1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

483 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Restriction of off-work activities of public servants. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy —

Mr. Gibson — 484

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Restriction on off-work activities of public servants. Mr. King —

Wage-and-price controls. Mr. Wallace — 485

Allocation of surplus wood chips. Mr. Gibson — 486

Payment of gratuities to public servants. Mrs. Dailly — 486

Criticism of Attorney-General's department by Human Resources minister. Mr. Macdonald — 486

Budget debate.

On the amendment.

Mr.Cocke — 487

Mr. Wallace — 492

Mr. Macdonald — 497

Mr. Barber — 499

Mr. Gibson — 505

Mr. Levi — 507

Ms. Brown — 512

Mr. King — 515

Tabling reports

British Columbia Medical Centre annual report. Hon. Mr. McClelland —

Point of order

Tabling of materials cited by members. Mr. Speaker rules — 519

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, quite often during

this period we welcome guests to our assembly. Today I'd like to offer

some congratulations to that extension of our assembly, the press

gallery, on their new election of officers. As legislators, we in the

assembly often feel at their mercy.

I'd like to congratulate their new president, Ron Thompson; the

vice-president, Charles La Vertu; and Candide Temple as

secretary-treasurer. While they are known as the Fourth Estate, I want

them to know that they are not going to be subject to any of the estate

tax legislation.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

adding my congratulations, I want to say that the opposition has

confirmed the election because we have not been asked for a recount of

any ballots.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to ask the members to welcome

outstanding citizens of Vancouver who are visiting the gallery today.

Halford Wilson served the city of Vancouver as alderman for a record 30

years, and he served it well. I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs.

Halford Wilson.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I have the opportunity of

welcoming someone back to the House. I want the House to welcome the

first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who is back now from an

international conference where a group of Canadian citizens represented

this whole nation in a very important social and political gathering of

black people from all over the world. Ms. Brown was graciously given

permission through the Provincial Secretary's motion and the support of

the House later, hopefully, to attend this conference on our behalf.

All reports indicate that she did an outstanding job for us. I would

like the House to welcome her.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, I have two special groups to introduce to the House today.

I would ask the members to welcome them. First, on behalf of the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is out

of town today, I would ask the House to greet Mr. Vandyke and his

students from Saanich Christian School.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please welcome a number of my friends who are visiting from Victoria Silver Threads.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery

today is a group of 16 students from my constituency of Omineca. With

them is their very able instructor, Nancy Plasway, They are of the band

development group from Burns Lake. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming an old friend of

mine, a former alderman of the city of Penticton, Mr. Lloyd Burgart.

Along with him there are a number of interior cattlemen.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

RESTRICTION ON OFF-WORK

ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) a question concerning Mr. Bob Bierman, who is a

cartoonist for the Times and

who also, is employed in the resource analysis branch of the Ministry

of Environment. This question had to do with

section 50 of the Public

Service Act of 1976 which states: "No employee shall engage ~in

remunerative employment with any other employer, or carry on any

business, except with the approval of the commission."

Mr. Bierman met with the deputy minister, Mr. Ben E. Marr, on

January 17,1977, at which time Mr. Marr brought to Mr. Bierman's

attention the requirements under

section 50. Although Mr. Bierman was

aware of this requirement, he had not made application under the Act.

On January 26,1977, Mr. Bierman requested permission from the Public

Service Commission to allow him to continue to contribute artwork to

publications as a freelance cartoonist under

section 50 of the Public

Service Act.

A copy of this request was received by Mr. Ben Marr, deputy

minister, today, February 1, 1977. The deputy minister has recommended

to Mr. A.G. Richardson, chairman of the Public Service Commission, that

Mr. Bierman be permitted to continue his freelance assignments outside

the public service if such endeavours are not in conflict with any

oaths of office, rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the government is cognizant of the employment situation at the present

[ Page 484 ]

time, but because of the specialized work of

freelancing carried on by Mr. Bierman, it is in agreement with Mr.

Marr's recommendation to the chairman of the Public Service Commission.

However, the government wants to reiterate that in general terms it

does not condone public servants taking on second jobs which will take

employment opportunities away from other citizens of this province.

Along with that statement, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to file

the two letters, which I referred to in the statement, with the House.

Leave granted.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, that

being a statement, perhaps a brief reply is in order. I think that the

government has done the right thing here after some prodding from the

opposition, and I am glad to congratulate them on it.

Oral questions.

RESTRICTION ON OFF-WORK

ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Yesterday in the question

period, in answer to a question by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr.

Gibson), the Minister of Environment said he was not aware that Mr.

Marr, the deputy minister, was investigating the activities of Mr.

Bierman as related to

section 50 of the Public Service Act. Immediately

after the question period, the minister admitted to reporters outside

the House that he had instructed Mr. Marr to conduct such an

investigation. I would like to ask the minister this specific question:

Would he please clarify — did he in fact know in advance that Mr. Marr

was checking with Mr. Richardson of the Public Service Commission? Or

did Mr. Marr undertake this action without the knowledge of the

Minister of Environment and conduct the investigation without prior

knowledge of the minister?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan is not correct in his initial statement

relative to the question from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

The statement by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday — in reading

from the Blues — was: "According to reports, he was told recently by

the deputy minister of the department to stop his cartooning under

authority of the little-used

section of the Public Service Act." The

member for North Vancouver–Capilano asked of me: "I would ask if the

minister was aware in advance of this instruction." The instruction

referred to was to have Mr. Bierman stop his cartooning.

MR. BARRETT: Now he's changed his mind.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question from the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano was very clear, I believe. The answer I gave

yesterday was: No, I was not aware that my deputy minister had ordered

Mr. Bierman to stop cartooning. I understand, to the best of my

knowledge, that still has not been said, and certainly not in advance.

I was not aware that Mr. Marr was meeting with Mr. Bierman at all.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary: my question did

not relate to whether deputy minister Marr had instructed Mr. Bierman

to stop. The question was, purely and simply, did Mr. Marr undertake

this discussion with Mr. Bierman — the investigation — with prior

knowledge of the minister? That's the simple question. Would the

minister answer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: All right, the simple question that you now

ask is quite different from the previous question that was presumably

not so simple, in that it reflected on the question offered by the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano, of which apparently you either did

not have a copy or you had forgotten what the words were.

As I have said a number of times, the work of Mr. Bierman was

brought to my attention and I asked my deputy minister to investigate

on my behalf with the Public Service Commission. That's hardly in

contradiction to the answer given to the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister is very

sensitive. I never accused him of being in conflict at all. I simply

asked a question.

Mr. Speaker, has the minister, since the present government took

office, ever received a blacklist from anyone in the Premier's office

identifying any public servants as to their political affiliation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to conduct a very careful

search of my files and records to determine if one was ever received,

Mr. Member, and officially I'll take your question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary to the Premier: has anyone in your

office ever forwarded a blacklist of names of public servants to any

minister identifying them by their political sympathies?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is: absolutely no.

[ Page 485 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if such an event took place without

the Premier's notice, would he dismiss the person who was responsible

for such a list?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: If such an event took place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: But your answer is no — is that right? Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's conjecture on your part, hon. member.

WAGE-AND-PRICE CONTROLS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier: a week ago Thursday in the House during question period, when

I asked the Premier about anti-inflation measures, he stated very

plainly that the conference last December had reaffirmed the conviction

of the federal and provincial governments that anti-inflation measures

would be maintained under the existing agreement. Now about a week ago

in Toronto, the Finance minister, Donald Macdonald, made a statement

that he hoped to see the controls end, perhaps by the end of '77. I

understand that at the meeting with Finance ministers in Ottawa today

he has, in fact, repeated this decision, or at least the strong feeling

that the federal government would like to end the anti-inflation

measures much sooner than the agreed date of December, 1978. My

question to the Premier is: can he reconfirm the position of this

government, as he outlined it in the House a week ago, that regardless

of early federal withdrawal of anti-inflation measures, as far as

British Columbia is concerned they will be maintained until the

termination of the agreement in 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I still take the Prime

Minister and the other provincial Premiers at their face value on the

words and the agreement that they made when I was at the meeting in

December, and press speculation out of a meeting now as to what Finance

minister Macdonald has in mind, and the discussions that the federal

government is holding — and we already announced that we were all

interested in holding discussions on post-control programmes — don't

necessarily indicate to me yet that in two short months the Prime

Minister has changed his mind and that the other provincial Premiers

have changed their minds,

I can only reiterate to the member, Mr. Speaker, through you, that

this government still honours the commitment it made to the Prime

Minister and the other Premiers. I have been in discussion with Finance

Minister Wolfe, who as head of our anti-inflation programme is in

Ottawa. In discussion with him I have the understanding that he has

reiterated the British Columbia position in no uncertain terms, and

that we stand ready to meet the commitment to show the restraint

provincially as part of the federal programme we committed ourselves to

when we joined the programme and that was reaffirmed in December at the

First Ministers' meeting.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to

debate this; I just want to stick to question and answer because I

think there is evidence the federal government is waffling and doesn't

know what its position really is. I'm entitled to my position in the

same way that the Premier feels he can take the Prime Minister's

decision at face value. But that isn't the point.

I want to ask a further question. There is obvious uncertainty about

where this country is going regarding anti-inflation measures, and

since a bill is required in this House to provide the ongoing funding

for the continuing application of the Anti-Inflation Measures Act,

which we passed last spring, can I ask the Premier if any decision has

been taken to incorporate provincial anti-inflation measures in that

bill so this government's stated policy of restraint can be maintained

regardless of any federal decision which may be round the corner?

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

provincial government has looked at options but our last discussions,

as I said, with the federal government were that the programme would go

through to the projected date. As such, the research we've done on an

alternative programme has not been developed any further. As you know,

we are in the anti-inflation programme until its termination. We don't

need additional authority from this House to continue, although we do

have the option of removing ourselves from the programme on 90 days'

notice. If we had wanted to get out in April, we would have had to give

notice in January. By not giving such notice we have maintained

ourselves as part of the national fight to beat inflation.

I would just add that the speculation now going on in the east is

that the federal government is shifting its policy to creating

employment, and it is not incompatible, I don't think, to continue to

fight inflation and try and provide employment for our people. Both of

them are dangerous, and one programme shouldn't be abandoned while we

attack the other. It's possible, I think, for government to do two

things at once.

[ Page 486 ]

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll bet it is!

ALLOCATION OF SURPLUS WOOD CHIPS

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

Forests, Mr. Chips. (Laughter.) In view of the failure of the industry

committee, of which I think the minister is well aware, to allocate

chip purchases between the major and independent suppliers, and the

breakdown of those negotiations, caused, I understand, by the backout

of one of the majors, does the minister agree with the principle of

fair allocation of excess chips — in other words, a sharing of the

surplus, more or less, depending on the production?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, my name is not "Chips."

