1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1977

Night Sitting

[ Page

363 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 363

Mr. Barber — 368

Mr. Rogers — 381

Mr. Loewen — 385

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

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

Speaker, I, too, am pleased to take my place in this debate and to take

the opportunity of commending and supporting the budget for its

insistence on restraint while at the same time maintaining the highest

level of service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Before I comment further I would like to take this opportunity also,

Mr. Speaker, of once again paying tribute and thanking a gentleman for

whom I have great admiration and with whom I have appreciated working,

a gentleman who retired in September, my then deputy minister, Mr. Jim

Sadler. He was in the service for 39 years and served a good many

administrations extremely well.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Why did he quit? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, since the provincial

budget was introduced on January 24, I have listened to a great deal of

criticism about the so-called reduction in the proposed expenditure for

the Ministry of Human Resources. Both the press and the opposition have

waxed heavily on the so-called "cuts to social services spending,"

suggesting in the process that this is somehow a cold and inhuman

thing, and also that it's a bottom-line approach of this government.

Yesterday, I even heard the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr.

Levi), who was previously a minister in the same ministry, say that

there was a $25-million cut in the budget for Human Resources.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They can't read a balance sheet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was very surprised, quite frankly, to

hear him because I had given this gentleman much more credit than that.

I thought that perhaps he would understand. But thinking about it

further I can appreciate why perhaps he didn't understand exactly that

there wasn't any cut, that in fact there would be additional funds over

those expended during this fiscal year.

I'm somewhat curious, Mr. Speaker, about the audacity of those that

perpetrated a $100 million overrun to criticize an administration that

has not only enjoyed something approaching a $100 million surplus or

overrun...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): That's Pharmacare!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...but further criticizing that

administration which has managed that surplus in a year in which

tremendous and well-deserved increases were provided in a host of key

areas.

The comparisons with this year's budget, unfortunately, have been

made on the basis of comparisons with last year's figures. If viewed in

this manner, there is no doubt that one could suggest that the ministry

will be spending approximately $25 million less than was estimated for

the previous year. But it could also be argued, and I think it would be

much more factual to argue such, that we will in fact be spending $50

million more on social services and income assistance and other

requirements of persons in need in this province, more than we did in

'76-'77. In fact, I would suggest that the budgetary estimates as

outlined in '76-'77 were based on the experience of an administration

grown too accustomed to overruns, and giveaways, and to an

unaccountable administration that had little option but to plan for

these ill-administered contingencies in their estimates for last year.

But even so, let's look at the record for the Ministry of Human

Resources for 1976. For the first time in two years the rates for

welfare recipients were increased substantially by up to $70. But in

keeping with good administration and the philosophy of providing

benefits to those most in need or most deserving, these increases were

provided selectively, so that some 20,000 single parents, who were

forced to provide as much of a normal life as possible for their

children, were given the consideration of an additional $50 per month.

Persons in the nearly-impossible employment category, aged 55 to 59,

were granted $70 per month.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these were increases provided through a budget that enjoyed surpluses.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Tell us about the handicapped!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Increases to persons in need rather than simply another giveaway.

MR. LEVI: Tell us about the handicapped!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Increases at a cost of more than $17 million.

Let's look at some of the other extended benefits that were provided during the current fiscal year.

[ Page 364 ]

Day-care rates were increased from $120 to $140,

which is an increase of 16 per cent — the first time in two years that

there was an increase in this very necessary subsidy.

Let's look at another programme that required a complete overhaul

and much-needed rate increases: the area of personal-care rates

provided to our many citizens in personal-care homes and private-care

hospitals. When I assumed office one of the most frequent presentations

that was made to me was the inadequacy of the rates provided to

personal- and intermediate-care homes. Again, the suggestion was that

the services being rendered to senior citizens in these homes were

suffering terribly because of inadequate funding.

In an effort to improve these services and provide more cases and

better care for our senior citizens, the personal rates were increased

in July from $275 per month to $340 per month, an increase, I might

point out, of 23.6 per cent in a year of surplus. Likewise, the

intermediate-care rates were increased from $440 to $500 per month, an

increase of 13.6 per cent. The nursing-home rates were increased from

$577.50 to $750 per month. The total cost of this much-needed rate

restructuring was over $6 million in a budget, once again, that is

enjoying a surplus this year.

This ministry also recognized the inequitable situation faced by

eight lower mainland municipalities which were still forced to provide

the full administrative costs for welfare. As Minister of Human

Resources, and more particularly as mayor of Surrey, I felt that these

charges were most unfair and not a rightful charge against the citizens

of these municipalities. As a result of this review, we initiated a

very costly takeover of this administrative function from these

municipalities and, at the same time, reduced the participation by the

remaining municipalities in this province in the total welfare costs so

that a $3.3 million saving was provided to them at the cost of the

provincial government, and more particularly the budget of the Ministry

of Human Resources.

There are some further, perhaps minor, increases that were granted,

increases to services that, while not terribly significant in the

public eye, we must certainly view as progressive to the recipient of

the services. We increased the rates for dentists and opticians who

provided services to welfare recipients so that professionals could

provide the same services they provide to the general public. No longer

will our welfare recipients be burdened with receiving welfare teeth or

welfare glasses. We are paying the going rates and recognizing the need

for this kind of preventative health care.

Again, another minor change, but one that I feel is most significant

to the recipient, is the increase in the annual Christmas bonuses.

Families received increases from $15 to $25, while single individuals

received an increase from $10 to $15. While I could certainly agree

that the dollar figures do not seem particularly significant to you or

me, I can assure you that the recipient of this little additional

benefit at Christmas is most appreciative of this consideration.

There is one other increase that is very close to my heart, and one

on which I will have a good deal more to say during the estimate

discussions: the additional benefits that were provided this year

through the achievement centres and handicapped workshops throughout

the workshop. In an effort to increase services and provide more

adequately to the many worthwhile societies which offer this service to

handicapped individuals, this ministry infused an additional $1 million

into these programmes this year — $1 million, I might add, granted in a

year of surplus.

How was this feat of providing more for less accomplished? It was

not through magic, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, but rather through

policy refinement and good, solid administration. The policies of this

ministry now reflect our view that responsibility must first fall to

the individual and only secondly to the state to provide support or to

seek employment. I have insisted that wherever possible an individual

must first look to himself either to provide support through his own

resources or to be actively available for or seek employment.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the result of this effort,

particularly in relation to the expenditure for welfare, has been most

startling. Our figures now indicate that the welfare roll is at the

lowest level it has been since any time in the last four years. The

figures have dropped drastically since January, 1976. As a point of

comparison, I might use the figures for October, 1975, with which the

hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), I am sure, will be

familiar: in October, 1975, the number of people in receipt of welfare

was 133,051; in October, 1976, one year later, following this

administration taking hold of the situation, there were only 107,786.

This is a drop of 20 per cent in the welfare rolls in one year. This

figure is even more significant when the number of single men on

welfare is compared with the figure in 1975. In October of 1975, 18,185

single men were in receipt of welfare benefits through this ministry. I

submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this particular category of individual

is generally considered the most employable, and therefore any

reduction in these numbers would seem to directly reflect upon the

efforts of the ministry to insist upon work before welfare.

In October of 1976, just three months ago, the number of single men

in receipt of income assistance has dropped to 12,285, a reduction in

that particular category of 33 per cent. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

that this is how surpluses are effected: not through magic, not through

denying increases to the

[ Page

365 ]

needy and the deserving, but rather through solid administration, policy refinement and accountability.

I expect to discuss my programmes and policies more fully when the

estimates come before this House, with respect to employment

particularly, but I would like to take a moment to comment on one

particular programme which has received a good deal of criticism by

both the opposition and the press in recent weeks, and I suggest to

you, Mr. Speaker, this has been most unfair. Of course, I am referring

to the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Programme, PREP for

short, which was initiated by this ministry in late July and has

achieved some remarkable results that I feel are commendable in spite

of the negativism that has characterized the attacks on this concept by

the opposition in the press.

In reviewing this criticism, it seems apparent to me that it has

been put forward by people who would suggest that welfare is better

than work; by people who have no concept of the dignity of a day's

labour; by people who have the audacity to suggest that jobs cannot be

found in an era of high unemployment; by people who claim that there

are already sufficient agencies, such as Canada Manpower, to provide

this service and that PREP is a duplication; by people who, it would

seem, prefer the easy giveaway, the provision of more and more welfare,

rather than a much more arduous task of really helping persons who are

anxiously seeking to obtain employment. This programme has been

criticized by people who suggest that the costs are not worth the

benefits; by people who expect magic solutions to basic problems; by

people who view job-finding as a numbers game.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that PREP is not a numbers game. PREP

was not designed to support itself with a lot of inflated figures or to

try to calm the public into thinking that the Ministry of Human

Resources has found some magic solution to the very basic problem of

getting jobs for people. We are not engaged in a contest but rather a

service, and a service that I feel fills a much-needed void in our

counselling programme for employable people who are unable to find work.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that placement agencies such as Canada Manpower

fully concede that they only deal with perhaps 20 per cent of the total jobs

on the market at any given time and that 80 per cent of the jobs are located

by the hard, street-pounding effort of individuals seeking work. Moreover, Canada

Manpower will similarly concede that they are not geared to finding employment

for the hard-core or difficult-to-employ, but rather emphasize in their efforts

the more skilled who can be referred to a number of jobs posted on the Canada

Manpower boards. But what do they do, Mr. Speaker, with the individuals who,

through no fault of their own, have few skills and little confidence to go out

on the street and talk to employers, fill in application forms, pressure and

cajole and continually phone until they locate a job? This is a job which has

not been done by Canada Manpower but has been taken on by PREP. I suggest to

you that previously there was nothing for these people and now there is PREP.

I grant you that many of the jobs found are the lower-paying jobs.

They are jobs at, or just above, the minimum wage level, jobs that in

some instances are not viewed by the general public as the most

desirable, but I suggest to you also that the critics of this programme

are viewing that fact from a point of ease and opulence that renders

their views useless because, Mr. Speaker, by comparison with welfare —

even with the greatly increased rates that this government has

initiated in the first year — a job offers not only a better financial

outlook for the individual but also the dignity and sense of union with

the community and personal worth a job can bring.

But there will always be those who overlook the work of the

programme on the basis of its service to needy clients, who will insist

that we produce huge numbers to justify its existence, rather than to

simply suggest that it is serving human needs. Those who suggest, for

instance, that jobs can't be found in a period of high unemployment

might be surprised to learn that in the programme's infancy, when the

Jobfinders were still learning their territories and their tactics, a

total of 3,750 jobs were found throughout this province by Jobfinders —

by the agents of PREP actively going out and pounding the street on

behalf of welfare recipients to assist them in locating employment.

