1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act (Bill 24) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading — 2291

Statement

Progress in B.C. Ferries dispute. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2291

Mr. King — 2292

Mr. Gibson — 2292

Mr. Wallace — 2292

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Government policy to deal with economic slump. Mr. Barber — 2292

Bulbous bribes in Vancouver East. Mr. Gibson — 2293

Food services on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2293

Effects of ferry rate increases. Ms. Sanford — 2294

Funding of Brunette Street overpass. Mr. Cocke — 2294

Mid-Island schools closure. Mr. Stupich — 2294

Presence of Agriculture minister at Women's Institute conference.

Mrs. Wallace — 2295

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13) .

Committee, report and third reading — 2295

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20) Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

section 14.

Mr. Lauk — 2296

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

Report stage — 2296

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21) . Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 2296

Report and third reading — 2297

Anti-Inflation Measures Act, 1976 (Bill 16) Committee stage.

section 6.

Mr. King — 2297

Mr. Gibson — 2297

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2298

Mr. Gibson — 2298

Mr. Wallace — 2299

Mr. Cocke — 2300

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2300

Division on

section 6 — 2300

Report stage — 2301

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates.

On vote 2.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2301

Mr. King — 2302

Ms. Sanford — 2306

Mr. Gibson — 2308

Mr. Shelford — 2312

Mr. King — 2314

Mr. Wallace — 2315

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2321

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

gallery today we have a long-time resident of Revelstoke who was a

long-time alderman for that community and a regional member of the

school district of Revelstoke for many, many years — Mr. Oscar Domke. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming him this afternoon.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have guests of the Municipal Officers Association,

which is having its 37th annual convention in Victoria from June 1 to

4. I would like the House to welcome them.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce to the House today a student from Comox Junior Secondary

School, Robert Wilson. He is here today to spend the day watching the

MLA for Comox at work, as part of their work-in- community programme.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

seated in the gallery today is Bill Hawkins, visiting here from

Oakville, Ontario. Bill and I used to work together in the Ford office

back in Windsor, Ontario, in 1950. Since then he has gone on to attain

the high office of vice-president of the Ford Motor Co., and I don't

know where I fell by the wayside. I hope the House will bid him a warm

adieu.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRY

CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to you and to the

members of the House the appointment of Mr. Hugh Ladner as an industrial inquiry

commissioner to intervene in the dispute between the Government Employees Union

and British Columbia Ferries. Mr. Ladner is a barrister and solicitor who has

extensive experience as a third party in the resolution of labour-management

issues.

Because of the number of questions which will be placed before him

for consideration, the term of his appointment is being set initially

at 30 days.

The decision to appoint an industrial inquiry commission was made

following a series of meetings with representatives of the British

Columbia Government Employees Union and of the Public Service

Commission. The executive committees of the licensed and unlicensed

components of the ferry service employees have undertaken to ensure

that there will be no work stoppage or other job action pending the

receipt of recommendations made by Mr. Ladner.

While there will be no change in the decision to lay off a number of

workers as a result of the reduction in catering services on board the

ferries, the Public Service Commission and the ferry service have

instituted a programme for the interviewing of all personnel who are

subject to layoff in order to place as many of them as possible in

other positions in the public service, subject to their willingness to

avail themselves of this opportunity.

It is anticipated that the interviewing process will take one month.

Those employees who have been laid off will continue to receive wages

during this period. Employees who have not been laid off but have been

placed in other positions within the ferry service at no change of pay

will also be afforded the opportunity of being interviewed for other

positions in the public service. It is hoped that the relocation of

ferry workers within the ferry service or other sectors of the public

service will help to minimize the effects of the reduction in catering

services.

I wish to make it clear that the Government Employees Union and the

Public Service Commission have not agreed to accept the recommendations

of the industrial inquiry commission as binding. However, the

availability of Mr. Ladner's services will enable the parties to deal

with the issues that are in dispute in a manner which was not

heretofore available to them.

To date, all negotiations between the parties, both before and

during the time when the mediation officer was providing them with

assistance, have dealt solely with one issue: namely, scheduling and

the related subject of overtime. With the appointment of Mr. Ladner,

other significant issues not yet discussed between the parties will be

reviewed by the parties and by the commissioner with the exception of

the question of wages. In keeping with the negotiating procedures which

have been established by the union and the Public Service Commission,

the question of wages is reserved for consideration along with the

other components of the public service until

[ Page 2292 ]

non-monetary issues have been dealt with.

MR. KING: I want to say that the opposition is pleased to

hear that any disruption of the ferry service has been headed off for a

period of one month. I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour has not been

able to announce a positive intervention that would guarantee some

resolution to the dispute but rather another inquiry which may simply

have the effect of delaying a final resolution of the dispute that does

exist on the ferry system.

I want to welcome the news that the government will continue to pay

the laid-off employees until they receive opportunity for either

retraining or re-establishment in some other branch of the public

service. However, I do think it's regrettable that this approach was

not taken at the outset. I believe that the Minister of Labour whose

department of manpower bears responsibility for trying to initiate a

similar approach in the private sector would agree that perhaps before

arbitrary layoff notices were put forward in the public service it

would have been well and less disruptive and less inflammatory to have

met with the people involved and discussed a retraining programme or a

relocation programme rather than facing all the hostility that has

ensued and then trying to cope with that very problem.

In any event, I do want to say that I hope the minister's

intervention and the appointment of Mr. Hugh Ladner are successful in

recommending a resolution that will be acceptable to both of the

parties.

I hope at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that the minister may well

consider some similar type of intervention with respect to the dispute

that exists in the school district of Nanaimo and Cowichan-Malahat

between the school district boards and the CUPE union. It is having a

very serious impact on the educational opportunity of students in those

areas.

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

the sense that the lack of bad news is good news, I welcome this

announcement of the industrial inquiry commissioner. The minister did

not make clear what would happen at the end of the 30 days if the

commissioner's term of office needs to be extended. In particular, if

at that point positions are not found for all of those who would

otherwise be affected by the layoffs, will the payroll continuation

carry on until such time as adequate positions are found? It would seem

to me that would be of assistance in coming to a peaceful resolution.

The minister noted that the recommendations will not be binding, as

they cannot be under the Act at the moment, so I would express the hope

that this is not merely a prelude to job action at the very busiest

season of the ferries one month from now, when the Legislature may not

be sitting, to take steps that could be required at that time. We will

just have to keep our fingers crossed and wish the minister in his

efforts, and the industrial inquiry commissioner, the very best.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

minister's announcement since at the very least it has averted either a

complete strike or at least a slowdown in ferry service just at the

time when the tourist season is beginning, we hope, to pick up. I feel

very confident that the minister has chosen an excellent individual in

the form of Mr. Hugh Ladner to carry out the task of commissioner. I

hope the fact that Mr. Ladner is a very close friend of mine will not

be held against him by any of the parties. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly not.

MR. GIBSON: It's a point in favour, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the issue that had caused so much

deep concern on the part of the employees, and which I'm sure the

minister recognizes, was the layoff of such a large number with

apparently limited effort to reassure them that they would have every

opportunity to be relocated within the ferry system or within the

public service.

The whole success of any labour-management dispute lies in some

evidence of conciliation and compromise. It's very obvious that the

minister in his wisdom has recognized the natural concern of the

employees not to contest the right of the ferry management to close the

dining rooms — that has not been in dispute. What has been the deep

concern of the workers has been the hope that they would be given every

possible access to alternative employment. It's quite obvious from the

minister's statement that that underpins the agreement to go ahead with

the commissioner approach in the form of Mr. Hugh Ladner.

I feel that it's disappointing that the two parties have not agreed

to make the commissioner's decision binding, but as the Liberal leader

has said, we just hope that the issues will be resolved and that the

commissioner's report will be acceptable to both parties. As far as I'm

concerned, as a member of the opposition I will do all I can in an

unaligned way to either party to bring about an atmosphere within which

we can be more hopeful of getting an acceptable solution.

Oral questions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY TO

DEAL WITH ECONOMIC SLUMP

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have

[ Page 2293 ]

one question in two parts to the hon. Premier. The

manager of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brian Small, said

yesterday that the unemployment situation in Victoria is, in his words,

"nothing short of a disaster." And because of increased ferry fares and

the high cost of food, tourists are saying, in his words: "Victoria is

the worst place to go."

The first part of my question to the Premier is: has the government

any specific plans to overcome the economic slump caused by their

policies?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, to the second

member for Victoria: I must take issue that the slump was caused by our

policies, because the high unemployment has been a recurring problem

for the last two years in British Columbia, and we've just now achieved

the numbers that were unemployed last September.

However, it is a problem. This is the first indication I've had that

the tourist industry, in fact, is in decline or in a slump this year.

Certainly it will be discussed with ourselves and the travel minister,

the minister responsible for tourism and travel, the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), as the government is concerned about

the economy of this province, whether it's Victoria, Fort Nelson or

Vancouver.

MR. BARBER: I have a supplemental question, following on the

Premier's comment that he's been able to achieve the same employment

rate that he himself attacked last September. The manager of Canada

Manpower in Victoria, Mr. Stan Purdy, also said yesterday that

unemployment in Victoria was up 1.5 per cent over last May and

indicated further that tourism, retail sales and real estate sales are

all in decline.

In the light of that information about unemployment, may I put to

the Premier this question: has the government any specific plans which

will halt this steady deterioration of the economy as reflected in

unemployment figures in the greater Victoria area?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the

second member for Victoria is facetious about unemployment, because

it's a very real problem to all parts of the House. We're concerned

about it, but perhaps he regards it as something to play politics with.

I would say that I question whether retail sales are down, because

the latest indications from the Department of Finance for the month on

the five per cent sales tax — now seven — collected on retail sales

indicate that retail sales are considerably higher than similar periods

last year.

MR. BARBER: Not in Victoria.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's just not true — that last statement.

BULBOUS BRIBES IN VANCOUVER EAST

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial

Secretary. I would draw the Provincial Secretary's attention to

section

162 of the Provincial Elections Act which prohibits the giving of gifts

as an inducement for the voting towards any candidate. I would also

draw her attention to the fact that there was this morning given the

gift of a gladiolus bulb to a number of voters in Vancouver East to

induce them to vote for the Social Credit candidate. I would ask the

Provincial Secretary to say whether she or her department gave any

advice to the candidate or his agents as to the legality of such a gift.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, if the minister finds the

facts to be as I have said, will she launch an investigation under

section 162? Also, since the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) claims that certain of these bulbs are edible, I wonder

whether she would also check under

section 164, which deals with

treating. (Laughter.)

