1976 Legislative Session: ist 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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2353 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates. On vote 2.

Mr. Lauk — 2353

Mr. Macdonald — 2361

Mr. King — 2362

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2363

Mr. Macdonald — 2364

Mr. King — 2364

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2364

Mr. Barber — 2364

Mr. Lea — 2365

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2365

Mr. Macdonald — 2366

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2366

Mrs. Dailly — 2366

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2366

Mr. King — 2366

Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2367

Mr. Levi — 2368

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2374

Statement

Nanaimo Schools Dispute Settlement. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2377

Mr. Stupich — 2378

Mr. Wallace — 2378

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2378

Routine proceedings

Mineral Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 30) Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2379

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading — 2379

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 2: executive council, $636,598 — continued.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Now that we're all apparently recovered from last night

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There was lots of action in this Legislature, Mr.

Chairman, to the hon. minister. I don't know where he was, but the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was within an inch of falling over the edge

of a cliff defending his estimates. The opposition, in its

effectiveness, was lashing away and he was giving blood on the floor of

the House. Where were you?

Incidentally, some obscure political figure was elected in Vancouver East and he'll be back.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm not sure this is within the administrative responsibility of the minister. On vote 2, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, after yesterday's review and debate,

I'm not sure what is in the administrative responsibility of the

Premier. But I am sure of one thing. For the first time in this House I

have not seen such an obsequious back bench, thumping their desks

whenever the Premier...burped. Let's hear it for the Premier's tie! How

about his hairstyle? Do I hear a little bit about...? I'm sure it

couldn't be for anything else, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is what they call the cabinet sweepstakes!

MR. LAUK: It's called the cabinet sweepstakes indeed, Mr.

Chairman. The cabinet sweepstakes are directly under the administration

of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I wish to assist the hon. member. You know, of

course, that we have time limits, and I'm sure that you have some salient

points that you would like to make.

MR. LAUK: There's lots of time, Mr. Chairman, lots of time!

Don't be anxious! I've got so much material here I just don't know

where to start first.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the Premier, every other minister

of the cabinet has his deputy minister sitting beside him. The Deputy

Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I know is sitting over there, but she's

too busy conserving and touring and political Provincial Secretarying

to really be the deputy to the Premier. I think that the real Deputy

Premier should be seated, and I so move. I move that Mr. Dan Campbell

be seated on the floor of the Legislature to assist the Premier, Mr.

Chairman. Could you put that motion, please? Could you ask leave that

Dan Campbell be seated on the floor of the Legislature?

Mr. Chairman, I can't hear you. Could you ask leave of the committee to seat Dan Campbell on the floor of the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that motion is in order. It's facetious and....

MR. LAUK: Are you saying that's a facetious motion?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Well, I am hurt indeed that the Chairman would consider it facetious ...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...because the Chairman considers Dan Campbell facetious (laughter), and he shouldn't. Dan Campbell's very important.

Why, the other day I was walking out in front of the legislative

buildings and I saw Dan Campbell getting into a Budget Rent-A-Truck.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I quickly checked the back to see if it was files or not, and I phoned home. Everything's secure.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): You didn't keep the truck, too!

MR. LAUK: Talk about paranoia and this kind of a government having the head of intergovernmental

[ Page 2354 ]

affairs drive a Budget-Rent-A-Truck! What were you moving — shower fixtures? What was the secret?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He sneaks in. I couldn't tell, Mr. Chairman,

whether he was wearing a pair of dark glasses or not, but he snuck out

the side of the building where the Premier's office entrance is and

climbed into the Budget Rent-A-Truck. He saw me and he looked away — he

looked away. "Maybe Lauk won't recognize me, " he probably thought to

himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you know it was you? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Dan Campbell, the real Deputy Premier — or is he

the real Premier? Executive director of intergovernmental relations — a

position that requires a diplomat. What exactly are his functions?

Well, I don't often quote Jim Hume. (Laughter.) I mean, Jim Hume is

not the Walter Lippmann of the NDP (laughter), but I do think that it's

appropriate....

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): The media's on your side. You know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The Premier appointed Dan Campbell as his Deputy

Premier and I'd like to know a few things about him. Did he help write

the budget? We're all familiar with Dan Campbell's style, aren't we?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: We're all familiar with his style, but in The Daily Colonist

on March 22, Jim Hume asks these questions, and I think it's important

to put it to the Premier, as Jim Hume put it to the Premier:

"Not all nastiness will be on open display in the

Legislature, of course. Much of it will take place in the backrooms

where politicians play their favourite position-jockeying game. There

were a few good examples opening day where the keen observer spotted

Social Credit Party leader, Peter Hyndman, seated so far below the salt

that he was almost lost in the crowd.

"Nothing important, you say? Maybe not, until it's

remembered that Dan Campbell had a little to do with the seating

arrangements. Outwardly Dan and Peter are bosom buddies fighting side

by side on the same team, but never let appearances fool you. Behind

the scenes there's a little power struggle going on with the betting

about even as to which of the party stalwarts will win. Campbell has to

be the favourite."

Well, this pilgrim has something to report. The other day I was in

Vancouver and saw my old classmate, Peter Hyndman, walking dejectedly

in the rain in the city of Vancouver, and I said: "Peter, are you going

to run for the nomination in West Vancouver–Howe Sound, or in

Coquitlam, or Omineca?" He said "No."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, the Premier won't even let my friend do

government work. (Laughter.) He won't even let my friend do government

work. Well, isn't that wonderful? "That's a switch, " I said to Peter.

"Why is he discriminating against you, the only Socred who is not

receiving goodies from the government?"

Is the Premier aware that there's a special list of Social Credit

lawyers to which ICBC adjusters can only refer legal work from ICBC? Is

he aware of that?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes. There's a list of lawyers, Mr. Chairman.

There's a long list of lawyers, and that's been issued by written hand

— not by typing or memorandum, but by hand — to adjusters working for

the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and it says: "Well, only these

lawyers should have legal work referred to them."

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Name names.

MR. LAUK: I think maybe the bar should be informed. I think the Law Society of British Columbia should be informed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. LAUK: You'd like the names? I'm glad you asked. (Laughter.) They'll be here in a moment.

Perhaps the good doctor from Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) could

advise the Premier about the list and check on the list. I think it's

an outrage that lawyers in the city of Vancouver and around this

province do not have an equal chance as citizens of British Columbia to

do the legal work of ICBC. I think that's an outrage. I think it's

sheer hypocrisy for the Premier to stand up here and wave his arms

around thinking: "Oh, we're not like the feds." What nonsense!

Interjection.

[ Page 2355 ]

MR. LAUK: Okay. You deal with it there; you ask for that

list. You ask for that list. If you doubt me we'll bring it in next

week and show it to you.

I've heard of paranoia, Mr. Chairman, getting back to Dan Campbell.

Talk about paranoia, Mr. Chairman — Dan Campbell is nothing. He's

sneaking out to his Budget Rent-A-Truck. But the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Could I have a little order, Mr. Chairman, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe if the hon. member would stick to vote 2 perhaps the members would give more attention.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, that's clearly a biased statement. I

am dealing with the administration of the Premier's office. I am

dealing with a certain amount of paranoia surrounding the executive

council. When I ask for order in the committee, I expect the Chairman

to protect this little member as well as any other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will expect that little member to obtain to vote 2. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: If I don't have order, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

NAYS — 26

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Waterland

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I might take this

opportunity, as we have some distinguished guests in the gallery, to

introduce them to the members of the House. In the gallery today we

have: Hon. Gurvinder Kaur Brar, Minister of Housing for the State of

Punjab; Mr. Charanjit Chanana, Member of Parliament, Upper House,

India; Dr. A. Ramachandran, Department of Science and Technology,

India; Mr. Murshid Ahmed, Chief Producer of Films, Ministry of

Information. Accompanying them are: Professor A. Bose, United Nations

special guest from India; Mrs. Kanadaswamy, whose husband is with the

United Nations in New York; and Mrs. Suvira Ahlwat. I ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Premier a

number of questions that have to do with a serious issue, and that is

the issue of paranoia. We have been told that it's time in this

province to stop the extremism that's going on — the political revenge

on the part of the government. It's not just the NDPers and the press

and people who are associated with the political scene directly. It's

the chief executive officer of the B.C. Telephone Co.; it's people at

Habitat; it's people across this country who are concerned about the

extremism that's going on in this province. Talk about paranoia.... The

Premier is pretending to read his letters and sign his mail.

That's better.

Talk about paranoia. Let's talk about the shredder that you put into

the executive council chamber — a shredder that the previous

administration never had need of. They raised a big issue about the

Lauk papers, but all the ministerial files are intact and can be

produced at any time. I say that without any equivocation whatsoever.

What kind of a government is it that shreds every memorandum and

every piece of paper? What kind of paranoia is that? And how far does

that paranoia go? To the most senior civil servant getting into a

Budget Rent-A-Truck in almost a secretive fashion. To a shredder in the

executive council room.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said that

he's just moved the shredder into his office. The way he talked a

couple of months ago, Mr. Chairman, I didn't think he had anything to

shred. He said it was bare. Everything was bare! He says that very

sensitive, economic documents come across his desk that have to be

destroyed. I would say so, Mr. Chairman. I would say so.

In a time when it is essential that in the democratic process there

be open and candid government, this Premier does everything possible to

make both himself and his ministers and information unavailable to the

public, to this opposition, to this Legislature and to the people of

British Columbia. Paranoia! Watergate! The shredding of documents

[ Page 2356 ]

day after day after day.

He will not let another Nixon situation develop here: there are not

going to be tape recordings; and no files are going to be shredded. Not

a word to be judged. What's the latest news, Mr. Chairman? Hotlines

from the Premier's office to each and every minister. I understand the

Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer'

s) hotline telephone is red.

Does it have a special ring to it, Mr. Premier? Are they bugproof, Mr.

Premier? What kind of paranoia is going on with the Premier and this

government? The kind of paranoia that leads to extremism, conspiracy

and undemocratic action in this province! That's the kind of paranoia

it is, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can ignore it only once. Shredders were not enough; hotlines, unbuggable phones, untappable phones are in there now.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not upset, because I didn't know that we were tapping regular phones. But what paranoia!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you know that the Premier is worried about the

lead time — as he said in some of his remarks — on some economic

developments? I'll just deal briefly with some of the points he raised

yesterday afternoon, and get to something I feel should be mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, Brascan wasn't a coal developer; it never was

a coal developer. We knew that Brascan would not proceed with Sukunka,

and the government knew that on December 22 when they took office. So

who're you trying to kid? Talk about lead time! You've done nothing

since December 22 to put the Sukunka coal deal together, and you knew

since December 22 — or you should have known — that Brascan wasn't

going to proceed. What kind of hoodwinking nonsense and bafflegab are

you trying to feed the people of the province? Lead time. Waving his

arms around — oh, so reasonable — to the thumping of the backbench.

