1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

211 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Allocation of speaking time. Mr. Cocke — 211

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 211

Mr. King — 211

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 212

Mr. Mussallem — 212

Mr. Speaker — 212

Statement

Details re federal-provincial job-finding programme report.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 212

Mr. Wallace — 213

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Student summer employment. Mr. King — 213

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 214

B.C. Railway strike. Mr. Gibson — 214

Permanent docking facilities for Gabriola Island. Mr. Wallace — 214

Appointment of ex Social Credit minister as new B.C.R. head.

Mr. Lauk — 215

Passage of special warrant for universities' grants.

Mrs. Dailly — 215

Funds for correcting hospital wage discrepancy.

Ms. Brown — 216

Return of $600 cheque to employment programmes branch.

Hon. Mr. Williams answers — 216

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 216

Mr. Barber — 221

Mr. Strongman — 224

Mr. Levi — 228

Mr. Loewen — 233

Mr. Macdonald — 236

Mr. Bawtree — 242

Mr. Kerster — 244

Division on address of the Lieutenant-Governor — 246

Privilege

Derogatory statements about hon. member. Mr. Chabot — 246

Mr. King — 247

Mr. Barber — 247

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries

this afternoon are 12 representatives of the B.C. Student Federation

representing 70,000 students from the province, and I would ask the

House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Also sitting in the gallery

education group, and I would like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I would like to take this

opportunity to ask this assembly to join me in welcoming Mr. Ben Van

Rhyn and granddaughter Marcia, who are in the gallery this afternoon.

Mr. Van Rhyn has for many years served his community, and is still

serving as an alderman on the council of the district municipality of

Houston. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Ben Van Rhyn and his

granddaughter Marcia.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to ask this House to welcome friends who have come over especially for

this afternoon — Mr. and Mrs. Dirk de Rover.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the House to welcome a very good friend of mine who made the trip from

Cranbrook to attend the House this afternoon. I would like to ask you

to welcome Mike Fenwick.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

matter of privilege. Before me and before the House is a list of

speakers that was agreed to — or not agreed to, I should say; it wasn't

agreed to — that was presented by the government Whip this afternoon.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that we have been strangely silent, because

we have been trying very hard to make the Whip system work in this

assembly. In doing so, we don't find it very much in the favour at all

of the opposition.

As a matter of fact, this afternoon, after yesterday afternoon's experience,

where we had 70 minutes out of the four-hour period, this afternoon we have

been afforded two speakers back to back — and that's all for the opposition

side. We would prefer to rely on the integrity of the Chair for the throne,

budget and other debates if in fact this is the way the government or the members

of the Socred caucus lean on their Whip. I cannot work as Whip or make the Whip

system work if this is the kind of treatment we get.

In the first place, two of our speakers should not be back to back

in this way. Later in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, they have afforded

three government members opportunity to speak — one minister, a member,

another member, and then we get to one of our speakers. Then

immediately after that, another one of our speakers; then three more

government members. Mr. Speaker, that would again mean that 70 minutes

out of a time of four hours this afternoon would be afforded us by the

government, and I think it is a disgrace.

Now if we can get some kind of consideration from the government

that we are going to be afforded ample time to put forward our case,

then we will try our very best to make the Whip system work. I have

every feeling that the government Whip is trying his best — but

somebody somewhere is leaning very hard on the government Whip for him

to come up with this kind of a disgraceful speaking order today.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I would suggest that the Whips

get together and work out a formula whereby speaking assignments can be

made in relation to the number of members in the House. There should be

an automatic ratio in relation to those who have spoken in the debate.

It's a new House with many new members who wish an opportunity to speak

in this debate. I would hope that after proceedings start today the

Whips could get together and, if there is any difficulty, could work

out a formula whereby speakers are assigned on the ratio of

representation in the House.

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

opposition has reported to our caucus that he had assumed precisely

that that was under way. In fact, there was some agreement after

consultation between the Whips. The Premier's statement is well taken.

There are some new members who wish to participate and it was our

understanding as a result of a report from our Whip that the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is a new member also, would have

an opportunity to speak today. But it's altogether unacceptable that we

have three government members, then two opposition members, and finally

in conclusion three government members again. That's a completely new

approach in this Legislature and completely unacceptable to the

opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: The ham in the sandwich.

MR. KING: The ham in the sandwich is correct, in terms of my

good friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and my good friend from

Vancouver Burrard (Mr. Levi). I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that is

altogether inappropriate and unfair.

[ Page 212 ]

I certainly would agree that if the Whips, on the basis of the

consensus which seems to be evident in this House — a spirit of good

will — if they, while the Minister of Health is speaking, are prepared

to come back with a more realistic and more fair speaking order, that

would be acceptable too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want the impression

to be left that there has been an advantage over and above the

percentage to government members so far in this debate. In fact, it's

clear that so far for the percentage of members in this House, they

have been given a lesser opportunity than that of the total opposition

to participate in the throne debate.

I would hate to see the deterioration of the Whip system as I

witnessed it in the last parliament when the government Whip was not

able to make a proper deal with the opposition. I would hope that when

the first member is speaking the Whips can get together and keep their

dispute off the floor of the House, and make sure that we take in the

total throne debate when allocating the number of speakers allocated

from the opposition and the government — the total opportunity in the

throne debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Rather than get involved in a debate, hon.

members, on this matter this afternoon, which is taking up the time of

the House and those that wish to participate in the debate, I'll ask

the government Whip if he has any offers or suggestions to make to the

House at this time. Then I will comment further.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it

clear that nobody leaned on me in any way, shape or form. There are

certain things that a government Whip has responsibilities for and I

have tried my utmost to put these in order. Now if they are not in

order — and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said to me

a short while ago that they were not acceptable to him — I would be

very glad to meet with him. I think we can argue those things out quite

easily.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not prepared to make a decision on

the matter since it is one that could be resolved by the official

opposition and the government through the Whip system. But I would

suggest to the Whips that they meet as soon as possible, perhaps while

the first speaker is taking his place in the debate or whenever it is

convenient — but before this afternoon concludes — and try to come to

some reasonable solution to the problem.

I follow the tradition of past Speakers, and that is that as a

courtesy to both sides of the House you prepare a list of speakers for

the day which I try to then call upon in relation to the order on that

list. It is an unwritten rule within the operation of the House. If

within the next little while the Whips who represent the government and

the opposition come to me with that list, I will certainly be more than

willing to accommodate that situation for the remainder of the

afternoon and in any further debate.

I think you must take into consideration the fact that quite often,

because of sickness or some other problem, a person who was scheduled

to speak is not present at that time, and I am handed an amended list.

It happens all the time — I am prepared to accept that today. I think

that if the Whips will meet and bring me a report, I will be prepared

to look at that and report to the House.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the aircraft log for government aircraft for the year January 1 to December 31, 1975.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Rather than taking the time of the House

during question period, I would like to make this statement in response

to a question which was posed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) to the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

on Monday last.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, the Vancouver Province carried a news story which stated in part:

"A secret provincial government report harshly criticizes

federal ineffectiveness in employment programmes and recommends B.C. pull out

of a joint job-finding experiment."

The news story went on to say that the so-called secret report was

prepared by a committee of public servants from the Departments of

Labour and Human Resources. Inasmuch as neither the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), nor I were aware of such a report, we

have each initiated our own inquiries to determine what was the basis

of the news story. On behalf of my colleague and myself, I would like

to report to the House on the outcome of our inquiries.

We find that the report was, in fact, a working paper entitled

"Analysis of and recommendations for the Province of British Columbia's

participation in the community employment strategy." It was prepared by

staff members of the two departments — not, I might add, by senior

staff members — and was referred to their superiors for further

consideration.

In the Department of Labour, the working paper reached the level of

associate deputy minister of the manpower division, who rejected the

report as it was

[ Page 213 ]

then constituted. Therefore the report was not passed on to my

deputy minister, nor to me. I am informed by my colleague, the Minister

of Human Resources, that in his department the working paper was drawn

to the attention of his deputy minister but that it was considered

unsatisfactory and was never forwarded to the minister.

Subsequent to the publication of the story in the Vancouver Province

I personally reviewed the working paper. Beyond the fact that it

contains mis-statements of fact with respect to provincial policies, it

expresses improper criticism of the federal government with respect to

federal efforts to initiate and develop community employment strategy

in the form of pilot projects in the cities of Kamloops and Nanaimo.

Unfortunately, this criticism having been made public has had the

effect of denigrating the efforts of those persons who have been

involved in those two projects. My colleague and I do not abide this

criticism. We wish to make it abundantly clear that the contents of

this paper in no way reflect the view of the Departments of Labour and

Human Resources, nor that of the Government of British Columbia.

The subject of manpower strategy generally, including manpower

training and community employment strategy, is one of serious concern

to the two senior levels of government. Discussions have taken place at

the ministerial and deputy ministerial levels and these will continue

at meetings which are scheduled for the month of May. I have today

forwarded a copy of this statement to the federal Minister of Manpower

and Immigration, Mr. Robert Andras, so that he will know that our

participation in these meetings will in no way be compromised by the

contents of this staff discussion paper and that our desire, in concert

with the other provinces, to discuss these matters with the federal

government openly and productively will remain undiminished.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. It is a

courtesy on this side of the House to respond to ministerial statements

and, since I initiated the statement, I would like to make a brief

comment.

First of all, the clear and well-researched response of the minister

is deeply appreciated in the same way that we appreciated the notice of

a statement to be made by the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Davis) the other day. This kind of rapport and harmony which

is developing in this House I hope will be maintained.

In regard to the issue itself, I would like to be on record as

saying that the unemployment problem and the challenge to manpower in

this province, indeed across Canada, is, as the minister says, one of

serious concern and a major one if unemployment is to be appreciably

affected in any way. I can only assure the minister that, in the light

of his statement, we appreciate his approach to the federal level and

his writing to the minister to correct the misunderstanding that must

inevitably have arisen from the question I asked.

I would just like to add that any way that we can assist on this

side of the House to promote better programmes to create employment as

a result of federal-provincial cooperation will certainly have our

strongest support.

Oral questions.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the

hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams): I wonder if the hon.

minister can inform the House whether or not the phase two of the

student summer employment programme which was announced in a press

release from the Department of Labour on February 9 has been turned

down by Treasury Board.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. member for his question. A similar question was posed in the House two days ago, and I responded then.

I will repeat that phase two of the government's phase of seasonal

employment has not been turned down by treasury. I hope to have a full

statement on it within the week. As a matter of fact, material went to

my office from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) only this

morning.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention

of the Department of Labour to continue with phase two as announced in

the event that phase two is turned down by Treasury Board?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes. Phase one is already

underway, and moneys have been committed to it. There will be no change

in phase one. I wish to assure the House that phase two will go ahead.

