1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2037 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Incorporate the British Columbia Association of Colleges (Bill 51).

Introduction and first reading. Mrs. Jordan — 2037

Interprovincial Subpoena Act (Bill 19).

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2037

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20).

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2037

Oral questions

Safety of BCR operations. Mr. Lea — 2037

Leg-hold traps. Mr. Gibson — 2038

Pollution of Goldstream River by Noranda Mines. Mr. King — 2039

Takeover of Welfare from municipalities. Mr. Gibson — 2039

PWA move to Alberta. Mr. Macdonald — 2039

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 86

Mrs. Dailly — 2041

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2041

Ms. Brown — 2041

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2043

Mr. King — 2045

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2047

Mr. Macdonald — 2048

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2049

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

Ms. Sanford — 2050

Mr. Bawtree — 2054

Mr. Macdonald — 2058

Mr. Veitch — 2058

Mr. Levi — 2060

Mr. Nicolson — 2066

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

in the gallery today is an old friend of mine and former law partner

from Vancouver, Mr. Gustav Kroll. I would ask the House to bid him

welcome.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to welcome to our legislative gallery Mr. Jack Chapman, who was

born in Gloucester some 80 years ago, who took the first diesel ship

out of the port of Victoria, and has been a marine engineer all his

life — the ancient mariner. (Laughter.)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to make welcome and, of course, be on their best

behaviour for a group of children and their teachers from the

Cloverdale Community School. Please welcome them.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'm also pleased, Mr.

Speaker, to welcome to the House today a number of students from Point

Grey high school in Vancouver with their teacher, Mr. Bowman. Their

school motto is honor ante honoris, and as the former Attorney-General

well knows, that means honour before honours. Let's bid them a special

welcome.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE BRITISH

COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 51, British Columbia Association of

Colleges Incorporation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

INTERPROVINCIAL SUBPOENA ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 19, Interprovincial Subpoena

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.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 20,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976,

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

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

Oral questions.

SAFETY OF BCR OPERATIONS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question

to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. It has come to my

attention through the press and through other means that the workers on

the British Columbia Railway and their union representatives are

concerned about the stretch of track between Squamish and North

Vancouver because of about 90 per cent of the maintenance crews being

pulled out. The workers and their union representatives feel that

trackage is unsafe and becoming more unsafe with every passing day, and

also there is the danger of rock slides in that area. They are not

being properly scrutinized due to the lack of maintenance.

As the Royal Hudson began its operations on May 21, there is concern by the workers for the safety of visitors to B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you please state your question?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'm getting to that, Mr. Speaker. There is

concern for the safety of those visitors and residents of this province

and other provinces in Canada riding the Royal Hudson.

I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary whether she is aware of that concern. If not, what does she intend to do about it?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to have a report brought back to the House whenever I check that out.

The member has brought to the attention of the House and of myself

an expression of an opinion from the staff. We would like to ensure the

member that the safety of visitors and our residents who are travelling

is always a prime concern. I'll certainly bring a report back.

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

Labour a question on the same subject. With the BCR problem about 3,000

lumber employees at that track are going to be or have been laid off.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would use his influence on

the BCR to see that at least the maintenance-of-way employees are able

to do their job so that the situation isn't needlessly exacerbated and

there's not needless provocation in a situation that is spelling

industrial problems for the

[ Page 2038 ]

whole of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: That happens to be a separate question to a separate minister.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thank

the member for Vancouver East for his concern. If he is truly concerned

I'm sure he would know that the matter is currently before the Labour

Relations Board on that very subject.

As to the action taken by B.C. Rail with respect to the laying off

of certain personnel, I am sure that the hon. member would not want the

Minister of Labour to interfere with the Labour Relations Board in the

conduct of its authority under the Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, as the minister

knows, the government runs the railway. Why should the government have

to be taken before the Labour Relations Board in order to maintain

safety on the tracks? I say it's needless provocation. Will the

minister intervene as government to see that the management of the BCR

maintains proper safety practices so that there isn't that needless

provocation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The government will take such steps as are required to ensure that proper safety practices are carried out on the railway.

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

I just want to ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the

Workers' Compensation Board, which resides under his legislative

purview, is the agency responsible for safety regulation on the British

Columbia Railway. I suggest that if he is not, the Minister of Labour

may want to ask....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's argumentative.

MR. KING: It's not argumentative, Mr. Speaker. I'm posing a question to him.

MR. SPEAKER: And there's a hypothetical answer in the same statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll phrase that last

part in a different way.

I would ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is a

difference between the level of maintenance that is necessary for a

resource railway, which is the customary operation of the BCR, and the

higher level of maintenance and care that's required when a passenger

train is operated over that terrain. I would ask that the Minister of

Labour respond to these questions and bring to the attention of the

Workers' Compensation Board these matters.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Which question does the member wish me to respond to, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: All of them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm aware of the difference between

the requirements of a resource railway and a passenger service, and

yes, I'm aware that it is the Workers' Compensation Board's

responsibility. As I said to the member for Vancouver East, the

government will ensure that proper safety practices are carried out.

LEG-HOLD TRAPS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would like to

ask the Provincial Secretary, apropos of the trapping regulations she

promulgated last week, if she was aware at the time of the fact that

the banning of leg-hold traps with teeth, according to Mrs. Clements of

the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, is a banning

of a trap that hasn't been manufactured for years and is almost a

museumpiece, in her words.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the press report

suggesting that it was a museumpiece, the leg-hold trap with the claws

that was banned last week by regulation is in use in the province of

British Columbia, and due to those regulations will not be in use after

the enforcement. It may well be that, even in Mrs. Clements' words,

there are just a few. I understand from my own department there are far

more than a few in use. They have been, in fact, on sale in the

province of British Columbia in recent months, and indeed the abolition

of the trap is a step forward in humane trapping in this province.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask the

Provincial Secretary — I assume in putting together these regulations

she would have this information — if she has some rough idea as to the

number of such traps in use which will be banned or the percentage.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll have to take that question as notice and report back to you on the numbers.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary on the same regulations,

Mr. Speaker. How is the government planning to enforce the regulation

relating to the 72-hour check of traplines?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked that same question because of the amount of surveillance that would be needed. The department

[ Page 2039 ]

feels that they can enforce it and that report has been given to me that they are going to be able to cope with that.

POLLUTION OF GOLDSTREAM

RIVER BY NORANDA MINES

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

and various other branches. Can the minister tell me what his

department is doing to ensure that the Noranda mining operation at

Goldstream, 54 miles north of Revelstoke, will not emit tailings into

the Goldstream River with consequent pollution and danger to the

fish-spawning grounds?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, there are

very well-defined procedures for obtaining pollution-control permits

and mine-reclamation permits which must be met prior to any mine going

into operation, and our department in conjunction with the Department

of Environment will make sure that all proper procedures are followed.

MR. KING: Supplementary. Could the Minister of Mines then

assure me that no tailings or other refuse from the mine will, in fact,

be dumped into the river known as Goldstream?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to this question, Mr.

Speaker, I've already answered the question that all provisions of the

Pollution Control Act of this province and the Department of Mines will

be met.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister — a

supplemental question. As it appears that the rule that prevails in

this province is that it is against the law to pollute if you don't

have a permit, and it's all right if you do have a permit, what does

the minister intend to do to ensure that the permit that is issued will

not endanger the spawning grounds in that river?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could you rephrase the question?

How do you connect the issue of a permit or a permit itself to

endangerment of spawning grounds?

MR. LEA: The minister understands it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're 0 for 2 today, Graham.

MR. KING: Supplementary. I would appreciate information from

the Minister of Mines — that is what I'm looking for — as to whether or

not the plan under the pollution-control permit that is being

considered is to allow any dumping of refuse into the river. That's the

information I'm seeking and I would appreciate the minister's

cooperation in answering.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, the Department of Mines does not issue pollution-control

permits. They are issued by the Pollution Control Board and we, in the

Department of Mines, assure the hon. member that all requirements of

these Acts will be met.

TAKEOVER OF WELFARE

FROM MUNICIPALITIES

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

Resources. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Environment

last night to the Richmond council that the provincial government will

be taking over the administration of welfare in that city, could the

minister tell us if this will be the policy of the present government

to continue the general thrust of the past government in gradually

taking over the administration of welfare in all the remaining

municipalities?

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

Speaker, it's certainly our intention to move toward a complete

takeover of social assistance charges now levied against the

municipalities. We don't believe it's a charge properly levied against

municipalities, and we're working toward that end. Certainly with

respect to administration, we hope to see a takeover very quickly.

Negotiations will commence after adoption of the budget.

PWA MOVE TO ALBERTA

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, in view

of the widespread concern about the removal of managerial offices of

PWA to Alberta, will the Attorney-General be intervening in the test

case in the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the powers of the

Transport Commission, and if he will be intervening, which side will he

be on?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll take that as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: You're working to rule too. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. first

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) posed a question with regard

to the fatality that occurred in an elevator shaft in New

[ Page 2040 ]

Westminster. I have an interim report.

Following the unfortunate tragedy, the elevator was completely

inspected and no fault for the stoppage could be found. However, the

following day a similar stoppage of the car within the shaft occurred.

Further examination disclosed that it might have been caused by a minor

electrical failure.

However, while the car stopped within the elevator shaft, the direct

cause of the fatality was that a passenger in the elevator forced open

the interior doors and then operated the interlock in the outer doors

of the hoistway, thereby crating a passageway through which the

deceased stepped and fell to his death.

There is a coroner's inquest being convened. Representations will be

made at that inquest concerning the installation of warning devices

which will activate themselves once doors in elevators and in elevator

shafts are improperly opened.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I'd like to thank the

minister for his response to my question. I'm wondering whether this

then means that the government is not going to be taking any

responsibility for the fatal accident which occurred to that

81-year-old gentleman. Is that what I'm to understand from your

statement, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that there's an

inquest and therefore any fault with respect to the accident has not

been assessed by anyone. I'm only reporting on what occurred, and I'll

happily provide the member with a further report once the coroner's

inquest has been concluded.

MR. LEA: I would like some clarification from your office,

Mr. Speaker. Over the past few weeks during question period you have

ruled a number of questions out of order for various reasons: one time

because you considered the question to be facetious; a number of times

because you considered the question to be argumentative. I think the

members of the House deserve to know on what basis you reach those

conclusions. Is it the tone of voice? Is it the word? Just how is it

that you reach these conclusions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. I'd be quite happy to

provide you with some of the information.... Would you please take your

seat? I'd be quite happy to provide you with some of the information

that's available to the office of the Speaker in determining whether a

question is proper, improper, or out of order. It's contained in Beauchesne ,

4th edition, 1958, at page 147. There are listed here probably 25 or 30

different categories and items which, in the past, have been found to

be out of order and not a proper question in context of the question

period.

