1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

995 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Lobbying of ministers by horse-racing interests. Mr. Macdonald — 995

Government loan to ICBC. Mr. Gibson — 995

Future of the Beanery. Hon. Mr. Fraser answers — 996

Lease transfers of Inner Harbour docks. Mr. Barber — 996

Payment for the Prince George. Mr. Lockstead — 996

Minister's attendance at BCR meetings. Mr. Wallace — 997

Administering of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 997

Calling of resolution 6. Mr. Macdonald — 998

Ruling of foreign investment review agency. Mr. Gibson — 998

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 999

Mr. Barnes — 1003

Mr. Strongman — 1010

Mrs. Jordan — 1013

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 11), Committee stage.

section 1

Mr. Lauk — 1016

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1017

Mr. Lauk — 1017

section 2.

Mr. Stupich — 1017

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Stupich — 1017

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1018

Mr. Lea — 1019

Mr. Gibson — 1020

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1020

Division on amendment to

section 2 — 1020

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 1020

Report stage — 1020

Division on third reading — 1020

Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976 (Bill 7), Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stupich — 1021

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1021

Mr. Stupich — 1021

Mrs. Wallace — 1021

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1021

Ms. Sanford — 1022

Ms. Brown — 1022

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1023

Mrs. Wallace — 1023

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1023

Ms. Brown — 1023

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1023

Ms. Brown — 1023

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1024

Ms. Brown — 1024

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1024

Mr. D'Arcy — 1024

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1024

Ms. Sanford — 1024

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1025

Report stage — 1025

Division on third reading — 1025

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 9), Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stupich — 1025

Mr. Gibson — 1025

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mr. Gibson — 1026

Ms. Brown — 1026

Mr. Gibson — 1026

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mrs. Wallace — 1026

Ms. Brown — 1026

section 4.

Mr. Nicolson — 1026

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mr. Stupich — 1027

Report stage — 1027

Division on third reading — 1027

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 12).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Barnes — 1027

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1027

Report and third reading — 1027

Privilege

Confirmation of Easter break. Mr. Wallace — 1027

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 1027

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1027

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): This morning I was

privileged to convene the first meeting under this new government of

the North Fraser Study Policy Committee. I am happy to tell you that

seated in the gallery as part of that delegation is Mr. J.S. Alsbury,

the chairman of the North Fraser Harbour Commission, and the port

manager, Mr. McEwen. The other members have had to return to the lower

mainland but we have had a very fruitful meeting. I would ask the House

to welcome the two members.

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

the Legislature today is a group of students who are touring British

Columbia from la belle province, Quebec. They are members of their

school basketball team there and they are students at the Macdonald

High School in Quebec City. Their team holds the provincial basketball

championship. Their tour of the Legislature was arranged through the

Mt. Prevost School in Duncan, which school they are presently visiting.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them, together with their

chaperons and coaches, to this House today.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Monsieur l'Orateur, ca me

fait plaisir pour avoir l'honneur cet apres-midi de souhaiter bienvenu

aux etudiants de la province de Quebec.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Monsieur l'Orateur, je voudrais me joindre dans ces sentiments.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Visiting the Legislature

today are 50 students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School and I

would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Oral questions.

LOBBYING OF MINISTERS

BY HORSE-RACING INTERESTS

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

question for the Premier. Is the Premier aware that following the

setting of racing dates by the Racing Commission for the 1976-77

season, racing interests lobbied one or more of his cabinet ministers?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The answer is no, but you might put that

to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I personally wasn't lobbied and

no case of any lobbying has come forward to me.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier

aware that the Racing Commission Act,

section 6, provides that the

Racing Commission shall govern, direct and regulate racing within the

province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Would the Premier consider that political

interference or political decision in that field was contrary to the

letter and spirit of what he knows?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, through you to the former

Attorney-General, I might point out that there was some difficulty with

the racing days with the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa, and the

recommendations that came from the department were eventually put

through. That's all.

GOVERNMENT LOAN TO ICBC

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister of Finance of which I

sent him notice and arising out of some confusion in my own mind with

respect to an answer yesterday. He told us — and I would like

confirmation of this — that the cheque for $181 million sent to ICBC by

the government was covered out of funds in consolidated revenue. I

would ask him if he could confirm that and if he could advise the date

of the clearance of that cheque and where those consolidated revenue

funds came from, when we'd been told a few days earlier that the

province was very short of money.

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

reference to funds being paid from consolidated general revenue applies

to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act, which

specifically states that in making payments by the government to the

corporation for these deficiencies from time to time, they, in fact,

are paid to the corporation out of consolidated revenue funds. I would

refer you to

section 21 of the Act, which you are familiar with. That

is the only reference I give. You made the reference that they were

paid out of funds. I am just saying that is the proper place where the

cheque would be charged to the fund. In any event, Mr. Member, you also

asked when the cheque was cleared, I believe. The date was April 1, one

day after the passage of Bill 3.

[ Page 996 ]

MR. SPEAKER: A supplemental?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could

advise, because I am interested in the ultimate source of the funds,

whether he has as yet taken action to borrow funds under Bill 3 and to

what extent.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I appreciate that question. We have borrowed

these funds from the insurance corporation by the issue of treasury

notes which are short-term, expiring on March 31,1977, or sooner. They

are very flexible. They can be redeemed or exchanged at any time in the

interim, so they, in my view, represent an excellent investment for the

insurance corporation and are thoroughly flexible, though they'll be

able to earn good revenue from those treasury notes.

MR. GIBSON: I have one final brief supplementary, if I may,

Mr. Speaker. Are these the only borrowings so far under Bill 3, the

borrowing from the insurance corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, yes, these are the only borrowings thus far until we can make further arrangements for other borrowings.

FUTURE OF THE BEANERY

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked questions

about the establishment called The Beanery in the Inner Harbour. I

replied that discussions were taking place about this operation.

It has now been decided not to continue the operation of The Beanery this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the has-Beanery.

HON. MR. FRASER: The government has also decided to turn

control of this property over to the Capital Improvement Development

Commission so they can continue with the beautification of the Inner

Harbour.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Well done!

LEASE TRANSFERS OF

INNER HARBOUR DOCKS

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Could the minister confirm that the

federal lease on the piers and docking facilities of the Inner Harbour

would be transferred to the possible private owners of the Princess

Marguerite?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary; could the minister confirm that

the lands obtained at the Inner Harbour upon the purchase of the

Princess Marguerite are being considered for sale?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is no consideration of sale of the

land. They've been separated from the steamship company and are with

the Crown Development Corporation.

MR. BARBER: A final supplemental, if you will permit it, Mr.

Speaker. I'll later, if I may, with leave of the House, be tabling

certain material.

I would ask the Minister of Transport and Communications if he's

aware of the repeated promises made during the recent campaign by the

Premier that theMarguerite would remain in service and, indeed, be restructured within the administration of the B.C. Ferries?

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question.

MR. BARBER: I'm asking if the minister is aware of the repeated promises made by the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what you are asking the minister to

do is comment upon something that happened or was said by another

cabinet minister. That's not a proper question.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking if the

Minister of Transport and Communications is aware of the repeated

commitment made by the now Premier of the province, Mr. Bennett, to

retain theMarguerite in service and to place it within the B.C. ferry system.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are asking one minister to

comment on something that another minister may have said or done. I

can't see that that comes under the purview of a proper question.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, simply to say yes or no,

whether he is aware of the promises — not to comment in their favour or

against them, but simply: is he aware of these promises? Yes or no will

do.

PAYMENT FOR THE PRINCE GEORGE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications: I would like to know if the

minister or the government has received payment for the Prince George.

[ Page 997 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Payment has been received, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are

the new owners of the Prince George paying rent for harbour facilities

in the Inner Harbour?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but I'll have to take that question as notice.

MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE AT BCR MEETINGS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the

Minister of Economic Development, as a director of BCR? Has the

minister attended a meeting of the board of directors of BCR since the

House went into session?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): In answer to the member's inquiry, and I certainly appreciate his question, the answer is yes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the annual

report of BCR relates to 1974, and since Clarkson, Gordon obviously had

access to financial facts and figures not available to the members of

this House, and since the House has. Important legislation affecting

the financing of BCR, could the minister tell the House if we are to

receive more up-to-date financial information regarding BCR within the

next week or two?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at this time.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I've made

inquiries, and audited financial statements for 1975 have been

completed. Could the minister tell the House whether he will seek the

cooperation of the board of directors of BCR to make these audited

financial statements available to the members prior to debate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have a talk with the directors, but

we're dealing with a very touchy subject, Mr. Member. I hope the member

will appreciate that.

MR. WALLACE: That's why I asked the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, because of certain labour relations that are going on with the railway....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can say "oh" if you want to, and you

can hum and haw, but I just wanted to tell the member that there are

negotiations going on on which the financial statements could have a

bearing, and I don't want to prejudice the negotiation. I'm being

perfectly open and frank with the member. I don't know how I could be

more open and frank.

Interjections.

ADMINISTERING OF

SECRECY OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask the Provincial Secretary if she is familiar with the

contents of order-in-council 103, which reads: "That pursuant to the

Public Service Act and upon the recommendation of the undersigned

administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the executive

council, every person employed or appointed to a position under

section

2 of the Act is required to take and subscribe to the oaths required to

be taken and subscribed by persons appointed to the public service." I

want to ask the minister if she's familiar with those requirements.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is yes.

MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: can the Provincial

Secretary then explain why one Dave Brown, according to her response,

has not been so sworn?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't from my

department run a check on what is happening in the Speaker's office or

in the Clerks' office in terms of swearing in. I'm sure there are still

some members of the public service who have just been taken in our

employ, members of committees and so on and counsellors, who still have

not taken that oath, but I don't have a daily record of them as the

hon. Leader of the Opposition would seem to indicate in his question. I

have answered the question; I've answered it truthfully in your former

questions in the House, Mr. Brown did not take the oath of secrecy, and

I gave you that information. In answer to your question, yes, I am

aware of the order-in-council and the information contained therein.

MR. KING: Two points: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary

could apprise the House of whether or not any of the other people whom

she suspects are in the public service and have not yet taken the oath,

if any of those assisted in the preparation of the budget also; and I

wonder if she could further tell me who is responsible for the

administration of the law as it exists under order-in-council 103.

[ Page 998 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll take that question as notice. I certainly can't give that answer at this point in time.