I realize that this problem continues to exist. I met last week with

the chief executive officer of this particular company that is blamed

for the failure of these negotiations. I feel that continued

negotiations can take place. I do believe in a fair allocation of chips.

However, there are chip-supply contracts in existence between

various sawmills, and it's not the government's function to interfere

with contracts between corporations. However, we are continuing to work

with the industry in an attempt to overcome this chip surplus problem

and to make it as easy as possible for all those who are presently

having to stockpile large numbers of chips.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary question. Could I ask the

minister if some of the measures he might propose to take include those

currently rumoured in the industry — variable utilization standards,

depending upon the cooperation of any particular company?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a secret

at all that the Forest Service has been addressing utilization

standards and has been making variations in these with the intention of

reducing the production of wood chips. This is one small measure that

we can take. I don't think it will have a great effect, although it

will help incrementally in controlling the production of chips. But

there are other measures we hope to be able to take. We are continuing

to work with industry to solve this very serious problem.

PAYMENT OF GRATUITIES

TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Provincial Secretary:

why was the honorarium paid to Mr. Broadbent given to him 11 months after his

retirement, just a few days before the M.E.L. Paving case was settled out of

court, instead of at the time of his retirement in January, 1976? Perhaps when

the Provincial Secretary stands to answer that question, she will also answer

the question she took as notice yesterday.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that

yesterday I took as notice that question surrounding the

order-in-council. I shall take the further question that has been

presented today as notice as well.

CRITICISM OF A-G DEPARTMENT

BY HUMAN RESOURCES MINISTER

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

ask the Minister of Human Resources, who wrote a letter last November

attacking the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) department,

particularly in the provision of assistance in divorce cases.... I

think the minister remembers that famous letter. Then it was

mysteriously released to the press in January. I want to ask him: did

he release and authorize the release of his letter attacking another

department of the government? Did he personally authorize the release?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary. Did the minister investigate

as to why a letter between two departments of the government, one kind

of bitterly attacking the other, should be released to the press? Have

you made any investigation to find out how that letter came to be

released and printed in the paper?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, we did determine how the letter came into the hands of those who published it.

MR. MACDONALD: A final supplementary. How did it come into the public hands? (Laughter.) I'm sure the Attorney-General didn't release it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a copy was given to the Law Reform Commission and they apparently forwarded a copy to the party in question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, did the minister authorize that letter to go to the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The letter from me, Mr. Speaker, was addressed to the Attorney-General

[ Page 487 ]

as an interdepartmental thing. However, someone in the department forwarded it to the commission. No, not myself.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before you start, I would just like

to inform you, for your own information, that you have 31 minutes left

after the adjournment of last evening.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

find it very interesting that today we are debating a motion of

non-confidence in the government, a motion that I will go over in some

detail in a few moments, when last night as I was thinking about some

of the things I might comment upon today and watching the channel 6

television news I was surprised to hear a report that there had been a

motion of non-confidence during the debate — and this is for your

information, Mr. Speaker — upon the Speech from the Throne, and that

also there was now a motion of non-confidence in the debate on the

budget. "Both motions, however," said the commentator, "were swamped by

the Socred majority." So it would strike me that the reporter or that

commentator kind of took the wind out of our sails. He says we're

beaten before we really start.

Really, that mustn't be. We have a succinct, properly worded

resolution that appeals to all the backbenchers. I can just tell by the

looks on their faces. They know perfectly well that this government is

guilty of poor fiscal management. They know perfectly well that it's

affected, in a detrimental. way, the human betterment of the majority

of the people in the province particularly in respect to taxation,

investor confidence, employment opportunities — and it does not protect

senior citizens and the handicapped from the effects of inflation. Now

they all know that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the majority of

them will be voting with us. Surely it goes without saying that the

members, even though they're on the government side, must face reality

sooner or later. Now's a good time for them to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cyril's going to vote with you.

MR. COCKE: Of course he must. I notice however, Cyril once

put on a pair of running shoes, Mr. Member. He hit that door faster

than lightning. I would worry somewhat, too, about the member for Delta

(Mr. Davidson), because he was even faster than the member for Skeena

(Mr. Shelford), if you can remember the debate that was going on that

day last year.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let's kind of go over this whole question again.

I say to you that the entire direction that this government shows is

direction showing its bias. We see mining companies in this province

receiving welfare. On the other hand, we see deserving elderly and

disabled people being swindled by that government at the present time.

You'll recall — and I'll refer back to it later — that letter from the

First United Church. We find the evidence in a letter from the First

United Church, among many other letters that we've received. At the

same time we also see oil companies given carte blanche by that

government, knowing that they have legislation in force in this

province. They're giving those oil companies carte blanche approval to

put the squeeze on every car-driving person in this province with their

exorbitant rates for gasoline; particularly exorbitant in the north

where we find so many of the great fighters, the freedom fighters, who,

obviously, aren't back home paying those prices. If they were, they

would be fighting, no doubt, for the people they represent. They

certainly aren't fighting in this House. We've had four speakers on a

debate already — I'm the fourth — and not a move from the government

side. If they don't agree with us, then get up and debate against us

and our position. If, on the other hand, they agree with this motion,

get up and debate in favour of this motion. A great lack of courage

back there. What's the matter? Are they afraid the people back home

might hear them?

It strikes me that they've been ordered to silence. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) sits there with a bit of a frown on his

face, saying to himself: "I wonder what he's going to say next that

might get those people up." Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) talks about irresponsibility in this House. That

member, when he sat over on this side, having people fired by virtue of

his charges and the kind of irresponsible mess that came from this side

of the House, particularly from that member.... He should never ever

make that kind of charge, particularly in the face of a charge that he

knows is absolutely proper and is absolutely right.

While those oil companies are permitted to squeeze us, what do we

get as a reply from the Minister of Health? Triple the ambulance rates

to the ordinary sick person in our province. That's what we get for a

reply. Mr. Minister, hang your head. We know that you're only a part

minister. We know that most of the decisions are made by the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in your portfolio. Still, I'm sure that

this was one area upon which he gave you a little bit of authority. I

suggest that that minister, in tripling those ambulance fees and not

fighting off the oil companies, did a great disservice

[ Page 488 ]

to the people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I see at the same time the whole bias, the whole press,

the whole government direction. You can see the microcosm in the city

of Vancouver. We see services moving west. We see the hospital services

moving west. We see an elitist hospital being built on the campus of

the university.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Minister of Education doesn't move

the ICBC headquarters there, and that'll be to the consternation of the

member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who said: "We're first in

line." Then suddenly the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said:

"Well, Langley wants to get in on this fight too, so Langley is second

in line" — after having divested it from New Westminster, which should

have had it by geographical rights and which also has the need in that

particular area.

Everything we have ever thought about this government is coming

true. They are as irresponsible this time as they were their first

session of the Legislature. Between those sessions, after passing a

piece of legislation that gave them the right to reorganize government,

they reorganized it, all right. They reorganized it in such a way as to

provide even fewer services to people. They reorganized it in such a

way as to give themselves the kind of protection from criticism which

they felt was necessary in order to perpetuate their bias, in order to

perpetuate their direction.

No, Mr. Speaker, they came waltzing into the House on budget day and

announced to the people of B.C.: "No tax increases." After having

increased income tax last year, after having given us a 40 per cent

increase on our sales tax, after having doubled the ferry rates and

tripled the ICBC rates, after having done all the devastating things

they could possibly do, then they mince into the House.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who is now down in Ottawa

and no doubt making great pleas on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, stood up and said: "No increase in taxes." Well, Mr. Speaker,

I suggest to you, how could they have possibly increased taxes? How

could they? They knew perfectly well they couldn't. They had already

gone beyond any reasonable level of increase last year.

Mr. Speaker, in this amendment we talk about other things: we talk about employment,

and I'll bet you that's a real headache to the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams). The Minister of Labour indicates that he has a headache right

at the present time. Well, he should have a headache, because the leadership

provided by that government has been an absolute disgrace with respect to employment.

The Minister of Labour knows better than anyone that the government

leading the way, with his colleague who's running the ferry system....

They talk about their Crown corporations: they made all the decisions

in the ferry system; they laid off the 800 people who are now looking

for work in the job market of B.C.

The ferry system is this bad, Mr. Speaker, and I want to just give

you one very easy example to understand. We were on the ferry not long

ago. We answered the call and we went down to the deck. I sat in my car

and I waited to get off the ferry. We were docked. The buzzer had

buzzed and everything was ready to get off the ferry. But the gangplank

wouldn't come down — the one that comes from the shore down. And do you

know what I saw? I saw one of the ferry personnel — one of the workers

on the ferry — shinny up, over and onto the dock, go into the little

control room, or whatever it happens to be, and let the dock down. I

said to one of the members of the crew: "What's happening here?" He

said: "We're so short of help, we can hardly run this system." Yes,

that's right.

Mr. Speaker, it's a disgrace — an absolute disgrace. They talk about

jobs, particularly the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — he's

famous for that. I'm sure that he's going to get up in this debate and

tell us how they are going to provide jobs for the people in B.C. You

haven't yet, and you've been at it a year. You say you're going to put

B.C. back on the road, Mr. Minister — back on the rails or whatever.

You put it on the rocks, and you'll put those ferries on the rocks too.

Mr. Speaker, with jobs in the public service it's the same thing.

I'll bet the Minister of Health is going to stand up and tell us how,

since he's been minister, he had been able to take care of the needs of

his hospitals. The institutional care in this province is right up to

standards — I'm sure he can stand up and say that. It certainly isn't

indicated, however, in their staff complement.

Mr. Speaker, not only in health, but in many other areas of government we are

short-staffed, and in the face of an unemployment situation in B.C. this is

absolutely intolerable. In the face of this yesterday we had the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) stand in this House — Mr. Chips; that was a good

one — and what did he tell us? He said that on walking to work the other day

he saw one person at a jackhammer and two people standing watching. ) You know,

this is the old cry that we always hear: "Nobody is carrying their load

except me." This is the kind of suggestion I would expect to come from

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). With all the shovels

in the world, minister, there's no place to put them.

Mr. Speaker, that minister doesn't really understand what he's

talking about. I'm talking about the Minister of Forests. If he were to

use the same kind of thinking, the same kind of philosophy, about our

press gallery for an example.... Were they reporting what he said when

he said it? If they

[ Page 489 ]

weren't, then they were being idle. There is often

a reason for sitting or standing or whatever — possibly for the moment

being idle. Some of those people work very, very hard when they do work.

Mr. Speaker, the trouble in our province is that there is not enough

work. I heard a report of a young man the other day who has interviewed

700 potential employers, and he isn't unusual.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Name names!

MR. COCKE: I suggest to you that general hospitals are

dangerously understaffed. The Minister of Health could tell you, if he

stood in this House, that there are hospitals in this province that are

not providing the level of care that they should, and that there are

actually procedures that are not being done, many of them just because

of a lack of staff.