I would say to the hon. member, if he does not have a copy of this particular sheet, that I'd be quite happy to give it to him.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you've already done that and I've

looked it over. I am not questioning what you're reading from, or the

references. What I am asking is how you define whether a question is

argumentative. I realize that an argumentative question cannot be

asked; I'm asking how you define it.

MR. SPEAKER: By referring to the rules and applying them to the question that's being asked, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it's the tone of voice, because....

MR. SPEAKER: Not....

MR. LEA: I'm really happy that you told

me that, Mr. Speaker! Now would you consider that argumentative? The

words are very plain and they're not argumentative, but my tone of

voice was, and I'm just asking you to define for the House...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member!

MR. LEA: ...how you come to a conclusion because...

MR. SPEAKER: I've given you....

MR. LEA: ...I can't understand it and neither can many of my colleagues, or any of my colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry....

MR. LEA: How do you come to a conclusion?

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever that occurs, I'll be quite happy to assist you.

MR. LEA: Well, it happened today and I'm asking for your assistance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And you'll get it when....

MR. LEA: Why did you find the question argumentative?

MR. SPEAKER: And you'll get it when....

MR. LEA: In due course, I suppose. Is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever I have to rule a

[ Page 2041 ]

question argumentative, I'll do so, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Well, you did today. Could you rule on that one?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 86: minister's office, $101,052 — continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, to the hon.

minister, I particularly want to just hear some answers on the whole

area of alcoholism, and specifically as it refers to my own riding.

I've listened very carefully to the minister and I've been pleased that

he has a fairly strong stance on the disease of alcoholism. He's

expressed grave concern about the ravages of alcoholism, not only from

a health point of view, but the social ravages. Now we have heard him

say that he is changing direction — they're moving away from the

Alcohol and Drug Commission — and we're waiting for some specifics, of

course, as to what action will be taken, particularly in the areas of

preventing the disease of alcoholism and in the area of rehabilitation.

It is in the area of rehabilitation, which the minister stressed

quite strongly yesterday, that I specifically want to question him. Now

if the minister believes in the rehabilitation of alcoholics, I have a

very simple question to him: why, then, did you cut off the grants in

the riding of Burnaby, one for a halfway house for women who were

suffering from the disease of alcoholism — and the record of this

halfway house had proven that these women had been rehabilitated and

were becoming useful members of society — and another grant to a

halfway house for male alcoholics which has also been cut off? What I

want to hear from the minister is: if you believe in the rehabilitation

of alcoholics, why has one of your first moves been to cut off grants

to two very worthwhile projects in Burnaby?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to thank the member for the question and for her concern about

problems of alcoholism. I think I explained pretty carefully last

evening the kind of specific directions we wish to move in with regard

to rehabilitation and longer-term facilities, and the funding of

community centres as well.

The Member's correct, Mr. Chairman, we have not provided funds for

the two organizations she mentions. I must say, first of all, that we

had requests for funds for something like $2 million more than we had,

We had something like $5 million, and we had $7 million in requests, so

we had to make. some quantitative judgments about where we would give

those funds. Now the halfway house for men in Burnaby: unfortunately,

the assessment I got back was that it wasn't very well run; that there

was drinking on the premises; that there were no cost-effective

controls in that organization; that, really, it probably didn't have a

municipal permit to operate; and that the facility was poorly run.

The situation wasn't the same for the Charlford House for women.

However, there is a problem in that the occupancy of that house is only

about 5 to 15 per cent at any given time — not very cost effective.

Nevertheless, we recognize that because it is a residential treatment

centre for female alcoholics — and we don't have very many of those

around at the present time — we're looking at it again. Hopefully, when

mid-term comes up in July we'll be able to find some funds, but we

would like to see the occupancy rate built up a bit so that that house

is run to its full capacity and as many females as possible who have an

alcoholic problem can get the kind of treatment they need at that

house. All I can say to you at this time is that I've asked the

directors of the Alcohol and Drug Commission to take another look at

Charlford House and see if we can provide some funding for them for the

second half of this year,

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you.

MS. R. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether I can

continue with a thread I dealt with yesterday — that is, health rather

than sickness in the minister's department. What I want to talk about

is mental health this time.

There was a budget presented to the minister by an ad hoc committee

on residences for young adults and adults in the community at large, in

Vancouver, of people with psychiatric problems. Now one of the

positions that I know you support, through you, Mr. Chairman to the

minister, and we all do, is that people should be able to live and

function in the community at large. In fact, we're getting away from

the idea that mental health...if a person is not well, he should be

locked away in an institution and never be seen again for the rest of

his life. What we're talking about is rehabilitation and getting people

back into the community.

Now there are a number of different groups that cooperate in trying

to do this. Riverview has its halfway houses, Vista and Venture, and

the Vancouver General uses some, but aside from that, in the community

at large, these needs are being met by community groups. In the

Vancouver area there are three particular groups that I want to talk

about. One

[ Page 2042 ]

is the Mental Patients Association, one is the

Coast Foundation Society, and, of course, there is LOMA — the Lower

Mainland Association for young adults with psychiatric problems. They

are three groups which are community groups. They grew out of the

community.

They were not legislated into being. They did not come about as a

result of a decree of the department but grew up out of a need which

was recognized by the community at large. I know, Mr. Chairman, that

your government is committed to the whole concept of communities

meeting their own responsibilities to their society, and this certainly

is what the Mental Patients Association is trying to do, as is the

Coast Foundation Society and LOMA.

Now one of the really major kinds of concern has to do with housing.

It has to do with once the patient is discharged from Riverview or from

Vancouver General Hospital or St. Paul's or whatever, they should not

be thrown back into their original environment which precipitated their

illness in the first place. But there has to be, for a short period of

time maybe, a residence with some kind of supervision that they can

live in until they are ready to move back to their original home. Or

they may find that they live in that residence for a long period of

time.

This is an expensive business. There is absolutely no cheap way to

run a residence for people with psychiatric problems. There is no cheap

way even if it is done with the very minimum of salary to the staff.

You have to have trained staff and you have to have these houses. So

there are all these kinds of needs to be met. So the budgets which are

presented to the Department of Health are pretty healthy budgets.

They're big budgets. So I'm not arguing with the minister about the

size of the budgets.

What my position is, though, is that in the long run, if you're just

going to look at the business of cold hard cash, it is cheaper either

than keeping these people in Riverview once they're well enough to be

back in the community at large, or it is cheaper than throwing them

back into their original environment which precipitated the illness.

Because then there's going to be a very high recidivism rate and

they're going to be right back in Riverview or Crease Clinic or

wherever again.

So an ad hoc committee came together in Vancouver to present a

united front, because one of the things that your department very

rightly complains about is duplication of services. On this committee

there are representatives from Riverview Hospital, Vancouver General,

Shaughnessy, St. Paul's, YWCA, the health science hospital at UBC,

Mental Patients Association, LOMA, Coast Foundation Society, the

Vancouver Resources Board, the Greater Vancouver Mental Health

Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the West Side

Society for Adult Rehabilitation Residences.

The position taken by the Department of Health is that the operating

costs for these residences should not come under the department's

jurisdiction and that is what I'm arguing with. I realize that the

position has to do with the federal-provincial cost-sharing and that

there are difficulties there. This is one of the reasons why it has

been sent over to Human Resources rather than dealt with.

The facts are, Mr. Chairman, that in the greater Vancouver area,

where we have approximately 500,000 people, according to this brief,

there are only six intermediate-term or long-term facilities of this

nature providing approximately 170 beds. That is totally inadequate,

and I'm sure the minister will agree with that and that there has to be

alternative living accommodation. This has been supported by a report

which was done for the greater Vancouver boarding home status report,

which was done for the city by Dr. Cummings and Sharon Martin. It

definitely said we needed transition houses, crisis centres,

medium-term and long-term housing facilities for young adults as well

as adult adults who are being discharged from our psychiatric

facilities.

I am asking the minister really to take another position on this

whole business of operating costs as it's pointed out in this

recommendation in this brief. Let the Department of Health take over

responsibility for the operating costs of these houses. Now Coast

Foundation Society wants to go into the funding of 20 more units for

long-term stay. LOMA Lodge is looking at putting in eight to 10 more

beds, and the Mental Patients Association is looking at two new

residences. These are needed, there's not a question about that, plus

the whole business of family placement and transition houses.

But the three particular areas: Coast Foundation Society, LOMA Lodge

and the Mental Patients Association in particular — I'm asking the

minister to make some kind of commitment to these three particular

groups in terms of funding their residency programmes. Now I know the

position of the department is that they are already to a large extent

funding MPA. You know, the MPA budget last year received $100,000, I

think, from the department — or possibly this year. The Human Resources

and the city of Vancouver all contribute towards the budget that MPA

presents. But they are meeting a very crucial need in the community.

The Mental Patients Association operates a drop-in centre which

averages between 40 to 100 people going in and out of that centre in a

day. It is operated by ex-patients themselves. On Wednesday evenings

they have their supper nights and there are usually between 60 to 70

people there. There isn't any question at all.

Interjection.

[ Page 2043 ]

MS. BROWN: The Mental Patients Association have a number of

houses throughout the Vancouver area, but the drop-in centre is in the

Vancouver-Burrard constituency. But this is incidental and it wouldn't

make any difference to me. Five houses, and they want two more. Right.

The fact is, and I know the minister is going to admit it, they are

doing a fantastic job. The Mental Patients Association is dealing in a

way that the traditionalists couldn't. They are meeting the kinds of

needs that the professionals couldn't meet because, in fact, they have

a different perspective on mental health than, say, the doctors or the

nurses or other people who deal. They are continually, on a regular

basis, dealing with at least 500 people who use the facilities of the

Mental Patients Association — their drop-in centre, their Wednesday

night suppers or whatever.

They've gone even further, Mr. Chairman, and they have now opened an

office at Riverview, and this is really marvellous. I mean, if you

speak to the staff at Riverview they will tell you how very impressed

they are with the kind of assistance they get in working with the

patients by the Mental Patients Association having their office there.

The Department of Labour has been quite generous in giving them a

grant so that they can have four people continually staffing that

office. They deal with referrals to housing, community resources. They

deal with the review panels and legal problems. They write letters for

the patients. They have at least 30 to 40 referrals per month being

dealt with by the Mental Patients Association right there in Riverview

itself. This is tremendous and the way it should be; this is the way it

should be done.

I think the department should be assisting in every way possible to

see to it that the Mental Patients Association can function, can carry

out its job in a competent way, because they are meeting a need to the

patient community which could not and was not being met prior to their

coming into being.

