1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1663 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporate Disclosure Act (Bill 42)

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Skelly — 1663

Oral questions

Gulf Island ferry rates. Mr. Cocke — 1663

UBC plans. Mr. Gibson — 1663

Operation of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Wallace — 1663

Withdrawal of funds from Kelly Lake project. Mr. Levi — 1664

Hunting of peregrine falcons. Mr. Lea — 1664

B.C. Steamship Co. tax relief. Mr. Wallace — 1664

Absence of Health minister. Ms. Brown — 1665

PWA move to Alberta. Mr. Gibson — 1665

Report on gasoline marketing and service stations. Mr. Macdonald —

Free ferry travel for students. Mr. Nicolson — 1665

Removal of Sunshine Coast commuter cards. Mr. Lockstead — 1665

Hiring of Human Resources personnel. Mr. Wallace — 1665

Stein River Valley logging. Mr. Skelly — 1666

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Second reading.

Mr. Skelly — 1666

Mr. Kempf — 1667

Mr. Barnes — 1669

Mr. Kerster — 1676

Mr. Shelford — 1677

Mrs. Wallace — 1679

Mr. Kahl — 1682

Mr. Lea — 1684

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1690

Mrs. Jordan — 1692

Mr. Lockstead — 1697

Mr. Rogers — 1699

Ms. Brown — 1699

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Speaker, I would ask the assembly to join me today in welcoming a group

of 30 ladies and gentlemen from Surrey who are visiting Victoria and

the Legislature. I would ask that you welcome them.

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

Speaker, in the legislative precinct today and visiting in the gallery

in about an hour are students from Gulf Island Secondary School. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

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

introductions if I may: first of all, Joan and Cyril Fihrer and Frank

Horwitz from Vancouver and, secondly, from the great constituency of

Atlin, our former Liberal candidate there, Mr. Peter Curran.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, there's a group of

students here today from northern Vancouver Island, accompanied by

their teachers and sponsors, Mr. and Mrs. Parker. I would ask the House

to join me in welcoming students and teachers from the North Island

Senior Secondary School.

Introduction of bills

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill 42, Corporate Disclosure Act,

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

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm and Hon. Mrs. McCarthy file answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Oral questions

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

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

direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications.

In response to the opposition demands for reduced ferry rates, has any

final decision been made on Gulf Island rates, in particular?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but an announcement will be made shortly.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has a final decision been

made? was the question of the member for New Westminster. I don't

believe it was answered. You said an announcement will be made shortly,

but has a final decision been made?

MR. SPEAKER: The answer was given by the hon. minister.

UBC PLANS

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

Education: In view of the ultimatum the Minister of Education gave the

University of British Columbia over 60 days ago that they were to bring

forward plans within that period, and now that that period has elapsed,

can the minister tell us whether the university has performed

satisfactorily?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Yes, Mr. Speaker,

the university did produce a report within 60 days. That report has

been referred to a task force which has been set up, involving the

downtown teaching hospitals, which also had been announced by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and that task force is now at

work.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, can the minister tell us

whether the B.C. Medical Association and the downtown hospitals are now

satisfied with the procedure that's being followed?

HON. MR. McGEER: I believe they're very satisfied, Mr. Speaker.

OPERATION OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Transport with regard to the government decision that B.C. Steamship

Co. will operate the Princess Marguerite, and in view of the failure to

conclude a wage settlement between management and employees and the

fact that this is May 13 and the

schedule is due to start on the 21st,

can the minister tell the House what immediate steps he has taken to

bring about a resolution of the impasse of negotiations between the

B.C. Steamship Co. and the three unions concerned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, discussions are continuing today between the management of B.C. Steamship Co. and the several unions.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary. Since the main issue in the

negotiations appears to be a wage increase which has been reported to

be outside the guidelines, has any party to the negotiations requested

that the wage increase be submitted to the Anti-inflation

[ Page 1664 ]

Board, and that the ship can go into service pending a decision by the Anti-Inflation Board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The negotiations, Mr. Speaker, have not been

completed, as yet, and so no reference to the Anti-Inflation Board is

an immediate prospect.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary. Inquiries reveal that many

bookings have already been made for the Princess Marguerite — I gather

in excess of 170 group bookings have been made. Could the minister

assure the public and the parties who have reserved these sailings that

the Princess Marguerite will definitely be in service this summer

between Victoria and Seattle?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our utmost to ensure that those bookings will be honoured.

WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS

FROM KELLY LAKE PROJECT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Human Resources, regarding the Kelly Lake project.

Could the minister tell us why the funding for this project in Kelly

Lake, which is in the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr.

Phillips') riding, was discontinued? The funding was used for the

purchase of service from the Frontier College, in terms of their social

programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, and I will table the answer in the Legislature.

HUNTING OF PEREGRINE FALCONS

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

hon. Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. Her department, under

the provincial fish and game branch, has announced that there will be

allowed permits for the harvesting of five peregrine falcons in the

Queen Charlotte Islands. I would like the minister to give me, if she

would, one good reason why these permits are being allowed, as there

hasn't been a permit allowed since 1972.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice and have the information for the member in the next question period.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be for the interest of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The minister has taken the

question as notice. It's very difficult to take a supplemental question

on a question that's been taken as notice, Hon. Member. If there's some

other area you wish to pursue after the answer comes back, that's a

different thing. It comes back to the floor of the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if you'll just allow it, I think you'll

see the urgency. I think the urgency is that I would ask the minister

to please look into this as soon as possible because I think it would

be a catastrophe if this was allowed.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'd like to ask the

Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry: is she aware that the

Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit found definite evidence that there

was an organized international syndicate capturing peregrine falcons in

the Queen Charlotte Islands? Does she intend to check that with the

Attorney-General? Because that is part of the problem of this vanishing

species.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

B.C. STEAMSHIP CO. SEEKING TAX RELIEF

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs a question with regard to the B.C. Steamship Co.

seeking relief from taxes from the City of Victoria: was the minister

consulted in any way either by the B.C. Steamship Co. or by the

Minister of Transport and Communications, prior to this request being

made to the city of Victoria?

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

Speaker, through you to the member — this constant barrage of questions

directed to me over the last few weeks is just proving more than I

can...(laughter) — the answer is no, but I would not expect such

consultation in a matter relating to the B.C. Steamship Co. and the

city of Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister

continues to be this frank, perhaps we will barrage him with questions

as the weeks go by.

Since the property concerned is reported to be paying a 15 mill

grant in lieu of taxes at the present time, which in effect means that

the city is getting less revenue than from a privately owned company,

has the minister held any meetings with the city of Victoria to discuss

this issue, or has he held meetings to discuss it with UBCM — either or

both?

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

specific, no. On the general — that is, full payment of provincial

taxes — yes, I've had discussions with the mayor of the city of

Victoria,

[ Page 1665 ]

mayors of other communities and the UBCM.

MINISTER OF HEALTH'S ABSENTEEISM

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to

the hon. House Leader. Will the hon. House Leader let us know when the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is going to be here? I have

been trying to ask him a question for a number of days and he's never

in the House during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I suggested before to the members

of the House that this is a matter that the Whips of the parties should

confer about. If there is a reason for a minister to be absent, I would

hope that your Whip of the party would confer with the government Whip

to find out when he'll return.

MS. BROWN: I just thought that maybe the House Leader knew something, Mr. Speaker.

PWA MOVE TO ALBERTA

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

Transport and Communications: the other day in question period the

minister suggested that in current circumstances if British Columbia

wishes to stop any move of the head office of PWA to Alberta, pending a

supreme court decision, the only possibility was to talk to Alberta. I

would ask him: are there any such talks going on at this time, or

planned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there are no talks going on

currently. There have been discussions in the past and there may well

be in the future, but not presently. In answer to a question of the

other day, and more explicitly, the government did make a submission to

the Canadian Transport Commission immediately prior to the closing date

of May 4 of this year.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister

mentions that there have been talks with Alberta in the past and maybe

in the future. I would ask him if Alberta has been unequivocally told

that British Columbia would consider such a move an unfriendly act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, and on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker.

REPORT ON GASOLINE MARKETING

AND SERVICE STATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications, who has a report from the Energy Commission on gasoline

marketing and service stations: will he table that report in the House

forthwith?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this will be a matter for a decision of the government as a whole, and I hope soon.

MR. MACDONALD: My question is: why is the report, paid for by

the taxpayers, not being made available for public discussion at the

present time, and tabled in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that's a repetition, really, of the same question endlessly asked.

MR. MACDONALD: I didn't get an answer to the first question: will you table the report?

FREE FERRY TRAVEL FOR STUDENTS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, this is to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. He made an announcement

yesterday that students who have to commute by ferry would be allowed

to travel free. Was he trying to indicate a change in policy there? It

is my understanding that students who have had to commute from Bowen

Island to the mainland have been allowed to travel free since the

government was involved in providing ferry service.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to

regularize our fares throughout the entire system, and free travel to

and from school will apply throughout the entire system.

REMOVAL OF SUNSHINE

COAST COMMUTER CARDS

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

and Communications: I wonder if the minister has reconsidered his

decision to remove the commuter cards from residents of theSunshine

Coast, and could he let us know that decision if he has reconsidered?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been reconsidered.

HIRING OF HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources

regarding the statement last Thursday that 75 persons have been hired

to carry out job-finding and welfare fraud investigation programmes:

can the minister tell the House the total cost of the salaries of those

75 persons and if these salaries are all included within the estimates

in our

[ Page 1666 ]

estimate book for Human Resources?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you a total.

I cannot give the hon. member a total figure now. The people have not

been hired as yet, though we are in the process of preparing for the

hiring of these people, and I will get the figure for the hon. member.

Yes, we do have the money for it in the budget.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if, as regards these

75 people, it is the intention of the government to hire them on a

permanent basis, or is the intent to deal with the immediate problem

and then reduce or discontinue these particular jobs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Much of what we do, Mr. Speaker, will

depend upon the success of the programme. It is my hope that they will

be there permanently.

MR. WALLACE: Does the minister have any figures based on

recent research of the situation to measure the cost or the expense of

proven welfare frauds? Is there any figure upon which the minister is

basing his programme, namely the amount that it is costing the

government at the present time in payments that are fraudulent to

applicants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the purposes of the programme,

Mr. Speaker, will be to determine just exactly how much there might be.

We really don't have any figures available to us now.

CONSULTATION WITH ELUC ON

STEIN RIVER VALLEY LOGGING

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): To the Minister of Environment,

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ELUC has now allowed logging

exploitation in the Stein River Valley in the Fraser Canyon. I wonder

if the minister has consulted with environmental groups and with the

ELUC secretariat on that decision.

HON. LA. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): The ELUC, of

course, would not allow exploitation. If it were forestry, presumably

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would be involved in

granting any licences.