In addition and because of the unique nature of PREP, we also had

access to Canada Manpower files, and whenever we could not fill

positions we reciprocated by providing our unused jobs to them. Using

this method in the first five months of the programme 4,465 welfare

recipients have been placed in employment throughout this province —

4,465 individuals who previously had to rely on the state, 4,465

individuals whose families, in many cases, existed with the spectre of

welfare hanging over their heads, many thousands of children whose view

of life might always have reflected this reliance on state support had

not these jobs been found.

Let me read to you two examples of the results that have been achieved through this programme. A letter received recently reads:

"Thank you for your concern. Even though you couldn't

help directly, your expediting seems to have paid off. Your Jobfinder

contacted me, I drove down and got my son to see him. My son is now

working for the city and is in a job and will be able to clear off some

of his debts.

"Thank you for your time. Most people

[ Page 366 ]

don't realize the concern that your department has for those

who genuinely need assistance."

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): "Signed, Mrs. Vander Zalm."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Another letter:

"I couldn't find a job, and after answering several

ads in our local paper, I thought, well, I'll go down to Manpower, and

so I went. There, stationed between two partitions with stacks of paper

were two young people, both PREP workers. This was Friday morning at 11

a.m. Both detained their lunch hour to fill in forms for me and I left

with a feeling they won't be able to find me a job.

"I came home at 2 p.m. came a call: 'You have an

interview. Call this number.' At 5 p.m. I was hired. I started at 9

a.m. the next day. The job is one block away, terrific pay, terrific

hours, just perfect.

"I understand PREP is a new programme, and I just had

to write and tell you how pleased I am with this programme and the two

people on your staff."

Isn't there dignity, pride and appreciation in the tone of these letters?

MR. LEVI: May I ask if you will table them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I will. The member asks if I will

table the letters, and I will certainly do that. I'm wondering if

perhaps the member will read that letter, or if he will certainly again

take a negative attitude, as appears to be so common from that side of

the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I challenge anyone in this House to say

that there isn't a dignity, despite the previous remarks that were just

made by the member.

I challenge anyone to suggest that the expenditure of $100 or even

$1,000 to find that person a job isn't worth the effort or isn't worth

the costs, which brings me to the matter of cost benefit, a criticism

which I have heard over and over again and which appears to me

ludicrous in terms of the kinds of results that have already been

achieved. I will admit to this House, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way

to determine totally accurate figures. There is no way to say that we

have saved precisely X amount of dollars for removing this particular

individual from the income-assistance rolls. There are far too many

variables in this equation for me to provide you with an exact cost

benefit.

There are persons who locate employment and then, for whatever

reason, come back onto the welfare rolls, and certainly there are

persons for whom jobs are found through PREP who might otherwise have

found a job on their own. I fully concede these facts and I'm certain

that the easy-money philosophizers will point these out ad nauseam. But

let's look at the facts in the most conservative way possible.

Suppose that it costs only $1,000 a year to maintain an individual

on welfare, a figure that, I might point out, is only one-half of the

lowest annual rate that might be provided by this ministry. Even with

this estimate those 4,465 placements have saved, on an annual basis,

$4.4 million in expenditures for this ministry, in a programme that is

only five months old. And further, in a programme that only costs a

little over $500,000 a year to administer. Is there cost benefit in

dollar terms? I challenge any member of the House to say that there

isn't. To suggest that the dollars spent for PREP are not returning a

very high interest indeed, Mr. Speaker.... I suggest to you in every

sense of the word PREP is working.

Mr. Speaker, when I assumed the responsibility for this portfolio,

one of the first things that I recognized was the lack of

accountability and responsibility that was rampant in the system. Money

was being handed over right and left without any knowledge of the

purpose or the consequence, without any accounting of who received the

funds or whether such expenditure was based on policy or the whim of

the many individuals who had the cheque-signing authority. The Ministry

of Human Resources gives out $9 million annually to various community

organizations and societies to perform such social services functions.

Yet previous to this administration there was very little follow-up to

determine, first, whether there was any value to this expenditure and,

secondly, to determine whether the expenditure even met the guidelines

as outlined in the application. Furthermore, this lack of

accountability was prevalent throughout the Human Resources system — a

system, I might point out, that provides nearly $200 million in income

assistance and that had no accountability procedures prior to this

administration taking office.

One of the first steps I have taken with this ministry is the

establishment of an audit team — seven persons who circulate throughout

the province assessing procedures, policy applications, accounting and

the adequacy of services, not only in the Ministry of Human Resources

offices but in the many community organizations that are funded through

this ministry. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I think that the public

can feel assured that their tax dollars, as budgeted in this Ministry

of Human Resources, will be well spent and properly accounted for. And

when we find irregularities, misapplication of policy and

[ Page

367 ]

abuse of our system, immediate corrective measures will be taken.

Here is an example of some of the information that is stemming from

our audit team reports. The system of bringing forward files is

virtually non-existent. Of the files reviewed in one office, 60 per

cent of the applications were reasonably current; 15 per cent were one

to three years old, and 25 per cent were more than three years old.

That means that for three years or more the cheques were being

forwarded without assuring that the people were actually there or that

the need still existed. That was the system that we had to face.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): That was $100 million overrun!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In reviewing the bring-forward system,

a separate sample of files was randomly chosen from the active

caseload. None of the files had been brought forward for annual review.

None of the current applications sampled had been brought forward for

the possible four-month-increase entitlement, and only 20 per cent of

the files were current — less than one year old.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): The rest are in Gary's basement.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I cannot tell you that X number

of dollars saved have resulted from this programme. But I suggest to

you that staff in all of our offices, as well as the persons carrying

out services through community organizations, are indeed very aware of

the necessity for accountability. They are assuming a new

responsibility that, I am certain, is reflected in some part for the

budgetary surplus that the Ministry of Human Resources has enjoyed in

the fiscal year '76-'77. Perhaps, not too surprisingly, the audit teams

have discovered that several community organizations failed to report

other sources of operating income when they made application to this

ministry for funds. I can only assume that this kind of slipshod

approach has been taken in the past with the full knowledge of the then

minister (Mr. Levi) . I assure you it will occur no more. As I stated

earlier, success is a process, not an absolute. The accountability

engendered through the audit team system, I feel, is a key process that

this ministry has enjoyed.

I would like to take a few moments also, Mr. Speaker, to outline

another programme which I feel has resulted in a substantial reduction

in the 1976-77 budget of the Ministry of Human Resources. Since the

fraud investigation programme has only been in force for three months,

I can only offer the House a progress report on its activities. These

figures do not reflect Vancouver activity, since the VancouverResources

Board is only now upgrading its inspectors' programme along the

guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resources.

While we were putting this programme together, I was constantly

asked about the amount of fraud in the welfare system. There has been a

good deal of effort to place an exact figure on the abuse in our

system. During those earlier discussions I indicated that I received a

variety of reports from social workers saying, for instance, that fraud

was only 5 per cent, while some police were telling me that it runs as

high as 40 per cent. Throughout, I have indicated that accurate figures

were impossible to determine since there was no effort being made

previously to investigate or pursue fraudulent claims. Therefore an

aura of suspicion pervaded the system and reflected itself in the

credibility of the entire welfare programme in the eyes of the public.

I felt, and still feel, that this was a disservice, not only to the

tax-paying public, but also to the many deserving clients who really

should not be branded by the same label as those deliberately

attempting to defraud our system.

In addition, I indicated that reports given to me showed that a

small number of persons is ripping off our system for large amounts,

rather than large numbers defrauding the Ministry of Human Resources.

So far — and I will give you figures momentarily — it would indicate

that this assessment was, in fact, correct. We are finding fraudulent

cases of $10,000, $20,000, and even $30,000 by persons who are charged

with 15, 25, or even 40 counts of fraud against the Ministry of Human

Resources.

In reviewing the case files that we have so far collected in the

first three months of operation, it would appear that abuse of the

system falls into three basic categories. The first is the situation

where the errors and overpayments are the result of staff oversight and

inattention to application details. While these represent a

particularly small proportion of our problem, they are significant. We

are taking steps through the auditing process to correct our policies

and, procedures and ensure that our own staff is fully aware of their

responsibilities in providing benefits to persons in need.

The second category involves what I would term client-induced

overpayments. These would be situations where a client fails to report

a change in circumstance or income from another source, and is

therefore receiving benefits in excess of those allowed under our

programme. Indications are that this category represents by far a

majority of the abuse cases. Our general procedure when it is not a

flagrant case is to terminate the benefit and arrange for reimbursement

of the overpayment by the client.

Again, the more flagrant case falls under two basic categories. I

feel that our departmental investigators have taken a very positive and

compassionate

[ Page 368 ]

approach

to the pursuit of these individuals, in keeping with a responsible

attitude toward a disbursement of public funds. I can assure this House

that the ministerial inspector's programme is not out to throw people

in jail. In many cases, the action taken is simply to correct the

benefit, collect the overpayments and indicate to the recipient the

error made so that corrective action can be taken in the future.

Let me give you some examples. We had a recent overpayment of $1,380

in social assistance payments to a person who was also receiving

disabled veteran's pension benefits. This person was a paraplegic.

Obviously, there would be no good served to the public or to the

individual by prosecuting.

In another case, we found a woman with four children who was drawing

social assistance from two offices in the Fraser Valley. Upon

investigation, we found tremendous family turmoil and saw no benefit to

prosecution. However, I can assure you that full restitution was

arranged and the benefit corrected.

In another case, a person was in receipt of crime compensation

benefits after having been seriously injured. This additional income

was not reported to the ministry offices. In fact, this is a violation

of the Act and could have been prosecuted. However, this individual had

used the funds for a self-help re-training programme and prosecution

was declined in this case.

In another case a deaf person — a gentleman who was somewhat

disoriented — was in receipt of DVA and social assistance benefit and

was overpaid in the amount of $1,600. Given the particular

circumstances, no prosecution was filed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I must remind you that you are on your final three minutes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In reviewing these cases, there is no

doubt in my mind that the claims were fraudulent, that they constituted

fraud, that they are subject to prosecution and that public funds were

misspent. These cases will not show up in court, or on any list of

fraud cases that might appear in the press. We have taken a humane and

compassionate approach, one that is responsible and accountable.

However, there are those cases — very flagrant cases indeed —

where we will not only be prosecuting, but also asking that the full

letter of the law be pursued.

Several cases come to mind, but since some of these are pending in court, it

would be inappropriate of me to provide you with more than cursory details.

However, we are now pursuing one case of 29 counts of fraud where an individual

has very likely bilked this province of more than $16,000. In another case,

an individual is being charged with four counts of false declaration and 40

counts of fraud in excess of $19,000. In addition, right now in the Surrey area

alone, there are $75,000 in fraud cases pending in the court — $75,000 of the

public's money that was illegally obtained, fraudulently obtained, and we

are prosecuting these cases with all vigour.