CALLING OF RESOLUTION 6

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to ask the Premier if the government has plans to call resolution 6, pertaining to a possible budget leak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member knows well that it's

on the order paper, and when the House moves to that order of business

I would presume that it is one of the things that will be called by the

House.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked, in view of the

urgency of the matter, whether the government has present plans to call

resolutions, and particularly resolution 6 which has urgency to it —

present plans. That's a question of fact.

No answer. Well, I think you're covering something up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You know you're out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said "ordure"?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! In any event, motions on the

order paper would be called, I presume, in the order that they appear.

No. 6 is certainly not ahead of No. 1.

I now recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're filibustering question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

RULING OF FOREIGN

INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY

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

Economic Development: does the government agree with the recent ruling

of the foreign investment review agency that the province will

henceforth have only 10 days to file their opinions on proposed foreign

takeovers of small firms, or will the government make representation to

have this limit extended, at least on a case-by-case basis?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon. member's question,

the province has been processing the questionnaires in about 17 days. I

have a full report. I'd be happy to supply the member with that

information. The province itself is not the tie-up in processing these

investigations. The problem is really back in Ottawa. We will have no

problem whatsoever in meeting the 10-day limitation. As a matter of

fact, we try to do it before the 10 days are up because we don't want

to hold up industry coming into this great province of British

Columbia. We want to keep the wheels rolling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Next question.

Interjections.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has the bell rung? Saved by the bell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can ask the question any time you want.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: The minister indicated that I could have leave of the House to ask one question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair didn't indicate so. Please take your seat. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were saved by the bell, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the permission of the House to table certain materials regarding the Princess Marguerite.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a great

[ Page 999 ]

Attorney-General.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I think I'd better quit while I'm ahead, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a great issue; it's been borrowed.

But we're going to bring reform in, Mr. Speaker, and I know you'll be

glad to hear that. Every member in the House will certainly support

what we're going to do to try to eliminate that long-suffering misery

that has been undergone over the years.

I'd like to express, Mr. Speaker, firstly my commiserations and/or

congratulations, depending on point of view, to you, sir, and to the

Deputy Speaker on your respective ascensions to positions of

neutrality. Your mutual duties, Mr. Speaker, are not unonerous and I

would, indeed, express the wish that all members on all sides of the

House cooperate and assist to not only make your task easier, but most

importantly, to more readily facilitate the proper exercise of the

democratic process.

Also my commiserations and/or congratulations to all new members,

all of whom have very well complemented this House with their very

thoughtful discourses and suggestions. I wish each and every one of

them good health and good fellowship during the time of their tenure in

this assembly and afterwards.

If I could volunteer a word of advice without being impertinent, it

would be to suggest that they hold on to their sense of humour; at

times it could well prove to be their last resort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd also like to offer a formal hello to all

of the veterans, battle-scarred, bleary, masochistic souls that they

be. It's good to see them back, even though the sides of the House have

changed. And I'm very grateful that the sides of the House have

changed, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of talk of the difficulties of the change of

office some new ministers have experienced with former ministers. I

would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have run into similar problems.

I haven't had any problems, though, with peripatetic files; they were

all there, cobwebs and all. (Laughter.)

I would like to mention that if the former tenant of the office

which I now occupy has realized that he's misplaced some of — what

shall I say — his memorabilia, I can assure him it was found beneath

the radiator near the window. For the best part of three weeks the

Department of Public Works thought there was a dead mouse underneath

the rug. (Laughter.) The former minister also left a fridge, stocked as

you would expect a Scotsman would stock it. Empty! But the office is

slowly converting to the change; no longer am I called Alec. Now it's

Mr. Macdonald. (Laughter.)

A few days ago my wife, Helen, who telephoned, felt the staff went a

little far when she heard me being called and overheard one of them

say: "It's Dorothy again, wondering as to whether now everything is

hunky-dory between you and Bob." (Laughter.) Well, that reference is

far too subtle for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, so I'll leave the

interpretation of the same to the member in question.

On the first page of the budget is stated that "no one political

movement can lay exclusive claim to serving the interests of all the

people." We must all agree with that. Similarly, no one person and no

one party has the monopoly in virtue. That is perhaps something that

all members of the House should jog themselves about from time to time,

and most specifically when we are articulating points of view from the

position of very different philosophies. Make no mistake of the fact,

Mr. Speaker, that very great lines of demarcation exist between this

government and the socialistical alternative which is across the way.

They believe in state controls, state bureaucracies, structurism,

regulationism, and very genuinely feel that those mechanisms are the

best course for the emancipation and betterment of mankind, and for

cures for its multiple miseries. But we don't; we favour the route of

individual enterprise, and say that that has produced the best of

societies, the best in societies, and all of the good that can flow

from that.

The general public of this province made its decision on December 11

that they were not content with the ideological direction that was

occasioning in British Columbia, and specifically the fact that the

minority of the people in B.C. were imposing on the majority a

philosophy they did not subscribe to. It was the collective wisdom of

the general public that change was necessary, and it brought about that

change. Every time the opposition is criticizing the government for

taking the course it has committed itself to, the opposition is, in

effect, criticizing the wishes of the majority of our citizens as well,

because the direction this government is taking is the direction that

the majority of the citizens of B.C. approve of and desire.

The task has not been easy. It is probably the most difficult

transition in the history of Canadian politics. There was a logjam of

problems, a cupboard that was bare, almost instant confrontation, a

paucity of time, and, in the face of immediate demands and constraints,

difficulties had to be resolved and very tough decisions had to be

made. But from the outset, Mr. Speaker, the government has lived up to

its public commitments that its goals and philosophies would

[ Page 1000 ]

be freedom for the individual, better government but not more government, and social reform but not socialism.

In the very few months that have transpired we started to develop

and propose our own initiatives as well as to evaluate existing

programmes and, as assessments are on hand, to improve and to reduce or

cancel the same when necessary.

Now as part of this process, as a government that favours free

competitive enterprise, providing it is free, competing and

enterprising, it is our job to see that the taxpayers receive value for

their dollar. We've got to trim the fat when necessary and get rid of

duplicating and competing functions and certainly ensure that the

benefits that are available to society make their way through to the

recipients rather than have them siphoned off and eroded through any

multi-level bureaucracy.

This government, Mr. Speaker, also committed itself to the task of

restoring public confidence and capital confidence in British Columbia,

and I'm very delighted to say that that is happening already. It's

mighty interesting to note the comparative figures for the first two

months of 1975 and 1976, out of the offices of our registrar of

companies. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, 1514 companies were incorporated for

gross revenues of $502,541 and in 1976 incorporations over the

two-month period were up by about a third to 1973 with revenues up

about $80,000 to $582,375.

Well, as two swallows don't make a summer, neither do two months

make a year, and this is probably far too short a period in which to

forecast any kind of a trend, but it's a most hopeful sign and the

former registrar of companies always claimed that the number of

corporations, with about six months lead time, was an unfailing

economic indicator. So I think we can say to the people of B.C. to be

of good heart. We have the energy; we've got the skills and the

know-how and the resources in this province, and indeed our future can

be fabulous.

I don't think any member on any side of the House, Mr. Speaker, will

disagree with the fact that we're living in highly confrontative times.

Confrontative times are very difficult times, but not necessarily

unhealthy, providing there is accompanying some basic democratic mores

and some elementary democratic ethics. However, without such companions

confrontative actions can result in a demeaning and an erosion of the

democratic process. Now that, unfortunately, indeed may well be the

goal of some of those who are so involved in this day and age, but for

all of those who are not so inclined — and we certainly do hope that

they are the majority — they should be totally aware of the fact that

in the confrontative process they could be associating themselves with

a very fragile thread. I'm talking about the concept espoused by some

that, depending upon the fervour of the cause, an illegal means is a

satisfactory method of arising at an acceptable end. But, Mr. Speaker,

that is a denigration of the democratic process and is hardly a

reasoning that can be effectively considered.

In support of these sentiments I would like to refer to the House

some of the statements of the Hon. Bora Laskin, Chief Justice of

Canada, in two speeches he gave, one in the convocation address at

Simon Fraser University in May of last year, and an earlier one at a

similar convocation at the University of Alberta in May of 1972.

The Chief Justice said:

"There is a social duty to respect the law and to

uphold its authority even while seeking to have it changed or amended.

Unless this is seen as a social imperative and a protection for all of

us as persons living under and within a regime of law we deny the

distinction between lawful social protest and illegal behaviour upon

which our social stability is based."

The Chief Justice clearly indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we must not

elevate demonstration and protest above the law but rather make them

subservient to the law.

Then in 1972 he uttered these sentiments:

"The dilemma of democracy is an old one, that of

giving full play to its values by maintaining the stability and

integrity of its institutions, especially legislatures and courts

through which those values are monitored. The dilemma has been

sharpened over the past two decades by the concurrence of new social

claims for the political and legal systems of the country to satisfy

and of an aggressive assertiveness of organized groups in support of

those claims. There is danger to our society if the merits of

particular social demands about which people may differ come to be

determined by the size of demonstrations mounted in their support.

Those in authority, whether in the university, in the municipality, in

the province or in the country as a whole, are undoubtedly under a duty

to receive petitions for a redress of grievance put forward by

petitioners. But they are not under any duty to submit to exercise of

force through which regress for grievances may be demanded."

Mr. Justice Laskin also said:

"We cannot have a selective policy that would permit

some causes supported by some groups to be pursued by intimidation or

by force and others to have to depend for their realization on

rationalizing and peaceful persuasion."

He posed the question, Mr. Speaker:

"If the ballot box and supports provided by a free press and by peaceful assemblies and

[ Page 1001 ]

meetings should seem to some or many of us to be too slow a means

of achieving social betterment, is disruption and intimidation, and its likely

successor terrorism, to be preferred?"

He readily answered in the negative and said this: "...if there is

to be any continuing assurance of civility in our social relationships."

Now those are sentiments, Mr. Speaker, that are clearly detailed and

finitely expressed by a man who all his life has worked for betterment

and change, but within the confines and structures of an organized

democratic society. It is a good message, it is a correct message and,

I'd say, what democracy is all about.

I'd like to make a few general comments, Mr. Speaker, about the

attitudes and directions this department contemplates taking in certain

of its many varied fields. Now none of the matters that I am going to

talk about this afternoon is etched in tablets of stone. They can be

subject to variation as necessary and as called upon by the

vicissitudes of change, the benefit of experience, necessary dollars

and priority decisions.