So my question to the Minister of Health is: either in dealing

directly with the federal government in terms of its cost-sharing, or

taking a second look at his own budget, is there any way he can come up

with the approximately $90,000 or so that the Mental Patients

Association needs in order to operate its additional two residences in

and around the greater Vancouver area?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member

for bringing up this whole subject. I know that she is most concerned

about it and I must say, too, that earlier today the second member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) also brought this subject to me. I may

be wrong, but it is my understanding that the MPA is not asking for

funding only to operate two more facilities; they want total funding

from our department.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes. But I'm zeroing in on the residences. I will deal with the rest after.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I was hoping you would let me out of here by....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Health has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, yes, I recognize that the

Mental Patients Association is doing a great job in this field. I

recognize that other organizations as well are doing good work and we

are funding them. The Coast Foundation Society — we have just given

approval for them to operate their second unit, a rehab unit in the

lower mainland area. Just this week Treasury Board has given us

approval to continue payment to LOMA on the same basis as last year,

which, as you know, is funded jointly with....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's all right. We are continuing the

fund and we are expanding in other areas. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard talks only about those few people who are being

looked after by those recognized societies which are doing a great job,

but it's not the only thing that's happening in the community, and the

member knows that. There are all kinds of things happening in the

community.

I would like to just point out to the House, while I have this

opportunity...because it's not very often, Mr. Chairman, that a

minister gets the opportunity to thank his staff and the work they are

doing — in public health particularly.

I think the member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out last night that

Mr. Bonham, the health officer in Vancouver, sent out a press release

that only 3 cents out of every dollar is being spent in prevention. Now

we disagree with that amount but, nevertheless, he is expressing a

frustration that we've had for years. Hopefully, we can do something

about it somewhere down the line; we have to spend more money on this

kind of service. We have to find the money first — that's one of the

problems.

But I would like to take the opportunity now, for just a moment if I

may, to say thanks for what the people in the mental health division of

my department are doing. There were almost 13,000 patients, Mr.

Chairman, treated in this province's mental health centres during the

past year — there are 30 of them.

The boarding-home programme is a complement to the kind of things

that the Coast Foundation Society, LOMA, and Mental Patients Association

[ Page 2044 ]

are doing, only it is under the auspices of our

department and never gets any recognition — or very little, at least.

But it's the same kind of community placement programme for psychiatric

care that these people are doing.

Mr. Chairman, the department supervised a caseload in the last year

of 1,900 mentally ill and retarded persons. By the end of 1975, the

greater Vancouver mental health service had six community-care teams

operating in the west end — Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, Fairview,

Richmond, Kitsilano and the West Side. Additionally, there were two

teams operating in Burnaby and out of the Burnaby Mental Health Centre.

Venture and Vista, which are halfway houses for former patients of

Riverview, were transferred to that service in April, providing 16 beds

for short-term crisis patients, a little different from what we are

talking about here.

Riverview's outpatient department also came under the administration

of the service during the year and was renamed the Broadway Clinic.

In October of 1975, Mr. Chairman, the patient load of the greater

Vancouver mental health service was 2,116 people, compared with 949

during the same period in '74. Burnaby mental health plan continued to

provide British Columbia's only regionalized programme of

decentralized, comprehensive psychiatric services for both adults and

children. There were 25 fully utilized psychiatric beds in an inpatient

unit, an adult day programme, adult and children's outpatient service

and consultation and educational services.

So while we recognize that these groups, which we are funding to a

certain degree, are doing a tremendous job in the community, it is not

the only job that is being done. So to say that it is all that is being

done is not quite correct.

I would just like to point out one other really serious problem that

we have, and this relates directly to the Mental Patients Association.

They came to us this year, in January, with a budget of some $98,000.

Now the only thing I could say to them at that time was: "We'll look

into your request for a grant and see what we can do." We are funding

LOMA, we are funding Coast Foundation, and I've said we've agreed to

pick up the funding for their second unit, but here we have a group

which was funded originally by the federal government under OFY, under

LIP, and more recently under LEAP, and dumped by the federal government.

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We talked about that last night with

SPARC. You know, SPARC has been funded by the federal government and is

now being dumped, and as of July I SPARC sits there. They've been doing

a great job; where do they get their money from?

Our budget is set. We didn't know the federal government was going

to dump them. And now the patients association is in exactly the same

position, and it is one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we really

have to get down to Ottawa — and the Premiers' conference next month, I

hope, will deal with this — and find some better way of funding these

kinds of programmes. It is not good enough for the federal government

to come along and say, "Hey, that looks like a good idea; we'll fund

it," and then a year, a year and a half or two years later say: "Oh, we

can't find the money for that. Give it to the provinces."

So somewhere down the line, Mr. Chairman, we've got to find that

answer. Now in the meantime, I know the Mental Patients Association is

in a bind, and we'll do what we can. We're looking into it, and that's

the best answer I can give you, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Can I have just a supplemental? I won't be very long.

I certainly would like to join the minister in saying what a

tremendous job is being done by the mental health branch of his

department. As you know, I am very intimately involved, Mr. Chairman,

with mental health and I certainly agree 100 per cent. During the time

I worked at Riverview, part of my responsibility did have to do with

the boarding-home programme, so I know Vista and Venture very well, as

well as some of the private boarding homes in the Coquitlam area and

around there where I used to....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, sorry.

However, what I'm really suggesting, Mr. Chairman, to the minister

is that I would really like to see Health, Human Resources, Labour and

the Provincial Secretary's department sit down together and really work

out the whole business of the needs of mental patients during the

rehabilitation process. Once they are out of the institutions they

shouldn't be just dumped in a halfway house and the squabble goes as to

who picks up the tab or whatever. But the departments have to come

together and work out an overall programme.

Of course you have to go to Ottawa. I certainly agree with you that

the federal government is the ogre, certainly in this particular

instance, and if you want me to write a letter of support, Mr.

Minister, when you go to Ottawa, I'll write you a letter of support,

because I think it is terrible that LEAP just pulled itself out and

left the Mental Patients Association hanging there. I appreciate your

commitment to look at their budget once again; I hope you will find it.

[ Page 2045 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I could just respond very briefly to

that, I'd appreciate the letter. I just wrote one in support for you

that I promised last night. It is on the way now.

You know, there again, don't assume that we don't sit down and talk

to each other. You know, the reason we set up a social services

committee of cabinet was so that we could bring these things together;

and it is starting to happen. But the same problem exists that we have

to fiddle around because of the way the funding comes to us from the

federal government. I'd love to have all of this under one roof, but

Housing is involved, because Housing gets funds from here. The

Attorney-General is involved in some instances. So if we can only get

that co-ordination on the basis of our federal funding, then I think

our problems will be largely solved as a province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I outlined a proposition that we made,

you know, at our last conference last night in the House, and we'll

certainly be making more, and British Columbia will take a very strong

position at the Premiers' conference which is coming up next month,

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): At the risk of

breaking into this mutual admiration society, I have a number of short

questions to ask regarding various local issues in my own riding, and a

number of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never run that risk before. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: No, indeed I have not.

Mr. Chairman, on May 5, the clerk-administrator for the City of

Revelstoke directed a letter to the Minister of Health regarding

volunteer ambulance service for the city of Revelstoke. He points out,

without reading the letter in detail, that the training programmes for

ambulance personnel have been terminated by the present administration.

He points out that in the Revelstoke area there is quite a heavy call

on ambulance services, mainly as a result of highway accidents. I think

most British Columbians are familiar with the very, very heavy traffic

flow over the Rogers Pass highway. This involves frequent calls upon

the local ambulance service to bring in many critically injured people

from the summer accidents that regularly occur in that area. It's

mountain highway.

He points out that we're facing the increased impact of the

Revelstoke Dam development in all probability, and certainly a heavier

demand on local health services with accidents of an industrial nature,

and so on. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.Waterland) says indeed we are facing that prospect.

That's interesting, because the water licence has yet to be granted.

Is the cabinet dictating to,, the comptroller of water rights? Mr.

Chairman, this, is a matter that is of concern in Revelstoke, and in a

number of other communities, and I would appreciate it if the Minister

of Health could give me some indication of where his department is

going on the training of ambulance personnel. What we have, basically,

are volunteers from the fire department many of whom are not adequately

trained. They stand ready, willing and able to undertake the training

so that they might become qualified paramedics, which would be a

tremendous assistance in that isolated area.

Related to that, Mr. Chairman, is an editorial I clipped from the local Revelstoke Herald on

April 7, to simply emphasize to the minister the serious concern that

exists in that community. It's entitled "Our Opinion," and the byline

is: "Hatchet Job on Ambulance Services Most Unjust." It goes on to make

the case in very, very strong terms that this area, which is not very

close to the larger hospitals, which does not have the kind of access

to air ambulance and so on, should not be victimized by second-class

health opportunities and hospital facilities to the residents in that

area. So I hope the minister will speak on that. Related to that is a

copy of a letter I received from the medical clinic in Cranbrook, and

I'm glad the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) is in the House. This

letter is over the signature of Dr. R.I. Sheffield. This letter was

dated April 30, and I'm going to read it because it points up a very

serious problem that areas such as my own riding and, indeed, the

member for Kootenay's riding face. It's directed to:

"Mr. George Haddad, MLA, Kootenay.

Dear George:

"On behalf of Cranbrook and District Hospital medical

staff, I wish to protest the untimely decision to no longer pay

registered nurses to accompany our critically ill patients when

transferred.

"Since 1974, the nurse, if ordered by a physician, has

been paid by the hospital, the hospital subsequently being reimbursed

by the emergency health services branch. Now this payment has been

withdrawn with no alternative suggestion, meaning that the patient must

be billed privately. This is a problem for the nurses, since they have

no billing procedures established, and they quite rightly refuse to

provide further accompaniment until matters are straightened out.

"Further, lower mainland areas are able to

[ Page 2046 ]

provide transfer of this type of patient because of adequately

trained paramedical ambulance personnel. It is my understanding from the emergency

health services branch that further ambulance upgrading has been completely

stopped."

That's borne out by my earlier comments applicable to Revelstoke.

"Since we transfer an average of 20 patients per year,

usually trauma, and almost always critically ill, this situation is

intolerable. It makes the East Kootenays even more obviously a remote

area, and obviously receiving less than equivalent service when

compared to people in the lower mainland.

"I would ask that you question the minister in the

Legislature and that you obtain a written reply from him detailing

alternative plans, or plans the department proposes to institute in the

near future.

"We feel frustrated that East Kootenay residents must

pay such costs, which are truly of an emergency nature, when they

supposedly pay for comprehensive medical care already. While

extended-care benefits do cover this type of transfer, such benefits

are not available as a private package and, therefore, only apply to

people able to get group rates.