So this is the kind of leadership that we receive, a leadership

going nowhere but down the tube. The conservative element of that party

is so strong, despite the Liberal infusion, that they're squeezing this

province for all they can. I think it's unfortunate for the people of

B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I think there's a lot more that must be said. I'd just

like to think in terms of something else that we're trying to talk

about here in this resolution: the protection of the senior citizens

and the handicapped of our province. Let me read you just a little note

out of The Capital News . This

is an occurrence in the interior. This is a charge levelled by a former

MLA in this House, a chap by the name of Frank Snowsell. Many of you

know him. This is what happened. I'll read the news story and you can

gain your own meanings.

"Senior citizens who are obtaining homemaker service

under a provincial programme are paying more than double what they were

being charged under the NDP government. That charge was levelled by

South Okanagan NDP vice-president Frank Snowsell in an address this

week to the Peachland NDP club."

lnterjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he was NDP. Do you know who he was making his

charge against? A Socred, who was a Liberal. (Laughter.) But as you

know, Mr. Speaker, he cited the case of a Kelowna couple. This is a

real big joke; the Minister of Human Resources is laughing.

"He cited the case of the Kelowna couple, who under

the NDP were provided homemaker service for six hours a day, five days

a week, with a trained worker paid $4.14 an hour. The wife had had

three strokes and would have had to be hospitalized without the service.

"Cost of the homemaker service for one whole month was

only slightly over the cost of one day's stay in the hospital, he said.

Under the regime of Bennett the Second, and the direction of the Hon.

William Vander Zalm, this old couple were charged $30 in 1975 and $64 a

month in 1977."

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

MR. COCKE: Sixty-four dollars a month out of their pittance.

You know, this is the type of thing that this government's doing to the

people in this province. They wonder why we move motions of

non-confidence. Mr. Speaker, that's why we move motions of

non-confidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should have listened.

MR. COCKE: He doesn't listen, because he doesn't dare listen,

that Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I charge that that

Minister of Human Resources would be outclassed at this time in history

by his Socred predecessor, Phil Gaglardi, in every way, shape and form.

I believe that. I think Phil Gaglardi would have resigned his position

in cabinet had he been forced to do the things that that minister has

done with a smile on his face. I don't believe that Phil Gaglardi would

have cut back on the handicapped the way that minister has; I don't

believe that Phil Gaglardi would have cut back on the senior citizens

the way that minister has; I don't believe that Phil Gaglardi would

have made the outrageous statements that this minister had made about

the shovels, about eating tulips and all the rest of it.

Mr. Speaker, we have in our midst a minister whose facade is great: good-looking,

he smiles well, he does all those nice things — great personality, I'm told.

But, Mr. Speaker, that minister has a heart of ice behind his ribs. Mr. Speaker,

who really says so? The First United Church — one of the best organizations

for doing charitable work in the city of Vancouver, and always has been. Mr.

Speaker, just let me read you a few words of a four-page letter that was sent

to the First Minister of this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Table it!

MR. COCKE: I'm not tabling anything. I'm going to read it

into the record, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by saying

that this is a quote from the letter from the First United Church,

dated January 27, 1977:

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"The staff team of the First United Church are very concerned

with the inadequate and

[ Page 490 ]

discriminatory income assistance rates (also known as welfare

or social assistance) as provided under the Guaranteed Available Income for

Need Act and the pursuant regulations to this legislation effective from October

1, 1976. We can, without hesitation, support the recipients who are upset with

reference to the discriminatory rate changes.

"Also, we fully endorse the positions taken by the Federated

Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., British Columbia Association of Social Workers,

PLURA, the Inter-Church Association to Promote Social Justice in Canada, Victoria

Community Action Group, SPARC of B.C., and the British Columbia Coalition of

the Disabled, in their representation to your government concerning in-adequate income assistance rates."

These are responsible people talking to a government which has had a

year to develop some social conscience; a government which has turned a

deaf ear on social conscience for a year; a government then which has

come into the House when they should have been here last fall, but

finally come in this spring because they had to by the constitution,

but they've come in here and been surprised. They are surprised that we

would have the audacity to put forward a resolution of non-confidence.

Who could be confident in such a government? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that

the people's memories are such that when this government starts handing

out its goodies, its candies and, yes, its tulip bulbs to the next

election, some of these things are remembered.

Let me just give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, of what you're

doing to people out there. Mr. Speaker, the following table gives

examples of reduced payments to handicapped persons with families, or

where one parent or spouse is 60 years or older. I'll read you the

rates. The rate prior to October, 1976, for two persons — one adult,

one child; that's a single-parent family — was $425. We've had

inflation since. I'm talking about a disabled person and a child — a

person who can't work — $425 prior to October, 1976. The present rate

is a disgraceful $355. That's a $70 reduction! We have a 16 per cent

reduction for an indefensible person when mining companies are told:

"Rip us off!" It's not right!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): That's the great, improved GAIN.

MR. COCKE: That's the improvement! That's GAIN!

MR. LAUK: You know who gains!

MR. COCKE: We know who gains! It's certain now who gains.

MR. LAUK: It's not the senior citizens.

MR. COCKE: The senior citizen does not gain. The mining

companies gain. The millionaires gain through a piece of legislation

that we'll be talking about, I'm sure, in the not-too-distant future in

this House.

Let's look at some others: total family benefits where two parents,

or both spouses, are handicapped or are 60 years or older and cannot

work, Those two parents, with a child, prior to October, 1976: $690;

present rate: 545 disgraceful dollars. That's a $145 reduction — a 21

per cent reduction.

I'd sure hang my head if I was on that side of the House. I'd sure

hang my head if I were asked by the Whip, or by whoever does the asking

over there, to stand up and argue when the estate tax or the Succession

Duty Act is brought forward in our House.

The letter goes on:

"Mr. Vander Zalm, in a press statement on December 29,1976, is reported

to have stated that the rates in those categories prior to October 1, 1976,

were providing a disincentive."

A disincentive to what? People that are

well in this province can't get a job. People that are strong in this province

can't get a job, and the minister has the audacity to say that they were

providing a disincentive to people who were disabled by caring for their needs.

Disincentive, my foot! "That's a major contradiction," this letter

goes on to say, "to our minds."

"It is a major contradiction to use the argument of a

disincentive when the present criteria to qualify for handicap benefits

require that the recipient be in a position where no amount of

incentive would contribute to his or her becoming self-sufficient."

These are words that should be remembered. These are words that

should ring across this province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I see an apathy out

there. I hope people who are all right themselves aren't saying: "I'm

all right, Jack," as this government is obviously saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw your attention to the light. You have three minutes left.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to this House

that if anybody on either side hasn't a copy of this letter, they

should get a copy and read it with tremendous seriousness. It was

mailed to everybody under the sun, to all MLAs, secretaries of the

presbytery executive.

AN HON. MEMBER: They care — don't they?

[ Page 491 ]

MR. COCKE: I've had a lot of input from the United Church on

this whole issue and I'm proud of the work they are doing and have done

for a great number of years in our province. As a matter of fact, First

United, I said yesterday and I reiterate today, is particularly strong

in my mind because they rarely ever toot their own horns. They do more

work than practically any other group in Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't play politics.

MR. COCKE: For that matter, their outreach is across the

province and rarely ever do you hear them tooting their horn even

slightly, where they could certainly not be frowned upon if they did.

So with that I suggest that there's a reason for the opposition

taking time out in the throne debate to once again remind the

government or anybody that's interests'.-d that there is trouble in our

province today. Mr. Speaker, that trouble includes a lack over there of

fiscal policy that would lead us to human betterment. That trouble

includes the fact that taxation is working against us. That trouble,

Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there is no investor confidence since

this group moved in. Employment opportunities are down and senior

citizens and handicapped people are being used as pawns because they

can't protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and for those who haven't seen it, I'll

table the letter from the First United Church, with leave of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I didn't want to

interrupt the speech of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as

he was talking, but in all fairness to the other members of this House,

and in keeping with the decorum that should be established in this

House, I would like to ask the Speaker if he would ask the member for

New Westminster to withdraw a comment that he made about the government

"swindling" people. I don't think that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I can't withdraw the word.

It's not unparliamentary when used in this particular situation and I

felt that strongly. I think that the minister, had he listened to what

I had to say and what others have had to say, would, deep down, have to

agree.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, speaking to the

point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Health, I allowed the

phrase to go by because it was a phrase in general and not specific.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If it had been specific or

directed against an hon. member of the House, the member for New

Westminster knows as well as I do that he would have immediately been

asked to withdraw. But there is another criterion that becomes

involved. That is, if any hon. member of the House feels that a term or

a phrase used in debate is unparliamentary and offensive, the standard,

accepted practice, hon. member, is to withdraw that statement. Will you

kindly do so?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it must be

raised at the time the offending word is used, not at the end of a

speech, and the Minister of Health knows that.

You know, you become...when the devil was sick, the devil a saint

would be. I can remember you sitting over here, and some of the calumny

that you were guilty of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: But it has to be raised at the time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the hon. minister rose on his feet

immediately following the speech. It could have been raised immediately

by taking a point of order and interrupting your speech, and it wasn't,

hon. member. The hon. minister indicates that he feels that's an

offensive phrase, and I would say that it would be parliamentary

tradition just to withdraw that particular phrase if it's offensive to

a member of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I directed that phrase against no one

in this House. I did it in general and, Mr. Speaker, you know and I

know that that is the accepted practice. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that

minister by virtue of this kind of new direction puts us in a position

where we cannot speak out in terms that are harsh on subjects that are

that important, then he's undone a great deal of parliamentary

possibility. I don't really think that I should be called upon to

withdraw a general phrase which doesn't even appear in the

unparliamentary phrases which we have before us.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that it's

up to the member. I'm just hoping that he will respect the

parliamentary traditions which have been built up in this House. On the

point that the former Attorney-General made — I did not wish to

interrupt the member's speech at that time, Mr. Speaker. I was

anxiously waiting for him to raise that matter of urgent public concern

that he raised yesterday, and which he failed to even get off his seat

about in question period and which he did not mention in his speech

today.

[ Page 492 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not part of a point of order today.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized — the hon. member for Oak Bay, hon. member.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

offer a few comments, even though the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) mentions that I haven't got the permission of the official

opposition to get into this debate.

The amendment, I think, highlights some basic points about any

budget, whether it would emanate from this government or from this

House. I think these basic points are worth mentioning quickly. Any

budget should surely be based on certain recognized goals compatible

with the mandate that any government is given to take money from the

taxpayer and spend it wisely.