The secretariat, yes; not only was it consulted, the secretariat

provided material to us on which that decision was based, not to

exploit the timber necessarily but to develop the Stein River drainage

system in a manner which would be compatible with the various desires

of various segments of society, including the mountain-climbing people

and others. The reports were considered and a decision was made.

Communication is going forward to those who have contacted us since the

decision was announced.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period.

Orders of the day

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 16.

Leave granted.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has the

floor. Hon. Member, — l would just draw to your attention the fact that

you've used up some of your time. You have a maximum now of 24 minutes

left.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to recap some of the points that I made before

adjournment at 6 p.m. yesterday. I stated at that time that I was

specifically opposed to the bill that is before us right now; that our

party is opposed to this bill; that we are not, as a party or a caucus,

opposed to specific and effective controls on the economy that will

prevent the ravages of inflation, but we are opposed to a bill such as

this which is essentially blank-cheque legislation which will have no

effect on prices or the cost of living in this province, and yet is

designed to rigidly control wages in the public sector.

I also make the point, Mr. Speaker, that the major impact on the

cost of living over the past year or so in this province is the result

of Social Credit policy over the past five months.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: During our term of office we imposed controls on

essential items, on rentals, residential tenancies, food and drugs,

transportation, energy, home heating oils, this type of thing. We

increased Mincome payments to protect the senior citizens of this

province, and handicapped people, from the ravages of inflation. We

announced our intent to control rents and rent increases on commercial

tenancies as well. The Socreds lifted those controls in February and

that caused a significant jump in the cost of living, as reported by

Statistics Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The Socreds lifted those freezes

[ Page 1667 ]

and caused significant jumps in the cost of living

in this province, a jump higher than any other place in Canada. The

cost of living, as recorded in Vancouver, was higher than any other

place in Canada. So it seems a little hypocritical to us on this side

of the House that the Socreds are bringing in a bill like this, which

they say attempts to control inflation, when they are the major cause

of inflation in this province, and have been the major cause of

inflation in British Columbia over the past six months.

One of the major things in this bill which disturbs us, especially

in relation to

section 6 of the bill, is the vague, extremely

discretionary powers granted under

section 6 to the cabinet and to the

ministers who will administer this bill. The Act is, essentially, to be

enforced by that Cadillac coalition over there behind the closed doors

of cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I suspect that those people who supported that

coalition during the last election — those people who are essentially

responsible for the production of commodities in this province — will

speak with louder voices behind the closed door of cabinet, and those

people will be the ones who will be, essentially, making the decisions

on whether price increases will be allowed or prohibited in this

province — not the cabinet but the people who supported that party

during the last election. Those people will be speaking with louder

voices behind the closed doors of cabinet and not in public, not before

an independent tribunal.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) mentioned yesterday

some of the salaries of the people in the province who talk about wage

restraints. He mentioned the salaries of people like J.V. Clyne, as was

reported in The Vancouver Sun — material that he received from

the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. J.V. Clyne

receives $90,000 from MacMillan Bloedel corporation, a major producer

of forest products in this province, along with $25,000 pin money that

he gets every year from the same corporation; J.0. Hemmingsen of the

same corporation, $98,000; Anson Brookes, $54,000 — those people with

close connections with that government over there will be able to make

representations behind the closed door of cabinet under

section 6 of

this Act, behind the closed door of cabinet, outside of the public

view. Those people will be setting the commodity prices in this

province and will be dictating the prices, wages, salaries in this

province.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Don't you know anything?

MR. SKELLY: You'll have your opportunity to speak, Mr.

Member. Other people in this province, major producers of commodities —

Edgar F. Kaiser, Jr., according to form 10K that he submitted to the

Securities and Exchange Commission, has a salary of $206,000, before

taxes.

Why is the government not increasing coal royalties in this

province? Is it because of the fact that their own friends can meet

behind the closed door of cabinet and dictate just what the prices and

public-sector prices are going to be in this province?

Section 6 allows

ministerial discretion, allows cabinet discretion behind the closed

door of cabinet. There is no guarantee that prices are going to be

controlled, especially in view of the previous performance of the

Social Credit government in this province over the past five months, a

performance which has driven up the cost of living tremendously, driven

up the cost of living higher than anywhere else in Canada. So we're

very concerned about the discretionary powers granted to the cabinet

under this bill, and we are very much opposed to those types of powers.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do support

tight, economic controls fairly applied. This party has always adopted

that position — that in order to curb inflation, in order to protect

our citizens from the ravages of inflation, we must enforce economic

controls fairly and across the board. But in view of the Social Credit

performance over the past five months in imposing exorbitant rate

increases in public-sector rates, fees and premiums, we simply cannot

trust that coalition government to apply regulations fairly. We simply

cannot trust them with the discretionary powers granted under this Act.

We as a caucus, and I personally, simply cannot support this bill.

Thank you.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I rise to speak in favour of this

bill, Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act, a bill that speaks out

against the devastating effects of inflation, a bill that will give the

government the security needed to impose regulations when necessary,

regulations that will limit the price we pay for food in the

supermarket, gas at the pumps, building materials...

MR. SKELLY: Where does it say that?

MR. KEMPF: ...fertilizer for our farmers, as my colleague

from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) pointed out yesterday, rent paid

by senior citizens...

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: ...rent paid by senior citizens, Mr. Speaker — all

those things that in the last two months I have heard the members on

that side of the House say that they wanted controlled. Yet I hear them

one after another stand and speak against this bill. I don't

[ Page 1668 ]

understand it; I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker.

When they were government they imposed on the people of this

province those very regulations, imposed them for a 90-day period, and

then called an election — turned tail and ran, knowing full well that

with the record they had chalked up in this province in the three and a

half years they would never have to face the day, never have to face

the end of those 90 days, never have to face that moment of truth. Now

they speak against this legislation; they oppose this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You lifted them.

MR. KEMPF: I have heard them go on and on about how they are

the representatives of the working people of this province, go on and

on about how they are here to protect those working people, and they

speak against this bill.

I repeat to the hon. members of the opposition, through you, Mr.

Speaker, what they have said many times to this side of the House: what

will your constituents say? What will those working people who you

profess to represent say when they hear that you have voted against

this bill? What will you tell the people that voted for you? They do

not know what responsible government is, Mr. Speaker. They have spent

scores of years in opposition, three and a half years in government and

they still do not know what responsibility to the people of this

province is.

Here is a bill before this House designed to protect all of the

people, including those who they profess to represent, and they vote

against it. They just don't know, Mr. Speaker. That is not all that

they do not know. They do not know who they represent. They do not know

who the working people of this province are. They do not know. Are they

the mechanics in the shops making $8 an hour? Are they the workers in

the sawmills pulling lumber on the greenchain making $1,000 a month?

Are they the third-class stenographers in the civil service making

$1,200 a month? Are they the small businessmen working 12 hours a day,

six and seven days a week and barely making ends meet? Are they the

little guys who have their money invested in the large corporations at

a return of 4 to 6 per cent on their investment? Who are they? Who do

they represent when they speak against this bill?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I am sure that the new member in the House doesn't realize

that you are not to read a speech in second reading of a bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there is a tradition also in the

House that members use copious notes. It's for them to refer to their

notes as they desire.

MR. KEMPF: Or do they represent, Mr. Speaker, the

freeloaders, the unemployed employables on welfare or the thousands on

unemployment insurance who really don't want to work in this province?

Who do they represent, hon. members of the opposition? Who do you

really represent?

Mr. Speaker, because they do not know and speak against Bill 16, I

am going to take a little time today to tell them who the working

people of this province really are. Oh, yes, we have heard the

accusations from those socialists over there. We hear them call us

millionaires, wealthy car dealers and hardware store operators. There

again, they don't know. But I know who the working people of this

province are because I have been there; I have been there and I know. I

was born the son of a hardrock miner, a dirt farmer in this province, a

man who is now retired and who has given all of his life to this

province. He is now retired on the pensions provided by this country

and is doing very well on those pensions, hon. members of the

opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, but would like to see the

regulations that will be brought down in Bill 16 that will ensure that

the groceries in the grocery store will not go up.

Mr. Speaker, my first 18 years were spent on a farm.

MR. SKELLY: As a vegetable?

MR. KEMPF: When I graduated from high school I left that

farm, not to further my education, Mr. Speaker, because there was no

money for that, but to go to work in the mines and in the mills and in

the woods of this province, pulling lumber, setting chokers, digging

ditches. Yes, because I worked hard and lived in this province, in a

province of individual enterprise, I was elevated to management and

went from there to a business of my own and from there to this

Legislature. Yes, hon. members of the opposition, I made a few dollars.

But I worked for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: So you see, Mr. Speaker, I think I know who the

working people of this province are. I think also that I know who

represents those people and, in fact, all of the people of this

province, and that is why, hon. members of the opposition, I am on this

side of the House. That is why I support Bill 16, for all of those

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, because those socialists over there, that poor, misled, unorganized bunch of socialists who...

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Pinkos!

MR. KEMPF: ...profess to represent the working

[ Page 1669 ]

people of this province don't know, they speak against Bill 16.

I heard the word "hypocrite" spoken by one over there just previous to my getting up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blasphemy!

MR. KEMPF: Those socialists with their $200,000 homes in

Point Grey, their Mercedes cars, their wealthy families, and their huge

basements full of our files, that bunch after three and a half years in

government left only bills and an empty treasury. They still do not

know what responsibility is. There is no more important priority in

British Columbia and, in fact, in Canada today than to bring inflation

under control. We must do everything in our power to see that that is

done.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say that inflation is a

worldwide phenomenon which really has very little to do with what is

happening in British Columbia. Our inflation rate is, and has been,

dangerously above that of major competitors, notably the United States.

Clearly we have been doing something wrong. Rather than controls,

increased productivity and greater efficiency are needed in British

Columbia.

If British Columbians wish to continue to enjoy the high standard of

living that they have, they must buckle up, Mr. Speaker. If labour and

management are not accountable, and it would appear that they are not,

then government must take the next step and provide the deterrent,

should it be necessary, to curb that inflation. That is why I support

Bill 16.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): No claps? Applause! Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my daughters are in the gallery and I would

like the House to indulge for a moment if I could recognize them. I

have three daughters, but two of them are here, I believe, this

afternoon. They've been excused from St. Margaret's School to hear

their dad discuss this most important bill. Let's see, Constance and

Beverley, where are you? They're up there some place.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon to oppose the bill...

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): What?

MR. BARNES: ...unfortunately. I say that it is unfortunate

because I really was hoping that the government would show a real

concern by its actions. I thought that we could really get somewhere

when they were suggesting that they were concerned about inflation and

that they were going to follow the federal government's programme. I

was assuming that they were going to suggest that if the federal

government were to clean up its act respecting the guidelines it is

suggesting the provinces follow to make it more equitable for the

various problems they were faced with, then they would be coming

forward and saying the province of British Columbia supports the

Anti-Inflation Board programme provided it is equitable for all of the

people of the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, they seem to be prepared to accept carte blanche the

federal government's recommendations. But, Mr. Speaker, you know I'm

just a little bit suspect of the government's motives. You know,

they're very good with rhetoric, very good indeed. The reality is that

their words don't match their actions.

