down, cut out all part-time workers from VGH. And

there are a number of other instances like that.

There are people who are physically unable to work full time. There

are people with handicaps who must work part time. They cannot handle a

35-hour or a 40-hour week and have been working part time for a large

number of years and they are being cut back too.

And the little things that are being done to a place like Riverview.

The kind of increases in the price of food in the cafeteria. Some

really terrible things are happening in the field of health, Mr.

Minister. I hope to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

there are going to be some genuine deletions in this budget, that there

is going to be a third edition or a fourth edition of this budget, at

which time you do deal with some of the real problems in it that have

to do with the kinds of cutbacks and the kinds of increases in your $7

a day and your MSA and those kinds of things.

Vancouver General Hospital, which sits right smack in the centre of

the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, which hires a lot of the people living

in that particular riding, is the largest general hospital in this

province and, for all we know, in the western provinces. They're really

alarmed there about the decision made pertaining to the health services

for children and the decision to wipe out that children's hospital. But

that will be dealt with under your own particular estimates. I won't

deal with that at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk now about the information centres. Again, it seems

that one has to continually deal with the lack of information on the

part of that government about what community services really do.

Information services grew up as a grass roots kind of service from

the community itself that recognized its need. It wasn't superimposed

by a bureaucracy on any community. The people in the community

recognized that with the proliferation of resources in the community it

wasn't possible for people to know everything that was accessible to

them, and that's where the information service concept started.

Since the information services have been in existence, they have

performed a remarkable job — they have actually served to cut costs in

a lot of areas; they are accessible to the residents. Time and time

again people just walk in off the street, or make their phone call to

find out information they need. They are flexible on some of the things

they do. A policeman can call for the local address of a health-care

team if something has gone wrong on a call he has made. Someone is ill

with some kind of a mental health problem and the policeman doesn't

know where that particular community-care service team is, so the

policeman calls the information service.

A handicapped person will phone and say : "Will someone come and

give me a drive to the hospital?" or "Give me a ride to the doctor?"

Senior citizens use it; handicapped people use it; people looking for

housing use it.

The Kitsilano Information Centre, Mr. Speaker, in its last 12 months of office dealt with 19,922

[ Page 645 ]

inquiries. Now how can you terminate funding to a service which has

that kind of call made upon it? Nineteen thousand pieces of information

it had to deal with. Of these, 5,000 had to do with finding housing in

the area, and that is the kind of service which this government has

decided to terminate. Four hundred and twenty-nine had to do with

health; 484 came from senior citizens.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the blue light is on. Okay. What I wanted to

end up by doing is saying a couple of things that other people have

said about this budget because I think it's true. The Province refers

to it as "venom and bitter medicine." Marjorie Nichols doesn't have

anything good to say about it either. The Victoria Times refers to it

as "a vitriolic frame for a harsh budget." It's not just the opposition

that thinks this budget is unfair, Mr. Speaker. You know, these people

are not card-carrying members of the New Democratic Party — I can

assure you of that. But here we have the News from Dawson Creek, and I

want to end with the editorial in the Dawson Creek News :

"We are being punished. Yes, you, the electorate. The

present government is telling us that we are responsible for the

terrible things of the former NDP government, and you elected it, so

now you are going to pay. Last Friday's Social Credit provincial budget

is asking you for blood in its obsession over black ink."

And it goes on to talk about the terrible things.

"A lot of the budget is phony, such as the reason to

raise hospital rates for extended care to $7 a day from $1 a day. The

reason? B.C. senior citizens have been building up their estates with

Mincome payments. That government now knows that that is not true. They

were well aware that, as of last May, the directive went out cutting

hospital patients off the Mincome rolls."

It ends up by saying that what that government over there forgets is

that people didn't vote for the NDP in the last election; they voted

against the Social Credit.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to offer my services to

that government and particularly to the Minister of Finance when he

decides to issue another edition of this budget, when he decides to

delete or expurgate any other areas in this budget. On behalf of my own

constituency and all the ordinary people who are being pinched by this

budget, the next time he decides to expurgate it I want to be in on it

because there are some things in it I want to cut out too. Thank you.

Mr. Kahl moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LEA: Speaking to

section 1 of Bill 3, over the period of

the last sitting on

section 1 of Bill 3 there were a number of

questions asked of the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure that the

questions were coming so quickly that the minister didn't have a chance

to write some of them down. The NDP in this House not wanting to be

repetitive, I think it might be a good idea at this time if the

Minister of Finance would let the House know the questions that he has

that he hasn't answered yet — maybe he did write them down — and then

we'll know whether those questions have to be asked again. I would like

the Minister of Finance, if he would at this time, Mr. Chairman, to let

us know those questions that he hasn't answered yet but intends to so

we won't be repetitive.