But I would like to say in the area of family law, that the unified

family court is a concept of considerable merit. It is one that I have

argued long and hard for from the days when I was first elected. I am

happy to see that pilot projects initiated by the former administration

I compliment the former administration for that in the lower mainland

at Richmond and Surrey are now operational. The results there are being

collated and assessed and valued. If everything points to the

continuance of the programmes in the same or in an improved or modified

form, as I am very hopeful will be the case, then budgetary control

permitting, Mr. Speaker, phase-ins will commence in certain other parts

of the province. At this point it is not possible for me to furnish the

House with a timetable, but I did wish to illustrate the general

thinking.

I do think it is a matter of distress that during the reformative

period of the former administration it was not able to bring to

fruition satisfactory remand and diagnostic assessment facilities for

young people in conflict with the law, and not any high-security

custodial and treatment centres for those hard-core juveniles who have

to be removed from the community for a period of time for its

protection.

We consider it highly inappropriate to continuously leave these

situations in the lurch. During this administration we plan to make

these facilities a reality. A start has been made at Willingdon School.

There, in concert with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), we were pleased to

announce after being in office really less than a month that we would

have the first remand and assessment centre for young people in

conflict with the law — girls and boys. It will absorb the lower

mainland custody remand cases. The assessment model that is being

produced is the result of the cooperative effort of four departments of

government: the Departments of the Attorney-General, Human Resources,

Health and Education.

The current facilities such as the pool and the gymnasium will

remain available for the present users. Appropriate renovations are now

underway by the Department of Public Works; some of these will include

improved security. Additional staff — some 15 — are to be trained. We

are certainly hoping, Mr. Speaker, for an official opening of this

great facility before summer.

I have also requested the department to look for and to develop

similar facilities in other regions with the eventual hope that no

longer will juveniles have to face custody in local lock-ups awaiting

trial.

Concerning the hard-core post-dispositional situation, there has to

be taken into account public safety and also the continuous hope for

the reformation of the individual. But no. 2, Mr. Speaker, should not

overbalance no. 1. At the present time, probation and community work

service orders are responding well, but for the some they don't do the

job. Unfortunately, in not so doing, they can well detract from the

validity of these very good programmes.

In corrections, our security treatment centre for juveniles is at

Centre Creek in Chilliwack where there is a six-week Outward Bound type

of programme. I'm pleased to say that that facility is being expanded

to accommodate some 24 young offenders, which is about double its

present capacity. I understand it is possible to have increases over

that figure — perhaps by not too many, but increases over that figure —

and hopefully we will be able to get to that before too long as well.

In talking of custody and security for juveniles, we must be very

mindful of the fact that putting a juvenile into an adult correctional

system because there is nowhere else to go is a regressive step and can

well subject him to a lesser opportunity to conform, with the net

result of providing a considerably increased burden to the taxpayer in

the long run. The type of custody that I would favour for this limited

number of hard-core juveniles is the open form, a la Secret Harbour in

Washington, which I shall read a little bit about in a moment. If

that's not possible, then we'll have to go back to the more

conventional form, coupled with full training, treatment for the

disturbed, some good but fair discipline, lots of direction and

programming to the capacities of endurance, to try to teach these

youngsters to have a feeling of self-reliance and self-respect and to

acquire self-confidence.

Secret Harbour is an interesting programme

[ Page 1002 ]

and I'm requesting a more detailed examination of

it from my department. Apparently off Anacortes, Washington — I

understand one B.C. lad is being treated — there is an island facility.

It accommodates about 30 juveniles. The period average about 18 months,

and reading from a very excellent

article in The Province

of Saturday, April 10, it says there are not any bars or guards because

Secret Harbour is on an island and the juveniles cannot escape. The

offenders work a farm, attend classes, and receive counselling from 14

teachers, social workers and a child psychiatrist. It's said to have a

success rate of 80 per cent, and I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we're

going to look very carefully at this because what we wish to have in

British Columbia is a success rate instead of a failure rate, which

we've had up to this point.

I'd like to make a couple of remarks about an initiative taken by

this province involving the administration of justice in Canada. At the

Attorneys-General conference which was held in Calgary on January 22 of

this year the Attorneys-General of Canada established a task force of

deputy ministers, which was chaired by B.C., to examine the

administration of justice in Canada. It's a great credit to the

Department of the Attorney-General.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD) (Vancouver East): And to the Deputy Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed — great credit is due to the Deputy

Attorney-General for his excellent work in this field. The conference

considered, Hon. Members, among the most serious problems in the

administration of justice in Canada some six items, including the

disparity in the quality of the administration of justice from province

to province. The difficulty with shared jurisdiction between the

federal and provincial governments makes it very difficult to set and

carry out uniform policies and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of

efforts — for example, the Criminal Code provisions of driving, the

Motor-vehicle Act offences of driving, and where they overlap, and the

difficulties that are occasioned there.

They also concerned themselves about the fact that there's not any

rational basis for sharing the burden of the costs for the

administration of justice. They talked about the process for reforming

legislation that is inadequate and where there is mutual interest, such

as the Criminal Code. They referred to experience gained by the

provinces and the federal government in the administration of justice

not being sufficiently shared, and made a very strong point that the

administration of justice has had a very low priority in this country.

I think that's a strong statement, it's a correct statement, and I

consider it to be a very sad statement.

The terms of reference, Hon. Members, that were given to this task

force of deputy minister initiated by this province are: (1) to examine

the existing justice services in Canada; (2) to gather data relating to

the cost of the delivery of these justice services, including both

operating and projected capital costs; and (3) to recommend minimum

standards for justice services and present the cost implications

thereof.

As the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) well knows, this

province does not have too much control really, of the so-called

cost-shared programmes. Because of an initiative taken, say, under the

Criminal Code to create a new offence, or to create additional

penalties, or what-have-you, the province can run into extremely

onerous economic burdens of programming and of enforcing those

particular items.

Now, it's proposed that the task force prepare and present

preliminary working papers on the topics which I've mentioned at the

Attorneys-General conference, which will be held in British Columbia in

June this year. Work is already underway across Canada in the areas of

police, courts, corrections and legal services. I'm informed it's

already become clear that the cooperative efforts, the team efforts,

the sharing efforts, will have both short-term and long-term benefits

to the people of B.C. In the areas such as legislative reform of both

the substantive and the procedural law, the quality of the justice

system and rational jurisdiction of cost-sharing procedures with the

federal government.

It certainly is high time that a step was taken along this line. I

hope that history will prove that 1976 will be considered a banner year

vis-a-vis the administration of justice in Canada and the attempt to

more effectively rationalize it and come up with a set of minimum

standards.

Before sitting down I would like to refer to a couple of other

items. First of all, violence in sport has become a matter of

considerable concern to chief law enforcement officers and the general

public all across the country. Ontario initiated a study in 1974, in

August. For those who are interested I would commend them to this

report entitled "Investigation and Inquiry into Violence in Amateur

Hockey" prepared by William R. McMurtry, QC, who I gather is a brother

of the current Attorney-General for the province of Ontario. I commend

it to all members who have an interest in the matter to read it.

I think we must all agree that human beings being human beings,

unfortunate incidents can arise, but if so, the parties involved should

appreciate that they are not beyond the law. Violence must not be

promoted or encouraged by those in charge. I very much hope that the

promoters of the sport in question would take note, and I would suggest

that they could well manage their own activities without the necessity

of intervention of law enforcement. Again, without being presumptuous,

I would suggest

[ Page 1003 ]

to them that perhaps they could bring an end to

fighting on the rink. I would say that if players choose to fight on

the rink they should be out of the game, period. Save and except boxing

and wrestling, that's the way it is in any other amateur or

professional sport. If you are caught fighting in football, soccer or

basketball you are taken out of the game, period. You are not allowed

back in after a few minutes.

I think if the sport in question would give serious consideration to

incorporating that as a rule, it would be first class. Hockey by some

appears to be promoted as a blood sport, and fighting is not actively

enough discouraged. Bad leads to worse, and that's what's happening

across the country today. If the sport cannot stand on its own feet

without gutter brawls, I say it should offer something better.

It should certainly not be promoted as a blood sport. Mind you, I'm

going to be criticized for making that statement. It certainly isn't by

the majority of people, but we know there are the exceptions and there

is not any problem whatsoever with those responsible in the sport

controlling their own activities.

In this department, Mr. Speaker, we are also concerning ourselves

and the government with the review of the unproclaimed Liquor Act and

its regulations to be able to get along with the necessary reforms in

that area and, hopefully, before too long. There is an ever-increasing

number of constitutional cases. That seems to be a sign of the times —

the growing up of Canada and the numerous interrelated functions that

we see being carried on between governments and their continuous —

perhaps not encroachments but infringements upon their respective

powers.

There have been very many valuable reports furnished over the past

few years — those of the Law Reform Commission concerning amendments to

many of our laws; the Berger reports on children's rights; married

women's property; the Keenleyside report on fire-fighting services. All

of those are going to be given very careful consideration and when and

where appropriate governmental action will be taken will be decided.

There's a staff of around 4,500 involved in this department outside

of the liquor branch, I gather, and I am, indeed, looking forward with

considerable hope, economics permitting, to be able to say before the

term of office expires that a justice building will be contracted in

Victoria to house the legal advisers to government plus many of the

others employed by the Department of the Attorney-General including

corrections, companies, real estate, insurance, securities, public

trustees and liquor licensing.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate on this first

budget of this new government. A lot of thought has been put into the

budget. It's a great budget. It's a recovery budget and I think all of

us own our Minister of Finance a great deal of gratitude for his hard

work in his presentation. I indeed intend to support it.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise this

afternoon to participate in the debate on the recovery budget, I

believe it's being referred to. But that's a debatable point, and I

hope that by now we have just about outlined some of the faults of this

budget.

But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, to add my few brief comments on the

budget specifically, having had an opportunity previously to speak on

certain pieces of legislation relating to the fiscal programme that the

government intends to implement this year, I'd just like to refer to

some of the comments that were made by the hon. Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) who indicates his concern and interest in curtailing, if

not eliminating, some of the difficulties some of the professional

athletes are having these days in the arena of entertainment.

(Laughter.)

I commend him on his interest in the furthering of any legislative

means at our disposal to try and assist those participants in realizing

their place in society — that is, being no further ahead or behind

anyone else when it comes to the law, and that violence on and off the

field is not tolerated in this society of compassion. I think sometimes

they forget that.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Even golf!

MR. BARNES: Even golf, my friend.

Now in that line, Mr. Speaker, of compassion and concern, I would

like to hear that the Attorney-General will assure this House as the

months go on that this budget will endeavour to carry on in that same

spirit of being absolutely compassionate and concerned for the subjects

that will be relying on the government to assist it in functioning on

an equitable basis and with a certain amount of pleasure and enjoyment

throughout the next fiscal year.