I had thought this afternoon that I would just say a few words, but

once I get on my feet, you know, I become alarmed. I feel that this is

something we can't allow to go unchallenged, the kind of things that

this government has been suggesting.

Did I hear someone say "such as what"?

"Such a long trip up," he says. Well, that's true. Standing

six foot six I guess I have to yell in order to be heard down there where the

government is, but I'll do my best, Mr. Speaker. I'll try very hard

to try and reach the government, because I believe the government has gone underground

in trying to hide from the people's crying voices. The people are trying

to reach the car of the Premier. They're trying to say: "Don't!

Please don't wage war against us, because we believed you during the last

election when you said that we were your most important resource" — that

the people were the most important resource — "that we would indicate by

our legislation, our Acts, that we put people first, the concerns of people

first, the basic essentials that people require to live in dignity and respect

in this province first." People, hearing something like that, are bound

to pay very close attention.

When they made these pronouncements about their programme, Mr.

Speaker. I think they were really thinking in terms of exploitable

commodities. You have to learn the language of this coalition

government. When it talks about resources, it is talking about

resources in respect to management of natural resources and so forth,

and people being a resource are equated with natural resources in the

sense that they're exploitable commodities — exploitable commodities —

to be used, to be manipulated, to be battered about, depending on the

needs of the government, as it sees fit. I think it has demonstrated

this by the fiscal programme it has introduced under the guise of being

a budget of recuperation, a budget that intends to put the province of

British Columbia back on its feet again. It will do that at all costs,

obviously. The government may be back on its feet, but most of the

people will be on their backs.

[ Page 1670 ]

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: There are so many disparities between what this

government espouses and what its actions indicate that, for want of a

better word, I would almost suggest as criminal the kinds of

irresponsible programmes that are being brought in recklessly and

ruthlessly. And they call it leadership! "We're going to lead the

people back to the road of the good old days," this government says.

"We're going to roll everything back." That would be really nice, you

know, because if you rolled some things back things would be a lot

better for the working people, because the way they're going now it's

getting worse.

Personal income taxes the federal government collected during the

1974 and 1975 fiscal period from working people were $10,669 billion.

Corporate taxes, over the same period, were $4,285 billion. It's better

than two to one. It just gives you an idea about who pays the tab in

this country.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Who pays the tab? You want to argue that? You'll

get your chance. You stand up. You'll get your opportunity, and I hope

you make it good because we're going to study the wage situation as

well and talk about the differences between what has happened since

1971 -just as a comparison — the difference between corporate gains and

wage gains. We're going to talk about that difference and, believe me,

the gap is widening. It's widening very, very much, so much so that I,

for one — at least in this one category — would suggest that perhaps it

would be a good idea to roll back, to start at a base rate, to go back

and take a look at why the unions are struggling so hard to try and

maintain parity and try and keep up with corporate gains, with interest

gains, with the gains in the private sector where they have the

advantage of governments who believe that the cause of inflation is

people trying to get equality and equity within the economic system.

That's not a philosophy, in my view, that's very encouraging for the

masses of the people when they are the ones who must carry the brunt at

all times, no matter what the situation, for the government's political

gains.

You know, we've mentioned all of the programmes — and I'm going to

mention them again — that the government has introduced that have

contributed to inflation, but I feel we've got to deal with the general

idea, the general atmosphere, that is being perpetrated upon the

province of British Columbia by this government. We've got to take a

look at the political implications of what the government is doing, not

have them wrap us in details and actuarial charts and try to confuse

people in terms of percentages here and there. Let's just take a look

at what this government is really doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you've interjected one time too many.

I was going to leave you alone. That's the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) . Mr. Speaker, I believe you perhaps were distracted at the

time, but this member was making his speech just a few moments ago and

someone interjected after he had indicated that for 18 years he'd

working on a farm, diligently and, I'm sure, with a great respect.

I certainly acknowledge that because I did something similar myself,

so I don't think we've had that much different in terms of experience

and hard work. I also respect your father, whom I understand you feel

supports this anti-inflation bill. But I must point out, Mr. Speaker,

that someone said that when he was on the farm it was as a vegetable.

Did you hear that? I believe, had you heard it, that you would have

asked that member to withdraw because although he was on the farm,

certainly he's not a vegetable.

AN HON. MEMBER: A flower.

MR. BARNES: Yes, perhaps a flower.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's not rose.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the government's politics must

always be kept in mind. Let's take a look at what's really happening

with this legislation they've brought in: they are coming around

telling everybody that they are all for equality; they're going to get

the province back on its feet again and see that everybody's needs are

met.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): We're trying.

MR. BARNES: Well, you sure are trying. Yes, I'll say that;

you're trying. You tried very hard with ICBC rates which you raised

100, 200, 300 per cent. You're trying very hard.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmunds): To pay your bills.

MR. BARNES: You're trying to do two things at once. You raise

the rates — 200, 500 or whatever — it depends.... I know some people who

are paying $1,000, $1,200 for public liability, property damage and

perhaps some collision, and who were paying before maybe $200 or $300,

but these figures are so astronomical now that they've lost all hope of

ever really.... You are just committed; you are locked in — the system

requires that you drive a car, so you

[ Page 1671 ]

have got to have it. There's no decent commuter services — you're

trying to cut back on those which we were attempting to bring in, so

the car is really the only hope these people have, and you've locked

them in. That's a fixed cost; they have no way out, but you raised the

rate 300 or 400 per cent. That's one thing you did before you committed

yourselves to the idea of bringing in Bill 16.

You bring in Bill 16 after the fact. Are you going to tell me that

you're going to go all the way back down to ICBC, sales tax...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Be quiet and listen, Mr. Member, you'll get your chance in a minute.

...income tax, ferry fares, gasoline, hydro and on and on and on —

who knows? Are you going to bring all that back in as soon as you get

this Bill 16 through and say: "Fine, we're now subjecting ourselves to

AIB, and we want you to roll these things back so that we can make sure

that the people believe us when we tell them that we care about

inflation." Do you think you're going to do that? No way!

I'll tell you what you're going to do. This is a deliberate attempt

for you people to get out of your responsibility for dealing with your

public service, comes the time for bargaining. You're going to roll

back and try and lock them in, and you're going to try and lock the

school teachers into it. But you're going to do all this now that

you've got your goodies. You balanced your books but you have balanced

them at the expense of the people. That's what this is, a camouflage.

It's an attempt for you to hide your true motives, your political

motives. You have no intentions of doing anything about inflation.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you'll get your chance in a few

minutes. But I'm going to tell you that when I take a look at the kinds

of things you've been doing in this province, I have no reason to be

excited about any hope.

Take a look at the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) and some of the programmes he's bringing in under the guise of

being concerned about the people, I'll tell you what he's doing....

You're clapping. Right on! But I'll tell you, freedom of movement for

the first time is in jeopardy in this province, because the first thing

he did was test it out — he flew a kite and not too many rumbled

because most of you people have conned an awful lot of people into

believing that the poor person is the cause of inflation, and if we run

them out of town we'll balance the books.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Run them right out of the province.

I'll tell you, at the rate you're going you are going to succeed.

Now I know what the chief minister of the plan, the Premier, meant when

he suggested that in a few years we would see a turn for the better in

this economy. He said: "Before long, things will get better." They're

going to get better and it'll take a little time. What he meant was

that it'll take a little time for us to organize our plans where there

can be a little exodus of those people that we no longer need or find

desirable. That's what he's doing, and he knows it. He knows that's

what he's doing, but he hopes no one will bring it to his attention by

turning attention on the people.

But now just tell me, in a free democratic society such as this,

where would you fire all those people? We're firing everybody — 1,200

people you want to get rid of in the BCR. You want to get rid of

another 400 or so on the B.C. ferries. You got rid of everybody on the

Vancouver opportunities programme. You closed down the resource boards.

You're putting the squeeze on guys on UIC — on unemployment insurance.

You put the squeeze on and you say: "Look, you guys, after two weeks

we'll — let you have a little social welfare, but after that we're

going to cut you off."

Those people are out there looking for a job, and you claim that

they're lazy, shiftless bums and should be shuttled out somewhere

else. You just want to get rid of them; you haven't created any jobs.

You haven't.

In fact, what have you done for the university students? You know,

you've cut that programme by 60 per cent. When the summer comes around,

what are you going to do with all those people?

Since you've been in government, you've definitely started to

tighten up. You've squeezed everything, including all the people. You

know, when you squeeze, you have to have a release someplace. What's

happening is that when you squeeze, only those with a pocketful of

money can manage to stay. Those with no money have to split. In that

way you balance the budget. You get rid of those people who don't fit.

It is effective.

It's effective, but it sure isn't democratic, and it certainly

doesn't encourage people to feel comfortable in this province and to

make it their residence. You don't encourage people as far as their

chosen interests; you come out with jokes, insults like: "Get a shovel,

" flippant remarks like "If you can't buy insurance, sell your car."

Come on! Those are insults from elected officials to people who put

them in in good faith. You have no right to take such arrogant

attitudes about people. You have a reason to hang your head in shame.

I think you have a duty to come clean and tell us what you really think. I know that we have

[ Page 1672 ]

differences politically, but come clean and tell the people what you

really think. Tell them that you're going to close the doors. Tell them

that you're going to squeeze things up nice and tight.

You people got together as a coalition, right? You never will get

together as a bunch of Socreds, because I'm sure that any

self-respecting Socred would be ashamed of the kind of things that you

people are bringing forward under their name. So don't tell me that.

You've got every shape, cut and style over there. Everything is over

there — and all of your own vested interests.

You talk about restraint. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

suggested that he would like to see certain officials in the public

service cut 10 per cent off their salaries, but 10 per cent on all that

money doesn't make much difference anyway. What about you personally

demonstrating to us your desire to cut your profits on your businesses

by 50 per cent? Now that would be some kind of leadership, as far as

I'm concerned. All you guys who own the cars — why don't you do that

personally?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister of Finance, you've been eavesdropping. We have a right to caucus on this side — now you just wait your turn.

I think that we should keep in mind that the best example is by

performance. One's own performance is what you go by. All of us should

recognize that. We talk about setting examples and say that we're going

to take the lead. The Minister of Finance, in his opening remarks

during the budget debate, indicated that he was prepared to step up

front. The first minister says "we're going to cut our salaries, and

we're going to indicate that we're here to give the people leadership,

" but the kind of leadership they're providing for them relates very

well with what happened back in the Forties, in the Second World War.

You lead the people down a very, very treacherous path, and they may

end up in a very serious situation.

