[ Page 385 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development): Mr. Speaker we have in your gallery today a very distinguished Canadian industrialist in the name of Mr. Alex Hart, senior vice president of the Canadian National Railway. I would ask you to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if the Members would give a cordial welcome to 29 young high school students from Nanaimo Senior High School who are with their teacher Mr. Ted Little today. The trip is sponsored by Crown Zellerbach, and George Willsoughby and Bob Porter are accompanying the group.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 9, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 26, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place and speak as the Minister of Labour for the Province of British Columbia for the first time. I would hope in view of the fact that it is my maiden speech that there will be great restraint (Laughter), that there will be compassion, understanding and tolerance by the Members of this House because that's historical about the British parliamentary system.

However, there are many things, Mr. Speaker, that I could speak about in view of some of the wild and erroneous statements that I've heard in this House. However my seat mate, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has threatened me that unless I sit down by 2.55 he's liable to take my notes from me and I would certainly be at a loss so I will try and contain myself to that particular time.

One of the things that has disturbed me most of all recently was when I saw the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Bryce Mackasey before the television cameras trying to justify the hiring of one Pierre Vallieres. A very shocking thing, because Pierre Vallieres is one of the founders of the Front de Liberation de Quebec. He's one of the leaders of the F.L.Q. to you. (Laughter).

He's the man who had jumped bail and had been away for about five months underground. Then all of a sudden he makes a reappearance and secures bail which restricts him to the Montreal area then all of a sudden the federal government has come to the conclusion he's the right man to hire. He met the criteria as far as they're concerned.

He's been given a position of responsibility in charge of 21 men on this local incentive programme. I want to remind the House this man is charged with very serious offences, and those offences are counselling to kidnap and murder — those are the charges against him at this time.

And Mr. Mackasey while he was on television tried to say that the man had not been convicted but I assure you he stands accused of jumping bail. There's no denying that charge that he went underground for five months. I finished reading….

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm concerned for the well-being of the unemployed in this country my friend. I just finished reading a book called "Les Negres Blancs d'Amerique" — "The White Niggers of America," written by Pierre Vallieres. And my description of the book is that is is a harangue of revolution. There are three passages that are worthy of note in this book.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pierre Vallieres — same guy, "White Niggers of America." He had statements to make about these two Ministers of the national government. He said: "My friends, and I've always considered them my friends Pierre Trudeau and Gerard Pelletier. These people I have tremendous admiration for. However, since they became Ministers, and one is the Prime Minister of this nation, he's changed his attitude relative to his former friends."

And I won't repeat, Mr. Speaker, because it's not the type of language that should be used in this House in his description of Pierre Trudeau and Gerard Pelletier. But I'll tell you it's certainly not flattering.

But there are two other passages that are worthy of note in here because there's one in which he speaks about the N.D.P. or the C.C.F. There isn't too much difference they tell me.

He talks about the childhood or the early days of his father working in a factory. He says:

I do not know what my father was like at the factory. From the conversations I had with him I gathered that he and his comrades often discussed the common problems. They had not forgotten the teachings of Communists. Since the end of the war nothing had been heard of them but their ideas remained in the air. Everyone at the factory agreed to those ideas, and was desperately seeking a party to put them into practice immediately. There was talk of the reforms that had been brought about by the C.C.F. In Saskatchewan. But the C.C.F. did not know that

[ Page 386 ]

there were thousands of Quebec workers who would have liked to hear its leaders tell them in French that their party was ready to give them a hand too.

And this is the passage he has to say about the C.C.F. He says there isn't too much difference between Communism and the C.C.F. — that's exactly what he said. Just to give you the type of book this man has written I will read you one more short paragraph to indicate to you the type of man that has been hired by the federal government. He said:

When the present system is destroyed we shall build peace together and at the same time fraternity and justice. But in order to attain this objective we must first build a revolutionary movement and a people's army together. We must first organise together a violence, a force capable of liberating us all from the multiple forms of slavery, domination and alienation that subjugate us collectively and individually from the time we are in the cradle. We shall become free, to the extent that together we have the courage to take up the weapons of our liberation and to fight to conquer. We shall be able to build peace, equality, fraternity and justice to the extent that together we find the way to win the war imposed on us by our conditions as white niggers. We must win the war, not just a battle here and there every 50 years.

A straight harangue of revolution. Not too long ago a judge from the Province of Quebec — and I'm not going to say that there was any collusion between the national government and this particular judge — but nevertheless in granting bail to Pierre Vallieres there was a stipulation that he should stay within the vicinity of the City of Montreal.

However, that was revoked because of a job he was going to in charge of 21 people in Mont Laurier in the Laurentian Mountains.

All I want to say is that there are 665,000 unemployed in Canada today — certainly there are some people that meet that criteria in those 665,000 people. Certainly we should have more respect for law abiding people — number one.

This parallels pretty closely the case which the federal Liberals were involved in, this brings it to my mind, anyway — the Rivard case, back when a man had been convicted of smuggling heroin and was charged and jailed on the charge and he was allowed to go out and water the skating rink when it was 43 above and escaped.

Some form of collusion. You know, all I can say is that this is politics at its lowest form — Liberal politics. This is the action of a desperate government. I want to assure them they might attract a few separatist votes in the Province of Quebec….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know they applauded. But I want to assure them that there will be a back lash across this nation because of this action, by the unemployed people of this country — 665,000 of them. That they hire known criminals, bail jumpers, rather than law-abiding people. When people are looking for jobs.

Not too long ago the Liberal Party indicated that they're going to dump 20 of the Members of Parliament from the Province of Quebec. Some will be forced into retirement and those that aren't forced into retirement will be given lucrative civil service jobs, and that's a fact. The only conclusion that I can come to in this respect is that there is a possibility of making an opening for Pierre Vallieres to run for the Liberal Party. All I want to say that I would hope that that the national government does not reward terrorism and revolutionary people such as Pierre Vallieres and show a little more compassion to the unemployed of this country.

Not too long ago, the last time the first Member for Vancouver Centre was speaking, he brought up a case dealing with a decertification attempt. He was quite critical of the actions of the labour relations board. That didn't necessarily disturb me, but what did disturb me is the interjections brought into the discussions of the Member by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Two things come to mind. He lacks knowledge, he lacks understanding of the Labour Relations Act of this province or else he was suggesting by his remarks that a Minister should bring political influence to bear on the decisions of the labour relations board.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know any better.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to know, is that the policy of the Liberal Party? I don't think they have a policy, period. Would they politically tinker with people who have been appointed to the labour relations board? I would suggest to the Hon. Leader, that he reads the Labour Relations Act. Did he read that section that depicts the oath of office that must be taken by members of that board?

You know, sometimes he tries to lead us to believe he knows something about labour relations. It wasn't too long ago, in 1970, when he offered himself as a mediator in a dispute. Great white saviour of the working man. Just for the sake of a few votes he thought he could attract. He didn't know the situation he was putting himself into, in this dispute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are many, many of the more knowledgeable people in the field of labour relations who wouldn't have offered their services in that dispute, my friend. Because that was an indirect jurisdictional dispute between two unions which he didn't understand. He's about as knowledgeable on labour relations as he is on other subjects.

Not too long ago he suggested that the government should spend $100,000 on a political safari to better understand the problems that exist between trade unions and management and the industry and so forth. I want to assure him that there'll be no political safari of that type as long as I'm Minister of Labour.

You know, I want to say that he doesn't only lack knowledge in the field of labour but recently there was an article that appeared in the Press that indicates his understanding of a great variety of problems. It was by a noted, well respected columnist, and had this to say:

Patrick Lucey McGeer is the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, which might come as somewhat of a shock to some staunch grits in out-of-the-way places in our province. I mean, he hasn't exactly distinguished himself in or out of the House and word of his ascension to the leadership of the Liberals might not have filtered through to the boondocks. There has been much muttering within the party about McGeer's lack of forceful leadership. Muttering which has undoubtedly reached his own ears. In short, his performance has been pedestrian, dull, and leaves the faithful with precious little hope for the future.

And then he goes on to say about his great safari, Mr. Speaker. They talk about his great safari into the boondocks

[ Page 387 ]

of Oak Bay, I mean into the constituency of Oak Bay. This is the reaction from the people of Oak Bay. They say that if the citizens of Oak Bay are in search of technical information on the sex lives of whales, Dr. Pat might be an excellent choice to enlighten them.

I rather doubt that too. On Liberal policies however, they might be just as well off getting their information from the local dailies. Dr. Pat has shown little ability in explaining those policies, if indeed he has any.

Also, I get a little disturbed sometimes, Mr. Speaker, at some of the statements made by my Socialist friends. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Coming from you, what can one expect coming from a fat cat like you? Nothing but a fat cat. I listened to the Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stand in this chamber during the throne debate and distort the facts, dragging a prominent and highly respected citizen of this province through the mud, using the immunity of this House to make accusations against Mr. McGavin and his enterprise.

Just yesterday, I listened to him waffle all around the issues — he was waffling, he owes an apology as far as I'm concerned to the McGavin interests.

This is what he had to say when he spoke to the throne debate. He says: "For many years McGavin Toastmaster Company put bread in our mouths, we paid them well for their product, in return they took bread out of the mouths of their employees." He said it is a dubious honour for an employer to be able to see his pension plans designed in his favour but that in this case the plan provided no vesting or paid-up benefits for persons terminated under the age of 55.

He said that when the plant closed down about 48 men were left without pension benefits. Their chance of building a pension elsewhere is either reduced or wiped out on account of their age.

He charged that the employer is now using the money paid in by the former employees — they didn't pay 5 cents, they didn't pay into the pension fund — to pay its present share of pensions for employees of other bakeries in the McGavin empire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a complete distortion — no, I believe in respecting a collective agreement. I think a collective agreement is a very legitimate document. Don't you have any respect for collective agreements? That Member doesn't over there, Mr. Speaker, that Member doesn't.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Recently there was a letter written. The Leader of the Opposition is very disturbed at this time because he received a letter from a Senator Lawson, the head of the Teamsters, regarding this issue.

He'll say the facts as they are. He'll call the shots as they are and he says this: "I regret that we have to correct Mr. Cocke's mis-statements." Why didn't you talk about them yesterday my friend? Why didn't you tell the facts yesterday? Never mind waving anything at me. Why don't you tell the truth? Why won't you tell the truth?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mis-statements in the newspaper. There was no alternative. You may rest assured that if McGavin Toastmaster were guilty of stealing 5 cents from the pension fund we would have dealt with the matter.

"The local union had five or six opportunities each time the contract expired to correct any inequities or shortcomings in the pension plan, and in addition our joint council made available pension experts to assist the local union."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHABOT: The pension is a part of the collective agreement. The pension was introduced as a joint trade union-management programme in the collective agreement of 1960. They had an opportunity — they've had pension experts offered to them to renegotiate the pension plan if it was not satisfactory. They renegotiated their collective agreements in 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, at no time did the Teamsters ask for a change in the pension plan.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're satisfactory in the eyes of the union. Yes, it was. The shutdown of the plant occurred when the president and his fellow officers decided to support an illegal strike being conducted by the inside bakery workers. Notwithstanding that the company did everything required of them under the terms of the collective agreement and in addition paid severance pay to another union that did not have a severance provision in its contract. Isn't that fair? Did that take bread out of the mouths of the workers? Paying severance pay when it's not being called for in the collective agreement.

The president and other members who suffered — and these are the words of Senator Lawson, the head of the Teamsters, and he's talking about the president of one of his locals. He said: "The president and other members who suffered as a result of the shut down were victims of their own bad advice. They did not receive a refund of their contributions because they made no contributions." They went on to say that the present wage rate of bakery salesmen is $250 a week, $13,000 a year, plus fringe benefits. It has no parallel, it's one of the top-ranking labour contracts in British Columbia. He says the company and its president, Alan McGavin, has been as fair in their dealing "as any employer we've had business with. I have always found Mr. McGavin to be a man of honour and integrity with a genuine concern for his employees. Mr. Cocke's untrue allegations" — or the Member from New Westminster's untrue allegations — "against this company and its president, not only injures them but our members who are employed selling their products. We would expect the Member from New Westminster, (Mr. Cocke), to correct his mis-statements in the Legislature, so that no further injury will be caused this company and its employees, our members." Senator Lawson said these words.

After having this letter in his hand, the Member wouldn't stand up in this House yesterday and tell the true facts. He had an opportunity, he's had the letter for several days — why didn't he stand up and tell the true facts? Why didn't he do that? I'll tell you about those people, the 48 people that he talked about, the 48 people who were "thrown out of their jobs," they were "denied pension benefits," they could "never get another job anywhere else." These are the facts in

[ Page 388 ]

that respect.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twenty of the 48 employees who were laid off at the time of the plant shut-down did qualify under the 15-year, age-55 provision, and are currently receiving pensions under the plan. A further 28 — this is part of the collective agreement — I'm talking about a duly signed collective agreement. Are you against unions that sign collective agreements?

AN HON. MEMBER: You play politics with the agreement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A further 28 — you want to tinker with the agreement?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House please come to order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a further 28, and this is the balance of the 48 that were stated were thrown out of their jobs, the further 28 of the driver employees were employed by Mother Hubbard bakeries, a division of McGavin. They were also covered by the plan and have been given credit under the plan for all years of service put in as employees of McGavin's bakeries. Is that mistreatment my friend?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just finished telling you; 20 were pensioned off and the other 28 were absorbed. It was fair treatment.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: By his statements the Hon. Member challenged the integrity of the Teamster organisation is this province.

I never thought I'd see the day when a Member of a Socialist party would stand in his place and challenge the integrity or the sanctity of a collective agreement and that's exactly what my friend has done. That's exactly what he's done.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The next time he stands in his place and if he doesn't, the letter was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition and I think he should stand up too, he should give us a copy of his reply to Senator Lawson and tell us what the facts are.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, that's what they think of Senator Lawson. Oh! Shocking statement! I never thought I'd see a Socialist, a Member of this House, stand up and attack labour leaders like Senator Lawson like the leader of the Opposition did just now. Calling him Senator Joe McCarthy is most disgraceful, most disgraceful.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think either the Member from New Westminster, (Mr. Cocke), or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has a responsibility during this budget debate or at a later time or have one of their other Members get up and make a retraction and stop the harangue against the integrity of a highly-respected individual of this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, since assuming the office of Minister of Labour, I have had the opportunity of meeting with many trade unions and management officials, both at formal and informal meetings and the reason for this….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will this House please come to order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: In order to learn their viewpoints first hand and I want to assure the House that there has been cooperation, excellent cooperation, by both sides.

During the early months of last year, our centennial year, the working people and the businesses operating in British Columbia were jointly faced with the task of contributing to an improved rate of growth in our province. Every group, the working people, business and government, obviously has a vital and immediate interest in the state of our economy.

From the standpoint of the wage earner the health of the economy largely determines the number and types of job opportunities available to them. Business establishments are equally concerned, because the general state of the economy shapes their price, cost and profit picture as well as determines their growth and employment prospects. The interest of government is very apparent since we are concerned and responsible for both the economic and social progress of the entire population.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in this place.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The government has a key role to play in the job creation process, for through its policies it must ensure that the province achieves optimum and yet orderly economic growth. Government shapes the growth process by developing an overall economic base, a complex of primary, secondary and facilities and services needed by the private and public sector to ensure a constant growth in the number of job opportunities.

At the same time, government must ensure that this growth is compatible with the social and cultural goals of its citizens. There can be very little doubt, after a review of the statistics which show several decades of unparalleled economic expansion, that this government has followed the right policy course for the working people of British Columbia.

Because unemployment was the major economic problem in Canada at the outset of 1971, British Columbia as well as other provinces was faced with a difficult task of priming the economy to increase its rate of growth. To effectively combat this problem requires the full cooperation of labour and management and full confidence in the underlying economic expense of the province.

[ Page 389 ]

Little could be expected in terms of dynamic expansionary policies from the federal government in view of its past inadequate stop-go policies. In 1971 British Columbia recorded a significant improvement in the overall rate in the economic growth as compared to 1970. Despite a relatively slow start occasioned in part by price and market difficulties in some forestry sectors, by year end continued improvement in these industries and increased output in manufacturing in mineral industries all contributed to an improved economic picture.

Increased strength in these sectors of the economy in concert with gains in labour force and employment produced more buoyant levels of activity throughout the provincial economy.

Particularly strong gains were recorded in consumer spending and construction which were reflected in employment gains in these sectors.

Despite the steady progress apparent in the provincial economy in 1971 it must be realised that the economy did not advance to the capabilities of its potential. Given more stable price and market conditions in their export markets, and with more expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in our country we could undoubtedly have shown higher levels of industrial production in employment in British Columbia during 1971.

Of considerable interest and concern to us in British Columbia were the economic policies issued by the United States in August and in October of last year. Although the imposition of 10 per cent surtax and subsequent proposals for export subsidy were initially viewed as the most dramatic and far reaching of these policies several other aspects of these actions are worthy of note.

To review, the basic thrust of the American action is essentially two fold: Number one was to shore up the industrial economy of their country and number two of course was to contain the price pressures by adoption of an incomes policy.

The second aspect of the programme, the use of an incomes policy, has some significance for us. For we in Canada are faced possibly to a lesser degree with somewhat similar economic problems. That is, we would like to accelerate our rate of growth and reduce unemployment while at the same time avoiding recurrence of inflationary pressures.

The important lessons the Americans have demonstrated is that any government, no matter how strong, cannot effectively control the economy to the maximum benefit of all without the full cooperation of labour and management.

The U.S. authorities obviously felt that voluntary support would not be forthcoming from either group, and hence imposed wage and price board controls. The economic power wielded by organised labour and management has in recent years grown to such magnitude that economic problem-solving on a national level must have the support of all groups.

This was clearly underlined in the U.S. with the formation of a tripartite pay board with labour, management and government represented in equal numbers.

Accordingly, in our country and province, labour and management must temper their economic powers with an increasing awareness of their social responsibilities. Future collective agreements must reflect, in more equal terms, fair and just treatment for both parties, as well as for the general public.

The improved rate of economic growth in the province in 1971 was accompanied by high rates of population and labour force growth. Again in 1971 British Columbia led the nation in these two important areas. The provincial population reached 2,196,000 halfway through the year, representing an increase of 2.8 per cent over 1970. This rate of population growth was double the national average and the province remained the fastest-growing region in the country.

Over the past decade our population has increased at an average annual rate of 3 per cent, well in excess of the national growth rate of 1.7 per cent, the growth rate of Ontario of 2.3 per cent, the Province of Quebec 1.4 per cent. At our present rate of population growth, based on the record of the past decade, the number of people in British Columbia by 1975 should reach 2.5 million, and by 1980, should reach 2.9 million.

The continued high rate of economic expansion in British Columbia has contributed to an exceptional rate of growth in the provincial labour force. In 1961, British Columbia's labour force stood at 575,000 persons, while by 1971 it is estimated to have averaged 911,000, a 58.4 per cent increase, or an average annual rate of growth of 4.7 per cent.

Not too long ago the Economic Council of Canada came out with a study in which they outlined their projections of the type of growth necessary in the employment field to meet the needs of the growing population in order to bring unemployment back to a more satisfactory level. They indicated that with a labour force growth of 2.8 per cent to 1975, and then it tapers down to 2.6 from '75 to '80, that we need a growth in the labour force of 3.3 per cent across the nation in order to achieve a more satisfactory unemployment level.

In other words what they put down as a satisfactory unemployment level was between 3.6 and 4 per cent, and they indicated that if we could achieve that 3.3 per cent growth in jobs that we would have a satisfactory unemployment rate.

But what we really need is satisfactory fiscal and monetary policies at the national level. We need a government that predicts confidence in the business community, that brings about policies that are known to industry so that there is no uncertainty, so they don't drag out their white papers on taxation, and the Competition Act and so forth.