The decision is already made by Treasury Board. Tomorrow is budget, and

it will be announced following that event.

MR. KING: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have a card

here which presumably is the notification to those people who might

participate in phase one of the programme. It was mailed out on the

16th of this month, and the notice on it indicates that all

applications must be received by March 26. That seems like precious

little time for applications for student employees to be put forward. I

wonder if the minister would consider extending the limits on this

programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have

[ Page 214 ]

already asked the director of the programme to extend the time.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN B.C.

HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

asked in question period if I was aware of allegations of potential

conflict of interest concerning senior officials of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission in setting up a private strata title management

firm. I undertook to report further to the House.

I would like to inform the member and the House, Mr. Speaker, that

two employees of BCHMC have today been suspended without pay, effective

immediately, pending further investigation and an interview with one of

the individuals, hopefully before the end of this week. The second

person, apparently concerned in this matter, is on vacation and we are

making every effort to reach him. For clarity's sake, I would emphasize

that these are not commissioners, but rather employees of the

commission.

In a statement which was forwarded to me by one of them, it is

indicated that the two in February of this year considered setting up

some kind of strata management firm — a small firm. It is further

reported the incorporation documents were signed on March 10, 1976, just

over two weeks ago. It would appear also that the solicitor acting for

the individuals in the setting up of the firm cautioned at that time

against possible conflict of interest. In fact, on the same date as the

actual signing of incorporation, that is March 18, one of the two

decided to sign over his interest in the firm.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of our first examination

the formation of this small company, in my view, is one of foolishness

rather than a contrived attempt to misuse a position with BCHMC. But

that fact notwithstanding, I feel that I had no choice but to order the

immediate suspension of the two individuals. The matter remains under

review and consideration, and I will be reporting further to the House.

B.C. RAILWAY STRIKE

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

on that subject — I thank the minister for his prompt report to the

House, and hope that he will keep us posted as his investigation

proceeds.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), those being the two cabinet representatives

on the board of the B.C. Railway, and since the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams), is a neutral party in this matter...I would like

to ask the Premier to speak on behalf of management. I have sent him

notice of this question: is it correct that the B.C. Railway turned

down an offer by the Teamsters union of binding arbitration which would

have, presumably, brought a speedy resolution to this vexatious dispute

which is causing so much trouble? If so, why did the government take

that action?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano: for the first time in some time the Premier is not

a director or the president of the railway, and as such does not give

direction to the management of the railway. I would feel that you

should ask your question of the minister, who is a director, when he

returns to this House. By way of notification, so the members may know,

both ministers are meeting with the railway management this afternoon.

I would hope that they will make a statement or respond to the member's

question when he raises it at the first opportunity Monday.

PERMANENT DOCKING FACILITIES

FOR GABRIOLA ISLAND

MR. WALLACE: I would like to address a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications with regard to future plans

for this ferry service between Horseshoe Bay and Vancouver Island. In

light of the minister's recent announcement that "makeshift ramps will

be ready this summer to service the super-ferries on that run", I would

like to ask the minister: has a decision been finalized to locate the

permanent docking facilities on Gabriola Island? I emphasize the word

permanent.

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

answer, relative to Gabriola Island, is no. I have, however, met with

the West Vancouver city council, and will next Monday meet with the

Nanaimo City Council, relative to the temporary ramps at Horseshoe Bay

and Departure Bay. In their case no final decision has been made.

However, we are discussing this matter with the municipalities first.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the

minister: since past evidence indicates a divided feeling among the

residents of Gabriola Island, has the minister recently arranged any

meeting with the residents, or is he about to arrange such a meeting in

addition to meeting with the councils he just mentioned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be my intention to meet with the residents

[ Page 215 ]

of Gabriola, but first I would want to have the support of the government in that connection.

APPOINTMENT OF EX-SOCIAL CREDIT

MINISTER AS NEW BCR HEAD

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier as presiding member of the executive council.

In 1973 the Comptroller-General reported that the B.C. Rail auditors

had been unduly restricted by Mr. Gunderson. In '74 the auditor

resigned and was suspended from the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

In '75 the new auditors certified that previous deficits totalling

$52.7 million in the B.C. Railway had been hidden from the public.

Documents relating to this have all been tabled in the House.

Can the Premier now tell the House whether the government is

considering appointing as president of the railway a former defeated

Social Credit cabinet minister who was a director of the railway at the

time these deficits were hidden?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the first member for

Vancouver Centre, the government has made no decision on any new

directors or any change in management of any Crown corporations at the

moment.

MR. LAUK: Is the hon. Premier and his cabinet considering the appointment of this gentleman in question?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, Mr. Member, as you know, is asking

the cabinet to make a statement on something that is speculative at

this time. I would think that they could rightfully defer to answer

that question if they so desire.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not fair.

Interjections.

PASSAGE OF SPECIAL WARRANT

FOR UNIVERSITIES' GRANTS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this is to the

hon. Premier. As the Premier is aware, having sat in the House for the

last few days, two members of his Treasury Board seem unaware of the

reasons for the passage of special warrants. As the Premier is a member

of the Treasury Board, I would like to ask him if he can tell the House

why the special warrant for grants to universities was passed for $7.5

million and what the urgency was in the passage of those grants.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Burnaby North: the

Minister of Education is here to whom the original question was asked

and perhaps he is prepared to give an answer.

MRS. DAILLY: He didn't know before.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Well, Mr. Speaker,

to the member for Burnaby North, I said that as soon as information was

available I would make a statement to the House. I have now received a

breakdown of how the money should be apportioned by the universities

council. We had....

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): What was the emergency?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition will just

bear with me for a moment, the universities council had indicated to

the government that the universities had undertaken commitments of a

contractual nature which were beyond their fiscal resources and we

asked the firm of Price Waterhouse to go in and determine what the

extent of these contractual commitments were. We've received word from

Price Waterhouse, we have obtained a breakdown of the funds from the

universities council, we have now notified the three universities, and

the breakdown of funds is: to Simon Fraser University, $1,836,750, the

University of Victoria $1,113,450; and to the University of

British Columbia $4,549,800.

MR. KING: Shocking!

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that we finally have a breakdown of

that warrant. May I ask the hon. minister, though: when you went before

Treasury Board in cabinet with this special warrant, did you have to at

that time await the information from Price Waterhouse or did you just

get a blank cheque for $7.5 million?

HON. MR. McGEER: Price Waterhouse were investigating the matter at the time and had given the government....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 216 ]

FUNDS FOR CORRECTING

HOSPITAL WAGE DISCREPANCY

MS. BROWN: To the Minister of Health, through you, Mr.

Speaker: has the Department of Health released to the B.C. hospitals,

or authorized the release, of sufficient funds for the hospitals to

meet the terms of the employees' union agreement for correcting the

wage discrepancy against female employees in the B.C. hospital system?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burrard,

I'm the first speaker slated this afternoon and I'll be making a

statement at that time if she'll listen.

RETURN OF $600 CHEQUE TO

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES BRANCH

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took on notice a

question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition dealing with the

issuance of a $600 cheque to the North Peace constituency association.

I've had the opportunity of examining the records of the office of the

Minister of Labour and I'm surprised the question has been asked.

It appears that a cheque was issued on May 30, 1975, and was sent

directly to the association by the Department of Finance. The

association alleges that the cheque was returned to them in June of

1975. No cheque was ever received by the Department of Labour or by the

minister's office. As a result, an examination was made and it was

found that the cheque had never been negotiated. In order to assist the

government in clearing up this matter, the North Peace constituency

association entered into an indemnity bond in the amount of $600. This

permitted the Department of Finance to issue a new cheque and then to

cancel the cheque and balance the account. This was all completed as of

January, 1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder they lost money.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period is now over, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: I have a point of privilege affecting the members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have noted that during question

periods there have been four ministers absent. We understand perfectly

on this side of the House that at times ministers must be absent on

important matters of government business, but I feel that the only

access to ministers that is effective is through question period, which

is why we, as a government, brought in question period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: The problem is doubly compounded, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that most of these ministers....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the problem is doubly

compounded by the fact that most of the ministers absent and, in fact,

most of the ministers on that side of the House, hold double or triple

portfolios.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you're infringing on the rules of the House. It's not a matter of privilege that you're raising....

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of

privilege in this House affecting those backbenchers and these MLAs on

this side of the House. We are not effective MLAs without those

ministers in their seats.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

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

would like first to congratulate you on the important position you have

been given by this Legislative Assembly and also to congratulate the

Deputy Speaker, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who now has

a gavel to pound on his desk. (Laughter.)

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the throne speech. Despite the

recognition by this government of the horrendous mess inherited by us

from the previous government, we gave this House a very positive throne

speech. Despite the recognition that the incompetence and the ineptness

of the previous government will be a serious burden for the people of

the future of this province, the throne speech simply accepts that as a

fact and then says: "Let's get on and do the job. Let's start

rebuilding. Let's put ICBC together. Let's restore confidence. Let's

bring investors back to British Columbia." In other words, Mr. Speaker,

let's get British Columbia moving again.

[ Page 217 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the three and a half years

of NDP government were years of disaster for British Columbia, years of

destruction, years of irresponsibility, years of a blind allegiance to

a philosophy that unchecked could have led this province to bankruptcy,

and almost did.

Mr. Speaker, I support this throne speech because its priorities are

for people. The throne speech says that it wants to make more welfare

money available for those people who need it. What's wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's wrong with that? The throne

speech says that this government intends to provide jobs instead of

welfare. What's wrong with that? The throne speech says that this

government intends to provide the benefits of Mincome for people aged

55 to 59. Are you against that on that side of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all ready to vote against it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if they vote against this

speech, they'll also be voting against Mincome for every single-parent

family in this province. They'll vote against it. Do you know why

they'll vote against it, Mr. Speaker? Because they know that the former

government could have made these benefits available if they had been

interested in people instead of public relations — if they hadn't been

so busy stumbling over their $100 million clerical errors. If that

government had have been truly interested in people, it would have had

its priorities straight and made these benefits available, because they

could have been made available, instead of worrying about how many

secretaries they get in their caucus, instead of putting forward phony

amendments to the throne speech, instead of staging shallow political

manoeuvres like they did on opening day.

The opposition should get behind our great people programmes — get

behind those programmes and help us to get on with the job. That's what

you're there for.

What else does this throne speech say about programmes for people?