I'm not going to suggest what that was — it's not the purpose of my

discussion today to bring in all of those unpleasant past things of our

history — but you can lead people down the path under the guise of

helping them when in fact you may intend to put shackles on them. You

may intend to lock them up. You say you want them to have freedom of

speech and freedom of everything. You say you want them to have the

right to go and do their own thing, like the right to work, and the

people say: "Why, the right to work — now that's a good democratic

principle! We're all for them!" I'm sure each of you members over there

on the government side will say: "What's wrong with that? That's

democratic." — except for one thing, which is that your politics is

through conquering by dividing.

If you get too many people organized and together in groups that's a

problem, so you tell them one by one: "My friends, you stand alone —

don't stand together, stand separately." Look what you've done to all

those people in ICBC. I'm just giving you an example of why this

anti-inflation thing is a big hoax. No way will it every resolve the

problem because you are picking on a certain group of people from a

certain segment of the population.

You are doing nothing against inflation as far as interest is

concerned on loans and financial institutions. You're doing nothing

about the profit margin, and there's nothing you can do under this type

of legislation. Why don't you face it? You come down with a blanket

programme and say we're going to fix the base rate at some point. You

want to go back in time, fine. I'm quite willing to do that, because as

far as I'm concerned the working people in this province are losing.

I'd love to go back to find a point where things were a little more

equitable, and then we'll work out the value from there and say that's

where we're going to peg everything, including our profits, including

gains from investments, including wages, including the whole works —

but not just one side, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's all right, but I'll tell you that

we're going to have some fun, though, watching you people dig your own

graves, because that's exactly what you're doing. I think that you just

went too far with your politics. You see, it's all right to use

rhetoric, but there's one way to get people angry at you. You can talk

all you want, but when you reach in their pockets and take their money

in this society, they start getting mad. I'll tell you, you fellows

have fleeced the people in this province, you have cleaned them out,

you have taken every dime they've got, and you still try to get more!

You try to tell them that they should lock themselves into a system

where you can sew them up for the next 18 months. You guys are

incredible — absolutely incredible! You know that, Mr. Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . It's just incredible.

You people are fortunate who live out there where you can get lots

and grow a little garden if you want to. You know, that member said he

lived on a farm, but I'll tell you that the people in my riding have no

opportunity to grow their own vegetables. I'm sure they would like to.

Perhaps you might want to consider the programme that was brought in

when we were the government to provide plots, if you haven't abandoned

that. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if you've abandoned the

availability of those plots we used to make for people who wanted to

grow their own gardens. I hope we still have that.

[ Page 1673 ]

You should expand it — it's a good idea — because they're going to need it.

But at the same time you'd better give them some means whereby they

can extract some resources from the land and perhaps provide their own

energy as well, you know, for heating and for lighting, give them some

kind of manufacturing situation where they can put together their own

textiles and make their own clothing. Maybe we'll have to go all the

way back to the days when people had to be more self-reliant because

this system that we're locked into now and this government's plan is a

straight political hoax. It is not intended to stymie inflation. It is

intended to put people in their places, put the people of this province

in their places, all working people. They are going to be subjected to

controls on how much they can earn, while at the same time there is no

guarantee that the corporations will be squeezed on the other end in

terms of what they can extract.

Mr. Speaker, somebody was challenging me on some of my sources. This

particular source was referred to previously in this debate by the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who was quoting Dr. Michael Broadfield

of the Dalhousie University who just gave a brief review on historical

change of income and profits by the corporations, by those lending

institutions, as far as interest income is concerned, wages and

salaries, and those people who are locked into manufacturing plants,

and the wages.

Now he went back to 1971. Corporations had a net profit increase of

12.9 per cent in 1971. Now in 1972 they got 21.1; 1973, 35.7; 1974 they

had a drop and went down to 28.4 per cent profit. Now let's compare

that with the wages and salaries. So compared to 12.9 in 1971, wages

and salaries were increased 9.7 per cent; in 1972 it was 10.9 against

21.1; in 1973 it was 12.4 against 35.7; and in 1974 it was 16.7 to

28.4. Now you talk about the effect of change historically between

those two figures and you get some idea why I suggest that in some

respects it might not be a bad idea to go back. Because if you go back

we will lessen the gap between people who work for an income and those

people who exploit those people for their income.

This is one of the problems we face in this free society, but

unfortunately the government's attitude and philosophy is one which

says the people were here to be exploited. That's what they mean by

resource — an exploitable commodity to be used to maintain the economy

for those people who happen to have the financial strength to stand up

and do the job. They're the ones that they're protecting. That's what

this legislation is all about, Bill 16. It is a clear attempt to try

and indicate to the people further that it is the working people, one

way or the other, who must take the brunt of all economic

responsibility when this government has many options open to it, many

other options.

It doesn't have to take this narrow view in trying to deal with its

fiscal management, Mr. Speaker. For one thing, not only will it not

work and is doomed to failure, this particular approach to deal with

anti-inflation, but this government has taken a very narrow view in

terms of its responsibility on a national basis and on an international

basis; and this programme, instead of being one that stimulates and

recognizes changes in social patterns and economic requirements and the

potential for developing new and better means of achieving and

developing a provincial product and the gross national product, they're

still using as the method of exploiting the individual through taxation

measures.

Until I had cause to investigate some of the factors involved

because of this legislation, it was really news to me that working

people carry such a load respecting the total revenue for the various

levels of government. You know, when you thing about it, we haven't had

politicians in office who are all that imaginative. They're returning

very little to the people, very little.

They're telling the people that we have no money of our own, that

the only way we can obtain the money is through taxation. "We have to

tax you" — that's the fundamental basis upon which this society works.

But the problem is: why is it that there are so many rich people and

so many poor people? Why is it that we have in this province 110,000

people out of work, and something like almost nine million across the

nation, and that we right now lead the country in terms of our share of

the unemployed? Why is it that that can happen in a system where we

believe in equality and equal opportunity? There are people we accuse

of being hard-core welfare cases who have no hope of ever getting off

the welfare rolls, and you know it.

Mr. Minister, you bring in your shovels, you bring in all your

programmes, but until you can come in this House and stand up and say

that we are going to eliminate unemployment — eliminate unemployment,

Mr. Member....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, you've got to eliminate unemployment. When

are you going to get rid of unemployment? There are people out there

who want to work who you are calling bums. There are people out there

who want to work and can't work. There are many of them who are

professionals, many of them who have tried, and yet you file those

people who have put in 50,100 applications and cannot get jobs because

they are not available. They haven't been and they won't be under your

government, and you know it. You have no intention of doing anything

about it.

[ Page 1674 ]

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): They have a lot better chance with us than with you.

MR. BARNES: You have no intention of doing anything about it.

It's rising all the time. You keep that in mind when you want to try to

frighten the people on welfare and on unemployment, the people who are

trying to get jobs, those who have graduated from universities. You are

cutting back, tightening up, squeezing and telling people that they are

lazy bums. Come off that!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You said that; I didn't.

MR. BARNES: They are not lazy bums. You talk about their

long hair. You talk about their dress. You tell them that they can't

live in this section, that they should be living over here, You've got

all kinds of reasons for justifying your inactivity and

irresponsibility as far as getting jobs for people. Come up with some

programmes. You've laid off more people than you've created jobs for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Do you know how many people you've laid off since you've been in government? An astronomical figure.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Ten thousand.

MR. BARNES: You couldn't even begin to think about how many

there are because of the ripple effect. You think, "well, we'll lay off

a few here, " but how many of those people, do you think, also have

responsibilities and families and people who are committed? You make it

very subtle when you put 400 people in jeopardy who are on the ferries

because of some technological changes that you have in mind. That's

right, because you're going to change the ferry system, That's what it

amounts to.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Technological changes? Come on!

MR. BARNES: That's what it amounts to, because technically

what you should do is consider the people first before you consider

efficiency. Do you want to stand up and argue that? I'm ready, Mr.

Minister. I'll tell you, every one of those people can't, in their

view, see why they should not have a job because of your backroom plans

that you think you are going to get a little more efficiency and have a

little more money for the budget — a little more money for the budget!

But what's going to happen in the ripple effect to those people's

lives? They go out there into the market and they can't find any work.

You say: "Well, we'll always give them first priority on the jobs that

are available in the public service." There are no jobs available in

the public service. You have an attrition programme there. What kind of

a game are you playing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who started that programme?

MR. BARNES: You said in the last election that you were going

to get rid of all those people who are working in the public service

through attrition. You said: "We won't fire anybody, but we are not

going to hire anybody either." So you tell those guys: "Well, look,

we're going to put you to work. You get first choice. Mind you, we

can't raise you. We'll have to lower you. We can't raise your position.

We'll give you a job that's equal to the one you have." These people

are working in the kitchen. There's no way you're going to give them a

job anywhere, and you know it. They've had it. You are being

irresponsible and you're going to pay for it come the next election.

You're going to pay for it because those people will be down and out

and they are not going to recover. The only hope for you is that you do

such a good job that they'll leave the province. Perhaps that's what

you have in mind. You're going to run them right out of the province.

Once they are gone, then you have a balanced budget and you have no

dissenters. You are in a perfect position to say' "See what we did.

Everything is like it was in the good old days. There's nobody but us

and our friends left in the province of British Columbia."

What are you going to do about rent freezes? Now we had a bill which

we brought in — 10.6 per cent. In the last election we suggested it

should be 8 per cent, and I had hoped to get through with an idea where

you might even want to go a step further, because the first minister

suggested that he would like to put the public sector — purchasing, et

cetera — into third-party hands so that there will be no interference

or influence by government: "We want everything to be aboveboard." Now

that's a good idea. But now that he's made all the changes, he's going

to get rid of the one that's political dynamite and say "we're clean."

I will go along with part of that thinking because, without being

political, it's a good idea to put these things into the hands of third

parties so there is no danger of political influence and games-playing

like you did with ICBC. I'd like to see those things in.

Let's take a look at the rental situation. We have a carte blanche.

It was 10.6 per cent. You say, "we won't life it," but it gets good

the longer you leave it.

[ Page 1675 ]

Do you know what's happened in the last three years? It was 8 per

cent the first year, 10.6 the last two years. That's a 33 per cent

raise and in seven years that's over a 100 per cent increase. We've got

to get rid of it. You can't leave that. You can't sit and say: "Well,

we won't take it off." It was a good thing as an interim measure, but

it's no good as a permanent situation. You have to take it off and move

fast. Right now you should be bringing in legislation, if you care

about anti-inflation and stopping those landlords. You don't hear them

crying any more because the longer you leave it on the better it gets —

the better it gets. It was never intended to be on that long.

Now you come in with a bill which says that first we are going to

lower it to 8 per cent and then we are going to bring in rent review

boards and we are going to discuss the economic factors around each

rental unit based on the situation, including the capital investment,

the kind of return that's needed, the whole situation that's required.

In that way, we may have only 1, 2, 3 per cent in some cases, 4 or 5 in

others but no more of this flat 10.6. It's not relevant.

Now you see what the AIB is doing. They don't stick to the

guidelines and they brought them in; they deal with situations on their

own merits. Now why can't you follow that? You said you were going to

bring this bill in and you want to follow it. Then show it right now.