We need a government that is forceful, and is cognisant of the problem. However the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada have been cast aside by the Trudeau government because he says that the recommendations were too lavish, that there is no way that we could reach that type of labour force in British Columbia.

I personally maintain that with the proper economic policy in this nation there would be no problem in meeting that type of growth in the labour force. Because in British Columbia our labour force has grown by 4.7 per cent on an average, over the last 10 years, and certainly if it can be done in British Columbia it can be done in the rest of Canada as well.

As far as our rate of growth in this province is concerned there are few other industrialised nations that have this rate of growth. There are others that can meet the growth in numbers — such as Florida and California — but in the creation of jobs I would say there's no parallel on the North American continent.

A review of 1971 labour force statistics reveals a significant improvement over 1970. As of October 16, British Columbia's labour force stood at 930,000, an increase of 57,000 or 6.5 per cent over the preceding 12-month period.

[ Page 390 ]

Over the same period, employment in the province advanced strongly, increasing by 9.1 per cent, or 73,000 persons, to 877,000.

It is of some interest to note that over this period the employment increase in all other provinces totalled only 185,000, while British Columbia alone added 73,000.

With regard to unemployment, October data indicate 53,000 persons unemployed in British Columbia, or 5.7 per cent of the labour force, a substantial reduction of 16,000 persons from the previous years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll talk about them, certainly. There has been a tremendous increase in the unemployment rate and I'll tell you the national government has been hoodwinking the people over the last two years, Mr. Speaker. Because over the last 20 months the facts and figures on unemployment across this nation indicate that on average over the last 20 months they have been over 6 per cent, very consistently. There's no month in the last 20 months that unemployment in this nation has been less than 6 per cent, and yet we hear the national government telling us it's a turn around situation next month, next month, and next month.

It's not good enough. The fiscal policy of that federal government is the cause of the severe unemployment we have in this nation today. The lack of confidence the investment world has in that federal government. They have no….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not only must we provide new jobs for the young people entering the labour force for the first time, but we must also make provision for the ever increasing proportions of the total population that wants to work.

We live in a consumer-oriented society where it is not uncommon for several members of a single family unit to be gainfully employed. This is particularly true in families where children have reached self sufficiency, allowing mothers to return to work.

Many families encourage this return to the labour force for given superior wage levels and working conditions in British Columbia, many families with more than one wage earner are enjoying exceptionally higher standards of living.

Another factor which has a significant impact on our labour force relates to our high rate of population growth. Over the period 1961-71, British Columbia's population increased by 567,000 persons. Of this total, approximately 377,000 persons, or 66 per cent, was due to net immigration to the province.

However, the impact on our labour force of net immigration has been most pronounced in most recent years. Over the five-year period from 1966 to 1971 net immigration in British Columbia was consistently high. Using the same basis for estimation it can be assumed that in this five-year period over 130,000 migrants were seeking employment in the province.

This amounts to an average yearly requirement of 26,000 jobs for migrants coming to British Columbia. Despite a slight drop in the level of net migration to British Columbia during the one-year period ending June 1971, it can be estimated that job seeking migrants entering the province this year totalled around 23,000.

In 1971, this government pledged to create 25,000 new jobs in the province with an expansionary budget aimed directly at stimulating employment. In fact, there was a gain of approximately 36,000 jobs, and by reference to my previous figure on migration it is quite clear that of these, over 63 per cent would be required to assimilate migrants into the job market.

The pressure placed by migrants on the labour market in British Columbia has been considerable in recent years. However, because of the exceptional economic growth we have witnessed in the province, the public and private sectors have been able to meet this demand in most instances.

However, when the province, or for that matter the nation, encounters unemployment difficulties due to a slowdown in the rate of economic growth, the pressure of migration on the job market is acute and raises questions as to the need for effective policies in this area. While there is little that we can, or more correctly little that we would want to do, to inhibit the movement of other Canadians to our province there is strong evidence to suggest that our foreign immigration policy should be reviewed.

While we continue to have virtually unimpaired immigration to our country, even in times of high unemployment, we will continue to over-burden the capability of our economy to create sufficient new job opportunities.

How severe is the pressure of foreign migration on our labour market? Over the period of 1961-1971 foreign immigrants stating British Columbia as their destination in Canada have been estimated at approximately 192,000 persons and of this total close to 95,000 are assumed to have been job seekers.

When these statistics are analysed, especially at the present time when all provinces in Canada are faced with the problem of unemployment, there appears to be cause for considering an immigration policy tied in some way to our domestic employment scene. Such a policy might also encourage more concerted efforts in our country to increase training programmes, such as training-in-industry, to continually upgrade the quality of labour available in Canada.

In another important area affecting the labour force it is gratifying to note an improvement in labour relations in the province throughout the year. As mentioned previously, labour and management groups continue to grow in terms of their economic strength and it is gratifying to observe a significant improvement in 1971 in the labour relations field. During the year approximately 275,000 man-days were lost as a result of labour disputes. This is the lowest figure recorded in the province in the last five years, and represents only 0.16 per cent of total working time recorded by wage and salary earners in the province.

A major factor contributing to the improved labour relations recorded in the province was the notable absence of any major prolonged work stoppages.

In 1971 only eight disputes involved more than 1,000 workers and only one of these had a duration exceeding 20 days. This improved record is reflected in that over the first three quarters of the year British Columbia experienced an average of 5.3 man-days lost per worker as compared to the national average of 11.6 man-days idled per striking worker.

While these statistics obviously portray a much improved labour climate in the province they nevertheless point to a record which leaves considerable room for improvement. In 1972 negotiations in British Columbia involve a significant number of large and important unions and employers, and it hoped that both groups will respond to negotiations in a positive and constructive manner.

During 1971, the labour relations branch was called on in

[ Page 391 ]

numerous instances to assist employees to recover wages which employers had failed to pay. Investigation resulted in over 9,000 employees being paid over $788,000 by 4,427 employers. A considerable portion of this amount was obtained following the issuance of certificates by the Board of Industrial Relations under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just gave you the figure on how much was collected — $788,000. Is the Hon. Member against that? But much negotiation was carried on by the I.R.O.'s in this province to ensure the certificates…. I.R.O.'s are not anxious to issue certificates. They are anxious to collect the money on behalf of the workmen — that's their job.

The effectiveness of this Act was greatly enhanced in 1970 when it was amended to give priority to certificates issued under its provisions. Two outstanding examples come to mind where money would not have been collected had there not been a priority. In one instance over $63,000 was obtained on behalf of 55 employees and in the other case over $10,000 was collected for 47,000 employees.

Last year was the first full year of administration of the amended Act and it compares very favourably with collections in 1969 which is the last full year before the amendment. In 1971, over $621,000 was collected, while in 1969, $487,000 was obtained, which is an increase of over 27 per cent.

The year 1971 was a year of re-entrenchment and adjustment insofar as apprenticeship and industrial training was concerned. The labour disputes of 1970 started a downward trend in the number of registered apprentices, particularly in the construction trades. Apprenticeship in the industrial and service sectors remained, however, at a relatively high level.

General unemployment of any kind, such as that which is caused by economic conditions or by labour-management disputes, always affects the registration of apprentices, and it is often a year or more before registrations start to rise.

We are naturally concerned about the short fall of the number of apprentices in the construction trades, and while it is recognised that economic conditions and labour management disputes have a serious effect on apprenticeship numbers, joint apprenticeship committees which have been established by union-management agreement may also be partially responsible for the drop in the number of registered apprentices in the construction trades.

In many instances, the apprentices are indentured to a joint apprenticeship committee and the co-ordinator who is employed by the committee is responsible for placing the apprentice in employment with an employer. It has been noted that many employers no longer employ apprentices because they apparently do not subscribe to the idea that an apprentice should be indentured to a committee.

On the other hand, the employers who do accept apprentices from the joint committee do not tend to feel a personal responsibility to the apprentice because he is not indentured to him personally. They do not hesitate to lay the apprentice off when there is no work available and send him back to the joint committee for placement. They may never see the apprentice again. They are using the joint committee and in many instances abusing the apprentice.

Most of the joint committees insist that an employer cannot have an apprentice unless the apprentice is inter viewed by the co-ordinator and approved by him as a suitable apprentice. This makes the joint committee a closed shop. In order to obtain work, the apprentice must be approved by the joint committee.

Some of the committees functioning in this regard not only exercise some control over the quality of the candidate for apprenticeship, which is probably desirable, but are also controlling the quantity by restricting entry of apprentices into the various trades.

It is my intention to have the department work towards the elimination of any restrictive practices affecting apprentices, and I'm sure that with the cooperation of labour and management, this can be accomplished.

British Columbia has a fine apprenticeship programme, one they can be proud of, and we all have an obligation to see that it continues to function in its usual efficient manner. I am confident that labour and management will make every effort to employ more apprentices.

The future progress, prosperity and security of British Columbia is dependent, as perhaps never before, on the technical knowledge of its people. Our natural resources are the envy of other nations, but to fully develop them we will have to continue to increase the quality and capabilities of our human resources.

Since wages, like other costs, including profits, must be borne directly by the products we produce, the answer to this problem must lie in greater productivity accompanied by a more highly-skilled and efficient labour force.

One of the ways to increase these necessary skills and raise the productivity of the work force is through greater participation in the apprenticeship training programme. The tremendous annual increase in the youth population of the province demands that we have access to apprenticeship and industrial training. I want to assure you that this is high on my priority list as the Minister of Labour and I think if you will check the estimates — figures speak louder than words — you'll see that this is an additional $1 million for apprenticeship training. The answer is yes, it will be spent.

The labour force in British Columbia is about 900,000 persons, therefore our 8,000 registered apprentices represent less than I per cent of the labour force. As we progress further into the technological age we will require more and more highly-trained men and women and less and less of the semi- and unskilled workers. We are now in a period where we can no longer afford the luxuries of indifferent preparation and use of our human resources. Industry must become a full partner with government in the development of a highly-skilled work force.

Government is prepared to share in this responsibility by creating more public awareness of the importance of apprenticeship training and endeavouring to convince young people of the importance of planning their career to ensure future employment security.

However, employers are really the only ones who can provide employment and therefore provide the proof of the true value of apprenticeship training.

The total number of registered apprentices for 1971 was 7,500 which is about the same as 1970. Under normal circumstances, the annual increase should be in the area of 6 per cent. It is hoped that in 1972 the figure will rise again.

Competitions are sponsored by two international unions, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, to establish the best apprentice in Canada and the United States.

In the competition held by the carpenters in Detroit,

[ Page 392 ]

Michigan, a young British Columbia apprentice, in the trade of carpentry, from Victoria, Christopher Cottier, was chosen as the best carpenter apprentice in all North America.

The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters contest is held at Purdue University each year in August. This past year, David Heaps, who is a sprinkler fitting apprentice from Vancouver, placed second in the sprinkler fitting competition.

In sheet metal, the sheet metal unions in the four western provinces conduct a competition to determine the best apprentice. In 1971, Micky Katasonoff, also of Vancouver, placed third in the competition.

British Columbia apprentices have always been in the running for prizes in the various competitions. 1971 was the first year that our apprentices were able to place as prize winners in all three competitions in the same year.

The Department of Manpower and Immigration, which administers the Adult Occupational Training Act for the federal government, continues to be a disturbing element in our work.

In spite of repeated requests by the province for a standard training allowance for all apprentices, Canada Manpower is still not prepared to pay training allowances to those apprentices who do not have a three year attachment to the labour force. In other words "stay on welfare or do nothing for three years, until you've been unemployed for three years, then come and see us and then we'll give you some consideration."

Meetings are held twice yearly with the provincial directors of apprenticeship, under the sponsorship of Canada Manpower, to discuss procedure and to plan programmes that fall within the area of the interprovincial standards programme. These meetings seem to be an extension of Manpower's planning department and lead one to believe that Manpower might eventually attempt to control how much training each province will do for apprentices in order by regulating the flow of funds.

One excellent feature of the part played by Manpower in apprenticeship training is the mobility they have been able to provide, which has enabled apprentices in one province to take technical training in another province, providing of course that that province is unable to provide the technical training.

British Columbia has accepted apprentices from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and from Saskatchewan for training. This mutual aid programme has been working very effectively.

Mr. Speaker, time is running out, my notes haven't disappeared so I'm going to close before my colleague here takes the balance of my notes away from me. But I do want to announce at this time that the session of 1972 will see major changes — are you listening Leo? The session of 1972 will see major changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act. These will be the first changes since the introduction of the new Act in 1968 and I want….

Interjections by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You make your own speech. I want to say that the results of the introduction of the legislation will be a tremendous upgrading of the benefits for widows and dependents, additional aid for the injured workmen of this province. This must certainly indicate to everyone in British Columbia that this is a government that cares.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this is a budget debate. The budget that we are discussing at this time is a budget that is directed to the needs and the aspirations of all British Columbians. It's a budget that is the envy of all jurisdictions in this nation. It has been possible only through sound Social Credit fiscal policies and management as well. Most of the credit must go to the great financial genius, the Minister of Finance of British Columbia.

I want to say that it is a job maker budget because it is a budget that is concerned about unemployment, it is a budget that allocates $115 million to create jobs for people within this province. This budget indicates to the people of this province that the government recognises the priorities of the day and has made provisions to ensure that British Columbia will continue to be a pace-setter in all fields, on all fronts in this nation.

AN HON. MEMBER: This budget makes anyone cry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This is a budget that the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to endorse in the very near future. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it's certainly an unusual session. I can't understand what can only be interpreted as panic in the ranks of the government and the private members.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: You'll find that the old…oh, that big pip-squeak over there! (Laughter).

But they're tuning up the machine. Why, I don't know. They've got their majority. They're panicking. Their rural red-necked members are reaching for the tar brush. They see a naked hippie behind every bush. (Laughter). They're donning the cloak of righteousness and reeling back at the mention of any possibility of sin like a Plymouth brother. They're renewing the charges that we're Communists over here. Why, you know that was tried in the last election.

AN HON. MEMBER: It worked all right.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it didn't work for me, Mr. Speaker. I was called, along with some of my colleagues, a Marxist-Leninist and yet when Kosygin came to Vancouver — the high priest — I didn't get an invitation to his dinner. I was turned down as a security risk. (Laughter). I don't know whether they believe you any more, when you call "communist" and all the rest of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Now they say they're going to cut the Opposition down — what is it, to seven? Cut the poor Liberals down to two, cut the Conservatives down by 100 per cent, and they're tooling up this big machine and trying to frighten people and trying desperately to find some kind of an issue that will give them an excuse to go to an election.

[ Page 393 ]

Well let me tell those Members that the big Socred machine isn't frightening anybody, and it's not fooling anybody and Goliath over there, big Goliath, ought to remember a little history, because wee David is not frightened and is perfectly able to look after himself. I'm going to send them this sling-shot. Take that down to read David Barrett.

Come on big Goliath! Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Labour, who I do not see in the House, Mr. Speaker, but he said this, and I just want to set this straight about these pension funds.

You know, when they are contributed in the form of trust funds, a pension fund — whether it's contributory or not — it is trust moneys earned by the labour of the people in that plant or factory and what should happen to it? Is it right that when a plant closes down for any reason that those moneys should not be distributed back to the people whose labour helped in their formation? Now, my friend from Dewdney, the Honourable Member (Mr. Mussallem) agrees with this, yet we have in the Province of British Columbia, many, many private pension plans without any vesting rights to that in this event or that, a closure or something else, the pension money which was intended for the protection of the workers in their later years, goes where? Back to the employer.

We call on that Minister of Labour, who sounded so much today like the Minister of Industry, we call upon him to reconvene the labour committee which began to study private pension plans five or six years ago and to enact pension legislation at this session of the Legislature to protect the built-up funds which are intended for the benefit of the working people of this province.

Now I want to take the opportunity to draw to Hon. Members' attention in the corner of the House Mr. Bill Knight, M.P., who I think is the youngest Member in the House of Commons at the present time, and we welcome him to this chamber.

I don't intend to discuss the budget Mr. Speaker. This is the budget debate, but that has been done very adequately in terms of the kind of budget it was by my friend from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) the other day. He called it a "fudge budget", and it was a great speech. And he showed how much adding, how much public relations, rather than benefit for the people of British Columbia was in that budget. All these funds and how little of them will be spent. It is a "puffed-wheat" budget. A budget of great expectations but I think the people of British Columbia are a little wiser to that, by that time.

They're a little bit like the farmer who was asked: "Did you get as much as you expected for your chickens?" And he said: "Nope, but I didn't expect to." And I don't (Laughter). That's what the people of British Columbia think about this great budget — they don't really expect that these benefits will shower down upon them the way the government has been predicting. They know them too well, Mr. Speaker. A red-necked government shaking in its boots because of election rumours, panicking.

What do they do for the cities, the urban areas of particularly the lower mainland? The old $2 million transit subsidy — vote 85, $2 million, still $2 million. That's real money they'd have to spend to increase that. But they're not going to do that, they're not going to help the strap-hangers of Vancouver, Burnaby and the lower mainland and Victoria in that essential public matter. No, they promised a grand thing — pick up half the deficit. They'll never have to do it, certainly not in the next fiscal year. They're absolutely safe, that is just folderall.

Instead of that they give us a great towering 55 — or whatever number of storeys it's to be — building in the most congested part of Vancouver. I fully agree with other things that have been said about this. That area should be reserved for an open park space in the centre of the City of Vancouver. The government gives us this monstrosity in that place, a great white elephant. Why in the world, I ask the Minister, through the Speaker, does he not move it a block south onto the city land that is there? For heaven's sakes do that and leave us a little bit of breathing space in the centre of the City of Vancouver so the generation to come may be able to say that this is a beautiful city, that it has a heart, that it is a city like Copenhagen or Paris with some broad open spaces and some green growing things.

That's what they're doing for the city. Take their crossing money — that's another one. Are they going to spend it? I doubt it.

But I want to discuss two matters, Mr. Speaker, and not take too much of your time. I want to talk again about the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. You know that's a story that as Alice in Wonderland said, "grows curiouser, and curiouser".

I want to tell you about a hush-hush meeting, a hush-hush meeting in a Vancouver hotel just after the Legislature rose at the beginning of last April — because you know Mr. Speaker, the saying is true and to the detriment of the people of British Columbia that when the Legislature's away the mice will play.

So this pipeline thing, it is to be put off until the Legislature is not here and the grand scenario that has been worked out behind the scenes will become a fait accompli.

But before I tell you about that meeting, because I don't want to spoil a story by beginning at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about one of the great companies that do business in British Columbia — Bechtel Corporation.

Because, that is a company which has operations in maybe 35 or 36 countries of the world, great divisions it has. And I want to trace a little bit about this because it is so important at this time, because the pipeline if left in private hands is going to be built by Bechtel.

If it isn't Hydro it's Bechtel, and Bechtel probably does very quietly about $100 million a year of business out of the Province of British Columbia. Now that sounds a lot but they built the West Coast Transmission Line, Pacific Crude Line — Western Pacific I think it's called — Transmountain — compressor stations that they put in on a pipeline, and there are 15 or 20 going in most years, alone they're $1 million or $2 million. So this is a very gigantic operation.

At the present time at Princeton they're working on the copper concentrator, their mining division. They have a number of divisions that do business and very profitable business in British Columbia — the mining division, chemical division, and the pipeline and production service division.