"Please note that on an average cost of $60 per trip,

the total for transfers of all patients, assuming they all needed a

nurse, only amounts to $1,200 annually. We appreciate your efforts to

correct such an unfortunate decision.

(Signed)

Dr. R.I. Sheffield,

Liaison Medical Officer,

Cranbrook District Hospital Ambulance Association."

I'm wondering why the member for Cranbrook wasn't up bringing the

case of his constituents to the attention of his minister. Perhaps he

discussed it privately with him — I don't know.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He's been strangely silent.

MR. KING: He's strangely silent, the mute member for

Kootenay, the little magician from Kootenay, Mr. Chairman. He's very

good at magic — at doing tricks, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 86, please.

MR. KING: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, he thought that with a wave

of his wand this group would go away. But they did make a request that

that member bring this case before the Legislature. I would appreciate

the minister commenting on both of these related matters so that some

insurance and some satisfaction can be transmitted to not only the

Cranbrook-Kootenay area but certainly my own riding of

Revelstoke-Slocan, and all of the interior areas generally which are

more remote — greater distances from the sophisticated health care

that's available in the lower mainland. These are important matters.

The other very small issues, Mr. Chairman. The Kelowna

chapter of

the Registered Nurses of B.C. have written to me asking that home-care

nursing programmes be continued and expanded in that area. I note that

they have submitted quite a detailed brief to the Minister of Health

under date of March 22, I believe, with a tremendous volume of back-up

material to support the need for the kind of programme they are

concerned about in Kelowna, and I would appreciate it if the minister

would comment on that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I have in my

own riding a bit of a unique situation. I have in the south end of my

own riding the village of Edgewood where we have a Red Cross outpost

hospital, and we have one nurse who attends that outpost hospital at

Edgewood.

Her husband does the driving in the family car to bring ambulatory

patients from highway accidents and various other mishaps in the

surrounding area. The problem is that they are some 45 miles from the

closest medical attention which is Nakusp, and some 90 miles, I think,

from Vernon. They provide a valuable service to the community and have

saved many lives by the immediate response of a trained registered

nurse in that area who provides a tremendous service.

The problem is that this lady, the nurse, and her husband require

some time off. They are available seven days a week. They use the

family car. They deliver a tremendous service and cut a great deal of

cost which would otherwise fall to acute-care facilities to provide.

They certainly need some back-up support.

I understand that the service is provided by the Red Cross but it

seems to me that at least for temporary summer relief and for holiday

relief and so on which these people surely need, the Department of

Health might be willing to provide some assistance on occasion at least.

These are the three issues I wanted to raise, Mr. Chairman. Finally,

just one small point which I've developed adequately in earlier debates

on the minister's estimates, and that is the request that I have made

to him a number of times, and reiterate now, that he give a commitment

to stand behind the financial commitments of the hospital industry to

collective agreements that are negotiated this year. I hope the

minister will comment on these matters.

[ Page 2047 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: To the member, I'll deal I guess in reverse order.

First, no. Second, Edgewood outpost hospital: we recognize the

tremendous service that the Red Cross outpost hospitals are doing. I

just had a letter from one in the Queen Charlottes area describing to

me the situation in which some people were lost at sea and the problems

that went to save lives in that situation under tremendously difficult

circumstances.

We know what they're doing. They are heavily subsidized by our

department, as you know, and I know that they've asked us to take over

the whole operation — and that's under consideration at the present

time. But in the meantime the major problem I don't think is funding in

attempting to get relief people; it's finding the relief people. Nobody

wants to go.

But that's all under consideration at the present time, and we know

very well that anyone who is dedicated and is providing that kind of

service in an isolated community particularly, under most difficult

circumstances, needs a break once in a while and it's as simple as

that. The whole programme is under consideration.

I'm surprised that the member, Mr. Chairman, raised the problem of

home care. We dealt with that very extensively last night. I went

through the chronology of the events that led up to the situation which

found us with about 80 staff short in the home-care programme and made

the point that it wasn't a decision made by the government which is in

place now. It started last summer when the government realized that the

economy was in trouble and that some cost restraints were necessary, so

there was an order went out that programmes had to be cut back.

Early this year we realized that the home-care programme, if it was

to be effective in the kind of low-cost alternatives it was delivering,

in terms of health care, had to be restored. So on behalf of our

department we made serious representations to Treasury Board and to the

government and, as I mentioned last night, we were successful in having

that programme restored.

The hiring, I would think, is almost complete now — the rehiring in

many cases. There were some 68-70 positions which we ordered to be

immediately restored as quickly as possible, and. that home-care

programme is back at the level it was last fall and hopefully now it

will be an ongoing programme and won't suffer any more interruptions.

The same thing is true, Mr. Chairman, with the ambulance training,

and I know, too, that Revelstoke is perhaps a little unique. But there

are other parts of British Columbia which have the same kind of

problems with a lot of tourist traffic and high-speed highways through

their communities, or near their communities. They require more

services than others.

Again, we want to get the ambulance service restored, in terms of training, as quickly as we can.

It wasn't this government that stopped the training. The training in

two programmes stopped, first of all, last summer and, secondly, last

fall. There's been no training since, except for eight people who are

currently enrolled in the highest degree of training, which is the

EMA-3 programme, which is the real paramedic programme. We have eight

people going through that programme right now as the result of a

decision made by this government.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, especially since the member who raised

this question is a former Labour minister, I would like to say to him

that I'd like to thank the union — CUPE, the ambulance employees'

division of CUPE — who have cooperated with us 100 per cent in

attempting to compromise the situation as it relates to the amount of

cash available to the amount of programmes we have to deliver.

CUPE has come to us and sat down with us in our office and we've

managed to come up with a proposal which is the best of all worlds at

the moment.

We cut back a little bit in the construction of ambulances. We cut

back some in the training with the promise that we'll get training

going again as quickly as we have the resources available, and it's

been a tremendous experience to find that that union came to us with

some solid, positive suggestions — which we've implemented.

Further to that, I understand now that the union, on its own,

without ever asking the emergency health services or anybody else, is

now conducting training courses themselves, as a volunteer sort of a

thing, and they're getting their own members together and they're

expanding that training programme, in response to the meetings we've

had together. I think that's very positive.

But it has to be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that this government's

been in office for a little over five months, I think, and the

decisions to suspend those training programmes — while we've had to go

along with them because the money isn't there — weren't made by our

government; they were made previously.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The member shakes his head, but the first

programme stopped in summer, and the second programme stopped in fall,

and there's never been any training since. The first training that got

started again was when we gave approval for those eight people to go

through that EMA-3 programme, and that's a fact. That's all there is to

it.

I'm sorry I missed the question you asked about the hospital

facilities in Revelstoke, and perhaps you'd repeat that for me. I was

talking to my deputies, at the time; so if you want some comment on

that you'll have to ask it again.

But I would like to say that there is a complete study being done of

the whole ambulance service throughout the province, and it should be

completed

[ Page 2048 ]

this week and I hope to be able to respond to that study early this summer. I think that'll answer a lot of the questions.

The escort service? Again, it was a compromise. We know that some

areas will suffer more than others because of that, but we also know

that there were some abuses of that service. We knew we had a certain

amount of money available. The emergency health services made some

recommendations to me, as minister, based on that amount of money that

was available. They included the number of ambulances to be built, the

training programmes, office expense cuts, administration cuts.

We thought first of all we'd have to lay off some crew, but again,

meeting with the union, we've resolved that problem so no one's going

to suffer financially. However, it was lay off crew or suspend the

escort services. We made a decision, and I have to stand by that

decision for the present time. Now hopefully, when we get the results

of our full-scale study into the whole service, we may be able to make

some different decisions, and we will at that time.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's advice and his

encouraging remarks regarding the reinstitution of ambulance attendant

people so that we will have qualified paramedics, particularly in areas

in the inferior that are somewhat isolated, and so on.

But I have a different understanding of the sequence of events which

took place than what the minister's outlined and, indeed, in the brief

submitted by the registered nurses from Kelowna.

They go into great detail, pointing out the problems that have

resulted — the loss of patient services in Lakeview Heights, Westbank,

Peachland, Winfield, Oyama, Okanagan Centre, Coral Beach, north and

east Rutland. They list all of the programmes that have been adversely

affected, and then they list the sequence of events, Mr. Chairman.

January 30, 1976: staffing restraint policy by attrition issued. 1.

No resignation will be filled. 2. No replacement for maternity leave.

3. No replacements for sick leave. 4. Temporary four-month appointments

will be cancelled. "Note: all health unit staff affected by same

policy." January 30, 1976.

February 6, March 1, 1976. Letters, telegrams, meeting of concern,

organized by all those local groups. So while I don't want to get into

a debate on the sequence of events with the minister, I think the

important thing is that quality health care be restored to those areas

that really need it. I am sure that that is the minister's interest and

the government's interest too. That's my concern.

I'm concerned with the minister's assurance that these programmes

are going to be reactivated, because the people of the interior suffer

in many ways unequal treatment with those on the lower mainland simply

by reason of geography. I think it's a responsibility of government in

any areas of possible social services to provide equality of service to

all of the regions of this province. That's the point. I don't want to

get into procrastination about who's responsible; this government is

inclined to sit back and excuse themselves from every obligation on the

basis that it's all due to that terrible NDP administration, and

there's no money available.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that that just doesn't wash, and it's

not the point anyway. Let's provide service; that's what I'm interested

in. I represent people in that area, and I'm sure the minister's

concern rests there also. But I am encouraged by the minister's remarks

and I hope that he'll be able to report significant advances in all

these programmes in the future.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister

about a little thing that came up previously, and that's the woman

dentist, Dr. Bruhn-Mou. And the minister rolls his eyes. The last time

I brought this up he said: "Oh, it's fine; she's going to take an exam

in eastern Canada." So she is; she's going to the University of Western

Ontario in London, Ontario, to write her exams. But we have a statute,

the Dentistry Act, for which the minister's responsible and which says

very plainly that you can write the B.C. exam if you produce a

certificate from a university — and there are four places: Canada, the

British Commonwealth, the United States and any other country.

Yes since 1951...and the judge was startled, as he says in his

judgment, that the college has not looked at universities in any other

part of the world. So if you come from Germany — or in this case from

Denmark, because she went through the University of Copenhagen, which

is a world-renowned school — or if you come from France or Italy, or in

other words, if you are one of the many new Canadians in our society,

the college is denying you the right to write local exams.

I say, Mr. Minister, that that is discrimination. It's very unfair

that a person who happens to come not from a university in Ontario or

one that's recognized in the United States, but from a world-famous

school in Copenhagen, France, Germany or Italy, has to go back into

eastern Canada and possibly squeeze through a very limited class in the

federal exam.