One goal should surely be that the tax measures used to raise

revenue should not depress industry or consumer spending and result in

unemployment being made worse. Perhaps one of the cardinal elements in

any budget should be that there is no unfair penalty applied to any one

group or any group of individuals. It should also be a basic goal in

any budget to recognize that certain taxes when they are increased can

simply be self-defeating. We have had an excellent demonstration of

that with the ferry fare increase which greatly reduced the number of

persons coming to Vancouver Island and, subsequently, the employment on

the island.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that no government can provide all the funding

for all the very worthwhile programmes that could benefit society, and

therefore surely another fundamental goal in any budget should be at

least to determine what funding for services is available and at least

make it available to the people in greatest need. Surely — and I'll be

quoting from some of the members opposite when they were on this side

of the House — this House recognizes, and has done for many years, that

elderly citizens who can no longer live in their own homes would have

to be the one pre-eminent group in British Columbia today which is

getting something less than their fair share of the provincial pie.

The amendment deals with the manner in which this government has

failed to meet some of these basic criteria. It's quite obvious that

the government has a somewhat different set of priorities from the

members of the opposition who have spoken. A great deal of emphasis has

been placed on unemployment, as indeed it should be.

MR. GIBSON: Not by the government.

MR. WALLACE: The Liberal leader interjects that the emphasis

hasn't been placed on unemployment by the government but it certainly

has by the official opposition and the other opposition parties.

I was very distressed to hear one member of the back bench toss out

the comment that while the people are unemployed they get unemployment

insurance, as though that was some kind of adequate and thoroughly

desirable way in which to deal with unemployment. The real fact is that

unemployed people are unhappy and frustrated and unproductive people

who, in the vast majority of cases, would be delighted to be able to

find a job. We have 88,000 such persons in British Columbia right now.

And if these 88,000 were earning wages and paying income tax and buying

consumer goods and taking holidays and doing many other things, there

would be a very considerable stream of productive revenue coming back

into the coffers of the government, at the federal level in particular.

I think we also make the mistake of putting revenue and expenditures

in compartments and saying that such and such a revenue is raised at

the federal level. But it certainly all comes out of the same pocket —

the pocket of you and me, the taxpayer.

But this government — and it surprises me, since it's looked upon by

many people as being a free-enterprise government — seems to have

overlooked the old adage that you have to spend a buck to make a buck.

MR. GIBSON: It's passing the buck.

MR. WALLACE: Once again the Liberal leader, who is keeping me

on my toes today, says that this government isn't only ignoring that

adage, but it's just passing the buck.

In order to create jobs there has to be some capital made available.

We've already debated in this House that preferably one would like to

see private capital create the jobs, but this is not happening. And the

only area of the budget that seems to even imply the creation of jobs

is in the Minister of Highways' (Hon. Mr. Fraser'

s) department. I am

delighted that the Minister of Highways is in his place right across

from me, Mr. Speaker. He has been a very silent minister so far this

session, and we haven't really had too many evening sittings so that we

could hear about porcupine pie. But I think that the minister — and

I've been watching him very closely because there are many questions

about his ministry that I wish to raise during this session — has been

very attentive and he's been listening. Perhaps I could start off with

the first question, as to how the Premier in his Thanksgiving Day

speech announced that $120 million would be made available for highway

construction that would create 2,000 new jobs this winter, and how, the

next

[ Page 493 ]

day, the $120 million had shrunk to $40 million.

Now we know they're financial wizards over there, Mr. Speaker, but

that's quite a performance — from $ 120 million to $40 million

overnight. We subsequently were given several versions of the Premier's

original statement. Finally, we had a statement by the minister himself

that was reported in The Vancouver Sun ,

November 5. The headline says: "Fraser Says Roadwork Retaining 1,500

Jobs." It seems to me that not only is the programme of funding not

providing new jobs, it is simply retaining jobs that would otherwise

have disappeared. I think the minister, in his own words, is on record

as confirming that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties in this whole budget is that so

many of the figures are meaningless. Rather than just make a blanket

statement, I want to quote a specific in regard to highways. The budget

states that the 1977-78 appropriation is up by $61.5 million from

$274.5 million in 1976-77. But the estimates for highway spending that

were presented to us last year were not $274 million; they were $231

million, and it's right there in the estimates. I presume that the $40

million that the Premier was talking about has been added to the $231

million. But the thing is, there's all kinds of jiggery-pokery that

goes on in providing columns of figures in the budget. When you start

to really dig into them, Mr. Speaker, they don't mean a damn thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't ask Alex.

MR. WALLACE: The government policy is quite clear as far as

highways are concerned: It's a tap to be turned on or off, depending on

the government's overall decision about spending. "If the revenue's

available, fellas, let's toss in another $40 million for a bit of

highway to create a few jobs and make the people of B.C. think that the

government is concerned about job creation."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're just a faucet, Alex.

MR. WALLACE: On the other hand, where the estimate is to be

vastly underspent, we have to wait until public accounts show up a year

later to find out what the true financial facts are. The cynicism

behind all this is clearly that by the time public accounts come out a

year from now to tell us what was actually spent, everybody's forgotten

what the estimates were. We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), who defended his estimate figures by saying that we

on this side of the House didn't understand and we were confused. We

were, and we always will be, if some estimate figure from last year is

quoted which bears no resemblance to the actual amount of money that's

going to be spent in that year. An estimate figure is supposed to be

somewhere close to the amount of money that will be spent.

Then we have the Minister of Human Resources, in answering points

from this side of the House, saying: "Well, what these members don't

know, of course, is that the budget for '76-'77 will be underspent by

at least $25 million."

MR. GIBSON: More than that.

MR. WALLACE: It may well be a great deal more than that,

judging by the skin-flint approach which that department has been

taking since the minister took office.

MR. GIBSON: Ebenezer Vander Zalm!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's good management.

MR. WALLACE: It isn't good management. The figures have been pointed out to you this afternoon. You are being very unfair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm surprised at you.

MR. WALLACE: I don't care if you are surprised at me. The

figures make it quite clear that there's discrimination in providing

Human Resources funding. You have two groups of people with exactly the

same need. The money they receive depends on when they made the

application. Now how can you tell me that that isn't rank injustice?

MR. GIBSON: Hear, hear! Ebenezer Vander Zalm!

MR. WALLACE: If you're surprised that I should get angry at that, you have a few more surprises ahead of you, my friend.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The cynicism of the matter is that this minister

laughs, and smiles, and jokes, and makes asides when, in fact, he has

one of the most sensitive portfolios in this whole government. I don't

know if he thinks that the first criterion for him should be to get

headlines all the time, and to hell with what happens to the

handicapped and the poor, but he's showing a shocking cynicism in this

House today!

If this government is prepared to play around with figures in this

way, Mr. Speaker, with these two particular portfolios, I think it's

quite reasonable for members of this House and the people of British

Columbia to wonder how much juggling has gone on with figures in other

departments. This government was elected with a very serious

commitment, not only

[ Page 494 ]

to get the economy rolling, which it has not done,

but on a promise of open government. I would like to suggest that one

way in which it could be made more open and more constructive would be

that instead of simply staying with estimate figures for the current

year in the budget, each ministry should look at the interim financial

statement for the nine months of the year completed and come up with a

revised estimate column, which would at least give us in the opposition

some intelligent kind of basis on which to compare '76-'77 figures with

'77-'78 estimates. But in point of fact, what we are faced with is that

we have to look at estimate figures for the current year which were put

on the table a year ago and which we now know are in many cases far

removed either by overspending or underspending from the original

estimate.

It really makes something of a mockery of this debate for us to

assume that the estimate figures are fairly close to what the actual

figures will be, to stand up and try and contribute constructively in

this debate, and then have ministers like the Minister of Human

Resources stand up and try and just make a fool of the opposition

because we don't really have the figures on which to base our

criticism. Now if that is what this chamber is all about, just a

one-upmanship, gamesmanship kind of approach — and I think we're seeing

some of it from the minister this afternoon — then I think it's time

the people of British Columbia got some insight into the fact that we

don't really accomplish much here, even when we come up with positive,

constructive criticism, because ministers such as that minister on the

other side laugh and joke and suddenly tell us in debate what the real

figures are.

We should have access, as members of the opposition, to the most

accurate figures that are available to any member of this House.

Otherwise we are just standing here trying to interpret figures which,

in many cases, are meaningless.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: To the interjection from the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) I know that it is not easy to predict accurately a

year ahead, but it must surely be relatively easy at the end of nine

months, when X millions of dollars have been spent, for the ministers

to provide a revised estimate for the 12 months, for the simple reason,

as the minister well knows, that expenditures and revenues don't come

in or go out in four equal quarters. Depending on which ministry we are

dealing with, revenue may be higher in the summer or winter, and vice

versa. Expenditures on highways, for example, are not paid out, I am

sure, in four equal quarters.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself has not really done any

credit to his office as Premier of the province. On two particular

occasions I can think of he's quoted vastly inaccurate figures purely

for what appeared to be an attempt at a very short-term political game.

I have already referred to the $120 million that shrunk to $40 million

overnight. At his own convention he waved aloft a bunch of figures

which he titled, "the proposed NDP budget had they been returned to

power," and which would show a deficit of $1 billion. But a

little bit of scouting by the Fourth Estate — to whom the Premier

seemed to attach some significance earlier today — showed that this was

just the sum total of departmental requests and not the budget.

One of the problems that has been clearly demonstrated in this

debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to compete with other provinces

and countries for expansion of our economy, and there appears to be

very little real effort being made by the government in this budget to

deal with the problems of high taxation. The Corporation Capital Tax

Act, which I mentioned in an earlier debate, is just an additional cost

to doing business at a time when profits are very closely governed by

the anti-inflation measures. The Corporation Capital Tax Act is a very

serious obstacle to the small businessman.

I was very interested to listen to the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), Mr. Speaker, who made his usual spirited speech yesterday.

I had to agree with his concern about the small businessman in British

Columbia, but nowhere in his speech did I hear one positive suggestion

as to what the government might do to help the businessman. All the

member for Dewdney pointed out was that the small businessman is in a

lot of trouble.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You weren't listening. You weren't in the House.

MR. WALLACE: No, I was listening. I heard what you said.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The kind of answer which seems to be attractive

in other jurisdictions, not the least of which is our American

neighbours, is the principle of tax cuts, but all this government seems

to believe in is to go on increasing taxes, even if, at a certain

point, the whole measure is self-defeating.

The government was elected on a very clear commitment that it would

get the economy rolling by attracting capital and by expanding industry

and creating new jobs, and I think it's very disappointing, even if

there may be some justification to remove succession duties, that that

seems to be the one and only serious attempt by the government in this

budget to attract investment capital to the province.

Of course, as far as commitments are concerned, I

[ Page

495 ]

suppose we should remember that this party also was

elected on a promise that it would not raise taxes, and we know how

long it took to break that promise. I think it's worthwhile quoting one

of the government members — the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford).

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Here we go again.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, here we go again, George, because it's

always nice to know that at least one of the members of the government

party is willing to stand up and express his concerns for the people of

his riding even if it may, to some degree, embarrass the government of

which he's a member. The member for Skeena said:

"So far no major changes in basic direction have been

made from the discredited policies of the former administration except

a balanced budget and better administration of programmes. Contrary to

many reports, the economy of the northwest has got progressively worse

since 1973, when logging and mining activities started to go down.