If the pipeline goes privately, as I said, it will be simply a turnkey operation. Bechtel will build it, Bechtel will employ the people, Bechtel will order the material and the equipment for the businessmen, and in a turnkey operation it will be turned over. And I say this work should be saved for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 394 ]

Now we're talking about jobs and we're talking about businessmen too. Because Bechtel, as I say, doing this great volume of work in the Province of British Columbia, does not even have its bidders' lists in the Province of British Columbia. So that a B.C. businessman has to fight on bended knee to get on the bidders' list of the Bechtel corporation. To do that he has to go to San Francisco. He has to go to San Francisco to first try and get on that list if he possibly can, just to get on the list to bid — to bid to supply B.C. material or B.C. equipment for a B.C. project.

These businessmen are being treated as colonials, second-class citizens, by this great multi-national corporation. I recognise that when the job starts — whatever it may be — local materials are used like gravel and cement. But the engineering and designing, all the major items of equipment, the orders are placed in San Francisco.

You take the big job they did recently at the F.M.C. Chemicals at Squamish. To bid for a little contract to supply materials in your own province you had to go to San Francisco, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that that will be the picture.

There's a triumvirate — and we might as well name them. There is no doubt about who is orchestrating the scenario with respect to the natural gas pipeline — it's West Coast Transmission, Bechtel Corporation and this government. Siamese triplets. The real government of British Columbia.

What sort of work was done, what sort of labour work was let out when Malaspina had its estimate made up for its route — $105 million? About the only B.C. work involved in the Bechtel estimate, the only B.C. work that was involved was probably the helicopter pilot who flew the aerial survey from Williams Lake down to the coast.

Canadian Bechtel, that's right, the company is merely a letterhead, a figure head — about 20 employees. It could fit and disappear into one of the great divisions of the Bechtel corporation and never be found again.

It's no more than a letterhead, and yet on one of the great projects of the Province of British Columbia the government is bent upon having the construction by this company to the detriment of B.C. business, B.C. labour, and B.C. planners and designers.

Now what happened on April 29? Well, before I get to that, let me tell you…. . I just want to say a word or two on the subject of conservation and environment and how that relates to this subject matter.

At the present time, and I believe this must be known to the federal government because Arthur Laing has made a speech about an energy corridor from the Arctic down through B.C. and Alberta.

At the present time the Bechtel Corporation are engaged in preparing the plans for a natural gas pipeline from the newly-found natural gas in the Arctic regions of Canada and partly in the States down through the North West Territories and Yukon, through B.C. to Huntington and down to California.

A big line — 48 inch. Mountain Pacific Gas they call the project. From the Arctic circle. A $2 billion job. Every foot according to the estimates I have of the pipeline costs $15 to $20. It's a gigantic job, it's going ahead right now.

The significance of it is, of course, that we're reaching high noon. In the United States oil reserves may last for nine years. Natural gas reserves for 13. Canada and Canada's Arctic is the treasure house and the plans are speedily going ahead.

As we build up to high noon the pressure is on Canada, the pressure is on B.C. as we build up to high noon to bring that gas down to California.

Without adequate scrutiny and no scrutiny at all by this government by the kind of reserves we need for our own province, never once has this government concerned itself with this subject. Never once have they, even as Alberta has, required an export permit.

This clean, cheap safe fuel can be brought to Vancouver Island and other parts of the province as early as 1974. It will only come in two ways, first, if Hydro gets the contract because it has to be a low cost thing. And secondly, if there are adequate pollution standards established on Vancouver Island so that the burning of bunker fuel and hog fuel to pollute the air will be a forbidden thing. Then the market will be there and that should be done.

Those pollution standards should be enforced. The gas should flow for the benefit of the people of British Columbia and not some other country. Every Member is familiar with this, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the tanker route down the West Coast of British Columbia — not the danger of spills, but the certainty of spills, the inevitability of spills from Prudeaux Bay down past Dallas Road, right out here, down our beautiful coastline — when you consider the certainty of that then this projected pipeline and the energy corridor should be considered.

Because there's no question that's a safer route. There's no question that the tie-in could be made to the American Alaskan crude and natural gas and that an energy corridor would be for the benefit of the people of British Columbia.

I rather object to the fact that the work on this thing is going on in such a quiet way that nobody knows about it — by a great multi-national corporation. I should have thought this would be a public thing, where the public and the Government of Canada and in B.C. were actively safeguarding the interests of the people of the province and the people of the country.

So, we come back, Mr. Speaker, to April 29. Everything seemed to be so above board there, the Premier came out of his office. He invited bids — you were to be a B.C. Company. Had to be owned in B.C. at that time — not it's B.C.registered. That's all been changed.

Now there were a few odd things about it. Danny Ekman, the seldom-seen kid, happened to be in the Premier's anteroom and he happened to be there when the award was made, and he had happened to have left West Coast Transmission two or three weeks before.

These were all odd coincidences. But he had an explanation for that. He said, as reported in the Vancouver Province on October 14, he said he heard on the car radio while on the way to Vancouver Airport to catch a plane to Victoria on entirely separate business that the government bids were to be issued from the Premier's office. Now he's saying, of course, that there would be no tip off, no discussions by the Siamese triplets about this thing beforehand, that it was all above board.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Absolutely right, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not telling the truth.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): How are you involved? Are you involved?

[ Page 395 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Member was discussing someone who is not a member of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker, that if my friend, the Minister of Trade and Industry, is correct, why on a Saturday morning in a Vancouver hotel, in April, before the bids were called on April 29, were seen to meet — love those chamber maids! — at a hush-hush meeting, with an air of "we mustn't be seen together", Mr. Dan Ekman, Mr. Doug Owen — the former president of West Coast Transmission company, Frank McMann's right hand man still, and let me put it this way, a high ranking official of the pipeline and production service division of Bechtel.

Now there is only one inference that can be drawn, Mr. Speaker, by reasonable people and that is that a dumb show was being put on to fool the poor rubes of voters of the Province of British Columbia. That we are watching something that has been carefully orchestrated by Maestro Ekman, from the opening warble to the grand finale.

The company may change, I think it will change, but the plan will not change and I call upon this Legislature, and I say to the Legislature: "This is your last chance, this session." Unless this Legislature makes a decision that B.C. Hydro builds that pipeline, or unless the people change the government, then this orchestration will be carried right through to the infinite loss of the people of British Columbia.

It's a matter affecting the costs of natural gas to the homes of the people of British Columbia. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the letter from Chairman Shrum to the Honourable Leader in which Chairman Shrum himself agrees that the Hydro project would reduce the price of natural gas in the lower mainland, let alone Vancouver Island.

The time is important, because that's the kind of a project that could be built now. It could be a-building now to be completed in time for about 1973-74. It should be going ahead making jobs for the people of this province right now.

Instead of that we have a floodlit stage and appearances. Premier Bennett appears, pulls what seems to be a rabbit from the hat while all the time his political friends are out in the alley cooking a real rabbit.

What I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that when we have the instrument — and I quote from Governor William Egan of Alaska: "The state is pursuing plans to purchase control of the proposed Trans-Alaskan pipeline from North Slope fields to the Port of Valdez." I summarise. He said state ownership would yield $100 million more a year to the state than if the pipeline remained in private ownership. He's not antiAmerican. That's Governor Egan, he is an American, Mr. Speaker.

We already have the instrument, we have the skilled people in the gas division of Hydro. Why not let them go to work?

Meanwhile back on the ranch, with the brood mares and the colts and the fillies and an occasional stallion…. I'd like to begin this little section by reminding the Honourable Members of how the Attorney General last August, led the big parade, the big P.N.E. parade, riding tall in the saddle, through Vancouver Centre, through Vancouver East. But a mysterious thing happened. On the way to the exhibition gardens he was pulled out of the parade.

There was a strike. The jockeys were on strike. The jockeys were on strike because they were not going to get as big a riding fee themselves because of the cut in purses that had been decreed by the Minister of Finance.

But the Attorney General settled that strike in short order. He said that the edict of the Minister of Finance which was made — and I have the order-in-council here but I didn't bring it out on my desk — was made under the order in-council of 1956, would not be enforced but would be withdrawn. That the I per cent of purses as in the past for 22 years would go to all of the horses competing, be distributed fairly among them all. The Attorney General stood up and he said the Premier's letter will be withdrawn and the jockeys were happy and the horse players were happy, even Hothorse Herby was happy. The strike was settled but the trouble continued.

Since 1949, Mr. Speaker, I per cent of the betting take under the Pari Mutuel Act, has gone back to the horsemen to be distributed as purses. I per cent, that's a lot of scratch because the total take last year was $330,000 so we're talking about $3.3 million.

In 1956 the order-in-council was passed which said that the Premier of the province, the Minister of Finance, could direct the consumer taxation branch as to how these funds would be distributed so that all the Minister of Finance has to do is write a letter to the consumer taxation branch. He wrote such a letter last year and that was the letter that caused the strike and the letter that was promised to be withdrawn by the Attorney General but that was the letter than on December 21 last, the Premier wrote again.

There was to be no doubt who was running the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

Now the horsemen had met and in a meeting which was stacked by the big breeders they put through a request to the B.C. government that the I per cent should be paid to B.C. breeds only.

That resolution in a crowded meeting packed by the big breeders passed by a dirty nose and was sent to the government and the horsemen are going to meet again hopefully to rescind that motion.

In the meantime why did the letter go out again that the Attorney General had said had been withdrawn? Why did the letter go out again from the Premier on December 21, instructing that the I per cent — this is what we are talking about — should go to the B.C. breed only? It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the big breeders had got the ear of the great breeder himself in Victoria and he wrote his letter.

Now it is a fact that there is in British Columbia a ranch known as the Flying Horse Farm at Kelowna, run by one of our finest citizens and owned by one of our finest citizens — and I don't dispute that. Russell J. Bennett. He has on that farm much more than ever appeared on MacDonald's farm, I'll tell you that. He's got 18 brood mares, about 40 head of horses, and a great stallion. Magic Morn, I think is the name of the stallion.

Pretty fair hides, Mr. Speaker, no buzzard meat among them. The Premier won out and the directive was issued and the big breeders have got what they wanted.

Here's another of the big breeders. There aren't all that many in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Reg Ellet. He said in the paper of December 22, after they had got their way with the Premier, he said:

The B.C. Thoroughbred Breeders' Society believes that the amount of 1per cent of the pari mutuel handle given to the owners of B.C. bred horses who have shared in the purses will be a tremendous boon to the breeders of thoroughbreds in B.C.

It certainly will be a tremendous boon, Mr. Speaker, but

[ Page 396 ]

it is not at all in the interest of the racing public and the public and the treasury of the Province of British Columbia. It's not in the interest either, for that matter of Jack Diamond, who has his B.C. Jockey Club. All he's got there is a lease until 1993, I think it is; he's got a little land at Cloverdale; he's got the horse manure concession and he's got the liquor concession.

The lamentations are so loud from the B.C. Jockey Club that they're prepared to sell out for $5 million, what they have, including that lease. The idea, Mr. Speaker, that the horsemen should in a non-profit way take over the operations at exhibition park and the other things is a perfectly good idea.

I think that price is very steep. But the idea that you should not give the I per cent in purses fairly to all horses in the race is against the best interests, as I've said, of the people of this province.

Already because of that, because of poorer competition, because of fewer horses, because of less public interest, the racing days for 1972 are going to be cut back at exhibition park from 108 to 71. There will not be coming into this province as there has been in the past, competitive horses from Calgary, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Texas, Kentucky and the loss to the treasury — and we're talking about the budget — the loss to the treasury of the Province of British Columbia in cutting back the racing days which flows from this, is estimated at $800,000 and the loss of employment in Vancouver East at exhibition gardens — some 2,000 employees there in the racing season at the present time. How many of them will lose their jobs?

The purses should go fairly to all the horses. You talk about B.C. bred and it sounds fine, but really the owner can be an American. The owner of the B.C. bred, he gets the purse — he can be an American, he can be an Albertan, he can be a Calgarian; we're not protecting B.C. business in this way. It doesn't go to the breeder, it goes to the owner.

What will happen with B.C. bred, which means in effect that the foal must be born in B.C., what will happen is that the brood mares will be taken over across the line, covered in Texas or some other part of the world where the breed is good because there is sun and calcium — covered in Texas, brought back in a covered wagon across the B.C. border, dropping her foal in B.C.

Is this part of the Attorney General's idea of a sin-free B.C.? Are some of the breeders going to be picked up under the Mann Act in hustling their foals back just so they will be born in the Province of British Columbia? That can happen. So I say that this things involves an awful lot of scratch in terms of the big breeders of the province.

I am not charging the Premier of this province, whose son happens to be one of the big breeders, with any wrongdoing or corruption. I'm not, but I am saying that with a scratch of his pen he can throw a lot of scratch in the direction of the big breeders who are asking for this change and I don't think a decision like that should be made by the Premier.

I think the Attorney General was right and I'm just sorry that with so much trouble in the wigwam the Attorney General seems to lose these decisions.

That decision should be made by the Attorney General. We should not let the Bennett colts write the betting laws of the Province of British Columbia and the Premier's answer to the big horsemen should be neigh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting, the remarks of the last Member and in particular to know that he stopped not on a whinny but on a neigh.

Mr. Speaker, you know, this is really the first time I've had an opportunity to make an address in two of the great debates in this House and I can assure you that once again it's a pleasure to be able to speak to all of those over there in wonderland and I do wish that Mr. Wonderful was still in here.

Nice to see the wonderous ones and it looks as though the wee wandering wonder has wandered again, but I don't wish to catch any of the Members by surprise or to hold anyone in suspense. So in order to alleviate any questions that anyone may have in mind I wish to state this categorically and make it abundantly clear that I shall be voting against this budget.

Perhaps the only significant tribute to the budget I think must be for its production and I'd say a dozen roses to Mr. K.M. MacDonald, the Queen's Printer who once again has remarkably illustrated that form is heads and shoulders over substance.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is the last lookout, it's the last stand budget, and the fadeout is on its way. Quite frankly, I'm very much afraid that all of the combined efforts of Ronnie, and Billie, and Danny, and Crammy will never get this thing off the ground.

So what is the voter going to be offered in the coming election by the Social Credit? He's going to be offered the same old tired faces, the same singular pitch as before based on one word, fear.

For the fear merchant, Mr. Speaker, is following his same old programme for power. I've told you about that before and I am going to tell you about it again because the show's on the road. It always works in a three session basis — the first session he tests the new boys, he brings in a little bit of innocuous legislation, a little bit of money, tighten the belts, build up the reserves for next year and he harasses the vicious Liberals and he ignores the Socialists.

Then the second session is a little bit of a changeover, all the contentious legislation comes in. Get it off the trays, get it off the trays so the people aren't aroused at the polls, loosen up the money belt but not too much, just enough to whet an appetite. He continues to harass the Liberals but he starts to stuff a little bit of straw into the Socialists.

The third session — this is where we are now and it's the same pattern since 1952 — all of the motherhood stuff, the cornucopia spilleth everywhere. He starts to cool it a little with the Liberals, and he builds the Socialists into the biggest menace since the days of Genghis Khan (Laughter). Then he calls himself St. George and he tears around the province with his little lance trying to spear that poor little straw man that he tried to create himself. "N.D.P. or me," he says. "N.D.P. or me." I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this show's well on the road and he starting to pump all of the godless Marxian straw into this little troop over here.

It started, as a matter of fact, in November of last year and he became a little bit annoyed at a statement that the Leader of the Opposition made and he called him of all things a red Marxist, a red Marxist. (Laughter). Now we've had him called a pinko in the middle of this session and a socialistic waffler, but Mr. Speaker, the transparency of the Premier's argument is now becoming very, very obvious and I want to tell you why. In order to tell you why, you've got to look at the voting structure in any democratic society.

Essentially there are three voting groups. You have a hard,

[ Page 397 ]

hard right which is the minority. You have a hard, hard left which is also the minority and then you have got the majority middle which is certainly the area of numerical superiority and who I shall call the moderates.

Now in the past, there's no question of a doubt that the Social Credit have owned the hard, hard right. And they have also encroached on the middle where the Liberal strength is and the N.D.P. have owned the hard, hard left with I say little or no inroad on the majority moderate side of the middle.

But the Premier this time — if I may use the word, Mr. Speaker — has exposed himself too early and once too often. I say no longer will he be able to peddle this pitch of fear, "It's the N.D.P. or me," and I am going to tell you why.

The socialistic vote in this province is, has been, and will continue to be a static vote. I say it's going to be about 30 per cent or so — it's not going to be any more unless the whole western world and all of the technologically developed areas plunged into a total and irretrievable depression and only then would the Socialists make any appreciable inroad into the Province of British Columbia.

Because quite frankly and with every respect to these people whose sentiments I appreciate but whose political philosophy and whose economic philosophy leave me completely cold, B.C., gentlemen, does not want Socialism, it's just that plain.

Our land is too large, our resources are too great and you know there is still too much of a pioneering and adventuring spirit in B.C. people and a little bit too much snap in their garters to ever want to run the gauntlet of ever more government, more boards, more tribunals, more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more control, more taxes, less freedom, less pay in their pockets, less to spend, and less individual freedom.

So the Socialistic vote won't budge up one inch. But there's no need, Mr. Speaker, for B.C.'s silent majority — the shopkeeper, the housewife, the workers, the businessman or the fixed income people — to get all uptight about that. No way, because I'll say this, even though the fear-merchant will go to the province with his same old issue, his same old bit, "It's the N.D.P. or me," it's not going to be bought this time.

It's nothing more than political transparence. It's carnival talk and this time the B.C. people and the B.C. voters are going to see through that dodge because you know you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time and 20 years is time for a change.

What B.C. wants are policies, not fear talk. They want programmes for prosperity not abdication from responsibility. They want a change of government — yes they do, but they don't want a change of system. They want better government but not more government. They want social reform but not Socialism. And they can have it if and if the majority middle vote, the moderate vote, which is the Liberal vote — and if that vote as I projected will stand fast and will vote as it has in Vancouver — Point Grey, as it has in West Vancouver — Howe Sound, as it has in North Vancouver–Capilano, as it has in North Vancouver–Seymour, then Mr. Speaker, the next government of the Province of British Columbia will be a Liberal government and I say thank God for that, thank God for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go, go, go! (Laughter).

MR GARDOM: You know there is a lot of talk over in these ranks, over there too, about leadership, of where they're going to go. What is happening? Well, you know there's five people, Mr. Speaker, who have a great degree of prominence in this race which is starting to be run. I'd like to say the first declared and the early obvious was the Honourable the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson). But there is nowhere for him, I'm afraid he peaked before he was picked (Laughter). He's been treating his portfolio as nothing more than something to trip over.

Secondly, is the Honourable the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark). Ahhhh, a dark horse indeed (Laughter). And one book, Mr. Speaker, says he's got all the credentials. But he's not only the author, he is the publisher too, and I'm afraid he's going to be left right at the clubhouse turn.

The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi)…as someone said today, Hot-horse Herbie (Laughter). But he's being cut from the herd.

The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) — well, now I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if desire is the credential, he's some streetcar (Laughter). Because he has been establishing bases left, right and centre in the regional districts like the pharoahs that built pyramids, and he been trying as hard as he can to sound more like an echo of the Premier every day. Little Dan Echo, let's call him.

And the fifth, and it's too bad he is not here. He is the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) because this will make you folks over there quake in your very little booties. Because this is the rub, spelt r-u-b. He will control the convention, so if and when the Social Credit Party democratises itself to the point that they elect their leadership from their convention, who will control that convention but the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation.

Because you won't find at that convention the huge donors who support these people over here, you won't find at that convention the middle majority people who have fear-voted you in year after year after year. No, sir, you'll find at that convention the faithfully unique, or vice versa if you prefer (Laughter) — the flying circus folk and they'll be coming in on brooms from everywhere, Mr. Speaker, the anti-everything bunch and all of the I.O.U.'s of the Minister of Rehabilitation will come home to roost.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs may have the support of the cabinet but the support of the convention if and when it democratises itself will fall to that Minister of Rehabilitation.