Well, I'll tell you it says that in these times of runaway inflation we

are asking that all of us in this House show an example to the people

of British Columbia — all of us, including the people in the

opposition. Mr. Speaker, the opposition is against that, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The opposition says it's okay for the

people, but don't ask us for any restraint — no way. All we're asking,

Mr. Speaker, is that all of us demonstrate that we're prepared to share

the burden of restraint in inflationary times. You can't honestly vote

against that.

The throne speech says that we'll have an auditor-general in this

province for people. The throne speech says we'll have an ombudsman in

this province for people. The throne speech says we'll make job

opportunities available for people. The throne speech says there will

be tax relief for seniors — people priorities, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech says we'll make job opportunities

available — for people! The throne speech says there will be tax relief

for seniors — people priorities, Mr. Speaker. The throne speech says

there'll be housing opportunities — for people! The throne speech says

there'll be consumer legislation — for people! The throne speech says

there'll be incentives for safe driving in this province — for

people! No wonder I am supporting this speech. It's the best throne

speech we have ever seen in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to comment on some of the

remarks that have been made in earlier debate, first of all by the

previous Health minister, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke),

who criticized this government's plans to wind down the British

Columbia Medical Centre. We didn't make that decision frivolously, Mr.

Speaker. We made it in consultation with a lot of people who are

involved in the delivery of health care in this province, and it was

made with the understanding that even those people involved in BCMC

have understood that their role was not what they had hoped it would

be, was seriously impaired by the former government, that it would not

work and, in fact, was not working.

We determined that there was a better, more effective and, yes, a

less expensive method of delivering the kind of health care needs that

this province must have for the future. The decision was not made

lightly, but it was made with resolve and at the same time it was made

with positive alternatives, about which I will be speaking a little

later.

The former Health minister praised the architects who have done so

much work on the BCMC concept. He said not to change anything because,

he said, change is delay. He said that's cost us multi-millions and

millions of dollars in this province. Well, the delays that the former

government set up have cost us millions of dollars. The proposals that

we are offering the people of this province will not only save us

millions of dollars but we'll get health care facilities

[ Page 218 ]

built, and built now. You know, the former Health minister talks

about architects, and there's been millions of dollars, as we've said,

spent on planning and so-called priorities. We were paying, as a

people, from the tax revenues of this province, $50,000 a month to the

architect who was working for BCMC....

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): How much?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fifty thousand dollars a month, and we

never added one hospital bed for that $50,000 a month, soon to escalate

to $100,000 a month. And who was the architect? A well-known and

renowned architect in this province, Mr. Arthur Erickson, who,

incidentally, is also in charge of a project that my colleague, the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), has some knowledge of, and

which started out at about $40 million and is now going up to $150

million — the Vancouver Building — for which we have only a hole in the

ground.

In this great and glorious ad during the election campaign it says:

"Read what prominent British Columbians have to say about the record of

the Barrett government." And who is prominent in the picture in that

ad? None other than Arthur Erickson.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder why?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No wonder. No wonder he supported the government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The former Minister of Health said the

other day that it would take years and years to put together another

consortium like that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, at that cost, thank God. We'll get

the job done. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Jack

Christensen and the members of the British Columbia Medical Centre

board of directors. Mr. Christensen put in service far beyond the call

of duty.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): It's about time you thanked him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: At least I had the courtesy to call

those people in and talk to them. That's something you never did in

your life. They did all they could, Mr. Speaker. They did all they

could in the face of impossible conditions. They had their hands tied

by the former government and, in fact, they had the rug pulled out from

under them, but that's not their fault. So this government wishes to

thank them for their service.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) How was that rug pulled out

from under them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that's for another debate.

But before I go on to tell you about the positive plans that we want to

present for the health care of this province, I would like to respond

also to a couple of questions raised by the MLA for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), the leader of the Conservative Party.

I don't think that member does this province much of a service, Mr.

Speaker, when he allows his political rhetoric to carry him off into

periods of irresponsibility with regard to the needs of health care in

British Columbia. That member, Mr. Speaker, as much as said that people

are dying in the streets because of lack of facilities in this city.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I didn't say that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on! Read Hansard .

MR. WALLACE: I said they are dying on the heart surgery list.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, where are they dying — on the streets?

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the heart-surgery unit at Victoria

General Hospital. In the interests of the previous government, the

people at Victoria General and everyone else connected with the

health-care field, I feel an obligation that this matter must be

straightened up in front of this House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Tell us about your vice squad.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The open-heart surgery programme

provided by the Royal Jubilee Hospital is a good programme. There is,

Mr. Speaker, some discussion that the Victoria General Hospital would

like to have that programme expanded.

MR. WALLACE: The Jubilee Hospital, not the General.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Jubilee, I'm sorry. However, Mr.

Speaker, no submission as to an expansion of that programme has ever

been received by the Department of Health of British Columbia. Never.

We have asked for a submission. We have been told that we can expect

one, in the hospital's words, "as soon as possible."

[ Page 219 ]

I'd like to ask that member how he expects to act on a situation

that has not yet come before the government, and for which we are

waiting submissions now.

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we've asked for a submission....

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have been in office....

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions; don't distort the facts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I've had discussions with that member, too, on a number of occasions...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...and they've been very fruitful discussions.

We are waiting a submission from the Jubilee Hospital. When we get

it, you can bet we'll act on it as a responsible government should. The

submission is complete in almost every aspect, except for some problems

with engineering drawings, and we're waiting for the solution of that.

That member, Mr. Speaker, owes it to his own constituents to make

sure that he knows those facts before he gets up and talks about people

dying on the streets. Complete irresponsibility!

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say "dying on the streets". Don't distort the record.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The submission is an application to

expand from four cases to six cases per week. As a matter of fact, most

weeks that heart unit now does five cases.

The submission will take a realistic approach to the workload of

that hospital, and will provide better scheduling and better

organization of resources.

Let me just tell 'you how the caseload has increased and what has

been done at that hospital. From 1973 when there were 50 cases in a

half-year, we had 199 cases last year. This year we've had 45 to 50

cases in only 10 weeks. That's a pretty good record.

There is a waiting list of some 44 patients only, at the present

time. The waiting list varies from one to two weeks or as long as three

months, depending upon the urgency. Those patients who require

immediate attention are given priority, and the doctors have that

responsibility.

A surgeon, as that member well knows, may book a patient in on July

29 for open-heart surgery, but if that patient suddenly becomes an

emergency, a team will be put together right away, and that member

knows it, and that operation will be carried on even at night if

necessary. And that member knows it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: That does not always happen.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This costs about $2,000 to pay for

overtime staff, but it's done. It's a rare occasion that a patient has

to wait the full three months, a rare occasion indeed.

I know that there was a great deal made of this matter during the

election campaign by both doctors and by members of other parties, but

the situation is not nearly what that member paints, and I'm proud of

what the people in the health-care team are doing.

In the Vancouver General Hospital I'm informed now that there's only

a waiting list of about 14 people for open-heart surgery. In fact,

since they are doing one operation a day there is, in effect, no

waiting list.

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't talking about Vancouver.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to let you know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to let him know what's going on all over this great province of ours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member talks about cost containment.

Again, if he has any concern about the people and the needs of this

province then he'll back this government up in attempting to curtail

costs in health care, because he knows that it's a national crisis

right now, the escalation of health-care costs.

In 1974-75 there was a 34 per cent increase in the costs of hospital

services in this province. In 1975-76, another 33 per cent increase. In

the last two years payment for hospital operating costs increased by 80

per cent, and at the indicated rate of escalation, would double in 2

1/2 years. That member knows that the resources of this province won't

stand that kind of escalation and that we must find ways of providing

better care at better prices.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you talk about

[ Page 220 ]

intermediate care?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Doctors' payments, Mr. Speaker,

increased 31 per cent, 1975-76 over '74-'75. That kind of increase can't

be stood much longer either.

The member quoted my letter of February 10 in which I asked the

hospitals to contain their costs as much as possible, and in which I

said that it wouldn't automatically be assumed that the government

would be able to pick up all of the deficits incurred by hospitals

throughout this province.

The member conveniently forgot to quote a further letter that I sent

to the hospitals in which I said that this government would pick up

two-thirds of the cost of the deficits of all of the hospitals in this

province. A major dollar commitment to health-care. The member forgot

to quote that letter.

The member talked about the financial formula for hospitals. I agree

with him that it's out-dated and needs to be streamlined. But we've

been in office in this province for three months. How do you expect us

to come up with a brand new hospital financing formula in three months?

Mr. Speaker, it's a total impossibility, but it will be a commitment of

this government.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It took them three years to mess it up.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. It took them three years to mess it up, and it will take us six or seven months to clean things up.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked too about the problems that we've had

in implementing the anti- discrimination agreement for female employees

in hospitals, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) as well.

I wish to say yes, there has been a problem.

There was an agreement negotiated by the previous government to

bring female hospital workers up to parity with their male

counterparts. It was decided that in the interim period, during which a

job evaluation report would be done and approved by all sides

concerned, there would be a payment made of $37.50 per month per person

to bring them up to that standard.

That payment was never committed, or it was committed but never

fulfilled by the previous government, which had the opportunity to do

it. When we got into office it was still on our desks, not implemented

and not paid. Not implemented and not paid, Mr. Speaker.

We had to settle this problem, and we attempted to settle it as

quickly as possible, and we did. Mr. Speaker, we made available the

$37.50 to all of the people who were on the approved budgets of the

hospitals throughout the province. A dispute arose because the

hospitals had employees on their staffs who were not approved under

their budgets, and for whom we felt we could not commit that money and

accept as part of the two-thirds deficit that we were going to pick up.

The dispute got to the point, Mr. Speaker, where the hospital union

— the hospitals wouldn't make the payments — had served strike notice

on a couple of hospitals and was going to take work-stoppage action on

the 31st of this month.

It was decided, because we wanted to settle this matter as quickly

as possible, Mr. Speaker, and because we wanted to make sure there was

no interruption of work at the hospitals of this province, that this

government would send cheques to the hospitals covering all of the

deficits, all of the $37.50 for all of the employees.

Mr. Speaker, a telegram went out to all hospitals today, those hospitals which

were disputing the amount of money they received. The telegram says:

RE ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PAYMENT FEMALE PARITY, ADDITIONAL CHEQUE

BEING PROCESSED FOR YOUR HOSPITAL TO MEET TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR $37.50 PAYMENT

AS PER THE REPORT. THE MINISTER OF HEALTH HAS DIRECTED THAT EVERY EFFORT BE

MADE TO MAKE PAYMENT TO EMPLOYERS PRIOR TO MARCH 31, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, we've also given instructions to those hospitals who

weren't in dispute to make that payment prior to March 31, 1976, as well.