There appears to be no overall strategy on which direction the

government intends to lead the province during the next three years."

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that there's no overall strategy is

that the government handcuffs itself at the outset by insisting that,

no matter what happens, there must be a balanced budget. The attitude

seems to be: "We'll balance the budget and go from there." The harsh

truth in the world of economics these days is that contrary to the

government's deep concern and reluctance ever to borrow money — at

least for the provincial budget — the feeling is that they can balance

the budget first and then tackle the problems of unemployment and job

creation and industrial expansion in a secondary manner. That's the big

problem because when economic times are bad government's have to be

much more farsighted than this government obviously is.

We had an excellent critique of that particular philosophy by Frances Russel

in The Vancouver Sun just a night or two ago. I thought she delightfully entitled

the article: "Victoria Style of Stop and Go — the Ad Hockery of Financial

Management." She says that the revenue and expenditure of this government

are just looked upon as two columns of figures and, no matter what else happens,

they must balance when you get down to the bottom line. This is instead of using

the borrowing capacity and initiatives which the government could take as an

instrument of long-term strategy to develop diversity of employment in this

province and to expand some of the industry that already exists. Again, I would

wonder if this government has forgotten the fact that you have to spend a buck

to make a buck.

MR. COCKE: I don't think they ever knew.

MR. WALLACE: Of course, the supreme irony of the government's

rigid attitude to budgeting lies in the fact that it is engaged in

deficit financing by creating two new Crown corporations and then

leaving the Crown corporations to do the borrowing. By taking visible

borrowing out of the provincial budget and replacing it in the less

visible balance sheet of the Crown corporations, I assume that some

kind of Social Credit fiscal honour is preserved in the minds of our

ultra-conservative Finance minister. But the truth is that the

government is in deficit financing, no matter what devices are employed

to suggest otherwise.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that even the Minister of

Finance in his own heart — and I think he has a heart — believes this,

because when I was speaking earlier in the debate I heard the minister

mutter quite loudly: "But we are already deficit budgeting, you dummy."

This was heard by opposition members down the way, and I've no

objection to being called a dummy because I know that there are a lot

of people who would agree with that. But I don't think that the

minister should sit in his place and mutter that the government is

deficit financing, then stand up to deliver his budget speech and make

ringing pronouncements such as: "This government does not subscribe to

deficit financing to underwrite its current operations."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. To underwrite its current

operations it takes the money required for some of its current

operations and raises it through borrowing for two new Crown

corporations. Doesn't the Minister of Labour remember...? And I know

we'll have to go a step at a time because he seems very agitated and

red-faced this afternoon, but I'll try and be slow and logical in

answering the queries.

Perhaps the Minister of Labour remembers that in the years he's been

in this House there has been a gradually increasing deficit on — shall

I say it very softly? — the B.C. Ferries, and that from year to year

large hunks of money were taken out of operating funds, revenue of this

province, to bolster the deficit of B.C. Ferries. But now nothing has

changed; it's still running at a deficit, but the devices, the

mechanisms used to hide the deficits are going to be a little

different. Now we'll blame the administration of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation when it has to put up its rates to close the deficit.

Previously the province

[ Page 496 ]

just took $20 million or $30 million, or whatever

millions of dollars, out of operating revenue to bolster and close that

deficit. The Minister of Labour knows that very well.

The sad

part is that deficit financing is a well-recognized

technique during times of economic recession. Because, unfortunately,

we have a Liberal government in Ottawa that goes completely overboard

on borrowing and deficit financing, that surely is no reason to damn

the procedure completely, because there are many times when a modest

degree of deficit financing creates the jobs, the employment and the

peace of mind of the people who have the jobs, rather than have them

depend so entirely on a variety of benefits — whether they are

unemployment insurance or welfare.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I know the member for Burnaby is trying out the

cabinet seat, but what he seems to have missed is the point that I'm

trying to demonstrate the absolute hypocrisy of your government, that

on one side of its mouth it claims that it is not deficit financing,

and that out of the other side of its mouth it does.

MR. GIBSON: There's an eject button on that seat, Ray. Watch out! (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll quickly touch on the second

part of the amendment which relates to the fact that the people who are

most in need are getting the least help from the financial measures in

this budget. I have already talked about the plight of the elderly

citizens who can no longer live in their own homes. Again I have to say

how distressed and somewhat disappointed I was at the outburst of the

Minister of Human Resources when he talked about our citizens in

nursing homes being oversedated by being given too many drugs to keep

them quiet. I know that to some degree that happens in our nursing

homes, but the Minister of Human Resources completely missed the point.

The reason that happens is that there are generally inadequate

facilities and they are understaffed. The staff is underpaid and

inadequately trained. You start making all these wild accusations that

all of the patients are oversedated, when in point of fact what is

required is a modern, well-trained staff in modern facilities providing

these nursing-home patients with the same kind of justice and the same

share of the provincial pie that is provided for acute care and

extended care. One could spend the whole speech on this one topic. Its

just very sad that in the eight years

I've been in this House this kind of speech has had to be made year

after year after year, and I'm disillusioned enough to think that

probably it's going to have to be made for many more years.

I just want to remind the House that away back in 1973 a committee

of this House travelled the province to determine the need. The need

was already known, and all we did was confirm what was already known.

But one of the members on that committee was at that time the member

for Langley; he now happens to be the Minister of Health of this

province (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I think it's very interesting, Mr.

Speaker, to just quickly quote the minority report which the member for

Langley submitted on that all-committee report in 1973. It was

submitted to this House on Friday, September 28, 1973.

"The second issue with which I wish to disagree is the

recommendation that the per diem coverage of all patients in acute

care, extended care, or intermediate care should be equitable.

"I believe that the word 'equitable' should be

replaced with the word 'equal.' People must be allowed to move from one

level of health care to another without suffering any financial

penalty. We must have a single level of charges applicable to all

levels of care.

"Respectfully submitted,

R.H. McClelland"

Well, it's now 1977. We're four years down the road and it seems

we're no further forward. The very man who sits in government today and

is the Minister of Health, and who has the authority, if not the

responsibility, to recommend to cabinet that this kind of justice be

implemented in health-care programmes, has said absolutely nothing to

give us any hope at all that this year, at least, some first step will

be taken to give nursing-home patients that same kind of equal

assistance that he espoused in September, 1973.

You know, once again, even if we bring it down to dollars and cents,

Mr. Speaker.... Just let me quote the social worker at the Eric Martin

Institute in Victoria. He was quoted in the Colonist

on January 29 as saying that many of the 116 patients who stayed more

than 60 days in the Eric Martin Institute in 1976 did so because there

was no other place for them to go in the community. They accounted for

11,000 patient days at $100 a day. Mr. Pepper, I think, put it very

well. He says: "That's about $1 million. It would go a long way towards

providing intermediate facilities which don't require the same

professional staff, and can handle them at much less cost."

Those senior citizens who can no longer live in their own home are a

group suffering perhaps the greatest degree of discrimination of any

group in the whole of our society today. Yet we have a

[ Page

497 ]

programme for universal Pharmacare in the wings.

Once again, we haven't been given the details so it's difficult to

offer intelligent, constructive criticism. But here at a time when

elderly people in nursing homes are spending their income and their

assets just to stay alive, and sometimes in rather inadequate

circumstances with sub-standard care, we have a Pharmacare programme

which, it would appear, is destined to provide some government revenue

to people regardless of their income. People earning $20,000 of $30,000

a year apparently are going to be at the government trough to obtain

some kind of funding for prescription drugs.

The hydro rate increase, which will be the third in two years and

which will average 60 per cent in that period of time, is another

incredible hardship to the senior citizen whose only hope for any

income increase is the indexing of the old age pension, and that's

inadequate enough.

The annual 10.6 per cent automatic increase in rents is another

level of financial penalty which senior citizens simply cannot cope

with, unless they cut back on their food bills, which in itself is

self-defeating if the result is that the elderly citizen winds up in

hospital because of poor nutrition.

The sales tax is an unfair tax on low-income groups to start with.

When it's increased by 40 per cent the weight of penalty against lower

and middle-income groups is very severe.

I just want to say that I thoroughly agree with the quotations and

the comments from the United Church of Canada letter which we all

received. The way in which the handicapped have had their access to

benefits reduced, and the benefits themselves reduced, is just

incredible at a time of rising costs. Even though inflation is less now

than it was, let us say, a year ago, it is still considerable.

The other kind of distortion of government priorities lies in this announcement which appeared the other day in Monday Magazine

that senior government officials of the deputy minister and associate

deputy minister level on April 1 of each year are entitled to calculate

17 per cent of their current annual salary and collect payment in cash

and fringe benefits. For some, like deputy ministers, this means more

than $13,000 in retroactive pay, with another $6,000 payable on April I

of this year. I wonder what the old-age pensioners and senior citizens

of British Columbia think about that kind of settlement.

Almost worse than that, Mr. Speaker is the optional selection of benefits.

I would recite one or two: there is sick-leave entitlement up to a maximum of

250 days, half of which may be collected in cash, if unused, at retirement:

reimbursement of up to $2,000 plus all legal costs to cover the real estate

agent's fee in connection with selling one's house because of a transfer

in job location.

Employees travelling on government business for more than two weeks

are entitled to be paid for a trip home every other weekend. One of my

friends suggested that could be called the "nooky" allowance, but I

wasn't sure what that meant. (Laughter.) Payment of up to six months'

salary is made to the survivors of an employee who dies while still

employed by the government, regardless of the cause of death.

Now these are some very substantial expenditures for the government.

I'm the last one to deny that deputy ministers and associate deputy

ministers carry a very high degree of responsibility, but where's the

consistency in a budget that calls for restraint, to provide these

kinds of increases and these kinds of fringe benefits?

I'm sorry that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has

left, because some of the other elements of government spending that

are becoming public knowledge relate to some of the new buildings that

the government is putting up in Victoria. I would like to just ask

these questions regarding the building on Pandora Street in Victoria

that will house, I believe, the staff of the Ministry of Health, and

leave the minister to answer them in due course.

I have been told that the kitchen for the staff cafeteria will cost

$750,000. It has been said that there will be a coffee dispenser on

each floor costing $38,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the three-minute light is on.

MR WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the

building will provide an employee lounge on each floor from the third

to the seventh floor, complete with custom-made furniture.

Now these are some facts that have been published in one of the

newspapers, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that, because it seems to be in

such utter conflict with the general statement by this government that

its policy is one of restraint and efficiency in spending, these last

two matters of furnishings and decor for a government office and a very

substantial financial settlement with senior civil servants deserve an

answer during this debate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the reason that I can so readily support the

amendment really relates to the fact that all this budget really proves

is something that we've all heard many times before: it's very much a

matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we're in

the middle of the debate and it's sort of the dog hours of the

afternoon and I don't want to wake anybody up. But I'm glad that the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

[ Page 498 ]

Mr. Mair) has left his corporate affairs — I don't

know a whether he knows the difference too well — and is in the House.