What nonsense!

Lead time. You knew five or six months ago — and what did you do

about it? Nothing. If you didn't know about it, what were you doing —

reading your reviews in Alan Fotheringham? You should have read your

reports: Brascan was out — it was going out. And what did you do then?

We're told $5 million for feasibility studies for northeastern coal.

That $5 million, the same $5 million, is scattered about all the

different departments — I think it's six or seven different

departments. The six or seven ministers, including the Premier, have

each announced it three times. If you add that all up it's close to

$900 million — or maybe less or more, depending upon how many

announcements were made. But it's the same $5 million — just $5 million

— and, you know, it's supposed to go for all kinds of studies. It's

just a delaying action because they know that they can't proceed.

The Premier mentioned in his remarks that Manitoba raised taxes too

— and this went by without comment. I have the Manitoba government's

statement in this year's budget: "The Manitoba government has ruled out

any general tax increase in either the basic personal income tax rate

or the general sales tax by applying primarily selective and temporary

anti-inflation surtaxes on large corporations and the top 3 per cent of

the income-earners in Manitoba." That's what we're arguing for, Mr.

Chairman, to the Premier. Don't tell us that Manitoba raised taxes — on

whom?

You have attacked the little people of the province. That's what

we've argued about. Don't pretend that you don't understand that

attack. Financial wizardry: raise personal income taxes and sales taxes

— what genius! — and then claiming that it'll take three years to get

us out of a depression. Well, Mr. Chairman, this kind of economic

thinking is extremely dangerous. It's the kind of economic thinking

that prevails now in B.C. Hydro. It's the kind of economic thinking

that is absolutely devastating to this province. It's destroying the

little people, and it's ignoring the great resource-takers of the

province. The sellout gang is back.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) got up and gave a very clear

and honest speech yesterday. It was the first admission by a member of

the government side of the abject failure of the coalition economic

policy. The member for Skeena got up and told us about a 14 per cent

unemployment rate in Terrace. He got up and clearly inferred, from his

remarks, that the economic policies of this Premier and the coalition

government are failures.

You can't run a province the way you run a hardware store or a

motel. You can't do it. You can't go around and count the paperclips

and the pencils when you've got tremendous costs to face, and

efficiencies and inefficiencies to deal with. You can't run a business

like this the way you run a hardware store. You've got to be able to

understand some basic economic facts — I'm not saying partisan economic

facts — basic economic facts. When you raise taxes you take purchasing

power from the people.

Smile as arrogantly as you like, Mr. Premier. Be arrogant, but the

people of this province are going down the tube because you don't

understand the

[ Page 2357 ]

basics of economics.

Even as far back as 1819, people were saying....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Major Douglas.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what you do? I'm saying to the Premier: do

you know what you do? You don't raise taxes when you're trying to get

the economy moving. You don't ignore taxes on major corporations and

bill taxes on the massive part of the population if you intend to get

the economy moving. The only time when the Premier and his ministers

become eloquent, as far as reduced taxation or incentives are

concerned, is when they're talking about Imperial Oil or when they're

talking about some multinational corporation. They don't talk about the

incentives for the little person to have better purchasing power, more

jobs, better income. That's what the member for Skeena was talking

about really. He was very honest about the plight of the people in his

riding, in his constituency. He knows that the economic policies are a

disaster. The report on the Terrace situation is May of this year and

it covers the first few months.

There's no magic to turning the economy around. There's no secret,

unless you want to play political games and hire Clarkson Gordon to do

a little flim-flam for you. But there's no secret to turning the

economy around. If the world markets are fine, and they're becoming

better, you reduce personal income taxes. You increase incentives to

the ordinary person, not to the multinational corporations.

As was pointed out so eloquently yesterday, the incentives of a

greater profit to major oil companies did not induce them to invest one

more penny than they would have otherwise into exploration. The Premier

seems to be satisfied and content with the creation of myths to

hoodwink the public of British Columbia. He doesn't seem satisfied to

be Premier in reality, to govern for all of the people of this province

and to be rational and to be honest. No. what he must do, Mr. Chairman,

is create myths. Clarkson Gordon created a myth for him — a great

deficit. He creates his own myth: "Because of the tremendous problems

that the NDP administration has created for this province...." And in

the corridor he says privately: "Well, really it was the worldwide

recession but, you know, politics is politics."

You know, what kind of bafflegab is that? Why don't you become an

honest, straightforward Premier governing for all of the Province? It's

a sad history of only four or five months, worsened, not improved. We

now have the highest unemployment rate in the history of the province

of British Columbia at any time during its time, and the Premier does

it again. He comes in with his chart and he says: "Well, we finally

reached the September rate of unemployment." That was the seasonally

adjusted. When he was arguing about unemployment when he was the Leader

of the Opposition, he would take the actual, because the actual was

higher. Do you know, he jumps from column to column.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: It is true. You used to use the actual.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Seasonally adjusted.

MR. LAUK: No, the actual.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): You sure did.

MR. LAUK: When you talked about 100,000 unemployed in this province, that was a lie then. Either you lie now, or you lied then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, Hon. Member!

MR. LAUK: Which way will you have it? We said 100,000 unemployed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier, please! If I just may express the point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd ask you to excuse him because he's flushed with success today. He's really excited, and I know he doesn't mean it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is incumbent upon the Chair to maintain

order and, although it would be nice to be forgiving, we would not know

when to be forgiving and when not. Therefore, I must ask the member to

withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Oh, I think that if the Premier says....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Oh, I can't, Mr. Chairman. He said that he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I can't. Do you know

[ Page 2358 ]

what the man said? He said he never used actual figures for unemployment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you have been a member in this House long enough to know that there are some....

MR. LAUK: I don't want to give the Premier any special attention on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you will withdraw?

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: But I should say that the Premier put an

advertisement, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in the newspaper,

saying: "100,000 unemployed."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Advertisement.

MR. LAUK: Oh, a Point Grey elitist.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ha, ha!

MR. LAUK: Opportunist, power-hungry, deserted turncoat from his own party.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I want to complain about the garbage pickup. They took some of my files the other day. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank God they didn't deliver them to me. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Correcting me — advertisement. It said: "100,000

unemployed in the province of British Columbia." We checked the

figures. There were no actual figures of 100,000 unemployed; they were

seasonally adjusted. Pardon me, the opposite is true. (Laughter.)

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): You blew it!

MR. LAUK: There were no seasonally adjusted figures, and now

he's saying that he always dealt with seasonally adjusted, but it was

the reverse at that time. What utter nonsense! You jump from column to

column — whatever suits your purpose.

Now listen to my point. It's a sad thing when there are 110,000....

I heard this week that there were almost 114,000 unemployed in the

province. Let me tell you, that is a sad thing. But what is even sadder

is a Premier that has come to power on a promise to be honest and open

and he creates and perpetuates these myths. He gets up and he answers

the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), if at all, by saying: "We

are going to try to improve the situation, Mr. Chairman. We're going to

have investigations and we are doing reports. It's going to take three

years to turn the situation around." The member for Skeena must have

bit his lip sitting there listening to that bafflegab because he

eloquently placed on the floor of this Legislature the plight of his

constituents, particularly in Terrace, and backed it up with research

by that report. And the Premier bafflegabs him.

I don't see the member for Skeena thumping his desk too often, Mr.

Premier, because he has been here too long. He is not carried away with

personalities. He doesn't consider the cabinet sweepstakes worth his

time. He is an honest man, he's always known to be an honest man and he

is an excellent politician already in the history of this province, let

alone today. He stood up and honestly put a case to the Premier and he

was bafflegabbed. He wasn't answered.

What the Premier should have said is: "Mr. Member for Skeena, I'm

sorry that we didn't sign the northwest rail agreement. I'm sorry that

we couldn't do that. That would not have provided miracles but it would

have improved the situation. Mr. Member for Skeena, I'm sorry that we

haven't had that meeting between the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) and the people up at Can-Cel. I'm sorry that we haven't

proceeded along the lines of assisting Eurocan through DREE to expand

their programme."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He's already met with them. That's wonderful. Was that yesterday?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Five or six months have occurred; Eurocan is still

waiting for some assistance through DREE to expand. The northwest rail

agreement was shunted aside because you got involved in possession of

stolen property during the campaign. You were involved in a stolen

briefcase and a stolen Telex. You were proud of it. That is why you

have to turn back the northwest rail agreement.

Does the member for Skeena get an apology even? Does he get the time

of day? No, he's just an old veteran politician you can ignore with all

your new turncoats and motley crew from various other political

philosophies you have put together as a coalition. You can ignore even

a veteran politician when he honestly sets forward a case for his

constituency. The development and social

[ Page 2359 ]

improvement that would have been brought about by

the railway agreement have been left on the table and, as I heard from

Ottawa, may never be picked up again. Decreasing the number of jobs,

increasing unemployment and decreasing revenue to the province — that's

the disaster of economic policies of the Premier of this province.

It has been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that there is a problem with

campaign funds. Because it seems that the Premier of this province

understands the importance of being honest and open about campaign

funds, I will read the material that has been read in this House

yesterday; I will read it again so that the Premier understands what I

am about to say. In the Premier's estimates last year, the present

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) asked the then Premier to spell

out appropriate standards for the receipt of campaign funds. He had

this to say:

I have said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anybody

who donates before or after an election and who makes personally known

to you that he is giving money, and the amount of money he is giving,

is himself guilty of improper motives.

That's a pretty strong statement there, Mr. Premier; maybe you should listen.

He went on.

Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who

offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected. Let there

be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his

identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to

give. That man expects favours in return.

That's a pretty strong statement by the Minister of

Education, a man whose family in political life goes back a long way, a

man who, although a bit of an opportunist in the last few years, has

been highly regarded in political life.

Let me give you an example of what he was talking about and how

dangerous it is when large corporations are involved with campaign

funds. Perhaps the new government takes over after receiving a number

of donations from various corporate and personal donors, which is

legal, The new Premier of the province appoints a board of, let's say,

the local Hydro corporation. On the board he appoints first of all an

old political crony. That's obvious. He's not trying to hide the fact

because he can't. Then he appoints someone else. He appoints someone

else who sits on a number of other boards.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, all the Premier has to do is say

"just a minute." He doesn't have to have permission. He's extended that

courtesy to everybody else in the House. What's the matter? Is he a

little disturbed with me today? Good! We'll carry on.

As I say, this new Premier of this hypothetical province appoints a

political crony to head up the local Hydro corporations. On the board

he appoints an individual who sits on other boards, and it comes to

light that the individual who was placed on the board, under the

chairmanship of this political crony, sits on, among other things,

several boards of other related companies. We find out further,

somewhere down the line, that one of these other related companies is

directly associated with, let's say, the chief fund raiser of the

Premier's political party. Not only is he associated with the chief

fund raiser of the Premier's political party, but he once, while

representing the private company in question, went to the Crown

corporation in question and offered to buy their retail sales of a

particular commodity — let's say natural gas.