We have been assured by the health labour relations association that

we will have their full cooperation, and we have been assured by the

union that there will be no work stoppage on the 31st over this matter.

Mr. Speaker, this cabinet was sworn in on December 22, 1975. I am

proud of the work that this government has done in that short time, and

certainly proud of the approvals that this government has given me, as

Minister of Health, for the health-care plans that we've announced

after just three months in office.

We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the upgrading of

facilities for the Cancer Research Institute in Vancouver, totalling

some $15 million. We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the

upgrading of the Grace Maternity Hospital — I notice you are waiting

for something from Fort St. John in there, making notes.

Mr. Speaker, we've made a major commitment to the establishment of a

new emergency department at Vancouver General. We've made a major

commitment to upgrade the teaching facilities in the major teaching

hospitals in this province.

We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to graduate more British

Columbia medical students in this province, and we've made a major

commitment

[ Page 221 ]

to build a provincial children's hospital in this province now, not

at some time in the future. That hospital will be under construction

this year. A task force has been set up to decide the site, the method

of financing and the construction formula. Mr. Speaker, I asked that

task force to report to me in 60 days. I'm proud to say that they've

had about three meetings already and the chairman of that task force

has phoned me and said: "We'll have that report ready for you before 60

days."

Mr. Speaker, the previous government couldn't deliver because mainly

of its incredibly sloppy budgetary procedures, and its complete lack of

economic planning.

Maybe that former government, Mr. Speaker, wanted to be a government

for the people, but it failed. It turned out to be a government against

the people. It failed because it closed its eyes to the need to build a

sound and lasting economic base from which to launch those programmes

for people.

I support this throne speech and its priorities for people, and I

promise you and the people of this province, that this government won't

fail, that this government will deliver, and that this government will

get this province moving again.

MR. WALLACE: Point of privilege. I think it is the rules of

this House, Mr. Speaker, that when a member has had his speech in the

House distorted, that he has the courtesy and the right to offer a

correction, and I would wish to point out that the Minister of Health

twice in his speech stated that yesterday I said that people were dying

in the streets, which is completely incorrect. I stated that people on

the waiting list for heart surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital had

died in the process of waiting. This was a statement I quoted from the

specialists who have made that public statement, and the minister's

representation of what I was reported to have said was incorrect.

On the same basis, a check as recently as today shows that there are

almost 100 people on the waiting list, not the 40 that the minister

states.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

privilege. The Whips have met and made out a new list for speaking

order, and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) has agreed to

relinquish his place in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Whip. I have an amended list of speakers, and I'll now call upon the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you very much, if I may

express it first of all to my colleague, the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Bawlf). I appreciate the courtesy and thoughtfulness, and I am

happy for the new arrangement between the two Whips.

I would like to express, if I may as well, my congratulations, Mr.

Speaker, for your own election; my congratulations, further, to the

Deputy Speaker, and generally to all of those members of the House.

I would like to express a more personal note, if I may, as well.

This one is personal appreciation to the members of my own caucus for

the very warm and very generous reception I've had as a new member of

this caucus. It certainly makes it a great deal easier to become

oriented to the work in this House, and I would like to express now to

you, friends, my gratitude for that. If I may continue along those

lines, and just as sincerely, to thank the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)

and to thank the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace), and if I may say

it, most especially the leader of the government, the Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) for the very generous and very much appreciated courtesies

that have been shown to me as a new member of this House. It means more

than you may realize, Mr. Premier, to come into a House with

considerable personal anxiety and to be treated decently and with

respect. I like that very much.

Mostly though, to end my list of thanks, I want to thank — and I

recognize many of the faces today — the remarkable and perhaps

risk-taking people of Victoria who have sent the youngest member they

have ever sent to this House — who have sent the first member of our

party to sit in this House for 42 years. You've taken the risk. I hope

you feel it justified in three or four years time, and I thank you very

personally, very much, for that particular confidence.

I'd like to speak very briefly if I might, Mr. Speaker, about this

Legislature itself. It may well be because I'm 26 years old, have a

gleam in my eye, and, perhaps fairly enough, have been criticized for

being too idealistic sometimes, but there are some practices in this

House that I don't understand. I would like to list them, if I may, and

occasionally over the next few weeks become enlightened and receive

some kind of understanding, or perhaps, if it's possible, observe a

couple of changes anyway. As a native son of Victoria, I've spent many,

many hours of my life in those galleries and, in considerable sympathy

with those of you who are there now, I want to say that, just like you,

there's a lot of stuff that goes on down here in the pit, in the big

House, that seems pretty odd sometimes.

The first thing I would like to express a personal feeling about is

that I believe there really is far too much rudeness and hostility in

this House, and I don't understand why that should be necessary. I

appreciate as much as anyone witty and quick repartee. I've read Mr.

Churchill's speeches as well, have stolen some of his lines and admire

the fast wit and admire the clever response, admire that use of

language. What I can't admire at all neither here as a

[ Page 222 ]

member, nor there formerly as an observer, is the too frequently boorish and quite unnecessary rudeness in this House.

They were constantly calling one another dumb and stupid, that every

mistake of government is somehow

an act of tyranny, or that every

criticism of the opposition is somehow the act of a wild and

irresponsible opposition. I think that is really unnecessary.

We call for one another's resignations all the time in here; the

House has been sitting for less than two weeks. I think that's awfully

silly. Every one of us is here legitimately; every one of us was sent

here on purpose. That we're constantly abusing one another in that

fashion does no more, I think, than confirm in public opinion that

maybe none of us should be here if we're going to behave in that way.

There's a second question, and that is that body and that stream of

repetitiousness that occurs in this House. Again, I think each of us on

both sides of this House is equally culpable. You may note, Mr.

Speaker, that I was the only member of the backbench who did not

participate in the ICBC debate. That was entirely purposeful. I had

nothing original to say; I had nothing new to add. All of the arguments

had been made 101 times, effectively and well on both sides of the

House.

I spoke to our Whip about this and expressed my personal

unwillingness to participate in that debate, because as a member of the

galleries for years I had heard too many of the members of this House

wasting one another's time repeating one another's arguments. I have

considerable respect for our Whip, and my respect only increased when

he told me that I was not to be compelled to speak if I did not feel it

was necessary, and that I should vote according to my conscience. I did

so. I don't understand why so much repetitiousness, why we're

constantly stealing one another's lines and repeating one another's

arguments.

Thirdly, I'm concerned, as a member of this House, about our use of

language. In a House in a Legislature like this, where, if I may say

it, every vote is a foregone conclusion, language itself is the only

instrument we possess; there is none other. There's no violence in this

House. We do know how the votes are going to occur and, accordingly,

the only instrument, the only tool, the only vehicle, the only means we

possess is that gift of language itself.

I'd like to repeat, if I may, that it seems to me that very often

our debates in this House lack symmetry, they lack proportion, they

lack balance. We go on in extremes again and again and again, and I

don't understand it. I mentioned just a moment ago — and it's the only

time I'd like to repeat myself — that I think we make a mistake when

we, in opposition, say with such fire and such anger that every act and

every mistake of the government is

an act of tyranny. When we do that,

the word "tyranny" loses its meaning. Similarly, when on your part

every time you feel we make a criticism it's a wild, irresponsible and

reprehensible criticism — then the word "responsible" loses its

meaning also. I don't know why we do this to one another. It adds to

the stature of neither of us, and I wish it didn't happen.

Every time we give a speech, it's a tirade. Every time a burst of

hot air rushes across the room, it becomes a hurricane. How come? Where

is the proportion, where is the modest balance? I wish it were here

more. I think our words when we were genuinely angry would have more

weight if, in contrast to them, the less weight and the less anger was

seen more often.

I accuse all of us of overextending, overreaching and exaggerating.

I think we do that too much. It's almost like crying wolf, Mr.

Minister. It really is. Again, I think on both sides of the House we

are equally culpable, and I speak as the youngest member who has spent,

as a native son, years in those galleries.

Finally, I want to comment, if I may, on what I've discovered to be

the quite extraordinary demands made on the members of this

Legislature. The demands on both sides — and I'm sure most especially

on the members of the cabinet — on time, on simple human time, and on

energy, on knowledge and competence. I think it's just remarkable that

any of you put up with it for more than a year or two. I don't know how

any member of the House does it. I've been appalled to discover, since

elected to this House, just what people expect of the members of this

House. I think sometimes members of the Legislature are often treated

like public property, a sort of sidewalk on which the public may walk

whenever they wish.

I don't mean this — speaking briefly, if I may through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the gallery — to sound like I'm sorry for myself. I think

it's a great challenge we've got, but I really wish that in some

special way every member of the public might have the same knowledge

that every member of this Legislature does. It's an extraordinarily

demanding job, more than I knew. And now that I'm here, I know it for

sure.

I wish therefore, if I may, in absolute sincerity to say to every

member of this House that I have more respect for you now that I'm here

than I ever did before, because now that I'm here I know just what you

have to go through. It's a very, very tough job.

I put this, if I may, and I speak from the heart to the members of

the government: I honestly wish you would not make it any tougher by

reducing staff or services or facilities. I don't think that serves any

purpose at all. I wish you wouldn't make it any harder on any member of

this Legislature by engaging in those reductions. I believe it's a

false economy. I believe it demeans every member of this Legislature,

[ Page 223 ]

and I wish you wouldn't do it.

I'd like to speak now, if I may, on the Speech from the Throne

itself. I'd like to start out by noting, if I may, that I believe

credit should be given where it's due. In my opinion, there is much

that is creditable about this speech. There are criticisms that also, I

think, can fairly be made about it, but they've been made and I won't

repeat them. I share them; I will vote upon them. Outside the House, I

guess I've spoken on them.

Within the House, many members of the Legislature have spoken

articulately and at considerable length; I won't repeat them. I will,

though, perhaps if only for the novelty of it, tell you what I like

about it.

I think that, first of all, the suggestion of an auditor-general is

excellent; it's excellent. It's overdue; it's urgently needed. What I

ask of the government is that you appoint someone in that capacity of

national stature, someone who will win the respect of every citizen in

this province, someone who has no political connections at all, whose

background and integrity, whose competence is so outstanding that none

of us will be able to do anything but rise in our seats when the

announcement is made and applaud it. I hope that the appointment of an

auditor-general will be as far removed from politics as any government

appointment possibly could be, and that members of the government give

us someone of whom we can be proud.

I make the same request in speaking to my second matter in this

particular debate — that of the ombudsman. This, too, is an excellent,

overdue and urgently needed appointment. I wish our guys had done it. I

wish your guys had done it before; I'm glad you're doing it now. Again,

though, if I might stress it, give us someone of national stature.