In speaking to this amendment I want to I join in supporting the point

that has been made by the member for New Westminster: that there is a I

wonderful want of fortitude in the government ranks when they don't

even rise in this debate to defend their position on an amendment that

is dealing with s the economy and the fiscal policies and the taxation

policies of the government. What we have heard is a deafening silence —

silence, silenzio — call it in whatever language you like. We have

never seen a government, really, less willing to stand up and defend

policies that it has promulgated as it goes along.

Now I'm not going to review the whole thing I again, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to concentrate on just one point, and that's why I say I'm

glad the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is there. We've

heard the speeches about how the public of B.C. in 1976 lost maybe $500

million in spending power by reason of the taxation and fare increases

of this government. What are they doing now? I'm going to look at one

example.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs now has, under that

very mysterious — in the sense that it wasn't a very parliamentary move

— Government Reorganization Act, the liquor. I suppose I could say the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can't hold his liquor. (Laughter.) I

think that's where it should be, but I won't say that. I said it.

But do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that Minister of Corporate and

Consumer Affairs is doing in terms of hidden taxation? In the budget of

1975 ending March 31, the net liquor profits were $118 million. In the

1977-78 period they are going up to $164 million, which means that they

have abstracted from the pockets of the ordinary people of the province

of British Columbia — and that's the forte of this government: tax the

people and let the big guys off. Make no mistake about that. They have

sucked up an additional $46 million in liquor profits and now they have

the effrontery to announce that on April 1 they will be increasing

again the prices of products in the liquor store, including the price

of a bottle of scotch by 20 cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, putting that minister, who is

supposed to be consumer protection, in charge of Consumer Affairs is

like — and I'm just adapting the remark of the other day of the Liberal

leader (Mr. Gibson) — putting a chicken in charge of Colonel Sanders'

business. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, analyze, if you will for a moment, what they are doing

in terms of the liquor administration branch. The British pound has

fallen in the last year from $2.30 Canadian to $1.71 today. I make that

a reduction of 25 per cent, and yet what is the minister doing in terms

of that reduction? Is he passing it on to the public? Of course he's

not. He is not going to give the consumer the benefit of the cost

education. No, that extra revenue is going to be secreted away in the

interstices of the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) budget into

the public offers, because it's a people tax, a people imposition. And

it's a ripoff in terms of the price of Scotch whiskey. It's

discrimination against scotch because when you compare that with the

price of a bottle of rye today, there is already built-in

discrimination, Mr. Speaker. Scotch whiskey is still marked up by the

liquor administration at 113.8 per cent, while the mark-up on Canadian

rye is 100.36 per cent.

This discrimination in favour of the distillery industry of Canada

is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to the minister, contrary to GATT, the

General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. It's contrary to

section 3 of

that agreement which imposes those obligations upon a provincial

government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: "What is GATT?' says Mr. Chips. It's also

contrary to the AIB. But, of course, this government, Mr. Speaker, did

a funny little thing when they signed the agreement dated June, 1976,

with the federal authorities. They included ICBC, but they excluded the

liquor administration. There is a

schedule at the end of that agreement

where they excluded the liquor administration from the anti-inflation

price controls in this country.

Am I not right, Mr. Minister of Labour? Isn't that in the

schedule

of that agreement? Don't you just nicely exclude the liquor

administration...

MR. WALLACE: Along with Hydro.

MR. MACDONALD: ...along with B.C. Hydro? I think the liquor

administration is in there. So you give no chance to people to appeal

against the kind of discriminatory, inflationary price increases that

are imposed on the ordinary people of the province by this government.

But you are perfectly willing to protect the distillery industry in

Canada, which is not a struggling new business trying to get itself on

its feet and needing protection. The distillery industry, at the

present time...sales of Canadian whiskey in the Canadian market....

What's its percentage of the Canadian market? It is now at the point

where 85 per cent of all whiskey sold in Canada is produced by the

distillery companies of Canada. Imported scotch is only 12 per cent of

the market. In addition to that, the Canadian distillery industry,

which is very powerful politically and which has bottled and

[ Page

499 ]

capped the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), doesn't need that kind of protection. So you

increase the price again and make the differential worse?

In the case of Scotch whiskey, the standard scotch case, which is 12

25-oz. bottles, the laid-down cost, after you include the cost of

bringing it into the country and the federal duty and the freight and

insurance, is $42.16, compared with the laid-down cost to the liquor

administration branch of rye, which is $45.02. Here the discrimination

comes in, which I say is contrary to GATT and discriminatory against

scotch, because then you increase the price of scotch by 113 per cent

and make it higher on the shelves of the liquor board. And yet when we

sell Canadian rye to Great Britain, do they impose that kind of

discrimination upon our Canadian rye products, which are sold

extensively in the United Kingdom? Not at all. They're treated on an

equal footing. So this is discrimination.

The point I make, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this amendment, is simply

here that you have a little case under the liquor administration where

the government proposes to take out of the pockets of the people of

British Columbia, over a period of two budgets, an additional $46

million in spending power.

I say that is the kind of government we are dealing with: a

government that has been consistently favouring people's taxes,

impositions of all kinds upon the ordinary people of the province. They

could give lessons to King Herod the tax gatherer in, what they have

done in the last two years. So I've only given one example, eh? But I

support the amendment not on the basis of this example, but because it

is a whole picture of imposition upon ordinary people tax increases

while at the same time turning the province of British Columbia into a

millionaires' playpen.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Out of a

special respect for a member of the press gallery I would like to

inform the House of a bit of good news that occurred on the economic

front in Victoria. I am informed by a member of that gallery that the

president of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce this afternoon has stated

that his chamber is willing to enter into discussions toward the

creation of a Greater Victoria Economic Development Council, a proposal

made by myself in this House last week and released to the public

yesterday. I am informed as well by friends of mine in the Victoria

Labour Council that that organization as well is willing to enter into

the same kind of agreements and is willing to get together on the same

basis.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have to speak to the amendment. You are making a statement.

MR. BARBER: I'm very much concerned about investor

confidence, the treatment of small business and the things that we, as

a responsible opposition, through amendments like this can....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're going to make a statement, you must ask leave of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a statement. It's a speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed please.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Elwood. Now I'd like to point out that

one of the positive steps that can be taken, in the absence of any

positives steps taken by the government, is by members on both sides of

this House in their own community developing alternate institutions

that, in a systematic and intelligent and scientific way, can begin to

ask the important questions about the economic circumstances in which

their communities find themselves. They can begin to conduct the

research and the inventories and the studies necessary to find the

answers to those questions. Having found some of those answers, they

can put together some of the best minds in their own community to

determine where to go with those answers.

What I have specifically proposed is the creation of the Greater

Victoria Economic Development Council. The purpose of that organization

is to bring together groups such as municipal and regional government,

the Chamber of Commerce, the Tourist Bureau, the Victoria Labour

Council, the University of Victoria and the British Columbia Ministry

of Economic Development. The purpose is to bring them together to talk

to one another. The purpose is to bring them together in the most tough

and critical fashion they can, to exercise leadership.

I am also pleased to report that I attended a meeting at 8 o'clock

this morning of the Tourist Bureau. Again, the response from the

organization was, in my view, encouraging. I think we are going to

begin to see in Victoria the creation of such a council, the

development of a strategy for economic recovery in Greater Victoria,

and an attempt made by a number of people in my own community to begin

to dig themselves out of the hole in which we found ourselves placed as

the result of some of the measures taken by this government in the last

year.

I think that's some progress. I think those are some positive steps.

I call on the government to recognize both of those phenomena. I call

on the government to support them.

I've something else that I'd like to tell the House about and it,

too, is most consistent with the amendment at hand. It concerns the

fate of

[ Page 500 ]

pensioners living in greater Victoria. Over the

last several years a great many people have observed the fact that

people now resident in Canada, especially in greater Victoria, as

pensioners whose pensions originate in the United Kingdom, were, by

virtue of their residence here, cut off from the automatic indexing and

increases to which they would otherwise be entitled. If they lived in

any of the 21 nations with which the United Kingdom had signed an

agreement, they would be protected. Among those 21 nations are

Gibraltar, Malta, Spain and Yugoslavia. Canada, up until yesterday, was

not on that list.

For the last number of years a great many people, including the

Member of Parliament for Victoria, Mr. Allan McKinnon, have been

pressing the federal government, in order that we may protect the

senior citizens of this province who originate from the United Kingdom,

especially in greater Victoria. This is the most important concern,

that their pensions be indexed. I'm also pleased to report that

yesterday, as a result of that considerable pressure and, in some tiny

measure I am sure, as the result of letters written by my own community

office over the last several months — as recently as last Wednesday —

the Hon. Marc Lalonde stood in the House of Commons and said that the

Kingdom to provide precisely that protection. I think that's an

important step forward. It's a step that this government should have

taken, had it been acting in any leadership capacity whatever to

protect the seniors of this province whose origins are in the United

Kingdom. It's a step that members of this assembly have taken because

the government was unwilling to take it. I think those are two positive

steps forward that have been taken in the last little while.

They have been taken — referring again to the amendment — in

contrast to a history, entering its second year, of some of the most

stupid and primitive economic decisions any provincial government has

ever taken. The stupid and primitive decisions these people have taken

most notoriously include the imposition of a 40 per cent increase in

the sales tax, the tripling and quadrupling of ICBC rates and the

doubling of B.C. Ferries' rates. The impact of these programmes, the

impact of those increases, the impact of that taxation policy, the

impact of that stupidity, is felt most desperately by people who are

the least well protected of all to withstand those kinds of decisions.

Those people include the poor and the working poor, the very young and

the very old.

They probably don't include too many members of this Legislature. You and I,

Mr. Speaker, get free passes on the B.C. ferries, don't we? We get bus passes

all over the province — and rail passes, too. It doesn't cost us a nickel,

and we have our meals subsidized in the cafeteria. This year you and I will

be voting in favour of a bill to subsidize the cafeteria downstairs to the tune

of $50,000. We are subsidizing the cafeteria for $50,000; the seniors have no

access to that cafeteria, get no such support.

I want to say it again: the fiscal policies of that government are

primitive, stupid, backward and self-defeating. These guys don't have a

platform; they have a treadmill. All they know how to do is tax, tax

some more and tax again. And having taxed and taxed and taxed again,

then they turn to upping the fees and the charges, the rates and costs,

and they go back on the treadmill. They run around on that treadmill

and the province itself gets nowhere. They think they are going

somewhere; in fact, they are caught within the treadmill, the thing

they think is a platform, and the province progresses not one whit.

I commented last week, and raised the eyebrows of the Speaker, by

saying that in my opinion the government is not just two-faced; it is

also two-fisted — they give with one fist what they take with the

other. I saw the Speaker's eyebrow raised when I said "two-faced."