It's a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate your sincerity.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to remove the rent freezes?

MR. BARNES: You follow through on that bill. You do on this

bill what you said you were going to do. Do you recall what your

Premier said? Do you know what he said when he was just going out?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to remove the rent freeze?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, lower it.

MR. BARNES: Who said anything about lowering it? I said make the thing work. I didn't say lift the freeze.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: If I said lift the freeze, Mr. Member, believe me, it was a mistake.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I didn't say it. What I said was, you lower that

10.6 to 8. Then you bring in the boards and start to deal with the

local economic factors that are involved in that particular situation.

In some cases you will have 5 per cent, 3 per cent, 2, 1 or whatever,

but no more of this flat 10.6. That's what I said. It's about time you

did something about that before it's too late.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's 8 per cent in 10 years?

MR. BARNES: What did you say?

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

MR. BARNES: If you leave it where it is right now, in seven

years or less it will have doubled. It will have doubled. We can't call

that anti-inflation, allowing something like that to exist on the books

— no way.

The first minister made some very interesting statements as far as

his intentions were concerned. This was back on April 9. He stood in

this House and said: "Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I have made it

clear on several different occasions that British Columbia supports the

spirit and intention of the national wage and price controls." That's

what he said. "We intend to provide strong provincial leadership

towards that same goal, " he said. "We intend both to preach and

practise restraint and have already demonstrated" — get that one! — "We

have already demonstrated, " he said, "this attitude in many, many

ways. The actions that we have taken to date indicate our sincerity." I

added that little bit because that's what he was trying to do, convince

the people. But really, what has he done? I'll tell you. He's got the

bill now. I don't know what's coming up next but you'd better hurry

then and get it in quick — commit yourselves quick — before it's too

late because pretty soon everything will be sky-high.

You people have broken those rules that you care about so much. How

can you justify that? We must tell the people of the province of

British Columbia what you have done. Do you realize that you have

exceeded the guidelines of the AIB in everything you have done? Do you

know what the actual effect of your increase on social services tax

was? Forty per cent. You got away with saying: "We raised it 2

percentage points to 7 per cent." But that's 40, per cent. It was 5 per

cent before, right? Forty per cent. He raised about 15 per cent on

personal income tax. You raised the hospital insurance by 50 per cent.

You went from 400 to 700 per cent on hospitalization in some cases

between intermediate and intensive, I believe. Are those two different?

All right. You just keep on going: B.C. Ferries, 100 per cent. I read in

one case there on one of the Gulf Islands that they said it was 400 per

cent. Well, you've wiped out the island, you know; you've really done a

good job on

[ Page 1676 ]

the island. The capital city is now only for the elite, only for the

chosen few who can afford $100 a trip, which is what it amounts to when

you bring those Winnebagos over here. You see what's going to happen to

those people when they can't ride those buses — you know, those long

buses with the families in them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I draw your attention to the fact that you are on your final two minutes?

MR. BARNES: Ten minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Two minutes.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. Okay, I will say this: you have

effectively brought in legislation that has run all the people who are

in a loose situation, as far as their economic base is concerned, right

back to the places where they can get jobs. Otherwise they are no

longer provided their right to exist where they choose. Because the

government for expedient reasons said: "You're going to have to go

here. Otherwise we are not going to help you." But that is a very

serious principle upon which to base your government, hon. members.

Believe me, it is very serious.

It may be expedient for now but you have got to live with that

attitude. When you do something like that you can't get rid of it, you

know. You really did tell people that they can't stay here; they've got

to move. I think that is a serious breach of a democratic society's

principles. You accuse us of all kinds of games and deals with God and

so forth when WAC was in. But really, you people are very tricky —

very, very tricky indeed.

So Mr. and Madam Members, when I think of what you have done in your

legislation and in your orders-in-council without even the benefit of

discussion in the House, I have no question in my mind about the

political objectives of your party and of this coalition under the

guise of Social Credit calling themselves the government. You people

have very, very particular goals in mind. They are not all that much

connected with the concerns or the people of the province of British

Columbia or you would care about all of them — not just some of them,

but all of them. You have demonstrated that you care about balancing

your budget.

In conclusion I would like to refer you to a little joke that was in

the Times . I know my time is up. This will only take a second — just

four frames. Most of you probably read it but for the sake of posterity

I'm going to read it.

This is about some guy who looks like the former, former Premier,

W.A.C. Bennett. I don't know if it is, because I'm not an authority on

art. But there's a little fellow who looks like his son here — I don't

know who he really is either. Anyway, this says: "Tell me, now you've

convinced everyone that the province is poor, and raised taxes, cut

services and got free-enterprise back, what will you do with all that

money?" And the little fellow looks up there at his daddy and says:

"I'll declare a huge surplus and show them what excellent managers we

are." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon.

second member for Vancouver Centre, I rise to speak in support of Bill

16. I will say that after listening to that hon. member, I now believe

I know the reason why the NDP has just been renamed the hurricane party

— it's a big wind that goes around in circles. (Laughter.)

Seriously, the debauchery of B.C.'s economy, started by and

encouraged by the late socialist government, is now ended. The former

government did more to boost inflation than any single factor when it

gave itself and its employees wage increases big enough to make a

national trend of provincial disaster.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is the basic cause of the distortions that

are now wrecking the world about us. Inflation breeds fear, and fear

spawns selfishness, which in turn becomes outright greed. That

philosophy, espoused by the former government, has led to the overturn

of a basic society that once was the best in the country, the society

we enjoyed, the living we enjoyed in the province of British Columbia.

Last year we witnessed huge wage increases. B.C. Hydro bus drivers

were offered something like 40 per cent raises to bring their wages to

$17,000 a year. The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union asked for a

48 per cent increase for a one-year contract. The IWA sought a 33 per

cent increase. And the former government encouraged this irresponsible

trend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over what period?

MR. KERSTER: Well, I think it was three years, three months, 11 days, nine hours, seven minutes and 14 seconds, Mr. Member.

The former Transport minister, Bob Strachan, allowed himself and the

province to be blackmailed into giving ferry workers a phenomenal wage

increase, setting off a new high in wage mismanagement in this

province. I believe that those trends were somewhere along 18 per cent

to unlicensed employees, 48 per cent increases to licensed employees.

The workday was reduced to seven and a half hours from eight hours.

That gives a half-hour-a-day overtime, and that gives them, if you can

figure it out rapidly — maybe your financial genius over there can

figure it out with his new mathematics...oh, he's not there? — an extra

10 per cent over and above the rates I've just

[ Page 1677 ]

quoted.

When I used that term "blackmail" I meant just that. I quote out of

the Daily Colonist , Wednesday, August 22, 1973 — that was a very bad

day, a black day in British Columbia: "Strachan Spells Out Gun-at-head

Settlement."

We get into the fine print here: "Transport Minister Robert Strachan

frankly admitted Tuesday that the unlicensed B.C. Ferry workers 'held a

gun to our heads' in securing a wage settlement to their five-day

strike." He went on to say: "People must realize we had a gun to our

heads." When a reporter suggested that the government had been

blackmailed, and asks that this might not happen again, Strachan

replied: "Well, that could be; we'll just have to wait and see."

Strong, very, very strong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Bob now?

MR. KERSTER: I think he's in jolly old....

When anyone can rationalize such attitudes as being anywhere close

to reasonable in a province that lives by its resources and its

exports, then we're living in a society that's rapidly going berserk —

or at least it was.

We had to endure a government that sat idly by during such criminal

attacks on fiscal common sense, a gutless government who were guilty of

letting the so-called democracy, which they call a socialist democracy,

run amuck. Some unions were not in a fight to protect their members

against real cost increases but were on a muscle-bound ego trip — they

were holding guns to people's heads, supposedly or allegedly.

When society is frightened and in turmoil because of its fear of the

future, and when weak and irresponsible governments abdicate their

responsibilities, then the spoils go to the tough.

The philosophy of some unions is simple: if another trade gets

$15,000, then our tradesmen are worth $20,000; if a garbage collector

gets $9 an hour, then our workers are worth $10 an hour, and so on

down the line, up the line. If, as a result our senior citizens are

short-changed, then an abstract and uncaring government can print money

to give to them.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Stay with me, Mr. Member; I like to be alone.

Bill 16 is legislation that evokes a same approach to a very, very

serious problem, a problem that that opposition, that former government

put us right into. You talked about shovelling things. Where is that

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)? He departed; he's up

having another gallon of coffee. Well, he talked about shovelling

things away and the use of the shovels. Well, I'll tell you what; you

shovelled money right into a furnace and you cleaned that mess up in a

hurry.

The Premier of this province today has to resort to old-fashioned

and sometimes rather quaint expressions that seem out of place in a

socialist utopia — expressions such as "belt-tightening by everyone"

and "self-discipline." Those are old-fashioned. Self-discipline —

something we could surely use right now. The Premier is right; he's a

realist. That's the difference; he's a realist: only belt-tightening

hurts all of us, and that's the cure for the problem that we're

presently in in this province. He states very plainly that it will not

be a painless cure, but it will be far better than ongoing insanity,

prescribed by the former government, that was undermining our whole

society in the province.

The cabinet started positively. It set the standard for the province

by instituting wage cuts in government. We didn't raise our pay; we cut

our pay — and we cut your pay too, much to your chagrin — rather than

the 100 per cent increases prescribed by the former government. Now the

hon. Premier is showing greater courage than his predecessor, who was

fueling inflation rather than fighting it — and you all know that — a

predecessor who showed no signs of leadership and no trace of fiscal

responsibility or any responsibility whatsoever.

The situation now is too far gone for us to sit idly by and listen

to any more of this nonsense and rhetoric that's pouring from the other

side of the House. We must return to a responsible government, and we

have returned to a responsible government. We are taking positive

action.

Now this bill isn't popular; rather it's a temporary measure. I

think if you read the thing..for those of you who are able in the

opposition to comprehend the meaning of the bill, if you read that

bill, you'll see that it's a temporary measure; it's not an attack on

labour. And that's where you are trying to mislead the people of this

province into believing that this is an outright attack on labour. You

are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Bill 16 is simply a mechanism whereby maximum commodity prices can

be fixed, after review, on a very equitable basis with both wages and

services. Thank you.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised

to hear the discussion across the floor about Bill 16 when we read in

section 2 that the purpose of the Act is to authorize the investigation

of the effect on inflation of prices and commodities and services, and

see cooperation with Canada in carrying out an anti-inflation programme.

I must say I'm quite surprised that any member of this House who

listens to his constituents could stand up and object to the passage of

a bill such as Bill 16,

[ Page 1678 ]

because if I read my constituents correctly, and I hope I do, I

would say that at least 95 per cent of all my constituents would

certainly favour an investigation to find out why prices are going

crazy and all of these things are happening in our society. I would say

that we're definitely on a downhill run into national suicide unless we

take action.