MR. CHABOT: Send the Blues over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I am sure that the

member will remember that it is at the discretion of the minister that

he answers the questions. He can answer them all at once or he can

answer them one at a time.

MR. LEA: There are a number of questions that have not been

answered that were asked, and I feel that the people of British

Columbia have a right to know the answers to the questions that have

been asked. For instance, let's start with No. 1: why did the

government approve a grant of $26 million out of current revenues for

the 1975-76 fiscal year when legislation approved in this House has

provided for a $50 million borrowing authorization regarding capital

transit operations? That's one question. Would you like to answer that

now?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I answered that the other day.

MR. LEA: I didn't hear you answer that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You didn't answer that. You just said....

[ Page 646 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Then could you tell me when you do stand up when it was that you answered that so I can check it in Hansard ?

No. 2: why did the government not receive back from the B.C. Railway

in the 1975-76 fiscal year a $20 million payment since BCR minutes

clearly show the intention was to repay this government? That was in

the last fiscal year, 1975-76. Why did the government make a $32.6

million grant to B.C. Hydro in the 1975-76 fiscal year? If the grant

was related to operations of the transit losses, then why hasn't the

government provided in the upcoming or in these current estimates any

provision for funds for the coming year, if that's going to be the

policy of government? I'm still not satisfied why a rubber cheque would

be given to ICBC which they're not going to cash, but when they do cash

it, it's going to be loaned back to the government. I still haven't got

that clear in my mind, Mr. Chairman.

Why was $26 million left in the British Columbia Petroleum Corp.?

Why wasn't that transferred to government consolidated revenues in the

1975-76 fiscal year? Why did the province not receive back in

consolidated revenue for 1975-76 the $25 million advanced to the B.C.

Harbours Board when there was provision that that was going to happen

from the previous administration? Why didn't the government receive

back advances made to B.C. Cellulose of $16 million and to Ocean Falls

of $4 million, totalling $20 million? Why was that not received back in

1975-76?

There are a number of other questions that have been asked by the

opposition on this section. So far I can't recall any answer, or at

least an adequate answer, on these questions. There are more questions,

but I wonder if the Minister of Finance would begin by answering some

of the questions that I've just asked for a second time.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Member, I believe

I did try to answer most of those questions the other day. To deal with

just two or three that come to mind, you mentioned the B.C. Hydro

deficit. It's a clear-cut indication of our policy that this had to be

done. I think that it's also very clear that while your government was

in office.... There are memoranda on file where the Minister of Finance

was advised by the Premier, et cetera, that there was an intention to

subsidize the deficit on the B.C. Hydro, so the indication that we are

obligated to fulfill this obligation was there already. I don't think

there's any doubt on either side of the House that there was a

necessity to subsidize the deficit in Hydro having to do with the

transit losses which were incurred.

You mentioned the advance to B.C. Railway — why was this not returned? I think

the Premier mentioned in the House the other day that it was very clear that

this was indicated in the order-in-council as having been a grant, Mr. Member,

not to be returned. Furthermore, the advance to the B.C. Harbours Board of $25

million.... I think these things have all been indicated by the former Minister

of Finance, and others, as having been methods by which the books might be balanced.

I suggest to you, Mr. Member, that there was really no intention,

when those accounts were advanced, of having them returned, because the

bodies receiving them, including the B.C. Harbours Board, can ill

afford to return the money. The B.C. Railway can ill afford to return

that money; it simply places them into further debt. I say to you as a

reasonable man, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there was never any

intention to return these amounts. There were advanced because these

agencies required the moneys, and any suggestion that they were to be

returned was simply a maneuver to balance the books.