Disaster, someone may say. Yes indeed. A disaster but inevitable. You know, this is one of the four reasons that the former Attorney General of this province, Mr. Bonner, left the government. One of the four reasons.

One of the reasons was his portfolio became a mess because the Premier sloughed Commonwealth Trust onto his lap. Secondly, he had performed a long haul and I think a very dedicated haul of public service and he wanted a change. Thirdly, he had a job offer that was not only mighty tempting but pretty challenging. And fourthly, he knew that even though he perhaps had the best intellectual credentials to take on the job a Social Credit convention would never accept him and so he left.

So I can assure you people that you are going to have some fun in store for you. As I've said, Mr. Speaker, this is a fadeaway budget, it's a last lookout budget, and if I may be permitted the extravagance of a little poem perhaps not too timely in February however, it goes this way:

"Good King Cecil last looked out,

[ Page 398 ]

On the Feast of Worley,
When the dough lay round about,
Deep and crisp and pearly"

And that's exactly where this government is sitting today because they've got the money, but they've lost the capacity to plan, they've lost the capacity to administer, they've lost the capacity to care for or forecast needs of the people of this province and I want to talk about some of these things in depth right now.

Election reform. Let's talk about election reform because one can't talk about the elective process without considering our B.C. Elections Act and the amount of money that the general public are going to be put to to have this unnecessary exercise. I'd say it's going to cost about $2 million of public money, and any consideration of this statute will result in the same inevitable conclusion which is best summarised by one word and that one word it tilt, t-i-1-t. We have here a government representing a minority of British Columbians, not a majority and they have continued to use this tilt just as another means of trying to perpetuate themselves.

First point, Mr. Speaker, this silly stipulation of order in the ballot. The government candidates, whoever they may be, are listed first. Surely to goodness, fairness would dictate choice by lot and I call for that amendment.

Secondly and worse of all the government paid absolutely no heed, absolutely no need whatsoever, to the fundamental principle of democracy that one man is equal to one vote. No way, not here in B.C. There is no such thing as fair electoral distribution within the province. It takes seven more votes per individual to elect one member in Vancouver–Point Grey or Vancouver East than it does in Columbia River (the Minister of Labour spoke a little while ago) and about three times more than in Nelson-Creston (the Minister of Highways). You know, Mr. Speaker, I would very seriously question as to whether this denial of voting justice — and that's what it is, it is a denial of voting justice — is not indeed a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights gives and I quote the Canadian Bill of Rights, it gives the individual "the right to equality before the law." And the Election Act is a law. And there's sure no right to equality in it but quite the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this government should change its name from the Election Act to the Tilt Act so the people would really know how they are being hosed, and I call for its amendment, in B.C., so we can have one man — or one woman for you Lib-ers over there — vote.

Three, for a better in depth response and even better public choice, let there be a system of preferential voting. Fourthly, let's have fixed election dates and not really and truly leave it to the caprice or whim of one man. How does it come about, how does the date come about? He opens the window one morning, he looks up at the sky, he says: "Mother, there's an E in the clouds, today's the day." What hypocrisy, what nonsense! No cabinet decisions, no governmental decisions for an election — the choice and whim of one individual.

We have a time stipulated in our statutes when elections are supposed to be and that's when they should be unless the government happens to be defeated in office.

In the new Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, the fifth point. There should be restrictions against public money being squandered by ambitious cabinet Ministers for their own political purpose.

I say it should be made illegal by statute, as I feel it is now immoral, unethical, and illegal by practice. Violators should face claims, personal claims by the public for restitution. I say once the election writ is out, there is no way that these glorious pictures — some with eyes open, some with eyes closed — of Cabinet Ministers should appear all over the Press of the province of B.C. with their names underneath them, with the marvelous things they happened to do 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 years ago.

We've got to make war, not love with those kind of political transgressors, Mr. Speaker. They have got to be held to public account. It's really and truly just that simple.

Public money should not be appropriated for the perpetuation of political office and that's what's happened in B.C.

Hydro, Hydro, Hydro. Who can ever, Mr. Speaker, consider a Bennett budgety-wudget without considering Hydro? It's a real high-amperage mish-mash. We pay the highest rates in B.C. In the Pacific Northwest. Our service is a question mark. The performance of Hydro and its prospects are beyond public scrutiny and it carries the lion's share of public debt and our per capita public debt 1969, $1,067; 1970, $1,011; 1971, $1,250. Every year, deeper and deeper we plunge our citizens into debt.

And in this budget, I'd say it was the most consummate gall of all, once again this government is trying to slough off the buses onto the municipalities.

You know, maybe Mr. Speaker, in reflection under B.C. Electric perhaps the province never had it so good. Rates were cheaper, service was better, and less impersonal than it is today and the public had at least some control then and the P.U.C. was totally separate and apart from the company. Not the situation of one autonomous arm of government attempting to tell another autonomous arm of government what the ground rules are, and both of these organisations could legally probably ignore each other.

Under the B.C. Electric there was some measure of accountability. It had directors, and the Honourable the Minister of Health knows something about the responsibilities of directors. He wrote a pretty good book on company law.

It had directors and their responsibilities were laid down by law. They have to account to their shareholders or they'd be voted out of office and the company had to account to the P.U.C.

Now the situation that we have in B.C. with these appointed directors, these political Jack Horners, the pals of the government, pretty juicy plums, no accountability to anyone.

They do what they want, when they want and how they want to do it and they can act with all the stealth and the silence they choose, safely secure and safely in retreat behind the silent curtain, behind the corporate veil and even worse than that, behind the Crown corporation veil, which in this province has become more impenetrable than Fort Knox.

Hydro has the carriage of the highest single asset in B.C. and the largest single liability. Yet the people who own this behemoth are without the capacity to question, without the right to receive any answers. The directors of Hydro do what they want, how they want, when they want it. They can load the debt onto the province if they choose. They can make behind-the-door construction decisions, supply decisions, energy decisions and all of these things which affect the lives and the well-being and the future both economic and ecological of all of our citizens.

You know, over the last two or three weeks, lines were down. Towers were twisted like pretsels, the electricity was

[ Page 399 ]

off, there were brown-outs, there was importation of U.S. power by the North West Power Pool. Knocked-out towers, damaged lines, the expensive repairs, cost of business interference, into the hundreds of thousands, no doubt into the millions and why?

Slides, silver thaws, winds, ice. But, Mr. Speaker, we've got to remember that B.C. Is not in Acapulco and we have snow and we have ice and we have strong winds and we have slides and we have mountains.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, these lines and towers had to be engineered and had to be constructed with those things properly in mind. I want to ask these questions. Will we ever get any answers? I don't know, but surely the public are entitled to ask the questions and let's hope we will have some of the answers.

Were these routes properly surveyed? Were the proper materials used? Were the correct tolerances utilised? Were the safety factors properly estimated? Were the correct sites chosen? Were they in short properly built?

Certainly, had Hydro been the old B.C. Electric, apart from the costly and disrupting public inconvenience and maybe claims or law suits for the same, the answers to these questions would be its problem. But no, this electrical jumble is owned by the people and they've been mortgaged to the eye-balls on it and the people are not permitted to have any say in its operation. They're not permitted to question its procedures and they're prevented from exercising any choice at all as to its direction or policies, past, present or future and they have that right.

I say it's no privilege, it's an absolute right.

No way, they can ask until they're blue in the face and so can the elected representatives in the assembly because answers just don't come forth. The directors of B.C. Hydro are not held to public account and errors are not revealed. If there are any they are never revealed, nothing is told — just "click" down goes the corporate veil. About the only ray of light that ever comes across today is when the president, Colonel Shrum finds that he himself cannot intellectually swallow the Premier's policies and then he hits them dead on, as he did recently with the overwhelming weight of evidence that the major future power needs will be best served by nuclear means.

It's not Colonel Shrum who should be most held to account, it's the two big brothers that this government stands to keep an eye on. The two cabinet ministers, the secret keepers, K and W, Kilo and Watt, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil — but also see no good, hear no good and speak nothing about Hydro.

These two great separatists by this government's direction and with their very ready acquiescence have separated themselves and have placed this electrical jumble beyond public question, beyond public scrutiny and beyond public account.

Once more I ask that not only Hydro, but all of the Crown Corporations be compelled to present themselves to the public accounts committee of this House for public examination of their revenues and expenditures.

Secondly, I ask that there be established a special standing committee of the Legislature for each Crown corporation with powers and responsibilities to examine fully into their modus operandi, their plans for the future, their cut-backs, their expansions and what, indeed if any, policies they may operate under.

I say no longer, Mr. Speaker, should B.C. have to tolerate these corporate behemoths with most, if not all of, our public debt on their backs, to be treated as spur-line ventures beyond the public eye.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I call for an immediate and full report which will be subject to public questioning, if necessary. If the questions are raised and the answers are not adequately forthcoming, then I think there should be an independent public investigation and inquiry into the causes and the costs of the power-line disasters we've recently experienced and for recommendations as to how to prevent their recurrence in the future.

To me it's incredible that the general public of B.C. have not insisted and their only opportunity of insistence is at the polls because for all practical purposes on this kind of a point democracy in the province dies in the polling booth. It's incredible to me why they have not insisted that they should be entitled to a full report of that which they own.

They own Hydro, they own the electricity lines, it's their money which has built these things. It's they who have suffered the personal inconvenience and the cost. It's their money that has got to be used to repair. They should be entitled to know why and they should be entitled to be assured that this kind of thing will not happen again and they should be entitled to the whole story. You know, quite frankly, Hydro should be put on the witness stand and should be told to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Before leaving Hydro, I'd like to say a couple of words about the preposterous suggestion of the slough-off of these transit systems on to the municipalities. I say to the municipalities and fortunately they saw the light the very day the suggestion was made, don't buy it or touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Hydro made a $16 million profit as of March 31 of last year and the fact that it has to supply bus service is its historical commitment and whether it's a loss leader or not it is Hydro's job — which it has not done — to come up with an imaginative programme to try to cut some of these losses and make the service more efficient and more attractive instead of once again trying to fast-shuffle them on to the municipalities.

Now I say to Hydro, do something, clean up your buses, perk up their interiors. Let's improve the bus stops, polish up your public relations, indeed even have a few transit hostesses along the lines of airline stewardesses who can hand out schedules and help the aged and mothers aboard the buses when they are laden with babies and packages and so forth. Distribute a few magazines and papers. Have some better scheduling, better routing, more express runs to central areas. A programme for more one-way, no-parking streets.

I read in the paper recently that Winnipeg has started a rather innovative programme of door-to-door pickups in the high density areas. Pay a little bit more for the service, you phone at a particular period of time and the bus will come down the street. They always have full buses and they take people from one high-density area to one dumping-off proposition.

You know, all you need is a little bit of innovation and a little imagination and a genuine effort to make the system work, because I quite frankly think it can work. But I think what Hydro is trying to do is something to the contrary. It's just as delighted if this thing could die on the vine as it appears to be happening right now. I do wish the Minister of Labour was in here. Oh, I do wish the Minister of Labour was in here.

I listened with interest to the Honourable the Minister of

[ Page 400 ]

Labour and I hazard the guess that his career is going to be as short as it has been unspectacular. One of the worst calamities this province has faced has been this government's patent inability to effectively deal with labour-management problems and I'd say, let alone ineffectively dealing with them, it has compounded them by its policies of division of polarisation and of confrontation.

There is certainly nothing in the Minister's remarks today that will indicate any improvement at all. Let's just take a quick look at the record. Industrial turmoil in the province has grown year by year and here are some of the figures. In 1961 there were 34,659 man-days lost; '62, the number was 32,987; in 1963, it was 24,956; in '64, it increased seven-fold up to 181,784; '65, 104,430; '66, 272,922; '67, jumped again to 327,272; '68, 406,729 man-days lost; '69, held a little, 406,645; 1970 it soared to 1,684,463 man-days lost and for 1972 Lord knows how much worse it's going to become, because unless something is done — unless reason is going to be the mandate for all concerned — B.C. Is pointing to an awful summer and the possibilities of a very, very, sick, sick, sick economy.

Are the 5,000 teamsters going to go out? The 38,000 wood workers, the 4,500 hotel employees, the thousands in the allied construction trades, the longshoremen, the tug-boat operators — are any of them going to go out? Just how bleak this is going to be, nobody knows. But we do know, what we do know, what very little this government has done to avoid confrontation and to establish a proper climate.

They've seen the signs, they're everywhere, they're around them. Companies are on the wane, secondary industry is in the doldrums. Three timber companies are down for the count or at least badly on the ropes — Eurocan, Columbia Cellulose, Bulkley Valley. Laing Construction has pulled out of B.C. MacMillan Bloedel and other B.C. timber concerns are expanding, not here in our province, but in South-east Asia and the vice-chairman of Laing Construction, Mr. Piemonte said this: "The labour situation here is very difficult to say the least." I think perhaps he could have used the word labour "policy" or the Social Credit government as opposed to labour or Labour Minister for that matter.

It's not a problem just created by labour alone and make no mistake of that. Not only, Mr. Speaker, will management be hurt, labour be hurt, industry be hurt and pretty well all the general public be hurt but so will government and all levels of government because without the revenues from labour and from industry, the government revenues will drop and there will be obviously some cut-backs in service.

The climate here today in B.C. Is really bad. In my view the forecast for the future is even worse.

You know, it's just like the leader of the Liberal Party said. It's like a time bomb ticking and it's ready to go off this spring or this summer. Little wonder, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is talking quick election. I'll tell you why — because he's scared stiff. He's scared stiff of facing this onslaught and he knows his government has not done its homework to deal with this situation. So what's he want to do? He wants to duck. He'd rather duck and advocate his government's responsibility and try to obscure the issue with a smoke screen of an election.

No, Mr. Speaker, he knows that if he had to wait out his constitutional term, which he can do, his present management-labour policies would be put to the test and he'd be defeated right smack in this House and he'd also lose nearly every seat in the province. That's why he's running scared and that's why he's using the election duck-out, the election duck-out.

Take a look at his "mediation commission." Take a look at that. Discredited in every sector. It's been rejected by labour, rejected by management and I say, Mr. Speaker, it has been rejected by far the majority of all sides of all Members of this House. It has become irrevocably ineffective and quite frankly in one, two, three, four words — it's got to go. It's got to go.

But from this unproductive and highly expensive lesson, fortunately, B.C. can salvage something. I say let's pull out of the ruins, the research and statistical data that has been compiled by this commission. Let's use that as a nucleus for an independent, industrial relations research and information service. This would be financed one-third by government, one-third by labour and one-third by management. In short it would become the public's, the public's very own microscope, and it would be free from government intervention or control, it would be free from management intervention or control and it would be free from labour intervention or control and its job would be to fact-find and to make public information that is objective and that is neutral and that is independent.

With this we could have a means of some sophisticated economic survey and a set of impartial statistics so the public would better know what the score really was rather than be subjected to a bunch of wildly-conflicting subjectively oriented data as management and labour try to feed them now.

I think it would be a very effective check and balance, Mr. Speaker, and one method of trying to bring to the everrepeating tribal dance between management and labour all the power of mass public opinion which would be correctly and hopefully independently formed.

Secondly, I reiterate the call of the leader of the Liberal Party that the labour committee of this House be put instantly on the job and have it meet and work and tour the province from end to end, from now and until all of these new contracts have been signed and import the message to management and labour that they have got to come to agreement because the economy and the public of B.C. are neither able nor willing to accept, to tolerate, industry-wide shutdowns or stoppages — be they strikes or lockouts — in 1972. I think we've got to try to eliminate this evil and pipe-visional policy of brinkmanship that too long, and too often has been practised in our province.

Thirdly, I'd call for a complete clinical in-depth and far-reaching examination of all labour management difficulties in B.C., I'd say from an eight pronged point of view.

From the point of view of costs, prices, production, markets, standard of living wages, profits and the public interests.

I'd call for the establishment of a five-man fullyrepresentative Royal commission to do just that. And I say it should start now. It would be comprised of Mr. Justice Nathan Nemetz, if he would accept it, as chairman with one appointee from labour, one appointee from industry, one appointee from government and one appointee representing the consumers and the fixed income groups in our province. Because we need cures in B.C., we need direction, we need a new approach because what the government has been doing over there, Mr. Speaker, has not worked and they are quite frankly pointing us to one direction only and that's spelt R-U-I-N — ruin.

Mr. Speaker, if this government's momentum had not been spent and if it wasn't too late to resuscitate it, let alone

[ Page 401 ]

revive it, and if it had the courage and the vision and the administrative executive capacity to incorporate the policies and the programmes and the priorities for betterment and reform that have been advanced by the leader of the Liberal Party and by my colleagues, in the Liberal throne speech and in the Liberal budget speech, this province and the public force that serves it instead of continuously being on the defence, of continuously reacting, of just having stale response — instead of just an ad hoc, hodge-podge decision making process — it would be on the attack against the problems that beset us. We would try and settle the divisions that divide us, and improvement and reform and a quality life for all B.C. people would become the order of the day.

Mr. Speaker, without any question the most singularly dramatic progressive and truly concerned measure that has been suggested in this session was the leader of the Liberal Party and his party's six-point charter of rights for our senior citizens.

For they are the pioneers of our way of life, they are the builders of our standard of living which we have inherited from them. It is they who were responsible for what we are today, but now they are mostly forgotten. They're the lonely, they're the abandoned, the cold and often hungry. Many of them are barely at sustenance level and now, Mr. Speaker, they're economically dead-ended in B.C. They're spokesmanless, and dispirited, and they have been so shallowly considered and so miserably dealt with, and so shabbily forsaken in this huge budget over there of plenty.

Now the six points that were raised by the leader of the Liberal Party were these. The right to freedom from all property taxes. The right to a rental supplement of $30 per month, to all those whose monthly income falls below $200. The right to free drugs and medical appliances, the right to unrestricted passes and public transportation. The right to chronic hospital care, the right to an abatement of the provincial personal income tax for those in need over 65.

You know, there's been a lot of talk in the paper these days about plebiscites, and I would challenge the government but they won't do it. So I would suggest to the Press that they do it.

Hold a plebiscite on these six points in the Province of B.C. And you know, the return would come in close to 100 per cent in favour.

Before moving to my motion I want to speak of a few other and complementary measures that can be taken at a cost of peanuts. All that is needed here is the adoption and acceptance of an appropriate philosophy.

Why not install an ombudsman so these old people can have a bit of assistance through the mountains of red-tape that they run into?

Why not have legal aid for those who are in need? Give them the right to get into the courts.

What about insurance? Why not extend the no-fault benefits to those over 65 instead of penalising them because they can't receive that at all?

Why not have a programme for aid for victims of crime? You know what happens Mr. Speaker, when a pensioner gets mugged and ends up with a broken hip? He goes to the hospital, gets taken care of. What happens to the person who does it if he's caught? Shipped away to Oakalla where he's fed and he's clothed and he's housed. But once the pensioner can get up he's pushed out of the hospital back on his own, gets the occasional visit from the V.O.N. But he's still crippled, and he's done in. His savings are squandered and he's no right to redress. And there's precedent all over the world for a plan for aid to victims of crime — in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and in the United States and Canada. As you all remember I introduced a bill of my own on two occasions right here in this House, and of course you wouldn't have anything to do with that. You just come up for the same cruel no. The same cruel no. And it wouldn't cost anything to help these poor people.

In the field of public structures, Mr. Speaker, why not go ahead when these things are built and take into account some of the needs of the handicapped?