FOOD SERVICES ON FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications regarding the changes in the food service on B.C.

Ferries: as a result of his inquiries following my question yesterday

about frozen foods being supplied to the B.C. Ferries, can he confirm

that they are supplied by Chef Ready Foods Ltd., and can he tell the

House if that company was awarded the contract after the contract had

been put out to tender?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, I would have to take the detail of that question as notice.

But basically the purchasing policy practices of B.C. Ferries have not

changed in recent weeks.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister also answered

yesterday that the whole matter of supplying food to the ferry system

was under review. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what form

of independent consultation was used in reaching the decision to switch

to the use of frozen food?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Again, I'll take that question as notice but there's no substantial switch to the use of frozen food whatsoever.

[ Page 2294 ]

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can ask a

question which I've asked, I think, at least twice and which has not

been answered, in the review of the whole matter, as the minister has

described it, can he tell the House if as yet a decision has been made

— yes or no — in offering a franchise to private companies to provide

the total catering service on the ferries similar to the catering at

airports?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.

I might add, in answer to a question which I wasn't able to answer

yesterday, that 50 letters of protest about service in the cafeteria

which had been received by B.C. Ferries management yesterday appeared

all on B.C. Ferries letterhead paper, substantially all written in the

same hand and also mailed on one single vessel,

EFFECTS OF FERRY RATE INCREASES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Premier. I would like

to advise the Premier before I start, in case he misinterprets again,

that my question is a serious one and is not facetious.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Mair) yesterday informed the House following question period that no

price monitoring is going to be carried out in the areas affected by

the 100 per cent increase in ferry rates, and in view of the fact that

no governmental department carried out any impact studies on the

effects of the ferry rate increase prior of June 1, and in view of the

fact there is a large quantity of foodstuffs carried on the ferries...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please state your question.

MS. SANFORD: ...will the government reconsider the decision, as announced yesterday by the Minister of Consumer Services?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, the Premier

just stated to the House that he was concerned about prices and

increases in unemployment and problems throughout the province,

including Fort St. John. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the

government should reconsider that position.

MR. SPEAKER: That was not a question, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Arrogant government!

FUNDING OF BRUNETTE STREET OVERPASS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to ask the hon. Minister of Highways if in fact the present government

has decided to opt, either for or against, a decision that was taken

last year with respect to the Brunette Street overpass. Last year it

was decided that this government would provide for their share of the

Brunette Street overpass, which connects New Westminster and Coquitlam.

Now that the federal government has come through with their end, it

would strike me that it's about time that the provincial government

comes up, one way or the other, very quickly.

HON. MR. FRASER: That matter is now under active consideration.

MID-ISLAND SCHOOLS CLOSURE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): With respect to the continuing

dispute between CUPE and MIPEA, I know the Minister of Labour has been

in communication with the employers, employees and parents and, very

recently, with the employers' organization. I wonder whether the

attitude of the employers' organization leads him to be confident that

the matter may soon be resolved and that the schools will soon be fully

re-opened.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Based upon the attitudes expressed to me

yesterday morning by the representatives of the employers, I am not

satisfied that there will be any early resumption of those services

which have been withdrawn from the people in the Nanaimo and Ladysmith

areas. This morning I spoke with the chief negotiator for the union

about this matter and I have asked for arrangements to be made to meet

with me this afternoon to determine the effect action I can take may

have upon the earliest possible resumption of those services. I would

be happy to meet with the member for Nanaimo and the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) following that meeting. I will also

have, hopefully before 6 o'clock, a further statement to make to the

members dealing with this serious and continuing dispute.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is that meeting with the employees' group only or with both?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The meeting this afternoon will be with

the representatives of the union only. Having met with the

representatives of the employer yesterday morning, I think that I must

extend that same courtesy to them.

[ Page 2295 ]

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): A supplementary on the same

question but to the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education, I

understand, was awaiting a report on the deteriorating conditions in

the classrooms in Nanaimo, and he informed the House that he would have

further comments after he had received that report. Could he tell us

what the situation is for the education of those students?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I will be happy to

table that report later on this afternoon and the member will be able

to judge for herself. I think that there is an indication that the

education of the youngsters in that area is being impaired by the

dispute. If the Legislature, in its wisdom years ago, had placed the

education of children paramount so that disputes could be settled in

their interests, we could have dealt with this situation. Perhaps at

some future time the Legislature might be willing to re-assess its

position in this regard in view of what has happened in this particular

area.

PRESENCE OF AGRICULTURE MINISTER

AT WOMEN'S INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my

question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Presently going on in this

city at the University of Victoria is a conference of the B.C. Women's

Institutes. It is historic that the Minister of Agriculture personally

open this meeting. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or

not he was able to preside at the opening ceremonies of this

organization this week.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, believe it or not, I'll take it as notice. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: I just don't believe I heard that!

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could help you out. The hon. minister said he took the question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: But the opening was on Monday! It was Monday afternoon!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I misunderstood the question. I thought you asked if I was going to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wasn't there. No. The answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I'm still a little

confused by this answer. The Women's Institute, as I am sure the minister

is aware, is not only a British Columbia organization but a world federal organization

and is associated with Countrywomen of the World. It is, I think, the only women's

organization....

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

MRS. WALLACE: I'm leading up to my question, Mr. Speaker.

This is the only organization which has representation in the United

Nations. I'm wondering, in view of the fact that the provincial grant

to Women's Institutes amounts to the sum of only $10 per year, if the

minister is considering increasing that grant.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, just so we don't mislead the

House, you are talking about grants to individuals, and not the total

grant. Certainly this government, when money becomes available and when

we get the economy of this province rolling, will certainly look at

increasing grants to everybody, but due to the tight situation created

by that government over there....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period was terminated by the bell, hon. members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, public bills and orders — committee on Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to move to public bills and orders?

Leave granted.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear whether leave was asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Schroeder

[ Page 2296 ]

in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to

section 10(d), referring to subsection (13a), by adding the words "or

receptacle" after the word "mail box" in the second line. The purpose

of this amendment, hon. member, is this: it will read now as follows:

"...'deliver,' with reference to a notice or other

document, includes mail to or leave with a person, or deposit in a

person's mailbox or receptacle at the person's residence or place of

business;"

It was felt that the word "mailbox" by itself was not sufficiently distinctive.

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment in

section 12. Under subsection (b)(f), there was a reference in the

second line to the letter (

d) which is incorrectly stated. It should

refer to the letter (e). I so move.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre):

Section 14 should not pass

without the Attorney-General standing in his place, for at least a half

a minute of silence, for the passing of the Latin phrase.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's just a speck of dust, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 2 1.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just very briefly want to take

this opportunity to correct the statistic I gave yesterday. I said that

the return on investment on the British Columbia mining industry was

5.8 per cent. I should have said in British Columbia it was 10.6 per

cent. The 5.8 per cent figure was the Canadian average.

I went on to say — and I had some disagreement here with the hon.

member seated to my right — that the 1974 rate of return was around 11

per cent. I've had the opportunity to check that, and indeed it was. It

was 12.7 per cent, to be precise. The 1973 figure was the 24 per cent

that the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) gave.

I might add, incidentally, that excluding coal, in

[ Page 2297 ]

1975, the rate of return in the mining industry in

British Columbia was not, by any means, 10.6 per cent. It was only 2.2

per cent, and I think hon. members might bear that in mind as they vote

for this excellent little bill.

Sections 1 and 2 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 16.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 6.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just to briefly recapitulate the

position taken last night and the comments made in consideration of

this particular

section of the bill — indeed, consideration of all the

sections of the bill — I want to remind the House that the main reason

the official opposition objects to this particular

section of the bill,

section 6, as we do, indeed, to the entire contents, is because of the

one-sided initiative taken through this piece of legislation.

On the one hand we have the delegation of authority to the federal

Anti-Inflation Board to enforce and apply a specific and a precise

formula of wage restraint to the wages and salaries of all working

people in this province. But we have in

section 6 only the vague

promise of some similar programme of restraint when it comes to the

question of prices and when it comes to the question of profits.

As well as the rather extreme powers which the government has taken

unto themselves through this section, I regret and decry the fact that

there is no precise statutory formula for a discernable, understandable

system of price control which, in my view, would be necessary to

convince the people of British Columbia that the government is in fact

serious about an anti-inflation programme which will call upon all

citizens of the province to make a sacrifice in recognition of national

needs to combat the problem of inflation.

So because of the fact that this

section of the bill is devoid of

any precise formula for price control, we certainly cannot support it.

The concerns which we hold regarding the extreme authoritarian powers

which the government is taking unto themselves under this

section have

been, I think, put forward in very forceful fashion both from the

official opposition, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson)

and the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace).

It comes as somewhat of a shock that a self-righteous government,

which condemned the former administration for unnecessary legislative

powers, should take unto themselves far more sweepingly broad authority

than has heretofore been witnessed in any Legislature in this nation.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose this

section

of the bill.

Again, I call upon the provincial government in light of all of the

defects that have been revealed in this total bill to do the proper

thing, to do the safe thing, to do the prudent thing and withdraw the

bill until they can get an adequate and proper review of the language,

the authority required and get on with the job of bringing in something

that is equitable and fair.

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

this monstrous

section of this bill is one that we haven't had a word

on from the government in justification of the enormous powers that are

proposed to be exercised without let or hindrance, without any

machinery specified, without any right of hearing on any of the

persons, be they in labour, be they persons who make prices, be they

persons who have contracts or agreements of any kind which can be

interfered with by this Act — no right of hearing and no word from the

minister on that; no right of appeal and no word from the minister on

that. It is a completely unacceptable

section and, as I say, monstrous

powers.

The only way in which this could conceivably be made acceptable is

if there were to be a genuine legislative check on the bill, which

there is not under the terms of the present wording, Mr. Chairman. As

it is at the moment, if the Legislature should happen to be sitting,

then 60 days after that time the regulation would have to be

terminated. But it would be possible for the government, through its

majority, to simply continue the regulation in the exact form that it

is in. I really think that we deserve some word from the minister on

better protection than that, because what if the Legislature is not

sitting?