Don't let the appointment of an ombudsman degenerate into a partisan

debate. Give us someone whom no one will dispute can do an outstanding

job.

In return, I would like to offer some personal help. My office in

Victoria opened on February 28 — a community services operation. We

provide in Victoria, at 1020 Blanshard Street, through the services of

20 trained and able volunteers, an ombudsman service for the people of

this riding. I want to offer the experience, the records, the

facilities and the services of that office to yourselves as government

and that ombudsman as a person when she or he is appointed.

Since February 28 more than 150 people have come through that door

asking for help. I might point out, in advice to that ombudsman in the

terms of reference that you will develop for him, that most of the

people who have come forward are old people, and that the bulk of the

problems they have, the queries they put, the questions they have, are

those of people who simply don't understand how the system works. It's

confusing and it's incomprehensible. We spend most of our time helping

them find their way through it. We spend all of our time helping them

obtain the decisions and the benefits that are rightfully theirs. If

our small experience in Victoria in running that service can be of

assistance to you in government determining those terms of reference

for the ombudsman, it's offered and it's yours.

Finally, I'd like to speak, if I may, on the question of removing

taxes from seniors, and through you, Mr. Speaker, address myself to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis). This, too, I

personally welcome. I know it's welcomed by many of the seniors in my

constituency. But there are a number of questions not answered, and

perhaps properly so, in the Speech from the Throne and that I would put

now — and as it happens, the critic for Municipal Affairs on our

party's behalf will put repeatedly in the future — regarding policy,

regarding terms of reference. I would start, if I may, to put a couple

of those questions today.

I would presume — and I don't mean this sarcastically — that that

legislation to remove taxes from the homes of seniors is not designed

to benefit J.V. Clyne and other senior citizens who are well off, who

are in no need of any subsidy whatsoever.

I look forward to statements from the Minister of Municipal Affairs

or from the Premier about the rules, about the eligibility, about the

financial ceilings. Will there be a means test? Who will administer it?

What financial levels will be established? What will be lost from the

treasury when these taxes are removed from general revenue and how will

that loss be made good?

Many of the seniors that I represent in Victoria do, in fact, look

forward to this, and I do personally on their behalf. But we need to

know those things as quickly as you can tell us about them. We need to

know what those policies and terms of reference will be, and,

generally, as members of this Legislature, to know, again, where the

money will be made up and how when those taxes are removed from the

general rolls.

Finally, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to speak very

briefly about what I think is the most profound conflict in this

Legislature. I really do believe that we operate with poor or little

economy in this House, that debates are long-winded and silly. I

believe that much more importantly we should spend our time in this

House confronting problems, not confronting one another. Were we to

spend more time confronting problems, and not one another, I think the

people's business would be dealt with a lot more effectively and

expeditiously.

There is another kind of conflict, though, and it does centre around the question of values. It won't be

[ Page 224 ]

ever resolved here in this House because we come here, I think,

largely, with static and fixed positions. We certainly, though, do

represent the perhaps little-less-static and little-less-fixed

positions of the people who sent us here in the first place.

In Victoria a person who ran successfully, as it turned out, for a

seat in this Legislature, during his nomination speech spoke

passionately on behalf of the people who have sent him to this House

and said: "You know, there are people out there who believe that profit

is a dirty word, who believe that profit is a bad thing and it should

not be an adequate or substantial enough motivation. Well, I tell them

tonight they're wrong." Further in his nomination speech he said: "You

know, to me, profit isn't a four-letter word; loss is." Well, he has

since suffered a lot of embarrassment for that statement, but I think

it typifies and gives better example and clarity to the basic conflict,

I suppose, of values here. I wish there weren't such conflict, but it

does exist.

To me, four-letter words of far greater significance than the word

"loss", as a businessman might see it, are words like "fear" and "lies"

and "hate" — those are four-letter words of real stature and

significance, words that I wish were not in the language at all.

They are words with which I think we should be more concerned than

just always, always, always the black ink at the bottom of the line

that says profit or the red ink that says loss. I believe the

government is not just a business enterprise and it shouldn't be run

like just any other business enterprise. I believe, and I speak from my

heart when I say it, that government is also a moral enterprise. It is

a moral enterprise.

I'm proud of the fact that when for 10 years I worked in Victoria on

a number of youth programmes, although we were criticized for almost

everything under the sun, we were never criticized for our budget work.

Cool-Aid, the project about which I am speaking more specifically, came

in on budget or slightly under budget. And we heard a lot of bad stuff

about Cool-Aid but we never heard that the books were wrong. I respect

that.

I, as much as any member of this House, as an organizer, as a person

who has been active in this community, who has spent years trying to

raise the pennies that we tried to raise to run the services, which is

to be despised and which is now part of the bandwagon onto which

everyone has jumped, recognize the need to count the pennies pretty

closely. But as much as I do that, so too may I say it again that there

are questions of moral dimension that arise in this House that cannot

be handled by answers of business dimension.

Government is a moral enterprise as well, and I wish to give warning

in conclusion that in my term of office here in this House I will be

standing repeatedly — repeatedly — on the principle that we are

occasionally called to make moral decisions. I think, and I hope very

much, that we make those moral decisions with some integrity and with

not much politics. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that

speeches should be as short as possible and, having said as much as I

can constructively add to this debate, I thank you for your attention

and conclude.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

this, British Columbia's 31st parliament, as the second member

representing the constituency of Vancouver South, to support the speech

from the throne. I am honoured to be in this House and to undertake the

privilege and obligation to work with all the honoured members elected

to serve our great province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make note that two of my three children

along with my wife are in attendance today to see their father give his

maiden speech. I hope that I am successful.

At this time I wish to pay tribute to the government benches and

congratulate our Premier, the Hon. W.R. Bennett, in his judicious

selection of our government cabinet. These honourable men bring to this

parliament a rich storehouse of ability and dedication. Working in

harmony with all government members, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that

British Columbia will once again take her deserved place as a home of

progress, prosperity and security for all. To the people of my home

riding, Vancouver South, I extend my sincere thanks for electing me to

this responsible office. The men, women and children of Vancouver South

have a right to expect the best of my efforts and experience, and today

in this House, Mr. Speaker, I affirm once again my determination to

justify their expectations.

It would be folly, I believe, to embark on the serious tasks that

lie ahead under the delusion that success can be achieved solely by the

efforts of a few, be they individuals or government groups. This House

functions, after all, as a parliamentary democracy. To this end, Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition that their responsibilities are serious indeed. It will

demand a sober dedication if they are to discharge them and their

obligations to the people of this province.

As with government the sworn duty of the loyal opposition is to

serve all the people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I enjoin all the hon.

members of the opposition to acknowledge that although our political

philosophies differ, we are united at least by a common goal of

achieving a better life for all British Columbians.

British Columbia is a vast province of startling contrasts. It will

therefore interest this House to discover that the riding of Vancouver

South is, in fact, a minor image much condensed of our province itself.

A two-member riding, Vancouver South is

[ Page 225 ]

comparatively small in size — that is, in area — but very large when

considering the number of people living within its borders. Its

boundaries extend from the University Endowment Lands in the west to

Burnaby in the east, south from 49th Avenue and Kingsway to the

bustling Fraser River. Like our province, Vancouver South is a complete

cross-section of people and lifestyles. It is a mosaic of almost every

Germans, Poles, Icelanders, Italians, Scots and Ukrainians, who all

contribute their rich culture and unique influence to the warm pulse of

the life in Vancouver South. I certainly hope I haven't missed anyone.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in the last

election my running mate, Stephen Rogers, and myself were among the few

provincial candidates to publish campaign literature in three languages

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: I said "few".

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.

MR. STRONGMAN: I have the honour to serve a riding that

contributes substantially to the productivity and prosperity of British

Columbia. Vancouver South is the site of small industry ranging from

the sawmills, commercial fishing and boat works on the Fraser to large

industrial and manufacturing employers such as Canadian White Pine,

Standard General Construction and Ocean Cement.

The busy commercial streets reveal hundreds of small private

businesses, lumber companies, retailers large and small, from huge

shopping centres to family bakeries and bookstores.

Vancouver South is a stable, hard-working family-oriented riding.

Again, like our province, it presents great contrasts in economic

lifestyles, ages and occupations. It is the locale for many large

schools, from public schools to high schools, including Langara

College. It is also an area where many senior citizen homes and lodges

are found that are supported by service clubs, ethnic groups and

religious organizations.

Mr. Speaker, having introduced the riding of Vancouver South to this

House, and today pledging once again my determination to represent its

people with awareness and concern, I believe it timely to acquaint the

hon. members with the fundamental reasons why I entered political life

in this province.

A top priority reason is my growing alarm concerning the economic

future of British Columbia. In my view, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia

will never attain her great potential economically unless and until we

overcome two major barriers.

Firstly, British Columbia must achieve stable labour-management

relations. I will be blunt. To our buyers around the world, to

potential investors, British Columbia has a bad reputation. Strikes,

lockouts, wildcat walkouts, hundreds of man-hours lost, millions of

dollars lost, our bad labour-management reputation is costing us

dearly. Look at the facts.

British Columbia's economy still relies almost completely upon

natural resource industries. In this vital area our instability has

resulted in our becoming a secondary supplier, called upon only when

other, more reliable sources have dried up. The fact is our buyers

simply can't rely on us to deliver the goods.

British Columbia enjoys the highest wage scale in Canada. That is a

very laudable position. But as our wages are going up, our productivity

is going down. As recently as March 23, this week, the federal

Department of Regional Economic Development released its working paper

pointing out that while all other Canadian provinces are on the way to

economic recovery, B.C. is still mired in recession — "mired in

recession". DREE states it is "pessimistic about the chances of early

recovery."

DREE figures reveal lumber, pulp and paper production down for the

second year in a row, mining production down for the second year in a

row, oil production down 23 per cent, fishing production down nearly

$30 million. But unemployment is up. It is up to 8.3, nearly 1 per cent

over the national average.

Mr. Speaker, I remind this House that forestry alone accounts for 44

per cent of our total economy, mining and primary metals another 11 per

cent.

These facts are real. The consequences are real, and the

responsibility for turning this province around is ours. The time for

decision is now.

Mr. Speaker, it is my unshakeable conviction that this government

must act swiftly to restore labour management stability to this

province. I believe this government must address itself to new

definitions in the area of vital service industries. To this end,

British Columbia's major economic enterprise must be viewed as vital

services to the people.

Today B.C. is still, to our great disadvantage, almost totally

dependent upon our natural resource industries for economic survival.

Think about it. Surely such major industries as forestry, mining and

their support services of rail, trucking and ferries are just as vital

to the people of B.C. as hospitals, police and firemen.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that to define many of our major

resource industries as vital services would be a sane, productive first

step in restoring British Columbia's good reputation as a primary

supplier.