I don't suppose there are many Members in the House who have not received correspondence from that exceptionally well spirited and delightful person Alex Clark who is a handicapped individual. Mr. Clark has informed us that here there is no way that any of the suites are constructed whereby a handicapped person can receive assistance. The stoves are too high, the facilities are too high. Quite frankly every time they put a pot on the stove they can run the risk of death by being burned. Why didn't you go ahead and have some programme in your public structure buildings so the needs of people can be kept in mind?

What about farmers' markets? Why not let some of these senior citizens be able to buy B.C. apples and fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers' prices? Give the producers a break instead of the distributor who is always getting all the gravy. I'm delighted to hear that the Honourable Member over there agrees with me.

Before moving my motion, Mr. Speaker, which is to be seconded by the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, I want to say a couple of words about the debate that we'll hear from the government side, and particularly the lady Minister who's already started to clarion across the floor. And it's going to go this way — "This is a vote of no-confidence in this government." And I say yes it is. Yes it is. It's a vote of no-confidence in this government, and the reasons for it are more clearly demonstrated than anything has ever been demonstrated in this Legislature before. The needs of these people are desperate, and the need of these people is now. And this government is going to say: "What about Ottawa? Why doesn't it do more?"

The "blame Ottawa boys." The B.O. Boys, the "blame Ottawa boys," the constitutional side steppers, trying to slither here and slither there and not do anything.

But Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is not the issue. This Government is the issue. This is B.C. This is our home, these are our old people, and I'd say, Mr. Speaker, whatever the imperfections of Ottawa or Afghanistan, or New Caledonia or Timbuctoo doesn't matter a whit to me when we can do the job herein B.C.

It doesn't matter a whit to any Members of the Opposition when a job can be done here. And nor does it mean anything to these elderly people who are silently suffering in this province. Theirs is the need, theirs is the need and it is our solemn responsibility to do something of significance for them, so they can spend their final days — not the way you will my wealthy friend — so they can spend their final days not in fear, and not in misery, but with dignity and in respect. So I move Mr. Speaker, and seconded by my honourable colleague the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour motion No. 13 in orders of the day which states: "That the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply be amended by adding the following words: 'But this House regrets that the budget speech of the Honourable the Minister of Finance fails to make adequate provision for the needs of

[ Page 402 ]

the senior citizens of the province."'

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, it is a parliamentary tradition in the British Commonwealth to use this method to illustrate where those who are not in government feel that those in government are failing the most, and this is the parliamentary tradition that I think all of us in this House should honour.

It is an opportunity for those who feel they are disenchanted, or for those who feel they are not being treated fairly, to have their say. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in seconding this amendment. Because it has disturbed me as the debates have proceeded during this session to see over and over again how Ministers of the Crown have been breaking their arms in attempt to pat their own backs.

The Member from Richmond (Mr. LeCours) who is a Member of the government party referred to it the other night as a tinkling cymbal or sounding brass. Mr. Speaker, I would refer to it as cynicism.

The tone was set by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford), the man who for so long has had the admiration of this House, when he discussed his administration of the agricultural aid and world disaster fund. He quoted letters from the Unitarian Service Committee, he quoted letters from World Vision of Canada. He made no attempt to mask the fact that the inclusion of these letters in this speech was for self praise.

And what was he praising himself for Mr. Speaker? He told us and I quote: "The total expenditure since the establishment of the fund has been $489,591, of which $371,637 was spent during 1971." The impression the Minister was clearly trying to leave with the House, Mr. Speaker, and with the people of British Columbia was that we should be proud of our contribution to the international aid fund, and by his own admission our contribution in 1971 was $371,637.

Work it out for yourself, Mr. Speaker. He wants us to be proud of our contribution of less than 17 cents per person. Is this the contribution the Minister wishes the people of British Columbia to have pride in? But he set the tone for the budget.

The Minister went even further. In his printed speech there are the words: "On a per-capita basis British Columbians contribute more than any place in the world." That's what he said. Not only are those words cynical, they're not factual. A simple check into the public accounts of the Government of Canada indicates that the federal government on behalf of the people made contributions during the same year of over $10 per person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't you still in Canada?

MR. CLARK: Yes we are, but that statement was worded in that way to pat yourself on the back. And that's why I refer to it. And when you start patting yourself on the back over contributions to people who are so unfortunate in the world then in my opinion you've sunk to a new low.

Now, we have the Minister of Finance following the same path, announcing grandiose economic expansion, and imaginative programmes for the future. The sadness of the budget, Mr. Speaker, is the cynicism it displays. The tragedy of the budget is the effect of this cynicism on the elderly.

For what did the budget contain for the elderly? The Minister of Finance provides an additional $50 home-owner grant for the elderly. Here's a half-way measure if there ever was one. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that by putting this measure in the budget the Minister of Finance is saying "that's the best we can do this year. That's the best we can do for the elderly of British Columbia this year."

In my earlier address during the throne speech debate I acquainted the House with just one piece of property owned by an 85-year-old woman and how its assessment has increased over the years. In five years her assessment has increased by $8,848. Let's take a look at how this magnificent budget helps this 85-year-old woman, who is quite typical.

In 1971 in the district of North Vancouver this woman paid taxes totalling $336 after her home-owner grant had been deducted, I'm even giving you the credit for that. In 1972 her taxes after the home-owner grant, after the additional old age grant, will be $560.13.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big help!

MR. CLARK: That's the big help for the home-owning elderly Mr. Speaker. An increase in taxes of $223.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose fault's that?

MR. CLARK: I'm glad the Hon. Member asked the question. I'm glad he raised the point. Is this the best the economy of British Columbia can provide? Because here is how the elderly could be assisted.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CLARK: There was no change in zoning to answer the Member's question from across the way. No change at all. By his admission the Minister of Finance says it is impossible to remove those provincial responsibilities that now burden the shoulders of the municipality, because it's not in the budget. The Minister of Finance says in his opinion we can't remove those responsibilities from the municipality. And that's why municipal taxes are going up. Let the municipal affairs Minister deny that. He knows it's true. He's the Minister that didn't even get an increase in the per capita grant. He's the Minister more than any other who has to answer to the elderly in this province whose home taxes will increase this year.

This is the Minister, as well, Mr. Speaker, that was given the task by the Premier of eating his own words — because I agree with the Minister, there are many taxation methods that could be used to assist the elderly who own their own homes.

One of those methods is deferred taxation. The Minister got up in an earlier debate, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, to say it will never be Social Credit policy to allow senior citizens to defer payment of their taxes until after their death or sale of their property. The Members remember, the Minister said it would never be Social Credit policy.

Is that the same Minister who on September 8, as quoted in the Victoria Times and the Vancouver Province and the Sun, said to the City of Victoria and I quote: "He would be happy to ask the Legislature to allow the city to grant property tax relief to persons 65 or over." He'd be happy to do so. The Minister told the City of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, he would seek to amend the Municipal Act, the municipalities enabling and validating Act, to enable Victoria to proceed with such a scheme if Victoria asked him to do so. The same

[ Page 403 ]

Minister that got up the other day and said: "Never will it be Social Credit policy."

So he would do something on behalf of the city that was against the principles of his own party, is that what the Minister is telling us? The Minister, you see, was favourable to the deferred taxation principle until he was called into the Premier's office and told no. Then we listened to him eat his own words.

But here is another way the elderly of this province could be assisted, Mr. Speaker. Let's turn to housing. And first let's differentiate between the housing requirements of those elderly citizens who are fortunate enough to maintain their good health and those who by reason of age require the assistance of society because of their poor health.

The healthy, it is suggested by the budget, Mr. Speaker, are adequately housed because the Minister offers no additional plans. He is stating clearly that the healthy are adequately housed.

The other day, the lady Minister without Portfolio for Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) suggested there is adequate housing for elderly, they're doing fine. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the lady Minister has surely been living in the world of flowers too long. She is really beginning to believe that you can brighten the world, that dismal, cold, lonely world of the elderly, with a bouquet of flowery words.

Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister detailed the senior citizens' housing units that have been built in this province during the past year. He did that. Right. Housing units, he detailed them all. But he too was so busy breaking his own arm patting his own back. Did he spend one minute telling us about the senior citizens who do not have adequate housing and who this government has neglected? Oh, no. Here is this group of statistics over here, Mr. Speaker, but forget the rest. Forget the rest.

You see, Mr. Speaker, what that lady Minister could not acknowledge was provincial government sponsorship of senior citizens' housing units by their own hands, because there are so few examples. This is the government that says: "You do it." This is the government. This is the government that says: "Oh no, we don't want to build the housing for the elderly. Let the municipalities do it. Let the Army and Navy Veterans do it. Let the Canadian Legion do it. Let the Kiwanis do it." Let everybody else do it but themselves. Is that leadership, Mr. Speaker? Is that leadership? They'll pat themselves on the back for the credit but they won't take the initiative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Riding on the backs of all the service clubs in British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: The budget ignores that large segment of the elderly who have an income marginally over that which allows them into these housing units. What about them? The budget clearly demonstrates even for the Minister who can't do anything else but blame Ottawa that this government feels it cannot do better than it's presently doing in the field of housing for the elderly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to think the people of British Columbia can do better and if the government can't lead them, then get out.

What does the budget do, Mr. Speaker, for those who will spend the rest of their lives as tenants? For those who have never owned their own home, who never will be able to own their own home? What about them? The government's continued imposition of more and more financial responsibility upon municipalities continues to affect these people too because it drives up the taxes which impose rent increases on the people who can least afford it.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed, as the leader of the Liberal Party has proposed, a rental supplement to begin at $30 per month for all those whose monthly income falls below $200. And we can afford to do that right now, right now.

And, Mr. Speaker, I just ask the Members to consider again, and the people of British Columbia to consider again, that by their budget documents this government is saying: "That's the best we can do, we can't do any better."

What about the field of intermediate and chronic care, Mr. Speaker? While this government cynically brags about the number of units and the number of beds they've provided during the past 12 months, again they're so busy patting themselves on the back, they make no mention of the waiting list, no mention of the waiting list. And it's the list of people waiting for adequate health care that demonstrates the cynicism of this budget.

Just an example, Mr. Speaker. In my own riding the Minister did open a unit for extended care during this past year. But here's a letter about a person in my riding. The writer of the letter refers to her sister and I quote:

My sister suffered a stroke on October 4 of 1971 and was admitted to Lions Gate Hospital. She was to be transferred to an extended care unit but the waiting list is so long that she was eventually placed in the hospital where she is at the present time….

which is a private nursing home at rates between $500 and $600 a month.

My sister was a nurse in North Vancouver for about 40 years, much of that time as matron of the North Vancouver General Hospital. She retired two years after the present Lions Gate Hospital opened. Since then she continued to be active in the Hospital Auxiliary, actually suffered her stroke while in the hospital buildings on Auxiliary business. She has looked after the Red Cross Loan Cupboard situated in the hospital and also drove cancer patients for treatment when asked to do so.

Now Mr. Clark, my purpose in writing to you is this. My sister could improve greatly with the proper care, that care offered in the extended care units. If the treatment is delayed much longer, I fear that it will be too late to effect any improvement in her condition.

The letter continues, Mr. Speaker:

We are a large family and we would take her into our own home as soon as that paralysis has improved to such a degree that she is manageable in a home. It seems ironic to me that my sister gave unstintingly to her profession and now when she so desperately requires specific care, she cannot get it.

Now, let's hear the applause from the lady cabinet Minister from Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the one who cares. I wrote the Lions Gate Hospital administrator to find out what the situation was and let's get ready, those Members can pound their desks for this one. This is how well they've done.

In my view, there is no one on the North Shore who is more deserving of consideration for admission to extended care. Unfortunately we must follow B.C.H.I.S. criteria in all cases necessitating admission according to the date their application for admission was made and I agree with that principle.

Our records shows that there are over 260 awaiting admission….

[ Page 404 ]

Remember this hospital just opened this year, Mr. Speaker.

There are over 260 waiting admission, a high proportion of these are women. Those now being admitted made application July 1971, so it might be a year before this lady's admission comes up for consideration.

Now, applause! Where's the applause now, Mr. Speaker? Where are the smart remarks about Ottawa? That's their record. No one else's. If they want to claim credit for their constructive measures then they can start claiming credit as well for things like that.

Mr. Speaker, we have chronic care in this province at $600 a month. And, Mr. Speaker, through you to this government, is the government prepared to accept the credit as well for the cruelty that exists when one member of a husband and wife partnership is ill and must be placed in hospital away from his lifetime partner? Is there anything more tragic? After 40, 50 years of marriage for a wife to watch her husband go into hospital, never to be able to care for him again, because we have not provided any imagination in our facilities that would enable people to be cared for in that position and still live in close proximity? Does that take that much imagination? I don't think so.

If we can think of it, surely the government can. Mr. Speaker, does the government accept credit as well for the cruelty that they impose on many elderly women who care for their dying husbands at home in order to preserve their meagre estates? How many members over on that side have seen that situation, and now want to applaud? Where a woman watches her husband die rather than admit that man into hospital because admitting him to hospital is going to cost $600 a month and the husband's last wish in all probability is to make his wife promise never to do that so that his wife could at least be left a little estate.

And, Mr. Speaker, the budget that we are considering clearly demonstrates the government's inability to do any better than that.

Let's turn to medicare benefits. By the admission of the budget and by the motion we now consider the government is telling the people of British Columbia that they can do no more for the elderly in terms of medicare benefits. If they could do more it would be in their budget, so by its not being there let the elderly of British Columbia realise that the government offers them nothing more in medicare benefits. By budget admission they admit they can't even lower the premiums of medicare. And Mr. Speaker, specifically we propose again as the leader of this group did earlier in this debate, the complete elimination of medicare premiums for all those 65 years and older.

And I can't help adding even Alberta can do that — they've done it. But that's right. Alberta got rid of the Social Credit. It took one of those old line parties to bring in that scheme.

Mr. Speaker, we propose as well the inclusion in medicare of hearing aids and batteries, eye-glasses, false teeth, crutches, artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and all other essential health needs. And let the records show the laughter was that of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell). He laughs.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's laughing now, he thinks it's a joke, a big joke.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: A big joke…those members shout across "sanctimonious" — if they think it is sanctimonious then what is it to be in government and do nothing? That's cynicism. That's cynicism of the worst kind.

And, Mr. Speaker, what about government organisation for the elderly, something that just doesn't even exist on that side of the House? Those benefits they do provide are scattered throughout numerous Ministers. To be specific again, we propose a department whose sole responsibility is for the needs of the elderly. Its purpose, Mr. Speaker, its sole purpose would be to mobilise the resources of this magnificent province so that the elderly citizens can live with pride and dignity for the rest of their lives. That would be its sole purpose.

The first task of that department would be to increase provincial assistance to the elderly so that pensions were raised to a minimum of $200 per month as a start.

There have been shouts from across the way, Mr. Speaker, about "42 cents a month". I think, of anything in this debate, those shouts have been the most cynical. I will go so far as to suggest that many who have shouted that phrase across the floor don't even know what it means and what the 42 cents represents.

In 1966, for the benefit of those Members, the Government of Canada amended three significant pieces of legislation — the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Assistance Plan, and the Canada Pension Plan. Indeed, some of them were new plans, and in those plans there was a provision for the pensions to be tied to the cost of living. A provision to tie the pensions to the cost of living Mr. Speaker, was in no way a provision to set the level of pensions. Any members who know what they are talking about on that side of the House, know that.

You can go to the library here, Mr. Speaker, and pull out of the debates in reference to tying pensions to the cost of living. You can get representation from every party except Social Credit. You see, Mr. Speaker, they didn't speak in the debate, that was their concern on this particular aspect of the pension. We hear a lot about them in this House but where they had representation in the federal House in 1966 when this bill was being considered they were silent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Like they are now. They're silent now.

MR. CLARK: My friends down the way had an eloquent spokesman in that debate — a man I admire very much who probably more than any other private Member has fostered the principle of pensions in Canada and I refer to Stanley Knowles.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're only a Socialist….

MR. CLARK: Is that your answer?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: So the records may show that that's the Minister of Labour's contribution to the elderly.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, Stanley Knowles had something to say about the principle of tying pensions to the cost of living. He was referring to the Canada Pension Plan and he was referring to several sections of the bill.

[ Page 405 ]

In addition to that there has been built into the Canada Pension Plan an escalator which increases the potential value of the contributor's pension during the years he is working and contributing to the plan.

This is the same escalator that is in the Odd Age Assistance Act.

The escalator which operates while the contributor is working is geared to the wage index — in other words it's geared to an increase in productivity and to the fact that the standard of living goes up.

If that principle has been accepted I give the government credit for it.

Stanley Knowles said that. I'd be the first to admit that I don't think the federal government has set a high enough level for old age pensioners but to shout this 42 cents business across the floor has got to be pretty crass cynicism. Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Because, Mr. Speaker, how did the Social Credit Party vote on that plan that they're now shouting across the floor? That is those Social Credit members who were in the House. You see Mr. Caouette wasn't there, Mr. Patterson wasn't there….

AN HON. MEMBER: How many Liberals were there?

MR. CLARK: You walked into it. You walked into it. There was only one Conservative absent and there were no Liberals absent on that. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Who voted in favour of the principle? Mr. Fulton voted in favour — Mr. Fulton, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Lewis, Mrs. McGinnis, Mr. Mather — and who's this? Robert Thompson. What's-his-name? What's-his-name, what's-hisname? The leader of your party at that time was prepared to stand up for the principle that tied a cost of living bonus into the pension and separated that from the level at which the pension would be set.

So if those Members wish to shout across criticism of the federal Liberal government do so by all means but at least, Mr. Speaker, may the Members be honest with the elderly and criticise the government for the level they set their pension at.

Mr. Speaker, the budget by its own admission demonstrates that in the opinion of this government the people of British Columbia cannot afford to pass along the privilege of even bus and ferry passes to the elderly, even that.

The Minister of Finance by his own admission says we are not wealthy enough to allow the elderly to ride in the empty seats of the bus. Are we talking about something that's important, Mr. Speaker, in this proposal? Is it important enough to be considered by the government? Let's talk about the situation which again is typical — a letter to myself dated February 7 of this year:

My husband is in Shaughnessy hospital. I was travelling to Shaughnessy every day to feed him as he cannot feed himself. With the fares and the little treats to come out of $135 I can assure you that I had a wonderful time.

Some long time ago I asked the Member for Vancouver-Burrard if he could do something about this problem. People of 65 and older who get part or all of their supplementary from Ottawa can get a bus pass but the person that saved their own $35 a month, say in an annuity, cannot get one.

I cannot walk very far and it's 25 cents every time I get on the bus. Now, take today, I had to go to Shaughnessy to see the doctor at 9:00 o'clock this morning. That was 25 cents. Then on the way home I called at a shoe store to pick up some shoes, I have to wear special ones. Then get on the bus again to come home, another 50 cents. Total so far 75 cents. This afternoon I went back to the hospital as I do every day to feed my good man his supper. He cannot feed himself as he has Parkinson's disease. There was another 50 cents. The total $1.25 for the day. The Member for Burrard did nothing about this and I got tired of writing him.

To the letter writer I say the Government of British Columbia has done nothing about this. I wonder if you are tired of voting for them. Because, Mr. Speaker there's the issue. In this grand budget that they presented to this House, they didn't even have enough money, they didn't even have the management or the will power to bring in free bus passes for people like that with husbands in Shaughnessy hospital.

The elderly of this province, Mr. Speaker, are left to stand alone, and left to fend for themselves. Thousands of elderly citizens are not even aware of the benefits the government does provide. But they've done nothing to make them aware. They've made no real effort to assist the elderly in taking full advantage of what programmes there are available to them. Their philosophy is wait for them to come to us.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CLARK: I'm not being ridiculous, madame Member, I'm not. Mr. Speaker, the elderly can spend many tense and upsetting hours worrying about such details that we can cope with with ease, thanks to younger years and better health. For many of the elderly the obtaining of a birth certificate is a crisis. That's the crisis and if those Members want to judge their own information services let them and find out as an elderly person how to get a birth certificate.