But figures don't really tell the story of the department

inspectors' success because, as I indicated earlier, the success is an

approach and not an absolute. The departmental reports tell us that

there is a significant deterrent which will never show up on the report

figures. All indications are that clients are starting to report

changes of status more readily so overpayments, hopefully, will not be

recurring in the future. In addition, there seems to be a growing

awareness by clients that they may face trouble with someone other than

their social workers should they pursue illegal activities or make

false claims. It is curious also that in many instances, following an

inquiry by the departmental inspectors, the client will fail to

re-apply for benefits, even though no action has been taken.

Furthermore, because of the integrated provincial approach of this

programme, there appears to be a reduction in the incidence of persons

hopping from region to region and collecting income assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and outline further the many positive

approaches that have been taken through this ministry to bring down the

costs of social assistance in the province of British Columbia, to

provide greater benefits to the people in need, and I will tell more of

this in the budget debate. But certainly, all of these, and many more,

are reasons for the surplus which we are enjoying in the ministry. I am

hoping that in the year to come we will not only be saving further

money, but that we will be able to again increase the benefits to the

people in British Columbia who need our help and must turn to us. I

know that people everywhere will turn to look at this government and

this ministry and say that it's accountable and that they have faith in

government in British Columbia.

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

minister's remarks, especially in regard to handicapped people, and

would like to take this opportunity, if I may — especially enjoying the

fact that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is in the House

— to ask whether or not he and she would be willing to get together in

response to a story and an obvious problem related on the front page of

tonight's Times . I am referring, of course, to the story about the

Handicapped Action Centre in the city of Victoria, located at 2535

Government Street, which provides an important service for many of the

handicapped citizens of this city, and which was in receipt, in July of

last year, of a grant from....

[ Page

369 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: What? I am asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: The Provincial Secretary made a grant of $30,000

last July to this organization. This organization at the moment has

seen, as of tonight, five people responsible for its operations out of

a job. My question is simply whether or not, prior to April 1 and the

start of, hopefully, new financial support from this government, the

Minister of Human Resources and the Provincial Secretary would be

willing to get together to interview — as I understand, the Provincial

Secretary's executive assistant will be meeting with them — the

appropriate staff in each of their departments, and see whether or not

interim assistance might be granted these people.

I want to repeat: I did appreciate the remarks that the minister

made about handicapped people. We have, by odd coincidence, just

tonight, a report on a very important and beneficial centre for the

handicapped right here in the capital city that tonight is in some

difficulty. If the two ministers involved could get together and

discuss the matter and determine whether or not interim support might

be made available, I and they, I am sure, would be very grateful.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: If you think that that's put forward for

political reasons, political purposes, I am very disappointed. I am

very disappointed that you should make that accusation, because the

request is very simple and straightforward.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Why don't you read the article?

MR. BARBER: I read the

article very carefully.

MR. LAUK: Shame on you, Grace.

MR. BARBER: I mentioned that, and what I've asked is whether or

not we could hear tonight a commitment from the two ministers — both of whom

have a legitimate interest in the matter — to collaborate, to proceed and to

make a decision which would allow this particular group to survive until the

beginning of the next fiscal year, at which time it is hoped that her ministry

— referring to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — and the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will be able to support it. I think

that's a very simple request.

Now the subject of my speech tonight in response to the budget

address is largely derived from three announcements which I wish to

make on behalf of the government. I would like to inform the people of

British Columbia of three decisions made by this government but not yet

announced by this government, and I'm sure that once again they will no

doubt intend, if they possibly can, to get away with disputing the

facts. They may think that the travel industry of British Columbia

tricks and deceives the poor coalition millionaire now in power. They

may feel that they get false information and grossly misrepresented

facts from the tourist industry of British Columbia. I don't feel that;

they may do. However, tonight I propose to make three announcements on

their behalf.

The first announcement that I'd like to make in the spirit of the

St. Vitus dance into which those guys go every time.... I seem to have

a terrible impact on them. They get awfully twitchy every time I stand

up.

MR. LAUK: They don't like the truth.

MR. BARBER: The St. Vitus dance they're about to perform, the

twitchiness that they're about to exhibit, as usual when these facts

come out, is, in the first respect, to two decisions — two memoranda —

and one very serious result that's come forward as the result of a

decision made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Mair) — or Corporate and Consumer Affairs, as I'm sure he'd prefer

to be known — and his liquor administration branch. I'm quoting

directly from this and I'd like to assure you it's not a trick of the

tourist industry. It's not another act of deception by the chamber of

commerce. This is material from the liquor administration branch and

I'd be happy to table it. I want to make an announcement that talks

about how once again this club of millionaires is prepared to use the

club of fiscal policy to drive into the ground the tourist industry and

the restaurant industry of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once more with feeling.

MR. BARBER: From J.E. Warren, director of administration,

December 6, 1976, circular No. 63:

"This is to inform you that the new

liquor Act and regulations will be proclaimed December 31, 1976.

Proclamation of the Act will extend your existing licence(

s) to March

31, 1977. You will shortly be receiving an application form for your

1977-78 fiscal period liquor licences.

"( Signed )

"J.E. Warren, director of administration."

Simple enough. The government didn't announce it.

[ Page 370 ]

It didn't seem too forbidding when it came out. We didn't realize in

this particular piece of information, not announced by the minister,

the financial impact on the restaurant industry that it would have. It

went to all of the licencees in the province who, particularly through

restaurants, particularly through hotels with licences, sell liquor to

the people of British Columbia.

The second memo comes out on December 14, circular No. 67, once

again from the director of administration, Mr. J.E. Warren, of the

liquor administration branch: "Subject: regulation 2(1), Liquor Control

and Licensing Act." Let me repeat, this information, like the other I

have presented in this House about the dire impact of your stupid

fiscal policies on tourism, is not a trick of the chamber of commerce.

It is not

an act of deceit upon the part of the tourist bureau of

British Columbia. This is your own stuff. You haven't announced it yet

so I'm announcing it for you:

"In addition to the fee described in regulation 2(1),

a further amount equal to 5 per cent of the gross value of the liquor

purchased, shall be charged and payable at the time of purchase.

Effective date of this change is January 3, 1977, The new Act and

regulations should be in the mail next week.

"( Signed )

"J.E. Warren, director of administration."

I went tonight to speak to a friend of mine who runs a restaurant in Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: King George III.

MR. BARBER: A number of the members of that millionaires' club probably patronize that restaurant.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Churchill?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Shame! Hang your head!

MR. BARBER: It does well. It does well, and the minister would do well to listen.

I am referring to a restaurant which, running successfully enough

under the circumstances in Victoria, last year paid $2,000 in what was

formerly a 2 per cent tax on the gross purchase they made through the

liquor administration branch of liquor for their customers.

MR. KING: When we charged 5 per cent they said that was too much for the mining industry.

MR. BARBER: Well, it may be too much for the mining industry

but apparently it's just enough for the restaurant industry because

it's now gone from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. What does that mean in

cash, Mr. Speaker? This announcement I'm making on behalf of the

government — which they didn't have the courage to make themselves —

has had this result at this one restaurant. Last year he paid, in the

form of that licence tax — 2 per cent on the gross purchases — $2,000

to the Government of British Columbia. This year he is going to pay

$5,000, and more if his business should improve, as we hope it will.

MR. LAUK: Jackboot confiscation.

MR. BARBER: This government, lacking the courage to make

their own announcement tonight in Victoria, is seeing yet another

restaurant operation put in jeopardy because of the primitive, the

stupid, the backward fiscal policies of that coalition. They didn't

even have the courage to make the announcement themselves. The

restaurateurs of British Columbia discovered this in the mail.

MR. LAUK: Faint hearts.

MR. BARBER: The difference for that particular restaurant

operation is $3,000. This year he is expected to pay another $3,000.

The response? It's ordinarily that of the Provincial Secretary, who

smiles and says: "Well, you know, one of the reasons that you haven't

done so well this year is because you charge so much." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Who charges too much? From 2 per cent to 5 per

cent, and they didn't have the courage to make the announcement

themselves. This restaurant, formerly paying $2,000, now pays $5,000.

The extra $3,000 will come out — once again — of its customers, and

once again they will suffer the Provincial Secretary telling them that

they charge too much.

MR. COCKE: And telling them to smile.

MR. BARBER: And to smile more as they pay more and more and more to this coalition.

If anyone wishes to suggest, that this information is a trick

perpetrated by the chamber of commerce I will, with leave, table the

documents. It's your own. stuff; it's your own material — $2,000 to

$5,000 in one year at one restaurant. They thank you very much. They

appreciate very much what you've done.

MR. BARRETT: Help the little businessman go broke.

MR. BARBER: The second announcement I'wish to make has also not been made, this by the Minister

[ Page

371 ]

of Finance — and he may start his St. Vitus dance as quickly as he

likes. It regards the Assessment Authority of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know about that yet.

MR. BARBER: Well, the minister tried not to know about it,

but it's come out. I refer, in the budget speech, to those references

and in particular to one brief item, page 35, vote 11: the operating

grant last year to the Assessment Authority of British Columbia was

$4.2 million; the operating grant this year to the Assessment Authority

is $ 1.1 million.

Mr. Speaker, they have failed to tell the municipalities, regional

districts, school boards and the hospital districts of this province

that they are going to be stuck with $3.1 million; $3.1 million is what

they are going to have to pay because the Minister of Finance decided

not to make the announcement but merely slip it into the budget. They

have reduced the grant to the Assessment Authority by $3.1 million.

That means that the people of British Columbia, on every piece of

property they own, are going to be paying an extra three-tenths of a

mill. They paid last year on each of those pieces of property 1.255

mills; they will pay this year 1.555 mills.

This coalition once again, failing to make announcements that do not

serve their political purposes, have failed to inform the municipal

councils, the regional districts, school districts and the hospital

districts of this province that they are going to have to cough up an

extra $3.1 million because the millionaires' club has cut their grant

from $4.2 million to $1.1 million.

Let me tell you what that means in some of the municipalities of this province.

MR. COCKE: They call that sharing the wealth!

MR. BARBER: They call it revenue-sharing, by the way, Mr.

Speaker. We heard the term during the campaign; we haven't seen it much

in the Legislature.

In the city of Victoria their decision to decline by $3.1 million

the grant to the Assessment Authority means that the people of Victoria

will have to kick in an extra $75,000 this year. The people of Saanich

will have to kick in an extra $80,000 to $100,000 this year. The people

of Vancouver will have to kick in an extra $600,000 this year.

Now we can understand why they may have decided to force the city of Victoria

to pay an extra $75,000 — after all, it did have the nerve to elect a New Democrat

to represent them in this House. We can understand why they might have decided

— To do it to the city of Vancouver to the tune of $600,000. But, my gosh, Mr.

Speaker, they've done it to Saanich — $80,000 to $100,000 — and

that's represented by the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, the present Minister

of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who promised to introduce

a formula of revenue sharing within the first year of administration and at

the beginning of the second year we still see no sign of it, and who allegedly

represents the best interests of his people — $80,000 to $100,000.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): What party is he in tonight?