So while I'm hopeful that we will get this kind of representation on

behalf of the government, the debate up to now hasn't supported that

possibility very much. In fact, I think most members on this side of

the House have tried to point out to the government that what they have

unfortunately done is use this chamber to further causes which should

be alien to those of us who are in this undivided House, who are here

to do the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid, in their overzealousness to achieve power

and to maintain power, that they have misguided and misrepresented the

public in many ways by introducing programmes and legislation that are

designed to discredit the previous

[ Page 1004 ]

administration. Without going through many of the

comments that have been debated before, there was, of recent date, an

editorial in The Province

that talked about.... It put it in a fairly concise way, and it will

just take a second or two to read it for the record. It starts off by

stating:

"The opposition in the British Columbia Legislature

has long and loudly been insisting to the Premier that the recent

transfer of $181.5 million to the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia was unnecessary at that time. The timing, they said, was a

straight political act designed to make the deficit run by the NDP look

just that much bigger, and thus make the NDP look that much worse."

Imagine, at a time like this of restraint and of

the need for leadership, they would be associated with something that

indicates they were playing politics.

"We should not borrow to give them ICBC money they don't

need. It's ridiculous." This was one of our hon. members, the former Minister of Finance, commenting.

But as he was attempting to make that point, the government did just that. It

borrowed $181.5 million back from ICBC after loaning it to them, at an interest

rate of 10 per cent. But on the record it looks as though the $400 million loan

legislation that was passed recently to permit the government to borrow to pay

for a deficit that was created in the 1975-1976 fiscal period was not really

necessary, because in fact we now have some money that we paid out, that was

credited last year, back in this year in the consolidated revenue. It's

not fair, I don't think.

I was hopeful that I could stand up and be very constructive about

the budget, try and look at it objectively. But let me quote to you

what the budget says on the very first page, in the introduction. It

says that this government, even before approaching office, was

concerned for the welfare of all groups in society, both the people who

are able to contribute to our economy and who, through no fault of

their own find themselves in an underprivileged state. They were making

reference to those . people who are unemployed but who are employable,

and making reference to the aged — also, I suppose, to the single

parent, mainly females who find themselves at a disadvantage because of

the economic state of the economy.

The problem is that those are words — those are rhetorical

expressions — with very little substance. I really find it difficult to

keep repeating over and over things that have been said so much, Mr.

Speaker. But I hope that maybe the government — I know it's going to be

7 per cent — will listen and in future be guided by some of these

suggestions being put forward by the opposition.

I had hoped to make a few comments about some of the programmes that

had been eliminated but they are so numerous — you know, social

programmes are so numerous and such a tragedy — that I think I'm going

to start from the other end.

Let's talk about some of the things that the budget stated it was

going to do, some of the measures that it felt it had to take in order

to balance the budget to assist those people who through no fault of

their own — and that's a quote from the budget speech — "who through no

fault of their own find themselves in need of compassion from the

government." It's incredible that they really talk about compassion

when one of the very first acts by one of the ministers.... Well, there

were a number of very, very strange acts by the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

But in his attempt to save the public funds through the social

programmes he's suggesting that we're going to provide services only

for those people who qualify. It's interesting the means by which one

determines what the qualifications will be. He's come down with a

series of regulations, including such things as dress, appearance and

availability, which, unfortunately, restricts the movement of citizens

in the province.

Perhaps this is something that many people haven't given much

thought to, but I've always felt that in our society we have freedom of

movement, freedom of speech and certain other liberties that were

inalienable as far as the citizenry in this society is concerned. But I

can assure you that that isn't the plan of the minister when he

suggests that there are going to be some 175 designated areas that will

no longer be available to those people who are seeking social

assistance, that they have to be in an area designated as "with a

high-employment potential". Well, that scares me, Mr. Speaker, quite

frankly.

It's the kind of witch-hunt approach and the kind of categorization

of people that alienates a person. It makes you feel that there are

those guys over there and there are these guys over here and there is

us here. I really would like to have seen in the budget a different

thrust, instead of one of going out and catching those criminals, those

guys who are getting something for nothing — they call them the

"welfare bums".

That isn't really forward thinking and it isn't really all that

encouraging to the province of British Columbia. It certainly doesn't

give much leadership where it's needed because many people have been

misled in this regard. I can understand why — because we're in a

competitive society, a very, very competitive society. In fact, it's so

competitive that unless you are prepared to go out and break all the

rules of etiquette, ethics and morality in order to achieve your

material due, as the saying goes, then you're liable to be a loser.

When we talk about competing we say that means there has to be something to compete against and to

[ Page 1005 ]

when, so that presupposes that there's bound to be some losers. And if they're going to be losers what happens to them?

HON. MR. MAIR: They're all sitting on that side of the House.

MR. BARNES: That's right, Mr. Member, they all sit on this

side of the House — those people who lost in the last election. Right?

Okay, we're on this side of the House. Well, let me tell what your

government's attitude is about the losers.

If you lose, you get back and you become dictated to because this is

a competitive society. That's the basis of your policy; that's the

basis of your party. You call it free enterprise but you regulate it to

suit your own needs. You defeat the people's needs.

We represent the people, Mr. Speaker, but do you consult with me,

through you, Mr. Speaker? Does that minister consult with me before he

makes a recommendation in this House? I have yet to receive a memo from

that minister asking my advice or counsel on some matter of urgent

public importance.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: All right. You send me over in future. I want you

to consult with me before any orders-in-council are passed. Also with

the back bench. What about the back bench? I'll bet you they don't know

what's going on either. You mean to tell me that you know what's going

on in orders-in-council?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's against the system, isn't it? If he's

doing that, then he has privilege to information that.... Mr. Speaker?

Oh, well, that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said he had privileged

information on orders-in-council. That's very interesting.

Well, I would like to feel that, as a member representing Vancouver

Centre, I would be consulted in a House undivided when we're all here

to do the people's business.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I feel that

this government has taken the high hand. It has won its battle out

there with the electorate and it now feels it has a complete mandate to

run roughshod over the people and tell them what to do. They speak in

terms of: "We were elected to govern and we were told that we have a

mandate to go out and do what's best for you, and no longer do we need

to bother with the democratic process. No longer must we consult about

it. We know what's best." All of these bills that you bring forward are

virtually a fait accompli. You've passed them all, most of them

retroactive, and you're telling us to debate them. They're already

over, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to run over us when we have our

final speech in this budget debate, I'm sure.

But let me just say that the thrust that happened with this budget

should have been that we're going to eliminate welfare, instead of

saying that welfare is a condition of the game.

You know, 8 per cent unemployment is reasonable. After all, you've

got a lot of people out there competing; there's bound to be some

losers. So you'll set up a welfare system for those who don't make it.

You'll set some stringent means tests and scare them almost to death,

intimidate them and make them get out there and do something. You know

— "we're going to push the people; we're not going to make it easier

for them. We're only going to help those people who really need it."

You want to know an example of what really needing is?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: "Hear, hear!" the member says. Well, I'll tell

you, you've got to be right on the button to get something from this

government because they're not going to mess around with those guys

that are trying to get something for nothing.

Now they had an order-in-council not too long ago from the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) defining the handicapped

person. Fine, if you fit into that right on the button you can get what

the minister says you can get, but you better fit in because if you

don't, you're out. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but if just

states that if you have a permanent or an apparent permanent

disability.... Oh, it goes into a lot more detail, but you've got to be

permanent. Now you've got to get that certified by the right physician

and the right clinicians and everybody's got to be on your case. You've

got to prove it positively and without doubt that you are permanently

handicapped — not temporarily handicapped as so many of us are, even in

this House from time to time. We all require a little help every now

and then.

What about the guy who goes to the psychiatrist for only six months

out of the year? He really is debilitated; the guy can't function. Or

the woman, of course — anyone may be this way. But that's not permanent

— "we can treat you so you don't need any help."

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we should be concerned first about people's ability to

[ Page 1006 ]

function. We should do everything we can to assist.

We should be encouraging people, not discouraging them, because you can

be sure of one thing, that even if we were to have a few people make

off with a few dollars, they're not going to make off with the kind of

dollars that some of your friends have made off with.

Let me suggest something to you now, Mr. Speaker. You say that we're

being unreasonable and we're got all those guys out there trying to get

something for nothing. And I think the Minister of Mines, forest

resources and whatever (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is planning to lift the

Mineral Royalties Act. He's planning to lift that, I understand. That's

interesting. The reason he's going to lift is is because the people in

the industry claim that it's unfair to tax them on the exploratory

stages, that they should be taxed on the profits after they have....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right, Mr. Minister. Do you want me to

read it? That's right. I know you thought I was just ad libbing, but I

do have a little bit of a clipping, and I'll find it for you. It says

that they feel it's repressive to tax them on profits, it discouraged

their willingness to invest and explore. What they would prefer to do

is to be taxed after their cost has been....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right. Here it is. I think I see it over here — a Xerox copy. Let me see what it says.

Yes, it says that during the fall election campaign a major Social

Credit promise was to remove mineral royalties and replace them with a

profit-based tax. Now the mining industry has said that the mineral

royalties and an equivalent mineral land tax are forms of negative

taxation — I'm sorry, not repressive but negative taxation. That's what

they said.

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

MR. BARNES: Okay, so the press is wrong, Mr. Minister. I

guess the press are only human and they hear people say things and they

get their tape recorders out, but these tapes can get the wrong

information. It's just like the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) having difficulty remembering what she said about

orders-in-council the other day. It said one thing on the Blues and she

said something else. You know, it's amazing how these mechanical

gadgets can get fouled up.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I think that if the government had come forward

and said, you know what we're really going to do? We have an excellent

opportunity, following the previous administration, to continue, to go

even further than they did in the social programmes, to do what even

W.A.C. Bennett used to talk about years ago, bringing in the guaranteed

income, eliminating the indignity people have to suffer because they're

being subjected to all kinds of programmes, and having to go half a

dozen different places in order to get through the week for basic

essentials, and being categorized.... You know, you've got the

unemployed, you've got the employed. You've got the single, you've got

the married, you've got those with one family, those with two families,

with three, those who are half-incapacitated, those who are fully

incapacitated. You've got those who are in the minor category who can

get a little help providing they haven't been away from home more than

six months, and those who've been away longer, and it goes on and on

and on. Take a look at your regulations. So when a person gets into

difficulty they don't know where to go, and wherever they go they're

going to be subjected to the scrutiny of someone who has been given the

authority to make a decision about the complexities of their personal

lives.