They've made no effort to reassure the elderly, they've used no imagination in setting up local depots, local clinics, local headquarters, where the elderly could go in without the confusion of bureaucracy.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: That's exactly why it's not working, Mr. Minister, that's exactly why it's not working. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the local dedicated volunteer who devotes his time to assisting the elderly. Thank goodness for them.

Leave it to volunteers. Leave it to voluntary donations, leave it to the municipalities.

"Oh," says the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I ask him then why wasn't it in his budget, the improvement of this programme? Where is his leadership in helping every community in British Columbia to make available to its elderly recreation facility that would make their lives so much more interesting and enjoyable? The recreation facilities that are available to the elderly in most communities are those made available through voluntary agencies through community chests and through municipal fiscal sources.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You don't know what you're talking about.

[ Page 406 ]

MR. CLARK: Says the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell that, Mr. Minister, to North Shore Neighbourhood House where one of the greatest activities in the community is located. It's the simple method of bring the elderly together for tea, for a dance, for a speaker, done by volunteers. Done by volunteers. "No fooling" says the Minister. Didn't he know about it? Of course he didn't. He hasn't made any effort to go out and start these programmes. No real effort at all. No real effort at all.

Earlier in this debate, Mr. Speaker, earlier in this day in fact, the Minister of Labour said that the budget recognises the priorities of the day. Well, I think perhaps it does recognise the priority of this government — and let the people of British Columbia recognise what those priorities are. Nothing for the elderly of this province in any of the areas I've mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago John Galsworthy said how to save the old that's worth saving — whether in landscape, houses, manners, institutions or human types — is one of our greatest problems and the one that we bother least about.

Mr. Speaker that's what this motion is about. Because it gives us an opportunity on behalf of the elderly to tell the Government of British Columbia: "Your budget doesn't do enough for that section of society that needs help the most. It doesn't do enough because if you could have done more it would have been in that budget." Let's recognise by this motion, Mr. Speaker, the empty pages of concern for the people of British Columbia in the budget address of the Minister of Finance. For those reasons I happily second this amendment and will stand accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I wish to speak for a moment against this motion but in no way against the senior citizens of this province for which every individual must have a very high admiration.

Number one, I'd like to suggest that the second Member from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) did an admirable job of making his speech. He for once in his life dropped his phony Harvard accent. He spoke like a true Canadian, but I've been in this House for a long time and I've seen many different moves made by the political parties across the way and I brand this particular move as a cheap political trick using the old age pensioners as a pawn in a political game. I don't think there is anything that's more shameful than such a thing as this on the floor of this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Number two, both Members that spoke are trying to camouflage the inadequate programme of the federal government in this field.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you live?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I know where I live. I know where I live. I was the first man in the Province of British Columbia to head up a senior citizens high rise project where the federal government does not give a 5 cent piece of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put some more up.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's exactly what I'm going to do is put some more up. But I want to point out to the Members who spoke that represent the Liberal group that the federal government does not pay a peso to any one of those senior citizens' homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a penny, cent or anything.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: And if you want to come with me and sit down I'll show you the minutes, and I'll take you through the amount of bureaucracy that I had to go through to be able even to build a senior citizens' home because the federal government looked like it was going to stop it. If it wasn't for this government, the programme that it's carrying on on behalf of senior citizens, they would be getting even the partial fair deal that they're getting at this particular time.

I'd like to further suggest that this, all this great political falderal that's being put up by the Liberals at this time is nothing but another effort to try and camouflage an $85 million taxpayer bill that's being given on behalf of many students in this nation to romp across the country in the summertime at the expense of the senior citizens.

I say that if the young people can do it then $85 million more should be put up for the senior citizen as well. No reason why they shouldn't have as good a deal as anybody else.

I don't think for one moment that anybody is going to brag about what's being done for the senior citizens just purely in the matter of dollars and cents. But when the Member from Vancouver-Seymour suggested that this government was heartless and that it is cruel and that we had no type of recreational facilities or no aids or no help to senior citizens I want to tell him that I happen to be in one of the departments that helps to look after senior citizens.

My right arm is the lady Member for Powell River (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) the Hon. Minister who is doing an outstanding job and her sole task is looking after senior citizens to see to it that this government does a good job.

There isn't any person in this province that knows as much about what goes on among the senior citizens than the Hon. Minister without Portfolio for Powell River. Every day the Hon. Member is coming to me with new things and innovations and new ideas and new programmes for the senior citizens which she constantly is working for.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Well, I'll tell you one thing, she'll have it long before you'll ever get it. That's for sure. Chew your gum and go sell another insurance policy. Sit around as a fat cat, as a Socialist enjoying the privileges of a first-class free-enterprise government. There isn't anything in the world that to me speaks more of cynicism and these words I want to throw right back into the teeth of the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour.

He talks about cynicism. He's displayed more of it on the floor of this House this afternoon than I think I've ever heard on the floor of this House. The Member from Point Grey got up with his famous dramatics and his nice great big double-jetted 16-syllable words trying to dazzle everybody and it didn't add one iota to his stature or anything that he said on the floor of the House.

[ Page 407 ]

I tell him I'd certainly run about 15th to his charade in vaudeville, that's for sure.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as the senior citizens are concerned I want to make something plain. British Columbia is guaranteeing — and these statistics are from my deputy — British Columbia is guaranteeing on a needs test basis a monthly income of $176.30 for a single person. Senior citizens — that is married senior citizens — $307.30. Now in addition if a person is receiving any portion of the provincial government supplementary social allowance such person receives full health services, including free hospitalisation, medical and dental, drugs, transportation and other ancillary services.

The Member from North Vancouver–Seymour said we're not doing anything for them in transportation. Would he want the senior citizens to be jammed in a bus when the buses are so heavily crowded that they can hardly get out, or hardly get in? Has he ever thought of who has to pay for the second bus, the third bus, the fourth bus, and the fifth bus? The City of Vancouver is screaming enough now. These services are costing the Province of British Columbia last year $13,657,000 per 16,000 persons.

Now, in addition there is approximately 10,000 to 12,000 persons receiving full health services who had their provincial government supplementary social allowance discontinued at the time that the guaranteed income supplement was introduced. According to the statistics that I have, my information is that British Columbia has the highest cash allowance on benefits for its senior citizens than any other government in this nation.

AN HON. MEMBER: For sure. Way higher.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: In the fall of 1966 when the federal government announced the guaranteed income supplement of $30 per month to take effect on January 1, 1967, the government of the province….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Now, just a minute. That's exactly what you've been peddling on the floor of this House all along, is misinformation. You listen to what I've got to say.

The Government of the Province of British Columbia immediately took action, not waiting, it took action in the interests of the British Columbia senior citizens — the majority of whom were enjoying the maximum supplementary social allowance of $30 — to exempt the guaranteed income supplement payments as income, in determining eligibility for provincial supplementary social allowance. The Premier of this province wanted, as Minister of Finance, to pass on the full increase to the senior citizen, and this was announced by the Premier.

Now, what has the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour got to say to that? What was the answer? The federal government said ziltch. It said no. Whoever the Minister of department was — they change them so often down there, like the N.D.P. has to change its chameleon coat.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got the letter right here.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: He can table the letter if he has to. Because the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time was the Minister and he fought the battle to the best of his ability. But the federal government said no. Now this is what they stated, now listen to it. They stated that if the British Columbia government continued to pay supplementary allowances without taking the guaranteed income supplement into account as income they would not share it. They wouldn't share it. Now, what happened then?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You made that speech last year and I told you were wrong.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: This government never shirked its responsibilities on behalf of the senior citizens. This government hasn't tried to make a political football out of the senior citizens. This government was then faced with the problem of continuing health services to some 13,000 people who lost their British Columbia supplementary allowances because of federal government action, and because of the niggardly attitude of the federal government. British Columbia continued health services at 100 per cent of the costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the federal government pay?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Nothing, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to pay some.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No they don't. No sir, they don't. The federal government continued health services in this province and the federal government has not shared in the cost of these services for this group right up to this day. I tell you those are the facts.

There are many more things that I could say but I'm not going to say them, because after all there are other Ministers who are also working hard on behalf of the senior citizens. The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Oh, he's got a good name. When the Campbells start coming, mister, you'll head out, believe me. You better believe it. Yes sir. When you hear those old bagpipes you'll be trembling in your shoes. Don't you ever think about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have bagpipes right now.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's right. Go chew your gum and peddle your insurance.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You'll hear them before this day is out, my friend.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, this government has got a soul, this government is spending 80 per cent of its budget on humanitarian needs, and the young people, and the elderly citizen are part of that programme. As long as Social Credit is in power the senior citizen will get a better deal year after year as they did this year and it will continue that way, so help me God.

[ Page 408 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): I've listened with a good deal of interest to the mover and seconder of this amendment to the motion that is before us, and I want to address myself to that amendment.

Now, no matter what my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey had to say in the introduction of his motion doesn't mean that it is a fact. He tried — not because of us, because we all know better — but perhaps some members of the Press who are new and do not know, because of perhaps who are sitting in the gallery, or perhaps what was said on the radio before the motion ever got before the House, it is a fact, no matter what one says, that he tried to move a motion of non-confidence and develop the great emotionalism that was developed relative to this particular motion.

A while ago in previous debates, Mr. Speaker, we got talking about glue sniffing, and rightfully so. We got into just recently, with this motion, a little election sniffing. Now, that's exactly what has happened and I think it's a pretty sad commentary when we have to resort to the tactics of using the elderly citizen in the way my friend over here a moment or so ago said.

If I might repeat a phrase of the seconder of the motion "let's be honest with the elderly." Now I'm 100 per cent with that. Let's be honest with the elderly. Let's tell them the truth. Because I want to tell you as a result of debates and exchanges that have taken place in this House if the elderly citizens in this province are not confused I'll be very much amazed.

As a matter of some interest, the seconder of the motion, Mr. Speaker, during the course of making his livelihood on his radio show, had calls from varying people who were asking him about the $50 on the homeowner grant, in respect to legislation before the House. They had varying questions to ask him. Some good, some critical, some questioning, and so on. But never once did the seconder of the motion say: "Alright, perhaps it's not enough, but it will help." He never once said that, not one time. Not one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you stand your feet on that?

HON. MR. BLACK: I know perfectly well. I didn't hear quite so, but I know from the source from which it came.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never get that the other way.

HON. MR. BLACK: Let's take a look at the situation. This government since it came in in 1952 has been very conscious of the plight of the elderly citizen. And I'm just wondering, there's one Member that has long since gone to his reward who spoke on elderly citizens long before I came here, and I've certainly never stood here and taken credit for it, because it's not belonging to me at all. I'm entitled to part of it, but the late Mr. Winch was speaking in this House on elderly citizens long before I came here, and rightfully so. With the assistance of Mr. Winch — and some Members were here at that time and know that I'm speaking the truth — the Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act as you know it and have it on the statute was developed by Mr. Winch, myself and departmental officials. That's how it was developed and there it is, and it is a good Act.

You know we talk about elderly citizens as though every last elderly citizen in Canada was a citizen of British Columbia and you know our dear friends over there in the Liberal benches, Mr. Speaker, want to forget conveniently that those elderly citizens are Canadians too. They're Canadians too. The federal administration has a responsibility to them too.

Because I have no doubt that when these elderly citizens were in their earning or productive years they did in fact pay income tax, even as you and I, and I think they have a right to expect some concessions.

Alright, my friend the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) says: "Oh, the lady Member is going to cry and whine, 'it's all Ottawa's fault'." Now, I want to tell you it perhaps is not all Ottawa's fault, but Ottawa must take a share of the blame if indeed any blame is forthcoming. They certainly should.

Goodness, I have been at the opening or cornerstone laying of most elderly citizens' homes throughout the province — I haven't been to them all but most. And the federal chappy — true, a civil servant — will show up large as life, and twice as natural and wants to take all the credit for building the blinking home.

Then on top of that, correct me if I'm wrong, particularly of a recent date the federal government is so proud of their loan they gave these folks they put up these enormous signs advertising them.

But you see, of course we're not using the elderly citizen as a political football. Of course we're not. Come now, there's always another side of the story. Let's talk about the elderly citizen and just to be on the right side of the fence I'll talk about my own mother.

Now, my mother has since passed away but just a simple thing like filling out the form for medicare I offered to do, my brother offered to do it for her. But no way — she's going to do it herself. She did it and it was made out all wrong, and she had problems because she was too stubborn to let one of her sons do it for her. These elderly citizens, my point is this they have a pride of their own. They want to do some of these things for themselves.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Fine, I didn't invent, nor this government invent, the rules of means tests under which these elderly citizens operate, my friend. We didn't invent those rules. Those rules were dictated to us from that awful place that we're always criticising. We aren't the ones that penalise thrift, because in our society — the honourable gentleman is quite right — if somebody saved $3,000 prior to their retirement they're penalised as a result. That is a true statement. Of course we are.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Yes, it has to be, certainly it has to be, because these elderly citizens' homes cannot degenerate into low-rental housing. That isn't the purpose for which they're created at all. I have the sole right of raising those rents. Believe me, I don't want to but there are circumstances in which I am forced, otherwise the society that operates the home cannot operate as a result. And I think personally there is great strength in having the community take part in this sort of thing.

Let's talk a minute about medicare. I don't want to debate medicare at this time because I'm going to have ample opportunity to do that at another time. But I want to say

[ Page 409 ]

this: take a look at the concessions that are given to the elderly. If they have no taxable income they only pay 50 cents a month. Practically nothing. If their taxable income is less than $1,000 they pay $2.50 a month.

Now my dear old departed mother didn't have any more money than anybody else. But I want to tell you she paid a lot more than $2.50 to have her hair done. I don't say she shouldn't have had it done. People today, goodness even men — and I'm just as Scottish as my friend opposite, I sat in the barber's chair and kind of wasn't paying any attention and instead of getting the $2.50 hair cut I got a hair style — I got $4.50. I pretty near fell out of the chair. So my point is people are paying more for hair cuts today and having their hair done, than they are for medicare.

Now which is the more important? Some around the House don't believe in hair cuts at all. Anyway, let me say this I could read out a list as long as your arm — but I'm not going to at this moment — of what this government has been able to do relative to the senior citizen. Because I don't want to take away from what my colleague the Minister without Portfolio may have to say relative to the subject. I think the amazing thing about this type of debate is that we're not being honest.

I say that you have every right to criticise the budget if you think that that budget is not adequate and it's been traditional. If all these things are true today why didn't those Members move the same motion last year when relatively speaking the budget was just as good? Why didn't they move it the year before because relatively speaking the budget was just as good? Why didn't they? Why didn't they at all? Because they don't know the answer to that one, and we've been here because they don't know, I'll tell you.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BLACK: What's more, as far as some of those fellows over there are concerned it'd be a good idea if they came into the House once in a while and listened to what's going on in the debates and maybe they would know.

Mr. Speaker, my only point in saying the few words that I have to say relevant to the subject is that this is "Are you against sin and against motherhood?" It's the same type of emotional display and unfortunately our elderly citizens are in the middle.

We've been around this many times before. It's so easy to say "it isn't enough" whatever it is. It's so easy to say that there isn't enough and surely these people these folks who are deserving — I'm not quarreling about that, not quarreling about that at all — but I think we've gone a long, long way in making life a little better for them. Whether we've made it perfect or not is another and a debatable matter, but whether we've at least made it better I think is beyond debate.

Let us consider what we're doing here and again I repeat, despite what my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey says, this is in fact a motion of non-confidence and the elderly citizens don't enter into it at all.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I've been through many motions of non-confidence. This one deals with people. I don't ever remember a non-confidence motion that didn't deal with the programme that affected people so I can't accept the argument given by the Minister of Rehabilitation that people are being used for politics.

It's a weak defence, Mr. Speaker, when we have a motion like this in front of us, but the only thing that the government spokesman can say is that "you're playing politics" and then proceed to attack the individual Members who've spoken, calling them names.

As for the other Minister making allusions to their attendance in the House, I should think that those who live in glass houses and don't have blinds to pull down should not throw stones. The attendance by the government side this afternoon was no indication of any greater percentage of attendance than those Members.

I don't know why that was dragged in unless they're playing politics. The tired old saw that only the government can talk about people and they're not talking about politics — but when anybody on this side of the House be it Liberal or N.D.P. talks about people, they're playing politics.

It's that blind, crude, gut root politics dealing of this government that limits its thinking to a response of probing like a jelly-back, that jelly-back response that I've seen this government give in 12 years of debate. It becomes a cheap kind of rhetoric that has no connection at all and questions the very sincerity not only of these Members here but the sincerity of their own backbenchers.

Don't tell me that that kind of line the Minister of Rehabilitation goes and hands out because it's Liberals doesn't apply to the first Member for Burrard when I've heard him in this House make pioneering speeches on behalf of senior citizens of this province.

Don't tell me that the Member from Richmond is going to be told by the cabinet that he's playing cheap politics when the other night he got up and said he was going to fight for $200 a month pension for old age pensioners.

Don't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to hear the Minister of Rehabilitation stand up when the Minister without Portfolio who allegedly cares for the aged gets up and makes some announcement that $3 may come out of heaven on behalf of the old age pensioners — that that will be called playing politics.

Any programme that this government announces on behalf of anybody is straight beneficiary kind of manna from heaven. But any suggestion from an Opposition Member that something should be done for the senior citizens of this province is immediately ridiculed as politics. Who draws the line? I'll tell you where the drawing of the line is. The greatest level of cynicism when it comes to drawing a line is that government right over there, dominated by one man whose only motivation is politics.

Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that there's not a single Member in this House that hasn't at one time or one day of this last year received a letter from somebody who's having problems with keeping a relative, in a chronic care home? Is that person who writes us playing politics in the definition of that Minister? Why, don't write a letter with a complaint about a problem — you're playing politics.

Mr. Speaker, is there anyone here who has not received a call from an aged person in this community who has read out over the phone the kind of drug bill they've been faced with? They've seen drug prices go up 25, 35 per cent over one or two weeks. Is that playing politics by those people out there?

Is there anybody in here, Mr. Speaker, who as a representative of the people who when they bring these problems to the floor of the House needs to be subjected to that kind of base, stupid abuse that they're playing politics by bringing these problems to the attention of the House?

[ Page 410 ]

Wherever else are they going to bring the problems to?

Is there a department in this government that supplements the cost of drugs so the Member could read his letter to that department? The answer is "no", Mr. Speaker.

Is there a department in this government that provides a guaranteed annual income to senior citizens of this province, even though the Premier says he's in favour of it? There is no such department. He can't take his letter there.

Is there a department in this government that provides chronic care under B.C.H.I.S. as was promised in 1956 by the then Minister of Health, Mr. Martin? There's no department for him to take his letter there either.

But when he brings his letter to this chamber after being elected he is smeared by that Member over there as playing cheap politics.

Mr. Speaker, we see the Premier giggle. It's his typical response at a time like this — giggling in his seat, Mr. Speaker. Giggling in his seat at a time like this, Mr. Speaker, at a time like this when what we're debating is very important.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, there's a point of order.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): No, point of personal privileges.

MR. BARRETT: There is no point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: There is no point of personal privilege.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sit down, sit down!

MR. BARRETT: There is no point of personal privilege.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sit down, sit down. You're not the Speaker. You've not the right to ask me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've not the right to ask me.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, leader of the Socialist Party in this province…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …has deliberately perpetrated a falsehood. I was very serious, I was not smiling, I was not laughing. I was very serious.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if we've seen any terrible behaviour it's the typical terrible behaviour of the Premier again tonight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll come back to this.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor and I speak to this motion I will not be intimidated by that man or this government under any situation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurry to the point.