Doesn't that raise a number of questions, Mr. Chairman? It takes us back.

"Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who

offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected; let there

be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his

identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to

give. That man expects favours in return."

May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that a man by the name of Hungerford

has been appointed to the board of directors of B.C. Hydro Co. Mr.

Hungerford, among other things, sits on the board of Inland Natural

Gas. I asked this question of that political crony of the Premier's the

other day — the chairman of the board — and he said yes, he still sits.

Roderick M. Hungerford, president of Flex-Lox Industries, is one of the

directors of Inland Natural Gas.

I'm not even going to bother about raising the conflict-of-interest

situation between Hydro, which operates with natural gas, and Inland

Natural Gas. That's minor. It may cause other governments to resign, or

at least that director, but there's something even better than that.

Hungerford is on the board of Inland, and then gets on the board of a

Crown corporation which has very strong competitive advantages over

private industry. He's now sitting on that board with the Premier's

political crony. So far it's not too bad, but it's a serious conflict.

But then we recall that on February 28, 1974, on the 20th floor of a

building at 1199 West Hastings Street in the city of Vancouver, Austin

Taylor Jr., the chief fund raiser for the Social Credit Party — the

coalition — goes to see Jimmy Rhodes, the head of the British Columbia

Petroleum Corp. What has he got to say? "I'm representing Inland

Natural Gas. Can we buy your natural gas retail facilities from B.C.

Hydro? Could you approach your Premier?"

You could have knocked little Jimmy over with a

[ Page 2360 ]

feather, Mr. Chairman. The chief fund raiser of the

Social Credit Party goes to see the head of a Crown corporation, saying

he represents Inland Natural Gas. "Can we buy the retail outlet?" Then

when that party comes to power we find that Hungerford, from Inland

Natural Gas, is sitting on the board of B.C. Hydro. Pretty cosy, isn't

it? Doesn't it raise some questions? No, it doesn't. Not to the

Premier. He doesn't understand what I'm talking about. He doesn't know

the gravity of the charges that can be made, and the cloud of suspicion

over what's going on.

Do I have to read the statement again?

"Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers

a gift to someone running in an election of elected; let there be no doubt about

the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who

makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours

in return."

That's the charge. Hungerford sat on Inland Natural Gas at the same

time when Austin Taylor was sent by them to the Crown corporation to

purchase the retail outlet for a ridiculously low price, I would say. I

understand that Mr. Rhodes replied, "No, but we'll buy Inland Natural

Gas." Austin Taylor Jr., chief bagman for the Social Credit party, beat

a hasty retreat.

Then we find, of all the nerve, that Hydro has a new board member —

a man who sat all this time on the board of Inland Natural Gas. The

Premier just doesn't understand the gravity of this kind of a

situation. He dodges. He avoids. He bafflegabs. He ignored the comments

of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). He didn't answer the questions

properly.

He's got to go to the top of the crass, Mr. Chairman. He has someone

else as Minister of Finance. All right, he's fulfilling that promise,

but he did it not for the fulfilling of the promise; he did it really

to avoid being under fire.

He's afraid of the press. He's afraid of the opposition. He's afraid

of the new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) . He doesn't answer

questions. He takes on no responsibilities. He's got a philosophical

myopia that makes some of the sheiks in the Middle East look a little

bit like philosophers. He has absolutely no understanding of the

ordinary wage-earning British Columbian. He's a millionaire with a

silver spoon, soft-handed and overprotected. He demonstrates a

callousness towards the well-being of others.

Mr. Chairman, we can't ask him any questions because he hasn't done

anything. Whenever a minister puts his foot in his mouth it's called

"unfortunate." Too bad. "Don't ask me that question; it's within the

responsibilities of a committee." It's the responsibility of the

Minister of Finance. It's someone else. It's this person; it's the next

person.

But he's got to be held responsible, Mr. Chairman, for the actions

of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who hid behind a civil

servant, who blamed a civil servant, who attacked a civil servant

publicly. If the allegations of slander against that civil servant are

proven, I hope the Premier has the courage to demand that minister's

resignation and drum him out of cabinet altogether. I cannot think of a

more reprehensible thing to do than an elected politician — a Crown

minister under oath — blaming his irresponsible bungling on an ordinary

civil servant and that civil servant having no other recourse but to

take it to court for justice. Is the Premier not responsible for that?

Can he avoid answering for that? Can he avoid answering for appointing

his crony to B.C. Hydro who says that if you don't plan for maximum

growth now at 9.2 per cent, low-growth projection for the B.C. Hydro

would mean 13 hydro-electric dams with untold devastation to the

environment.

[Mr. Bawlf in the chair.]

"What would you rather protect?" says this political crony in charge

of Hydro. "What would you rather protect — moose or men? Don't plan

for a depression." He says anything less than 9.2 per cent is planning

for a depression.

The Department of Economic Development doesn't say so, the B.C.

Energy Commission doesn't say so, but this political crony says so.

What gives him the right to have that power over this province? Can

that Premier sitting right over there blame anyone else but himself

when this devastation takes place? The B.C. Energy Commission and

economists across this land say that if you say 9.2 per cent is the

low-growth rate, industry will fill the gap. They'll expand to 9.2 per

cent.

You don't have to be a genius, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier. Don't

listen to the double-talk, Mr. Premier. I can't believe you would

accept that advice just offhand. It's devastating advice, Mr. Chairman.

It's disastrous advice. It comes from a political crony who flirts with

an international conspiracy. That's who Bonner is. Good Lord — open

your eyes. See that 9.2 per cent would be devastating for this province.

Economists in the Department of Economic Development say 7.5 per

cent would be realistic. It would fulfil expectations. It would be in

line with other energy commodities — gas and so on.

Why have hydro-electric power when hydro-electric power is going to

be so cheap and so available in British Columbia? Is that the process,

Mr. Chairman — to make it so cheap that they have a whip hand to bring

in industry? It already is that way. You don't need it now or in the

future. Industry will move in on a reasonable basis and on a planned

[ Page 2361 ]

basis, but if you say 9.2 per cent industry will

expand to 9.2 percent. It's a self-fulfilled prophecy. All the

economists say it's a self-fulfilled prophecy. If you plan to expand to

9.2 per cent then indeed the demand will be 9.2 per cent. If it's 7.5

the demand will be 7.5.

It's absolute doubletalk to say that we expect the demand to be 9.2

per cent. You're creating a demand by saying that in itself, and you

are letting this man get away with creating a disaster in this province

— 12 hydro-electric dams in the Stikine, across this country,

destroying wildlife, destroying farmland, destroying the environment

and the ecology that belongs to the future generations of this

province. And for what? To sell cheap power to an American-dominated

industry. What nonsense! What's the answer that we get from this

political crony in charge of B.C. Hydro? "Oh well, if you plan for

anything less, you are planning for a depression." That's nonsense!

The Premier should answer more about a number of other things. I

know my time has almost expired. Before I take my seat there are a

number of other questions I have to ask the Premier. I am told that the

estimated cost of the Premier's shower room was $10,000. The tiles in

his shower were replaced three times. Yesterday he said it was $300 for

the shower. Well, it may have been $300 for a shower fixture, but that

shower room cost $10,000 — $10,000 to move a wall and change the tiles

three times. What was wrong with the tiles, Mr. Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the door.

MR. LAUK: Oh yes, and the door. The door was replaced or something or handcarved by some South American voodoo carver or whatever he is.

I don't know what you are trying to do, Mr. Premier. On the one hand

you make a token gesture of cutting back your salary by 10 per cent,

and on the other you spend $10,000 on a shower. Yes, $10,000 — don't

shake your head. The tiles were changed three times in that room. Don't

talk about the $225 you paid for a shower....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Would you please address your remarks to the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes. I am most delighted to do so, Mr.

Chairman. The Chair has taken on proportions that I could never have

expected earlier.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I have raised a number of issues. The Premier,

who has gone on signing his mail, gritting his teeth...maybe he has

something to say now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. LAUK: Nothing to say?

MR. CALDER: Nothing to answer.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'll be glad to yield to the Premier if he wants to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

Well, I was busy yesterday and I want to say right off that I want

to congratulate the Premier, as head of his political party, in coming

in second in Vancouver East, nosing out Levinson, heading off Bader's

threat, sliding past the Conservative candidate and topping the

Liberal. That's very good and the Premier has proved to be a very good

loser. It's an experience that will be useful to you in the future, Mr.

Premier. Learn to like it.

I'll try and make my questions rather rapid but, at the same time,

I'm very much concerned with what I am saying here. I see in this

clipping of May 5 — and this has been public knowledge — that the

Premier, after going down to the energy conference, said the following:

" 'Surely we should be at least $10 a barrel,' Bennett added, saying

that the current price of $8 a barrel should rise to the international

price of about $13." And in the story that's repeated in a different

way. " 'Oil at $13 a barrel is a bargain because replacing the oil will

cost $16 or more, depending on how far north new supplies will come

from,' the Premier said."

Now I would like to know whether the Premier made those remarks, and

I would like to point out the consequences of it, in terms of the

giveaway to the oil companies in the Peace River who produce between

55,000 barrels of oil and somewhat less per day depending on what

extent they are on a slowdown. What the Premier has done, even by going

back east to support the present increase — he wanted at least $2 and

it turned out to be $1.75 phased in — is that he has not only increased

the price of gasoline for the consumers of this province by 7 or 8

cents, but he has made a gift to the oil-producing companies of the

Peace River area, most of them dominated by multinationals, of $36.5

million!

I base that upon a flow of, say, an average 50,000 barrels of crude

oil per day from our Peace River — our own oil. Increasing that barrel

price by $2 — that's $100,000 a day — that is $36.5 million a year

granted on a platter to the oil companies for the old oil that they are

producing from the earth of British Columbia, without them having to

expend any new money on that flowing oil!

Because the wells are in; the gathering systems are there; the

plumbing is in place. And this is the flowing oil — old oil — produced

in British Columbia, and on which the Premier has given a grant of

$36.5 million a year to the oil companies. With all that's happened to

the ordinary people of this province in the last few months, that is an

unconscionable

[ Page 2362 ]

giveaway.

MR. KING: Punish the poor and reward the rich.

MR. MACDONALD: It's been widely quoted and never denied that

Imperial Oil, the biggest of the companies — the company with the

greatest presence in Boundary field, and conducting a slowdown strike

for more money — contributed $234,000 per year between 1970 and 1975 to

the campaign funds of political parties, excluding the NDP. I

specifically put to the Premier that you received money from Imperial

Oil. that you supported the price increase of their barrel oil and that

that's a political payoff back to that multinational oil concern at the

drastic expense of a rising cost of living for the people of this

province.