There's no one group I think we should point a finger at; I think

every one of us in society is to blame. I think it's a simple thing of

all of us trying to get a quart out of a pint bottle. Our economy isn't

large enough to take care of all of the demands we make upon our

economy at this particular time.

I certainly support this legislation, because every single person in

my constituency will lose unless we can bring inflation under control.

I think we must be fair to all, because the pensioners and those on

fixed incomes are the ones, of course, that can be hurt first.

We hear quite often from across the floor: "We represent the little

people." I would say that they don't represent the little people at

all, because if they did represent the little people, certainly they

would be speaking up for the pensioner and the person on a fixed income

who does get hurt first by inflation.

I would be the first to agree that the federal prices and income

commission has made many mistakes, but I would say its greatest mistake

is that they haven't been tough enough. They haven't been tough enough.

Certainly in the case of the Ontario teachers, where they allowed a 15

per cent increase, this was not right, and there are many other cases

that I could bring to your attention.

For instance, it's not fair in allowing 15 per cent increases when

the Kitimat Alcan workers were held at a firm 10 per cent. I was hoping

that the federal Prices and Incomes Commission would hold firmly,

except on very rare occasions.

One thing we must all accept is that both the federal and provincial

governments had to take action or the whole country would lose. All of

the social programmes those across the way are so fond of taking credit

for will collapse too, unless inflation is kept under control.

I remember very clearly what the former Social Credit Premier,

W.A.C. Bennett, said. I know members sitting there right now remember

these statements; certainly the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

would. He said: "Unless we can keep inflation down to 6.5 per cent we

will destroy our position in foreign trade." Now we've done exactly

that in three short years: we've destroyed our position in foreign

trade.

What did we hear from the opposition at that time when we were

talking about 6.5 per cent maximum? The opposition was crying: "You've

got lots of money. You've got a surplus of $579 million. Get out and

spend it. Give the teachers their 20 per cent. Give everyone else their

20 per cent, and everything will be well." Then when they came into

government they allowed settlements of as high as 20 and even 40 per

cent in the civil service. These settlements are what made my

constituents in the depressed state they are today. They led the way,

and the northern municipalities were saddled with increased costs of 21

to 23 per cent. How could the municipalities sit back and say, "We

won't pay, " when they could say, "The government, in this class,

allowed a 40 per cent increase to the civil servants"? They threw

gasoline on the fire to make inflation spread rapidly during the three

short years that they were in government.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Right on!

MR. SHELFORD: Not only didn't they pay their own bills, but

they spent over $1 billion more than they made. For instance, there was

a surplus of $579 million, and now there is a deficit of over $540

million.

MR. COCKE: Where do you get your crazy figures, Cyril?

MR. SHELFORD: This in itself, by increasing the wages by up

to 20 and 40 per cent, helped to destroy our ability to compete on

foreign markets, and the forest industry couldn't possibly keep up. I

used to sit in offices up north and they'd say: "I lost my secretary. I

lost this." And I'd say: "How come?" And they'd say: "Well, they went

to work for the government because they've increased their rates so

much that they can make $200 more working for the government than they

can working for us in the forest industry." So we inflated our prices,

and that is the main reason why there are so many mills shut down and

why....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. SHELFORD: I thought I did.

I would say this is the main reason why we have so much unemployment

today. I would like to know how many people are unemployed in British

Columbia today because of the inflation that was created by those

sitting across the floor during those three years.

I would say that if there's any proper criticism coming from across

the floor today it shouldn't be against a bill such as Bill 16; the

criticism should be that governments as far back as 10 years ago should

have taken severe action. We could see what was happening, and a lot of

people stood up and said what was going to happen. The former Social

Credit

[ Page 1679 ]

Premier said that if we went over 6.5 per cent in Canada we would no

longer be able to compete with the United States and, of course, all of

the countries in the other parts of the world.

If this had been done, then the tax increases that were referred to

this afternoon wouldn't have happened because we wouldn't have had to

find the extra dollars to pay our civil servants and other groups. If

all of us had been on a lower level we'd have been in a better

position. I'll admit we wouldn't have as many dollars in our pockets,

but we'd be able to buy just as much.

I'd say the best deal that the workers of Canada ever had, in my

memory — I wasn't there at the time to enjoy it because I was overseas

— was during World War II, when there were controls. The worker got a

better deal during the wartime controls than he's ever had since. Since

then it has been like a step ladder approach: one group has got up

here, the next one wants parity, and then they want to get parity with

someone else. The scream for years was "parity with the U.S." Parity

with the U.S. Is what destroyed our ability to compete and what has

hurt the workers of this part of Canada and, in fact, all parts of

Canada.

I would say that every one of us in this House has a responsibility

that if we disagree with the federal guidelines we should stand up and

offer an alternative which is better. I thank you very much.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I was very

interested in the statistics the member for Skeena was quoting. I

wonder how it happened that when he can come up with such fantastic

figures as that, he wasn't made Minister of Finance. Because I'm sure,

if he had been able to come up with those kind of figures, we might

have been able to have ferry rates that were quadrupled and ICBC

rates....

MR. SHELFORD: Read the order-in-council when we left government.

MS. BROWN: Order! Order!

MRS. WALLACE: I would suggest that there is a great variety

of difference between the figures that member was quoting and the

figures the Minister of Finance was able to produce, which were still

far from accurate and which I think have been questioned very ably by

this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the question before the House, I would

like to state first that I am very strongly in favour of any measure

that would really control inflation, that would get to the root of the

problem and would bring about an equitable distribution of the wealth

of this province and this country. I would be very much in favour of

measures that would bring to our country a control of our economy and

our resources. But this Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, is a flim-flam measure.

It's called an Anti-Inflation Measures Act but it is aimed at one thing

and one thing only and that is the control of wages.

The hon. Minister of Finance said when he introduced this bill that

it has two primary objectives. The first is to empower the government

to sign an agreement with Ottawa under the national anti-inflation

programme. Mr. Speaker, surely this government cannot be serious in

their attempt to become a part and parcel of that unworkable form of

legislation. The federal government's bill and its amendment is nothing

but a sick practical joke on the people of Canada. Actually, it's not a

practical joke; it's an impractical joke. The coalition government

wants us to support this bill to back up the anti-inflation programme

when they are the single largest contributors to inflation in the

history of the province.

This government went to Ottawa in December and made clear the

commitment of the Social Credit to fight inflation. That was lip

service, Mr. Speaker, and nothing more than lip service. To sign an

agreement with the federal government on the anti-inflation Act would

be a step backwards for the people of British Columbia.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

This government is not interested in fighting inflation, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest. They preach restraint and austerity to the

people of this province but instead they go out and their actions speak

for themselves. Mr. Speaker, we have just come through five months of

the most inflationary government action in the history of this

province, and I would venture to suggest, any place in the world.

It has been repeated, but I think it bears repeating again, Mr.

Speaker, that car insurance is up from 100 to 300 per cent, B.C. Hydro

rates are up 12 per cent....

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Car accidents are way down. Did you notice that?

MRS. WALLACE: Rent controls have been dropped as far as the

small businessman goes, and they've allowed personal home rents to

increase to a greater extent. The sales tax is up 40 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, a regressive tax — increased 40 per cent. Income tax is up,

without any exemptions at the lower income level. We're giving people

pensions and Mincome and then we're taxing it back from them. Medical

premiums have increased by 50 per cent.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Someone has got to pay your bills.

[ Page 1680 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Acute hospital care is up 400 per cent;

extended care is up 700 per cent, up because of the punitive actions of

that government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Gasoline is going up $2 a barrel, maybe more.

B.C. Ferries is up 100 per cent. The cost of living has gone up

according to the statistics just released, by some 2.4 points. That's

what this government has done in this past five short months. Now they

want to bring in anti-inflation measures, Mr. Speaker. Those measures

better be retroactive and they better start by rolling back the

increases they have instigated.

I don't trust this government. I don't think they are really

concerned about rolling back prices. They're not concerned about

rolling back profits, because when you roll back prices that does roll

back profits. Profits are what make millionaires, and that's the group

that this coalition government is out to protect. That's the group

they're protecting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Hogwash!

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Consumer Services (Mr. Mair),

said he doesn't believe in tinkering in the marketplace. That's what he

said early in his ministry, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that that's

where this government is at. They don't believe in tinkering in the

marketplace. They don't intend to control prices. It's wages that they

intend to control, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said, when he

introduced the bill, that it is to put legal authority behind the

regulation, investigation and reviewing of prices within the province.

But this bill is full of loopholes — holes big enough to drive a truck

through.

We see where the loyalties of this government lie, and there's no

doubt in my mind that the priorities and the real problems of inflation

will not be tended to by this coalition government of millionaires and

car dealers, Mr. Speaker.

This bill will add nothing to the federal legislation. It will do

nothing except legalize and extend the powers of the federal

Anti-Inflation Board, and it will extend those powers over the income

of the workers of this province.

I would like to quote a brief column from the Guardian , November

1975, relating to the federal Anti-Inflation Board when it was first

introduced.

"Wages are already restrained by the process of

collective bargaining itself, while prices are imposed unilaterally.

Wages are easy to control because they are negotiated in the full glare

of public light and each penny is accounted for, while prices and

profits are decided behind the closed doors of the corporation

offices."

It goes on to say:

"The officials of the newly created Anti-Inflation

Board and various ministers of government are vying with each other to

assure the financial community: that the food processing and

distributing industry is not responsible for inflation; that dividends

will be protected, that oil, gas and hydro will be allowed to rise in

price; that land speculators will not be interfered with; and that the

increasing mortgage and interest rates will go unchecked."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is the thrust behind this piece of legislation:

it deals with wages and not with prices.

Let's review some of the things that have gone on with the

Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Speaker. What are some of the actions? On

wages there has been case after case — at the last reading I heard 219

cases handled, with a backlog of 3,800 cases, all dealing with wages,

Mr. Speaker. There were limitations, rollbacks, and even an order in

one instance to repay wages that had been advanced and questioned as to

the legality of whether or not they can repay. Repayment, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, is the function of the board's administrator only. The board

is capriciously assuming powers unto itself in order to intimidate

workers and their organizations by rolling back prices, Mr. Speaker.

And what about prices? What has happened? Not too much, I can assure

you. The board was making a list, we read. I would suggest it's making

a list and is checking it twice, Mr. Speaker. Santa Claus is coming

down the chimney. That's what's happening, Mr. Speaker: Santa Claus is

coming down the chimney.

"Double Jump Soon in Gasoline Prices.

"Anti-Inflation Board officials are ready to clear the

way for several large oil companies to raise their product prices to

consumers, sources said Friday.

"Imperial Oil was given permission April 8 to increase its prices.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's the truth that hurts. All we

want is a little fair play, and here we are — Santa Claus is doubting

the price of gas, jumping it up, and increasing the profits to Imperial

Oil.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Imperial Oil doesn't really need

that kind of an increase. Figures from the annual report of Imperial

Oil, the largest oil company in Canada, show that despite sizeable

increases in operating revenues and after-tax profits, Imperial spent

no more on exploration in 1975 than

[ Page 1681 ]

it did in 1972.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You drove them out of the province!