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

that's an interesting reply from the Minister of Finance — that the

government felt obligated to honour what they thought to be a

commitment by the previous government. I certainly argue with that in

light of the railway minute. But when he says that the government was

prepared to honour what he thought to be a commitment to subsidize

Hydro deficit, I wonder why, then, he took the completely opposite

position with respect to a subsidy to ICBC. Because it was clearly the

policy of the previous administration to finance through gasoline tax

any shortfall in ICBC funds. Now if he felt committed to live up to our

policy on the one hand, I wonder why he departed from that position

with respect to ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Could the minister explain why gasoline tax was not

used? That would not normally have been paid until the end of the

fiscal year, I would point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

But the questions which my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

put forward are valid and we have heard no reasonable explanation about

why this money should be transferred from general revenue — why

borrowing authority should be approved for the government to plunge

this province into debt for a political choice which they have made. It

certainly isn't justified when it has been demonstrated to the House,

Mr. Chairman, that there were reasonable methods — reasonable

alternatives — of granting to those Crown corporations borrowing

authority, which had been the practice of not only the NDP

administration but of the previous Social Credit

[ Page 647 ]

administration, with respect to B.C. Hydro, dam construction, the

two-river policy, with respect to the B.C. Railway. I want a better

explanation from the minister, Mr. Chairman, as to why the current

administration departed from that approach. Certainly we require that

before we can approve the passage of authority to plunge this province

into $400 million worth of debt.

MR. LEA: I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is

going to answer all of the questions when he rises. There is one other

question that I would like to put forward, and that is whether the

people who were working for the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and who

assisted in writing the Clarkson, Gordon report — I won't insult that

firm by calling it an audit — whether those people took an oath of

secrecy.

I believe it's the first time in British Columbia's history that an

outside firm — I'm not questioning the integrity of Clarkson, Gordon —

has been asked to come in and do a review of government in its

entirety. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a dangerous precedent

to set when outside people, who have not taken an oath of secrecy, are

asked to come in and take a look at the overall financial situation of

any government.

I'm sure that most of the hon. members of this House, and more

especially those hon. members who have been in business, would know

that one of the greatest things that anybody has to sell is

information. I'm sure that if any outside organization knew, for

instance, in exact terms the kind of sales tax that, say, Simpson's

paid last year in any given area of this province, and what Eaton's

paid, they could very quickly figure out what kind of revenues their

competitors were taking in. That's information that possibly they

shouldn't have.

I'm only using that for an example. I'm sure there is example after

example after example that people outside of government should not have

information that only people in government have the right to know and

have taken an oath of secrecy. I put that down as a dangerous precedent

to set, to allow outside accountants or otherwise to come in and to

take a look through the financial situation of any province.

But I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that they didn't do that anyway.

I'm just putting that as a warning, Mr. Minister. They didn't do that

because obviously, in order to come up with the kind of report that

they came up with so that the government says Bill 3 is necessary, all

they did was walk around, talk to various ministers, according to the

Minister of Finance, and get from those ministers what their estimate

of their department would happen to be, and each minister would tell

them whether they thought it was an emergency situation that this

government had to borrow for to meet those obligations.

I am surprised, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that Clarkson, Gordon,

after taking that obligation in the first place from government, would

continue to write that report. I am surprised that they would take that

information and lend their name to what was obviously a political ploy

of the government to try and throw a bad light on the past

administration. That's all this bill is about, really. Because unless

the Minister of Finance gets up in his place and answers the questions

that are being put to him by the opposition in a way that will satisfy

not only us but the people of British Columbia that there is a need to

go into debt, then the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

is absolutely right. This government is going to plunge the people of

this province into debt for the first time in over 20 years, only in

order that they may feel that they're getting some political advantage.

Every time we raise that point they say "you did."

HON. MR. MAIR: And you did!

MR, LEA: They say "you did". We're saying that it isn't

needed. You haven't proven inside this House or outside of this House

that this money is needed. You have not proven it. Otherwise you would

not have written a rubber cheque that you're not going to cash, but

when you may cash it you'll lend it back to the government, and the

people of B.C. will have to pay interest to ICBC, which they already

own. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

I don't blame you for coming up with that excuse, because under the

circumstances you couldn't come up with a reason. All you could come up

with was an excuse, but surely you could have had a better excuse than

that. Surely, with 15 people over there, you could have come up with a

better excuse than that. But then that's the record of your government

— more excuses, no reasons. I would say that these questions have to be

answered, and we're quite willing to do the people's business and stay

in this House until there are satisfactory answers to these questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I'm

not sure if there was a question buried somewhere in all that rhetoric,

but I thought I heard one somewhere back there, having to do with the

auditing firm and whether they were sworn to secrecy. I can only say to

that, that any auditing firm, as a matter of ethical principles, is

sworn to secrecy. The confidentiality of the client and the

practitioner are automatic in that type of relationship.

MR. LEA: You may buy that. I don't buy it.