What if we were in a situation where the House recessed at, say, the end of June, and July 15 the

[ Page 2298 ]

minister and the government felt inclined to bring

in some kind of controls under this legislation. Then, let us say that

we are past 1976 and past the initial rush of legislation of this

government and they decide not to have a fall session. Then month after

month after month of this kind of regulation will continue, again

without any appeal, without any machinery for a hearing of any kind. It

is simply not good enough protection, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the

minister to stand up and try and justify that, because to me it is just

entirely wrong.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman,

section

6, as I see it, is all the more important to British Columbia at this

stage with questions being raised yesterday as to the legality of the

federal measures being questioned in the supreme court. This

section

becomes all the more important because it will empower this government

in the future to back up the necessity to establish price guidelines or

price control or price maximums, if it does in fact become necessary so

to do. As I see it, this

section is even more important now than it was

two or three months ago.

As I have said before, it is simply to allow the cabinet to freeze

the maximum price of a commodity or service, or to establish general

guidelines for the restraint of such prices for a period of 60 days.

MR. GIBSON: Or longer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If the Legislature is sitting when the 60-day

period expires, then the regulation or guideline also expires. If the

House is not sitting at the end of the 60 days, then the regulation or

guideline will continue in force unless revoked by the cabinet to a

point in time 60 days after the House starts its next ensuing sitting.

That's really the intent of that clause.

This particular Act, of course, forms an important part of the

provincial attack on inflation, and it gives a firm legal basis to, as

I said, any price-freeze power. This government and the previous

government twice extended the previous price freeze. It agrees that a

province should have the power to freeze prices, provided that power is

strictly circumscribed and made very clear in the statute. That was not

the case before, Mr. Member...

MR. GIBSON: I know that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...as we are all aware, and therefore we should support the need for this legal authority so to do.

A province, similarly, should have the power, within carefully

limited terms, to fix guidelines for restraint of prices since a simple

price freeze for one or more commodities or services might not be

appropriate in every case. Provincial jurisdiction is clear here, and

this Act tries to set out the rules of the game that have to be

followed by the government if it is felt necessary to take such steps

in the future, and only, Mr. Member, if it is felt necessary.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the minister

that that is unacceptable. The moderate powers that he seems to see in

this

section are not what the words of the

section say.

This

section gives the government the power to enter into any

private agreement that has denominated in money terms between any

citizens of this province. It gives him and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to go into any factory, shop

or place of work in this province and say that person shall not be paid

more than X, even if they're being paid two X at that particular point.

It gives the right to go into contract relationships and say that the

terms of this contract are too high; they are going to be brought down

to whatever level the minister sees fit. That is in there in

section

(

b) and

section (c) .

Section (

b) says "...establishing the maximum price that may be

charged for the supply of a commodity or service," and that means

virtually anything because a commodity is anything that's sold in this

province in trade, and a service is any act of labour that is performed

in this province by any person for any other person and paid for in

money. Therefore that gives the minister the right to fix anything.

What is so serious is that it gives him that right with no hearing

machinery and no appeal machinery, and that is what is so wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says that it is subject to all the legislation. What legislation?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): There is no other overriding legislation.

MR. GIBSON: There is no other legislation except in a few

cases like marketing boards and the Energy Act. But the great bulk of

the commerce of this province is carried on in ways not subject to any

such legislation. All of the forest industry, with the exception of the

price of wood chips — as the minister knows — is subject to regulation

by this bill. The minister can go and tell an IWA member, a chokerman,

let's say, that he's making 50 cents an hour too much. This bill gives

him that power. It gives him the power to say to a small contractor for

M&B, working on the west coast of Vancouver Island, that M&B is

paying him too much and it's going to be rolled back. It gives complete

power to enter into private arrangements — I would estimate 90 per cent

[ Page 2299 ]

of the private arrangements — between wage-earners and between contractors everywhere in this province.

I suggest that is a power that is completely inadmissible in a

democracy, and the minister and the government ought to be ashamed for

ever having introduced it in this Legislature.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, the minister has

made the point that the previous price freezes were illegal, that the

initial price freeze was illegal and the extension of the freeze was

illegal, and he seems to use that argument to justify providing far

more power in this bill than is simply necessary to legalize this kind

of action of freezing prices.

I made the point last night in debate that, particularly under

subsection 3, we could have a price freeze on a certain commodity for

many months in this province if the price freeze were applied soon

after the House completed its session, and if, in fact, we had only one

session. I think particularly of the example of prescription drugs. Now

the freeze that was applied on a temporary basis in the case of

prescription drugs caused no real hardship. But the fact is very

clearly established that almost 100 per cent of all the prescription

drugs sold in British Columbia originate outside of British Columbia,

in eastern Canada, in Europe and in the United Kingdom.

To give this kind of power to apply a price freeze to that

particular commodity I cited, or perhaps to many other commodities in a

similar situation, could mean that the individual pharmacist, over a

period of 120 days or 180 days, or whatever, could be paying

much-increased prices at the wholesale level and be compelled to sell

at either no markup at all, or even at a loss.

That's a point the minister doesn't seem to recognize, while he has

every logic behind his argument that the government must have the legal

power to freeze prices. We seem to be back on the old pendulum

situation in this debate. Because there was no power before, now that

we're bringing in a bill we must have very extensive power. It's that

moderation that seems to be missing from this particular bill and this

particular debate.

Similarly, as the Liberal leader has just mentioned and as we

discussed yesterday, subsection 6(2) gives such authority to the

government to define the meaning of every single word that's used in

this bill — price, commodity, services, to name but a few. This makes a

mockery of collective bargaining, and here again we have a government

that says it's very conscious of the serious nature of

labour-management disputes in this province, which it has shown an

example of by bringing in a certain other bill which I would neither

number nor name, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the rules of this House,

which takes a very reactionary approach to the management-labour

problems of this province.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bill 22.

MR. WALLACE: Yet in this anti-inflation bill,

section 6 is,

in fact, making a total mockery of the collective bargaining process.

Because parties can bargain until they're blue in the face and perhaps

come up with some very hard-earned agreement where both sides give and

take, but under

section 6 of this bill it's very easy to say, "Well,

sorry, fellows, you maybe worked very hard and maybe figured that you'd

come to a very amicable compromise, but in the eyes of the provincial

legislation this service, or this price, or that commodity shall be

priced as follows."

I know the minister's answer will be: "Well, we have a national

emergency and this kind of power has to exist to deal with the

emergency." We'll have a much worse emergency if we have a general

strike right across Canada because the labour movement in its

collective wisdom decides that all the progress that's made in the last

50 or 100 years goes right out the window in the face of

section 6 of

this one bill.

I'm not even sure, even after all the discussions we've had, that

the minister seems to be fully aware of the scope of power in this bill

and the real concern that there is throughout the labour movement and

throughout all employee groups as to the real threat that a bill such

as this poses to their freedom to bargain for what they consider the

best and fairest return for their labours.

It seems to have very little balance and moderation, this bill. It

certainly provides the legal authority which the minister says was

formerly missing by which government could freeze prices. But brother,

does it ever correct that situation! We're going from a situation where

there was no legal authority to one where the minister under this bill

can fix the price or value or definition or

interpretation of any

single factor in the marketplace.

That coming from a government, as I said yesterday, that got itself

elected because it decried the NDP for these very sins in the most

vociferous and repetitive way — it just has to be the greatest paradox

that I can imagine. The very government we now have received a mandate

based on a commitment that it wouldn't use this kind of heavy

authoritarian club. Now we find it creating a Crown corporation that

can do all kinds of things to the property and land of an individual.

Now we have it barging into the marketplace in blunderbuss fashion

asking not just an authority to freeze prices, but authority to do any

single thing in the marketplace in relation to prices, wages, whatever.

The government, Mr. Chairman, seems to be surprised that we on this side of the House are just a

[ Page 2300 ]

little upset about that. It's a contradiction of so

much of the basic election platform by which this government sought the

confidence and support of the majority of voters as recently as

December last year.

I realize, as I mentioned yesterday, that we won't get the.... We've

failed to have the minister consider withdrawing the bill, or at least

adjourning debate until we have certain other information at the

federal level.

I was very interested in the minister's comments just a few moments

ago that

section 6 has added significance because of the doubt which

applies to the validity of the federal Anti-Inflation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I would just draw your attention to the fact that

there is not the customary clause in this bill or a clause in the bill

which allows proclamation of parts of the bill without proclaiming the

whole bill.

If the Supreme Court of Canada does choose to decide that, in fact,

there is not a national emergency and the federal legislation is ultra

vires, the minister's implication.... It was only an implication, Mr.

Chairman. I'm not suggesting he made a blunt statement. But he said

that in the absence of the validity of the federal Act,

section 6 would

give the provincial government, of its own existence, a chance to

implement various controls.

But as I read the bill — and I would certainly hope maybe the

Attorney-General can either confirm or contradict me — there is nothing

in the bill which would allow the separate proclamation of

section

Section 8 of the bill states that the Act comes into force on a day to

be fixed by proclamation — presumably the whole Act or none of the Act.

We won't reiterate all of last night's arguments about the possibility

existing, at least, that the federal legislation might prove to be

unconstitutional.

At the very, very least, if the government persists in this bill, I

would suggest that a

section be inserted leaving the provincial

government the option at least to proclaim those parts of the bill

within the provincial jurisdiction.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to mitigate against

some of the details of the bill, such as the one I've mentioned whereby

a regulation imposed may persist until 60 days after the commencement

of the next sitting of the House. I wish to introduce an amendment to

section 6(3), Mr. Chairman: in line 4 of subsection (3), substitute for

the figure "60" the figure "10".

The obvious thought behind my amendment is that it still means there

could be a substantial period of time under which a regulation like a

freeze on prescription drugs could be enforced, but, particularly in

the case where the House is not sitting at the time the regulation is

imposed, my amendment is insisting at least that the matter would come

before the House for debate 10 days after the House sits. I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

The amendment is that in

section 6(3), the number "10" shall be substituted for "60" in line 4 of that subsection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me implicit in the

amendment that if we were to support the amendment we would then

really, in effect, be supporting the amended

section of Bill 16. I have

grave concern over supporting the amended

section 6, amended in this

way.