We seem to feel, as long as we provide a little bit of financial

assistance that we've taken the responsibility that was left with us

for these people. But we have a moral responsibility. We have a duty to

assist people in maintaining their dignity, and to feel not alienated

or categorized or classified as this or that or the other group.

We talk about the poor and we talk about the rich, but just think,

you'redividing the community when you talk that way. We think it's

acceptable, sure, but wouldn't it be better if a person knew that they

did not have to subject themselves to the whims of a social worker or

some bureaucrat in a given day, depending on how he got up that

morning, or whether he was happy or unhappy? They're going to be

scrutinized and asked questions which are highly personal, or subjected

to rather unnecessary running around and abuse. It happens all the time.

The welfare system is a product of the capitalist system. It's a

product of your so-called free enterprise system, and you are the ones

who are perpetuating it. Your budget shows it right here. These are

repressive measures. What have you done to the people? What have you

done to them? You say you're going to assist them? You assist them by

bringing in 175 non-welfare communities. You assist them by enforcing

dress regulations. You assist them by restricting access to the

capital, to Victoria.

The Minister of Transport and Communication

[ Page 1007 ]

(Hon. Mr. Davis) will be raising the ferry prices.

That's going to mean that people can't get over here. It may go up to

$15 for a car. That's going to cut down on the access. This is the

capital of the province, but you're starting to raise the rates. How're

people going to get over here? You discourage them. Not only will the

Victoria chamber of commerce be upset with you — and I'm sure you don't

want that — but you're going to cut down on tourism. The minister in

charge of tourism — it's been a long-standing platform of Social Credit

to support tourism, and here you're cutting it down in the capital

city. That's incredible.

What about the social services tax? Is that helping? No. What about

the corporation tax? That's going to be passed on too to the people.

Auto rates? Well, we've been over that so many times that it's

incredible, but believe me, it all affects the net dollar that working

people have to take home. Hospital insurance? That's up. Medical

services? That's up almost 50 per cent; hospital insurance, seven times.

You're restricting education, putting a limit on the amount of funds

available for it, forcing the people to go back to the local level in

order to get the difference. We say we're going to get away from that,

and you're going back to it, trying to free yourselves of the political

consequences of having assumed your responsibilities, trying to put it

back into the hands of the local taxpayers. You call that progress.

You've increased the electric and the natural gas rates to an

average of 12 per cent. You've allowed home heating oils to go up 4.5

cents per gallon. You've eliminated the price freeze that we brought

in, that the previous administration brought in.

You have not encouraged or indicated that you are going to lower the

rent freeze from 10.6 to what we suggested was 8 per cent or even

lower. Certainly you must realize that that cannot stay at 10.6

forever. You're going to have to start to back off, but there is no

indication that you intend to do it. I am afraid that you will raise it

because you promised in the campaign that you definitely wouldn't lift

it. So you must be going to raise it — same effect.

All of these measures point out to me the need for guaranteed income

many bureaucrats and too much government spending and all of your

platitudes — "We're going to cut down the public service through

attrition; we're not going to fire anybody but we're just riot going to

replace anybody" — that's interesting in terms of what your plans are

for jobs for these people.

Mr. Speaker, to the government, how do they intend to really solve

these problems without having a little more courage — having a little

more courage in leadership? You should be on the federal government's

door saying: "Look, what about a negative income tax? What about one

with a COLA clause that says look, people will be guaranteed every

month enough money to survive on?" Sure, you say: "Well, where are we

going to get it from?" Well, you would save money. You could close up

most of your very cumbersome and inefficient operations that require a

lot of witch-hunting and a lot of scrutinizing, a lot of watching and

hanging-on.

This is one of the problems. As an ex-social worker I used to have

to face this thing quite honestly myself. One of the difficulties was

that my hands were tied and I was asked to scrutinize people's personal

lives, to watch them and to make them report every day and to keep

surveillance on their activities to the point that it was really just a

game of cops and robbers, rather than a person having any hope or any

encouragement by any kind of constructive programme.

You need programmes which go along with your methods of training

people, which is what I am afraid your approach is — to train and

condition them to compete and when they lose to pay the consequence by

being grateful for any assistance that the government may feel

incumbent upon them to provide. But that isn't the attitude that we

should be promoting.

I think this budget should be saying to the people: "Look, our first

duty is to ensure that you have a place in society — any place,

anywhere in this province. We're not going to say you have to live in a

certain area. You live anywhere. If there is a place that you want to

live where perhaps there is not very much of an economic base, do you

have any ideas? Perhaps we can together find some answers."

Because most of those people want a different lifestyle. They don't

all want to be located in the city in the middle of industry and

highrises and where all of the activity is. Many of them want to live

out in the bush and want to have an opportunity to be free of the

pollution — social pollution as well as physical, Mr. Speaker. There

are many problems living in centrally located areas, many problems.

Many people have realized it and they have opted out. But this

government is saying: "No. You've got to come back so that we can plug

you into the system." But we're showing no imagination. We should be

encouraging people to develop this province.

We spend all kinds of money trying to promote development of the

north and to get people to go and live in areas.... We can't even get

doctors to live out there because we tell them that the place is

downtown. You know, live down in the lower mainland; that's where it's

at. But if we were to change our attitude and were to open up a little

bit and allow people to feel that living downtown is not where it's at

all the time, that there are other parts of this province and there are

other approaches to life....

We're going to be hosting Habitat in May, talking

[ Page 1008 ]

about human settlements and ways in which people

can live in alternative ways. But what does this budget show in the way

of leadership, in indicating that it really would like to be flexible

and to encourage those people who want to be flexible — the young

people who are looking for alternatives to the mess that they have

inherited by many of those of us who have had the responsibility to

administer their affairs? Because we haven't all been successful, Mr.

Minister. You'll get your turn to speak later. I'm not going to hear

anything out of you right now. You just wait.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You speak for yourself when it comes to mistakes.

MR. BARNES: You take a look at the record. You want me to

speak for myself? You take a look at the record. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you — I can tell that member — that the things that

we are talking about today and the things that I am suggesting today

were sure not invented or created by this party. They are the things

that we have been fighting since the '30s. We have been trying to get

free enterprise — that's a very questionable concept — governments and

administrations to realize the faults that they create in society by

telling people that they have to go out and compete at all costs — at

all costs without exception.

MR. KAHL: That's your

interpretation.

MR. BARNES: You come out with these welfare programmes and

you think you're helping people by putting them on welfare? Don't you

realize that that day has long since been over? Welfare is over, my

friend; welfare is over. You're hanging on to it; you're hanging on to

it. We've got to face the future. You're going back. You're trying to

go back and back and back.

How are you going to pay for those things that you claim have

happened in the past? You know you can't; you've got to look to the

future. If you can't solve your problem you don't use the old tools;

you get new tools — new tools. You don't use the fiscal policies of

W.A.C. Bennett from 15 or 20 years ago. You have to show some

imagination; you have to show some willingness. You talk about

restraint — you don't know the meaning of the word "restraint", What

restraint means to you is to go out and win and get a few people

underneath you and put them under some kind of a hold; a wrestler's

lock, you know, that's what you call restraint: "We're going to

restrain you until you learn to play the game the way we tell you."

The minister knows that. He was talking about his dogs the other

day, and he referred to the opposition as perhaps subject to some

training programme. That was the indication. I don't think he said it,

but that was the implication of his remarks. We were wondering whether

we were going to be able to relate, Mr. Speaker, to the government on

certain procedures and in terms of the business of the House, in a

democratic House such as this, but I think he made some little remark

about, "Well, it took me two weeks to train my dogs." I don't know what

that was supposed to mean.

I wouldn't want to suggest that he had any indication that he was

trying to give us some idea about his plan, but, Mr. Speaker, the thing

is that this whole budget unfortunately doesn't have very much

credibility because of the way in which it was introduced. It was

introduced on the rather punitive, negative side. You know, the opening

remarks were: "We inherited a mess from the departing administration,

and we're going to have to go in and clean it up." Right away it was

suspect! It went so far, Mr. Speaker, as to attack other countries; to

attack socialism. What is socialism, Mr. Speaker? Now come on!

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You know, Mr. Speaker, listen to this man. I'm

going to tell you how I feel. I feel that what they should have done

when they came in was to say: "We are now elected, all 55 of us, and we

would like to discuss the problems that this province faces with a

sense of cooperativeness and a sense of good will." Let's be willing to

forget some of those little vendettas that we fought, because they go

on and begin to cost the people, you know. They drag this province down

if you go too far with that, and we haven't got time for that. I agree

with you that the people's business is urgent....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: That's what we should be doing instead of playing

political games. I'm quite willing to give you my assistance; I'm quite

willing to give you my counsel and guidance on any of these matters if

you will just confide in me and give me an opportunity, but I have yet

to have you call me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where's the money tree, Emery?

MR. BARNES: No, I don't think we should have a money tree. I

think we should begin to recognize the natural resource out there. You

know, there's one resource that was mentioned in your throne debate,

Mr. Speaker. You stated that the most important resource is the people

— the human resource.

[ Page 1009 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: Then you go on and say: "Yes, and we're going to take every dime they've got." (Laughter.) Isn't that something!

Now the NDP has always said that we want to use the resources of the

province to assist the people in carrying on their lives and to help to

develop the economy so that people will get something out in their

lifetime, Mr. Speaker — get something out in their lifetime from the

resources. They have a right to them and they shouldn't be given away,

especially non-renewable resources. But no, you are going to take away

the renewable resource, because there are new generations coming along

and as long as you herd them properly and take care of them properly,

keep your welfare programme going, you can keep everything in perfect

balance. Right? That's their idea of a social welfare programme, It's

not really to alleviate, but sort of to carry along, to maintain some

kind of balance for the system of competition, for the games that are

going to be played.

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that that day has long passed and people

are beginning to wake up. Thanks to the measures that were put forward

in this budget and the programmes you have introduced, you have done

more to wake the people up than anything I could ever say or do,

because they are feeling it where you said it counted the most — in

dollars and cents. That is the basis of your party — dollars and cents.

But you have got the message across because it's dollars and cents that

they're relating to, and they haven't got very many of them left —

you've cleaned them out!