[ Page 648 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, that's fine. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, with respect, that he's therefore casting a slur on a

reputable national firm of chartered accountants, and I take exception

to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you say it outside?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'd say it outside.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I'd like to ask the

minister a question directed to understanding the current urgency or

otherwise of this bill. Now that the fiscal year ending March 31 is

past, could he tell us whether or not the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia has cashed their $181 million cheque? It seems to me to be

quite important to know the bank situation and whether he has had any

representations from the bankers of the province as to whether or not

they are being presented with any cheques which they feel unable to

honour because of the cash position of the government, or whether the

government has since the end of the fiscal year made interim credit

arrangements of some kind to permit these cheques to be accommodated.

There are three short questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I heard three questions, but I

recall two. I think one of them had to do with the cheque for ICBC.

I've not had any advice as to what the disposition of this cheque has

been, nor have I had any contact from any bank with regard to it.

MR. GIBSON: I'll just follow that up with a quick comment. I

assume that if the minister hasn't been hearing these kinds of things

from the bank there's no tremendous urgency on the bill. That's all I

was trying to establish.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I'm a

little worried. I was going to ask a very simple question on another

subject, but I think we have a right to be concerned about a large

cheque of that size that's outstanding, because you might get notice

from the bank...I've had that experience myself. (Laughter.) NSF, you

know? It would be nice to know who has the cheque and who's holding it

and whether or not they intend to put it in their bank account. It's a

pretty big item.

The other question I want to ask the minister is a very simple one.

I asked the other day about the $7.5 million to the universities

council. The minister was good enough to say that there had been a

letter from the universities council requesting this amount. We've had

a couple of days now, and I'd like the letter to be tabled as part of

this discussion. It's a fairly substantial amount, and I'm not content

that it should be tabled in the estimates of the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) in the future. Now is the time to see whether that

expenditure is justified — as it might be.

The Minister of Education gave the assurance that it would be tabled

in his estimates, but we as an opposition are questioning whether that

expenditure had to be made for the previous fiscal year. We're saying

the need was not shown and the information we have is that it was not

necessary for it to be received by the universities council before

March 31. So unless there was a justification for it, the government

are exposed as spending money in order to compound the debt situation

for political reasons. The letter may clear it up, and in that case we

have $7.5 million that we can get rid of. Perhaps the minister could

assure us that that letter will be tabled now.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I believe, Mr. Member, that the minister did

indicate to you the last time you raised this question that he would

table something in the House with regard to the answer to that

question. I think it might be more suitable if you raised the question

during question period.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Following up on the same

question with reference to the $7.5 million warrant for universities, I

think that what we're really concerned about is why that was placed in

the Clarkson, Gordon report as an expenditure for the 1975-76 year,

when I have a clipping in front of me from the Vancouver Sun in

which the vice-president of administration for Simon Fraser, George

Stuart, is quoted. And I really feel I must quote this to the hon.

minister so he can answer from this quote which raises a specific

question. He states that the grants increase for the universities is

8.5 per cent, excluding an additional $7.5 million given the

universities earlier this year. But he said the $7.5 million could be a

non-continuing grant, which means the universities must save the money

out of this year's budget to keep for next year's programmes.

In other words, if I read this correctly to the hon. minister, it

appears quite clearly from this

article that the money which was given

to the universities is to be used in the new fiscal year of 1976-77.

In other words, I am asking the hon. Minister of Finance, if this is

so — and it appears we have a vice-president of Simon Fraser stating

this — why then was the $7.5 million warrant issued in the old fiscal

year? Why was it listed as an over expenditure in the Department of

Education for the old fiscal year?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the committee

that the Minister of Finance, as chairman of treasury, is the one to

whom requests for justification for warrant expenditures

[ Page 649 ]

come. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) might have handled

that letter, but it must have come to the Minister of Finance; he must

have seen it, and it must have been in his custody. It's his

responsibility that the warrant was issued when it was issued, and I

would ask that this minister, not the Minister of Education, table the

letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind you that we are

straying a little from the content of

section 1. Would you please draw

your remarks back to the content of

section 1?

MR. GIBSON: To show how clearly my remarks will be within the

four comers of

section 1, may I quote to the minister that old phrase:

"Never borrow money needlessly, just when you must."?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Author!

MR. GIBSON: And, hopefully, at a lower interest rate, I might say — without mentioning names.