The amendment that I, of course, could support very easily of

section 6, along with the rest of the bill, went the way of bills that

die on the order paper, but certainly I question this amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the wisdom of my colleague for New Westminster and I wish to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) made a worthwhile suggestion with regard to the proclamation

of this Act. He made the suggestion that it should be able to be

proclaimed

section by

section in the case of the ineligibility of any

particular

section at any time. Actually, this is now the case in the

case of any proclamation of

an Act. Under the

Interpretation Act,

section 5(2)(b): "Proclamations may be issued at different times in

respect of different provisions of the Act." Actually this would apply

as it stands now.

MR. WALLACE: Okay, thank you.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Bawlf

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

[ Page 2301 ]

NAYS — 15

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order, I understand that the amendment was merely to delete

"(b)" in the first section, and I wonder if leave might be given to

report the bill now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that leave could be granted when the bill is being reported.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Anti-Inflation Measures Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WOLFE: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 2: $636,598.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I'll give just a short

explanation of the change in the vote this year, Mr. Chairman. This

will be the first time in 23 years that the office of the Premier has

not been coupled with the Department of Finance when presenting

estimates before the Legislature. In the reorganizati on of government

activity, we have placed the Premier's vote within the heading

"executive council" and have taken the former position of planning

adviser to the cabinet away from the office of the Provincial Secretary

and restructured it to be the department of intergovernmental affairs

within the executive council vote. This new office of intergovernmental

affairs operates with a staff very similar to the size of the staff

that was the former planning adviser to the executive council, with

some changes but with some of the same personnel still continuing who

were with the advisory planner to the executive council.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the new department of

intergovernmental relations has proved very beneficial to the

government and to the province of British Columbia. In a year when most

of the major cost-sharing programmes come up with Ottawa and there is a

host of meetings between the various ministries involved in

cost-sharing programmes, and at a time when Ottawa is involving the

provinces in more more and more discussions, this department has proved

invaluable in co-ordinating the activities of the various departments.

It's something that has proved necessary so that the financial

relationships, where they overlap, can be co-ordinated on a provincial

level. There is no evidence of this having been done before. Mr.

Chairman, for the betterment of the financial well-being of the

province and the relationship in the amounts of money that we share

with Ottawa, this should prove to be a better administrative change for

the province of British Columbia.

In setting this up we did study intergovernmental affairs in other

provinces — Alberta, Quebec and others. Some of them have developed

separate ministries and I know that our party, during the campaign, did

talk about a separate department or a separate ministry of

intergovernmental affairs. In consultation with other provinces which

have separate ministries and in assessing B.C.'s own unique position it

was felt, Mr. Chairman, that in these first years the co-ordination

would be better served out of the executive council and in conjunction

with the Premier's office.

You will also notice, Mr. Chairman, that for the first time we have

a money vote attributed to the executive council, and this is in line

with other provincial governments that provide a sum for those services

that serve the executive council. Until now most services for cabinet

committees have been done by the line departments. It is to be hoped,

although it is not yet in place, that there will be a staff that can

serve cabinet committees on a continuing basis for

[ Page 2302 ]

the better provision of records and co-ordinating

the various cabinet committees and departments. We believe this will

serve the people of the province better.

Those are just a few of the changes that affect vote 2, all in

better structuring the executive council, the Premier's office and

intragovernmental affairs to serve the province.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I'm rather

disappointed that the Premier spent such a few minutes dealing in a

very, very cursory way with the record of his government and the

particular policies of his office, particularly when grave economic

problems face the province, both in terms of the extraordinarily high

rate of unemployment in many ways brought about precisely by the very

punitive policies that have been introduced by the new coalition

government.

The Premier, as president of the executive council, must take the

responsibility for the policies that have been introduced by his

cabinet. I'm extremely disappointed that he failed to either

acknowledge the problems that exist or to offer any indication of

policies that the government might be considering to deal with these

great problems of disruption and hardship that are being visited upon

thousands and thousands of people, the citizens of this province.

During the course of this session, on every occasion that presented

itself, I have attempted to demonstrate to the Premier the real impact,

the real consequence of the government policies thus far. They relate

to the cost impact on the average people of British Columbia, resulting

from the extraordinary rate increases in automobile insurance, in the

ferry rates, in home-heating fuel, new sales tax increase, personal

income tax increases, increases in extended-care and medicare premiums,

drugs, food — all of these things unregulated and allowed to spiral in

terms of cost — and at the same time some 114,000 people unemployed in

the province.

The Premier must accept the responsibility for these policies that

have not sought to ease the impact of harsh economic times upon the

people, but rather have compounded those problems in a brutal way by

government piling increase after increase upon the backs of the people

of the province, particularly those who are least able to afford the

increased costs, those who lack the upward mobility to keep pace.

I've talked about this before, but I want to demonstrate to the

House today, Mr. Chairman, precisely what it means in real terms to the

average household in British Columbia — what the action of this

government, what the policies of this government mean in real terms. I

want to draw to the House's attention an example which has been

compiled with public figures for the use of our party. It is the real

impact, the real cost consequence, to the average citizens of this

province.

I have a number of illustrations I would like to read into the

record so, perhaps in dramatic form, the Premier will come to

understand that the average householder is labouring under an enormous

load, and is unable to cope with that hardship.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Take a family of four, as an average family in British Columbia,

owning a suburban home in, say, the municipality of Burnaby: the

father, an employee of the forest industry, earning the average of $289

a week; in the same family, the mother, a retail clerk working in a

shopping centre or something of that nature, and earning an average

salary for that kind of employment of $191 a week; two children under

16 years of age — resulting in a gross income to the family of $24,296

per year. This, I think, represents a typical British Columbia family.

Their combined income, after tax — in other words, their disposable

income — would represent about $20,161. Cost-of-living increases over

and above the rest of Canada, due solely to the British Columbia

government's actions, are detailed as follows — and I want to read them

out; I want to demonstrate carefully to the House what it means.

The total impact of policies introduced by this government over the

past six months of their tenure has resulted in a cost impact to this

kind of family of $1,206.46 per year — that's $1,206.46 a year that has

been heaped upon the backs of that family. So the real purchasing power

lost to this kind of family has been reduced 6 per cent as a direct

consequence of policies introduced by the provincial government.

I want to detail some of the factors through which I have arrived at

this calculation. The sales tax increase, 40 per cent to 7 points: one

percentage point equals about $101,428,000 for the 2.5 million

population of the province; you divide into that the average $40.50 per

capita, and you arrive at a figure of $324.56 extra per year that is

loaded upon the average family.

The provincial personal income tax increase results in an average cost increase of $7.60 extra per year.

The Autoplan premiums increase to 133.7 per cent results in an

average.... And I'm not going to go into all the calculations which are

used for the average family, but simply indicate that this cost

increase results in an average extra payment of $401 per year.

The average lower mainland residential electricity bill increased 10.8 per cent, an average cost increase of $22.80.

The average lower mainland natural gas heating increased 9.5 per cent, an average of $437.20 extra per year.

Medicare — the family rate premiums increased 50

[ Page 2303 ]

per cent, resulting in an average extra cost per annum of $75.

Hospital co-insurance is added on as the burden of an additional $18. That was an increase of 300 per cent — $4 a day.

Cigarette tax, to parents who smoke, would be an average extra cost per year of $29.20.

Ferry rate increases — 100 per cent increase — an additional $154 extra per year.

Provincial campground fees, $6.40 per year.

Now all of these things indicate that a tremendous burden has been

added to the average family in British Columbia. But that is an average

family with a pretty fair income — the middle bracket of working

persons in the province of British Columbia, and who have some economic

clout, some opportunity for upward mobility, albeit eroded somewhat

through the anti-inflation guidelines, but at least an ability to

somewhat keep pace.

But what about the working poor in the province of British Columbia

— those people who have no union to represent them, those people who

are not organized, those people who may be partially handicapped and

only able to participate in the work force on some limited basis? There

are many, many of these. Indeed, the majority of the work force in

British Columbia — some 66 per cent of the work force in British

Columbia — does not belong to a union of any kind. They have no

opportunity to keep pace; they have no bargaining lever.

The working poor are in this position, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier,

through you — and I hope he takes note. Taking an average family of

four, renting a modest two-bedroom house in Vancouver: the father earns

wages of approximately $4 an hour; they have two dependent children;

their after-tax disposable income is $7,312. By subtracting the cost of

living increases, over and above the rest of Canada and due solely to

British Columbia government's actions, we arrive at the following

details: $713.88 would be subtracted from that disposable income,

leaving a net disposable income this year, as a direct result of Social

Credit policy, of $6,598.12 — a real loss in their purchasing power of

9.8 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to contrast that percentage loss in reduced

purchasing power against the position of the previously-referred-to

example of the average worker where the real income loss was only 6 per

cent. This provides proof positive, Mr. Chairman, that what the

official opposition has been telling this government right along is

that the consequences of their policies, both economic and otherwise,

weigh more heavily against those who can least afford to pay — a 9 per

cent loss in disposable income for the low-income people, only 9 per

cent, and Lord knows that is enough of an impact on the average

industrialized worker. So there are the two average kinds of situations

that are real and being felt by the people of this province.

I don't know whether the Premier can associate himself with that

kind of dilemma or not. Perhaps he can associate himself more readily

with the last example I am going to draw to the attention of this

House. That is the case of what his economic policies have meant to the

average millionaire in the province of British Columbia, perhaps a

millionaire coming from the Okanagan somewhere, living in the average

rural setting in the Okanagan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your average run-of-the-mill millionaire.

MR. KING: The average run-of-the-mill millionaire...

Interjections.

MR. KING: ...a guy having an additional job, say a public

service job — a public job in addition to being a millionaire in his

own right. This hypothetical millionaire has a $200,000 home, say up in

the Okanagan somewhere, just for speculation.

Interjections.

MR. KING: He has an apartment in Victoria. He rents this

apartment for $400 a month. We assume that this millionaire doesn't

smoke so he saves somewhat on that sales tax. We assume that he has a

wife and four boys.

Interjection.

MR. KING: For one reason or other, he doesn't have to pay any

ferry fares whatsoever. He doesn't have to pay that increased ferry

fare that the average citizen has to pay. This millionaire for one

reason or another is exempt from ferry fare rates.

Interjections.

MR. KING: From his assets of $1 million, I think it is safe

to conclude.... A reasonable assumption would be that this millionaire

earns interest of $100,000 a year. That is a mere 10 per cent on his

capital investment. I think it is safe to conclude that he would earn

that much.

Interjection.