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you recall the ancient Roman god, Janus.

Janus was a Roman god who ordinarily functioned in times of war, and

was represented symbolically by a mask on the doors of the temples

constructed to him. The mask faced both directions simultaneously — the

mask had, simultaneously, two faces. The mask said one thing if you

approached it from one angle, and quite a different thing from another

angle. It was all the same thing; it was all similarly unbelievable.

That's where this government has put itself. That's the position in

which it finds itself.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that this government campaigned on a

promise to abolish all property taxes for senior citizens? You may have

made such a promise yourself, Mr. Speaker — I know you ran for them.

They promised that. Needless to say, they have delivered nothing of the

kind. In fact we have seen, since they took government, a series of

attacks upon the pockets and the hearts and the morale of senior

citizens, the like of which we've not seen for a long, long time.

I want to tell you about how they've been attacked. I want to tell

you how they have been attacked again and again and again by that group

of millionaires and hangers-on and opportunists. I want to tell you how

they have been attacked, and I want to tell you of some of the ways in

which they should have been protected instead. They were attacked when

the bus rates went up 45 per cent. They were attacked when the B.C.

medical plan went up 40 per cent. They were attacked when the cost of

hospital rooms went up 400 per cent. They were attacked on B.C. bus

rates, the medical plan and the hospital rooms when they should have

been protected.

They were attacked when B.C. Hydro electricity

[ Page

501 ]

charges went up 12 to 22 per cent. They were

attacked when B.C. Hydro tacked an extra $3 a month on top of that.

They were attacked by B.C. Hydro when they should have been protected.

They were hit with a 40 per cent increase in the sales tax. They were

hit again by B.C. Hydro when the gas rates went up 8 to 12 per cent,

and they have been hit by cutbacks in hospital staff throughout British

Columbia when they should have been protected. At the Royal Jubilee

Hospital, in calendar 1976, staff has been cut by 112 positions. they

were attacked when they should have been protected. At that hospital,

in its Memorial Pavilion, they have lost 10 staff in the last year. The

seniors and the veterans of this province were attacked again when they

should have been protected.

Extended-care hospital construction in British Columbia is virtually

at a dead halt. We know the minister would make announcements if he had

any to make. Instead, we have had to make announcements for him: that

in Surrey on March 4 Cedarhurst Private Hospital, catering to people

aged 75 to 90, is closing down because of the failure of that

government to honour an election promise, because of the failure of

that coalition to deliver the funds necessary to keep it open. People

aged 75 to 90, as of March 4, in Surrey, of all ironical places, are

going to be out on the streets because that coalition of millionaires

has decided not to spend the money necessary to keep its doors open.

They've been attacked again!

Senior citizens were attacked when the budget for GAIN was cut $20

million. They should have been protected. They are about to be attacked

when the cost for Pharmacare goes up from nothing — because it was

their right, they have already contributed — to $25, and everyone else

is going to be attacked when it goes up to $75, when the seniors should

have been protected.

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that this coalition of millionaires and

landlords will abolish rent controls within the year, and when they do

so — especially in my riding where more than 60 per cent of the people

are tenants — I predict that rents will not increase at the end of that

year by 10.6 per cent, they will increase from 15 to 20 per cent. The

people who will be least able to bear that are the senior citizens.

They will have been attacked once more, when they should have been

protected.

They have tripled the ambulance fees — told them to smile and take a

taxi. They've tripled the ambulance fees and persuaded the senior

citizens of this province, especially in my riding, that they had

better watch out because if they are not really sick with a heart

attack or a stroke, big bad Bob will get them and he'll triple the

fees. In order to avoid that, maybe they won't take it at all because

there are a lot of seniors who are proud, Mr. Speaker.

They are embarrassed to have to ask anyone for charity, to have to write a

letter to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and say: "Dear Mr.

Minister: I had to go to the hospital because I was very sick, but I can't

afford to pay the rates which you have just tripled. Will you please let me

off?" I don't think they're going to do that. I think the pride,

the integrity and the self-esteem in which the majority of seniors hold themselves

is sufficiently powerful that they won't write such a letter. They'll

hesitate, when they shouldn't hesitate for a moment, to call the ambulance

they need to. They will have been attacked again when they should have been

protected.

In the province of British Columbia this month, there are 8,300

citizens registered with the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Why

are they registered? Because they need low-cost accommodation and they

can't afford to live where they're presently living. They need the

low-cost accommodation. They're registered because they have to have

it; they're registered because they need it. Is the message clear?

There are 8,300 seniors on the list this month with the B.C. Housing

Management Commission because they need low-cost accommodation.

Let me repeat it: 8,300 senior citizens are on the list because they

need accommodation. Is the message clear? If the message is clear, why

do we find in this budget that the allocation for senior citizens'

housing construction has gone from $10 million to $4 million? If they

know that 8,300 senior citizens are waiting tonight for accommodation

that they can afford, why have they cut the budget from $10 million to

$4 million for senior citizens' housing construction? Now maybe we know

why the Socreds gave them free campsites, eh, Mr. Speaker?

I'm going to keep saying that throughout the life of this session

until this government realizes that they are not going to be able to

get away with it. They are not going to be able to get away with a cut

of $6 million in housing construction for senior citizens. There are

8,300 seniors on that list tonight; they need that accommodation

tonight. You've cut the budget from $10 million to $4 million. Are they

proud of that, Mr. Speaker? Is that something they've announced? Did

that appear in the budget speech? Have any of them stood up in this

amendment debate to defend that action? Not one of them has.

MR. BARRETT: Not a word.

MR. BARBER: None of them has the guts to defend a cut of $6

million in housing construction for senior citizens. No wonder they

don't have the guts — it cannot be defended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

[ Page 502 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest that you use another term than "guts."

MR. BARBER: Than "cuts"?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): "Stomach" — don't use "guts."

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, what is unparliamentary about pointing out that there's been a budget cut of $6 million?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's nothing wrong with pointing that out,

but I would suggest you use another term than the word "guts." I would

consider that unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said "cuts"; you said "guts."

MR. BARRETT: They don't have the concern.

MR. BARBER: They've neither the concern, nor the compassion,

nor the heart to — do what they should have done. They cut the budget

from $10 million to $4 million and they gave them free campsites

instead. Big deal!

Let's take a look at some of the spending patterns of that coalition

of millionaires and opportunists, and those who would be millionaires

and who are opportunists. Where do they find the money? What do they

spend it on? If they can't find $6 million and more, if they can't at

least maintain last year's $ 10 million spending pattern for senior

citizens' housing, where can they find money? Well, you know, Mr.

Speaker, they found hundreds and thousands of dollars for the secret

police. This coalition has found hundreds and thousands of dollars for

hundreds and thousands of secret police.

Let me tell you how I know that. I remember very clearly that the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ran around this province and

told the people of British Columbia that the previous government had

created a secret police force. She said that that government was arming

them with guns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Barrett's brownies.

MR. BARBER: Barrett's brownshirts.

MR. BARRETT: Where are they now?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, let me, if I may, point out the

obvious logic of that position. We know that the Provincial Secretary

is an honest woman. She wouldn't lie.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

MR. BARBER: She wouldn't deceive the people; she wouldn't make up stories about secret police for political purposes.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

MR. BARBER: She wouldn't do anything of the sort. When she

said that there were secret police, this honest flower vendor was

telling the truth, because we know that she is an honest woman and

would not deceive the people. Because we observed that she told this

House and this province that the NDP government had created a secret

police force, it is only reasonable to assume that our government,

having created it, would discover upon having been defeated that that

force was disbanded. Because surely, she was telling the truth; surely,

the day they took office they would disband the secret police force.

Let me point out the next logical step in this observation, Mr.

Speaker. It is this: having told the truth that the NDP created a

secret policy force, and having taken office on December 22, 1975, no

doubt they moved right away to disband that horrible cabal of cops.

There's no doubt about it — at least, so you would think, would you

not, Mr. Speaker? The problem is, I have searched my files most

carefully and I can find no such announcement.

As a matter of fact, I remember asking the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) in the last debate on estimates whether or not he had

discovered in his allocation — because that's where it was; the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) told us so, and we know she

wouldn't lie — the budget for the secret police.

The Attorney-General, who is also an honest man — no Robert Bonner

he — and who we wish was with us more often, said that he couldn't find

it in his budget and he wouldn't pursue the matter any further. We can

only presume, therefore, that it must be in someone else's budget,

because we know the secret police were there — the Provincial Secretary

told us so — and we know that once they took office they would have

disbanded it right away and they would have told us where they found

the money in the budget. Because they haven't told us, I can only

conclude they're still there and the money is still in the budget, and

that's why we don't have enough for senior citizens' housing. Isn't it,

Mr. Speaker?

It's because these guys are still promoting the secret police.

AN HON. MEMBER: Expanding it!

MR. BARBER: They're buying more guns, more uniforms. They're spending money on secret police

[ Page

503 ]

instead of spending money on senior citizens,

because we know the Provincial Secretary wouldn't lie to us. We know

that when she told the people there was a secret police force there

was, and we know that because they have not announced the disbandment

of that secret police force; they are still paying for it. Because

they're still paying for it, that's why we don't have enough money for

seniors' housing. That's why the budget was cut from $10 million to $4

million. That's why they're giving them free campsites instead.

Let's find out where else they spend the money. Let's find out how

come they can't find $6 million — even to equal last year's budget for

seniors' housing. We find another announcement. The Premier told us,

proudly, there in his brown suit, that they're going to give $300

million to the coal companies — $300 million: one welfare cheque, plus

interest, to the coal companies to exploit the natural resources of all

the people. They found $300 million for the coal companies. They've cut

the budget for seniors' housing from $10 million to $4 million and

given them free campsites. They found $300 million for the coal

companies and they've cut the seniors from $10 million to $4 million,

and not one of them stands up to defend it. Not one of them stands up

to defend what they've done to seniors in this province.

They found some other money, Mr. Speaker. They found $ 100 million

with which to build a pipeline up the Grizzly Valley to extract natural

gas that may not even be there in the amounts they think are there.

They found $ 100 million for those guys, Mr. Speaker, and they cut the

budget for seniors' housing from $10 million to $4 million and gave

them free campsites instead. Where are their priorities? I repeat: $300

million for the coal companies, $100 million for the Grizzly Valley

pipeline, and they can't find $10 million for seniors' housing.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, but that's people.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about another thing

they've done. I know you're not part of this. You're one of the good

guys in the caucus, which is why you're never going to make it in the

cabinet. They've given $30 million to themselves. They've given it to

themselves, Mr. Speaker. It isn't enough that they give it to the coal

companies. It isn't enough that they give it to a pipeline consortium.