I say the college is falling down in the duty that's been mandated

to it by the Legislature to look at these colleges. If they spent five

minutes on it, all they'd have to do is look at the credentials that

have been bestowed on this one, the University of Copenhagen, by

world-famous health organizations, and they'd say: "All right, you can

be allowed to write these exams."

Will the minister agree that this is discrimination and that the college should carry out its duty under

[ Page 2049 ]

section 22 of the Dentistry Act, and should have

done it a long time ago, quite frankly, to recognize some universities

even though they're not the WASP universities of North America?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the

member. It's interesting the comment he makes about WASPs. I was at a

conference at Riverview a couple of weeks ago and one of the speakers

was a psychiatrist — and I'm sorry the member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Ms. Brown) is out at the moment — and he was talking about psychiatry

being classified in three separate ways. There was, you know, the

in-hospital kind of stuff where you deal with the real hard cases. Then

he said that the clean psychiatry was the kind that was out there in

the community where the psychiatrist was in private practice dealing

mostly with WASPs who were wives of affluent socialist politicians.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Of which there are many.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of which there are many, yes. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: And of which there are no better.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Health has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there's no way...and the

member from Vancouver East, the only member left from Vancouver East,

knows very well that there's no way I can say that this is

discrimination; it's a case before the Human Rights Commission right

now.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it isn't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes it is. The Human Rights Commission and the Labour department are dealing with it at the present time.

I'd just like to point out that while the member is very indignant

about this dentist — who may or may not have been discriminated

against, and we'll find out later about that — the previous government

sat on this for two years and never moved while that dentist made

representation after representation to the previous government. You

never did a thing about it, not a thing. Now you expect us to come in

in five months and solve this whole problem.

I'll say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we're looking at the Dentistry

Act right now, and there may be revisions in it. But also what the

member forgets is that even though those restrictions the member

mentions are in the Act, there still is the possibility for that person

to write the Canadian exam and then be accepted by the College of

Dental Surgeons, which is what she's doing now and which she could have

done two years ago or a year ago or whenever the opportunity came

about, but she chose instead to make representations to the previous

government and she was pushed down by the previous government which

refused to deal with her application.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's wrong!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Now she's going to write that exam. In

fact, as I understand it, it's imminent — this spring some time or

early summer. If she passes that exam, the college will accept her as a

dentist in this province with full recognition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you tell her?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they didn't know, I guess. But you had it for two years. Why didn't you do something about it?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if the minister knew what he was talking about, he'd know that the case was before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We haven't recognized the member and Hansard does not know who it is.

MR. MACDONALD: It's the only member for Vancouver East — for a few more days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the case was before the Supreme

Court of British Columbia. That's the judgment, and the previous

government — why get into an argument about the past? — could not deal

with it when it was before the courts. But now you say it's before the

human rights branch. I don't think they've set up the inquiry there.

It's news to me if they've set up the inquiry, because I think it's

been stalled in the human rights branch. But even if that were so, Mr.

Chairman, why does this government have to be taken before the Labour

Relations Board or the human rights branch? Why don't you do the right

thing yourself and tell the dentists that someone from these countries,

with the qualifications to serve the people of B.C. In dentistry, which

is so badly needed, has a right to write the exams in B.C. and doesn't

have to go to the University of Western

[ Page 2050 ]

Ontario, where we've had graduates, some of whom sit in this House?

But in terms of our people having to travel back there, I'd say it

is totally unnecessary and it's discriminatory. I think that the

message the minister is giving the college is, "oh, it's all right; she

can write that federal exam," which, as I say, is very limited. I say

there shouldn't be that kind of discrimination against new Canadians

coming to the province of B.C. They should be treated the same as

people from the States and the Commonwealth and allowed to write their

dentistry exams in B.C. when they have the qualifications, as this

young woman has.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You sat on it for two years.

MR. MACDONALD: It was before the courts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: For two years?

MR. MACDONALD: That's the last I heard of it; it was before the courts. We'll have to wait for the decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Vote 86 approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. LEA: The drinks are on you, Bob. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can at least eat tonight. I have my salary.

Vote 87: deputy minister's office and departmental support services, $409,490 — approved.

Vote 88: department executive and administrative support, $4,507,805 — approved.

Vote 89: local health services, $32,308,535 — approved.

Vote 90: special health services, $12,592,562 — approved.

Vote 91: other health care expenditures, $13,561,609 — approved.

Vote 92: office of Deputy Minister of Medical and Hospital Programmes, $62,230 — approved.

Vote 93: hospital programmes, $553,184,450 — approved.

Vote 94: government institutions, $49,026,269 — approved.

Vote 95: forensic psychiatric services, $2,775,800 — approved.

Vote 96: Medical Services Commission, $192,525,000 — approved.

Vote 97: emergency health services, $17,834,434 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Upon adjournment last night, Mr.

Speaker, I was pointing out that the government has a lot of nerve in

asking the opposition to support this bill after all the moves they

have made with respect to increases that they have foisted on the

people of this province.

The other point that I made, Mr. Speaker, was that the programme is

so unfair, and I think people across this country recognize the

inequities that exist within the federal government's anti-inflation

attempts. We recognize as well as anybody else the need to deal with

inflation, and I do want this afternoon to give this government some

alternatives that they can consider.

The other day when we were discussing this bill we heard from the

hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who made some comments

about the provincial government's position with respect to the

anti-inflation programme. He made those comments after he had finished

making remarks about the first member for Vancouver-Burrard's (Ms.

Brown'

s) home, the clothes that she wore, the trips that she took and

the money that she accepted from the United Nations. Of course, Mr~.

Speaker, he was completely off base in making those comments. She

accepted no money from the United Nations, and I think that point has

been clarified for the benefit of the public.

I would like to point out to the Minister of Labour

[ Page 2051 ]

that his comments — and I would like to read those,

Mr. Speaker — about profits in this province were inaccurate as well.

This is what he said the other night. I am quoting from Hansard

I'll come to profits over which we have no

control, and you well know that, Mr. Only Member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald), and you did nothing with them when you were government

either — nothing at all, except destroy the profit-making ability of

enterprise in this province. That's all you did.

Then he went on to say:

Controls for the NDP with regard to profits means rip out all profits altogether, that's their attitude.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's rather an incredible statement for the

Minister of Labour to make in view of the actions of this government,

particularly as they apply to small business. This government has

shafted small business time and time again. They have eaten into the

buying capacity of the people of the province that is their disposable

income. They are no longer going to be able to make the purchases that

they used to make, because the government is taking that disposable

income.

The ferry rate increases are going to affect businesses,

particularly on Vancouver Island and the smaller islands. They are the

ones that refuse to impose any rent controls on commercial premises,

and I have examples in my own riding of small businesses facing

increases of about 400 per cent in their rent. Those are the actions of

this government, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) talks about the NDP wiping out profits. They have done a fine

job, particularly as it applies to small businesses.

But I have no doubt that this government is going to take care of

big business. I have no doubt that the mining companies will have their

way in this province. I have no doubt that this government is going to

take care of the oil industry as well, and that's been evidenced

already by comments made by the Premier when he was back in Ottawa

pleading for increased prices for a barrel of oil to the oil companies

on the pretext that they need this money in order to do exploration.

That's nonsense!

The federal government is in much the same boat. We read in the

paper on May 18 of this year that Syncrude, poor poverty-stricken

Syncrude, is now going to have some extra benefits from the federal

government and they will as a result of these extra benefits have an

additional return of at least $1 billion and possibly two or three

times that amount, because the federal government, of course, must take

care of the oil companies as well. What a shoddy performance, and it's

the people of this country who are going to suffer as a result of this

kind of special consideration for projects such as Syncrude.

But Trudeau's timing in bringing in the controls in 1975, after

rejecting them in 1974, reveals to me a deep-seated cynicism about the

intelligence of the people of this country. Now the provincial

government's going to climb on that bandwagon as well.

But let's just look at some of the facts and let's try to analyse

why in 1975 Trudeau decided to impose controls after he had rejected

them entirely a year earlier. And these are facts, Mr. Speaker, as

revealed by the Economic Council of Canada. For the period 1971 to

1974, corporate profits rose from $8.7 billion to $18.3 billion. That's

an increase of I 10 per cent during that four-year period. Now in the

same period, the national income rose only 52 per cent, while wages and

salaries rose only 48 per cent. So from 1971 to 1974 corporate profits

were up 110 per cent, wages and salaries were up only 48 per cent. So

Trudeau says, no controls. He's protecting the corporations and their

profits.

Now let's look at what happened in 1975 and perhaps we can recognize

why Trudeau brought in the controls and why this government is keen to

get on that bandwagon as well. From 1974 to 1975, Mr. Speaker,

corporate profits dropped from $18.3 billion to $17 billion, and that's

a drop of 7.3 per cent. But wages....

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Did you read last night's budget?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I did. Wages during that same period of

time rose by 11.7 per cent. So in 1975 we have a sudden change where

the profits are actually dropping while the wages were still going up.

So, wonder of wonders, Trudeau decides that he's going to change his

position entirely and hope to jack up the profits again for the

corporations who, of course, give him political support.

Let's just look at one company. Bell Canada has announced to the

world that they will probably save in 1976 about $53 million in labour

costs as a result of the federal wage control. What does this mean —

that the consumers are going to pay $53 million less? Not likely, not

likely, not likely!

So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, based on those figures from Statistics

Canada, that the reason that Trudeau moved at that time was to

deliberately victimize the workers of this country and, even worse, to

encourage the public to make scapegoats of the working people. This

province wants to participate in that cruel hoax, that very unfair

programme. But since Trudeau has decided to zoom in on wages and not

prices, I want to look at that old question which is raised quite often

with me by my own constituents: are profits or wages the bigger villain

in this inflationary period?

Before January of 1975, for 15 business quarters — these are

consecutive quarters — profits increased faster than wages. Now those

are facts and they are

[ Page 2052 ]

revealed by Statistics Canada, and it's only in

1974 that wages began to catch up. So from 1971 to 1974, as a

percentage of the national income, wages and salaries fell from 72 to

68 per cent. Then by the second quarter of 1975, and this was the

crucial time, it was back to 71 per cent, but profits, as a percentage

of national income, rose from 12 to 16 per cent and then they dipped to

14 per cent. These are the revealing clues as to Trudeau's inaction in

1974 and then his complete reversal in 1975.

They are also clues, Mr. Speaker, as to the reason for Bill 16 on the order paper today.

We've heard from the people on the other side about profits and how

we're going to control inflation. All we need to do to oppose this

legislation unanimously is to look at what happened in the United

States following the programme initiated in 1970 to control wages and

prices down there. What happened? Within two years the corporate

profits had doubled to $80 billion. There again, it was to protect the

corporate profits that these were brought in. The same applies here in

Canada. The programme is not meant to work fairly, and we know that, in

spite of what Macdonald was saying last night with respect to prices

and profits. They are not meant to work fairly, and I think it's

unfortunate that this government is now attempting to join that federal

programme.