MR. KING: But because of his most serious and sincere concern

for inflation, Mr. Chairman, he has voluntarily accepted a 10 per cent

cut in his public salary paid for by the taxpayers, a most magnanimous

gesture by this compassionate millionaire. This, then, means that he

earns from his public position a salary

[ Page 2304 ]

of $46,800. He therefore has a total taxable income

of $146,800 per year and an after-tax income of $87,320 per year.

That's after tax — $87,320.

We can assume that a man on a salary of this range would probably

buy more than the average family. So he would probably spend more on

the sales tax. He'd buy more goods than the average British Columbian.

He might even buy 50 per cent more goods because he is able to afford a

few luxury items that the average citizen can't afford. We assume that

he pays ICBC increases on two cars. I think that kind of average

millionaire would probably have two cars. Let's just assume that he has

a 1975 Chrysler and another 1975 Dodge, just for the purpose of

hypothesis.

The total cost to this average millionaire of the Social Credit

coalition policies so far this year would be $2,171.35, which is after

tax, reduced from an income of $87,320 per year. This represents a loss

in purchasing power to this poor, struggling little millionaire of 2.5

per cent — 2.5 per cent, Mr. Chairman, one-quarter of the decline

experienced by the average working people, by the working poor

particularly, one-quarter of the decline in disposable income

experienced by the working poor, and less than one-half of the impact

on disposable income suffered by the average working household in this

province where both parents are working.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to hear the Premier talk about the problem

that is being faced by the people of British Columbia. This is an

analysis which anyone can draw, which is a mere matter of doing some

arithmetical homework to determine what the effect of cost increases

introduced by this government means to the various income levels of

people — citizens of British Columbia.

As I said at the outset, if the Premier has difficulty associating

himself and his circumstances, domestic and otherwise, with the plight

of that low-income earner who has no union to represent him, who

doesn't belong to any trade association, who lacks any large reserve of

capital either earned or inherited to back him up, if the Premier can't

be sensitive to the plight of that kind of citizen in British Columbia,

if he can't associate and identify himself with the average working

person who belongs to a trade union in the province of British

Columbia, maybe he can associate himself, maybe he can identify with

that millionaire who has made the enormous sacrifice to join the Social

Credit programme of inflation, the enormous sacrifice of only 2.5 per

cent of the extent to which the working poor have been called. upon to

sacrifice in this province.

That's what the policies of this government mean. That's precisely

what they mean, and I think that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, before he

goes into some casual and cursory commentary of the frills of his

office, should stand up and tell this House precisely what he and his

government intend to do to assuage the terrible impact of economic

hardship that is being visited upon the working poor and by far the

majority of citizens in this province.

I certainly expect to hear from the Premier regarding positive

programmes he intends to introduce regarding employment opportunity.

There should be direct employment opportunities offered now. When the

Premier failed to give me any indication in a question I asked

regarding direct employment programmes, I want the House to know, Mr.

Chairman, that I sent a telegram to the federal Minister of Manpower

and Immigration, the Hon. Robert Andras, asking if the federal

government would undertake to make funds available. He assured me that

they would and, in fact, there are federal funds available to mount

direct and special employment programmes in British Columbia. I find it

absolutely shocking and amazing that neither the Premier of this

province nor any of his cabinet colleagues have thus far announced any

initiative to collaborate with the federal government to obtain some of

these funds and to mount programmes which would come to grips with the

brutal unemployment which is facing so many people in our province now.

I want to remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that when questioned a few

weeks ago, the Premier of the province said: "Well, it's going to take

longer than we anticipated in the election to get the economy of this

province going again." He talked about some economic policies three

years down the road. I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Chairman: is he

sitting there and suggesting that people suffering the plight of income

erosion, as I have outlined here today, is he suggesting that they sit

there and exist on a bare subsistence income for the next three years

while this government recognizes the problem and takes some decisive

action to come to grips with the economic stimulus that's necessary to

get them back on the payroll and to get the economy of this province

moving in such a way that people can earn a decent living and enjoy a

decent standard of livelihood in this province?

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): A do-nothing government.

MR. KING: Absolutely, a do-nothing government! I think it's

absolutely amazing that the Premier expects to obtain his salary

through this House, was prepared to sit there and let his salary go

past without comment if the opposition had not risen to question him. I

think that's shocking. I think the Premier perhaps enjoys a pretty fair

standard of living without being so hasty in trying to push his salary

vote through this House. I think he has an obligation to try to have

some sensitivity for the people in this province who are in real need

now. He has some

[ Page 2305 ]

obligation as the Premier of this province, as the

Prime Minister, the First Minister, the minister responsible for the

conduct of all his cabinet colleagues, because he appointed them, and

he has some responsibility to give an indication as to what direction

this government is going to move in terms of an economic reappraisal of

the shambles they have brought to this province so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of material

here that I intend to deal with in the Premier's estimates. He has a

lot of accounting to do. I don't want to take too long in dealing with

the first question which, in my view, is the most important, and that

is the plight of the people that are suffering the terrible vengeance

of this government so far. I think that's the No. 1 issue that we have

to have some assurance on.

I'm going to take my seat and I'm going to ask the Premier to

respond in a positive way and not a politically picayune way like he

has in the past, but with some recognition of the problem that does

exist and some positive steps to assuage the suffering that's going on

out there.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier apparently is prepared to sit down

and wait for his salary of about $48,000 per year to go through, while

the plight of the people I have referred to is totally ignored. I think

that's a shockingly insensitive posture for the Premier of this

province to take — absolutely amazing.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How about the one that doubled his wages?

MR. KING: Here's a headline, Mr. Chairman, in the Victoria Times

of this date, June 3, blazing headline: "59 per cent Increase Awarded

to BCR Men. The biggest 'catchup' pay increase since federal

anti-inflation income controls — up to 59 per cent over two years — has

gone to workers on the British Columbia Railways."

I don't know what this government, Mr. Chairman, is doing. There

seems to be absolutely no equity in terms of their economic approach to

government in this province. There seems to be no equity in the

legislation that they bring forward in terms of coming to grips with

the problem of inflation. They seem to be simply applying the old

jungle philosophy of the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, you

know, and "each man for himself, " said the elephant as he danced

around the chicken pen. Certainly it's the little guy who is taking the

brunt of this government's rather callous indifference thus far.

I read this headline as a demonstration that the trade unions are

able to somewhat keep pace with the needs of their members, even in

tough economic times.

What about that 66 per cent of our work force out there who have no

union to bargain for them — the handicapped and so on, the indigent,

the fixed-income people? These costs all weigh very heavily on them

also, and I would expect the Premier to come forward with some answers

to the questions I've raised here. They're raised in all earnestness,

because unquestionably the kind of rate increases the government has

brought in do cut much more heavily on those who are least able to

afford cost increases. It's unreasonable and it's cold and

discriminatory to ask people on the one hand to exercise restraint in

terms of their demands upon the economy by asking for less, and on the

other hand to impose upon them these brutal increases that have been

demonstrated time and time again in this House.

I want to tell the Premier that I have a lot of letters to read to

him, letters that I've received, letters of real anguish from residents

all over this province, some from his own riding, many from the Gulf

Islands, pointing out the hardship that the increased ferry fares have

had in that particular area of the province.

Maybe as a bit of a prompter, Mr. Chairman, I should read the first

one of those letters to the Premier now. I'll just read one as an

example and I'll get into them in more detail later. The letter here

was sent to the leader of the New Democratic Party, Dave Barrett.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. KING: You'll know who that is very shortly, my friend. It reads:

"Dear Mr. Barrett,

"I have just talked to your local party office and was

much impressed with their attitude. I requested your home address so I

could write and pass on to you personally the Social Credit Party

membership cards of both my wife and myself.

"We are leaving the party, Mr. Barrett, and joining

yours. I feel sure that if these cards are returned to Mr. Bennett he

will naturally try to cover up the apparent trend of the same action

that is taking place. I want you to have these two cards as proof of

our action. You can record this move and pass them on to the Social

Credit Party or do as you please with them.

"An explanation for this step is, of course, due you.

We are completely disgusted with the severe cutbacks in all of your

social policies. These are barbaric. Will Mr. Bennett never let up on

the poor? Neither myself or my wife have ever received or requested any

benefits from any programme that falls into this

[ Page 2306 ]

category. Some day we may have to do so, and

in the meantime we are going to try and retain all the good you

achieved during your stay in office, and we sincerely hope you will

regain your office as Premier of this province.

"We wish you every success in your by-election and

just know you will come out on top. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for your

attention and also for the opportunity of serving you by becoming a

member of your political party."

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is signed "Murray Du Guay," and

I'm going to direct the cards back. They're from the riding of the hon.

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) in Kamloops. I would like

those to be delivered to the Premier so that he might get the message,

a little more with feeling. Perhaps that kind of conduct will start to

melt the cold, cold heart to the point where he might start to take

seriously the questions — the serious questions — that are being raised

in this House.

I hope he doesn't continue to sit there and smirk, but rather take

seriously the feeling that he should have for the people in this

province who are really suffering. I hope he'll get up on his feet and

answer in a serious way, Mr. Chairman.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Following up on the remarks made by

the House Leader for the official opposition (Mr. King) with respect to

how people in this province have been affected by the policies of this

government, I would like to speak on the subject of the people in the

more remote areas. This government has showed a complete lack of

concern or understanding for the people who live in the remoter areas

of the province. None of these members from the north up there speak on

behalf of their constituents who are suffering, just as those in the

northern part of Vancouver Island are. It seems that I have to carry

the load for the entire bunch of them sitting over there, speaking on

behalf of these people. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, not only have the people in the

northern part of my riding been adversely affected, as outlined by the

Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader (Mr. King), in

terms of paying all these increases in ICBC and taxes and that long

list, but they have special problems which go completely unrecognized

by this government. Every move that they take has affected adversely

the people of the province, but they have affected more severely those

people who live in the remoter parts. I would like to give just a few

examples of the kinds of things that happen to the people in the

northern part of Comox constituency.

During the estimates of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), for instance, I presented a petition which had been signed

by the residents of Port Alice protesting that cutback with respect to

escort service to transport patients to Vancouver General Hospital. or

one of the larger hospitals in the province.

Now in the areas surrounding the lower mainland, this cutback is not

as expensive for people as it is up there. Up there it is going to mean

an additional charge of $200 to $300 per patient. There was no response

from the Minister of Health to this petition — no indication that he

understood what a difference it made to the people in the northern

parts of the province and the northern part of Vancouver Island, and no

indication that they even cared.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): What problem?