My specific question is: is any of the $36.5 million...? And we're

not talking about the $13 price the Premier wants to give the oil

companies, according to that quote. You know, that would be another 25

cents a gallon for everybody who drives a car in B.C. It seems

ridiculous to me, Mr. Chairman, that in our own province we should be

supporting the Arab-fixed price of oil and saying that we have to give

back to the multinational oil companies that are prospecting and

producing in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the

north...that we should give them the Arab price even though their costs

haven't risen, and even though the figures are plain that big companies

like Imperial Oil had net returns go up in 1972 to 1975 from $157

million to $250 million. Yet during that same period they reduced the

amount of exploration and drilling expenses they're putting into

investment in Canada.

So there's no guarantee — in fact, quite the opposite — that this

bonanza of $36.5 million a year that has been given to the oil

companies in B.C. alone will be put back into exploration and drilling

for new sources of supply. There is no incentive system such as we

imposed in the case of natural gas where, if there had to be a price

increase, they could only cash that certificate if they actually spent

the money on new exploration and drilling.

My specific questions to the Premier are these: will any of the

additional oil price be taken back into the public coffers by way of

increases in royalty payments due to the Crown on old oil — on the

flowing oil — or is that totally a gift to settle campaign debts to the

international oil companies? I don't think the Premier is listening,

but I want to know whether any of that money, the increased price of

oil, the $1.75, is going to come back to the public of B.C. by way of

improving our royalty take from the flowing oil of B.C.

The second question: will the Premier impose a two-price policy — as

we had in natural gas — to protect the consumers of this province in

terms of the price of gasoline?

The third question I want to ask is: will the Premier undertake to

bring in an election expenses Act so we do not have favours on a

gigantic and lavish scale being granted to international companies

which are at the same time contributing campaign funds to the

government in power?

If ever a campaign expenses Act was needed in this province it's now

with this government, in this year, in this term of office, which I

hope will be short, because we are finding with a lavish hand the

resources of B.C. peddled off to, as I say, these international

companies, while with the other hand there have been heavy impositions

on the people of the province in terms of their cost of living, the

taxes they pay and the charges they meet when they travel on ferries or

go to a gas station to buy gas.

Will any of that money come back, Mr. Premier, by way of royalties

to the Crown — the $36.5 million? Will there be a two-price system for

oil, as there is for natural gas, as established by the NDP? And will

the Premier undertake that there will be an election expenses Act, to

clean up our politics in this province of British Columbia, within a

period of one year?

MR. KING: I hope that the Premier would pay some attention to

the very serious questions that have been put to him by my colleague,

the member for Vancouver East. They are serious questions, questions

affecting the disparities that I talked about earlier, in terms of the

tax and cost burden that is being disparately placed on the people of

British Columbia to the extent that the average working poor, the

average working person and certainly those on fixed incomes are asked

to bear a much heavier burden in terms of costs and revenue to this

province than are the great corporations that the Premier seems

unwilling to demand reasonable returns from on the exploitation of

resources — not only in the petroleum industry, as my colleague has

pointed out, but certainly with respect to the Kaiser coal development

that ships hundreds of millions of tons of coal out of this province

annually without any indication from the province that the royalty

payments will be increased to develop additional revenue for the

province when last year Kaiser Co. experienced the highest profits on

record.

I think it is shameful that the Premier sits there mute and fails to

take heed of the case, demonstrated to him beyond question, that all of

the government cost increases have imposed about a 10 per cent

cost-of-living increase on the average worker and pensioner in this

province while millionaires, corporations and others have seen only 2.5

per cent of their disposable income eroded by this government's

policies, building, compounding and accelerating the disparities that

exist between income

[ Page 2363 ]

groups in society. I think the Premier should take

that matter seriously, respond to it and defend his economic policies

in this House. I can only interpret it, Mr. Chairman, as arrogance on

the part of the government if there is no satisfactory response or

answer.

I have one other issue I want to raise, Mr. Chairman. I hope the

Premier will take notice and respond, because in asking for his salary

from the Legislature of British Columbia, which is a very large amount

of money, I think he should be prepared to answer the questions put to

him and to defend his economic policy. I want to question the Premier

about the government's policy with respect to mining in the parks of

this province, because we have had some conflicting statements from

members of the executive council regarding precisely what the policy of

the new coalition government is.

I refer to a Canadian Press wire story on December 5, 1975, when the

Social Credit leader, Bill Bennett, was quoted as saying that if his

party is elected December 11, logging and mining will be banned in

British Columbia parks. That is an unequivocal statement, Mr. Chairman:

logging and mining will be banned in parks without reservation, was the

Premier's statement. He didn't qualify it in any way.

Therefore it is with some chagrin and some curiosity that I noted

statements by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), for instance,

on January 29, 1976, quoted in the Victoria Times .

The headline is "Mining In Parks Isn't A Bad Thing." That's what the

Minister of Mines said: "Mining in parks isn't a bad thing."

Other members of the executive council have indicated and inferred

that existing claims in parks might be allowed to be developed and

brought into production. That is in direct conflict with the Premier's

assurances during the election campaign that there would be no mining

or logging in the parks, period.

In light of statements by two of his ministers since that time, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the Premier to give assurance to this House that

indeed it is the policy of the government to disallow any mining or

logging activities in the provincial parks of this province. I would

appreciate an unequivocal statement from the Premier articulating

precisely what their policy is and repudiating the suggestions made by

the Minister of Mines and others of his cabinet colleagues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Premier won't say

about an election expenses Act, but the other thing is specific: are

you going to take any of that money back?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I talked about it at length, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: The royalty.

HON, MR. BENNETT: Unfortunately, the member for Vancouver

East wasn't here yesterday, because that subject was canvassed several

times — campaign expenses and what the policy of the government was on

an inquiry. We covered most of the subjects, but I allowed you to

continue because I thought you wanted your name in the record today to

prove you were back. (Laughter.)

The member for Vancouver East did mention oil prices and the

province's resources. I will say again that our policy is very

different from the policy of that party which when they were government

offered to turn over the resources of the province to the federal

government if they would socialize them. I say the resources of this

province will stay with British Columbia as long as we are government

and belong to British Columbians.

We were supported in our provincial rights stance by the Premier of

Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakeney, also NDP, who jealously guards the

resources of that province and the value of those resources such as oil

for the benefit of the province.

The member for Vancouver East well knows, Mr. Chairman, that any

increase in price is not passed through. In fact, they had some

experience with natural gas in which their policies of passing through

the amount for exploration...was kept lower than an amount that would

allow exploration to continue, and that's a subject that we discussed

yesterday. When we were up in Fort St. John it was indicated that we

had an 18-month to two-year hiatus or loss in exploration because of

the policies of that government — and based on the type of statement

that member said — until they had a report from the chairman of the

B.C. energy board, Dr. Andy Thompson, that got them to change the

policy for the benefit of British Columbia, because their rhetoric had

hurt this province. On that basis, the bulk of the increase will always

go to the province.

What we are arguing about is the right of the province of British

Columbia to control its resources and have the value pass through to

the province. We are not going to remain within the framework, if we

are to have a strong Canada, as sort of a colony of the rest of Canada

to be exploited for the benefit of central and eastern Canada. I resent

it; we are full partners in Confederation.

In fact, I think the people of British Columbia spoke out clearly

last December 11. I think a lot of it had to do with the former

to meet their own philosophical commitment to socialize it. The people

of British Columbia said: "We want the value of our resources kept to

help broaden the economic base of this province for the benefit of

British Columbians, because a strong British

[ Page 2364 ]

Columbia will mean a strong Canada."

I say again, I don't want to take up the time of the House going

through the discussion of campaign expenses and the Act and the study

we intend to bring in. If the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

will have the time, if he's going to be in B.C. any length of time this

week, he could read the Blues from yesterday.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier had a debate

about the nationalization of oil resources, and I'd love to engage in

that but that wasn't the subject I brought up.

The specific question is on the additional moneys flowing to the oil

companies producing in the Peace River area in British Columbia, which

I estimate to be $36.5 million a year: will you rearrange the royalty

schedule so some of that money at least comes back to the public? Will

you answer that question?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, before he goes east

and agrees to higher gasoline prices and higher prices for the oil

companies, ought to know by that time, before he makes that kind of

agreement, whether anything is coming back in additional royalties to

the people of this province. Now, even a long time after, two months

after he made his speech for the higher price of oil to the oil

companies, the Premier still will not answer whether he's going to take

any of that back at all for the suffering public of this province so

that their taxes and other services could be improved. Still no answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this

point in time, just interrupt the debate for a few moments to ask the

House to extend a very warm welcome to a couple who are here from

Chester, England — Mr. and Mrs. Passey. Mr. and Mrs. Passey and very

many of their neighbours, have opened their doors, have received

Canadians — 800 families of Canadians — over these past few years with

an idea that started when they realized that visitors to Britain did

not ever get to see a typical British home, and very often did not have

the opportunity of seeing the hospitality of the people of Britain.

These people, without any remuneration to themselves or without any

incentive at all from anyone, began a series of visitations from small

hotels throughout their area and very many Canadians have received

their hospitality over the years.

As minister responsible for Travel Industry in this province, I am

particularly delighted to welcome them. I think it is an example that

British Columbians and Canadians everywhere could well follow. It is my

pleasure to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Passey, and I would also ask the House

to welcome two people who accompanied them and who have made possible

the trip for the Passeys to British Columbia, Mr. JohnPlul of radio station CKNW and Mr. Barry Wall from Air Canada, who are also in the gallery today. Thank you.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate the official

opposition with the remarks of the Provincial Secretary and join in

welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Passey to British Columbia, and commending the

radio station involved, and Air Canada, for collaborating in bringing

them over.

I was fortunate enough to listen to a radio report some few days ago

about the impending visitation, and it is certainly our pleasure to

welcome them here and to commend them for their kind hospitality to

many Canadian citizens over the years.

Mr. Chairman, just one brief thing on the Premier's estimates again

before I take my seat. That is simply to request from him some

indication of what the government policy is regarding mining in the

parks, because I think he can appreciate that there have been varying

interpretations, rightly or wrongly, placed upon the government's

policy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this policy was reiterated by

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) during a speech in the

House earlier. It's simply that there will be existing agreements for

mines in the parks that were there in the former government, such as in

Strathcona. Historic agreements will be worked with the department to

phase them out. No new mines will start in the parks. That's quite

clear-cut. No new mines will start in the parks, and mines that were

there — the historic agreements that were there when your government

was there, such as mining in Strathcona — will be worked towards

phasing them out or will continue. Those are the problems that we deal

with. No new mines will be started in the parks.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have a very simply request, Mr.

Premier, and I make it on behalf of my colleague from Victoria and the

other three MLAs in Victoria.

We have sought, and so far received no answer, to determine what

precisely is your government's policy on the payment of its full share

of taxes to the city of Victoria for provincial properties.

I am in receipt of a letter from the mayor of Victoria dated May 12

in which the mayor points out that on the present basis his city will

receive this year the sum of $630,505 in property taxes from the

provincial government.