You know, we recognize that the Liberals in Ottawa and the Socreds

here in Victoria have a mission in life, and that is to strengthen

capitalism. But it would be pleasant, Mr. Speaker, if just once they'd

be willing to admit that's what they're up to. Instead we have to

endure this hypocritical plea from the other side saying: "Let's all

unite to join and fight against this dangerous enemy known as

inflation."

But just look at what's happened. Look at the statistics; look at

whom they are protecting. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a greater con

job on the public of this country than to say that prices can rise to

cover increased costs — whatever that might be? They can rise to cover

increased costs. If you look at the food industry alone, and look at

the major participants in the food industry, you will recognize that

because of the vertical integration of those companies they can control

prices at almost every level; they can decide what their prices will be

to each other all the way along. Sure, they're going to face increased

costs, and sure, they're going to pass those costs on to the consumers,

but nothing is going to be done about their profits.

Just to give you an idea of the control that exists there, in 1972

one of the major food-industry corporations, that is the Weston

Corporation, sold almost half of all of the food that was bought in

Canada. Almost half. They are integrated from the farm right through.

They can set prices to each other; they can increase costs to each

other. They don't have any problems.

What about energy? It appears that price controls on the oil

companies — that holy of holies — might discourage oil exploration if

they were faced with any kind of controls, Now I wonder if the

inventors of this programme even thought that wage-and-income controls

would have a similar effect. Logically, I would assume that the federal

government's workers are better citizens than the oil companies are

because, according to the federal government, they will produce despite

controls, but the oil companies won't, so therefore we have to treat

them somewhat differently.

What about land prices? We have seen a report in 1974, made by Peter

Spur for the CMHC. It was never published, but some of the information

from that report has been made available.

We find that we have near-monopoly conditions right here in the area

of metropolitan Vancouver. In Vancouver, for instance, nine real estate

firms own 5,400 acres. That's 33,000 lots, roughly. They control it.

Seven developers — seven alone — own 4,400 apartment units, and

prominent in that list are Marathon Realty, British Pacific Building

and Western Realty.

Now we've had a practice of holding land for speculation and then

releasing it whenever they can maximize the profits. I see by

yesterday's paper, the Victoria Times ,

that there's been another recommendation, very similar to the one made

by Peter Spur. This was done through Barney Danson's office, the

federal Minister of Housing — a report specifically directed for

Habitat in which recommendations are made that land profit be dealt

with in this country. Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see, once

this legislation goes through, as I'm sure it will, what action this

government takes with respect to land profits in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of inequities in this programme, and

there are also a lot of loopholes which some of the speakers on this

subject have already pointed out. But price decisions are made behind

closed doors, and the public are the last to know about these price

decisions, which of course they have a right to pass on to the people.

Foreign multinational corporations can shift their profits between

the parent company and the subsidiary, and thereby they can take their

profits outside Canada and not be affected in any way, shape or form.

There's nothing that this province can do about that problem, and

Ottawa doesn't want to do anything about it.

Prices can also be raised on the basis of a company's forecast of

cost increases, and those can be gauged within a reasonable degree of

certainty. Now that's interesting — any reasonable degree of certainty.

If they can predict some sort of increases that they might have in the

future, then they can increase their prices.

[ Page 2053 ]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most unfair part of the federal programme

is its unfortunate effect on income redistribution in this country. If

anything, the present disparities in income distribution will become

more pronounced. Right now the top 20 per cent in this country receive

40 per cent of all of the income. The bottom 20 per cent receive 3 per

cent of all the income. Now to freeze the status quo is to freeze

inequality. In fact, a uniform percentage increase widens the gap

between the top and the bottom pay echelons and, of course, it's the

low-paid women in this country who are going to bear the brunt of that.

The federal government does permit a raise of up to $1,000 yearly to

workers making under $3.50 an hour, but the only problem with that, Mr.

Speaker, is that these are the workers who generally are not organized

and lack the bargaining power in order to gain that kind of increase,

so that is not going to be much help to them.

The chief means of awarding increases to company executives will be

untouched, and this includes bonuses, expense accounts and stock option

schemes. About 80 per cent of the top manufacturing executives qualify

for bonuses, and these bonuses comprise about a quarter or a third of

their salaries. Now there's nothing to say that this won't increase,

nothing at all. But I think Trudeau probably put it best himself in

1974 when he was campaigning, and this is what he said at that time in

Timmins, Ontario: "You can't freeze executive salaries and dividends

because there are too many loopholes to squeeze through." Trudeau

himself said that and Pepin, of course, has since said how many ways

there are to escape controls if you happen to be in that category — 111

ways was what Pepin said.

Now they are asking us to become part of all this. It's wrong, Mr.

Speaker. But there's one group that won't find any loopholes, not at

all, and those are the civil servants and the employees of Crown

agencies. These are the people who are going to take it on the chin,

both from the increases in the government moves such as increases in

taxes and ferry rates, and everything else, but also through this

anti-inflation bill that we're discussing today. They are the ones who

are going to be the unwilling spear-carriers in this fight against

inflation.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP feel that the federal programme is a

cynical ploy to demonstrate to the voters that the Trudeau government

is doing something about inflation. They're trying to convince people

that they're doing something. All of these loopholes exist. The profits

are uncontrolled — but oh, yes, they're doing something about

inflation. And the B.C. government's participation in this programme is

equally cynical, in my view.

The fact is that the exercise is nothing more than an illusion.

We've seen prices going up, and in British Columbia Statistics Canada

says they're going up more than they are across the rest of the

country. We've been told by the Anti-Inflation Board that we can

expect, in the next two or three months, huge increases in the cost of

food, for instance. But they would grab — both the federal Liberals and

the provincial Liberals and the provincial Socreds — at almost anything

in order to sound credible except the obvious one, which is a complete

restructuring of society. And that has to be done if we're going to

have any success in ensuring equal, equitable distribution of income in

this country and doing something about the profiteering that takes

place.

But capitalism, that has been nurtured and subsidized by the

Liberal, Conservative and Socred governments in Canada and in B.C., is

failing. It's their programme that is failing. The Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), in his April 9 speech, when he was announcing the

introduction of this programme said: "Controls and interference with

our market economy are necessary at a time of temporary crisis." But

it's his system that made that crisis, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that

controls are suddenly acceptable to the Socreds only when they mainly

victimize working people and let the corporations go their merry way?

That says a lot about their philosophy.

Now when we talk in the NDP about a fundamental restructuring of

society, we're not talking about cosmetic remedies designed just to

fool the troops. We're talking not only about a planned economy but

also about the creation of an awareness by all segments that they are

being treated fairly and that exploitation of one group by another in

this country is a bad memory. That's what we're talking about.

The Premier says he wants the support of all British Columbians. He

won't come close to getting it by supporting this clearly unfair

programme, nor by the vindictive, politically motivated moves that he's

made since the election. He won't get it. The people across the country

are looking at the federal programme and are recognizing that it isn't

working, and they're recognizing the injustice that exists within it.

But there are three suggestions that I would like to make, and these

are suggestions made by Canadian economists as to what could be done in

this country at this time. Peter Sadlier-Brown, Canadian economist,

urges that a greater government role in investment decisions take place

in this country, that the government become more involved in

determining what kind of investment should be made. He suggests that

only the firms holding government-issued investment certificates, as he

calls them, be allowed tax writeoffs on their expenditures. In other

words, he's saying that Ottawa could direct the spending of these

various corporations in areas of social need and could also bring the

cost down.

Eric Kierans, another Canadian economist,

[ Page 2054 ]

condemns the tax policies that reward the corporate

spending on investment good, as he calls it, like factories and office

towers, when the needs of this country are in basics such as housing.

He advocates cutting out gimmicks like accelerated depreciation and

offering the same tax rates to all sectors.

Then there's Dr. Dian Cohen who points out that the real roots of

inflation are outside Canada. That's an obvious fact of life that many

Canadians ignore. Why? I suspect that facing up to the implications of

this is something that the status quo supporters don't want to do. Just

look at the record of the Social Credit government over the years.

Dr. Cohen suggests that to lessen the impact of the U.S. economy on

our own we should reduce our dependence on the extraction and the

export of our resources. Now it'll be interesting to see the

performance of the Social Credit government who have gone out of their

way over the years in order to have foreign investment in our

resources. It'll be interesting. Policies on that and another question,

the question of the foreign ownership of land, will be interesting to

watch once this bill has become law.

Mr. Speaker, one of the truly inflationary factors is that of

interest rates. The federal programme on this is very weak, I would

just like to give one example of what happens under our present

interest-rate structure. If a person in this country buys a home and

pays $40,000 or $50,000 on a mortgage at 12 per cent, he will pay the

same amount in interest alone for eight years and still owe $40,000 or

$50,000 for his house. These kinds of things are hardly conducive to

solving the housing problem. Nothing is being done about that — or the

inflation problem.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to suggest to that

government that they have a look at some of the moves that they have

already made, with a view to changing some of those harsh taxes, some

of the harsh measures that they have imposed on the people of the

province instead of going along with this bill.

Why don't they bring in some emergency measures to put people to

work in this province? That would help a lot. They should ensure that

all people are entitled to their full benefits under the Mincome

programme and not fiddle around with it as the current Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is doing.

I think that they should also ensure that royalties for the minerals

of this province continue to be returned to the people of the province

who are the owners. They should increase the return on coal in this

province. They should prohibit the sale of land to foreigners, because

that too is inflationary, and Mr. Speaker, they should do something

about the land profits that are taking place as reported just yesterday

in the paper.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in

support of this bill before us, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act. We all

know what the purpose of this bill is. It's

an act to authorize the

investigation of the effect of inflation on price, it's to authorize

the temporary regulation of prices and commodities, and it is to

authorize the cooperation with Canada to carry out a programme which

will help alleviate inflation in this province.

The people in opposition seem to think that we should not be

cooperating with Canada in order to bring this about. I don't know why

this bill needs to be debated, but it appears that there are some who

are in favour of inflation. Inflation is one of the greatest destroyers

we have in this province today. It destroys the purchasing power of our

wage-earners. It causes the manufacturer to have to add a considerable

sum to his normal prices, because the replacement of his supplies and

goods are going up without him having any control over those increases.

In agriculture as well as see a gradual and continual escalation of

food prices over the years which makes the consumer rather unhappy, and

yet this inflation makes it most difficult for the farmers and ranchers

to get a fair return for their labour and their investment.