Government must view the prevention of strikes as a top priority.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about our survival. Both management and

labour must be

[ Page 226 ]

educated to the consequences — and I repeat, both management and

labour — must be educated to the consequences of irresponsible action.

As vital service legislation becomes reality, I am confident that

labour and management will double and redouble their efforts to reach

agreement swiftly and privately. Strikes will cease to be inevitable.

They could become a rarity.

The second concern regarding the economic development of this

province, Mr. Speaker, lies in the area of secondary industry. Again

I'll be blunt. We don't have any — or very little. Furthermore, it is

our fault. Due to our chronically unstable labour-management climate,

our bad reputation, we have failed miserably to attract a base of light

industry, manufacturing services, and the wide variety of secondary

industry that provides an important economic cushion in times of

primary industry strikes or slowdowns.

Look to Ontario, to Alberta, not that much older than British

Columbia, still major producers of natural resources, but both with

growing, comfortable cushions of economic secondary industry.

MR. LAUK: In Alberta.

MR. STRONGMAN: In Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, we must end labour-management strife, offer a stable

climate for secondary industry and then, and only then, will British

Columbia become the province with the highest wages, the best

labour-management relations and the most productive with the fewest

strike days in this nation.

In this year 1976, as British Columbia's 31st Parliament convenes, I

think it's vital that all members, regardless of parties, pause quite

frequently to remember two real truths: first of all, it's 1976; not

1946, '56, '66. The electorate in this province, in this nation, is in

a serious mood. It expects the government to lead, and members to work

hard. They demand intelligent, effective performances, and they'd

better get it. The consequences of failure are enormous.

Secondly, I wish to remind members of this House that we are here to

serve the people, not to rule them. We are not here to play games while

the people pay the bills. We're not here to flatter our egos, strike

poses for the press, keep a running score sheet of clever ripostes

across the floor. It is 1976, Mr. Speaker, and this parliament must

grow up and face up to it.

Virtually instantaneous news coverage has produced an electorate who

now can see and measure the results of political ineptitudes and

arrogance, here at home and in nations around the world. As democracy

and leadership topple in foreign lands, Canadians are now ready, even

eager, to accept tough, political decisions regarding spending.

Legislators are now better paid than ever. They now have a moral

obligation to learn constantly on the job to keep up with the changing

realities of the world and the changing realities of life in this

province. A tough assignment? You bet it is, and in 1976 we had better

be up to it.

I'm convinced British Columbia can stave off the calamities that

have befallen others. I believe most British Columbians want government

to lead the way, to promote and proclaim the value of individual

incentive, individual responsibility. The December election proved that

this is the mood in British Columbia today. But we must lead: we must

have the self-discipline to lead; we must show the example of

responsibility, restraint and informed decision-making.

As legislators we must continually ask ourselves if decisions are

made and legislation enacted as a result of pressures by a noisy few.

For too long now governments have made knee-jerk decisions catering to

the well-orchestrated pressures of self-interest minority groups. The

result — not the most good for the most people, but rather a free ride

for a few, tough sledding for the rest of us.

As I outlined earlier, the riding I serve, Vancouver South, is a

challenging mixture of races, philosophies, lifestyles and viewpoints.

In electing its two members, this large and diverse riding chose

Stephen Rogers, an airline pilot, and myself, a paint manufacturer.

Obviously, on fundamental tenets of political belief we share common

views. However, much like the contrasts of Vancouver South, we approach

given situations and problems from the standpoint of our own lifetime

experiences. This is as it should be and so, I believe, should the

makeup of this Legislature be.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Legislatures must be a blend of individual principles, expertise and

philosophies. Good elections produce this blend. No government body

should be made up entirely of social workers, nor entirely of paint

manufacturers. In fact, I would venture to say they should not even be

made up entirely of lawyers. (Laughter.)

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): What about car dealers?

MR. STRONGMAN: Viewing this House, I'm convinced the December

election produced this vital blend. The members chosen really do, in

fact, represent all the values and the viewpoints of the people of

British Columbia.

We have been given the mandate to lead. Let's all of us get down to that job.

[ Page 227 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Three members of the cabinet are here to hear this important speech. Shocking!

MR. STRONGMAN: I would at this time, Mr. Speaker, touch

briefly on goals I hope to achieve for British Columbia and, more

specifically, for people in Vancouver South.

I would address myself first to the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), and to congratulate him on the announced task force to

determine solid-core programmes to return relevant education — the

three Rs back to our schools. This is encouraging news to parents and

children, for it promises that, regardless of post-secondary education

— whether on-the-job training, university or technical schools —

people, children of Vancouver South will be better able to read, write

and think, and therefore be more competent to take their place in the

adult world.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to constructive communication with the

Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I was

particularly pleased at the overriding theme that government payments

to only to those in genuine need were the highlights of our Speech from

the Throne.

Also it is encouraging to see that in the speech our government is

going to work towards removing taxes on homes for senior citizens. I

was pleased to see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) agree

with that particular platform in the speech.

Also in the speech, under the Department of Human Resources, I

noticed that we're going to extend aid to those in genuine need beyond

the age limits now in place. A remarkable step for a government just

coming into power, to indicate that they are willing to move Mincome

and benefits like that to even more people.

To me, though, one of the most important things that seems to have

been overlooked by many in the throne speech is that the assistance to

people under the Mincome Act is going to be extended to all

single-parent families. I, sir, am extremely pleased at that type of

legislation.

The people of British Columbia, certainly including the people of

Vancouver South, have responded enthusiastically to this government's

throne speech, especially with regard to housing. Indeed, the hon.

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) faces a serious and pressing

shortage of living accommodation. I am encouraged, therefore, by the

government's plan with the theme: all of the people can have the

opportunity to own their own home and the land under it.

MR. LAUK: He says there is no shortage in Burnaby.

MR. STRONGMAN: I recently read a newspaper report indicating

housing starts up 85 per cent from the same period last year. I find

this to be a very heartening situation indeed, demonstrating the return

of confidence to investors and developers following the election of a

free-enterprise, responsible government to our province.

I hope I may make helpful suggestions to the hon. Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), especially in the area

of rapid transit.

I think it was summed up very nicely in The Vancouver Sun on March 6, 1976, by staff writer Hal Leiren, in the third paragraph of this article:

"Unfortunately, the previous provincial government and

its bureau of transit, which was ran as a personal vendetta against the

lower mainland, screwed around with rapid transit until the voters

threw out the government. Rapid transit, which should have been well

along toward implementation, is no nearer a reality now than three

years ago, expensive studies notwithstanding."

I would like to urge the hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications to move quickly and decisively to change that particular

condition in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

To the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): I would urge the

construction of a bridge over the Fraser from north Delta to Annacis

Island and Burnaby. As many of you people realize, people line up for a

half-hour to 45 minutes every morning — that is, in good weather — to

cross the Pattullo Bridge from the north Delta area. We in Vancouver

South have three bridges crossing the Fraser at this time. The traffic

is enormous. I believe that a bridge further east would help to

alleviate the traffic conditions that we find in our particular

constituency, take traffic off streets ill designed to carry it.

I will approach the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

on the top-priority need for an industrial liquid waste disposal plant.

If we as a province are to attract secondary industry into the lower

mainland area, it is absolutely essential that an industrial liquid

waste disposal facility be implemented as soon as possible. This

particular plant has been bandied about, a political football, for at

least 16 years that I know about. I've been told by people in municipal

government that it has been talked about for 30 years. I am urging the

hon. Minister of Environment to do something about it in the next year

or two.

Disposing of waste such as this is becoming an increasingly more

difficult and expensive item. If something is not done soon, industries

that require this type of disposal — for example, plating firms, dry

cleaners, food processing, chemical converters, and a myriad of other

industries that have this type of waste — are going to avoid the lower

mainland in their future plans, or, indeed, move away from the

[ Page 228 ]

area if they are situated there now.

I intend, Mr. Speaker, to meet with the hon. Minister of Travel and

Recreation (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) with regard to the growing need for a

recreation- and community-centre service, including a complete

community centre complex in the Marpole area. Little or no facility

exists today in that area which has had a major change from old, small

single-family dwellings to low-rise apartments which house many, many

families with children. These people require a community centre within

their area so they can get to it quickly and easily.

Recreational needs are great in the Killarney area and the Champlain

Heights area as well, where children are many and expensive summer

vacations are few. In this regard I intend to approach the minister to

implement the pilot programme — this is the Minister of Recreation and

our Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — directed at 13 to

17-year-olds during the summer months. These children tend to avoid the

playground programmes that are available to them because of the obvious

stigmatism involved with having to associate with children much younger

than themselves. These people, children 13 to 17, find time heavy on

their hands. I am urging that we, on a pilot-programme basis, attempt

to do something to take time off their hands and make their summer more

interesting. I believe it will be a great saving to the community,

because anyone here — and I think there are a number of us who have

children in that age group — will realize that 13 to 17-year-olds with

nothing to do can get into trouble.

Throughout the course of my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I

have attempted to convey a cohesive theme; it is that this 31st

parliament serves an electorate in a serious mood, an informed

electorate out of patience with posturing, waffling and incompetence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is an electorate paying heavily for, and

therefore entitled to, genuine leadership. It is worthwhile to heed the

words of Sir Winston Churchill — and I am paraphrasing; this is not a

quotation — the democracy is the most demanding, the most frustrating,

at times the most inefficient form of government; it is also the best.

Thank, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to congratulate

you, Mr. Speaker, on your new appointment. I look forward to seeing you

chair the Committee of the Whole. I trust that we can count on you to

use the gavel and not to use your shoe, but I guess we shall have to

wait and see. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whichever one is handy.

MR. LEVI: I would also like to congratulate the previous

speaker Mr. Strongman, who is from Vancouver South, a riding that I

used to represent; and the Attorney-General, (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who has

finally come in from out of the cold; and the member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan), who appears to be left out in the cold. (Laughter.) The

rest of the people I wanted to talk about aren't here so there's not

much point in dealing with them.

In terms of the throne speech and the whole principle of restraint,

there are some inconsistencies that puzzle me, particularly in view of

a report that was released by the Department of Economic Development in

March. At that time the minister said that the NDP government placed

the following obstacles in front of private industry: confusion, a

breakdown of confidence, unrealistic taxation policies, and

incompetence. Yet the report starts off by saying the British Columbia

economy has withstood the shocks of world recession and the major work

stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth estimated

at 16 per cent was the major factor contributing to the anticipated 10

per cent nominal growth in the gross provincial product. The test of

the relative strength of the province's economy is the fact that

employment increased by approximately 3 per cent with a net addition of

29,000 jobs over the previous year. This compares to a gain of 2 per

cent for the nation as a whole.