MR. BARBER: Remind me — what is it? Well, to make sure that

I've got him right, referring to the Liberal-Conservative-Social Credit

member for Saanich and the Islands, he promised that he'd introduce

revenue-sharing and relieve the burden. The Liberal-Conservative-Social

Credit member for Saanich and the Islands tonight has stuck his own

riding with an extra bill of $80,000 to $100,000. Now we know that he

personally doesn't get along too well with the present mayor of

Saanich, Mr. Lum. We know that they're not exactly close friends, and

there's some suspicion that Mr. Lum will be after the minister's

nomination when the coalition holds its get-together at the next....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I have heard that.

MR. LAUK: Don't tell anybody on the islands; let's keep it within these walls.

MR. BARBER: I hope it wasn't another trick of the chamber of

commerce; I hope I wasn't misled by the tourist bureau. But I have

heard that. But surely even the minister's well-known dislike for the

present mayor of Saanich is hardly an excuse for what they've done to

the Assessment Authority, hardly an excuse for what they are doing to

the people of Saanich. They reduced the grant from $4.2 million to $1.1

million, and they didn't have the courage to announce it.

The St. Vitus dance may continue: I'd like to make another

announcement on behalf of the government. You know, it's becoming very

clear to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that this

government isn't merely two-faced, it is also two-fisted — by which I

mean they give with one fist what they take back with the other.

Under revenue-sharing in the Minister of Municipal Affairs'

estimates this year we see that they've increased revenue-sharing from

$30 million to $34 million — an extra grant of $4 million. But $3.1

million they take back in extra assessments to support the Assessment

Authority.

Let me tell you what else they've done. The third

[ Page 372 ]

announcement I want to make tonight, on behalf of this government,

is to tell you what they've done to the construction programme for

homes for elderly citizens in this province. The third announcement is

this: this government has decided to reduce from $10 million to $4

million the capital funds available for the construction of homes for

senior citizens in British Columbia — from $10 million to $4 million

in this year's budget, Mr. Speaker. We see the drop in that commitment

alleged during the campaign — and made unbelievable since they're in

government — of support to senior citizens.

I think it's fairly clear now, Mr. Speaker, why they're offering free campsites to all the seniors. (Laughter.) They cut the grant for seniors' housing from $10 million to

$4 million and offer them free campsites instead. That's quite an achievement,

Mr. Speaker. It's a remarkable event.

There are a lot of seniors who will not be taken in. Contrary to

popular belief, they are not fools, morons and senile, depraved idiots.

They've wisdom and experience and they see through the ploys. They see

through the phony promises.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: They understand most clearly the lack of action.

From $10 million down to $4 million in one year. Do they deserve that,

Mr. Speaker? What have they done to deserve that kind of treatment from

that coalition? What have they done to deserve it? From $10 million to

$4 million: the third announcement tonight I would like to make on

behalf of the government, that they themselves didn't have the courage

to make. It's quite an achievement.

You know, this coalition has, in its short — and no doubt

quickly-to-be-ended-at-the-next-election — life established a

reputation for unbelievability. They promised all sorts of things, and

I'm going to get to one of them in a moment. They promised they'd pay

their full share of property taxes in the city of Victoria, the capital

city. But it's become very clear from the fiscal policies they've

developed, from the endless theft from the pockets of the people of

British Columbia — except for the millionaires — of dollar after

dollar, that none of those promises was meant sincerely in the first

place. They were meant only to attract votes. They've demolished the

tourist industry on Vancouver Island. They've attacked the restaurants

again, in another announcement they won't make. They've cut seniors

housing capital grants from $10 million to $4 million and they've

offered them free campsites.

These guys don't have a platform, Mr. Speaker; they have a treadmill. The

treadmill is this: tax them and tax them and tax them again! If I have to offer

a few incentives to get a few millionaires to run for me in the campaign I'll

promise to remove the succession duties once I get into power. How did they

get all those millionaires to run for them, Mr. Speaker? Is it possible that

some of those millionaires were told: "Once we get into power we'll

cut succession duties"? Isn't that possible?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. You know very well that

there are two bills on the order paper dealing with both succession

duties and the repeal of the Gift Tax Act.

MR. COCKE: It's in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As long as you don't refer

directly to the bills which are on the order paper, hon. member, you

are in order. I'm just cautioning you that the bills are there and

they'll be discussed in second reading, and again in committee stage,

but not during the budget debate.

MR. BARBER: I thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker. I know

it will be discussed by the people of British Columbia, by the seniors

of my riding who have seen the ambulances tripled in cost; by the

seniors who realize that the housing grants have been cut from $10

million to $4 million and they've been offered free campsites instead.

And I know they'll be discussing the decisions of that greedy little

club of millionaires over there who look after themselves before they

look after anyone else.

MR. BARRETT: What's a million?

MR. BARBER: I'd like to talk about a few promises. Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present information not authored by

myself or the Chamber of Commerce or the tourist bureau or any of those

other Commie fronts. I'd like to offer information published in the

last campaign by the two coalition candidates in the city of Victoria,

one of whom managed to hold a seat for this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that fellow — Ian who?

MR. BARBER: Rendle. I'd like to quote from one of these promises.

MR. LAUK: Colonel Flim-Flam Sam Bawlf.

MR. BARBER: The headline in the Victoria Times of November

27, 1975, reads: "A Team That Works." One of the items in it is: "More

ways they'll work for you: They promise to fight for fairer taxes for

Victoria by making the provincial government accept its fair share of

property taxes." I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if any of them remember that

promise. I wonder if any of the members of the coalition

[ Page

373 ]

remember the promise made by that group, when they were in

opposition and during the campaign, to pay their full share of property

taxes. And I wonder, now that we see them entering their second year in

power, whether they have any intention of honouring that promise.

MR. COCKE: Where's Sam tonight?

MR. LAUK: He's at the $100-a-plate dinner.

MR. BARBER: He may be at the very restaurant to which I referred earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a sellout.

MR. LAUK: It's a sell-out all right; it's a sellout to the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: This coalition government has won the distinct

honour of being the first in history to be referred to by the mayor of

Victoria as "a welfare bum." The mayor of Victoria, who is, by the

way, not a member of the New Democratic Party, referred to that

government as a welfare bum and referred most specifically to the fact

that this coalition has failed utterly to keep a campaign promise made

most seriously and taken most seriously by the people of Victoria. That

promise was — here's the information; seven facts, you know — that they

would pay their full share of property taxes.

They're now entering their second year of government. Since they

became government we've heard: "Well, now we're not so sure, because

there's some dispute about which properties actually should be taxed."

Although during the campaign it made sense to talk about 100 per cent,

although during the campaign it made sense to talk about paying the

fair share of property taxes, now that they're in government they seem

to have reconsidered.

So I'd like to read something else, and I'll do it quickly. I'd like

to read the 1976 certification Municipalities Aid Act report for

Victoria city, prepared by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Let me

repeat: it's not published by the chamber of commerce; it's not printed

by the tourist bureau; it's your own stuff. It lists every single piece

of property by roll number, legal description, land use, land assessed

values and improvements, owned by the province in the city of Victoria,

so after tonight when I read it into the record there will be no

further dispute from that group about the actual extent of property

ownership on the part of the province in the city of Victoria. Let me

start:

Roll No. 1-002-001, lot 1, Pl. 12886 — Court House, 850 Burdett Street — land assessed $772,960, improvements $2,000,870.

Roll No. 1-006-010, lot A of 311/14, Pl 19445 — 865 Yates and 1250 Quadra Street

Building — land $109,070, improvements $293,770.

Roll No. 1-018-009, lot 685 — parking, Fisgard Street — land $40,500, improvements $1,000.

Roll No. 1-025-003, lot 92 — Broughton, offices, parking — land $54,000, improvements $1,340.

They're twitching again, Mr. Speaker. They're into the St. Vitus dance again; they don't like to hear this stuff.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Let me continue: Roll No. 1-025-004, lot 91 — Broughton, offices, parking — $54,000, improvements, $1,650.

Roll No. 1-025-005, lot 90 — 737 Broughton Street — land $54,000, improvements, $1,340.

Roll No. 1-025-009, lot A of 83/4/5 Pl 27042 — Courtenay and Blanshard Streets, parking — land, $172,800, improvements $3,470.

Do you get the idea? Do you realize the impact? Do you understand the meaning.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. BARBER: It goes on — three, four, five, six, seven pages.

It is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker; they may try to pretend now that

somehow that there's an argument somewhere about what the province

actually owns. The argument exists in their mind — if mind is the word

for it. It exists nowhere else. We know what the province owns in this

city. We know the tax they should be paying. We know what they promised

to do and we see tonight the vain and hopeless attempt, now that

they're entering their second year of government, to evade a serious

campaign promise made to the people of Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Did they prevaricate?

MR. BARBER: Did they prevaricate? I don't know.

No. 1-025-011, south part of E. 30' of Lot 81 — Courtenay, parking — $16,090. No improvements.

No. 1-025-012, W. pt. lot 81 and NE pt. lot 81 — Courtenay, parking — land $54,000, improvements $1,340.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I can't do this if you're laughing like that. They're not laughing; they don't like to hear this. You shouldn't laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it in.

MR. BARBER: Shall I read it in? Here we go.

[ Page 374 ]

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): How much would every person's

house taxes be reduced?

MR. BARBER: I'll get to that in a moment. You bet they'd be reduced.

No. 1-025-014, lots 78 and 79 — the Windermere Building — land, $108,000, improvements $109,270.

No. 1-026-009, lot B,

sec. 88, Pl 26090 — Blanshard Street and Burdett Avenue, offices — land $93,370, improvements $721,670.

Do you get the idea, Mr. Speaker? It's no secret what they own. It's

no secret what the land is worth and what the improvements are worth.

It's no secret what the assessments are. Seven pages of this. I'll go

on; I'm willing.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): How much does it add up to?

MR. BARBER: Seven pages of this stuff demonstrating that the phony excuse offered by apologists for that coalition is not believable.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've listened closely to your

debate this evening and a number of times you've come very close to

transgressing the rules of this House in such statements as "phony" and

like suggestions. Now I'm suggesting to you that I'm prepared to accept

your line of debate, but I would suggest that you moderate your

language a little bit in those types of terms.

MR. LAUK: He said their figures were phony, Mr. Speaker. He didn't say they were.

MR. BARBER: I'm sure they were sincere when they made the

promise, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that they will be sincere when they make

the promise next time, having failed in their first and only term of

office to deliver the goods.

MR. COCKE: You're just far too kind.

MR. BARBER: Too kind?

MR. COCKE: Too kind.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry.

MR. COCKE: You are understanding, but your understanding is beyond belief.