Inflation has many sides to it, Mr. Speaker, and it affects

agriculture in other ways as well. It feeds on itself because the

people lose faith. They lose confidence in our monetary system, and

they buy other things such as land, and this inflates the cost of the

agricultural land far beyond what should be its real value for food

production, because people are trying to buy something else at the same

time; they're trying to buy security and not just land to raise food.

This in turn increases the cost of food once again, and the

inflationary spiral keeps right on going.

Mr. Speaker, probably the most damaging aspect of inflation is the

erosion of savings which in turn prevents and discourages people to

save, and therefore they fuel the fires of inflation even more.

We might compare what's happening in the private sector — pension

plans, for instance — with what is happening in the federal or public

pension plans, where they are indexed to the cost of living. These

people don't have to worry about the rate of inflation, but the people

who are in the private sector cannot keep up.

Inflation erodes the return on investment, and we have a situation

today where a person can invest money for 10 per cent, or even greater

amounts, and yet end up at the end of the year with less purchasing

power than when he or she started. The return on investment today, Mr.

Speaker, is returning less in actual purchasing power than it did back

in the hungry '30s when we got 2.5 and 3 per cent return on our

investment.

No one province, no one area, can stop inflation by itself; it will take the cooperation of all of us.

[ Page 2055 ]

Therefore I am happy to support this government in

its effort to cooperate and work with the federal government to try and

solve this problem.

The one thing that disappoints me the most, Mr. Speaker is the

attitude of the opposition, these members who do not seem to grasp the

fundamental reasons for inflation. The fundamental reasons for

inflation are: individuals spending beyond their means, people who take

more out from society than they put in, and governments doing the same

thing — governments living beyond their means governments spending more

money than they take in, as the previous government did for three and a

half years. This was the greatest cause of inflation in this province,

and the greatest crime perpetrated by that party which is now in

opposition was burdening our children with the debts that they were not

prepared to shoulder themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: No responsibility!

MR. BAWTREE: They spent money far beyond their income and just hoped that these debts would go away.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We want to hear from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). No responsibility!

Interjection.

MR. BAWTREE: Some of the opposition members have said that

this government has increased the cost of ICBC, we've increased the

cost of ferries, we've increased the cost of B.C. medical insurance.

They just don't understand that the costs were incurred by their party.

They don't understand that the cost is made up of the rates that were

charged and the losses which still have to be paid for. The

cost-of-living formula does not include debts by the government not

paid for; therefore the previous government kept the cost of living

down by $1 billion. They overspent by this amount, and this and

subsequent governments will be considered to have increased the cost of

living when, in fact, we are just paying off the bills incurred by the

NDP.

ICBC: income under the NDP was slightly over half the amount that

had to be paid out. The remaining losses have to be picked up by our

children. Mr. Speaker, once again the primary cause of inflation was

the NDP living beyond their means.

Ferries: the same thing; the income was far less than the

expenditures. The losses will have to be picked up by our children.

Again, increases in the rate of inflation caused by the government

spending more than they received.

B.C. Medical Plan: last year they spent $76 million more than the

revenue — just another burden passed on to our children, and which

fuelled the fires of inflation more furiously than ever before in the

history of this province.

The opposition members have charged that this bill before us will

fall heavily on our senior citizens. I submit, Mr. Speaker, not as

heavily as the inflation which robs our senior citizens of 10 to 12 per

cent of their savings every year. This makes them wards of the state,

which is where the socialists want them, of course. This is where the

socialists want all the people of this province — under complete

control by the state.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition never understood that the basic reason

for inflation is spending more-than you earn. Some of the hon. members

from across'the floor seem to think it was a bad thing to balance the

books, to pay our bills as they become due. They obviously believe that

we should just incur greater and greater debts and pass them on to

future taxpayers, or maybe they thought that these debts would just go

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did, as far as they were concerned.

MR. BAWTREE: The members of that party seem to think that the

past overexpenditures of their government did not cause inflation. I

must repeat: the truth is that the past government fuelled the fires of

inflation more furiously than ever before in our history. They were

prepared to mortgage the future of our children and their children.

Even such countries as Britain have seen the abyss of self-destruction

that inflation is rapidly forcing them into. They are trying

desperately to draw back, and there is some doubt as to whether they

will even make it. Mr. Speaker, in Britain today they have finally

decided that the maximum rate of increase in wages is 4.5 per cent.

They may not even survive under those increases.

New York. Look what's happened in New York because they spent more

than they took in. They are bankrupt. They have had to lay off 38,000

people in just the last few months in a desperate attempt to try and

get their expenditures and their revenues in balance. They still

haven't made it, and by themselves they are not apt to get out of the

dilemma in which they presently find themselves. The major of New York

says: "The reality is inescapable; we face the severest crisis in our

history. We'll be tested as never before. Our energies and our

commitment will be matched against mounting forces which, despite our

best efforts, may well be beyond our solitary powers to dispel." They

got where they are today because they spent more than they took in.

This has of course, some secondary, related problems. toe people who

are investing their money in banks holding that paper of New York's —

which is

[ Page 2056 ]

now very doubtful as to its value — are getting

concerned that maybe their money in those banks is not very secure

either. And we could very well be seeing some runs on some of the major

banks in the city of New York — the banks that have been financing that

municipality.

Other places around the world are trying to come to grips with their

problems. In New Zealand they put a price freeze on. In San Francisco

they are contemplating rolling back the salaries and wages for many of

their civil servants down there, because they realize that they cannot

continue to pay more than they take in.

I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the workers, the people who are

actually doing the work in the public sector in this province — the

people in our schools, the people on our ferries, in our hospitals and

highways — must know that their jobs are in jeopardy if the costs are

greater than the private sector can bear. Fortunately the people of

this province recognized what was happening; they recognized what was

causing inflation, and last December 11 they made the decision to

change the direction of this province, Mr. Speaker. I would urge all

the hon. members to support Bill 16, and make sure that we do not take

this unnecessary step, that we do not mortgage our future and that of

our children.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat the

arguments that have been very cogently put by my colleagues as to why

we should oppose this bill. I do not intend to put again on the record

the tremendous and staggering increases in the cost of living in the

last three months that have been imposed by the government opposite,

and the great inequities that exist in the national anti-inflation

programme.

What I want to do is point out that New Democrats can vote against

this anti-inflation bill, but we can't vote away the problem of

inflation. To know what we are against is easy enough, especially with

this government, but it is never good enough. So I pose the question:

what are social democrats for, and is social democracy a movement with

a splendid future behind it? Or are the policies of social democracy

valid and relevant to meet the economic challenges of 1976, including

the crisis of inflation? I believe that they are.

Mr. Speaker, what we face is a terminal illness of our economic

order — inflation and spreading unemployment, or both. It goes by the

ugly name of stagflation. We live while an economic order is dying and

a new one is struggling in the womb of time. Without the birth of the

new, our economy has no way but to go down in spreading circles of

social despair.

Mr. Speaker, stagflation is not about to go away in a year or two. I know that

Prime Minister Trudeau hopes to see it disappear with a happy return to the

free-market economy. He says: "Long live the marketplace where the idea

is that people help society best by helping themselves." The "I'm

all right, Jack" philosophy. Here breed the evil twins, inflation and unemployment.

They are not the disease, but rather symptoms of a deeper social disease, and

the penicillin of the Trudeau guidelines or of this provincial bill cannot destroy

the germs or cure the body politic.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Signed, Dave Barrett!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, each of the evil pair, inflation

and unemployment, hurt society as a whole. Inflation erodes savings, as

have been pointed out, overprices our exports in the markets of the

world, puts shelter out of the reach of the young families and

intensifies social strife and dissention. But inflation savages with

the utmost ferocity the living standards of the poor, the weak, the

unorganized or those who cannot in defence strike back at the rest of

society.

With inflation running along at about 12 per cent per year, the

great corporations can administer prices, and with tears in their eyes

increase prices by about 15 per cent per year. The professionals are

safe behind the turreted walls of their fee schedules. The banks find

that the interest rate on the money they lend back to the people

mysteriously rises with the times. The strongest labour unions can stay

slightly ahead of improvements in productivity and the cost of living.

The egg board adjusts its prices to the consumer, but for those left

out of their own decision-making in society, and there are many,

inflation is slow ruin.

As for that other twin, unemployment, Mr. Speaker, in the bastions

of privilege it is regarded as a positively useful way on to exorcize

the demon of inflation and discipline working people. Unemployment the

great companies can live with; the professionals can survive; the

workers with good seniority protection can outlast, but it sinks the

poor to subsistence levels. It widens the gulf between rich and poor,

and the community as a whole mourns the loss of lost wealth, idle

plants, empty fields and workless people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that before.

MR. MACDONALD: In olden times, Mr. Speaker — meaning about

two years ago — governments like the one in Ottawa thought that one of

the evil twins could knock out the other. If inflation rages, tighten

the money supply, accept some idle industrial capacity and wait for

prices to fall. On the other hand, if unemployment was too high, just

loosen up the credit system, starting with the Bank of Canada

[ Page 2057 ]

and with more money spent on public works.

Prime Minister Trudeau, in the last three years, has been

confronting both of these evils on stage at the same time by furiously

increasing the money supply. In 1974 the money and credit supply in

Canada rose by 21 per cent. Last year it rose again — the money and

credit supply — by 18 per cent. With what results? Prices still forged

ahead and unemployment spread — in other words, stagflation.

So we are dealing with a deeper illness, as much of values as of

economics. The claims of rising expectations by individuals and groups

are greater than the ability of Canada to supply them, and something

has to give — with or without controls.

Mr. Speaker, why are people and groups going for broke within and

without the law, with little or no thought or heed as to whether

society can stand their demands, or whether or not they are

impoverishing some of their fellow citizens? I think the answer is that

after 200 years capitalist values have finally triumphed, that what is

good for General Motors is good for the country, that the greatest good

of the greatest number comes from the free exercise of unbridled

selfishness, that the jungle law is best. These are the values that

have triumphed for predator and tom alike. Let him take who has the

power; let him keep who can.

Today, Mr. Speaker, this capitalist creed, once the private property

of those who rode to riches and power, is now accepted by everyone,

from chairman of the board to juvenile delinquent. The public interest,

the things we have in common, the sense of social discipline — all of

these are drowned in the sea of grasping self-interest. It is only 14

years since John F. Kennedy in 1961 said: "Ask not what your country

can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." But nobody

listened and today, group by group, we have forgotten that we have and

are neighbours. When we consider our great financial houses, the banks,

the insurance companies, the pension funds who make the prime lending

rate that we have heard about in this debate, 12 per cent for interest

at the very least, we see that for a couple who are buying their house

for, say, $40,000 in the market today, with that kind of even prime

lending interest rate they pay for their house twice in the period of

eight years. But that is what the market will bear and what other test

is there in this so-called free market economy?