I'd like, within that context, to bring the minister back to this

question of the $7.5 million, so ably raised a moment ago by the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), and ask if he could undertake to this

House to ascertain, through the universities council, whether or not

this money is still sitting in their bank account as of today, or in

the bank account of the universities to which it may have been

distributed, as the remarks quoted by the member would seem to indicate.

I think it is an important question for the House to know because

if, in fact, that money was disbursed in advance of need, then what

that indicates is that the province would have to borrow in advance of

need, thereby paying unnecessary interest. I think that's important,

Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister if he would undertake to ascertain

from the universities council where this money is now. Has it in fact,

in other words, been disbursed, or is it still sitting there somewhere?

If so, is there any way we can recapture it so we can reduce this loan

limit by a little bit for a while? Would he do that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this question and

matters relating to it were directed to the Minister of Education the

other day. I think he's proposing to answer that question. He has

indicated he will file in the House a letter that was involved and I

think that's the proper answer to the question.

I'm not able to answer your second question as of today in any

event. You mentioned "never borrow money needlessly" which is an

inference that we don't need an authority for $400 million. I believe I

heard you quoted as saying that the deficit might not be $400 million;

it might be $700 million! Is that not correct? Well, why are you

arguing over $7.5 million insofar as the borrowing authority is

concerned?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR, WOLFE: I only want to emphasize to all the members

that this is an authority to borrow up to $400 million to cover the

operating deficit which we expect to be the case for the fiscal year

ended. I just ask for their cooperation in allowing this matter to

proceed, because it has reasonable urgency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Vancouver Burrard defer to North Vancouver – Capilano?

MR, GIBSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Member — just one second. Just a short rejoinder.

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: A point of short! (Laughter.) Mr. Member for Vancouver-Burrard, I'll be very brief.

In response to the minister, I wanted to say to him: yes, indeed, I

do believe that the deficit could have been made, and legitimately have

been looked to be made, larger than it was. But what we are talking

about here is the cash position, and, as the minister knows, when the

cash flows is important. I don't think that he should suggest to the

House that $7.5 million is just a little expenditure that we shouldn't

worry about in that context.

So I say to him again: will he undertake, as the money-manager of

the province, who is not the Minister of Education — the Minister of

Finance is the money-manager — will he undertake to discover where that

$7.5 million is? Has it been spent, or is it sitting in the bank?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on the

section in relation to the deficit, the minister has indicated on a number of

occasions that he has relied completely on the Clarkson, Gordon report.

I have two questions for him. One is: would he like to tell us how

much the report cost — how much Clarkson, Gordon were paid for it?

The second one is this, if I might just quote from the report

relating to the deficit: on the first page of their report, not the

Premier's speech, it says:

"Any discussion of a province's finances usually starts with the consideration of the

[ Page 650 ]

anticipated surplus or deficit for the year under review, and a

primary purpose of your request for financial information was to

determine what the results would be for the province's fiscal year

ending March 31, 1976, based on actual results to the end of '75 in

estimates made by the appropriate officials and managers for the rest

of the year."

Now that was done in February.

I would like to suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he does

now have available to him, and perhaps he would consider making it

available to the House.... He should now have in his hands, on his

desk, the report from the comptroller-general. As you are obviously

having a great deal of trouble convincing us over here of the facts,

and if the comptroller-general's report, presumably, is available — it

is the end of the fiscal year; it is usually routine that it's made

available within a few days of the end of the fiscal year — why doesn't

the minister table that in the House, and then we'll know where we are

in terms of the deficit?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, just in answer to the member's question, such a report is not now available.

I think I described the situation to the member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the other day, that in fact the

year-end deficit would have to include many transactions applying to

April, which at the year-end, if you will read the financial reports at

any year-end in the public accounts, includes expenditures made in

April which have to do with March, having to do with the prior year. So

it's going to be some little while before we really have an accurate

figure for the year-end.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I think most people have a clear understanding of what's been going on in this province.

Since that new government was sworn in some time late in December...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: ...until March.... Mr. Chairman, since when has

committee limited one to ask a specific question? If committee allows

one to ask questions, it should also demand answers — and we haven't

been getting them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Member; you are in order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to get back to when I was so

uniquely interrupted. (Laughter.) The people feel now — and I kind of

second their feeling;

1 feel the same way — that what occurred after that swearing-in

ceremony was a rush to the offices to spend money like drunken sailors

until March 31. And I say that based on this premise: if not, why

haven't we been getting answers to the questions we've been asking?

Very ordinary, common-sense questions.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Evan, help us!