MS. SANFORD: There was no mention made whatsoever in the

response by the Minister of Health to that petition and the concern

that those people showed.

The people of Alert Bay were quite excited about the possibility of

the Prince George giving them some added communication along the coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to be kidding!

MS. SANFORD: They wrote a letter protesting the sale of the

Prince George at that time and cutting out that possible line of

communication. At the same time there are cutbacks in Hydro, which are

not all that important as far as some of the, people in the lower

mainland and in this area are concerned, but up there, where they

experience frequent blackouts and frequent breakdowns due to storms and

due to the fact that the lines are not always as well maintained as

they are in this area, what happens? They get a cutback. No more do

they have a lineman to service the people at Alert Bay. He's going to

be moved somewhere else, and, of course, when they suffer a breakdown

in hydro service at Alert Bay, then the lineman will be brought from

somewhere else whenever he has the time. Now that affects them far more

up there than it does down here because of the difficulties in

communications. They suffer far more from that kind of problem.

In addition, the people on the northern end of the Island have

suffered over the years because of lack of services. They have a very

inadequate television service, which I recognize has nothing to do with

this government but is a federal problem. Whenever there is a problem

with the economics of the province, the small planes operated by small

companies in that part

[ Page 2307 ]

of the province cut down on the service that's

available to people. In many cases, these are their lifelines. These

bring in food, they bring in mail and they are the way in which they

can communicate with the outside world. They're cut back. They're

affected first.

The public health nurse in Port Hardy — the staffing up there for

public health has been cut back. Again, the service provided under the

public health unit services a great wide area and it is difficult

enough with staff to try to give any of the people in that area some

public health service. That's been cut back, and this government has

shown no concern about that or no interest.

There is a list, a long, long list, again, Mr. Chairman, about the

effect of cutbacks and the lack of concern of this government with

respect to people in remote northern areas.

The doubling of the ferry costs to residents who live at Sointula

and Alert Bay is going to be crippling in many cases. It'll now cost,

just to take the car and a driver to Vancouver and back, $80 return. So

we talk about how the increases this government has brought in affect

families. Those families on the northern part of the Island are far

more severely affected, and that kind of rate increase is just one of

them: $15 for a car, Beaver Cove to Kelsey Bay, plus $6 for the driver

— one way. In addition, people in the northern part of the Island pay

fantastically high rates for their furniture, their food, their

clothing and for gasoline. Gasoline at the pumps up in that area runs

around 99 cents in many cases. So everything affects them more severely

up there.

Now there's a subject that I would like to draw directly to the

attention of the Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman, because I have

worked with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I have worked

with his staff. I have worked with the people who are concerned about

the fact that the two remaining contracts which will give the people of

the northern part of the Island a public highway, for the first time,

have been cut out of this year's Highways estimates. Now I'm bringing

this directly to the attention of the Premier because the Minister of

Highways does not have the money in his budget this year, he tells me,

and he so tells the delegations that come to see him. Therefore I must

bring it directly to the attention of the Premier, and I hope he shows

some concern in this.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Why didn't your government build it?

MS. SANFORD: For the information of the newer members in this House

who have no idea about a road to the north end of the Island, I would like to

inform them that the previous government awarded three contracts in three years.

There is currently $13 million worth of work going on there and the people of

the north end of the Island want that highway finished, and they want it finished

now.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the people in the north end of the

Island don't buy this property plea that keeps coming out at them. A

large number of them up there recognize that this government is out to

build up a surplus with which they're going to try to buy their votes

at the next election. They're not going to buy that argument, and they

would like that money now in order to complete that highway.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do with it? Where did you bury it?

MS. SANFORD: They have waited for so long. I have outlined

before in this House that it was in 1956 that P.A. Gaglardi announced

that road when he was campaigning on behalf of one Dan Campbell...

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MS. SANFORD: ...saying that that road would be built if they supported Dan Campbell in the election.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: After the election it became part of a 10-year

programme, and, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't until 1971 that work started on

that road. No wonder the people up there are campaigning and saying:

"Look, we have waited long enough. We suffer enough having to live

without services, having to live in remote areas, pay high prices and

having to put up with the increases that have been imposed by this

government. The least they can do is complete that road." Those

contracts were in the estimates this year. They have been removed. They

were there; I saw them. I saw the printouts.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who showed them to you?

MR. KEMPF: Did you see the money they left to do it with?

MS. SANFORD: I saw the previous Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) on this before the election, Mr. Member,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2308 ]

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to bring to the attention of the

House, and particularly of the Premier, that the people on the north

end of the Island are mounting a magnificent campaign in order to

attempt to convince this government that they're not to be neglected,

as far as the completion of that highway is concerned.

I would like to illustrate the kind of campaign that they are waging. This is a full-page ad which appeared in the Port Hardy Gazette .

They are using the theme of a carrot. They feel that the carrot has

been dangled in front of them long enough. They now have half of the

carrot and they want the rest of the carrot. Their campaign is centred

on getting the rest of that carrot. In addition to taking out full-page

ads, they are sending off to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

cards which have been specially printed that have the carrot on them.

They have prepared buttons: "Do you carrot at all?" The other one is a

T-shirt; they are wearing T-shirts up there trying to promote this

campaign.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, they have prepared a carrot cocktail

which is a product of northern Vancouver Island. It's one for the road

and it's one which they have presented to the Minister of Highways. In

view of the fact that the Premier may not have heard about this

campaign, I would like to send him, courtesy of the campaign people in

the northern part of Vancouver Island, a carrot cocktail as well. In

addition, the people in the northern part of Vancouver Island have been

sending the Minister of Highways carrot seeds just in case he forgets

that they are waging a campaign.

This government may not recognize the seriousness of the problem

with respect to finishing the road to the north end of the Island, but

at least the federal Member of Parliament, Liberal Hugh Anderson, does

recognize it. He knows how important that road is to the northern part

of the Island, and I give him credit. He is doing what he can in order

to get that road finished, in order to get contracts awarded this year,

since this government is not prepared to recognize the seriousness of

the problem.

The federal Member of Parliament, Hugh Anderson, has gone to the Department

of Regional and Economic Expansion in Ottawa and has asked if there is any possibility

that some DREE money could be used in order to award those two remaining contracts

so that the people in the north — over 12,000 of them — can finally get a public

road. I have been working with the federal Member of Parliament and have been

in communication with the DREE people here — the regional people here — and

they are very interested in the proposal, are currently communicating with the

federal minister responsible and will report back to me. Hopefully, they will

be able to take the initiative so that a special contract can be signed so that

both federal and provincial moneys can go into awarding those contracts this

year.

The federal Member of Parliament knows how the people feel and knows

how important the road is to the people of the north end of the Island.

He spoke to Marcel Lessard and reported back to the people of the Comox

constituency. He says it is not basically their problem, and it isn't.

I quote from the paper: "But I know how important this road is and

something has to be done." Now I support the federal member in this. He

and I will work together to attempt, through the DREE programme, to

obtain some money so that those people in the north end of the Island

will be able to have that road completed.

I would like to ask the Premier, at this stage — and hopefully he

will respond before too long — whether or not he would be prepared to

enter into an interim agreement with the DREE people, if, in fact, the

DREE people will agree that DREE money could be put in to assist in

getting those contracts awarded this year, so that we can complete the

road to the north end of the Island.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, since I am going to go on to a

different kind of subject I would gladly defer to the Premier if he

wants to make any responses to the matters raised so far, or I would

gladly defer to any of the backbenchers if they are looking for a

cabinet job at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're not looking for a cabinet job either?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You aren't in danger of that, are you?

MR. GIBSON: I am in no danger of that. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't take a cabinet job with this government.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you, Sam, he's closer to one than you are.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk at this time about

intergovernmental affairs and federal-provincial relations. The Premier

mentioned that in his opening remarks and I think he is 100 per cent

right to keep that subject in the Premier's office at this particular

time. I think I said earlier on in debate that perhaps the most

important job in the province at the moment is economic development,

[ Page 2309 ]

but I think a close second is our relationships

with the rest of the country. Since it is a brand new portfolio in

British Columbia, I think it is right it should have the personal

attention of the Premier.

The importance of our membership in Canada is one of the historic

conditioners of what it's meant to be a British Columbian for the last

100 years. But there are some real problems in our relationship with

the rest of the country and with the national government. My view, Mr.

Chairman, is that every 100-year-old agreement needs some kind of a

re-opener and some kind of a look to see if it is still serving the

purposes for which it was originally designed. The time, by historical

action, is now because we are at a stage where the national government

wants to repatriate the constitution to Canada, and the provinces have

a right, in view of that fact, to ask that the rest of the arrangements

re-examined.

I am going to suggest to the Premier today that an in-depth study is

needed for an intelligent assessment of those kinds of questions. I

suggested this to the last government and I regret to say they never

took that seriously. Had they done so we would have been in better

shape and knowledgeably armed for federal-provincial relations today.

As it is, the studies have to go on from this point.

My basic premise is that if there are grievances between regions and

between provinces and the federal government, the country will be

strengthened and work better if arrangements are changed so that they

are fair.

The study that I suggest into the place of British Columbia in

Confederation and the benefits and costs and possible amendments of

that place it seems to me should be cooperative with the federal

government and the other provinces, if that can be arranged, in order

that all of the parties to the study will agree in the end because we

are all a part of the ongoing examination.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest some of the terms of reference of that study.

It must start from the basis that British Columbia, in terms of relative position,

is doing the worst of any province in Canada in economic growth. This

was evident last year when our gross provincial product per person fell by 2

per cent. It was evident between 1963 and 1974 when our economic growth per

capita was 10th out of 10 among the provinces. It was evident between 1954

and 1974 when our personal income for a person employed went from 25 per cent

above the national average down to less than I per cent above the national average.

It was evident from 1936 to 1974 when our personal income per capita in British

Columbia went from 33 per cent above the national average down to just 7 per

cent above the national average.

This has been a long-term trend, Mr. Chairman, for which I naturally

do not blame this government, because they're just in office, but it's

a long-term trend that we all must note whereby the relative

performance of British Columbia, compared to the rest of Canada, has

been declining. Some of those reasons are internal to our own economic

management, but some of them, I suggest, are national in scope, and I

think that any proper study of British Columbia in Confederation ought

to look at them.