MRS. WALLACE: They're not using those extra funds to do the

exploration they say they are going to do, Mr. Speaker. What about

their profits? The profits of Imperial Oil, Gulf and Shell between 1970

and 1974 rose from $195 million to $593 million, Mr. Speaker. That's

between 1970 and 1974. That's what happened to the profits, and no more

was spent on exploration. Now the Anti-Inflation Board is going to sit

back and allow Imperial Oil to raise the price by another $2 a barrel.

I would suggest that that is Santa Claus coming down the chimney, Mr.

Speaker.

Here's another one. "Commodities Get a Break From AIB. The

Anti-Inflation Board announced Friday that the companies dealing in

certain internationally priced commodities will be exempt from

regulations restricting price increases to one every 90 days." We don't

get wage increases restricted to every 90 days. It goes on to say, Mr.

Speaker, that some companies are even exempt from that, and they can

apply in seven days, Mr. Speaker.

Copper, metal, minerals — and here's another one, Mr. Speaker. It's

entitled "Inflation Dodge." It was in The Province , May 5, 1976.

"Toronto. Canada Manoir Industries Ltd. Is looking for

acquisition from the United States rather than in Canada because of the

federal government's anti-inflation regulations, Pat Cleaver, company

president said. He told the company's annual meeting the additional

business in Canada would push the company over the 500 employee cut-off

for mandatory compliance to anti-inflation regulations."

They now employ 490 people so they're going to extend in the United

States, Mr. Speaker. There are so many ways around the regulations for

companies to control profits, to control prices, and it's the wage

earner that's being controlled.

Here is a company that's bragging about it, Mr. Speaker. "Chrysler

confirms it's a bookkeeping matter. Chrysler is in much better shape

than people think and could now make large amounts of money, "

according to Chrysler's chief financial officer in a Detroit Free Press

story last November.

The

article described how "crafty financial manoeuvring" is rapidly

shrinking the company's red ink column. "Gallagher said that despite

having lost about $400 million a year, Chrysler is making money and has

reason to be optimistic about its future."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If they're making a profit you'd better hit them.

MRS. WALLACE: So it's all a matter of bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker. It's all a matter of bookkeeping.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better hit them.

MRS. WALLACE: And, of course, there are other ways, Mr.

Speaker, that the Anti-Inflation Board can be influenced. This is an

article from The Colonist , Mr. Speaker, and it's headed: "Kellogg Takes

Them All On; Food Firm Faces the Facts of Life." I would like to read

it into the record because I think this is very important, Mr. Speaker.

"The president of one of Canada's largest food manufacturers

Monday gave all who would listen a bit of a lesson in the power of positive

thinking. Arnold Langbo, 39, of Toronto, president and chief executive officer

of Kellogg Salada Canada, told a group of marketing men how his company was

meeting some of the slings and arrows being directed at his boardroom and suggested

that some of them could be handling them the same way."

And he goes on to say:

"The latest headline-makers, the Anti-Inflation Board

regulations, Kellogg meets head on, Langbo said. Even though they

suspect that they weren't really needed and are likely short-lived.

'No, the thing that perhaps concerns us quite a bit, ' Langbo said, 'is

that there's a growing indication that some companies are showing a

willingness to sacrifice long-term planning for short-term exigencies.'

"The forceful young president said that the AIB rules recently helped his firm reach new contract agreements with five unions."

Then it went on to say:

"Langbo is a firm believer that companies should keep

their lines of communication open with governments. Towards that end, a

senior financial man at Kellogg Salada is on leave from the firm and

working on the AIB in Ottawa. 'Our reasons are several. If the

government's going to be regulating our business, we very much want the

AIB to fully understand the nature and characteristics. What better way

than to have a responsible, confident industry adviser on the spot.' "

We are asked to believe that this is an unbiased board that is going

to bring in the same kind of findings on behalf of the workers of this

province and this country as it will bring in on behalf of those who

are making the profits from their companies.

It's a neat little package, Mr. Speaker, and it's all tied up with ribbon and tinsel.

There are so many ways of getting around the controls, and they go

right down even to the managerial staff, Mr. Speaker. When you

negotiate a wage agreement, it's cut and dried. You're a

[ Page 1682 ]

tradesman, or you're an apprentice, or you're a helper and the rate

is set. But when you are a manager you may get a 10 per cent wage

increase, but there's nothing in the books that says that you can't be

moved from a manager 1 to a manager 2 or a manager 3, with no change in

responsibilities or duties. By those kinds of moves your actual rate

for the same work is increasing many, many times more than 10 per cent

or whatever rate is allowed to the wage-earner.

The corporate profits keep increasing, the interest keeps increasing

— but the wages and salaries are not keeping up. The profits between

1971 and 1974 of multinational corporations, the profit increase is

15.5 per cent between '71 and '74. Interest income has increased in the

same period by 20.5 per cent. But what has happened to wages and

salaries? Overall wages and salaries have increased only 7 per cent,

Mr. Speaker, and if you get right down....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MRS. WALLACE: In the four-year period, that's true. They've

gone from 9.7 to 16.7 increase, and manufacturing wages have gone from

9 per cent to 13.5 or an increase of 4.5 per cent. So I suggest that

wages haven't kept pace with profits or with interest increases.

This has left the farmer in the squeeze too, because he is one of

the wage-earners. He is caught in the squeeze; he is blamed by the

public. His income is at a low ebb. Many farmers are trapped in an

intolerable situation. The president of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, speaking in a recent press release, noted the example of

the producers of peas, beans and corns, who have been told they must

take a 10 per cent price cut from last year even though their

production costs have escalated by 15 per cent.

We are proposing to go into a price-fixing situation when the

farmer's return is at a low ebb. The Land Commission — the pressures

are on the farmland. He is being pressed to leave his land. Two or

three per cent of B.C. adults are engaged in farming; not more than 2

per cent work at it full-time in this province.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must protect our farmers. If

we are to freeze them at an untenable level and if we don't protect

their land — if we force more and more out of business — then we become

more and more dependent on imports, more and more in the hands of the

multinational concerns as far as control over the cost of our food. I

suggest that this bill is starting at the wrong end of the stick, Mr.

Speaker; it is starting at the wrong end. It is starting to control

those people who have the least.

We have set up some limits within the Anti-Inflation Board whereby,

if a person is earning the minimum income — the minimum wage; I think

it's up to $3.50 an hour — that is uncontrolled. But when we go to the

top level, we're finding that there is a comparison of something like

$650 as opposed to $2,400 that a person is allowed under the rules and

regulations of the Anti-inflation Board.

As I pointed out, there are ways around even that at the higher

level, Mr. Speaker. As long as we are on this percentage rate, those

that have get and those that don't have get a lesser amount. This is

the unfair part about the way this thing is moving. It is taking effect

with people that are least able to afford it. It is not moving in a

direction that will control where the controls are really needed and

where the big money is being socked away.

This bill and this Act will do nothing to help the people of this

province as far as prices go. I maintain it is a wage control bill only

and it is aimed at those people least able to afford to pay the cost. I

am unalterably opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place

this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation

Measures Act. The Social Credit government of British Columbia has

shown leadership in the fight against inflation. This was done through

its responsible action in reducing by 10 per cent the salaries of the

leaders of our great province. We have not been reckless, as suggested

by the members opposite. We have shown a willingness to face the

inflationary spiral and accept our responsibility to lead the attack on

inflation. Hence Bill 16.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the former government

didn't see fit to take a similar approach to the escalating problem

which has eaten away at incomes across Canada.

The previous member spoke about Santa Claus. Who was the Santa Claus

when Alf Nunweiler, a CN train dispatcher, was made Minister Without

Portfolio at a salary of $45,000 a year, was given a $402,657 budget,

immediately hired an executive assistant at $19,000, an economic

planning consultant at $19,000, a social policy co-ordinator at $19,000

and his administrative — assistant at $24,000? Who was that Santa Claus?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's parachuting into Vancouver East.

MR. KAHL: Who was the Santa Claus that gave the same Minister Without office expenses of $25,000, travel allowance of $40,000...

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! $40,000?

MR. KAHL: ...an additional $25,000 to pump out political propaganda?

MR. KEMPF: Say good morning and he was stuck

[ Page 1683 ]

for an answer.

MR. KAHL: Who was that? Who was that?

On April 1, 1973, Mr. Speaker, the NDP granted major increases in

salary allowances to the members of this assembly and started the

province down the road to economic chaos with little concern for

financial responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. KAHL: They established the salary of the Premier at $52,000 a year...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Who wrote that speech?

MR. KAHL: ...at that time $4,000 more than the Prime Minister of Canada, and increased the members' allowance to $24,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 the cost of government per person in the

province of British Columbia was $578. In 1975, the last year of your

administration....

MR. LEA: Listen to this.

MR. KAHL: You're not supposed to speak from that chair. You know the rules of this House, Mr. Member.

In 1975, it wasn't $578 per person. It had risen to $1,313 per person. Disgraceful!

Speaking in Trail the then Premier said one time: "Inflation caused

great pressure on wages and costs." He said: "I am not responsible for

inflation pressures in Canada." How could the then Premier who'd given

the members of this assembly a 100 per cent increase in wages make this

type of a statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa Claus with a parachute.

MR. KAHL ; Well, we have a similar name.

What was the general public to think, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you

what the Town Crier in Powell River said on June 25 in 1975: "The

socialists came to power in B.C. and said they were going for broke

and, by golly, according to the state of our provincial treasury, they

were."

AN HON. MEMBER: They went for broke.

MR. KAHL: They thought, the people of the province, that if

the government can have their cake, so can we. That's understandable,

Mr. Speaker. What else could we expect from the taxpayers of the

province? Look at the reckless spending, the reckless financial

mismanagement of the previous administration. We've heard so much about

the increases in the last five months. Look at the why for that, hon.

members.

Last year the government overran its budget by $343 million. That's

$930,000 a day. ICBC lost $36.2 million in that particular year. That's

$99,178 per day. That's why the cost of ICBC had to rise. There's no

free lunch. You should have realized that. B.C. Ferries lost $68,493

per day. The increases in ferry rates should have come in 1972 or 1973

when they first started losing great sums of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the average annual

percentage growth in the consumer price index over the past several

years. Vancouver, British Columbia, led the national percentage growth

in the consumer price index and has done so since the beginning of

1973. The consumer price index in Vancouver is ahead of Toronto, the

largest city in the country, and has had that distinction since 1973.

It seems more than coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that the increase in

salaries of political leaders jumped so dramatically at the same time

that British Columbia took the lead in Canada in losing the battle

against inflation. That is a fact. The previous administration in

British Columbia cost the taxpayers of Canada billions of dollars

because every province across this nation had to catch up.