MR. BARBER: Well, I wonder if it might interest the House if,

rather than reading the roll numbers, the legal descriptions, the land

and improvements, I simply continued to read, finally, into the record

all of the other buildings under the title "land use," as presented by

the Assessment Authority, that they actually own. I'll continue:

office building at 780 Burdett Avenue;

a parking lot at Humboldt and

Blanshard;

parking at Penwell and Humboldt Streets;

parking on Penwell

Street;

offices at 512 and 514 Fort Street;

offices at 1115 and

1121 Wharf Street;

offices in the Dogwood Building, 1019 Wharf Street;

the Temple Building, 525 Wharf Street;

parking on Wharf Street; the

Black Ball Ferry terminal building;

Belleville wharves and warehouses;

Belleville warehouses; Belleville Street lot;

Belleville terminal

building and docking facilities;

Belleville wharves;

offices and

parking at Yates and Johnson;

the materials testing laboratory; a

parking lot on Kingston Street;

515 Pendray Street warehouse;

Kingston

Street itself;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot on Kingston

Street;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

parking lot at Kingston and Superior Streets;

offices at 466 Superior

Street;

a parking lot on Superior Street;

412 and 414 Superior Street,

parking lots;

parking lot on Kingston Street;

the legislative buildings

themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, for at least the second time in

the last two days, the member for Victoria has deliberately misled this

House. I want to bring to the House's attention evidence of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Would the hon.

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) please take his seat? You know,

hon. minister, it is completely unparliamentary to accuse another hon.

member of the House of deliberately misleading the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 375 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: It is an unparliamentary term to suggest that a

member has deliberately misled the House. Since you rose on a point of

order and used that term, I'd ask you in the tradition of parliament to

withdraw that term.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that term, but on the point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: There is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the remarks of the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe I have the floor. I have the floor, I believe, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. BARRETT: There is no point of order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will all of the members please resume their seats?

If the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a point

of order, I'll listen to the point of order without interruption from

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or any other member of the

House. But I would like to caution all of the members of this House

that I am becoming extremely vexed with all members on all sides of

this House rising on what are spurious points of order to try to gain

attention of the Chair.

I'm glad that members on all sides recognize the seriousness of what

I am about to say, because it is extremely unparliamentary for any

member to try to gain the floor of the House if they do not have a

point of order or, in some cases, a question of privilege. Too often

too many members on both sides of the House use this as an excuse to

get the attention of the Chair when they do not have a point of order

or a question of privilege to raise.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, during the currency of the remarks of

the second member for Victoria this evening, he mentioned that my

department had not released details of a 5 per cent tax on liquor

purchases by restaurants. I will leave it to the House to decide

whether or not that was misleading, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave to

table the news release...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: ...from my department on December 3, 1976....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is perfectly capable of

keeping order in this House, hon. members. I draw to the member's

attention further that if a member....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please sit down, hon. member, until I make the point?

If a member feels that he is misquoted by another member who has

possession of the floor, he waits until that member has finished his

remarks. He then gains the attention of the Chair and asks for

permission to make a correction. He makes it quickly, to the point, and

it will be accepted by all members of the House at that time.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having followed that

procedure. However, in learning the decorum of this House I pay careful attention

to the behaviour of the second member for Vancouver East, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) and the whole bunch on the side opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make my point of order at this time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the

time that is deducted from the hon. first member for Victoria has been

duly noted and he does lose that amount of time in his debate on the

estimates.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: I wonder if the Speaker would mind explaining to the House precisely how this procedure

[ Page 376 ]

is taken care of under the new arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on occasion not only when the

second member for Victoria was speaking in debate, but on many other

occasions, we've had interruptions of the members who had possession of

the floor. I think in many respects the idea of this cross-fire that

goes across the floor and continually interrupts members from both

sides of the House is extremely unparliamentary to the person who has

possession of the floor at the time. It detracts from what they are

saying. It perhaps contributes to the loss of their train of thinking

at the particular time. It just is not a good parliamentary example.

I'll take into consideration the fact that the hon. second member

for Victoria has lost time in debate this evening because of this

exchange that we have taken.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: If it is not, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, no.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We've taken this much time; we

might as well take a little bit more. It's not a matter that a point of

order cannot be raised at any time during debate, but it is a fact of

our standing orders that if you disagree with a statement made by an

hon. member in debate, you do not take it as a point of order while he

is debating on the floor of the House or delivering a speech on the

floor of the House, you do it immediately following the speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is a point I'm trying to respect

entirely. If that is now the rule of the House, then I will certainly

obey it, and will expect the other side to obey it also. However, it

has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, certainly,

in the time I have been in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: If I must, with respect, wait until the end of his speech, I will do so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. MAIR: With your leave, however, I would like as a matter of

convenience to raise it now since I had it mostly stated.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not a proper point of order

but I will certainly listen to your explanation of the disputed terms

at the conclusion of the second member for Victoria's speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: Very well.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order....

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to assist the hon. minister, he said it is now a rule. Well, standing order 42(1)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules of the House are there for all members to read.

MR. LAUK: I was beginning to wonder, Mr. Speaker, because it has been there for generations. It's standing order 42(1), Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I would like an answer to the

question I posed earlier regarding the system the Chair has for

recognizing the time lost to a member in his turn in this debate. You

said you would take it into consideration, but I wonder if there is a

precise way of measuring the lost time.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there is. The people who record for us in

Hansard have it there. As soon as we allow the member to resume his

place on the floor of the House, I'll be in touch with them to find out.

The hon. second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration you

will give in regard to the time lost. I don't know why I make those

guys so twitchy. You know, I don't speak all that often in this House

but every time I do....

HON. MR. MAIR: Because you don't tell the truth, that's why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. BARBER: What do you mean, I don't tell the truth?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to withdraw again. Get it all over with at once.

MR. BARBER: When the Speaker gets off the phone, I'll ask you to withdraw (laughter), unless you

[ Page 377 ]

care to withdraw now. Will you withdraw that remark — that I don't tell the truth? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: While you were on the phone, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no deduction from your time, hon. member. They stopped it at the moment the hon. minister got on the floor.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that I do not

tell the truth regarding a piece of paper he is holding up in his hand.

I wonder if the Speaker would order him to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before the minister engages in another debate, I did ask him to withdraw the remark, and I am sure he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did it again!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thought you weren't listening. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: No, the member is wrong — when I knew you weren't listening!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, no — that was meant lightheartedly.

With respect, I leave it to the House to judge whether or not the remarks made by the second member for Victoria were accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would be only too pleased to put before the

House the true state of affairs vis-a-vis the Department of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If one hon. member takes offence

to a remark, whether in jest or otherwise, thrown across the floor, the

procedure in the House is to withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the second

member for Victoria were clearly inaccurate and wrong. I will not

withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't withdraw?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there are certain courtesies

extended to all members in this House by all of the members on both

sides. Tempers rise on occasion. I can understand that, but it is a

custom and a tradition of the House that if a person who is in

possession of the floor takes offence to a remark — regardless of how

innocent it may be, but it's offensive to them — the person issuing

those remarks withdraws them. Would you please do so?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the

terminological inexactitudes of the remarks of the second member for

Victoria, I withdraw the remarks.

MR. KING: What a position to take, Mr. Speaker!

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, when a member

makes remarks about any member of this House it offends all members of

this House and must be withdrawn without equivocation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows his words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister withdrew his

remarks, as I recall, but it should be an unqualified withdrawal and

then I'm sure that everyone will be happy.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have

withdrawn any imputation. I have merely pointed out that the member has

made a number of inaccurate remarks to the House and I've asked leave

of the House to point those out, and I will do so — with leave — after

the member speaks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask, hon. minister for

you to withdraw unequivocally any remarks that offended the hon. second

member for Victoria.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to prolong this

matter, but I don't know what offends him. I certainly withdraw any

imputation as to his character but I repeat that he is guilty of

inaccuracy. I would be only too pleased, on a point of order, to cite

these inaccuracies and table documents to prove them.

[ Page 378 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure that you will do that in

good time, hon. minister, but I must repeat that if a member is

offended by remarks of another member and brings it to the attention of

the Chair, I have no alternative but to ask for the withdrawal of those

remarks — an unqualified withdrawal — and this is the parliamentary

tradition.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the member might state again what particular words I used that offended him.

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. COCKE: That minister is offended every time he gets up and looks in the mirror in the morning.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, there's a lot to offend me sitting on the other side of the House — I can assure you of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any remarks that

imputed any wrongful conduct on the part of the member, and I do so

unqualifiedly, but I do wish to bring to the attention of the House, at

a later date, inaccuracies.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: It's nice to be back.

MR. BARRETT: Time's up! (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: . If I understood, briefly, the remarks of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — and I do accept his

withdrawal — I would inform him that the information I have is material

— presumably not forged — published by the liquor administration branch

and signed by Mr. J.E. Warren, director of administration.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you read the orders-in-council and the press releases?

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate that is

going to take place back and forth between two members. The hon. second

member for Victoria has the floor. I suggest you continue with your

address.

MR. BARBER: I presume that Mr. Warren circulated his memorandum with

authority. I presume he did so competently. I presume he did so with the authority

of the minister. I'm sure it was perfectly legal, and I was not questioning

that, through you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the whole point of my argument is that

it was perfectly legal. It is part of their design. It is an aspect of their

fiscal programme. I wasn't questioning it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister announced it!

MR. BARBER: If the minister made the announcement and I did not hear it, I apologize for having suggested so.

MR. COCKE: Nor did anybody else hear it.

MR. BARBER: If the minister issued a press release which my

office did not receive, I apologize for the failure of our office to

receive it.

HON. MR. MAIR: There was an order-in-council!

MR. BARRETT: You've held orders-in-council back for over a week in some cases!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is not that

Mr. Warren acted without authority; it is not that the regulations are

unfounded in law; it is not that these documents are a forgery and

misrepresent government policy. I'm sure there was an order-in-council.

I'm sure it was signed by the presiding member of the executive council.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why didn't you say so?

MR. BARBER: What do you mean, why didn't I say so? I presume it.

HON. MR. MAIR: You said we didn't announce it!

MR. BARBER: What I said, Mr. Speaker, is that this

government, again and again, through policies like this, has seen fit

to tax to starvation small businesses throughout this province. I do

not recall the minister standing up in this House and announcing with

pride his latest achievement in rebuilding the restaurant industry in

British Columbia. I do not recall that. I do not recall anything. I do

presume that the regulation is totally legal. If the minister presumes

that I thought somehow it was done improperly or unconstitutionally, he

presumes quite wrong. I know it was done properly. I think it shouldn't

have been done at all.

[ Page 379 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: What's 5 per cent of it?

MR. BARBER: If I may reply briefly to the twitchy Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I'll read it again. I'll read the whole

thing. I'll read it again. It explains it.

HON. MR. MAIR: I heard it.