You say you're concerned about people, and you close down one of the

most important programmes that was brought in in 1970 or 1971. It was a

programme brought in called the volunteer opportunities programme, and

there are some 4,000 participants in that programme right across the

province of British Columbia. You tell them: "Well, we're sorry we're

not going to be supporting you." There were 1,400 of those people

working in the Vancouver area alone. These were people who were mainly

made up of females who were single who had children and who were

working in various agencies throughout the community. That's right,

they were working in various offices. They were on social assistance

and they were getting a little extra $50 or $ 100 a month, but the main

thing was that they were getting job training and counselling and they

were developing and learning how to go into the work force.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: But you have eliminated that, and you tell them that we can't afford that. I tell you, it's going to cost you a lot more.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay, then you get up and make a speech. I

haven't heard anything from the back bench on this budget debate. I

would love to have you get up and tell me I am wrong and that

everything I have said is wrong. That means that everything is going to

look up.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're wrong. Okay, You're wrong, Em.

MR. BARNES: Out of order, Mr. Speaker. No, I want you to stand up and make a speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: We can't.

MR. BARNES: Oh, just stand up and make a speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: I did.

MR. BARNES: Tell the people that you guarantee that they will

all have employment and that they will have employment that is within

their capabilities.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You reconcile this for me, Mr. Minister,

reconcile this for me, through you, Mr. Speaker. You have the various

levels of education, high school and university, vocational training

and the community colleges and so forth. You tell people to study and

to develop a skill and an ability. Okay. So you don't have a system set

up whereby they can plug in to the work force. They can't find a job.

They you say they can't move around. You are to stay in the places

where the jobs are supposed to happen. Where is the programme for them

to get plugged in? Now if they don't get plugged in, you tell them they

have to take a job, any job, no matter what — not what they were

trained for, but just a job. Now we don't know where these jobs are; we

haven't seen them. Even with shovels. I haven't even seen anybody

getting shovels, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, may I interrupt you long enough to suggest that you are on your last two minutes?

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have observed that

procedure that you've gone through and I appreciate that. But I would

like to suggest that the idea of telling people that they have to stay

in an area who are, perhaps, qualified to a special job and the

government has no programme...and it has a

[ Page 1010 ]

duty because these people have gone through the

institutions that were set up to train them. We've encouraged them to

go, we've paid good tax dollars for the institutions and then we don't

let them do their work. If these institutions are not necessary, then

we close them down and tell everybody to just go out and go for

themselves. That would be more honest. It would be a lot more honest.

Now I'm no engineer and if you want to challenge me I can have you

one in five minutes. I can get you some engineers. You want to tell me

that there are jobs waiting for them? Many of them have applied to this

government, and I have letters to back it up. They are not getting into

jobs. You know what the reality is. It's a big joke.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where did the mining industry go?

MR. BARNES: It's a big joke. You go look in the papers and

see all these jobs advertised. But go and try and get one. You don't

have to worry about that. You fellows don't have to worry. This is very

alien to you, I am sure.

Well, I am not going to support this bill, this budget. I am not

going to support this budget. But I would say I would be pleased to be

available, should any of the hon. members on the government side wish

to consult with me and ask my opinion as a representative from one of

the largest ridings in the province on some suggestions as to what

should be done instead of punitive taxation, instead of some of the

points I have outlined. I will be very pleased to suggest to them how

they could go about encouraging people to participate in this society

without having to feel that big government is chasing them and that

they are going to be victims of punitive measures by the Minister of

Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I believe you are about concluded, are you not?

MR. BARNES: Just about. You are always allowed 30 seconds. You always have.

MR. SPEAKER: I would rather you conclude it than I do it for you.

MR. BARNES: In closing, I hope that you will consider the

direction you must take ultimately, because this direction will ruin

most working people. There is a bill on the order paper which I can't

discuss but that is a frightening piece of legislation, because you are

going to thrust the people even further, I am sure...because it's going

to be one-sided deal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment

the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). When he started he was playing

to the smallest House we have had in many days and he seems to have increased

the numbers. I compliment you. You do a very good job of it.

Mr. Speaker, for the past several days and some nights the budget

proposed by this government has been discussed, argued, fought over,

examined, dissected, applauded, sneered at, depending on one's

political point of view. Honest debate and constructive criticism are

both worthwhile endeavours and I salute the hon. members of this House

who have addressed themselves to this problem in an objective and sober

manner. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent that too

many hon. members have not been objective and far from constructive in

their approach to the budget debate.

I most definitely do not plan to rehash all the bickering accusation

and counter-accusation that has gone on before. No, Mr. Speaker, at

this time I wish to address the financial plans and policies of the

government in a positive and realistic manner. Grasping the crunch of

reality, Mr. Speaker, I think it especially worthwhile at the outset to

remind the hon. members of this House of the meaning of the word

mandate. In its strictest sense the word mandate means command — an

order, a positive directive. The people of the province of British

Columbia have commanded this government to proceed with the fiscal

policies they outlined so clearly in the platform policies during the

last election campaign. People of this province had a clear choice as

to how they wanted their tax dollars managed and spent. They went to

the polls, they made their choice and they delivered a government

mandate, a positive directive to govern according to the wishes of the

majority,

Mr. Speaker, the government of today is in power because of these

policies, not in spite of them. Therefore, I believe the hon.

opposition would be well advised to remind themselves of the reality of

the election mandate. Moreover, as members of opposition, their sworn

responsibility is to work constructively, not destructively for the

people of this province. To this end I would recommend to those hon.

members that they now cease and desist refusing to face the reality of

the mandate that this government has. If they will do that, the will of

the majority of the people in this province is going to be upheld by

the government.

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but comment on a condition that's been

occurring in the House for the last four weeks. We've been here four

weeks and something that I take notice of and exception to is the

constant referral by the opposition that we are a government of car

dealers and millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask: since when has it been necessary in our society to defend one's success? I

[ Page 1011 ]

think that the province and the opposition should

be delighted that successful people.... People who are successful are

ones who have a combination of two things — No. 1, ability, and,

secondly, they've been able to put that ability to work in a hard

manner; they worked hard to attain some success. I think the people of

this province, as the loyal opposition should recognize, should be

pleased that these people are willing to give their time to the service

of the people in this province.

One of the basic tenets of our society is that the itinerant worker,

through the combination of the two points that I've just made, has the

right to be successful. At no time should anyone try and make that

right an impossibility, nor should you insult a man because he might

have been able to do that.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Are you insulted by being called a car dealer?

MR. STRONGMAN: No, I'm not. I'd like to expand on that,

through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. leader. The so-called car dealers

are entrepreneurs. They've been elected by the people in their

communities. The people in their communities recognized their

expertise, their ability, their honesty, and they gave them the

plurality they needed to become elected in the last provincial election

— and you know the results of that.

I'm asking you: if you're going to attack us, and so you should,

attack us on our policies, the platform that we stand for, our

political philosophy, but don't attack us on our vocations.

Mr. Speaker, we do not attack the opposition on their vocations. We

have not attacked the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) or the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on the fact that they happen

to be lawyers. We haven't attacked the teachers in your caucus. We

haven't attacked the fact that you have a professional football player

— we haven't accused him of being good or bad. We haven't attacked the

professional socialists that you have within your party, and we don't

intend to.

We would hope that you would stay away from attacking us on our

chosen vocations. Attack us on our policies; we'll be delighted to

defend them.

Mr. Speaker, back to the budget. My intent is to address the budget

of this government in a positive manner — a task I find great security

and satisfaction in performing.

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

MR. STRONGMAN: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the precisely

drawn and carefully considered budget of this government is at once

effective, pragmatic and realistic.

The budget of this government in 1976 has responded to the

common-sense priorities demanded by the people in this province,

especially when you recognize the voting patterns in the last election.

MR. LAUK: What about the rubber cheque?

MR. STRONGMAN: Even a cursory reading of this budget, Mr.

Speaker, reveals that to be strongly people-oriented. In fact, this

budget clearly reinforces many of the good programmes already in

existence in the province. Some were initiated by the former

government, and I commend you for it. Others, though renamed, like

Mincome, were reinforced and updated by the former government taking on

the philosophy that the previous government — the government before

that — had and had in existence for many years.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's stretching the point.

MR. STRONGMAN: Not at all, hon. member. Not stretching it at all.

In this fair and pragmatic budget, Mr. Speaker, the government of

the day has indeed responded to the demands of the people. Common sense

prevails. People priorities prevail.

The largest single expenditure is health care — people benefits. Health care, it's up 20 per cent.

The Department of Human Resources will increase its spending by 20

per cent. People — we're dealing with people. The Department of

Education will increase its spending by over 10 per cent.

I'm sure we all agree we're talking about people, and that will

constitute the second-largest budgetary commitment. Health, Education,

Human Resources are all people-oriented priorities. Mr. Speaker, every

one of these departments will increase its spending to meet the real

needs of British Columbians.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this government is also committed to

responsible fiscal management. Some departmental budgets have had to be

decreased. More direct and competitive means have had to be found to

pay for these increased expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like rubber cheques?

MR. STRONGMAN: The hon. member seems to have a rubber tongue right now. I wish he'd come up with some new comments.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for the critics of this budget to wake

up, to face the straight facts of this government's spending priorities

and, more importantly, the announced methods of raising the much-needed

revenues to meet those commitments.

Let's start by exploring a few myths so noisily put forth by those

critics. A favourite myth concerns the sales tax increase. This says it

is a regressive,

[ Page 1012 ]

destructive tax. It affects poor people rather than

rich people. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is unmitigated garbage,

but probably looks good in the press, and I'm sure people are playing

to the press when they want to criticize what I think is a good tax, a

good way to collect tax.

The hard facts concerning the sales tax are these. B.C.'s new 7 per

cent level is now the same, or less, than every other province in the

country except Alberta. B.C.'s new 7 per cent sales tax is not one

penny higher than the other two socialist provinces in this country,

namely Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

There is no sales tax on items poor people or rich people absolutely

must have to live. Food, clothing, shoes for children, shelter are

tax-free.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: Well, rumour has it that rich people do eat

occasionally and even have children, and thus are exempt from sales tax

in essential items. The fact is that the buyers of big-ticket items do

pay increased tax for big cars, big stereo sets, television sets,

expensive jewellery, fur coats, travel and so on. These are all

non-essential items that presumably rich people can afford and so

deserve to pay a higher tax on. Some day-to-day items also carry the

increased tax, but most, Mr. Speaker, can fairly be classed as

optional. They are not essential for day-to-day living.

The next myth I would like to explore is a great favourite, that

this is a government for big business interests. Again I call it as I

see it, unmitigated garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: That again?

MR. STRONGMAN: Not as often as I hear the lines you shout out, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

This government has, in fact, raised the level of corporate income

tax to a point where it now stands as one of the highest in the

country. Moreover, it is higher than the other two socialist provinces

in the country, and we know that's Manitoba and Saskatchewan — higher

than the other two socialist provinces. A good way to collect tax, and

you're knocking it in the budget.