Not only did the consumer price index surge upwards, Mr. Speaker,

during the last two years. Average weekly earnings in this province

have jumped 12.5 and 14.3 per cent in 1974 and 1975 respectively. This

trend has also developed since the irresponsible action taken by the

former government. This is just another example of why today, Mr.

Speaker, we stand here debating the Anti-Inflation Measures Act which

is needed to control our economy and the inflation which is killing it.

Today we are paying the price of mismanagement, waste and extravagance

of those members who sit over there.

Our Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said yesterday in the House:

"We agree entirely with the suggestion that any call for wage restraint

must be echoed just as strongly by call for restraint in prices." He

went on to say: "We intend to protect provincial interests while at the

same time cooperating with the national anti-inflation programme."

In a statement on February 27, the Premier made it clear that the

provincial machinery would be established to review pricing decisions

of Crown corporations providing services in the public sector and that

the exercise would drive home the point that these corporations are to

operate on sound, financial principles and are accountable to the

people of the province of British Columbia. We did not have that under

the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 represents the legal

[ Page 1684 ]

framework for a cooperative attack on inflationary pressures and for

asserting a firm provincial presence in restraining the upward spiral

of prices that affects all British Columbians. I urge all hon. members

to give the measure their support so we can get on with the job. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, it's quite

interesting to sit in the Legislature and listen to the remarks of the

hon. member for Esquimalt, although I think it would be much better if

more people were to come into this Legislature and give us some of

their own thoughts. It was obvious that he had gone through a number of

pamphlets, leaflets and things and marked in yellow the things that he

wanted to read — one paragraph from here and one paragraph there, and

put it all together. But when you really listen to it, you know that

it's really jumbled, Mr. Speaker, because it makes no sense. It makes

no sense.

I heard a rumour that a number of years ago, when Mr. Gaglardi was

the minister of social improvement, he stood up in this House and said

that he was going to declare war on poverty. Then I heard that that

member started throwing rocks at beggars out in Esquimalt just to

comply. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you will relate to Bill 16.

MR. LEA: Oh, it is related because we are talking about poverty...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm waiting.

MR. LEA: ...the war on poverty that probably everyone in this

House wants to wage. You see, I don't believe there is anyone in this

House who doesn't want to do the best for British Columbia and for

British Columbians. I believe that. But probably that's where we differ.

The member for Esquimalt talked about Alf Nunweiler appointing

someone for $19,000 as a consultant. Then we have to take a look at the

actual fact and see that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), under this government, appointed one of his cronies for

$29,000. When he was asked what were his qualifications, the minister

said: "Well, ha, ha, ha, what are anyone's qualifications?" That was

his answer to the press.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: One thing that the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) at

no time did was to appoint his brother-in-law's brother to a job in the

Premier's office for somewhere around $36,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LEA: Is that called nepotism, or is it called good administration?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you relate to Bill 16?

MR. LEA: I am trying to follow the remarks of that hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just relate to Bill 16. You are quite capable.

MR. LEA: I know I am. I just thought he was relating his, so I am just talking about what he talked about, Mr. Speaker.

As I pointed out at the beginning, everyone wants the best for

British Columbia and British Columbians. I don't think there's a member

of government or a member of the Social Credit Party in this House who

doesn't really want that;

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no Social Credit here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coalition.

MR. LEA: But, you know, one of the ways that they see to help

fight the fight against inflation is to balance the books. Above all

else, balance the books. It reminds me of a story, which someone told

me not long ago about a church that was running in the red during the

normal administration of the functions of the church. So the church

elders decided that this was no longer acceptable and they called a

group of businessmen in to try and make sure that at least the church

would break even.

So the group of businessmen came in with their only terms of

reference as break even — that's your terms of reference; break even

and that's it — so they started to take a look at the kind of services

the church provided and they started to look at the kinds of revenue

the church could take in. Now it became obvious that they were putting

more out than they were taking in.

MR. KEMPF: Is this a joke?

MR. LEA: No, it's not a joke; you're the joke.

Now what happened at that point when they started to go down, these

businessmen and accountants and what have you, but all from the

business community? They said: "Well, let's take a look at the ushers

first." They said: "Well, I don't think we can do away with the ushers,

because they make the collections on Sunday and that's revenue coming

in." They said next: "Let's take a look at the

[ Page 1685 ]

committee that looks at the kind of reforms that we need in this

parish for the aged." They said: "Well, here's a committee that isn't

making any money. It's costing us money to keep this committee going.

Cancel that committee. Let's balance the books."

Now if the only motivation of the government is to balance the

books, they are probably on the right course, but is that, and should

it be, their only prime consideration? Now first of all they say:

"Let's tag onto the programme that's being put in place under the

federal administration, the AIB." I saw last night on television one of

the federal ministers, John Munro, standing up. He said: "Look at this,

the cost of living has gone down in the last while, so obviously the

programme is working." That's what he said, but in reality what is

happening is that most people in Canada buy most of their produce and

most of their commodities from the United States. That's a fact. What's

happened to the Canadian dollar? Not too long ago the Canadian dollar

was worth 99 cents compared to the American. It's now worth $1.02.

MR. LAUK: Have they got a $3 bill?

MR. LEA: This means that when you now buy from the United

States those goods, you can get $1.02 worth of products for $1. Before,

you were getting 99 cents' worth for $1. Now that's a difference of 3

per cent, and that is no small difference when looking at what it costs

the Canadian consumer to buy most of his goods. That's actually where

the saving came in and that's why, in the last little while, we've had

just a little bit of difference in the cost of living in Canada — no

more, no less. But although that may bring a little relief to Canadians

in purchasing commodities, it isn't all that good for British Columbia

because of the kind of economy we have, where we have to ship most of

our raw products to the markets in the United States. Now we're only

getting 99 cents for every dollar's worth of goods that we ship out of

here, so we're losing on that end. But there has been not one single

item that has been brought in by the federal administration in their

fight against inflation that has worked, except to freeze wages, roll

back wages, and make sure that increases are not large.

But where does the real difference in philosophy come in here? You

know, it's whether you align yourself with working people or whether

you align yourself with the corporate structure on this continent. Most

of the members on the other side have aligned themselves, because most

of them are either in business or think that it is good to be in

business, with the corporate structure. That reminds me of talking to

probably the most successful businessman in Prince Rupert. One day I

said to him: "Ray, why is it I never hear you going around town talking

about the good that you're doing for this community, about your

investment in this community?" And I believe that that certain

businessman, Mr. Speaker, has done a lot of good for the city of Prince

Rupert. But I said: "You never seem to be saying it, Ray." He said:

"Look, why should I when those lackeys will do it for me?" That is what

he thinks of them, and that is probably what the corporate structure

thinks of this cabinet and of your party. That's what they think of you...

MR. LOEWEN: That's a bunch of nonsense!

MR. LEA: ...because really in the business world you're small potatoes. That's what you are, and they'd squash you like a bug.

The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who probably owns one

of the most successful car dealerships, is a small-potato person in the

world of finance and in the world of economics on this continent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly relate to Bill 16, please?

MR. LEA: I am relating to Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, because if

we're looking at Bill 16, then we have to look at the kind of attitude

that brings in this kind of bill. Those are the kind of attitudes. Now

Andrew Mellon, one of the richest families in the United States, when

he was appointed under President Hoover to be Secretary of the

Treasury, one of the first things that he tried to put through was that

anybody who leaves over $400,000 should not pay inheritance tax, and

anybody who leaves less than that should. He brought his own bias into

government, and that is what everyone does. I'm glad to say that this

party brings in a bias towards ordinary people, and, believe it or not,

I think that the members over there are just ordinary people. But, Mr.

Speaker, they don't. They really don't.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Humbug!

MR. LEA: They feel that they're not only economically a little better, but they're socially a little better.

Do you ever get the boss of the company? Not only does he think he

can tell you what to do when you're on the job, but he honestly thinks

you should follow his political advice because he's Big Daddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: They try to influence everyone around them, and

that's fair. Maybe they should try to influence people with their

ideas. But should the average person be so stupid as to believe that

his vested or her vested interest may he with the

[ Page 1686 ]

corporate structure only? Is it only the corporate structure that

counts? Believe me, the small businessmen in this province have been

more adversely affected by that corporate structure than by any act of

any government.

The small businessman on the average downtown

section in any

community in this province is being more adversely affected by the

rules and regulations and direction of the corporate structure on this

continent than they are by any government. They go along with it

because for the first time some of those people on the back bench have

sat down beside a millionaire. You know, they're just thrilled to

pieces, Mr. Speaker. They honestly think they've arrived. They'll go

along with it because they have no ideas of their own, as the hon.

member for Esquimalt has pointed out, but they just want to bask in

what they consider to be the glory of hanging around with someone who

has made money.

It not only ends with the back bench, Mr. Speaker. I can think of

some people in cabinet who made a fortune. I'll bet you there are

people in that cabinet who were hotliners who made upwards of $15,000 a

year. I'll bet there are, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, what has this to do with Bill 16?

MR. LEA: I'm talking about the kind of attitudes that would

bring in this kind of bill. We're talking about the principle of the

bill, Mr. Speaker, and in order to talk about the principle of a bill,

we need to talk about the kind of attitudes that bring them in.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I beg your pardon, Madam Member. I beg your pardon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: She says: "What do you know about the practices of business?" Oh, about as much as you do!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not enough. That's not much.

MR. LEA: Okay, I'll explain that. If I took the time, Mr.

Speaker, to tell everything I know about business, it would take me

five minutes. If I told everything that I know and he knows about

business, it would still only take five minutes. That's all it would

take.

MR. LOEWEN: What the people need is a responsible opposition!

MR. LEA: What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible back

bench to government who wouldn't go along with every whim and fancy of

that cabinet in the hope that they're going to sit in the cabinet.

That's what we need. I have never seen such sycophantic speeches and

heard such sycophantic speeches in my life. When those new people go in

cabinet, Mr. Speaker, will you hear the speeches change back there!

Won't they change back there!

You haven't got the guts to stand up and fight for your

constituents, because you want so much to sit up there. That's all that

it's about. The member for Esquimalt gets up and talks about the losses

of the former government. They should know all about losses — $36

million on the BCR when they were in government and $800 million on the

Columbia River treaty, totalling altogether, with a few other things,

about $1 billion. That's what you left this province in debt. If you

con't know that, you don't know very much. You don't know very much.

What have they done, Mr. Speaker, since they've been in government,

to offset the need for this kind of bill? What have they done? They've

taken ICBC and pulled one of the biggest kite-flying operations and one

of the biggest shams on the people of British Columbia that anyone

could imagine, and they honestly thought they'd get away with it. They

honestly did. I'm not bitter. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it's

the only government I've ever seen which has just been elected and

they're bitter. What the heck are they bitter about? They won the

election, they won it handily, and they sit over there, bitter, bitter,

bitter.

Look at them. Look at the member for Esquimalt. I wan