The mayor also points out in the same letter that were the province

to pay its taxes as every other taxpayer does, the city would be in

receipt of $2 million.

Interjection.

[ Page 2365 ]

MR. BARBER: That is a shortfall, as the mayor concludes, of

$1.4 million. I would like to point out, Mr. Premier, that the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) — a member of your own back bench — has

very successfully pointed out to the people of Victoria, and I join him

in doing so, that this is an unfair and an unreasonable position. It's

one which has been unfortunately adopted by provincial governments for

years and years and years. I, for one, regret very much that our own

government chose not to act on it.

I look forward to hear you saying this morning, Mr. Premier, that

you intend, as a matter of policy, that the province shall pay its full

share — 100 per cent — of taxes on provincially held property within

the city of Victoria.

The mayor of Victoria points out that this year alone the city

stands to lose $1.4 million. I join with all five members of the

Legislature representing greater Victoria in asking you to give us

today your policy. Will you pay full taxes or not? Will you pay them or

not?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I only have one

question to the Premier and that is: before we finish this current

session of the Legislature, will the Premier and his government be

calling motion 9? It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd just like to welcome the member for Prince Rupert back, Mr. Chairman.

I first of all say to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

that, as I said yesterday, the department — or the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) — are working on a new financial formula for municipalities.

Also under review at the same time is the question of taxes, or grants

in lieu of taxes, or the alternatives on government-owned property.

Some of the Crown corporations within ICBC — we passed regulations

where they would pay full taxes this year, and the whole matter is

under review in conjunction with the revenue-sharing programme that

we're discussing to hopefully put the legislation in place with

municipalities next year. All I can say is that we're looking at it.

As you know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a former mayor of

Saanich and a strong advocate of the province paying its way. Certainly

his views will not be lost within the framework of the review. I just

can't say at this time, because it's not completed as to how it would

fit into financial sharing.

MR. BARBER: Will you pay retroactively?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I might add that there's no thought at the present time to be retroactive into this year. We're talking about next year.

To the member for Prince Rupert, all motions on the order paper....

I'm not sure what.... I haven't looked up what Motion 9 is, but the

motions are there and the traditional procedure in government as to

when motions are called will be looked after by the House Leader. I'm

sure that, as in past legislatures, some motions will be called and

some may still be on the order paper. I've no way of determining right

now what motion will be called in advance.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's all fine and dandy to stand in

the House and say that, as Premier, he has no idea what motion is going

to be called...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...or whether it isn't going to be called. The fact of the matter is that he has the power.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: He has the authority to call any motion that the

government so desires. I am asking whether the government is going to

do that because I believe that if that is allowed not to be discussed

in this House it is going to leave a black mark over the whole

Legislature. It should be discussed openly, the way motions were even

put on the order paper by the previous government and then called

dealing with these kinds of matters.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can only say to the hon. member that

every motion that's on the order paper is important to those who place

it, or it wouldn't be placed as a motion. I am sure that no member of

this Legislature has ever placed a motion frivolously. The member asks

me, Mr. Chairman, to determine that that motion is more important than

others and that some may be left and it will be called because, in his

opinion, it's more important. But all motions are of a serious nature.

Otherwise I am sure no hon. member would place them on the order paper

to take the time of this Legislature.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I can only say that in many cases in the last Legislature we had

motions that we considered urgent and very important that weren't

called by the last Premier and the last government. As I say, the

Legislature has some time to go and there is plenty of time. We have

had some private members' bills and I am sure some motions will be

called before the legislative session runs out.

[ Page 2366 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to accept that answer from

the Premier, but it would seem to me that a motion on the order paper

that questions the integrity of a cabinet minister and questions the

integrity of what that minister has said in this House in terms of

whether that information was correct or whether it was deliberately

misleading the House is a motion that the Premier would want to have

discussed, to clear not only that minister but also the government as a

whole. I accept the Premier's answer that he is afraid to call the

motion.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll be brief even though I am rested after a

good day yesterday. Premier Bourassa, for whom I have a very high

respect, is asking, in the patriation-of-the-constitution conferences,

for constitutional guarantees respecting language and culture.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We covered that.

MR. MACDONALD: You covered that? Will the Premier give his

assurance that British Columbia will not commit itself — we being a

multicultural country, really — to such constitutional guarantees, at

least without this Legislature being consulted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again, we covered the

constitution yesterday and British Columbia's position. We took a very

basic position on the simple patriation of the constitution with no

province starting to use this very symbolic act of uniting the country

to negotiate this and that for their provinces. We said that the

guarantees for the provinces, in the simple act of patriation, could be

in the bill before the British Parliament to say that once the

constitution is back, no changes to the constitution could be made

without the full approval of all the provinces and that the

constitution itself — the amending formula — must have the full

approval of all the provinces. When that's done — just bring back the

constitution — we can carry out those discussions with our constitution

in Canada. We said that to bring the constitution back must be

an act

of unity for the country.

We are not in favour of any act of bringing back the constitution

which, in fact, may divide or balkanize Canada any further. Bringing it

back must be a sign of unity and a signal that we are one country. That

is why we have stated our position for the simple act of patriation. No

other way will serve the purpose of that national unity at this time.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): It's obvious we are

reaching the close of the Premier's estimates. Unfortunately there are

a number of questions which have been asked of the Premier of this

province in his first time in this position which he has not answered.

The one question that I want to ask again — which has been asked by

several members of the opposition — is one very simple question which

is very crucial to this province: Are you going to increase the

royalties on coal? If you are not, why not?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Burnaby North, Mr. Chairman,

knows full well that if we start announcing tax increases in advance of

the budget, it is, in effect, an indiscretion. We can talk about

getting full value for resources and we will. As prices rise on the

world market, we expect that the province will participate in any

increase in the commodities while maintaining fair taxation.

I might say, although we differ, that we fought an election saying

that taxation should never be so punitive nor the government's hand so

big for the resource dollar that it takes away from those hands that

would keep the industry going — particularly the hand of labour, which

is the people working. Above all, we must keep our people working. The

government itself alone has the flexibility to ensure that this

happens. We must maintain that balance.

When the government's hand becomes so big for the resource dollar

that it destroys work opportunity and employment for our people, then

government isn't really accepting its first responsibility, which is to

the people of this province. That's not a sell-out to resources or to

resource companies and multinational companies. That really is being

aware that a strong British Columbia, a prosperous British Columbia,

can't be achieved with a super-government. It is only achieved when

everyone has an opportunity to work and produce; and if government is

part of the problem, then government has an obligation to make sure

that they aren't part of the problem but part of the solution.

MRS. DAILLY: No answers.

MR. KING: Just a brief comment before the Premier's estimates

speed through this House, Mr. Chairman. I could not allow the comments

from the Premier to go by without some notice being taken.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I wish the Premier of this

province were as sensitive with respect to the heavy cost burdens being

imposed upon the backs of the ordinary people in this province as he is

sensitive to the cost impacts on those huge corporate friends of his.

Here we have had demonstrated in this Legislature, during the course of

the Premier's estimates, an indication that an additional cost burden

of in excess of $1,200 per year has been imposed upon the working poor

of this province directly as a result of the policies, the economic

policies, of this government. Yet he has the audacity, Mr. Chairman, to

stand up and weep tears of concern for the large mining corporations.

[ Page 2367 ]

Kaiser Resources last year, despite experiencing a royalty increase

from 1972 to 1975 of from 15 cents to $1.50 per ton, bore that

increased royalty payment and yet, Mr. Chairman, experienced record

profits — all-time high profits — through the exportation of our coal,

our one-shot, irreplaceable resource. Yet the Premier was able to come

in here, apparently without pangs of conscience, and heap the heavy

cost burdens upon the taxpayers of this province — over $1,200 a year —

on those people who can least afford to pay that kind of cost increase,

and then stand up and piously talk about defending the expansion needs

and the marginal profit needs of corporations who are doing very well,

thank you.

I want to suggest that in an era when Kaiser, for one, experienced

record profits, we still have an unemployment rate in this province of

very close to 10 per cent. Scandalous! I wonder what justification the

Premier has to place the kind of confidence in his corporate friends

that he apparently infers. He says they have to be granted profits of

this magnitude before employment will be created.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the mining industry jobs

are shrinking annually because of new technology in the method of

mining. Although profits are reaching record all-time highs, the number

of jobs to British Columbians are shrinking in that industry. His

concern that jobs are going to be created and economic stability

achieved solely through reliance on the private sector is an illusion,

Mr. Chairman.

I suggest that this government get off their cushiony chairs and

start getting out there in the community understanding the plight of

the 114,000 people who are unemployed in this province and doing

something realistic and sensitive to ease and assuage the tremendous

suffering that's going on in our community now, rather than talking

about some need to recompense and to subsidize — because, in effect,

that is what's happening — those huge corporations who are developing

and exploiting our irreplaceable resources and doing very well through

their diverse operations.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier gives some attention to that approach.

Vote 2 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 113: minister's office, $124,264.

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

Chairman, members of the House: I firstly wish to take this opportunity

of expressing my appreciation to the staff of the Department of Human

Resources for the tremendous cooperation they have given me over these

last difficult months. There's been a great deal of preparation, a

great deal of work that had to be done, and certainly I've experienced

tremendous cooperation from all of the staff involved. They have been

very helpful in the review that took place and very helpful in

developing new policies and new attitudes with respect to human

resources in British Columbia.

We found on taking office that much had to be done. We found that

such programmes as day care had not been reviewed for a whole two years

and that delegations were quick to come to the office to make their

appeals for an increase in the rates because of the fact that nothing

had been done for two years. Certainly an increase was due to these

centres.

We found that the Pharmacare rates paid to the pharmacists and the

rates paid to the denturists and to the opticians had not been

adjusted, that little had been done and that, in fact, still, for

example, an optician was not able to prescribe any more than welfare

glasses to people in need. Certainly an adjustment was due or overdue.

We found — and perhaps most disturbing — that the welfare rates had

not been reviewed, let alone adjusted, for a whole two years and that

many groups in society in British Columbia were suffering desperately,

particularly the single-parent families and those over 55 years of age

who found it difficult, if not impossible, to find employment even when

perhaps the opportunity was available. The handicapped were concerned

because the programme was such that there was no incentive available to

them to seek employment even on a part-time basis. This was a group who

historically wants to get out and do their part and be a normal part of

society in the community.

We found that the atmosphere with Ottawa was far from good — as a

matter of fact, a bit of a joke — and that we lacked millions in

federal cost-sharing that might have been available over the years had

the appropriate action been taken. We made a number of changes, but

also we reiterated statements, policies, that had long been on the

books such as attire, which was very controversial, such as the

low-employment areas — things that were actually in effect but never

enforced. They didn't mean anything. There was no respect, no

leadership, no sincerity. It was chaos, like a rudderless ship.