Another myth that should be shown in the light of stark reality is

that the budget hits harder at people least able to afford the cost

increase. I can't accept that one either.

The budget of this province has increased provincial income tax, and

who gets hit hardest when that happens? People with large incomes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, people with small incomes!

MR. STRONGMAN: People with large incomes, the people with the

greatest ability to pay. And guess what? Once again B.C.'s high level

of personal income tax, hitting those with high incomes, is higher than

the other two socialist provinces in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks to this point have been, I believe, a fair

and necessary exercise to explode the myths that have been presented as

valid criticism of this government's budget. It would appear, Mr.

Speaker, that such criticism is, at best, uninformed and, at worse,

inaccurate.

Having explored the spending priorities and necessary

revenue-raising measure to be undertaken by the government, it is of

even greater importance to understand that British Columbia's overall

prosperity is directly dependent upon her economic development. Without

a healthy, growing, productive economic base this province simply

cannot ensure the maintenance of high living standards and social

services which we all expect from an industrialized society, benefits

that we have expected and maintained in this province.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention to the House of my

maiden speech delivered in this House on March 25. At that time I dealt

very directly with labour-management relations as they now stand in the

province. I feel the hon. members would be well advised to consider

those remarks, as they were constructed carefully, after much thought

and several years' experience in the labour-management scene in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, we have experienced in the last years, five years at

least, strikes, lockouts, wildcat walkouts, thousands of man-hours

lost, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we correct this problem. I believe

this government must direct itself to new

definitions in the area of

essential services. To this end British Columbia's major economic

enterprises must be viewed as essential services to the people. Today,

B.C. Is still, to our great disadvantage, dependent upon two major

industries. We're dependent for our very economic survival. These

industries should be classed as essential services.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, defining many of our major resource

industries as essential services would be a first step in restoring

British Columbia's good reputation. Both management and labour must be

educated to the consequences of irresponsible action. I would like to

stress again that we're talking about labour and management, not one or

the other. They must be forced to bargain collectively, quickly and

decisively to avoid strikes such as we have seen in the past years. I

believe that if this condition was allowed to exist and was improving

continually, strikes would cease to be inevitable, and they could

become a rarity.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken briefly on the budget, with a few asides. I

support this budget as a fine, responsible budget that all of us on

both sides of the

[ Page 1013 ]

House can live with.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth

budget debate in which I've had the privilege to participate as the

representative for Alberni constituency. As is customary, I would like

to congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker and to

welcome those members, old and new, who have been elected to this

assembly on December 11, 1975.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Skelly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In addressing myself to

this budget debate I'm inclined to comment that it is becoming more

known for length than strength. I hope that my contribution will join

with many of those who have added the substance to the length, and that

there will be some remarks which will be of help to the people of this

province and to those in my constituency.

Mrs. Jordan moves adjournment of the debate.

HON, W. R. BENNETT (Premier): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, if we go through this two of the members who should be allowed

to speak in this debate will lose their place — the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I'm sure

the House doesn't wish that to happen. We had hoped that every member

would speak in this debate, and I wonder if, with leave, the member for

Alberni could be allowed to continue his speech and, following him, the

member for North Okanagan.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty with my

voice. I wonder if perhaps somebody on the other side of the House

would prefer to continue on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni defers to the member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that it is a

pleasure to have this opportunity to take

part in the debate on a

budget that was brought down by a new Premier, a new cabinet and a new

government. It is a budget which I believe and this side believes will

introduce a new era into the province of British Columbia, and a budget

that in itself has assumed the first responsibility made by the Premier

of our province as a commitment in the last election.

That was, in itself, responsibility — to return responsible

government to this province; to have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to be

responsible, and that's not always easy. The easy way out, as we have

seen. was taken by the NDP in the province of British Columbia who were

flushed with success and flushed with idealism, but failed to realize

the enormities of life and that success and idealism do not create

services to people nor they create a climate in which people can have

confidence.

The second commitment by the Premier of this province in the

election, and which is in its first stage of being carried out in the

budget, is responsiveness. It isn't enough to be a responsible

government; it is only enough when we are a responsible, responsive

government.

Without repeating the many figures that have been brought forth with

great sincerity by other members in this debate, I would point out that

where the budget is pulling in to a sense of responsibility, it is then

adjusting to a sense of responsiveness with emphasis on people services

such as in education, human resources, and in health.

Just on the point of health, I would like to digress for a moment to

give my support — and I'm sure the support of many other people — to

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who has an extremely

difficult job and who, when he took over his office, was the successor

to a popular position made so because of a lack of responsibility of

the then minister, and the lack of ability of that then minister to

really come to grips with the health problems of this province, and

also with the budgetary problems.

That minister carried on some of the policies that were laid down by

the NDP — and I would refer specifically to the 15 per cent staff

cutback. But he diligently adjusted, worked and tried to overcome some

of the serious internal problems which led to a lack of flexibility in

that programme and that cutback. When the people who were involved in

this programme of home care throughout the province sat down and showed

how they could meet the requirement for responsibility in managing

their budget and cutting back, with their cooperation, and through his

efforts, we were able to embark not only on a new programme in terms of

increased money in the budget for home care, but to do away with the

NDP stilted cutback programme, and see home care move on, not only as

it was, but as a priority of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a deep philosophical

discussion on financing, because this has been done by many. I might

add that it's always very interesting to hear the various accountants

in the House go over the figures. It certainly goes to prove that if

you put 10 accountants in one room with one set of figures, they'll

come out with 10 different

[ Page 1014 ]

answers.

I was really most impressed with the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), at first, when she talked about kitchen-table

financing. Really, that's where it's at. There's no magic and there's

no miracle in bringing in a level of government budget. There's no

magic and there's no miracle in what happened to this province under

the NDP. There's no magic and no miracle in what is happening now. It

is simple kitchen-table fact: when bills are run up, they have to be

paid, and that money has to be handled carefully and with dedication. I

would suggest that where the member for Cowichan-Malahat went astray in

her kitchen-table politics was not in suggesting the need for it, but

in failing to realize it's the accountants who appear to muss up

kitchen-table politics or financing.

If you put a family of 10 around a kitchen table, and with an income

of $700 a month after taxes, I assure you they would know what bills

have to be paid, and they would pay them. They would know and exercise

the fundamental philosophy that all of us have to learn in'life — that

we simply cannot have more than we're capable of creating and paying

for.

I was interested in the comments from the hon. member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she insisted that the increase in

sales tax would work a hardship on those on lower incomes. She also

referred to this increase in sales tax under the Social Services Tax

Amendment Act, and its effect upon the poor, and what she felt was its

effect on the rich.

I don't want to transgress in that area of the bill, but I would

like to point out that there is very much evidence to suggest that an

increase in the tax will have very little effect upon the poor and

lower economic sectors of British Columbia. Approximately two-thirds of

British Columbians can be classified as low-wage earners and poor

people.

If we use the 1971 census figures, approximately 27 per cent of

urban British Columbians and 19 per cent of rural British Columbians

fall within the so-called poverty class. That averages out to 23 per

cent of the total population. The earnings level used to determine the

poverty level are those determined by Statistics Canada for 1974 —

$7,601 for a family of four living in a metropolitan area, and $5,527

for a family of four living in a rural area.

The new sales tax provisions will not greatly affect these people

except as it indirectly contributes to the general inflationary trend.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the important point because it is inflation that

hurts the poor. For example, between 1966 and 1969 the bottom 40 per

cent of all wage earners benefited from an increase in their salaries.

However, in terms of 1961 dollars, the actual purchasing power of those

workers declined during the 1966-1969 interval and accelerated in

British Columbia considerably during the 1973-75 period of the NDP

government.

My colleague speaking before me has outlined where the necessities

of life — clothing, food, medical supplies — are free of the sales tax

and that, in essence, those who pay the greatest amount of sales tax

are those who exercise the greatest degree of spending scope and those

who buy in terms of greater luxuries in our area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a vast province and there are a vast number of

people out in this province whom I believe are supporting what they

voted for in this election, and that is responsible and responsive

government. I believe that there are many people in this province who

feel that the greatest problem we have in our country and in our

province, other than inflation and our economic problems, is a lack of

confidence in ourselves as people, in ourselves in terms as parents and

in ourselves in terms of government and our responsibilities. These

people want to become involved.

They know that in British Columbia we have simply been living beyond

our capabilities. They know that if we, as a generation in this year

who live among the world's highest standards of living, who have among

the world's highest medical care for all, who have among the world's

highest standards of education for the greatest number of people, who

have the free world's highest standard of education in our labour

force, and who in Canada enjoy the highest average wage and income, and

certainly among the highest in the free world, if we in this time of

opulence have stopped short long enough to ask ourselves what it's all

about and what will happen if we don't come to grips with these

relatively minor problems, then they know and we know that if we can't

accept our responsibilities, if we can't come to grips with this, the

generation behind us won't.

There are many young people in this province and in this gallery,

and many of us have families all of whom when they grow up are going to

have their own problems in terms of their choice of career, their

opportunity for a career, in terms of their social values, in terms of

what problems they're going to be confronted with — pollution,

education needs, health needs — and these are not going to go away.

They are going to have their problems, and we simply can't, because we

fail to stop and take stock of the current situation and our own

abilities, or lack of confidence, burden them with our problems as well

as their own.

I think the fact that in this country most of us are floating,

because we've lost the sense of national pride, comes into play in this

budget. I'm not suggesting that we should return to any sort of a

situation where we believe "my country, do or die." But I do believe

that the time has come when we have to stop as individuals, whatever

our age, whatever our occupation, whatever our interests and whatever

our role in public service, and ask ourselves about my country and me.

Are we willing to truly serve others

[ Page 1015 ]

and to truly be part of changes in our society, not with talk, but with action?

As I mentioned before, I believe that there's a vast army of people

in this great province of British Columbia who feel as we do, who do

want to stop, take a breather and, if necessary, tighten their belts in

order that we can bring our house in order, in order that we can go

ahead in terms of social services, go ahead in terms of a healthy

economy and provide the opportunities for the future that we so dearly

want to.

This brings to mind the role of the volunteer, It seems that over

the last few years society has been gyrating from left to right. We've

been turned upside-down and through self-analysis we tend to have lost

our confidence in ourselves. But also, in a great effort to try to

offer equal opportunity to people, whether they are men, or children or

women, we have lost sight of one important sector of our society, and

that is the volunteer.