MR. BARRETT: We've seen, Mr. Speaker, time and time again we get letters in our office from people who ask us: "Please would you assist us and figure out a budget of $138 or $150 a month to allow us to pay our rent, our food, our clothing and keep us going?" Social workers have told this government and senior groups have told this government that a whole new phenomenon of a social problem has developed not just in British Columbia but right across Canada among senior citizens and that problem is called "the T and T syndrome."

The T and T syndrome, Mr. Speaker, it's called the tea and toast syndrome. The last eight days of any given month these people are reduced to eating tea and toast waiting for their next cheque so that they can get by.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not take that kind of nonsense from the Minister of Rehabilitation that when I stand up here and speak on behalf of people in my constituency that it's a level of politics. Everyone has been elected to come to this House and speak on behalf of the people and his bluster will never take that right away from us.

What are the problems faced by these people?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm getting to you, eh?

MR BARRETT: What are the problems, Mr. Speaker? That Member has never got to me except as an examination of a walking picture of cynicism unequalled in this country, unequalled in this country. The other Minister is fair in some instances, that Member doesn't stoop to the kind of politics as announced by the Premier and emanated or followed by the Minister of Rehabilitation. But it's curious Mr. Speaker that when the Provincial Secretary spoke of the late revered E.E. Winch, he wasn't called a red dangerous Socialist. He wasn't called a dangerous Marxist Socialist. He was a man who had a good idea, and the good idea was taken by this government and the Minister gave him credit and incorporated it in a bill. This government, Mr. Speaker, stands up through that Minister of Rehabilitation and says the Socialists can't be trusted and yet that Minister announces that legislation was drawn with the assistance of a Socialist.

You know, I have no brief, no defence for the federal government. I've no defence, but I will accept one argument that they've presented in this House — those Liberals at least have got the guts to stand up and say the federal government hasn't done enough and let's get on with the job here. They've had the guts to say that. They deserve credit for that.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The hour is now 6 o'clock and my attention having been drawn to the clock, I leave the Chair to

[ Page 411 ]

return at 8:00.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): It was reported on one of the newscasts tonight that the Honourable first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), said that the Premier of the Province, Mr. Daniel Ekman, two representatives of West Coast and a representative of Bechtel Engineering met in a secret meeting.

I just want to say, the Premier of this province attended no secret meeting with this group nor any other kind of meeting. I'd ask the Honourable Member either to deny it or say he didn't say it, or else come out in the corridor and say it in front of the Press so we can take proper action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I didn't say it, O.K.?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the tapes.

MR. MACDONALD: I hate to spoil a good law case.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we've had a brief interruption.

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, it's been a long-standing fight by many, many M.P.'s and M.L.A.'s on behalf of the senior citizens of all provinces to ensure that they have better services throughout this country.

Earlier, I was saying that I resented any inference that any Member of any party was playing politics on an issue such as this and that if any politicians used that as a defence in not doing something themselves, then I say they are wrong and I repeat the word that I used earlier, it's a smear.

I accept completely the sincerity of my Liberal friends in putting this resolution on orders of the day and I accept the sincerity of many Members in the past on the government side who have spoken on the same issue.

What the motion means, Mr. Speaker, is that it's not just good enough to speak about these things and I'll never question the sincerity of any Member who has spoken of these things. What the motion means is there is a time for speaking and a time for action. We feel with the magnificent budget that the people of British Columbia have provided this government — it's not this government's money, Mr. Speaker, it is the money of the people of British Columbia and it is the responsibility of government to spend the money wisely on behalf of the people who provided the money. What we are saying is that one of the priorities for expenditures of these funds should be for the senior citizens of this province.

Earlier in the debate there was a reference to a dispute between the provincial government and the federal government over a matter of providing supplementary allowances to senior citizens to this province. Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have had many disputes over this point, but the Canada assistance plan along with the old age security plan are basic social security measures in this country, designed in their own primitive way to provide a guaranteed annual income.

The Canada assistance plan deals with social welfare and supplementary payments. The old age assistance, a universal plan, was first proposed by the Honourable James Shaver Woodsworth, a minister of the cloth, a United Church Minister and a Socialist.

I earlier referred to another Socialist who had been active in the pioneering fight for senior citizens of British Columbia that had been so graciously mentioned by the Member from Nelson-Creston, (Hon. Mr. Black), and although the government plays politics by maligning Members — they've even made references to Godless Socialists — the Reverend Woodsworth is a well known founder of the C.C.F. which later became the New Democratic Party, an outstanding Christian man with an enviable reputation in the history of this country's political life.

I quote for you one of his first speeches made in the House of Commons in the early twenties. He said at that time that an old age pension system should be established at the earliest possible date for deserving indigent persons of 70 years of age and upwards. The applicants for pensions must be British subjects of at least 20 years' residence in Canada or naturalised subjects of at least 15 years naturalisation and 25 years' residence. That the maximum rate of pension be $20 per month which would be lessened by private income or partial ability of pay.

Now the first principle laid down in a federal jurisdiction in terms of providing universal old age pension or universal income security came from Reverend Woodsworth. When he first enunciated those principles he was attacked as a Socialist. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to tell you the dramatic irony that follows once such a programme is in effect.

There isn't a politician of any party that would dare stand up and say we must abolish the idea because it was nurtured by a Socialist — not at all. All politicians climb on the bandwagon to ensure that they're going to do better.

What has the federal government offered to do better? Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the federal government by law will pay 50 per cent of any supplement given to senior citizens, given under the old age security programme and/or if the province wishes to do it another way under the Canada assistance plan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you from the Commons debate on March 13, 1967 to put this matter to rest once and for all.

The argument is simply this. I maintain that the federal Liberal government has taken a position that any province that wishes to pay its senior citizens any amount of money over the basic old age pension plan — the basic federal supplement, the supplementary provincial allowance — any money above that will be matched 50-50 by Ottawa.

So many times in the past, Mr. Speaker, we have had the

[ Page 412 ]

same argument with this government and every time we have the argument I have had to write back to Ottawa and ask for a clarification.

Just like when the Premier says the Bank of Canada sent someone out to study his financial system, I write the federal minister and find out that that's not so. I quote from the House of Commons debates, Grace MacInnis speaking during the debate, March 13, 1967.

"I want to know what action this federal government proposes to take to see if this situation is rectified —"

she's talking about low old age pensions and supplements, the very subject we're talking about tonight.

"I do not know whether the same situation exists in other provinces but I do know that it exists in British Columbia, that is, they are having difficulty making ends meet. I know the problem is a result of the federal government's failure to see to it by seeking arrangement with the Government of British Columbia that such would not be the case. I believe the federal government should not permit itself, nor should it be allowed to permit these elderly people to be kicked like footballs back and forth between the two governments. There should be something done now to clarify and rectify the situation and I ask what action is going to be."

Now this is a question put fairly by the Member, the Honourable Grace MacInnis from Vancouver-Kingsway, relating to the debate that was alluded to by the Minister of Rehabilitation. This is the answer on the record from Ottawa.

Mrs. Margaret Rideout, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I quote.

"Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on what the Government of British Columbia may be saying about the federal government in relation to supplementary allowances. I am, however, happy to be able to clarify the situation. The payment to old age security pensioners of the guaranteed income supplement is intended to ensure that all old age pensioners will be guaranteed a minimum income of $105 a month —"

which it was at that time.

"Where provinces have been paying supplementary allowances, the cost of which has been shared by the federal government —"

you recall that formula, Mr. Minister

"the need for such payments will be substantially reduced with a consequent saving in provincial treasuries."

What that is saying, Mr. Speaker, in the past, before '67 all supplements were paid 50-50 by Ottawa and by the provincial government but then the federal government, to its credit, took over the full responsibility of those supplements, up to $105, and I don't mind the 42 cent damper but they forget to mention in the 42 cent damper that the federal government picked up this amount of money before they got to the 42 cent formula.

This is the most important part. It has been made clear to all provinces, Mr. Speaker, that where the combined old age security and guaranteed supplement are insufficient to meet the need of pensioners, the federal government will continue to be prepared to share with the provinces in the cost of additional supplementary allowances based on need. Based on need.

All right. There is no ceiling, there is no ceiling on the level of federal contribution to this purpose, it is being left to the provinces to determine the amount of supplementary allowances it wishes to pay.

Under law in this country, Mr. Speaker, the definition of need rests with the provincial jurisdiction and a provincial jurisdiction alone.

I have no love for the federal government. They certainly have failed in terms of the basic amount but, Mr. Speaker, under law in this country, if this government cared to give the senior citizens of this province a guaranteed annual income of $200 per month Ottawa would share 50-50 on every dollar spent above the guaranteed federal supplement and the provincial supplement on top of it.

The Minister shakes his head and I tell him that he is either ignorant of this law or deliberately misleading the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Leader of the Opposition cannot use an expression of "deliberately misleading" and refer it to any Member of this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. I withdraw that. But I make it very clear that somehow the public is being misled on this issue and it's made very clear by Ottawa that the level of federal contribution for this purpose being left to the province to determine the amount of supplementary allowances it wishes to pay. That's a fact.

Now the Minister can get up and deny it all he wants and waffle-waffle and whatever he wants. We've had this debate before but the record exists and this government is receiving 50 per cent of that provincial supplement and if they raise that provincial supplement tomorrow, Ottawa will pay 50 cents on every dollar and they know it.

Now, I sat down and I calculated how much it would cost to provide the people of British Columbia who are in need of guaranteed annual incomes. Based on the theory enunciated by the Premier of this province, who has gone to federal-provincial conferences, demanding that the federal government set up a guaranteed annual income, announced it as his policy, yet who has never initiated it here in Canada, while federal law exists which would allow him to initiate it under the Canada Assistance Plan.

The Canada Assistance Plan will allow a guaranteed annual income in this country now for all citizens, including senior citizens. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have 206,000 senior citizens in this province — 106,000 of them have an income so low that they qualify for a $33 federal supplement. Another 15,000 on top of that have an income even lower which permits them to qualify for the provincial supplement on top of the federal amount. A total of 121,000 senior citizens out of 206,000 have an income bordering on or below the line of poverty set by the Economic Council of Canada.

Now that in itself is a serious accusation against this government — 55 per cent of the senior citizens of this province live on the edge or in poverty by all standards that have been announced in Canada.

Who set those standards for poverty? Who sets the means test to qualify and say you are poverty stricken in this province? None other than the provincial government and by their very policies they acknowledge that 55 per cent of the senior citizens are on or below the average line for poverty.

The Economic Council for Canada, Mr. Speaker, tells us that 30 per cent of the total population lives below the poverty line, but that percentage is almost double when you reach the age of 55 here in the Province of British Columbia.

Anybody who doesn't feel that it is his duty to get up and fight for senior citizens of this province, and then to be

[ Page 413 ]

confronted with a kind of abuse from the Minister of Rehabilitation who should be the first up on his feet here tonight fighting for those people, you begin to wonder where this government's heart is.

I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that it would cost a total of $16 million per month to implement a programme — $16,400,000 a month to implement a programme.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Just a minute now, let me explain — $16,400,000 a month to implement a guaranteed annual income in this province, but Ottawa would pick up half of that tab. Under existing laws our share would be $8,198,000 a month, a total of $96 million a year. Out of a $1.5 billion budget we are talking about $96 million which would be not money hoarded but money fed into the main economic blood stream of the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

This additional $16 million a month would be turned over in cash every single month in corner grocery stores, in barber shops, in clothing stores, in movie theatres, in restaurants, by the senior citizens of this province — because anybody who qualified would not be in a position to save any money out of this amount any way. The money would be spent every month. It would be a boost to the economy, it would give these people the minimum standard to live on and it would be evidence, Mr. Speaker, that this government cares about these people and is willing to pick up 50 cent dollars that are available in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to mention that other people are getting supplements. The C.M. & S. gets a $1 million supplement for an iron bounty, that poverty stricken little company. They don't need to go through a means test. They don't have the tea and toast syndrome at the end of the month.

Those people out there are waiting for a government to do something for them and all they get are empty promises every year, and we're given another budget with empty promises for these people.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the cost of drugs, I mentioned the cost of medicare to these people. This plan in terms of giving minimum incomes of x-dollars-a-month to people was first introduced in North America to a man by the name of Townsend. The Townsend plan was offered in the late 30's, the Townsend plan suggested that we give senior citizens in North America $100 per month. And he proved that that money would pour back into the economy, and would actually stimulate economic growth. The need today is even greater, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I speak in favour of this amendment.

But beyond the amendment Mr. Speaker, I move a sub-amendment that states as follows: "That the amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, be amended by adding after the word "Province," in the fourth line the following measures:

"1. The provision of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 per month for senior citizens over 65 years and with five years residence in the province.

"2. The supply of medical drugs under the British Columbia Medical Plan free of charge for senior citizens.

"3. The elimination of all fees and coverage under British Columbia Medical Plan for all British Columbia residents 65 years of age and over.

"4. The establishment of intermediate and chronic care under the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service for all those senior citizens needing services."

Anything less Mr. Speaker is a betrayal to those people who have built this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): I rise on a point of order in respect of the sub-amendment.

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 66 and 67, especially 66 which in effect states that the House will not receive any resolution stating an opinion of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown. This matter is elaborated on in the 17th edition of May's "Parliamentary Practice," page 795, the middle of the page, Mr. Speaker, under "abstract motions."

"Motions…advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge" if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract and general terms, "can be entertained and agreed to by the House. Resolutions of this nature are permissible because, having no operative effect, no grant is made or burden imposed by their adoption."

Now, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if one follows that statement in May, then the main amendment would fall in that category — "That it regrets that the budget speech of the Honourable Minister of Finance fails to make adequate provision for needs of the senior citizens of the province."

But the sub-amendment Mr. Speaker, is something entirely different. Because here we have very specific financial measures and as I read the amendment it doesn't say that these are examples of inadequate provisions. It starts out immediately: "1. The provision of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 per month for senior citizens over 65 years of age and with five years' residence in the province," and so on down through these very specific provisions.

I draw your attention to the Speaker's decision in 1968, the Journals on page 24, Mr. Speaker. In that case the sub-amendment to the motion of regret, "that the House regrets" was as follows: "And furthermore that this government has neglected its responsibility to take direct action to alleviate the shortage of housing by failing to establish a Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs."

Mr. Speaker ruled that amendment to the amendment out of order under standing order 66. The decision was challenged and the Speaker's decision in that instance was sustained. I would also draw your Honour's attention to the Journals of the legislative assembly, 1957, Mr. Speaker. In that case it was on the motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of supply." Mr. Nimsick moved an amendment seconded by Mr. Eddy by adding the following: "And this House regrets that the budget statement and the accompanying estimates for the year ending March 31, 1958 are inadequate because" — and then he cites several reasons — "they fail to show that the government is aware of the increased needs of hospital services for the people of British Columbia etc." You find eight provisions in that particular amendment, and this amendment was ruled out of order.

I suggest and submit that if there were any grounds for ruling those sub-amendments or amendments out of order then surely these are the most specific amendments that we have ever, to my knowledge at least from the short period of research that I've done in this matter, have come across.

The sub-amendment doesn't say in the opinion of the

[ Page 414 ]

House that we should have a provision for guaranteed minimum income or anything of that nature. It's a very emphatic statement and I submit that it would be impossible in keeping with the rules of this assembly to have this sub-amendment in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further discussion? The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: A point is raised by the Attorney General and in consideration of drawing up this amendment I had the occasion of good counsel from the clerks and yourself. During that particular discussion and the reference made by the Attorney General he refers to standing order number 65, "If any motion be made in the House for any public aid, or charge upon the public."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not under the strict sense of that particular sentence that the Attorney General refers to breaking the rules of the House. I am adding to the words that "we regret" that this was not done.

It is not a recommendation in terms of specifics. That indeed would be out of order, because it would be an additional charge on the Crown. But the resolution is carefully worded to follow the existing amendment so that the sub-amendment would stay in order as the existing amendment is in order because if the sub-amendment were to be out of order, then the same case presented by the Attorney General would rule the main amendment out of order. Because all of the words that flow after "regret" enable both matters to be in order. And if the ruling were taken that after the word "regret" that anything after that would interpret a public charge, we would lose the time-honoured opportunity of amending the budget debate itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further discussions on the point of order?

Well I think the principal criteria that has to be established in trying to determine whether or not a motion is in order, is to presume that if the sub-amendment carried what effect would it have on government?

It is my opinion that for the reasons stated by the Leader of the Opposition the words "the House regrets" carry on into the sub-amendment — "regrets that certain provisions have not been made." And if the sub-amendment were to carry it would not place the onus on government to expend those funds.

Under those circumstances the section written which I had marked at page 795 states that resolutions of this nature are permissible, because having no operative effect, no grant is made or burden imposed by their adoption.

It's in this light, with the greatest of respect, that I have read this sub-amendment to the main motion.

I might further observe that if the sub-amendment were to lose at all, it would probably lose on the basis of redundancy. Because all of the matters that are in the sub-amendment could be discussed quite properly in the main amendment. But other than that it's my view that the sub-amendment is in order and I rule accordingly.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling was negatived on the following division:

YEAS—16

NAYS—32

MR. SPEAKER: The sub-amendment is therefore not in order. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the amendment to the motion.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker there have been a number of things said with respect to senior citizens here and the debate that we're having on this matter which I wish to make some observations upon. Because words such as "cynicism" and "misleading" have been thrown around and I'm quite sure that most of the senior citizens of British Columbia really are not aware of the techniques that are used in this Legislature. Nor, Mr. Speaker, are they aware of the way in which the procedures of this House are held up to ridicule.

Mr. Speaker, going back over the years it has become quite common in this House to use such things and I'm going to use a couple of examples where the Opposition and certainly the Leader of the Opposition, is a past master at it.

I can recall the use of this assembly to discuss such things as Brannon Lake in such terms that a vote was held, a Speaker's ruling was made, a motion was ruled out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Are you in order now?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes I am.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not speaking to the amendment.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And the challenge here is the use of a very common parliamentary technique…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: …to discuss, Mr. Speaker, the question of old age pensioners and their position in British Columbia within the parliamentary system with a very cynical idea that in speaking as those Members have done that there will be some advantage to them when the real issue here is a vote of confidence in the government and the technique of parliamentary procedure. It is once again one of those sham battles.

[ Page 415 ]

We're speaking about old age pensioners, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition has had something to say about the position of the government with respect to supplementary allowance. He has in effect cynically suggested that the Government of British Columbia only needs to say to the Government of Canada that we wish the supplementary allowance to be $100 a month or $200 a month and $300 a month or $400 a month or $500 a month and half of that will be paid by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be so cynical and nothing could be so untrue as that position.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I'm sure the Member knew that but he happened to have touched upon a point of time when this was in issue when I happened to have the responsibility for the Department of Welfare as it was then.

At that time the government of this province made its position clear to the federal government that we would like to make certain that the guaranteed income supplement that was being introduced by the federal government would not be assumed as income in calculating the amounts that would be shareable with the Government of the Province of British Columbia in terms of the supplementary allowance.

The Member took this House and described the words of the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister involved with welfare at the federal level, Mrs. Rideout, and you will recall that he was very clear to underscore the words "in need" when the Member was speaking about the remarks of Mrs. Rideout who was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister actually responsible.

What were the Minister's words, Mr. Speaker, who was in charge of that department? Well, Mr. Speaker, on December 22, 1966 the Minister informed this government and I quote — the Minister is Mr. MacEachen.

"I referred in my correspondence to the status of the guaranteed income supplement in the determination of the amounts paid by way of provincial supplements that are shareable under the Unemployment Assistance Act and the Canada Assistance Plan. The agreements under the Unemployment Assistance Act require that old age security which now includes the guaranteed income supplement be treated in its entirety as income in determining the amount of additional assistance that is shareable. This will also be the case under the Canada Assistance Plan."