The improvements already made and those to follow will make Human

Resources in British Columbia the best and most credible system in the

whole of North America.

I heard about the delegations that used to visit — sometimes fairly

regularly, I take it — the previous minister (Mr. Levi) — sometimes

take over the office entirely. Certainly I must admit that I had and

still have a respect for the previous minister because I believe that

he sincerely had a real concern and

[ Page 2368 ]

feeling for people — I credit him for this. But I

must say that I have been terribly disappointed over the last while. I

am hoping that perhaps during the discussion on the estimates the

member for Vancouver-Burrard will make a statement once again, perhaps

alleviating some of the fears that he has established in the minds of

so many people through his recent statements.

He has made statements to suit his political ends. I am sorry for

this because it is certainly not something I expected from him. I am

hoping that he will make a correction when the opportunity is given him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsibility.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The thing that these people need most

is a sense of security. He is trying his every way to kill that sense

through falsehoods, particularly, of course, when he speaks about

Mincome and says Mincome is dead.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first thing we did when we came to

office was to increase the Mincome. The Mincome is higher now than it

has ever been. I am not sure that it is because perhaps the member

doesn't understand....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. LAUK: I was distracted for just a brief moment. The hon.

minister used the word "falsehoods" in relation to the hon. second

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi). I would ask the Chairman to

direct the minister to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me check that. Hon. Minister were you impugning the hon. member? Did you impute any improper motive in your speech?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Could I change it to "incorrect statements"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I have to ask you to withdraw "falsehood."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He withdraws. Thank you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not sure if it is because perhaps

some of the members on the other side still do not understand the

Mincome programme as it was or was meant to be. It is the old-age

security plus the guaranteed income supplement plus a provincial

payment to bring it up to a certain amount for those 65 years or age

and over. It is the minimum income by way of spouse's allowance plus

the payments for those between 60 and 65 married to someone 65 years of

age and over, or it is a straight payment for those in need not meeting

a certain level of income to those between the ages of 60 and 65.

The figure is adjusted quarterly on that portion which comes to the

people from the federal government, and that adjustment is based on a

change in the cost of living. The adjustment so made is totally at the

cost of the federal government. There is no provincial sharing required

for those moneys which are brought about through the quarterly

adjustment. We can adjust for those between the ages of 60 and 65, but

when such adjustments are made it is completely at the cost of the

provincial government.

Following the last adjustment — and perhaps this is where some of

the confusion comes in, and I'm hoping perhaps this may explain it to

the member if he doesn't understand it fully — we decided to withhold

such similar increases to those 60 to 65 so we could assess the

priority needs for those people who require the services from the

Department of Human Resources, so we could devise a new and better and

more equitable formula for all of the people involved, not any one

particular group because they're out there, because they're visible or

because it's politically popular, but for all of the people requiring

assistance from the Department of Human Resources.

These priority needs are real. When $1 million of non-shareable

revenue is spent, then that $1 million non-shareable could have

purchased in other areas $2 million worth of services or benefits on

shareable programmes. This is recognized by the thousands of people in

British Columbia who are thinking and who are seeing through all of

these programmes and who know the needs not only of themselves but

others in the community. These people have called me and they've

written me, and I'm very pleased with the response generally. The needs

of even those who perhaps cannot speak out for themselves as well, the

disadvantaged that possibly are not visible but are really there, and

that perhaps have long been forgotten, and certainly over the past two

years have not been attended to....

The Department of Human Resources is going to be a positive force

and, of course, the GAIN legislation will give us the blueprint for

progress and action in British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, you know, if

history in this province is going to have to start on December 11,

1975, then I think what we have to do is to perhaps remind some of the

new members across the way what existed before

[ Page 2369 ]

December 11, 1975.

The minister seems to feel that if a programme is not

cost-shareable, then we mustn't get into it. I would remind him and I

would remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that in September of 1972, the

handicapped in this province, some 3,000 of them, were getting $139 a

month. The senior citizens in this province — and there were 205,000

senior citizens in this province over the age of 65 in 1972 — half of

them, approximately 108,000, were on the guaranteed income supplement

getting a maximum of $150. Then there were 16,000 people who were

getting the supplementary provincial allowance of which 1,200 got the

maximum of $41 and the rest got anywhere from $1 up to $41. Now what

has to be understood is that under that programme, if you're going to

operate an assets test, that is the only number of people that you can

possibly have on that programme.

Mr. Chairman, you can look at the programme and you can say to yourself: "If

we're to operate within the guidelines of cost-sharing, then we can only

afford to have in this province some 16,000 people who would be entitled to

a supplement and only 1,200 who would be entitled to the full supplement in

order for us to cost-share with Ottawa."

As I said in the Premier's estimates last night, Mr. Chairman, there

was a long and bitter debate in this House in February, 1972, around

the issue of a guaranteed income of $200 a month. It was well known in

those days and even in the days before that senior citizens in this

province were not getting the kind of assistance that they needed. It

was well known that there were senior citizens in this province who

were starving. It was well known that people of that age were eating

dog food.

There was a great debate; it was one of the issues in the 1972

election: are the people of this province prepared to expend millions

of dollars to assist senior citizens — and not just 16,000 senior

citizens, but the bulk of the 107,000 that were on the guaranteed

supplement? At that time the average payment on the income supplement

was only $40; the maximum would be up to $67. But the average person on

the guaranteed income supplement — those 107,000 — in 1972 were getting

$120 to $130 a month, not the full payment — remember that only 1,200

got the full payment. Thus the great debate in the election, and the

seniors took

part in it that election.

They made themselves very visible; they said that they wanted a fair

share of the pie that was being cut up. They had made their

contribution and wanted to be assisted. So when we were elected, within

six weeks we came into this House and we tabled the bill. Now I would

remind the minister that it's very strange that we went from 16,000

people who were in need to 108,000 people by December 1972. Nobody in

the province begrudged them that money.

We took the position that if we could get sharing, we would get it.

If we couldn't, then the taxpayers of the province — because we'd been

elected on one of those issues — would pay the amount, and that's what

happened.

In the first instance we introduced the programme in order to meet

need, and that was what was important. But I go back to the minister's

statement. If you wish to conduct all of your programmes under the

basis of cost-sharing, then you will go back immediately to 1972. And

that's where you're going to go back to, because if you insist that

you're only going to participate in programmes of income support that

are cost-shared, then you will have a smaller number of people every

year being assisted, and a large number of people who need to be

assisted will have to be taken out or will not be able to come in

because the assets test will affect them.

What is going to happen is that we're going to get a return back to

the days when people.... And Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into

discussing the GAIN legislation; I'm still on the Mincome thing. If

people have $3,000 and $4,000 of assets, instead of computing income

from those assets you're to say: "You're not going to be eligible for

the programme until those assets are down to $1,500." That's what the

previous Social Credit government did. That's why they were only

assisting 16,000 senior citizens in this province in 1972. Now you're

making it very clear that that's what you want to do.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that what we had in the beginning when the

government took over, and the minister took over his job, was a great

deal of very heavy rhetoric — which is very popular out there, that

kind of rhetoric. We had the kind of rhetoric where the minister would

go up to Nanaimo and would say: "Do you know that 10,000 dead people

have cards and they're getting Pharmacare?" He said that up in Nanaimo

in front of a group of believers — Socred Party members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten thousand of them?

MR. LEVI: Yes, 10,000 people were getting cards for

Pharmacare, and they were dead. Yes, Mr. Minister of Forests and Lands

and Water Resources, you can look like that.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests): Wrong again!

MR. LEVI: Wrong again? He didn't say that?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The minister is defending you, Bill.

[ Page 2370 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, he went up there and he said that 10,000 dead people are getting Pharmacare cards.

You know, it's interesting that there was a question asked on the

order paper by one of the members: how many people got the card? How

many prescriptions were filled, and how much did it cost? And what was

his reply? Nil; not appropriate, not applicable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. LEVI: Yes. Then he went to Vancouver and in a moment of

euphoria he said that welfare in this province is $40 million to $80

million. And the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd) believes him,

don't you, Mr. Member? After all, you're with him on that side of the

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you talk to the Chairman?

MR. LEVI: No, no. I'm talking to you, through the Chairman.

Don't get so touchy. Is it $40 million to $80 million? Now we have to

ask the minister during these estimates: is it $40 million, is it $80

million, is it $100 million, is it $200 million?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Oh, there we go.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Don't be silly; I know it's not $100 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, $100 million — that's your figure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR, LEVI: These are his figures — $40 million to $80 million — just like that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you just long enough to assist

you? The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor, and if any member

wishes to speak, then please stand in your place and address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: I would like the minister to tell us how it was

that we lost out on some several millions of dollars. During the budget

debate I asked the Minister of Finance.... There's a

section in the

budget speech, which I presume was written by the minister or somebody

who gave him the information, saying that the previous government lost

out on $17 million of cost-sharing. When I asked the Minister of

Finance if he could tell me what that was, he said I had better ask the

Minister of Human Resources, because he didn't know what it was all

about. So I'm now asking you: are you familiar with the

section in the

budget? Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister if he's familiar with

that section. It says that we lost out on $17 million.

I would like to tell the House how this happened. In what way did

this take place that we lost out on $17 million? Or is he making

reference, possibly, to a new programme that is not yet in place — the

income supplementation programme? It isn't in place yet and is not

likely to be, as I understand it, as a formal programme for perhaps

almost two years. I would like him to tell us where we lost out on

that, bearing in mind that the basic procedure that we took in terms of

doing things in terms of seniors and the handicapped was first of all

making it possible for them to get the money and then doing what we

could in terms of some adjustment to get whatever cost-sharing we could

get.

We made no secret of the fact that in terms of the Mincome programme

the total amount of money that was being shared by the federal

government was approximately 20 per cent — just over 19 per cent. The

rest was being picked up by the taxpayer in the province. But the

important thing is that if you're going to go the cost-share route, Mr.

Chairman, then obviously you are going to exclude a significant number

of people who need to be on the programme.

Without referring to the GAIN legislation, it's my understanding

that the minister is reputed to have said that approximately 5,000

people in the 55-59 group will benefit under the GAIN programme. What

we'll have to do when that bill comes up is to produce some of the

income tax data and find out just how many of that age group, which is

approximately 130,000 to 140,000, need to benefit but will not be able

to get into the programme because there's an asset test.

The minister tells us, in respect to the Mincome programme, that in

January he increased the Mincome payment to $265. That's quite true.

That announcement regarding the increase was made in October, 1975, at

the time when the former Premier announced the price freeze and what

other adjustments would be made to assist groups. At that time the

announcement was that for all people over the age of 60 and handicapped

people their Mincome would go to $265. It worked out at about a $15

increase over the previous payment.

So far, Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the minister that $265

was paid out in January, 1976. However, when we get to April of 1976 we

find that

[ Page 2371 ]

only the people over the age of 65 got the quarterly increase and that the handicapped and the 60-64 group did not.