The next thing I would suggest that such a study would look at is

what I would call grievances — famous grievances of British Columbia

which have dragged on for many years. One of the first of these,

perhaps, is ferry subsidies. They are available to all of the Maritime

provinces, and even to Ontario on some runs, and we have to get them

here for British Columbia. The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

earlier on mentioned Hugh Anderson, MP, a man I much admire and a man

who recently has been able to at least get the agreement of the federal

government to look at the case for a ferry subsidy for British

Columbia. This is one of the things such a study would have to look at.

It should look at freight rates — higher rates eastbound for B.C. manufacturers.

It should look at things even relating to private business, such as,

for example, the treatment of the airline which has headquarters in

British Columbia. A national airline, Canadian Pacific Airlines, in my

view has been discriminated against in terms of award of national and

international routes, and that's important for British Columbia because

it means jobs in this province.

It should look at things like the British Columbia Railway

construction subsidy, which is a subsidy deserved and never given to

our provincial railway — a rankling injustice over the years. When the

Premier is talking about that one, I hope he will tell us what his

plans are for the British Columbia Railway, because of the very

interesting speculation in the press of late that it may be a part of a

plan of the government to sell the BCR to the CN. This is an

opportunity for the Premier to put on record his view on this question.

Should we sell BCR? Under what circumstances? He makes no immediate

response, so I will ask him again later.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Do you want to buy it?

MR. GIBSON: I don't want to buy it, thank you, Mr. Minister, but it's an important question as to whether or not our province keeps it.

Such a study in terms of British Columbia grievances should look at

communications, such as the extent to which there is a fair degree of

CBC

[ Page 2310 ]

production in our province.

It should look at questions of intergovernmental taxation — the B.C.

Ferries and the application of federal fuel taxes to the ferry system

as either a Crown corporation or a government department. The dispute

has dragged on that many years that it has taxed the B.C. Ferries in

both of those incarnations.

Part of that, Mr. Chairman, was British Columbia's fault — no doubt

about it. British Columbia for many years was the only province which

refused to be a member of the joint federal-provincial committee on

intergovernmental taxation. We never played ball on that. Part of the

reason for our difficulties with Ottawa over the years is that we

haven't been willing to sit down and talk with Ottawa, and that's why

I'm so glad to see a recognized department of intergovernmental

affairs, because that can improve these kinds of things.

Such a study should look at facts like the fact that the federal

procurement across the country is 5 per cent in British Columbia, as

related to our population of 11 per cent.

It should look at questions like the Canada Development Corp. head

office, which was promised to British Columbia and to Vancouver back in

1971. The head office we have here — as hon. members all know — is only

a sham. The real head office is in Toronto. That's where the chief

executive officer resides.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?

MR. GIBSON: Intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Member. Sit and listen to the debate for a minute, and you'll follow the train.

In looking at all of these grievances, Mr. Chairman, of course, any

proper study has to put them in balance with the good things that are

done by the federal government in British Columbia in return for our

tax dollars. These are just one-way grievances. In most cases they're

little things that could be easily fixed up. The study should look at

them and highlight them.

Far more importantly, this kind of study should look at structural

changes that might be examined in our country. A significant increase

in provincial powers under the BNA Act, for example, is the kind of

thing that might be negotiated, and in my view should be at least

discussed in connection with the patriation of the constitution.

It should look at questions such as composition of the Senate, a

body that was designed to take into account regional factors in this

country, and has very inadequately fulfilled that role over the years,

in part because of the small number of senators from each of the

western provinces. British Columbia only has six, for example, as

compared to Prince Edward Island with four and, I think, 10 each for

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with a good deal less population than

us. How could the Senate be reformed? How can we agree on that?

The suggestion that at least half of the Senators should be

appointed by the provincial government is one that I happen to support,

and I would also suggest that the Senate should have a standing

committee on regional affairs once it's given the kind of credentials

for generally dealing with regional affairs. They should have a

standing committee that, in effect, represents the voice of the

provinces as governments in Ottawa. The voice of provincial citizens as

people in Ottawa, of course, is represented through the House of

Commons, but the Senate should give direct representation to the

province in a governmental sense.

Such a study should look at matters such as the impact of distance

on British Columbia, in Canada, and ways of circumventing it — for

example, much greater decentralization of decision-making in federal

operations, and affirmative action plans to overcome the barrier where

you can't have decentralization.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): What's your interest in the Senate?

MR. GIBSON: Well, I didn't expect to be appointed by the provincial government, Mr. Member, if that's the point you're getting at.

The next general area that I think such a study should consider is

that of the flow of government funds across this country: the extent to

which the raising of national revenues in British Columbia compare with

the disbursement of national revenue in British Columbia. This would

naturally include transfer payments to persons as well as direct

government expenditures.

MR. LAUK: Come on, tell us about Jack Austin.

MR. GIBSON: We very badly need a study of this kind, Mr.

Chairman, because we just have completely inadequate figures. We have

no way of knowing at the moment whether there's a net deficit or a net

gain. I strongly suspect there's a net deficit, and there's some

evidence on this from a study by the University of Calgary in October

last year which was done basically for Alberta, but which produced some

figures for British Columbia, and showed that for fiscal 1973-74 the

net outflow from B.C. to the rest of the country was on the order of

$600 million, or around $258 per capita, that being at a governmental

level.

MR. LAUK: Are you talking about the tariffs?

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm not talking about the tariffs at this point. I'll get on to that in a moment,

[ Page 2311 ]

Mr. Member. These are financial flows at the governmental level. This is an important sum of money, if it's correct.

A part of that probably is equalization, I think, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman, and to the extent that it is I support it,

because I think Canadians generally have a commitment to try to put a

reasonable standard of living as a floor for all Canadians. We have a

very selfish interest in equalization in British Columbia, because it's

one of the things that helps keep our rate of growth down. To the

extent that our rate of growth can be kept down, it's better for all of

us. We're growing too fast in this province. But my point is that these

things have to be measured and we don't have figures at the moment.

Incidentally, that study showed that there are two other so-called

outflow provinces in terms of financial resources of this kind — one

was Alberta and the other was Ontario. But the Ontario one is largely

fictitious because most of the outflow dollars cycle back into Ontario

through the manufacturing plant and the fact that they are suppliers of

goods for most of the country.

Still on the financial side, the study should examine federal

cost-sharing programmes and the extent to which the 50-cent dollars

available in cost-sharing programmes markedly distort our priorities,

and the ways and means in which British Columbia could opt out and

receive tax points in return. The examples have been gone over time

after time in this House: the bias in favour of acute beds as opposed

to intermediate care, for example; the bias in favour of day care as

opposed to kindergarten because the one is Canada Assistance Plan

shareable and the other is not and so on.

Next, I believe that such a study should treat the area of growth.

British Columbia is growing at about 3 per cent a year; Canada is

growing at about 1 per cent a year. Therefore we are differentially

absorbing the cost of growth in this country. Growth has high social

costs: the cost of infrastructure like roads, hospitals, parks and all

that sort of thing. We should be arguing, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman,

for some kind of recognition in the financial arrangements of this

country, in recognition in the financial arrangements of this country,

in recognition of the fact that we have these extra costs related to

growth.

I arrive now at the question of trade, about which the hon. first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) questioned me a moment ago. Our

province has a very strong balance of payments with the rest of the

world. I don't have an exact figure; I don't know that it is available.

I wish it were and this kind of study could find it, but I think it is

probably in excess of $2 billion per annum.

When you look at the fact that Canada as a whole has a deficit of $5 billion per annum....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $6.7 billion.

MR. GIBSON: $5 billion last year, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year.

MR. GIBSON: This year it may turn out to be $6.7 billion — I

don't know — but it was $5 billion last year. Obviously, British

Columbia was a very strong net contributor to the balance-of-payments

position of our country.

The study should identify the cost to British Columbia, as a strong

net exporter, of remaining within the Canadian tariff wall. Obviously

we can't get outside the Canadian tariff wall, but it is very much in

our interest to do all we can to knock that wall down as quickly as

possible. I happen to believe it is in the interest of all Canadians; I

happen to agree with the report of the economic council which found

that situation across the country.

The calculations I make as to the cost of the tariff to the average

British Columbian — every man, woman and child — is around $500 per

year, which is a lot of money. This is based in part on the work of

Shearer, Young and Munro in 1971, who expected a gain of around 5.5 per

cent of personal income for British Columbians if the tariff barriers

were eliminated. R.J. Wormacott, for the economic council, suggested

something much higher — between 10 and 15 per cent. I believe that is a

little high. The economic councilLooking Outward report again last year

made an estimate of around 5 per cent of the GNP. My own judgment out

of all these figures is around $500 per man, woman and child, which is,

when you multiply it by the number of British Columbians there are,

something well over $1 billion, a number which is of such consequence

that if we are able to get any kind of a handle on it, it becomes an

important part of our discussion with the rest of Canada in this day of

constitutional fluidity about the proper advantages and disadvantages

to our province.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Does that mean there is a lot of drinking going on at those conferences?

MR. GIBSON: Such a study as I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman,

could make some economic forecasts as to how the economy of British

Columbia ought to be faring, were it not weighted down with some of

these national burdens such as the tariff policy. I would refer you,

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and all committee members, again to this

University of Alberta study done, as I say, last October — and a very

interesting document it is. That Alberta exercise found the 1976 cost

of "confederation" to that province to be something like $750 per

capita which,

[ Page 2312 ]

interestingly enough, is quite close to the sum of

the $500 tariff cost that I suggested, plus the $250 financial-flow

cost. So we arrive at some kind of reasonable comparability. These

figures are within the ball park; they are not only within the ball

park, but they are very important.

Mr. Chairman, this kind of study, I suggest, would put British

Columbia in a position to make suggestions that would strengthen the

union of this nation. One of the things that works against national

unity is when any region feels disadvantaged, as Quebec did for so many

years — as British Columbians historically have and continue to do....

British Columbians have never received any sympathy in this regard from

the rest of Canada, because we have been looked on as the fat cats of

Canada with no cause for complaint. But on the other hand, we do have

the right, I believe, to have lifted from us strictures and regulations

such as the tariffs which do not, in the long run, assist the rest of

Canada and seriously harm us.

This kind of study, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't be taken on as an

exercise in separatism or anything like that. It should be looked at in

the sense of reassessing a contract that's now 100 years old and that's

our confederal bargaining. As I said at the outset of this talk, every

contract needs a reopener at some stage, and a reopener after 100 years

isn't too soon.