They want some of it themselves. By abolishing the succession duties at

midnight the night the Finance minister made the announcement, they

have made themselves and their millionaire friends a gift this year of

$30 million.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. BARBER: It is not reasonable to ask how the

Premier of this province managed to persuade so many millionaires to

run for him? Is it possible to imagine, is it reasonable to conclude,

that he got so many of those millionaires to run for him on the promise

that when they got in he'd remove succession duties and make them a

present of another $30 million? Is that possible?

Is it possible that it's a little more than coincidence? They found

$300 million for the coal companies, $100 million for the Grizzly

Valley pipeline, they've given themselves $30 million, and they've cut

the budget for seniors' housing by $6 million. It's a cabinet riddled

with millionaires, Mr. Speaker. There's a baker's dozen of millionaires

over there.

In doing what they intend to do to make themselves the present of

$30 million, it seems to me possible that they are in conflict with

standing order 18. Later on in the session I'll be asking the other

Speaker to make a ruling on that. Standing order 18 makes it impossible

for a member of this House to vote on a matter in which he has a

pecuniary interest. The traditional exception has, of course, been the

granting of our own salaries. Apart from that, the vote of any member

who votes on a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest must be

disallowed by the Chair.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if they can find $30 million and

give themselves a present of that amount, it might be reasonable to ask

whether or not such standing order 18 applies — whether or not they

have the right to vote on that bill. By my count, there are so many of

them to whom it would apply, the bill will inevitably fail. The bill

will fail on constitutional grounds. They will not be permitted to do

it. They gave themselves $30 million and they cut seniors' housing.

Who else have they found money for, Mr. Speaker? Well, good old

Quasar Petroleum was at the trough. Last summer they got $3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What for?

MR. BARBER: Yes, what for? They got $3 million to confirm the

self-interest that we all know they possessed. They got S3 million to

add up a few more figures, to balloon up a few more estimates, and to

pretend that there's enough gas up in the Grizzly Valley to justify the

investment of the people's money. They got those millions in order that

they could proceed with a proposal which is, at best, dubious and, at

worst, as we know, has led to the dismissal of five or six people and

to the obvious cloud of scandal hanging over that entire administration.

They drilled the wells to confirm their own self-interest. They got

millions to do it and they managed to cut the budget for seniors'

housing from

[ Page 504 ]

$10 million to $4 million. And, Mr. Speaker, they

managed to find some more money. They found $2.5 million with which to

settle out of court, Christmas Eve.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the day the hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) returned to this House? The very first

question he asked in question period was of the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom). He asked the Attorney-General whether or not that

Attorney-General would do anything to settle the M.E.L. suit against

B.C. Rail out of court. The Attorney-General laughed and went "ho, ho,

ho," and the audience said: "This is a strange question." We said to

ourselves: we know why the question is being asked, because the

Attorney-General is on record as answering that June day: "No! Gosh, we

wouldn't do that. That will be held in open court. Gosh! You bet we're

fair guys. I'm a Lib...I'm a Socred," he said, "and I wouldn't do those

things." Christmas Eve, Mr. Speaker — what an odd night to announce

anything — they settled out of court for $2.5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they see that bright light in the sky?

MR. BARBER: On Christmas Eve they found that money for M.E.L.

Paving in order to avoid charges of fraud — civil and possibly criminal

— against certain individuals in this province. In their budget they

could not find enough for senior citizens' housing; they cut it from $

10 million to $4 million.

Who else have they found money for, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you the

strange saga of Joe Broadbent. Now there's a senior citizen if ever

there was one. There's a guy, if ever there was one, who deserved to be

looked after. He surely belongs on the GAIN programme; he's contributed

— but he's got a little more than the ordinary GAIN, hasn't he? Eleven

months after he retired, an obscure

section of the Public Service Act —

unannounced and discovered only in orders-in-council after the fact —

was employed to give Mr. Broadbent a gift of more than $8,000. There is

some doubt about whether or not it even applied. They tell us it

applies; we don't know.

On some pretext or another, on the basis of some obviously dubious

authority, they managed to find $8,000 for a certain special senior

citizen who was once charged with fraud himself by the paving company,

a man who is on record as having taken instructions from the pre-1972

board of directors of B.C. Rail, a man who has the unique achievement

of having presided over one of the most unfortunate railways this

province or this country has ever seen, a man who for his pains is paid

$8,000-plus 11 months after he retires, on the eve of the settlement

with M.E.L. Paving itself, on the eve of Christmas. They found $8,000

for Mr. Broadbent.

Two days in a row we've asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) how they managed to do it. Two days in a row she's taken the

question as notice. I know she's an honest woman; I'm sure she'll tell

us the truth when eventually she gets around to it. She told us the

truth about the secret police. I'm sure she'll tell us the truth about

this, too.

They gave a Christmas present of $8,000 to Mr. Broadbent, and in the

budget that followed Christmas they told the seniors of this province

that they were cutting grants for senior citizens' housing construction

from $10 million to $4 million and giving them free campsites instead.

What kind of a government is this, Mr. Speaker? Whose side are they

on? Let me repeat the list of gifts: $300 million for the coal

companies; $100 million for the pipeline; $30 million for themselves

and their fellow millionaires; $3 million to Quasar Petroleum; $2.5

million for M.E.L. Paving; $8,000 for Mr. Broadbent. And they cut the

budget for seniors' housing from $10 million to $4 million. Whose side

are they on, Mr. Speaker? Who do they care about over there? Do they

care about the senior citizens of this province?

Alex won't even look me in the eye. Did you vote for that, Alex,

when it came up in cabinet? Referring to the Minister of Highways and

Public Works, did you vote for that? You are regarded in this House as

a pretty decent guy. You are regarded on both sides as a pretty decent

guy. Did you vote for that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, kindly address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: There are people in that coalition, Mr. Speaker,

whom as individuals are respected on both sides of this House. There

are people in this coalition whom, I would hope, were there a free

vote, would not vote for that cut in senior citizens' housing, who in

the light of gifts of $300 million for the coal companies, $100 million

for the pipeline, $30 million for the millionaires, $3 million for

Quasar Petroleum, $2.S million for M.E.L. Paving and $8,000 for Mr.

Broadbent, would not in their hearts find it justifiable to cut

seniors' housing from $10 million to $4 million.

This month, today, 8,300 senior citizens are on the list at the B.C.

Housing Management Commission — how do they justify that to themselves,

Mr. Speaker? How do they do that?

There's another guy over there who's regarded by some of us pretty

fondly — myself included. It's the member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder). Old Harv, we call him. He's a Christian minister, Mr.

Speaker. He's a Christian minister by trade. He's a Christian minister

by heart and persuasion. I think he's a sincere guy. I've talked with

him; he's not one of the millionaires, he doesn't stand to benefit from

any of

[ Page

505 ]

that self-serving legislation. I want to know,

through you, Mr. Speaker, how you, the member for Chilliwack, could

defend a cut in senior citizens' housing from $ 10 million to $4

million. Did you vote for that in caucus?

MR. BARRETT: He never got a chance.

MR. BARBER: Did you have an opportunity to discuss that with

the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis)? Are you going to take any

opportunity to defend it, or are we going to witness your apparent

attempt to pretend to talk to your seatmate while you know full well

what's being asked of you in this House? Let me repeat: there are

people over there who we believe still have compassion — they're mostly

in the back bench.

MR. BARRETT: You can count them on one hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can count them on one finger.

MR. BARBER: They'll mostly stay in the back bench. I think

that member is one of them. I don't know how he can defend a cut of $6

million in seniors' housing when tonight — let me repeat for the

umpteenth time — 8,300 people are on the list waiting for the low-cost

accommodation that they have to have.

I want to know how any of those guys can defend it.

MR. LEA: They won't.

MR. BARBER: If they won't, we'll know why they've remained silent in this debate.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I would

like to take this opportunity to recognize in the gallery a former

mayor of the city of Vancouver, a tireless worker for the seniors of

this province and a good friend of mine, Tom Alsbury.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret to support this amendment.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Well, sit down and I'll do it for you.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, Norman.

I support it exactly because of the words of the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) as he concluded his speech yesterday when he called this a "hold-the-line

budget." Mr. Speaker, the line the government is holding is not good enough.

The line the government is holding, in the exact language of this amendment,

pays insufficient attention to the senior citizens and handicapped of this province,

and insufficient attention to employment opportunities in this province.

The case on behalf of seniors and the handicapped has been well made

by others and, I'm sure, will be made in due course by the hon. member

for Burrard who is about to speak. There has been an enormous

underspending of funds in the department of the Minister of Human

Resources, funds voted by this House for the service of seniors and the

handicapped in this province. There's been a blowing up of the surplus

in that department by a refusal to pass on to the handicapped in this

province an increase in federal funds for the handicapped that are

given to the provincial government — given last October and increased

by $22.50 a month. That wasn't passed on; it was simply pocketed by

that department and that Minister of Human Resources. That is not good

enough.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): That's called GAIN.

MR. GIBSON: That's called GAIN — GAIN spelled "no increase."

MR. BARRETT: Spelled L-E-S-S.

MR. BARBER: They used it to pay off M.E.L. Paving.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to concentrate

on the other aspect of the amendment, and that relates to the lack of

employment opportunity.

In this time of almost 9 per cent unemployment in this province —

and the statistics next month are going to be worse because the last

survey was taken before the big forestry layoffs — there is hardly a

word in the budget on ways to increase employment. There's more money

to be spent in the Department of Highways; there's a certain amount for

summer student employment, and that's it — with 8.8 per cent

unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I made a couple of specific suggestions, and I'm going

to make them again in greater detail. First of all, the government

should remove the 7 per cent sales tax on expenditures this coming year

on productive plant and equipment. That's not a new idea; it's not a

radical idea — Tory Ontario did it a couple of years ago. Their

provincial treasurer reviewed the results of that in last November's

budget speech in Ontario, found them good and continued the programme

for another length of time. We simply must modernize our plant and

equipment in this province, particularly in the coastal forest

industry. That blanket exemption of the, sales tax should be made in

order to create jobs.

[ Page 506 ]

Beyond that, something more direct should be done: we should get

another pulp mill going in this province, and it has to be done with

provincial government leadership.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The wood supply is there, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: We have to help the pulp mills that are there now.

MR. GIBSON: That's right, we have to modernize the ones that

are there, but we need more. The wood supply is there; the workers are

there, needing the jobs. The markets will be there — they are soft now,

but by the time a mill comes on stream the markets will be there. The

government has to help and has to show leadership.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one pulp mill currently building in

Canada, and that's in the province of Quebec. It's being headed up by a

British Columbia company, B.C. Forest Products. I commend them for

their initiative on building another pulp mill, but how can we get

another one building in this province?

Let me describe a little bit of the financing of that particular pulp mill. I'm quoting here from the Province of January 29. It's a $300 million project, Mr. Speaker. Here's what the

article says:

"The financing of the $300 million project represents

a classic insight into future forest industry initiatives. Example: the

cost of bleached softwood pulping has escalated from $110,000