We're told that the reason that they did this was that they wanted

to review and to look at the situation so that they could perhaps spend

the money in a better way. I frankly don't know what better way there

is of spending money than assisting people who are on the handicapped

pension and people between the ages of 60-64, but perhaps the minister

will enlarge on that when he comes in.

He made reference to the pharmacists. I don't know whether he

mentioned the dentists, but I think he mentioned the pharmacists not

having an adjustment. That's very interesting, because when he answered

the question on the order paper he noted that there were at least three

adjustments during the three years that the NDP was the government.

That's on the order paper. You answered the question.

The minister will have to tell us, because we have to keep going

back over this, Mr. Chairman. The minister has a problem of saying one

thing and then somehow later on saying something else. He makes a

mistake so he corrects it. He makes another mistake so he corrects it.

I have to say to the minister that he said that the rates for

pharmacists had not been looked at for years. Mr. Minister, that simply

isn't true. The rates were looked at last year. They were looked at the

year before and they were increased and they were increased right back

from 1973. So if you're going to give us the information, tell us the

facts.

On the optical thing, you're quite right. That's quite true. We were

in discussion at that time on that one. But when you're going to give

information you should give the information in such a way that there's

a degree of frankness without rancour.

You talk about reviewing programmes. I think what you have to do is

to go over to your administrative offices in the Belmont Building and

meet more frequently with the staff and discuss with them and read the

reports on the various reviews that were made in respect to all of the

programmes. All programmes were constantly under review. That's the way

you operate. To suggest that the programmes were not under review is

simply not the case.

I want to make reference to the work programme which is called PREP.

Perhaps the minister will be able to tell us how, Mr. Chairman, with an

unemployment problem of some 115,000 people he is going to develop a

system, according to his assistant in Vancouver, which in the first

three months he's going to find some 12,000 jobs.

Well, I'm sure the minister knows that half of that gentleman's

problems are usually over anyway because the number of people going off

welfare into employment averages about 2,000 a month; so he's going to

succeed with about 2,000 in any case.

As I said when the press asked me about the PREP programme, I was

quite fascinated that they could achieve such a large amount of

employment. If this is the case and he's able to do this by, say,

September 1, then I would suggest seriously that at the First

Ministers' conference, Mr. Chairman, the Premier speak to Prime

Minister Trudeau and suggest that he replace Mr. Andras, who is really

making a mess of things down there.

I think that it is one thing for somebody to talk in a very

realistic way about putting people to work, but it's an entirely

different thing to use a large amount of rhetoric which does not amount

to the kind of employment that one can find. We went through, in this

province, in 1970, 1971 and 1972, the Provincial Alliance for

Businessmen, when we had one of our former predecessors — I refer to

"our, " Mr. Chairman; the present minister and myself — who was the

great gafflebagger of this Legislature at one time. He said that he was

going to put more people to work than anybody else in Creation.

I would remind the members, and there are members on that side — the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), when he used to be on this

side — who used to ask questions of that former minister.... Do you

know, in all of that operation we couldn't find where job placements

had taken place in more than 200 cases in the fiscal year 1971-72? We

asked the questions. We put the questions on the order paper, and the

questions came back. None of the great number of jobs materialized that

we were told were materializing.

Now if it is possible for the minister to place people in

employment, that is good. I think that that's a first-class effort. In

the three and a half years that I was over there doing the job he's

doing now, we made every effort to place as many people as we could in

employment. I met three years ago with your Mr. Stowe and used some of

the methods in the department. After all, we had over 30 job-finders.

We conducted in the city of Victoria, Mr. Chairman, a very successful

job-finding programme until the Province of Alberta threw up its hands

and said: "Stop sending your people to Alberta." But at that time we

were making arrangements through Canada Manpower to send people who

were employable to jobs that were available, because you will recall

that in 1974, Mr. Chairman, the unemployment rate in Alberta was less

than 2 per cent. We were looking for the possibilities of where we

could send people who were willing to work. That happened. That

operated. We moved over 1,200 people out at that time.

But there is a question that we have to ask ourselves. We have to

ask ourselves a question in terms of how far we can go in terms of

operating a Department of Human Resources in the whole business of

pre-empting what should be — and, in my opinion, has never quite

happened — the function of

[ Page 2372 ]

the Canada Manpower in order to find the kind of employment that people need.

Certainly we are not dealing, when we are dealing with the

unemployed employables, with the most employable people in the world.

They are simply the low men on the totem pole in terms of their access

and opportunity to employment. It may very well be that there might be

jobs out there at $3 and $4 and $5 an hour, but in my discussion with

employers, and I've had a lot of discussions with employers in terms of

these jobs, it is a very difficult process to convince them that these

people need the opportunity to be able to work.

After all, in this province in 1974, recognizing the problem as it

was, Mr. Chairman, we became the first province to become involved with

Canada Manpower in the community employment programme. As a matter of

fact, that programme, as a basic idea, came out of a joint paper by two

members of the department who submitted it to the federal-provincial

conference and it was picked up by the federal government. We entered

community employment programme. We selected the two areas where the

programme should start operating, in Nanaimo and in Kamloops, and the

objective of the programme was to reach the hard-to-employ, the

so-called hard-core unemployed, and train them and put them into jobs.

It's a slow process. The figures, in terms of successes, are never

very great, and they are not satisfying to the public. But it is a slow

process. That was put into place, and it is my understanding that it is

still in place. We had a report from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams), who is one of the participants, who made a statement saying

that that programme was in place and that we are still participating in

it.

So there is nothing that the minister has told us, in terms of the

plans for the department, that is new. What is new is the rhetoric, but

not the planning. The planning was there. That's a credit to the

department; that's not a credit to the minister. It's there. They were

asked to put together these ideas. The rhetoric is the thing that is

different. But the effort is there, and it is still there, and that is

the important thing. Across all the political stuff, I say, through

you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that it's a tough job that they

have in terms of trying to place the unemployed, especially the people

on welfare. But let's not single them out as being some kind of public

enemy of this province — these people who are on welfare — particular

the unemployed employable. Because, Mr. Chairman, the minister knows as

well as I do that the large majority of that group turn over at such a

rapid rate that we are only left with a small, hard-core group of

people. But the rest of the unemployed employables turn over. They go

back to work. They seek out. They find out what's happening.

But always remember that that group you have of unemployed

employables are people who are always going to be on the periphery of

the employment field unless they are able to get some kind of training.

Who are they competing with? They are competing with a large number of

people in this province who are not employed. The largest single group

of unemployed in this province are the people between the ages of 16

and 25. That's not only a provincial figure in terms of the percentage

but it's also a national figure. And there is a lot left to be desired

in respect to what happens to 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds in this

province and in this country in terms of what future they have. What

future do they have in terms of employment when many of them are not

making it through the school system?

Now we are dealing with a very small group of people. We are not

dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. We are dealing with in

that age group something in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 people. But

the important thing is that when you look at that total budget that

exists in the Department of Human Resources, when you look at the

unemployed-employable category, that expenditure represents 3 per cent

— 3 per cent of the total expenditure of the department. It's true that

the public can look and can say, Mr. Chairman, if you're spending $12

million to $15 million in terms of assisting 10,000 to 12,000 people

who are classed as unemployed employables...then there are some

questions raised. But when you bear in mind that there are large

numbers of these people who work through the system, the important

thing is that this becomes an inevitability in terms of the economic

system that we have,

In all sincerity, I wish you luck in terms of the job-finding

efforts, because it is important that we are able to find people....

But it is important that the public not be misled. I know how tough it

is to try and see that we make the effort to get people into

employment. But it's the rhetoric, Mr. Chairman. It's the rhetoric

which panders to a large group of people out there who are looking for

some kind of scapegoat.

It is very easy to select out and to say there is an

unemployed-unemployable group and to leave the impression out there

among the public that most of them are 20 years old and have hair down

to their backs, and that's not the case. But it's very nice for the

kind of rhetoric the people want to hear out there. But that's not what

the problem is all about, Mr. Minister. If that's the kind of rhetoric

you want to use, then that's on your head. But I have never used that

rhetoric and would never be prepared to use it. I am not prepared to

excoriate any group in society, whether they be unemployed employables,

the old people or the young people. And I know that

[ Page 2373 ]

you have allies out here. You have an ally in the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He loves the rhetoric that you use

because he thinks the same as you do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mein Kempf.

MR. LEVI: You know, that's the way he thinks.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the important thing is putting aside the

rhetoric. We have to look at the difficulties that this minister has in

terms of his job, and I accept it. All of us who have been ministers

know how difficult it is to do the kind of job that has to be done. But

I keep impressing the fact about rhetoric because rhetoric does not get

the job done. It doesn't get it done at all.

What is it? I can't even remember what PREP is — provincial re-employment

programme.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Provincial rehabilitation and employment programme.

Okay, a very nice name. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that what

you really should make it is: "Provide real employment, please." Let's

not have a lot of rhetoric. Let's not talk about all the jobs that are

available at $4 or $5.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You like that one? "Provide real employment,

please." That's what you have to say to the employers. That's what they

have to say, Mr. Chairman. "Provide real employment, please." Don't

give us a job that's going to last for three days. Don't give us a job

that's going to last for five days.

Because you know what happens? If you work for one day in this

province and then you get laid off, you become a statistic with Canada

Manpower. They have you down as being employed. That's what is

remarkable about their figures. They say there are 115,000 unemployed,

but when you look at the number of people who are supposed to be

employed and you look very closely, they have people on the employment

figures who aren't working. But if you work one day you become an

employment statistic.

So in terms of this minister's programme — yes, proper employment.

Let's make sure that if they're offered a job it has some

possibility.... I know that it's not going to be possible in every

case. In some cases many of these people who have not worked for a long

time are not going to be able to sustain that kind of employment,

period. It's true. Whether we like to accept it or not there are people

in our province on welfare who are not able to function the way most

people can function. But again, it is important that when we do this we

don't do it in a rhetoric where people are going to get upset, where

people are going to feel that that is the real enemy. Who do they point

to? Some young, long-haired kid who might be lucky to get $160 a month

twice and then he is off and gone somewhere. The important thing is

that it is what happens in the discussions with the employers.

We know, in terms of the whole employment situation, the Manpower

unfortunately is still not cognizant of more than about 40 per cent of

employers who are seeking employees. That's one of the sad things about

Canada Manpower: they do not have the kind of confidence from the

employers that they really should have — not that they've earned it,

because they've got a long way to go to be able to develop the kind of

delivery system that makes them as credible as they should be. The

important thing is that there are jobs out there. The jobs vary in

terms of their location.

I would like to hear sometime during this debate the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Mr. Chairman, get up and tell us what the

employers are doing in his area to attract people to employment.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Get them up there — that's fair enough. I remember

two years ago going into Mackenzie, where they needed a lot of people

to work. There was nowhere to live. In the summer they were sleeping on

the beach and they were working in the mill. It's one thing to talk

about employment and it's another thing to talk about what the

employers are prepared to do beyond the business of providing

employment. That is an important thing. It is suggested that if the

employer doesn't provide the kind of adequate facilities for people....