MR. COCKE: Indeed, Evan, help us. Mr. Chairman, I suspect

that we will see Bill 3 circulated around this province with a

political

preamble. You know, I can see it all now, edged in black —

they got us in debt for the first time, and all that.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we are resisting this bill is because of

the fact that they know as we know.... We could have put in a bill like

that for $1 billion when we took over in 1972 — $1 billion for the

Columbia River $850 million fiasco, for the BCR fiasco and all the

other fiascos.

But no, Mr. Chairman, all we want is a few little, solid answers to

some questions. What do we see before us — the grant to keep women

alive! All of these things that were done before March 31 — spending

money in such a way as to, I think, humiliate themselves, really —

unless they could come up with the proper answers. Making advance

payments: we've asked about that — making these advance payments to

municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: When they got the notice in your own municipality they were as surprised as can be.

HON. MR. MAIR: Take a look at the facts.

MR. COCKE: A five-year probability.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, listen to the Minister of Consumer Services who likes to kick people around...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: ...indicating that there wasn't surprise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order, please!

MR. COCKE: Yes, Sir, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 651 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please address the Chair, and we can avoid the kind of confrontation that we've just experienced.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we would want to avoid that at all costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rafe, why don't you join the cabinet meeting? Leave him there by himself. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you stick to the facts?

MR. KING: Vander Zalm's going to cut you off welfare, with that beard. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: They are deciding what more to cut out of the budget when you're not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, does the minister deny that the

financial statement that came down from the auditors, or whoever they

were, was that a financial statement that reflected a political course

that had been set, a position prior zing, set by a government. That's

all we want to know. If you will admit that, then I think we're along

the way on getting to grips with this bill. A sorrowful affair, Mr.

Chairman, to say the least.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have a

couple of questions, but the first question that I would like to ask

sort of follows on what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has

been saying.

It rather intrigues me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. My

friends in the beef-growing industry, who have an income-assurance

scheme, received a payment in November and, according to the scheme's

regulations, the next payment was due in April. But strangely enough,

and much to the surprise of the beef growers, they received their

premium in March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: According to my calculations that's something between $15 and $20 million, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about that!

MRS. WALLACE: Now I would suggest that that certainly supports the contention being made by the member for New Westminster.

MRS. JORDAN: What have you got against the farmers?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the minister what the

rationale was behind making the payment in March rather than leaving it

until April when it was due.

HON. MR. MAIR: When was it due?

MRS. WALLACE: In April.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who was it to?

MRS. WALLACE: It was due in April, Mr. Chairman, to the beef producers.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where, where! There's more than one....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: All the beef producers covered by income

assurance, Mr. Chairman. That was the amount of money that was paid

out, something between $15 million and $20 million.

My other question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

relates to the figures which he has given us in the House, which

indicate that the cash shortfall as of the end of March was something

around $220 million. Now that leaves an outstanding amount, in relation

to this bill, of some S 18 0 million. He has been consistently saying

that he doesn't know what this is or how much it will be but he's just

assuming that it's going to be this much.

Now I would suggest that as the minister responsible for the

financial affairs of this province, he should at least be able to give

us some idea of what goes into the makeup of that $ 180 million he is

expecting to have to pay. I think until such time as the minister is

prepared to do that, I cannot give my support to this bill. I would ask

him to give us that kind of information, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the more we pursue the minister in

questioning on

section 1 of this bill, the more we can reveal to the

public about how political in nature this bill has been from its

inception.

The minister steadfastly refuses to answer these questions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs, Dailly) asked a question about the $7 million

[ Page 652 ]

warrant for education. The minister, the other day, stood in this

House and said it was for an over expenditure of the 1975-1976 fiscal

year. Those were the Finance minister's words, no one else's. That is

flatly contradicted in the press and the minister has said nothing

further except he's waiting for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) to get him out of that one. He is remaining silent and by his

silence he is revealing that there was indeed a conspiracy to trump up

the deficit that this bill is supposed to cover. The answer must be

that that $7 million warrant was not for over expenditures. It was a

deliberate attempt to add $7 million to the deficit, because the

minister has not explained his actions. He is supposed to explain his

actions in this House and he's not doing that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

very disappointed in him.

Mr. Chairman, questions were asked last day with respect to the

Clarkson, Gordon report. The minister rose in his place and said that I

received the only copy from Clarkson, Gordon and there's been no

changes in any of the figures. Well, Mr. Chairman, I asked the

minister: did he not receive various reports from Clarkson, Gordon,

either in final draft or draft form or interim, verbal or written

reports that he and the Premier were not satisfied with and sent back

for revision?