The increase in employment was not sufficient to cover the increase

in the labour force; however, the result was the general satisfactory

condition of the economy, as certainly indicated by a newspaper — no

less than the Vancouver Sun — which headed it: "B.C. is Still

On Top." We heard from the previous speaker, and from many speakers on

the other side, that we have to get the economy moving, and yet the

report from the minister's office indicates that the economy is doing

very well, particularly in terms of the rest of this country. Of

course, it is not difficult to understand this.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's all right, Mr. Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen); you'll have a chance to speak. It's difficult to

understand the way the minister goes from one way to the other, our

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because probably

what is happening here is that Arthur's writing the notes and he's not

reading them properly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's writing cheques.

[ Page 229 ]

MR. LEVI: Oh, you should talk about that one, Mr. Premier.

You should talk about that one. Tsk, tsk, tsk! You never even

apologized, did you? You never even apologized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: For what?

MR. LEVI: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the part-time Minister of Agriculture....

HON. MR. BENNETT: For what, for what?

MR. LEVI: Keep quiet, keep quiet.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Tell us about the $100 million mistake, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Oh, we're going to get to that in a minute. The

part-time Minister of Agriculture — and that is what he is, a

part-time minister. This is a bit of a shame, considering that his

predecessor was the one who did such a tremendous job, and now because

he is a part-time minister he's giving an indication to the farmers

that your day is past. He doesn't see it as a very difficult job to do

at all. It's something that he could probably spend very little time

on. Consequently, he hasn't been attending too many meetings to meet

the farmers.

There was an interesting meeting last Monday. Now I don't really

want to get going at you, Mr. Speaker. After all, you were the member

that was there, but we must be impartial., you're in the Chair. But you

had the unfortunate job of having to represent him, and it seems that

many people are going to have to represent the minister because it

doesn't seem as though he really wants to meet or deal with the farmers

at all. That's in contradistinction to the extremely beautiful job that

was done by the former Minister of Agriculture. (Mr. Stupich).

I noticed a few weeks ago that the Minister of Labour was very

uncharacteristically paranoid about the Liberal federal government. He

was particularly annoyed at his former Liberal leader, who was

questioning some of the basic tenets of the free enterprise system. He

was concerned about regulations and he talked about the free market

system. Yet Trudeau had some interesting things to say about that. The

important thing is, in terms of this budget, it deals with restraint,

and if you're going to be for restraint, then you have to be for the

kind of things that are offered in some respects in the Anti-Inflation

Board. But the minister was having trouble with the people in Ottawa.

What's interesting in the throne speech is that there's going to be

an amendment put in to prevent the Minister of Finance from investing

in common shares. You know, the Premier's new-found friend, Peter the

Red from Alberta, doesn't seem to have those kinds of hang-ups. That's,

of course, because he's much more experienced and really has done very

well in the kind of involvement he's had in having the government

participate in the private sector.

I'm sure that the members on the other side are familiar with the

company known as the Alberta Energy Company, whose common stocks traded

last Tuesday — this is about three weeks ago now — at $10. The

government is participating on an equity basis of 50 per cent, and put

in some $75 million.

That kind of success they're having in Alberta reminds me that we

had as a government when we were there a similar success with Can-Cel.

I hope, Mr. Minister of Forestry, that we're not going to witness in

the next few months a gigantic giveaway to some of your friends in the

Noranda operation.

But I would suspect that that will happen, because the commitment

from those people over there is that the private enterprise system must

prevail over all. And why not? After all, you've got millionaires' row

over there. They've got six or seven millionaires, seven new car

dealers, at least one used car dealer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Williston's going to be the one.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): No overruns.

MR. LEVI: So we can see that if we're not careful we're going

to head towards a gigantic giveaway of the resources of this province

again. Why, we even have the minister responsible for mines talking

about, "well, it's not so bad to do some mining in the parks." What he

should do is go back and read some of the press statements and

clippings when the debates in this House used to take place on "mining

is not so bad in the parks."

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Don't you like mining?

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm sure you do. What you should do for us is

to release the report that your department has done and then we'll see

whether it's in the best interests of this province to have mining in

the parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does Gracey say about that?

MR. LEVI: Of course, we don't know what the provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is going to say about that, because she

is responsible for parks. We've got one minister saying one thing and

another

[ Page 230 ]

minister not saying anything at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier promised no mining in the parks during the election.

MR. LEVI: I just want to talk for a minute about the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Now there's an interesting man if I

ever saw one. I can remember when he sat over on this side of the House

that he was the master of the un-fact — not the fact, but the un-fact.

The other day we had him making a bombastic speech, bombastic garbage.

He's the minister of bombast. He's the minister that makes statements

on the basis of a swift tour through the underworld. He made some of

the most incredible statements, and, believe it or not, he not only got

me upset but he got the Chief of Police of Victoria upset, so upset

that they had to meet with him and straighten him out.

The great tragedy with that, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I'm sure

that you could have given him a clue or two. In fact you probably could

introduce him to CLEU, the Co-coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and

they'd tell him what's happening.

But you know, that minister, the minister of bombast, he talked this

afternoon about the great efforts that he's making towards equalizing

the working conditions for women. You know, it was the New Democratic

Party government that finally tackled that problem, after 20 years of

indifference by the previous Socred government, and all we got from him

this afternoon was a little wiffle-waffle — a little wiffle-waffle.

But I want to talk about another theme. The theme that seems to

appeal to the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) who spoke this

afternoon. He likes the theme that we must only assist people who need

to be assisted. There's a new word now and it's called "dire" need.

Only people in "dire" need should get something. I would like to just

quote, before I discuss the handicapped pension problem, a speech made

by the Minister of Welfare — I'm sorry, the Minister of Labour — (Hon.

Mr. Williams) when he was a member of the Liberal party, in October,

MS. BROWN: He was never a Liberal.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he was a Liberal. He sat just down past there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how you get into cabinet.

MR. LEVI: But he said...and I think it's worthwhile quoting this.

This was during the debate on the introduction of the Handicapped Persons'

Income Assistant Act, and in case the minister wants to write down the reference,

it's October 26, 1972, page 363. You see one of the wonders of democracy.

We were in this government not more than six weeks and we had a Hansard .

As I was saying, this afternoon the minister indicated directions

had been given to staff within his jurisdiction (he was referring to

the Minister of Human Resources) to make certain reviews of cases which

are marginal. I assumed that the impact of that would deal with those

people who are entitled to assistance under the Social Assistance Act.

The reason I have raised this is I recently had occasion to be

concerned about the granting of pension rights to a person under the

federal Act. And to my dismay, I got a copy of the regulations, and

then I got a copy of the

interpretation of

definitions under the

regulations. And I must say that this is most impossible for me to

believe that

interpretations of this rigidity would have been produced

by anyone in 1972.

Therefore, I rise at this time considering the regulatory

section of

this bill to ask the minister if the instructions that he has already

given to his staff with regard to social assistance will somehow or

other be committed to writing so that the staff in considering future

applications for assistance under this Act will have a similar freedom

of discretion.

But the case that I had to concern myself with was a woman in my

constituency who was receiving benefits under the Social Assistance Act

and who applied to get disabled Person's benefits.

Now, it's only a few additional dollars (this is '72 we're talking

about) — miserable, I think $5 was all that she could possibly get. She

went through the medical examinations...review board, and applied

the rigid definition as to whether the impairment was total or whether

it was permanent, or whether it was major. And I happen to know this

woman and there is no question from any ordinary view of her particular

case that she was a handicapped person, and she needed every possible

assistance that should be given. I just trust that the regulations that

the minister will produce will ensure that we can obviate some of the

problems that are obviously created by rigid

interpretations which are

given under the federal Act. Well, Mr. Member, we're talking about the

Canada Assistance Plan and, you know, your colleague just along the

way, he appears to feel that everybody on the handicapped pension are a

bunch of rip-off artists. You know, he's the one that's quoted as

saying that everybody that has a bellyache or needs to go to the

bathroom has somehow gotten on the handicapped persons income

assistance.

He hasn't produced any facts, and I hope that if he finds such people he will immediately eliminate them. He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

[ Page 231 ]

MR. LEVI: When? March 9. Mr. Member, you know you said it. I

mean, every time you open your mouth you say something like that. You

said it; let's accept that you said it. What you've really done in fact

is that you're somehow suggesting that the medical committee that

approved handicapped pensions in some way was not doing its job, and

that people were getting on who had the bellyache, or had to go to the

bathroom. That is what you were suggesting.

You know as well as I do, at least you should by now know, that if

you're going to apply for the handicapped pension you've got to get a

doctor's certificate. Now if you're going to suggest that the doctors

are setting you up, then you must go to the medical association and

say: "There's something going on, because all we're getting on this

pension are people who have to go to the bathroom or have the

bellyache." What utter nonsense!

You know, your ambition is to become the Ronald Reagan of Surrey and

that's really very nice. That's an incredible ambition. He wants to

be.... You know, McKitka is probably just going to beat you out by a

head.

But you know what? There's a young Bill, and he's sitting there, and

he's got a former Liberal leadership candidate sitting over there, he's

got a former Liberal member sitting over there and another Liberal

member sitting over there. He's got a former leader of the Liberal

party sitting over there. He's surrounded by all these people.

MR. G. R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Where are the Socreds?

MR. LEVI: Oh, there's a Conservative over there; right, I

missed him. One over there, the Minister of Environment. Don't lean

over too far, Allan; you might fall over. There we have it — the

Premier surrounded by all of his good friends who ran away from the

sinking ships, and sooner or later they're going to climb all over you.

You said, and this is the theme this afternoon, that you're doing it

for people. You're not doing it for people; you're doing it to people.

You announced during the election: "We won't touch Mincome. We're

going to improve it; we're going to give them more money." And the

first step is that you're going to take money away from them. You're

going to introduce a test which was already there practically in terms

of the imputed assets, and you know it — well in place for almost a

year. But you have the facts, I'm sure. Do you know actually of a case

of somebody that is sitting with $100,000 in his safety deposit box?

Do you actually know of such a case, Mr. Minister? Maybe it's Bill

Bennett sitting there, but now do you actually know such...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's as truthful as anything else you say.

MR. LEVI: Is it as truthful as anything else that he says?

Oh, tut tut — $100,000 in a safety deposit box. But he knows the case,

and I am sure that he has advised them to take it out of the safety

deposit box and to invest it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Please, Mr. Member! I hate to

interrupt you, but you've been a member of this House for quite some

time. I think that you know the proper procedure is to address the

Chair.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're quite right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That way we....