I was interested the other day on a bus going back to our

constituency when I met a very nice young lady. We were talking and I

asked her what she did. She said: "Oh, I'm just a housewife and

mother." I was quite angry with her. I said: "Don't say, 'I'm just a

housewife and mother.'" As one lady said the other night: "No way. I'm

a home engineer."

What is wrong when we have a bright young woman, a mother, a woman

who has one of the greatest sensitivity points of influence on our

future society — her children — when she says: "I am just a mother and

a volunteer and a housewife"?

I believe that in order to accomplish what we want to do, in a way

to be able to utilize our resources in terms of people, we as a

government have to put great emphasis on the role of the volunteer. We

have to clear away the clouds that have basically almost embarrassed

this position and recognize that there is nothing very glamorous about

standing for eight hours in a 15-cent store, although there should be

that opportunity and it should be well paid for a good day's work if

that is desired. But we must honour those who choose to serve our

society by volunteering, by being mothers, by working in partnership

with their husbands or wives — whichever partner chooses to do this —

but don't seek any financial reward for this. I would hope that our

government will not only declare this a matter of urgent priority but

that we, through legislation, will provide an opportunity for people to

take part, if they so wish.

Perhaps we could establish legislation along the wartime legislation dollar-a-year

people, people with great knowledge in many fields who would like to work with

government to assist and lend their expertise but are quite willing to do so

without pay, that we would develop a year somewhat similar to the centennial

years that we used to have in British Columbia when there was an appropriate

time which united this province together — people in communities planning

projects, working together. No one was paid but the accomplishments were tremendous

in terms of physical construction; they were even greater in terms of community

unity, provincial unity and community and provincial pride.

I suggest that we have a year in which we would unite this province

in developing community service, community projects and provincial

projects and which would honour both with certificates, if you like,

perhaps medals, the many hundreds of volunteers in our province. In

doing this we would help bring to our own attention what we as

individuals can do in terms of developing our great province as it

should be, whether it be culturally, industrially, socially or just

plain humanly.

We would recognize that this type of spirit must also start with our

young people and in our schools. In focusing attention on this type of

emphasis when we are also discussing this budget, we would call upon

the best of ourselves, whether we are teachers, whether we are train

engineers, whether we are lawyers, doctors, students, to face the

issues that confront us today, to tighten our belts, to develop

confidence in ourselves and to develop not only responsibility, but a

sense of pride in our province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that I would like to discuss in

relation to my constituency, or the constituency that I have the honour

of representing, but I recognize that there are other members who wish

to speak in this debate. There will be ample opportunity under the

estimates. So I would just close by calling as one human being to

another on all the people of this province to join with this

government, regardless of their partisan views — criticize

constructively, the government will be responsive — to join together in

meeting the necessary adjustments that have to be met if we are to be

fair to the next generation and if we are to be fair to ourselves.

I also would call on all of us to think of my country and I, my friends, my neighbours and I.

Mr. Mussallem moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 11.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

[ Page 1016 ]

section 1.

MR. LAUK: In dealing with

section 1 of Bill 11 it has

occurred to me that there would be no need to have the 5 per cent sales

tax raised to 7 per cent had not the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) gone through this kiting operation with ICBC by writing a burn

cheque that was never cashed. Now they pretend it's cashed. If they

have got money and they borrowed money from ICBC recently, they're

using trust moneys out of ICBC held in trust for insured automobile

owners. They know and everyone in British Columbia knows that if a

private citizen did that kind of paper chase, he'd be charged with a

criminal offence.

It's a paper chase, that's all it is. They had to figure out a way

to pay a subsidy to the insurance corporation, and this is the way they

did it.

They promised not a subsidy but then they went around and paid a subsidy, and they're paying a subsidy.

Everyone's talking about $181 million, but there is no $181 million.

What the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did was write an NSF

cheque to pretend that he was borrowing that money back from ICBC. No,

he's not. He's borrowing trust funds. He's borrowing ICBC premiums back

to the government and that's a hoax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you against that?

MR. LAUK: I'm not against the subsidy — you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You're borrowing premium funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Thank you so much for your attention.

I've been waiting for the last few minutes to make sure that the

hon. member relates his remarks to

section 1. We are recanvassing the

material that was covered under the principle of this bill. Can we go

section 1, please?

MR. LAUK: I don't know whether anyone has congratulated you

on your first address in the 31st parliament, and I don't know whether

anyone will. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: No, with all respect, I always look upon the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as being...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: ...a very pleasant fellow indeed: misguided

politically, in the wrong political party, but a decent chap and an

excellent chairman of this committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now to

section 1.

MR. LAUK: Having complimented you, may I now move on to ICBC? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LAUK: That won't wash either. Will you accept a little talk on Hydro?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

Section 1, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: I think, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, that if

the government wants to raise the sales tax and is feigning this need

for more money, they should come right out in the open and say that

what they've done is provided a 10 per cent subsidy of $181 million to

the ICBC.

The Minister of Finance in an answer in question period today said

that $181 million was the only amount that we've borrowed. If ICBC had

cashed the cheque, which they didn't, the government would have to make

that cheque good....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I said "so far."

MR. LAUK: Oh, you're a sneaky little devil. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am still waiting for the member to move to

section 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is "sneaky big devil" on that list, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LAUK: I didn't say a sneaky big devil. I said a sneaky little devil, and that's on the list of approved terminology.

Mr. Chairman, on

section 1, which you so astutely pointed out to me

is the subject of our discussion at the moment, the 7 per cent sales

tax represent, in my submission, an unnecessary increase in taxation.

As has been pointed out prior to the luncheon adjournment, there are

many, many promises that were made by the Leader of the Opposition as

he then was — the current Premier of the province — and I think that

the Minister of Finance forgot that that promise for an exemption on

building materials was made.

[ Page 1017 ]

Building materials clearly comes within this section.

The Minister of Finance I hope had lunch with the Premier, because

with his paucity of answers in committee stage he has little else to

do. I am sure he discussed it with the Premier and found out that

indeed the promise was made. Let's forget for the moment that they also

promised to freeze taxes and not sell theMarguerite. Let's forget those

broken promises. The road to power is paved with broken promises, Mr.

Chairman. But let's find out whether or not the Minister of Finance has

agreed that he will amend this bill by exempting building materials.

He's presently occupied, so maybe I should move on to ICBC. No, here

he is. Are you ready now to accept that kind of an amendment?

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

that the member probably doesn't understand yet the situation with

respect to ICBC and the obligations that were incurred by the former

government which makes it necessary for the tax increases which are

exemplified in

section 1 of this bill, because there is no question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, Please let's move to the subject which is covered in

section 1. We are in committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's quite correct. It's in committee, Mr.

Chairman, that questions are asked by the opposition and where they are

answered by the responsible ministers. In this particular case the

member has launched into a vicious attack on ICBC — once more, Mr.

Chairman, denying the culpability of his government for the debt which

was incurred which required the borrowing of funds and the raising of

taxes in order to pay back that borrowing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member

that the question was ruled out of order. Therefore I would have to

rule the answer out of order. I would ask you to move to

section 1.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not, Mr. Chairman, after he casts a slur on

this corporation that is being rescued by

section 1 of this bill. There

is no question that the debt that has been incurred by ICBC — and I

will be bringing down on the first day after the recess of this

parliament the audited statement of ICBC showing the extent of those

losses — has to be covered by current taxes, It's got to be covered by

the kind of current taxes in

section 1 of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Can we draw the debate now to

section 1?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right. It's why

section 1 is

necessary. It's necessary because the fenders that were bashed during

the regime of the NDP were not covered by premiums charged to the

drivers of British Columbia. Therefore current taxes are required to

pay for those bashed fenders. It's a shameful, shocking situation that

bills such as this one have to come before this House, but it was

necessitated, Mr. Chairman, by the complete irresponsibility of the

member who got up and asked that question and of his government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: On

section 1, Mr. Chairman, I have a great respect

for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and his

ability to stick to the point. The point is this: if it was necessary

for a subsidy, why all the flim-flam?

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo on

section 2.

MR. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, actually I was trying to

get in between sections 1 and 2. I know that is a bit of sandwiching,

but let me just try that on you for size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I will try to make my point, Mr. Chairman.

During the discussion of

section 1 there was a considerable discussion

of further exemptions. It would seem to us that the Minister of Finance

was listening carefully to these and there was even some nodding. I do

have an amendment that would insert a new

section 2 and renumber

section 2 and

section 3. I would like to move this amendment, Mr.

Chairman. It is not only in order, I hope, but it is in line with

election promises that have been referred to and that have been made by

the Social Credit while they were in the campaign. There is one here

with a picture of the Premier where they promise to keep home-building

costs down, and certainly that's in order, Mr. Chairman: "Social Credit

will remove the 5 per cent tax on building materials."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: The amendment before you proposes a

section 2

that would add two exemptions to the list, one with respect to building

materials and one with respect to motor homes. I suggest, Mr. Chairman,

that in view of the arguments that have been mad" and the obvious

attention of the Minister of Finance, perhaps this amendment would be

acceptable to the government.

It is also, of course, in line with, as I say, the

[ Page 1018 ]

promises made by the Social Credit Party during the

election campaign. I think this would be an opportunity for them to

accept an amendment that would put them in line with one of their own

promises. I think they'd like this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring

this bill in line with one of their own election promises, perhaps one

of the election promises that helped them get the vote that they did in

the campaign and elect the number of members that they did.

Mr. Chairman, are you accepting the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've just perused the amendment. The amendment

appears to be in order; however, since it was an amendment without

notice it is incumbent upon me to read the amendment for all members to

hear.

The proposed amendment, hon. members, is to Bill 11, and it's by

adding the following after

section 1, as

section 2:

section 5 of the

Social Services Tax Act is amended by adding the following:

"residential building materials, mobile homes used as residence," and

further, by renumbering

section 2 and

section 3.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I feel I should

speak to this amendment because, while I undoubtedly agree with its

objectives and I can remember advocating removing the 5 per cent tax on

building materials when I was in opposition, I can remember the then

Premier (Mr. Barrett) saying it was a worthy objective but couldn't be

done at that time. Little did I know he knew more about the financing

than I thought he did, because he knew very well the province was in

difficult shape. He just didn't spread the word around.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now if you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, we

did campaign in the election and we put before the people some goals

which we said we would try to achieve during our mandate — not in one

year or two years, but within the framework of our five-year mandate

that we achieved on December 11.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We also qualified.... It was not a

qualification to waffle, as the opposition often does, but a

qualification because there was uncertainty about