The first part of my question is therefore to the minister: did he

receive any reports other than the final draft report that has been

tabled in this House or that has been publicly released?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Did you receive any other report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Did you receive any other report?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member for Vancouver

Centre, would you please take your chair? We have recognized the member

for Prince Rupert.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think it's becoming very obvious,

not only in this House but throughout the province, what is happening.

Only one of two things, Mr. Chairman: either the Minister of Finance

does not know the answers to the questions that are being asked, or he

knows the answers and refuses to let this House know and the people of

British Columbia know.

MR. LAUK: The truth.

MR. LEA: If he doesn't know the answers, then as Minister of

Finance, Mr. Chairman, what he is doing in that portfolio is

unforgivable. If he does know the answers and refuses to give them to

us, it's unpardonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's withholding.

MR. LEA: It's either unforgivable or unpardonable, and there

is no other way to go. He either doesn't know what is going on in his

portfolio — in his department — or he knows and won't square with the

people and with the opposition in this House. It's one or the other.

You can't sit there day after day after day chewing on a pencil and

refusing to answer. He may do it, but I'll tell you one thing, Mr.

Chairman, the day will come when he will wish that he had not defended

the political actions of his government and had preferred to square

with the people and at least had kept that a portfolio with dignity in

this province.

Question after question, he stands up and says: "I’ve already

answered." One question at a time so there can be no error — one

question at a time: why was not the $26 million that is in the British

Columbia Petroleum Corp. transferred into consolidated revenues for the

1975-1976 fiscal year?

MS. K.F. SANFORD (Comox): No answers.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that the minister

expects to sit there and resist giving answers to the questions that

have been put to him. These questions are very pertinent; they are very

logical and reasonable questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're very repetitive.

MR. KING: Well, that's true, because we are not getting

answers, and we, Mr. Chairman, expect to receive answers and we are

prepared to remain here until we do.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Now the minister has an obligation, not only to the

opposition but to the province of British Columbia, to square and to be

accountable for the large borrowing he is proposing. For the first time

he is proposing that this province be plunged into debt to the tune of

$400 million.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Read the legislation.

[ Page 653 ]

MR. KING: He must be accountable. He must explain why this is

necessary. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am very confused. On the one

hand we were told that the province of British Columbia was broke, that

there were no funds in general revenue. Then the minister writes a

cheque for $181 million from general revenue to ICBC. The next day, he

tells the media that that cheque wasn't necessary at all and the

Premier grabs him by the arm and drags him down the hall. I don't know

whether he just grabbed him by the arm or whether he grabbed his throat

and perhaps damaged his voice, Mr. Chairman. Maybe that's why he can't

answer.

I want to suggest that we require answers to these questions before

we can consider passing authorization to borrow up to $400 million in

this province. The Minister surely has an obligation to explain what

the cash position of ICBC is today. He has not provided answers to the

query of what ICBC expects to take in in the time payments for plate

insurance that was provided this year. He has not explained what it

will cost for the suggestion from his colleague that ICBC might perhaps

be in a position to make cash loans to the government. What will that

transaction — the writing of that cheque and then the subsequent

borrowing of the same money back to treasury in this province — cost in

interest payments to the people of British Columbia, solely as far as

we can determine to bring about a self-fulfilling prophesy of that

Social Credit administration?

These are questions we must have the answers to. It's not good

enough for the minister to sit in his office or in this House playing

chess games with peppermints and so on — biting pencils. He must be

prepared to answer. We expect those answers, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the procedure of the House just

long enough to acquaint members, particularly new members, of what the

procedures of the House are? The minister may answer those questions or

all questions; he may answer them one at a time; he may answer them all

together; or, indeed, he may not answer them at all. That is the

procedure of the House. No one can insist on an answer.

MR. KING: Let's hear it for the farmers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I repeat: the fundamental reason for clause 1

is to get an authority to borrow up to $400 million. This matter has

been well canvassed. I've already announced in this House, some days

ago, the expected cash deficit on a question from the member for North

Vancouver, which you are all familiar with. I indicated at that time

that it was impossible to know what this deficit might grow to by the

time we go through April and so on, and also that the deficit overdraft

at that time did not include certain outstanding cheques and certain

sizeable expenditures which normally occur in the month of April.