Consider the business establishment elite who rouse themselves to

maintain controlled markets and administer prices. If the price of coal

or oil rises fourfold in the international markets of the world, why,

then they say Canadians should pay four times as much for their own

coal and oil. And, of course, that again is the free market economy.

The professionals suggest their own guidelines for their professional

services. Their clients are unheard. The great corporations and unions

struggle over the division of the cost increase to be passed on to the

public and the public goes unheard.

What a message we present, Mr. Speaker, perhaps even subliminally,

in this unrivalled pursuit of self-interest to the young people of

Canada. If we say to them, as we should, that they should be personally

accountable for their own conduct, where else do we point to in our

society for examples of the same accountability? Oh, there are the

virtuous who do not enforce inordinate demands upon society, the poor,

the unorganized, the handicapped, the native Indians — only because

they do not have the power to back their demands by imposing

intolerable inconvenience upon their fellow citizens.

So the endangered species in our democracy, Mr. Speaker, is not the

trumpeter swan or the peregrine falcon; it is the public interest. It

is becoming, therefore, for social democrats to declare their

allegiance, to recall that their party, the CCF, was born at a time of

deep depression. Men rode the rods to find work. The cry was not

handouts but opportunities, opportunities to work for the betterment of

themselves, their neighbours, their country and their world. Social

democracy is not only services to people, important as they are, but it

is service by people. It is not simply an economic creed or system but

a set of moral values. It proclaims man's kinship with his neighbour

and a recognition that his neighbour's poverty or misfortune diminishes

him.

MR. KEMPF: Tell the people of Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Ah, but we are told, Mr. Speaker, that only

the lure of climbing the money tree spurs people to productive

endeavour, that incentive dies even in the boardrooms of the great

corporations without those fat salaries, stock options and pension

plans. We reject the idea that society must rest upon the premise that

only gross inequality of income is essential to productivity and

efficiency. The spur of work well done for its own sake, a reward at

once to self and others, of the pursuit of workmanship and excellence —

these are part of the very practical vision of social democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what you did in government?

MR. MACDONALD: Therefore, we say that without a basic change

in our values, stagflation will not be overcome. But we also say that

with a moral revolution in values must go hand in hand strict economic

planning. If it is absurd, Mr. Speaker — and it is — that wages should

be held to 8 per cent while the profits after taxes of great

multinational corporations, mining our coal and shipping it to

[ Page 2058 ]

Japan, rise by 300 per cent in a single year, then

we should have a commodity coal board to protect at once the domestic

consumers and return as social dividends the resource revenue to the

people who own the resource.

If it is absurd — and it is — that great financial institutions

should manage the money supply for their own profit, then we need

investment direction and control for social ends.

If it is absurd — and it is — that public services are starved while

luxury condominiums are built and underarm deodorants hawked, then we

ought to plan production for social need and use. What powerful

interest promotes public transit? Only the forgotten citizen.

If our natural wealth is mined and exploited by multinational

corporations answerable — offshore, floating — neither to stockholders

nor to parliament, then we need the best management techniques deployed

in public and joint enterprise.

If the strife of capital and labour freezes the social fabric — as

it does — why should not labour, with power and responsibility, sit in

the boardrooms of the nation and at the table where the real economic

decisions are made? More is not enough.

If our social order is disfigured by crass inequalities of income,

wealth and opportunity — and it is — they add nothing to our national

product and much to our shame.

There, Mr. Speaker, is challenge and bright promise of social

democracy, of sharing and abundance in a future unfolding: in our

present dog-eat-dog society we apply new remedies, or we confidently

expect new evils, for time will not let us alone, and time is the

greatest innovator.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 16, the Ant-Inflation Measures Act.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition have talked at great length with regard to their

concern for the so-called "little people" of our society. They talked

of small-business wage-earners and those less fortunate people who are not in

a position to help themselves: pensioners; the handicapped; the halt; the lame;

the blind. I share that concern, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe that the

average person gives a damn whether it's demand-pulled or cost-pushed; they

only know that their resources, regardless of how large or how small, are being

eaten away by this ravaging, cruel disease that we so loosely call "inflation."

It's been pointed here by many speakers that inflation is the most

insidious, most cruel tax of all. It knows no bounds. It covers all

strata of society, including the very rich. However, the most

devastating effects of this plague fall upon those of very limited

means.

The cause of inflation, even though the definition of it can be

greatly complicated by the overuse of economic terms, is really quite

simple: inflation results when a portion of the populace take more out

of the system than they are willing or able to put back into it. This

can progress to a point, Mr. Speaker, as is happening in such countries

as Uruguay, that the assets of a given jurisdiction become, so

overvalued that in world terms they are virtually worthless.

Governments and government agencies of all stripes are not part of

the solution with respect to inflation but a very large part of the

problem in that governments produce nothing, but merely spend the

wealth that has been produced by a more productive sector of the

economy.

If governments then, Mr. Speaker, are the prime motivators as far as

the problem is concerned, it would behoove governments to provide the

leadership. In other words, a rearranging of its own house is necessary

before it can go forward into the private sector of our economy and

tell that

section with any degree of authenticity how they should react

to controlling this dreaded disease.

In terms of stress, rhetoric and verbiage alone will not suffice in

alleviating the problem. Absolute, forceful leadership is required. Mr.

Speaker, there is no substitute for it. There is no substitute, hon.

members, for courage in times of stress.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House, how can we as lawmakers

of this province with any degree of credibility ask business, labour or

any other sector to tighten its belt if we are unwilling by our own

actions to provide the example?

Benjamin Franklin said that opportunity knocks, not just once but

often to those who are willing to listen and heed the call. Mr.

Speaker, not for many years for the leaders of this province has there

been such a clarion call. It is a clear call for action whereby we as

legislators can set aside for a while our political ideology and work

towards the common good, not only for our present constituents, voters

and citizens of this province, but by our actions, in effectively

dealing with inflation, by our leadership, we may provide the

opportunity to leave open for our children and our children's children

the options which have been available to us during our tenure.

It is vitally important that the citizens of any jurisdiction have

general confidence in their legislators. Those political parties,

wherever they may be in this world, who have just experienced defeat at

the polls know what happens when the public loses that confidence. Not

only that, Mr. Speaker, but regardless of party, what about the matter

of confidence in government as a whole? Does the loss of confidence

eventually lead to anarchy?

Mr. Speaker, if we do not effectively move and show leadership in

the public sector we will pile up a legacy of debt and instability and

insecurity that

[ Page 2059 ]

future generations will never be able to overcome.

Is this how we want future generations to remember the lawmakers of

this province and of this country? If the public sector is not expected

to comply with at least the same terms of reference as those given to

the private sector of our economy, how long do you think the stability

will last within this country?

I agree with the views of many of the hon. members opposite with

respect to banks and some large corporations, but can we say that an

arm is not part of the body? Can we set government and government

activity aside and place it in a special position over all other

segments that make up a whole? In a democratic society this is

intolerable and unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, without even looking to the future, do you know who

will be the immediate losers if we do not provide leadership and if

inflation is not brought under control? I'll tell you who: small

business, the worker, the handicapped, the pensioners, the little

people. That's who will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take on a Don Quixote stance, a narrow-minded

stance, doing nothing but running around, flailing and fighting the

corporate windmills. If we direct all of our energies in this area, we

will harm the very people that we purport to attempt to protect through

our own short-sighted actions.

A great deal has been said in this House of late about ethnic groups

and their ability or inability to succeed in this society. May I remind

the hon. members that we all come from various ethnic backgrounds?

However, I believe that our forefathers had one common denominator in

that they left their homelands in search of a better life and better

opportunities for themselves and for their families. If this generation

fails to act, we will with one cruel stroke have negated that promise

of opportunity which has been sought down through the ages.

Hon. members, we may have varying political philosophies. That's

fair game, but I'm sure that if a natural disaster struck us today we

wouldn't worry whether we were Socreds, Conservatives, Liberals, or

NDPers. We would put our shoulders to the wheel and we would man the

barricades. The problem presented by inflation, even though not being

so immediate, is nonetheless comparative. When we live in a particular

community or jurisdiction we all live together, regardless of

philosophy. We are in the same boat when impending or immediate

disaster threatens us.

There's an interesting scientific fact about a boat, and that,

simply stated, is that you cannot sink half of it. You can't sink

business and leave labour afloat, and you can't sink labour and leave

business afloat, and you can't sink the private sector and leave the

public sector afloat. We are in the same boat when we are in the same

country, and we all stay up or we all go down together.

A large portion of that option which is available to us can be

decided on the floor of this House by our actions and how we vote on

Bill 16. Whether or not we are willing to accept the ravages of

inflation, not only for ourselves, but for those other folk, or whether

we are able to use the vote concept effectively and work for all of the

citizens of this province.

The economy of a jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, can be likened unto a

pump. A pump will quit working at any point when the discharge exceeds

the suction. Hon. Members, if at any given point in time the private

sector of our economy is either unwilling or unable to provide the

funds to government, then the excess discharge point will be reached

and our whole system will cease to function.

Much has been said with regard to the actions of our Social Credit

government in taking actions that were necessary to strengthen revenues

in order to continue and also provide increased services that are

necessary for people, Mr. Speaker.

Where are revenues to be spent in government? For people. Look at

the budget. The revenues earned all come from outside sources. They are

taken in by government and will be spent on services for people and the

back-up staff in the public sector which are used in providing the

vehicle which will administer those services. After that, the budget is

balanced to zero. Government has nothing of its own, Mr. Speaker —

nothing of its own — and I cannot stress this point too strongly. If

the spending in the public sector is allowed to reign unchecked, the

democratic process as we know it in this country must surely break down

and be replaced with something much less favourable to the cause of

freedom. I am sure that not one member in this honourable House would

want to see that happen, nor would we aid or abet in the demise of our

system, however imperfect it may be.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, this bill and the ensuing actions of the

AIB are not intended to be a fait accompli for all of the inflationary

problems. They are not intended to be a panacea for our ills.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to the statements of the Premier when

this bill was introduced into the House. At that point in time, he said:

"We do not have all of the answers, but we do maintain

the principle that those who provide public services and who also price

those services will have to substantiate their prices to an independent

agency or group. We have asked our senior staff for a complete review

of the process by which these decisions for Crown agencies are made,

and in the near future we propose to introduce legislation to overhaul

this process and to set up a system of public

[ Page 2060 ]

accountability on price decisions.

"In the meantime, to protect the public interest, we will

seek, as part of our anti-inflationary discussions with the federal government,

an agreement whereby the federal Anti-Inflation Board will review pricing decisions

for Crown agencies. We are quite prepared to have the Anti-Inflation Board review

the new Insurance Corp. of British Columbia rates, the proposed Brit