MR. BARBER: Well, listen then. If you heard it you'd understand:

"In addition to the fee described in regulation 2(1),

the ordinary fee paid by restaurateurs as a licence, a further amount

equal to 5 per cent" — here's the explanation — "of the gross value of

the liquor purchased shall be charged and payable at the time of

purchase."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: It's on the gross value of the liquor purchased.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I obtained these figures from the restaurateur.

HON. MR. MAIR: Name names.

MR. BARBER: He asked me not to.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And what will you do if I do?

AN HON. MEMBER: You like pushing people around, don't you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The members on both sides of the House, please allow the second member for Victoria to continue his address.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the figures in cash quoted to me

tonight by that restaurateur are not really the issue, because those

figures obviously do not apply identically to any other restaurant in

the province. What is at issue is that the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, as part of the stupid and primitive and confiscatory

fiscal policies of this government, has chosen to increase from 2 per

cent to 5 per cent yet another tax on small business in this province.

That's the issue. That's the announcement I wish to make on his behalf,

because my friend didn't know about it until he got those letters in

the mail. He's a member of the executive of the Canadian Restaurant

Association in Victoria.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already taxed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Continue, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. Let me repeat, for the final time so

as not to further vex the twitchy minister. If he understood me to say

that Mr. Warren acted without authority, or without the minister's

permission and consent, he understood quite incorrectly. I take the

minister's word that it was announced, and I will not question that.

Let me continue my list of properties owned by the provincial

government in the city of Victoria, for which they should be paying the

full property tax, because that's what they promised they would do:

Parking and storage, Recreation and Conservation department: parking, $87,970;

improvements, $15,480;

Multiplex clinic offices;

Departments of Finance, Health,

Lands and Forests offices;

Agriculture, Mines and Labs offices;

Lands and Forests,

water rights and air photo library offices;

forestry research, 514 Government Street, offices;

Civil Defence division, 506 Government Street, offices;

workshops,

584 Michigan Street;

parking lot, Michigan Street;

Conservation and Recreation

offices;

offices at 544 and 552 Michigan Street;

a radio station, at 528 Michigan

Street.

AN HON. MEMBER: A radio station!

MR. BARBER: Offices at 524 and 526 Michigan Street;

offices at 516

Michigan Street;

offices at 301 Menzies Street;

offices at Michigan Street with

no address;

Civil Defence, 517 Michigan Street;

Forestry, 521 Michigan Street;

Forestry garage;

[ Page 380 ]

parking lot on Parry Street;

parking lot on Powell Street;

parking

lot on Powell Street;

parking lot on Powell Street;

parking lot on

Parry Street;

parking lot on Parry Street;

offices at 559 Michigan;

offices at 565 Michigan;

parking lot on Government Street;

parking lot

on Government Street;

offices at 596 Toronto Street;

parking lot on

Toronto Street;

parking lot on Heather Street;

offices at 603 Superior

Street;

offices at 609 Superior Street;

offices at 611 and 613 Superior

Street.

There are three more pages and I won't continue. The point, I'm

sure, is clear enough, Mr. Speaker. This government cannot reasonably

claim that they do not know the actual extent of holdings of the

province in the capital city. They cannot claim that they do not know

the assessed values of land and the improvements thereon...

MR. SPEAKER: You're on your final three minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: ...and they cannot claim that they have not heard

the mayor of Victoria describe that coalition as the biggest welfare

burn in the city of Victoria. They have failed to honour a most

important promise. I hope that this document is not in question. If it

is, I'll be happy to table the rest. I hope that the extent of those

ownings and property holdings is not in question.

I hope that that coalition, for once, takes a serious step toward

honouring a serious campaign promise. If they had done so this year in

the city of Victoria, taxes that would have been raised by 14.7 per

cent would not have been raised at all. Taxes that were raised 14.7 per

cent would have been paid, had the largest property owner in the city

paid its share of taxes. The $1.4 million that the coalition should

have paid in additional property taxes this year, and failed to pay

because they failed to honour their promise, would have matched —

almost dollar for dollar — the tax increase that was necessary in the

city of Victoria this year.

The loss this year to the people of Victoria, according to the city

of Victoria and its comptroller: $1,408,127. The loss anticipated next

year if the coalition continues to fail to honour its campaign promise

will be $1,487,154. The taxes could have been reduced by 14.7 per cent

if the largest landowner in the city had kept its promise, if the

largest landowner in the city paid its fair share. It hasn't;

apparently it won't.

I'm prepared to stand here again and again and again for the rest of

the session and read again and again and again all of those property

holdings until it sinks in that we know what you own and we know what

you should pay. We want you to pay it. You have every obligation to do

so. You promised to do so. And you have no excuse for not doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) I would like to make a slight

explanation to the members of the House respecting what happens on

interruption of debate. Whenever there is an interruption of debate by

a point of order, or at any time when I call the House to order, the

operator of the time clock in the Hansard console has a hold button.

She presses the hold button at that time so that there is no lost time

for the person who is on their feet speaking. They get their full 40

minutes, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: Just to clarify and correct something that the

second member for Victoria said, and I accept his statement that he was

perhaps unwittingly inaccurate: The order-in-council setting the 5 per

cent charge on liquor purchases was passed on December 3. With His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's permission, a press conference was

held in the Hyatt-Regency Hotel. There were perhaps 50 reporters there.

The press conference was televised on both British Columbia Television

and the CBC and, so far as I know, the news release received the widest

possible circulation. I would like just to point out, if I may, Mr.

Speaker, so it will be perfectly clear and so that no member of the

House is under any misapprehension, that the amount of increase from 2

per cent to 5 per cent was on the gross liquor purchases. In the case

that the member for Victoria indicated, there would be $100,000 worth

of purchases to give a $2,000 tax, so presumably it's still $100,000

worth of purchases. This would be approximately $400,000 worth of gross

sales. The amount necessary to recoup that extra $3,000 would be

something around two cents a glass of whiskey. I ask leave to table the

news release, Mr. Speaker, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: We've listened to the hon. minister's

explanation of the tax and the way it's derived by the department under

his administration. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of

order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I presume the minister was on his

feet. According to rule 42(1) of the House, as I understand it, that

would be the only rule that would permit the minister to stand. A

reading of that rule, Mr. Speaker, says no member

[ Page 381 ]

may speak twice to a question, except in explanation of a material

part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood. But

then he is not to introduce any new matter and no debate shall be

allowed upon such explanation.

(2) A reply shall be allowed to a member

who has moved a substantive motion, which is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is anxious to make a

statement. However, 42(1) is clear. If there is no clarification of

42(1) and statements are allowed to be made on wide-ranging subjects,

there will be no order in debate, Mr. Speaker. Bringing in new material

is not covered in 42(1). I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would take

this under advisement and give us a written

interpretation. Further,

Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that in such instances it would be

more appropriate that leave be asked of the House to make a statement,

rather than using 42(1), which is very, very strict.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there's another rule within our

rule book which covers this matter of a difference in opinion about

what has been said by an hon. member in debate. I'll look it up for you

and quote it for you, because it is there. It's not 42(1) but it is in

our rule books.

MR. BARRETT: But I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, for the

information of all the members and for smoother debate, if it is

clearly spelled out under what circumstances any member can speak the

second time, or to a motion that is in debate, without offending the

standing rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Leader of the Opposition. I'll take the matter under consideration and bring back a report to the House.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. It's not often that I rise in my place in this House, and for

the last hour I've been sitting here anticipating this. The second

member for Victoria has been interrupted so often that I might not even

be able to get through it. But it's a great pleasure for me to be back

and rise from my place and see all these friendly faces around the

chamber. When the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) rose,

he spoke about his vacation and the things he had done in the off-term.

It's rather like getting back to school and giving a letter to the

teacher telling her what you did. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl)

and I were chosen by someone in the cabinet — I'm not sure who — to

have a great honour last summer. He hasn't mentioned it, but I'm going

to. We accompanied 28 young athletes from the province of British

Columbia, who were selected at random from their particular sports

groups, to participate in the programme of carrying the Olympic flame

in the relay between Ottawa and Montreal.

As you may know, the Premier carried the flame from the top of

Parliament Hill for the first kilometer and then these 27 or 28

athletes, both boys and girls aged from 15 to 21 — and, boy, that was a

handful handling them — carried the torch across the Ottawa River into

Quebec and were part of the process of carrying the famous Olympic

flame from Athens directly to the Olympics in Montreal.

It was a very trying experience, acting as a babysitter at my age,

but it was very enjoyable and these young athletes were a tremendous

credit to their province. Now that I've read that into the record I

feel I can proceed.

Many members of this House took the opportunity to go on vacations.

I know many of the members went to the Hawaiian Islands — I believe the

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), the member for Maui and the Islands, was

there himself. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has

already told us of her fine vacation to southern California, and there

was a rather infamous trip to Halifax by the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).

Well, Mr. Speaker, I also had the pleasure of getting away a little

bit during the recess. I did something a little different. I went to

Afghanistan, and that's about as far away from British Columbia as you

can get. In fact, once you get there, you're actually on the way back.

It's 14 1/2 hours of time change and 25 hours of flying time, so it was

quite an experience for me to go there. The first people I met when I

arrived in Kabul were, of all people, some employees of the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. You never know where they get to,

but they're involved in a CIDA programme helping the Afghans.

I am delighted to see the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King)

has just come back in because I believe his nephew is one of the people

involved in this programme. These British Columbians that are out in

this very primitive and very poor country on the back side of Asia are

helping to set them up in a way that we can all be very proud of. They

are living in a primitive country, a country where the people are

extremely proud, but where the amenities are 200 and 300 years behind

ours. It was a very great pleasure for me to go and see them and take

them a copy of the Victoria Times , which I happened to have in my

briefcase.

MR. KING: Did you take a Hansard over there?

MR. ROGERS: I was also delighted when I was there to be

accosted on the street by a constituent of mine who recognized me. I'm

not sure that I get recognized in my own constituency, but when you can

get recognized in Kabul, well, it does a lot of good for your soul.

[ Page 382 ]

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) in his remarks

to the throne speech talked about many of the problems and the

solutions which are going to affect directly our constituency, but he

also talked about Canada in particular. I suppose the recent election

in Quebec has all of us thinking about the future of Canada.

There are two things that come to mind to me. One is that Rene

Levesque and the Parti Quebecois were elected by under 40 per cent of

the people in the province of Quebec, which leads me to think that at

least 60 per cent of the people in that province are against

separatism, and I certainly am. But there's more to it than that,

because while Rene Levesque was elected by the people of the province,

many of those people — and I don't know how many of them — certainly

voted against a tremendously corrupt government run by the former

Liberal, Robert Bourassa, and his crowd. I really believe, Mr. Speaker,

that when the time has come for Mr. Levesque to put the question to the

people of the province of Quebec, they'll resoundingly defeat it. Yes,

they've got their young people that are all up and excited about it,

but I think we're making more of this than meets the eye. I really do.