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll keep looking at you from time to time. Well, what you're interested in doing, you want to do things for people.

The important thing about doing things for people is that you really

do something in terms of what their needs are. We have at the

moment...and previous speakers over there have talked about how you are

going to continue the Mincome programme. Now how is that going to be

possible when on April 1, 1976, you are going to have a difference

between people over the age of 65, people under the age of 65 and the

handicapped? You are not going to pass on the same payment. So that's

not the same. That's Mincome.

What you're going to do is you're going to go back to the means

testing. You're going to go all the way back to 1972 when you had the

highest rates in this country — $191. Yes, it's true, but you were only

a little boy then, Mr. Member. You don't remember that. You weren't in

the House either then, were you, Mr. Speaker?

But, you know, one of the great questions in terms of that great

programme that his father had.... It was called the provincial

supplementary social assistance, the old-age assistance. It was going

to pay up to $191. There was a question asked in the House: "Well,

how many people were getting this wonderful amount of money?" And,

remember, we had 205,000 senior citizens in the province at that time.

Better listen to this, Mr. Premier. Twelve hundred and eighty people

were receiving $191. There were 1,280 people! You didn't know that, did

you? No, you didn't know that. But you learn. You have to read Hansard .

And then by December we found that, in fact, there were 107,000 people who needed to get

[ Page 232 ]

supplements up to $100 a month to live some kind of a decent life.

Already we see from over there that what's going to happen is that

it's going backwards. Now he remembers, our Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and he looks extremely well, and I would like to

congratulate him. But you remember there were 1,280 people receiving

$191 a month...and the kind of speeches made by the now Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who was very upset about that. He is now

going to be a party to the means-test introduction in this province,

and they're going to do things for people. They sure are, Mr. Minister.

They're going to do things for people. That has always been the

practice. If you're poor, then you're going to get it.

You know, the former Premier (Mr. W.A.C. Bennett) under the previous

Social Credit government was very touchy about poor people. He didn't

like to refer to them as poor people. He said that they are not poor.

They are really working poor, but the only problem is they don't have

enough income. He said that in this House in April of 1973. "They don't

have enough income." Yet in the previous October, 1972, six weeks after

he ceased being the Premier, his party introduced a Mincome bill in

which they were going to pay $225 a month to the people — to the little

people. That was six weeks after he ceased being the Premier. Why?

Because he felt they should have more income. But in 20 years — in 20

years of government — he really didn't do anything.

And you, Mr. Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, you are

going to be reminded of the speeches that you made in this House about

those kinds of situations. Yes, you are going to be reminded. Even

though you come from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, people over there have

needs too. There are large numbers of senior citizens who are not going

to be happy with the kind of policies that have already been introduced

by this government. You are out to punish people. That's what you are

setting out to do.

MR. STRONGMAN: Not true. Not true.

HON. W.S. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Not true.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't say that with very much

energy. You've got to be a bit more enthusiastic about that or you'll

remain in that seat for the rest of the four years. You've got to be

very careful about that, Mr. Member. You've got to bang your desk like

the Premier does, even though the Minister of Public Works winces every

time you do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. LEVI: Ah, there we are! You see. There we are.

MR. LEA: That's how he got in.

MR. LEVI: So you see, Mr. Speaker, if the theme of the budget

speech is restraint and we are going to have restraint related to the

economy, the people who are going to feel the restraint first are the

little people and the poor people, and we know for sure that we're

going back to where it was in 1972. That I think is an extremely

shameful kind of affair when we have brought people in this province to

the expectation who are in receipt of Mincome and handicap allowance

that they can live lives of dignity, and that they do not have to go

through a means test in terms of a handicap pension where the

difference between whether you can walk or crawl is going to be the

criterion for receiving the handicapped pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: And the minister goes: "Oh, oh, oh!" Well, that's

what you said in your speech in 1972. You've forgotten, Mr. Minister.

You know, you've moved up to the cabinet ranks and all of a sudden

you've got complete amnesia. You have forgotten how you used to stand

over here and talk about that. Oh, don't shake your head; you must

never deny it.

We produced for the people in this province. We produced for the old people and the handicapped.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Produced a deficit? You'll finish up with $25 to $30 million saved in your department. Don't worry about that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: But do you know, we can't expect much more from the

people over there — after all, that's millionaires' row, used-car row.

What else have they got? Oh, the gentleman with the funereal aspect

there, he also is in business.

But the thing is: which one of them, of all of them, has got a

heart? I think the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has a

heart. He has a good heart. After all, he was the mayor of a small

community that was neglected by the previous Social Credit government

for 20-odd years — he has a heart. But who else among all those people

has a heart? The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), she has a

heart. Turn around and show us your heart. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech talks consistently about restraint.

It has ignored the report of the Department of Economic Development, as

it ignored

[ Page 233 ]

the kind of progress that has been made in social programmes. I

think that I certainly can't support this. It's very difficult for me

not to be able to support it. After all, in the last three months I

have watched the incomes of people being reduced because of the kinds

of policies that they have and that seem to be in the future. But which

one of them is going to stand up and say in very real terms that he is

for people and will not be part of doing it to people? Which one of

them is?

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to rise in this place as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I might

add that I am the first new member this constituency has sent to

Victoria in some 20 years. This means that my constituents have done me

a great honour.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last one tried to be a Speaker here.

MR. LOEWEN: I would like to take this opportunity to make my

words in this House an assurance to all, and I repeat "all," the

electors of Burnaby-Edmonds that I have accepted their mandate with

both gratitude and humility. The commitments I made to them during the

election campaign are very much in my heart, and I am determined to see

that they are carried out.

In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge the very fact that

my constituents retained their previous member for some 20 years is a

tribute to him. I would be delighted if they saw fit to honour me for

the same number of years.

This House, of course, was particularly familiar with the previous

member for Burnaby-Edmonds since he occupied the Speaker's chair for

the past three years. He has served Burnaby-Edmonds faithfully, and he

has served this House faithfully and it pleases me to have this

opportunity to pay my respects to him in this place.

Now to turn to the present. My warmest congratulations to you, Mr.

Speaker, on your election. Yours is a most difficult and demanding

role. However, I have complete confidence that you will bring high

honour to your office. This being my first term in parliament I shall

undoubtedly be leaning heavily on your wisdom.

May I briefly congratulate all members of all parties on both sides

on their election, including those of our opposition — who are just

leaving — who I believe are most delighted at being relieved of their

responsibilities of the past years. I am confident that they will all

join me in pledging to bring a new degree of responsibility and

maturity to this Legislature.

I wish to congratulate the Premier on his choices for cabinet posts.

I think it took an exceptionally brilliant leader to spot something

none of the rest of us would have suspected — for example, that the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had an ear for ICBC. And when

the Premier wanted someone with a good supply of shovels, well, we're

all sure he couldn't but accept a man who runs a chain of garden supply

shops. Incidentally, I have approached the hon. member for Surrey (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) in an attempt to negotiate an exclusive franchise on a

shovel. There's a tremendous interest in Burnaby-Edmonds in making

shovels.

But seriously, this government has some hard decisions ahead of it

and it is only natural that some of our ministers will draw fire. We

already know the Premier can stand up under fire. He has demonstrated

that again and again, and in a calm way — he handled demonstrators in a

cabinet room — and in many of the forthright statements he has made

about the needs we have in British Columbia to bite the bullet that the

previous government fired at us and get on with the job of restoring

fiscal responsibility.

Incidentally, in case someone misunderstands, I have the greatest

respect for both the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who have faced their

extremely difficult decisions under all the irresponsible opposition we

have been receiving from the opposition.

We are already getting strong leadership, too, from the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). I am tempted to name the whole

cabinet.

I heartily endorse the proposed legislation which will establish the

office of auditor-general for the first time in the history of British

Columbia. The auditor-general is to be an independent watchdog to guard

over the finances of this province. Positive people's legislation from

a positive government.

Mr. Speaker, the riding I have the honour to serve is, roughly

speaking, triangular in shape with the base of that triangle being the

border between Burnaby and New Westminster, extending from the north

arm of the Fraser River through to the Lougheed Highway, and the upper

point of the triangle to the west where Canada Way runs into Douglas

and intersects the Great Northern Railway line just south of the

Lougheed Highway.

My riding is not a very large one, nor is it particularly

industrialized. I think it is best characterized as a rapidly growing

residential area with a generous measure of small, independent

businesses. In effect, then, it is very much like the dozens of other

small communities of 30,000, and growing, that have an unusually strong

sense of permanence.

Our key resource is not a mine or mill or great industry around which the town is built. Our key

[ Page 234 ]

resource in Burnaby-Edmonds is the people who live there, people

with hopes, ambitions and frustrations, struggling with the realities

of life. Many of our people work in Vancouver. They're very conscious

and very concerned about the growing pains of the big city. They see

rapidly rising big-city taxes, big-city crime, big-city congestion,

big-city housing problems and big-city educational problems. And

frankly, they don't want any of them.

The people of my constituency want to see that their homes retail

their present values without being threatened by undesirable

encroachments. They want their children to go to decent schools. They

want to keep the good recreational facilities they already have. They

want adequate public services and good transportation. They are not

asking for the moon; they're asking for the right to live peaceful,

dignified, productive lives, and a place where they can raise their

children without fear.

One of the things we need most in Burnaby-Edmonds is adequate

transportation facilities. We not only need good roads into the area,

but good roads through and around the area. The two major north and

south axis roads to this constituency from Vancouver, Canada Way and

Southeast Marine Drive, are both carrying far too heavy a traffic load.

Much of this traffic is seeping into our residential streets as people

attempt to discover shortcuts. The result is a threat to public safety.

In the north I ask the government to get on with the completion of

the Stormont interchange, a new, partly built route which goes from the

freeway through New Westminster to McBride Boulevard, and one which

will take much of the strain away from Canada Way. In the south we have

had promises from both past governments, and the one before that, to

complete the widening to four lanes of Southeast Marine from the

Vancouver boundary through to New Westminster. Surely this is no longer

an option; it is a necessity, not only for Burnaby-Edmonds but for the

entire area east of Vancouver.

Incidentally, during the election campaign I was informed that

Marine Drive was already being built. We said: "We don't see any

construction." Then we were told that the flags were up, so I took half

a dozen runs down that highway and I didn't find any little markers,

any little flags, at all.

My constituents are also concerned about public transportation. We

know that this government is deeply aware of the need to conserve

energy in Canada. I respectfully suggest that one of the ways this

could be accomplished is to improve public transportation to the point

where it offers an attractive alternative to the use of automobiles for

commuting. May I add that we have