You see, you've got the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) there

— the minister of company towns. Under his estimates we are going to

discuss the literal horrors of company towns where the turnover of

employment is so terrible because the employers have still not looked,

Mr. Chairman, at the need to provide for people other than employment.

Those are the difficulties that the member for Omineca's (Mr. Kempf'

s) people have.

MR. KEMPF: You're wrong again.

MR. LEVI: Wrong again. He's the know-it-all. What I would

hope, Mr. Chairman, is that if he stands up — if he can understand

what's going on in this debate — he will tell us what the problems are.

I suggest to you that the problems go beyond the simple provision of

employment. That is the kind of thing in the discussions that all the

ministers have in

[ Page 2374 ]

terms of economic development in this province.

There are discussions with the employers about how far they are

prepared to go in terms of assisting people, particularly those people

who have not been able to hold onto regular employment. It's not always

because they are not prepared to stay on the job, but they are not

prepared to stay on the job if the living conditions are absolutely

impossible. Those are some of the problems that create unemployment,

that create the kind of turnovers that we have.

In terms of the minister, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just cover one

other thing; perhaps he would comment on it. First of all, I was hoping

that we would have an annual report. Is it coming in the next few days?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He says yes — after the estimates, presumably.

I would like him to comment, if he would, on what took place in

Ottawa. As I understand it, B.C., Quebec and Saskatchewan were part of

that triad again that was in favour of support. This is according to

the reports in the Globe and Mail , Mr. Chairman. Would he comment on what took place in Ottawa in the last few days?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 113 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on! The minister didn't get up — stop playing games!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can only recognize members on their feet. Shall vote 113 pass?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was very happy there for a moment,

Mr. Chairman. I thought perhaps everyone was being very cooperative and

that we were going to do away with a lot of rhetoric.

MR. LEVI: No, Wednesday afternoon you will get it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would be very pleased to answer some

of the questions raised. Yes, starting from the last, we certainly did

in Ottawa discuss very thoroughly the matter not only of the new social

services Act but also of the guaranteed-income supplement proposals. I

am sure the member is aware, from reading press reports and also from

perhaps judging those reports that have come back to British Columbia

through Canadian Press, that British Columbia was the most positive

province with respect to this proposal.

I am sure everyone here in the House would agree that if we want to

take people off welfare and if we want to help those people who are

very close to the line and may one day end up on welfare we should

provide the type of programme that is being proposed from Ottawa, that

being the guaranteed income supplement.

The guaranteed income supplement programme provides incentives to

those on welfare to in fact become employed, even if only on a

part-time basis at first. It also provides additional income for those

people who are working for a very low wage and who are often just as

well off on welfare. So we do, and did, support the programme and we're

hoping that we might have further negotiations with Ottawa regarding it.

On the matter of the figures used by the hon. member regarding the

number of people on welfare who are unemployed but employable: the

figures that you gave ranged from 30,000 to 40,000 to 10,000 and were a

little misleading in that respect, so I would like to give you this

figure, 23,500 people, which is a figure given me by the department and

which appears to be accurate. That is, 23,500 people on welfare are

unemployed but employable. And we've been very conservative in our

figures because, for example, of the 22,000 single parents, we only

used 1,000 in the figure of 23,500 because we would like to believe

that again it is preferable to have the single parent at home, wherever

possible, in order to provide for the family.

You made mention of the programme that existed previously. You

mentioned the employment programme as it existed before PREP and you

also mentioned the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. I don't know too

much about the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, or just exactly what

the figures were, and I don't want to enter into that debate, I do know

that the programme was, soon after you came to office, discontinued,

and unfortunately I'm sure some of the people, particularly those who

were in the making of the programme, found themselves either on leave

of absence or unemployed. I can assure you that no such action was

taken by this particular minister with respect to the Department of

Human Resources; we have not had layoffs, we have not had people moved

from particular positions because they were involved in a particular

provincial programme or of a particular affiliation.

Regarding the programme as it existed in the department just prior

to PREP, one of the unfortunate parts of that programme is that in fact

it was more of a roll-over programme. It did not provide for a

followup, a follow-through or any check to determine whether people

were placed in employment and kept employed, or whether they were just

simply given a job for a few days and then

[ Page 2375 ]

back into the welfare scene. So the figures there

are really not a true measure of the success of that particular

programme, and that is why we're hopeful our new programme will provide

a far better result in that it's not only finding people work, it's not

only seeking out jobs; it is following through after jobs are found and

people have been placed in employment. It is following through to make

certain a week, a month or two months later that they are still there

working, still active, that they are still happy and employed and that

all is well not only for the employer but also the employee.

It also involves training, rehabilitation, motivation and community

involvement. So all in all it's a far wider programme, and I'm sure

that the results will be extremely gratifying and meet with your

approval as well as mine.

There was mention made of the $17 million. The question was asked:

Where did the $17 million come from that was supposedly lost in

cost-sharing from Ottawa? Yes, that is a fairly accurate figure. Again,

it's a figure that was given me by the departmental people following

considerable research. The problem is that there was no cost-sharing on

the majority of Mincome recipients, of course, because there wasn't any

asset test, as you're aware, hon. member. The institution of an asset

test will allow for far greater cost-sharing by Ottawa.

Also, if we can increase through GAIN the assistance given to other

categories of people, then naturally there will be far greater

cost-sharing available for those Mincome recipients as well.

I believe that fairly well covers the questions raised. You

certainly made comment about my having made errors in statements, or

mistakes in statements. I don't believe there were too many, but if

there was, I did quickly correct them. I certainly will continue to

correct any mistakes made, and I think that's the way it ought to be. I

don't blame them on other people in the department. I don't blame other

ministers or other members of the government. I take the blame and I

correct the mistakes. Thank you.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister is a good bloke. He takes all of the responsibility and that's good.

MR, D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): A lot better than the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

MR. LEVI: Yes, his colleague, the Minister of Health....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's more than you did.

MR. LEVI: Ah, Mr. Minister of Economic Development, you can't cite

one example of when I didn't take my lumps when I had to. Right, Mr. Chairman?

If I had to do it, I had to do it and that was it.

Don't sit there suggesting that it was otherwise, because it wasn't.

Don't just talk for the sake of talking. That man sits there and his

mouth moves and he says virtually nothing.

Just going back to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen for a moment....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Why don't you just use those cards — yes and no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: I just want to make mention to the minister of . .

. In respect to the PAB, just to clarify it, the PAB that we inherited

— of course, you said you didn't know, so that's fair enough — was made

up of Mr. Gaglardi's flaks. We inherited 26 flaks. You know what a flak

is, Mr. Minister. That's a political appointment...26 of them. We found

that just three or four months before they schlepped them through on

order-in-council. We were simply not prepared to have that kind of what

we characterized as a pork barrel, and we dispensed with it. We

undertook and did.... In all cases but two, people were placed in other

forms of employment. We did that at the same time. It was Willingdon.

That programme certainly was not a programme that we were prepared

to deal with at all, because it didn't show any kind of results at all.

Certainly I think that the advantage that the minister has is that he

has an opportunity to look, as he has done, at the existing attempts at

job-finding in the department and some ideas that he has of his own.

That's fair enough. I have no criticism with that at all. Just to

restate that: as long as the employment is real and it is not just a

statistic, it's worthwhile,

I would like to talk about and cover just briefly some of the

problems in relation to the number of recipients. The reason I want to

raise this is because, you know, there have been many debates about

which government did what kind of programme for people on welfare,

whether the former Social Credit government was the great work party

and what other government was not the work party — that is, the

work-creating party.

One of the things I would like to point out is that, as I understand

it, if I'm correct today, and I know in December the figures were

approximately true, there are approximately 130,000 people on welfare

at the moment — approximately, within perhaps a thousand. It may be a

thousand out, just about that. Of that, as I understood, probably

68,000 to 70,000

[ Page 2376 ]

are children. We're looking at perhaps 28,000 to

29,000 family heads, and then we're looking at about 30,000 single

people. It is important to look in terms of the single people because

we're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with people between the ages of 18 and 59.

That covers that whole group,

I am prepared to dispute very strongly the minister's suggestion

that there are 23,000 unemployed employables in this province. I simply

am not prepared to accept that figure, not prepared to accept it at

all. If you have 30,000 single people, and the experience that we went

through, particularly in the Vancouver area and in this area here where

everybody was interviewed.... Those that were found to be employable

were sent for job counselling, Mr. Chairman. It was found that of every

10 people who were sent on to job counselling, only six really were, in

any way, job-ready and could be considered employable. We found that

the figures really were reduced quite dramatically. That's why we used

the figure, and very legitimately so, in terms of singles now — for a

moment I'm talking about singles — of somewhere between 8,000 and

10,000 single unemployed people.

The question of the employability of the other people — and there

are a number of things that mitigates against them getting employment,

Mr. Chairman. There is the question of age. There is that group that is

over 40 which is now a tough age in which to become employable,

particularly if you're at the welfare level.

There are single women who are also the widows who are not eligible

for the Mincome. They're not readily employable. It's simply not good

enough to look at an age group and suggest that these people are

readily employable, because they're not. I would dispute very strongly

the minister's figure of 23,000, because I don't think that that in any

way is correct. If we are dealing with 28,000 family heads and we have

about 22,000 single women, now the suggestion is that the other people

who are the family heads.... And, of course, you have men and women.

The important thing is examining, particularly middle-aged people, why

they're not employable. You know, we did inherit over the years a large

number of people, now in their fifties, who previously had fairly

serious industrial accidents, who at the time were not compensable, and

consequently became part of the welfare system.

Many, many of these people are not employable. That's the trouble.

They're not employable for many reasons, physically, and we went

through very much the old question of the low back injury when we

broadened the handicapped pension programme. On the issue of the

23,000, I would strongly dispute that.

One other question I do want to raise is that if we have 130,000 people who

are on the welfare rolls, I would point out to you that back in.... December,

1970, was the peak month, the highest month — in fact, 1970-71 was the highest

year for welfare recipients in the history of this whole province. In that year

we had 136,000 people on welfare — 1970-1971. It was a very serious unemployment

situation.

That was the year when our predecessor had his not-so-well-known

overrun of some 36 per cent of his budget, He budgeted $108 million and

spent $147 million. That was a bit of a habit in those days — getting

overruns in that department. But that year was really the worse year;

147,000 people were on welfare in December, 1970, but the average for

that year was 136,000.

At no time during the 3.5 years that NDP were government did we

reach that figure, and I sincerely hope that we will never reach that

figure again. The welfare numbers in this province in 1973 and 1974

were down significantly, even to below 108,000. Certainly there is a

time lag of the effe