I think that it's a little bit unnecessary,

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

You know, many of us wonder what Canada is all about, but I have

more friends in Newfoundland than I have in Washington state, and

that's not for any particular reason but that we're Canadians and we

know people there. There's more holding Canada together than the CBC

and the Post Office, and when we all come to realize that we'll want to

stick to this country and hold it together.

There are a number of men and women who laid down their lives in

World War II for Canada — not for Quebec or British Columbia or

Ontario. We at least owe them the courtesy of a fight to make sure that

this country stays together, one way or another.

I was going to talk about the budget speech, but I understand that the first

two items, the succession duties and gift tax, are off limits, so we'll

go onto item No. 3, and that's the mobile homes. I just want to say

I'm delighted — we have two mobile home parks in our constituency — to see

that the tax has been taken off mobile homes, because the word "mobile

home" is a misnomer in the first place. Very few of these mobile homes

are actually ever moved. They're nothing more than a permanent residence

that is constructed in a non-standard way from a regular frame house. That's

a delightful piece of information, and it does affect people in the rural constituencies

much more than it does us in the city of Vancouver, but it's a very positive

step. As far as the removal of the taxation on propane, or the reduction of

it by approximately 85 per cent, that's also a very worthwhile step. It

brings propane in line with other fossil fuels.

I have a little note at the bottom of this page that says: "Remember

to mention Woodward's." As you'll remember, Mr. Speaker, in the debate

earlier on many people said that Woodward's has complained that they're

losing money — the first time in years that Woodward's is losing money.

That's true. They've been around for an awful long time, and Mr.

Woodward — I call him Mr. Woodward; some people call him Chunky — has

led a large red herring in front of his shareholders, in front of some

of the members of the opposition, and in front of many of the people in

the public, when he blames the ICBC rates and the sales tax for the

problems of his company.

Mr. Speaker, it's one store and one store alone in the Woodward

chain that has caused him the tremendous losses they have undertaken,

and it's coincidental. Woodward's opened in Oakridge in Vancouver and

they found they had built a shopping centre that was too small. They

opened in West Vancouver, in Park Royal, and then five years later they

wished they had opened one that was twice as large. They have done the

same thing in Mayfair and in Kamloops, and they've done it everywhere.

Well, Woodward's learned their lesson over the last 20 years, and when

they decided to build their latest store they built one that was

certainly going to be big enough. The trouble is they opened it, not in

British Columbia, but in Alberta, in the city of Lethbridge, and you'll

never guess what — they built it so big that it's going to take a long

time for the city of Lethbridge to grow into Woodward's. As a result of

that Woodward's is suffering some rather substantial losses which they

have tried to blame solely on this government.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Oh, you'll get your turn. I believe everyone has his turn in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months there have been two aircraft accidents

on this coast — one was tragic and one was near-tragic. That sparks me

to make some remarks about search and rescue in this province, which is

something we all have assumed was being well looked after, but in fact,

as I will elaborate on, it is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

There is in fact on the British Columbia coast only one location for

search-and-rescue facilities as far as helicopters are concerned, and

that is at Comox. The people who are in charge of the paramedics,

pilots and maintenance crews are excellent. There's no question about

it. They are really first-rate people. They are equipment-limited and

money-limited. The trouble they have is that being based at Comox, if

there is severe cloud condition over the Island and they have to go to

Tofino, they either have to go up

[ Page 383 ]

around the north end via Port Hardy or down around Victoria, and

with the advent of increased shipping on the coast it is high time we

really took a serious look at it.

Many people say that the coast guard looks after this, but under the

terms of reference of the coast guard they are not involved in search

and rescue. I am going to quote from Lieutenant-General W.K. Carr, who

is the commander of the Air Command Division of the Canadian Armed

Forces. He was asked in January, 1977...and I quote from a prestigious

magazine, Canadian Aviation . The inquirer says: "Let us talk about

search and rescue for a moment. Recently it took a search-and-rescue

helicopter four and a half hours to reach a disabled freighter off the

coast of Newfoundland." That's understandable because the Canadian

Armed Forces don't maintain any search-and-rescue facilities in the

province of Newfoundland. He said: "Do you have the equipment to do the

job?" The general's answer is this: "Our technical responsibility is

only for air search and rescue. Marine rescue is really the

responsibility of Transport Canada and the Canadian coast guard, but

their search aircraft aren't really equipped. Besides we are not going

to just sit around when something happens."

Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the responsibility of the Canadian coast

guard? Their function is to attend to navigation aids, lighthouses and

blinkers, and they have some small cutters and one hovercraft — now

being increased to two — which patrol the waters of the Strait of Juan

de Fuca and Georgia strait in very limited amounts. As you know, the

American coast guard in Port Angeles has effected more rescues in these

waters in recent years than anyone.

There's another act in there, too. The RCMP marine division —

they're involved as well. They are in charge of enforcing the

regulations of the Ministry of Transport regarding such things as fire

extinguishers, lifebelts, oars and the rest of it — and they do a

certain amount of search and rescue. In fact all vessels up to 14,000

tons come under the perusal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What about the military facilities? We have a Canadian Air Force

base at Comox; we have a base at Esquimalt; there's a base at Masset in

the Queen Charlotte Islands, so the infrastructure for a more elaborate

search and rescue facility is there — the cooks, the maintenance people

and the rest of it that we need. The only thing we have to do is,

somewhere in the federal budget, decide if we seriously want to be

involved in total search and rescue, not just air search and rescue.

Unfortunately the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the

lawyer, is not here right now; he could tell us what the technical

qualities are because obviously when the air force gets through with

air search and rescue, once the machine is on the ground, I guess it is a different thing.

We've been very lucky recently, but a tragedy could strike at any

minute and it is time this very serious matter was looked into.

Coast guard helicopters are based at Sidney. at the airport, but, as

I said earlier, their primary function is to tend to navigation aids,

and they have no facilities for rescuing people. The Canadian navy and

the Department of Fisheries are already involved. I appreciate that

this is largely a federal matter, but it is the lives of the citizens

of this province that are involved and I think it is high time the

matter was placed on a higher priority.

The government, in the throne speech, talked about air ambulance and

air ambulance service. With the proper equipment we are going to be

able to see facilities for moving people from all parts of this

province to first-class medical treatment within two or two and a half

hours of the time the aircraft is able to get there, which leads me to

one other thing.

There are only two airports in this province that have radar

surveillance. In fact the capital city here isn't even blessed with

that little modern technological aid that was invested, I guess, during

World War II. In fact the only piece of mainline airline routes in all

of Canada that is not covered by radar is right here in British

Columbia. There's no question that we have been on the poor end of the

receiving from the federal Ministry of Transport.

There is a desperate and pressing need for a mid-coast airport

somewhere in the vicinity of Ocean Falls. There is no way that you can

possibly fly a float-equipped airplane under instrument flight

conditions to any destination on the coast and have a landing. It's

just not feasible. The technicalities aren't there. You have to build a

runway and you have to put an instrument landing system so that people

on the mid-coast, Ocean Falls and other places, are able to get out

with something other than the World War II transport that they're

presently using today. It's just post-World War II — 1947 is the....

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): The worst in 60 years!

MR. ROGERS: Well, that's your opinion. I wasn't around 60 years ago, and you really don't show your age that badly.

You know, if the Ministry of Transport had it in their budget to put

a chain-link fence around every airport in the province of British

Columbia, I think they can find it in their budget to get some proper

equipment for us.

You know that the advent of the oil tanker is going to be on us. The

hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) spoke earlier of the Jones Act , and

while the Jones Act will ensure that tankers going from Valdez in

Alaska to Cherry Point will at least be

[ Page 384 ]

American-owned and American-crewed and American-manned, we at least

have that assurance. We still aren't properly prepared for any kind of

policing of shipping lanes or anything else, and I think that my

earlier remarks about a little more surveillance on this coast might be

worthwhile. But, as you know, the Department of National Defence have

decided that the new billion-dollar airplanes they've bought for

maritime patrol are going to the depressed Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, once in every year at least, every merchant in this

province and in this country stops to take inventory. They take

inventory for many reasons. They take inventories to plan their

following year's budgets, to see where they are now, and to review

where they've come from and decide where they want to go.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that we take inventory, not of our mistakes

and our failures, but rather of our achievements. Let us become

reacquainted with our assets and discover that, as British Columbians,

we have the potential for greatness. Let us take inventory of our

people, our resources, and our very political system. These are our

greatest assets and yet we become obsessed with our liabilities. All

members of this House have a common goal — at least I hope they do —

and that's for making a better British Columbia. We have different

ideas on how to achieve this goal, but in essence it is our common

goal. So let us review our assets, our major ones — the people, the

resources and our political system.

Mr. Speaker, these are British Columbia's assets and they have been

underestimated and sold short and devalued for far too long. In

comparison with the rest of the world we are very healthy, very well

fed, well housed and well educated, and we have nothing and no one to

apologize to. We owe no debt to anyone. In this very large world we

live in there are few countries and few people who live with such

freedoms as we live with. When we take inventory we realize that fewer

than 10 nations live as we do: our children do not go to bed hungry;

our old people do not die for lack of medical care; education in

British Columbia is not just for the rich; there are no soldiers with

guns in our streets; people are not condemned to mediocrity because of

their names, their colour or their religion.

Our second greatest asset is our natural resources, an almost

limitless potential. Canada alone possesses more than three-quarters of

the world's fresh water and, Mr. Speaker, this simple glass of clear,

pure drinking water is an untold luxury in many parts of the world. It

certainly is in Afghanistan.

Our resource assets are stored up in the province that dwarfs

western Europe and is larger than Washington, Oregon and California

combined. Take inventory of British Columbia's resource assets and try

to match them anywhere else on earth. Our timber, our natural gas, our

coal, our industrial metals, our rangelands, our fishing grounds, our

farmlands and, yes, even our vineyards, Mr.... Ah, he's not

listening...magnificent recreational areas with abundant wildlife.

Above all, our second asset, and most valuable of all resources, is

room. British Columbia has a resource of space to grow and expand for

decades to come.

But again, Mr. Speaker, the doomsayers will point out our

shortcomings and our mistakes, and they would have us destroy all our

assets. We should roll over and die as some sort of penalty for our

alleged errors.

Well, we will expand our resource assets. We will build a base for

secondary industry and still further enhance the opportunities for all

British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, it takes what we already have, raw

materials and room and people with drive and initiative to make it

happen.

Let us take inventory of our third and biggest asset, our political

system. Democracy is taking an awful beating these days. The gutless,

the envious, the lazy, the freeloaders, the tyrants, the non-achievers

of the world keep telling us that democracy is finished and it won't

work anymore. They point to the fact that there are fewer than 20

nations which have a democratic government. There are 126 nations in

the United Nations and there are more on the outside. What's more, Mr.

Speaker, they're absolutely right. I have some facts as well, though.

This particular group of doomsayers never mentions, however, that these

democracies, and only these democracies, possess the highest standard

of living, the greatest personal freedom, the widest range of

opportunities and the fullest bellies in the world. We must be doing

something right!