The results of this kind of study would give British Columbia a

better standing, a better understanding as to what to be arguing in our

discussions with our colleagues from the rest of this great country.

I think that British Columbians, as I said earlier in the speech,

are a generous people. I think they want the best for the rest of

Canada. I believe that the way that we can do our best for the rest of

Canada and do our best for ourselves is to have the economic rules and

the political rules of this country arranged in such a way that we are

able to achieve our full potential in this part of Canada, to better

absorb the tremendous tide of growth that's coming this way, to better

have the ability to pay taxes to support and assist Canadians in other

parts of the country where that's required.

I most sincerely suggest to the Premier that he explore, not just

with the other provinces but with the federal government, in a spirit

of amicability, the institution of a study which would look at, and

report on, the strains, the differentials, the advantages, of present

and potential confederal arrangements as they apply to British Columbia

and different parts of the country.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, first of all I want

to speak about the Skeena area, because certainly the economy of Skeena

started to go down in 1973. It certainly hasn't improved up to this

time.

MR. LAUK: Since December, 1975.

MR. SHELFORD: It certainly did not. It was already on the rocks and that's why I ran.

MR. LAUK: It didn't do any good.

MR. SHELFORD: We will. You certainly didn't do any good sitting there. So we will. We will.

The mining industry is already starting to pick up in the north

country, and when the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) speaks, I

think he's got a map to show all of the various companies and

exploration work that have already come in and ready to go to work this

spring. The picture in the mining field is quite encouraging, I must

say. It's the only encouraging sign right at the moment in my

particular area.

In the villages in the Skeena riding there's approximately 40 per

cent unemployed. In one particular village there is only one person

working. This just can't continue.

MR. LAUK: Is he a car dealer?

MR. SHELFORD: I didn't see you running around there getting work for him.

A 40 per cent unemployment rate is certainly not acceptable in an

area anywhere in this province or anywhere in this country. I think we

can only take a look at the report that was submitted quite some time

ago by a Terrace action group that is trying to get things started. Now

18 companies went bankrupt and went out of business during 1973 to 1975

with 189 men. Now 73 contractors in this area are still out of work but

still in operation and they have a total of 466 workers. That again is

an awful lot of idle people when there's so much work that can be done.

MR. LAUK: Did they all vote Socred?

MR. SHELFORD: Nearly or I wouldn't be here. No, I don't

pretend to be representing just Socred members. Once an election is

over I represent everyone.

The total cut of Can-Cel on their tree farm licence in 1973 was

832,965 cunits. By 1975 they had dropped production down to 471,255

cunits. Of course, that's the reason why so many of those people that I

mentioned earlier were put out of business.

This has a ripple effect, as everyone knows, right down through the

community, and the first waves started, as I said, in 1973. Now in one

heavy-duty equipment company the amount of hours worked by service

employees in 1974 was 10,590, and that dropped by the end of 1975 to

4,690, which is over half. The number of the employees dropped from 35

[ Page 2313 ]

down to 15.

A truck sale and service company A, five month's figures, November

to March: in 1974 they sold $1,342,000 worth; in the 1975-76 period,

that had dropped down to $473,000 — again more than half. The average

number of employees had dropped from 23 down to 12, and you can go on

and on.

Forestry equipment sales and rental company A: this is the number of

rate-rented and service clients — this dropped from 180 clients in

January to 58 in April, and during that period from 1974 they had 13

employees, and that dropped to six by the end of 1975.

Welding company A: the average number of employees in 1973 was 18,

and that dropped down by 1975 to only 8. Welding company B had the 13

employees, and that dropped to 7.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Motel A: in 1974 they had an average occupancy rate of 60.9 per

cent; by 1975 that had dropped to 23.1 per cent. Motel B: an average

occupancy rate of 61.8 per cent; in 1975 that dropped down to 8.9. This

was a motel that mainly catered to monthly people who were working on

bridges, et cetera.

Motel A: 1974, a 54.4 per cent occupancy rate; in 1975 that dropped

to 22.3 per cent. Hotel B averaged 80 per cent occupancy rate in 1974

and dropped back to 48 per cent in 1975.

Rental vacancies in apartments dropped down to 46 per cent of the

total. Major moving companies.... The saying in the Terrace area, just

prior to the last election, was that we needed a four-lane highway —

three lanes to take the people out of Terrace and one to bring them

back. And it doesn't look like it was that far from the truth. The

three moving companies in Terrace reported that, on an average, 30 per

cent of their moves were into town and 70 per cent were out of town.

Now I believe this little report was done quite recently.

MR. LAUK: What was the date?

MR. SHELFORD: The date? It was May of this year. The whole of

Terrace, of course, hinges on Can-Cel, and that's where the problem

lies. When the cut went down from 1973 to 1975, just about doubled,

nothing picked up its place. Eurocan, of course, was also on a

slowdown, but that doesn't affect Terrace as much because they're over

at Kitimat and a few workers commute back and forth. But basically, as

we all say, Terrace sinks or swims with Can-Cel, and the only real

solution in that northwest, as far as I'm concerned, is a really modern

Can-Cel complex based on the most modern pulp mill in the world to try

and use up some of the decadent wood and poor wood in that area.

I mentioned a little earlier that the mining exploration industry

has jumped substantially in the last couple of months, and the interest

looks good for this coming summer. I hope it keeps up. But I would say,

generally speaking, that the situation in that northwest will not

change without maximum federal-provincial assistance. I realize

conditions are different due to the lack of money, but certainly we

can't permit a 40 per cent unemployment rate in these Indian villages

and elsewhere without running into really serious trouble.

I know that the Highway department is having their problems with

budgets, but certainly a maximum road programme is needed in this north

country, so people can at least get around and develop it. Resource

roads, whether it be to mines or timber...we should do as much as

possible this summer to get some of these idle equipment operators

working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just interrupt the member

long enough to suggest that sometime soon I'm waiting to hear you

relate this to vote 21?

MR. SHELFORD: I am, Mr. Chairman. It all relates to the

Premier's salary because, after all, the Premier is head of this

government and all of these things really hinge on it. I think it is a

proper point.

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

MR. LAUK: The hon. member said what I was going to say — that the Premier is responsible for policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. SHELFORD: One thing that we have to speed up as much as

possible is the Indian land claims which are holding back job

opportunities right across the north country. They must be resolved as

quickly as possible. I think it's quite unfortunate that the

expectations of some of these people are far too high. Whatever happens

during these land claims, I hope the minister will have a good team of

very competent practical people to help him out during these claims

because it's one of the most difficult problems I think that

governments, federal and provincial, have to grapple with in the next

couple of years.

However these negotiations end up, in my opinion, we have to make

sure we end up as equals. We can no longer create separate groups in

our society, one against the other, or finally we'll end up in

conflict. We have to end up completely equal and all going in the same

direction to try and make a

[ Page 2314 ]

better country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: We've tried that.

MR. SHELFORD: I would say, in looking at the problems in the

northwest, that we'll have to take a very serious look at the

timber-cutting regulations in the north. I'll speak on this more during

the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), but if

the quota holders and the tree farm licence operators are not going to

accept their full quota, well, then they should certainly be moved out

of the public working circles and someone else allowed to do the work

in those areas.

One thing I think we could do in this whole north country would be

to set up streambed- and reservoir-clearing programmes. These clearing

programmes should be done by using the unemployed. It would be an

excellent training programme for workers because they'd learn how to

use not only Cats but front-end loaders and various pieces of

equipment. There's plenty that can be done, and likely we could

increase our salmon harvest by double in four years if we did some of

this kind of work.

I hope we'll resist further reductions in staff in all departments

that are in the north country, because quite a few of them only have

one or two men, and if one person quits and he's not replaced you've

lost half your staff right in one chunk. This quite often happens in

the northern areas of the province.

We should work with the federal government to train all of our

unemployed people before we get carried away with immigration. I was

quite surprised to hear our Prime Minister suggest that we should bring

in more immigrants to resolve the overpopulation in other countries. I

would say this is pure nonsense, because immigration will never resolve

the problems of people in these crowded nations. Even if we brought in

30 million a year it would only take care of part of the increase.

They'd still have the same problem at home, and we'd have tremendous

problems here in Canada.

I would like to see started immediately a mobile training programme

that could go from village to village and train people in all of these

villages. As Chief Hubert Maitland of Kitimat said: "Why should we be

advertising in England and Portugal to bring out workers when we

haven't trained our own people at home?" I think this was an excellent

suggestion and certainly should be looked at very carefully by the

government as a whole.

One thing that is extremely important is the need to work with the

national government for change in economic policy. The emphasis, of

course, should be on useful projects rather than the way we're going at

the present time.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that you could consider going

on radio and T.V., telling the people the sacrifices we all must make

in order to get the economy moving again — something the same as the

late President Roosevelt's fireside chats. I think they were very good

in explaining to the nation the very important things they had to do

and the sacrifices they had to give in order to get their country

moving again. I believe we're in exactly the same position here, not

only in British Columbia but also in Canada. I think it's a place where

you could start on a completely non-political basis and get it on the

television and radio and tell the people exactly how it is and what we

have to do to get this province moving again.

I would like to see a select standing committee of the Legislature

set up, similar to what they did after World War II, to travel around

the province and try to get a direction on where we're going in the

next 10 years. They would have to study the cost of the exporting

industries to find out how fast we can get back into line so that we

can compete with our competitors in other parts of the world,

especially in line with wages, transportation and all of the other

problems — even climatic conditions, which are more severe here than

they are in other parts of the world. I think this committee could get

some very interesting information which could be turned over to the

cabinet and later put into policy, similar to what was done after World

War II.

There's no question that we won't be able to reduce the number of

unemployed unless we can bring our costs in line. Productivity also

must increase and work stoppages must end as much as possible until the

economy is back on its feet. I would say we should all face the facts

of life, that we won't change anything unless we can convince everyone

that it's in the good of workers, management and everyone else that

work stoppages do quit until the province gets back on its feet.

Otherwise we'll go from bad to worse and we'll go down the trail, as I

mentioned before, to a form of national suicide.

We must find ways to get our young people working; they all need a

challenge. But I would say most of this hinges on the willingness of

our national government to change our economic system. Otherwise,

democracy will be destroyed.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't strayed too far away from the

salary of our Premier because, after all, we do have to have a clear

direction on which way we're going in