I think it is very obvious to all members that it is reasonable that

we get an authority to borrow this money. I think even the members

across the House realize the need to borrow this money. Even the former

Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), in his final statement on leaving

office, in sort of assuming the returns and transfers of money from

Crown corporations, I think, predicted the deficit. I would suggest

that if your party were in power today you would be putting forward

such a bill as we are now looking at. You would need authority to

borrow from the Province of British Columbia for the deficit which we

incurred. So as I said earlier, the member for North Vancouver – Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) predicted some time ago that the deficit might run to $700

and $800 million. It depends on whom you talk to. Suffice to say, Mr.

Chairman...

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...that the deficit is sizeable....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think this matter has been well canvassed.

I have attempted to answer most of the questions that have been put to

me. I think that we should allow the business of this House to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver Centre is first on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to my colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . I've been jogging lately and I've....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The springs under my.... The elevator shoes, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 1, Mr. Member,

MR. LAUK: Thank you. The hon. minister indicated that what we

are talking about is

section 1. So far as that's concerned he is

accurate, in that we are talking about the amount of $400 million as a

[ Page 654 ]

borrowing authority to the government. But he has not answered the

questions that are requisite for the opposition to support this section.

So far we have worked him down to $50 million. If we keep on asking him any more questions we may not have a deficit at all.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He admits himself, Mr. Chairman, that he doesn't

know the answers. It depends on whom he talked to last how much the

borrowing deficit will be.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, we have the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

here.... He is underemployed, Mr. Chairman, since he lost his job as

Whip, so he's practicing a little heckle here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken little.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister said he answered my

question with respect to the alleged political tampering with the

Clarkson, Gordon report. I have looked over the Blues and what he, said

was: "I would like to assure the House, Mr. Chairman" — he meant the

committee — "with regard to the Clarkson, Gordon report that I received

the only copy of this report and that no change was made in any figures

supplied by this report."

Mr. Chairman, this is a catch-22 tautological argument.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the only movie you've ever seen?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the question again: did the

hon. minister receive any interim reports from Clarkson, Gordon, either

verbal or written, with respect to the findings of the final publicly

released document?

MR. CHABOT: He has already answered it.

MR. LAUK: That was not answered. You've received those reports and you tampered with them. You know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it might be presumptuous of me,

but I'd like to offer a word of advice to the minister. It's not that

we're holding this thing up deliberately.... (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman,

we are asking questions and many of the questions, in spite of what the

minister said, are going by unanswered. He doesn't make notes when a

number of questions are asked. He apparently tries to remember them or

perhaps prefers to forget them. I'm not sure. In any case, the

individual questions are just not answered.

I suggested in an earlier session when we were debating this that if

the minister would simply, with respect to each one of these questions,

say: "Well, this is the answer" or "I don't know the answer" or "I

prefer not to answer that question", that would dispose of those

questions. As you say, we can't insist on an answer with respect to any

question, but we can keep asking questions until the minister has dealt

with them in one of those three ways — either by answering or by saying

he doesn't know the answer or by simply saying: "I prefer not to answer

that question."

He suggested that in a speech I made earlier I said that there would

be a deficit even had we been returned to office. Now that's not the

case. It might be his recollection of it; it might be his

understanding. What I did say was that there would be a $40 million

shortfall between revenue and expenditures in total but there was $147

million surplus going into that period. So there would have been no

need to borrow had we remained in office. There would have been, on

those figures, some $107 million left in the cash surplus. It's called

the cash surplus although, properly, it's on the liability side.

Nevertheless, it's called a cash surplus. There would have been no need

to borrow had we been returned to office.

We have asked certain specific questions. There has been no answer.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat, for example, did ask the question

about paying for the cattle insurance scheme — paying two years in the

one fiscal period when that certainly was not the intention of the

previous administration. It was not expected by the cattlemen. Yet for

some reason or other the government chose to make the payment that

would have been paid in the second fiscal period in the first fiscal

period. It leaves us to suspect it was done so as to put the maximum

expenditures into the previous fiscal period and minimize the

expenditures in the next fiscal period. There may have been some other

reason, but we would like some comment from the minister, even if he

doesn't know. Well, at least tell us that, why it was done that way. If

he doesn't know, it's not good. But at least he could make some comment

on that.

In view of his previous record of apparently not remembering a list

of questions, I prefer to leave that one with him for the moment and

see what response we get for that one.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, back again on the $7.5 million

warrant to the hon. minister, I have information from a council member

that the hon.

[ Page 655 ]

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) requested that the $7.5

million be given to the