If you stop and take inventory of the things we're doing right,

you'll find it very refreshing if nothing else. Believe in what we're

doing and compare our assets and our political system to the Chinas,

the East Germanies, the Argentinas, the Ugandas, the Koreas and the

Indias of this world, and ask new Canadians who come from those

countries to British Columbia and they'll tell you what we're doing

right.

Democracy survives and prospers in partnership with free enterprise.

Our political system is structured in freedom — the personal freedom of

risk-taking, initiative and earned rewards for hard work. These are

earned rewards that produce revenue, and the salaries and the wages for

the workers and the tax revenues for our democratic government to

provide the services people want. Our people want top-flight health,

education and human welfare services. The assets of our political

system, our democracy, have made these wants a reality in British

Columbia. The assets of our political system are the envy of most of

the world, and why not? We enjoy its reward and freedom, but we must

never forget how it works and

[ Page

385 ]

why it works.

Mr. Speaker, in taking stock of British Columbia's assets I urge

this House to reject self-doubt. We are blessed with riches beyond our

imagining. This House is setting its goals for the future, and would be

wise to take inventory of our assets today: people, resources and

democracy. B.C. already has the assets for greatness; let us get on

with the job and the adventure of making it happen.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it's a real

privilege to rise today as the elected member for Burnaby-Edmonds. For

a while, the last couple of days, I thought I was representative of

Burnaby-Willingdon after my friends in Burnaby-Edmonds did a mail drop

in Burnaby-Willingdon instead of Burnaby-Edmonds. However, in open

house in my office I've invited my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon to

greet all his friends as they come to visit me in my office.

Before going into details, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first of all

extend congratulations to a very special citizen in my constituency. On

Friday last my wife and I were honoured to bring greetings to a Mrs.

Selena Myles who has done something that very few of us will do; she

reached her 107th birthday on January 21. Here is a lady who is 107

years old, who is in very good health, who raised 13 children, who

lost her husband when she was 50, who kept her own home and garden

until she was 100 years old, and on top of all that still has a

tremendous sense of humour.

I'd also like to express my real appreciation to the cabinet for the meetings which they had on December 2 in Burnaby.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: The meetings in Burnaby, I believe, to the best

of my knowledge, were a first where the provincial government — the

cabinet of the provincial government, Mr. Member — met in Burnaby, and

at a point where some of us in Burnaby were beginning to think that

maybe we were just a little neglected.

MR. KING: I can believe that!

MR. LOEWEN: I can say, of the different briefs I was honoured

to be part of and I which I was able to encourage to be presented to

the cabinet, that they left those meetings extremely enthused and

extremely pleased. Already I can say that there's a great

follow-through and there are some very real things happening as a

result of those briefs.

One of them, incidentally, was a brief that was presented from New Westminster,

and already, so promptly, we have the realization of that tremendous development

in that neighbourhood riding of New Westminster.

Then I'd like to also extend my congratulations to the Premier on that day of December 2.

MR. KING: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: My two children, Mr. Member, and I got up at 6

o'clock that morning and jogged around the track of the Burnaby South

High School. Now my children and I couldn't keep up with the Premier,

but I brought four ringers from the YMCA in New Westminster. I didn't

tell the Premier this, but these four fellows were in very good shape

and I understand, even though I could not keep up with them, that the

Premier stayed right up with the four, and the four are looking forward

to his visit in New Westminster, and are looking forward to the Premier

in fact taking the physical fitness test at the YMCA in New

Westminster. I hope that can be arranged shortly. As I said, I don't

mind losing the small ones, but it's the big ones that count.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Give it to the opposition — they need the exercise.

MR. LOEWEN: I do believe that we could arrange a physical fitness test at the YMCA in New Westminster for the opposition as well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the subtle things in a budget are often

ignored, and the subtlety I feel that possibly has not had the emphasis

that I feel it should have had is a very simple fact that in this

budget in this year we had the smallest increase in recent history. To

me, that alone suggests that this is a fantastic budget. There might

not be a lot of pay-offs, as we have seen in some budgets, but the very

fact that this provincial government at this time in history has

exercised the restraint, the self-discipline and the determination to

produce a budget with an increase of only 5.9 per cent has to be seen

and recognized as being nothing short of fantastic and sensational.

Let me read a couple of excerpts. I'm pleased to know that so often

we underestimate the intelligence and the responsibility of the average

citizen — particularly the opposition. I read from an editorial in The

Province , dated Tuesday, January 25. It's headed: "The Right Budget For

The Right Time." It says:

"Yet it may be the right budget. The government faces two alternatives."

We as government members know this, and I trust the opposition is listening.

"The government faces two alternatives in confronting the economic situation.

It can inject some new stimulus to encourage industrial expansion and more spending

at home. To do that it would either have to cut

[ Page 386 ]

services" — services to people — "and maintain a balanced budget or

maintain services and go into the red. Or it can stand pat and wait for

world economic conditions to improve sufficiently to take up the slack

at home.

"No amount of stimulation by the British Columbia government

can improve foreign markets."

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't address, as some of the

other members have to some extent, my interest and my knowledge and my

experience on mobile homes.... Before I do that, I would like to make

it clear that I have divested myself of almost all my interests and

have moved out of that particular business.

First, I believe that "mobile homes," as the previous speaker said,

is a misnomer. Very slowly government officials at different levels are

realizing that mobile homes are really a modular home, a factory-built

home, a home that can usually be produced at a lower cost. The public

has realized this, because the public is clamouring for this kind of

home.

I'd also like to point out that, really, a mobile home is a creative

type of home that is needed and is in the same price bracket as

condominiums are today. When you can produce a detached single-family

home including furniture and land in the $35,000 to $50,000 bracket,

you're really doing something. I think it is time that government

officials at different levels began to recognize that many people are

only in the wage bracket where they can afford homes in that price

range.

Now not only do they have all the advantages of ordinary

single-family living, but they have many additional ones. The very fact

that there are eight small homes to an acre rather than possibly three

or four suggests a sense of community much greater than is found in

most communities. Not only that, but there is a security that is

enjoyed by many senior people, the security of having one entrance way

into a park and usually one entrance way out. Possibly 100 homes, and

hopefully in time 300 or 400 homes in a community such as that, suggest

a security, particularly for senior citizens, that is not enjoyed in

most suburban subdivisions today.

I suggest that there should be some changes in regulations for people to begin

to really enjoy this type of accommodation. First, there must be a move to encourage

strata-titling of this kind of park. The fact that many people are living in

mobile-home parks today where they have to pay on today's market $150 to

$180 rent on top of buying their own home is not really in their best interest.

Generally, the best arrangement that we should make for our people is to encourage

strata-titling so that the people can have a feeling that this is their own

land that they're on, and they're not subjected to monthly or annual

increases in rent.

Let me point out one other key point. If mobile-home park developers

would be allowed to compete with property on the same price as ordinary

subdivisions, this alone would lower the cost of property approximately

$20,000 an acre, or $2,500 per mobile home. When you think that $1,000

in financing on today's market suggests approximately $18 in rent, you

would be able to lower the rent, if it is a rental mobile-home park, by

$45 per month just by simply opening up the possibility of park

development. Enough of that.

I'd like to speak just a little bit further on transportation

systems in the lower mainland. Let me first of all read from a report

from the GVRD: "The Greater Vancouver Regional District has called for

the establishment of a 10-year road and transit improvement programme

for the metropolitan area, co-ordinated by a provincial-regional

transportation organization."

Perhaps the most significant effect is that the average travel speed

in the region during rush hours will drop to 17 miles an hour within

three years and the average for buses to 8 miles an hour. This drop,

caused by congestion, will cost commuting drivers approximately $120 a

year more in gasoline, which is more than it would cost to carry out

needed improvements to the transportation system. On a per capita

basis, less has been spent — and I'd like to point this out

particularly to the cabinet — on improvements in this region in the

lower mainland than any of 10 other metropolitan areas in Canada.

Travel within the region has been increased at about 9 per cent a year

and many people are now spending 15 per cent of their income on

transportation.

I suggest that any delay in developing the transportation systems in

the lower mainland, Mr. Minister, is not in the interest of our

taxpayers. I suggest that because of inflation and because of the

increase of property costs, together with the lower construction costs

of the present time, the costs of future development will only

increase. With the bottleneck that we have generally in the lower

mainland, and I refer particularly to Burnaby-Edmonds and all the

traffic coming from Surrey and Langley and through New Westminster into

Burnaby and down to Vancouver, it's high time that a high priority be

made on the transportation systems in this area. I'm pleased that in

discussions with the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), he has given a strong indication that likely tenders will be

on two of the systems in 1977.

If we could also call on the expansion of North Road from Coquitlam

and through Burnaby into New Westminster, and some direction in respect

to rapid transit, and tying that together with this major development

in New Westminster, we will truly have a suburban development that will

be beyond compare

[ Page

387 ]

in a modern city.

I would also be remiss if I didn't touch on some of the experiences

that I had in the Far East in October and some of the things that I

felt that I should pass on in this debate. First, I'd like to say that

our group was treated very, very royally. The Chinese people were more

than just a little kind to us. I'm thinking particularly of the great

dinner at the Peking Duck restaurant. The 17-course Peking duck meal

that we had over there in Peking was just tremendous. But touching on

just a few things: one of them was the air raid shelter that we

visited. I couldn't help but scratch my head. I had a few questions

such as: how could a country with an average wage of $20 to $30 a month

expend so much of their resources in building air raid shelters

throughout all of their major cities? I asked a simple question: Who

were the people of China really concerned with? And I had a refreshing

answer. For a change it wasn't the ugly American or the ugly westerner.

They suggested that their major fear, their major concern, were

neighbours in the north.

With the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who is here

today, I'm pleased to report that at the Shanghai Hospital we witnessed

an operation where they used acupuncture anaesthesia during a

hysterectomy operation. I can tell you it works, because I saw it. I

saw the lady discussing the operation with her doctors as it was being

performed. And I'm very pleased that, a few days after my appearance on

a local radio programme, the minister was able to make an announcement

that the medical association, in fact, is recognizing certain areas in

acupuncture. And the medical association is furthering their interest

and, in fact, recognizing some very key aspects of acupuncture.

I'd also like to report that I saw Senator Mansfield in the hallway

of one of the hotels and I couldn't help but go up to him and introduce

myself, as we say in China, as "a responsible person from British

Columbia." As we said hello and we exchanged greetings, he said to me:

"Now, Mr. Loewen, remember that British Columbia is part of

Washington." I thought very quickly and I said, "yes, Senator, but

please remember to give us our share of the lumber industry," to which

he made a promise, and we wished each other well.

We attended a Canton trade fair and had a very good time there and,

I feel, learned something about the produce and the possibilities of

trade in China.

Now the one thing that again and again I tried to ask our guide