I go on, and this is still the Minister then responsible talking:

"As I noted earlier the income received by way of the guaranteed income supplement will have to be taken fully into account for the purposes of federal sharing in provincial supplementary assistance programmes."

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that — and remember the date, December 22, 1966 — and this is by the way, Hon. Members, not the first time that this debate which has generated confusion amongst the old age pensioners in this province has been before the floor of this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing politics with the old age pensioners.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: In December of that year the Minister of Finance for the Province of British Columbia was at a federal-provincial conference to represent once again to the federal government that the provincial government wished to have that guaranteed income supplement completely excluded from our calculations insofar as setting the amount of the supplementary allowance is concerned.

On January 16, 1967, we are advised as follows — and this is direct to the Department of Finance:

You will note that his letter refers to the federal government guaranteed income payments and continued sharing in the provincial government supplementary social allowance which was discussed by the Hon. the Premier at the last ministers' meeting held in Ottawa.

The answer there is no different than we have received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In other words, Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, the Minister of Welfare of that day made the position of the federal government clear. The Prime Minister of British Columbia took that question to the Prime Minister of Canada at a first ministers' conference and received exactly the same answer, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know you don't like the truth, my friend, you never have.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're awful nervous.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: When you build your house upon the sand, my friend, when the winds blow it will fall down, and yours is going to fall down tonight.

On February 22, 1967, Mr. Speaker, following up the words of the then Minister following up the position assumed by our first Minister at the meeting of the first ministers, I then wrote to the then Minister of National Health and Welfare on February 2, 1967. I won't bother to read the whole letter but I'm quite willing to table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it all.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I certainly will. I'll be delighted. Thanks for asking me. But I read as follows, Mr. Speaker,

My deputy Minister has advised me that the guaranteed income supplement was discussed at the meetings of the deputy Ministers —

We even had the deputy Ministers trying to make this pitch too along with the Minister and the first Minister and the deputy Minister.

Also he has informed me that practically all the deputy Ministers of all provinces in Canada were in favour of leaving the determination of income eligibility of the supplementary allowance or social allowance to the provinces.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the provinces were in favour of having the privilege of ignoring the $30 per month guaranteed income supplement as income for supplementary allowance purposes.

However, my deputy Minister informs me that the federal government has refused to reverse its decision and insists that this is included as income. The position taken by the federal government is regretted and certainly is not in the interests of those who could benefit by receiving the guaranteed income supplement as well as the supplementary allowance payment.

[ Page 416 ]

British Columbia very strongly objects to the attitude of the federal government in connection with decision and in our view is contrary to the intent of the Canada Assistance Act wherein it states that the provincial authority is responsible for establishing individual needs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has suggested to the old age pensioners that we have in fact been permitted to establish need and nothing could be further from the truth, nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker, because in 1967 I am in this letter asking the federal government to permit us to exercise that under the Canada assistance plan. That has been denied until this day, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Well it won't make any difference, because I'm going to file it anyway. I'm getting fed up Mr. Speaker, with this cynical misuse of information that can only lead to the confusion among old age pensioners.

The date of the letter is February 2, 1967.

Now, we've had a number of techniques, Mr. Speaker, used to describe the problem here in terms of certain programmes which are involved with senior citizens. I first want to make some mention of those which are in the area of housing because the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) made essentially two points that are worthy of comment.

The first one, Mr. Speaker, has to do with this question of whether or not a voluntary apparatus attached to senior citizens is a good thing or a bad thing. In his view the voluntary input by senior citizens themselves and by organisations such as Kiwanas and Rotary and the Canadian Legion and so on in the provision of housing, in. his view this is a bad social practice.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, he went on really further to say that all of the programmes of counselling, all of the programmes of recreational activity which are carried out on behalf of senior citizens in British Columbia, would be more properly handled by government than either by local organisations or indeed, Mr. Speaker, by the senior citizens themselves.

That the only way, Mr. Speaker, to help the senior citizen was counselling and such things as his problems with his property and insurance and things of the like had to be a totally government apparatus or it was bad news.

Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that the old age pensioner in this province, one of his most descriptive traits, I would suggest, is his feeling of independence, his feeling of responsibility, and his willingness to help himself.

It might be well, Mr. Speaker, to recall that it was this government that established. the principle that senior citizens really didn't wish to have a great raft of professional psychiatrists and social workers and the like. They're certainly helpful in some of the programmes to have a great raft of people running around holding their hand.

Mr. Speaker, what did they do? They came to government at the time I was Minister of that department and said: "We would like some help in setting up an establishment of counsellors which we ourselves feel should be ourselves."

We established the only programme in Canada, Mr. Speaker, where the senior citizens through help by the department carried on by my friend, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the only one in the world.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: My colleague says it's the only one in the world, I wasn't aware of that, but certainly I was very proud to start the first one in Canada. But Mr. Speaker, these old age pensioners move around, are brought into contact with the various sections of governmental activities that affect the old age pensioner, are given advice in terms of real estate problems that they might have, are given advice in terms of insurance and financial problems which they might have and in their own community, Mr. Speaker, they're given allowance so that they can help themselves.

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness our old age pensioners in this province still have that feeling of responsibility, still have that sense of independence, Mr. Speaker, that made this country what it is. That's really what part of this debate is all about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member went on to suggest that these voluntary efforts were in some way shorting out the housing programme on behalf of senior citizens. Now, Mr. Speaker there is no part of Canada that has produced as many housing units for senior citizens at the community level than this province, small as it is.

Mr. Speaker, that goes for the great Province of Quebec, that goes for the great Province of Ontario.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Members opposite once again really don't want anyone to know the facts.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: This is just a game with them, this motion. With me, it's an opportunity to tell this story the way it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's quote the facts.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: If you don't want the story, Mr. Member, to be told the way it is, then leave the chamber and quit playing games with the senior citizens of this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, under the Housing Act which is the Act which permits a joint partnership between the province, the federal government and the municipality, which is a programme that involves subsidies to tenant occupied units on a per capita basis, British Columbia leads all Canada in the provision of that type of housing. Now, I don't want to confuse the facts in terms of other types of housing which I will go onto and explain it the way it is, not the way those Members would like people to think it is….

AN HON. MEMBER: Make sure you know what it is.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I will. Mr. Speaker, under the Housing Act, British Columbia has produced 1,932 units. The number of persons accommodated is 2,416. The total

[ Page 417 ]

costs for that programme happen to be $20 million roughly….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The Hon. Member should just simmer down a little bit and listen for a change. If he hasn't got enough time to talk intelligently about old age pensioners tonight, I have.

Mr. Speaker, there is a subsidy to the tenancy in that kind of project which is a direct subsidy to the rent and it averages $28 per month to bring that project up to the value it should bear if it was renting on an economic basis. That's $28 per housing unit.

Now if we go on, Mr. Speaker, that's a programme for which authority has been granted in this current year for an additional 1,000 — among those are those which are in the riding of my friend from Vancouver Centre No. 1 and Vancouver Centre No. 2,525 units alone in a single project which will be one of the outstanding projects in Canada associated as it is with community recreation not separating the old age pensioners out of the community but bringing them in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, and here is the greatest triumph of the local initiative programme of all. This government has never said that it is proud of this programme because of the dollars involved or the number of units constructed, but because it's a clear-cut example that if you give people initiative, if you give them opportunity at the local level, that's the best way to accomplish the job.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour missed completely. Because we're proud of this programme because the Kiwanis and the Rotarians and the Legion and the ethnic groups in British Columbia have taken the challenge to do something in their own community when they recognise the need.

What is the answer here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, while the people across the way play games I'll go on with my factual recitation. Since the programme came along, Mr. Speaker, this programme has accommodated 10,588 persons. But the important thing is that those 10,588 persons are still today being looked after by a community voluntary organisation. The persons who are involved in those units have simply not been in the name of the state placed into those rental units and the key turned in the door and they're handed the key and the people of the community walk away from them.

Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. They are being looked after in a very friendly way and that's the name of the game, a friendly way with the people who helped to put them there in the first place.

We talk about the housing in British Columbia and this programme alone, Mr. Speaker, and get this figure Honourable Members — 66 2/3 per cent of all the housing built under this programme in Canada with funds made available from the federal government — 66 2/3 per cent of those funds were used in the Province of British Columbia and we're not a very big province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Those were only federal loan funds because the provincial government, and I'm glad my friend now brought that question up, the provincial government pays an outright capital grant to the local society and that capital grant has the effect of being a bigger subsidy in the long run through the life of that project than we can accommodate under the National Housing Act, which is the only way they go in Ontario and Quebec. Because under the National Housing Act, the net subsidy per month is about $28 and the rents vary but they're in the ball-park of $75 to $80 or whatever happens to be the economic value of the property.

But because of the one-third capital grant put directly into the project and the 10 per cent coming from the local community, the net effect of that programme is that from the point of view of the old age pensioner it happens to be a better programme than the National Housing Act.

Now we certainly have not discouraged any municipalities who want to go the other way, but the real impact and the forward thrust of the B.C. programme has been in the Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act, and I know my colleague might wish to speak about the extension of that programme in the special care homes and the like.

Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that in moving into this whole area that it is proof positive that the incentive programme is better than the debt programme.

The debt programme is the N.H.A. programme. The only quarrel we have with the second programme which has produced 10,588 units as opposed to 1,932 units — apart from the question of rents being lowered, the real reason we favour this one is that we would wish that the federal government would not put their money into this programme by way of debt but would put it in by way of grant. All of this money in the N.H.A. programme goes in by way of debt and has to be paid back by the senior citizens. That is right and, Mr. Speaker, if you really wish to understand the way in which we are trying to move here, we are trying to extend to the senior citizens of British Columbia not a debt-oriented kind of housing but a credit-oriented kind of housing: 1,932, that's under debt housing, I call it — under Social Credit housing, 10,588. Yes, I said 10,588. Did you not get the figures correct the first time?

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is of course why I fundamentally oppose the Liberal motion because of the affront it has made to the importance of the voluntary efforts involved in the senior citizens world through the counselling system, through the way in which they organise their recreation and are going to even more in the future, for the way in which the community itself has organised the housing, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal motion, the amendment, must fail simply because of its affront if nothing else to the voluntary efforts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is only one other thing that I wish to mention. That is that in truth I believe that the real reason for the Liberal position — and it's their amendment we're talking about — that the real reason for the Liberal amendment has to do with the concern that spread around Canada and British Columbia during the course of last summer when old age pensioners and organisations passed resolution after resolution, not only to me — because I got a copy of most of them and I know my colleague certainly got resolutions at most of the seminars, that the Member for Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) did.

The great concern in this country was that the Government of Canada was ignoring the real needs of the old age pensioners in terms of income. The boys at the regional desk were deluged with comments and reports of resolutions

[ Page 418 ]

passed of senior citizens' needs.

The Liberal boys, being tacticians rather than really caring for the senior citizens as they should, decided that there would have to be a little bit of a political play based on the procedures of this House. So they got together and they decided that riding on the backs of the old age pensioners would be just as good a way of doing it as any to get rid of this image that they achieved through federal policy.

In order to carry on with their normal course of apology they took this cynical course in this Legislature and Mr. Speaker, if you want to understand thoroughly that it was cynical, then all you have to do is recall that in the course of the remarks of the Members opposite — and of course we've had the faultless technical amendment by the Leader of the Opposition which we can no longer discuss — but the amendment by the Liberal Party and the spokesman who discussed it made no attempt whatsoever to tell it the way it is.

I always thought that that was the new brush in Canada, participatory democracy — tell it the way it is, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal motion must fail because they did not tell it the way it is and I don't intend to vote for it in any event.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I've listened with interest with what was said before dinner by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi). I say I listened with interest and considerable disgust. I listened with interest to what the Minister who has just sat down said. I listened with interest and even more disgust because, Mr. Speaker; that Minister talked about the use of this House and motions by individuals as being for cheap political purposes.

I ask now what this is doing to this House, Mr. Speaker. What's happened tonight is almost destroying, even more than has been destroyed through the processes and the numbers game that that government plays, any hope or chance of the people of this province continuing to believe in this democratic system.

That's the disgust that's deep, deep, deep into me. You look at the resolution on the orders of the day, resolution 11 where the Honourable lady Minister has a resolution on there in regards to something else — asking Ottawa to do something. Is that on there for cheap, cheap, cheap political numbers game politics? Look at the one above that, for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford), to refer something to the standing committee. Is that on there for cheap political manoeuvering?

That's the position they've put this House into, that's exactly the position. That's what they're telling the people of this province, that that's how responsible legislatures act. What in the name of God are you doing to this democratic system?

I heard that Minister get up, the Minister who talked so much. He said this motion was a cheap political trick. He talked about the amount of bureaucracy in Ottawa. The Minister who just sat down talked about the spirit of independence and responsibility and self-help of the old age pensioners.

They talk about trust, they talk about need. The other Minister who with some grace made an addition to this debate, talked about the problem his mother had in filling out one of those applications for the medical plan. No matter what your age is in the Province of British Columbia, if you're operating under the plan administered by that Minister this is the form to this House. It says:

The Government of the Province of British Columbia Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Originating office: Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, 238 Government Street, Duncan, British Columbia. Supplementary Social Allowance Annual Report.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: I know, I know, but he was talking about the problems old people have in filling out forms and that man over there, that Minister, talked about bureaucracy. I'm relating his own form to the kind of bureaucracy that he operates and the problems it creates for the old people. The other Minister talked about independence and free spirit and all the rest of it. I want this House to know what the old people of this province are subjected to by this government. It says:

Please complete the following report of your circumstances, sign it, and return it by mail to your local welfare office as indicated in the envelope provided. Failure to do so may result in suspension of the supplementary allowances and health benefits presently available to you.

This is the individual, I filled it out when I was speaking because they have to sign this.

Since my last report to officials of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement I have not:

(a) acquired any cash assets,

(b) sold or purchased any real property,

(c) received any income,

(d) changed marital status,

(e) been absent from British Columbia for more than 30 days,

(f) been hospitalised more than 30 days except as follows….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Now the Minister told of the problems his own mother had in filling out an application for the medical plan in this province. Furthermore, the individual says….

there has been no change in my living arrangements or any other change whatever in my circumstances except as follows

and then he is supposed to write that in.

(C) present cash assets, cash on hand, bank accounts, credit unions, bond shares, money out on loan, money held in trust, C.S.V. of life insurance

C.S.V., what does that mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cash surrender value.

MR. STRACHAN: Cash surrender value, that's right.

prepaid funeral, balance of mortgage or agreement for sale receivable, other. I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that no information acquired or been given has been concealed or omitted.

How are they to know whether or not even in filling out every thing here that they've forgotten to include something that should have been revealed? Then comes signature of

[ Page 419 ]

recipient, "complete and return to your local office."

The Minister who just sat down referred to Ottawa and what the Minister, Mr. MacEachen, had said. Here is the Hansard of June 14, 1966 in which the Minister, Mr. MacEachen is speaking. He says and he's talking about the Canada assistance plan:

"Federal sharing of health care costs for social assistance recipients (and so on)…no federal ceilings on benefits under this new programme and full sharing of payments made on the basis of need to improve the level of benefits now being paid to the aged, the blind and the disabled."

That's what he said, in Hansard, the Minister. Now, I agree. That was in June 14, 1966. That's why I asked the Minister the date of the letter and the date of the letter, he told me, was February 2, 1967, after this. Right. But the answer that was given in the House of Commons on March 13, 1967, which is what, five, six weeks after the letter, that's when it was made very clear to all provinces, Mr. Speaker, that where the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement are insufficient to meet the need of pensioners the federal government will continue to be prepared to share with the provinces in the cost of additional supplementary allowances based on need. The Minister had better walk out and eat some more crow, he should eat crow.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: They stand over there, Mr. Speaker, and they talk about Ottawa's responsibilities and how this province can't possibly do this or can't possibly do that. Mr. Speaker, if there hadn't been in this Canada of ours at one time a government with a great social conscience — a C.C.F. government — who were the first government anywhere in North America who brought in the hospital insurance scheme covering every citizen of the province. No other province, no other state, the first place in North America, a universal hospital insurance scheme. They blazed the trail even though it was said it was impossible, it was pinko Socialist thinking and all the rest of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is speaking beside the subject of the motion.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: You just have to expect that from a man of that calibre, that's all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: The next thing that came up was the other great social breakthrough, the field of medicare. Again a single province….

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is with respect speaking beside the motion.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm using as argument the fact that what we're discussing within this amendment is the need for great social breakthroughs and a great many fields to help the senior citizens of British Columbia and I'm demanding that the people of this province and this government give some leadership in creating these great new social programmes for the senior citizens of British Columbia.

Only because there were governments prepared to do it initially without Ottawa's help did we get the social progress that we have been able to get over the years.

Ottawa, as the Member says, is willing to help. You know the Minister over here referred to it as a sham battle. Well, he might think it's sham, and what lengths they went to tonight to avoid putting themselves on record made a sham out of the parliamentary system.

But no matter what you say, and no matter what's happened anyone in this House who votes against this amendment, anyone in this House who votes against the amendment is voting against the provision of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 per month for senior citizens over 65 years with five years residence in the Province of British Columbia. Because that's possible, that's possible.

Anyone who votes against this motion is voting against the supply of medical drugs under the British Columbia Medical Plan free of charge for senior citizens. Anyone who votes against this amendment is voting against the elimination of all fees….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is I think now trespassing on an area upon which the House has already reached a decision and should be speaking to the amendment.

MR STRACHAN: What does the amendment say? The amendment, Mr. Speaker, says "this House regrets that the budget of the Hon. the Minister of Finance fails to make adequate provisions for the needs of the senior citizens of the province." I'm simply listing some of the needs that I consider adequate for the senior citizens of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member, I'm sure, fully realises that he is quoting from a sub-amendment which has already been dealt with by the House. I would appreciate it if he would continue his remarks to the specific item involved.

MR STRACHAN: Fine, Mr. Speaker. Fine, fine.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: Again we get it, you know, the humbug from across the way. The laughter, the giggles, the silly chuckles, the manoeuvres.

AN HON. MEMBER: They censored it.

MR. STRACHAN: Let it be on the record that it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Member from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Skillings) that laughed his head off when I was talking about this very serious subject. Let it be on the record. When I was talking about the need for adequate chronic care facilities in this province, when I was talking about the need for a medical plan that allows the senior citizens to get the drugs prescribed by their own doctor.

My own doctor told me a couple of years ago that about a third of the prescriptions he writes are never filled. Most of them are senior citizens who simply can't afford the medicine the doctor prescribes. Now, that's a fact but I just want to make it clear before I sit down that I'm still pretty disgusted with the attitude of this government.

Voting against this motion means that you're saying that

[ Page 420 ]

in this budget there is adequate provision for the needs of every senior citizen of every kind in the Province of British Columbia. That's what you're saying, that they should sit back and be happy, be satisfied and stop bothering this little government over there. That's what you're saying to the old people: "Shut up and be quiet."

If you vote against this motion you're telling the senior citizens "You're being molly-coddled and you're finished," and that this is all you're going to do for them — that they should be satisfied and stop complaining. That's exactly what you're saying if you vote against this amendment and I'll proudly stand up in support of this amendment.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it's very clear what the Opposition is trying to do here tonight. They know as well as anyone that it's a non-confidence motion and all they're trying to do is put a little story on the records so that they can go out and quote it.

I think when we deal with the pensioners today we're dealing with mobility and we know in British Columbia we have a tremendous flow of pensioners coming from other provinces to British Columbia and so it should be, so it should be. I don't think there should be any limitation of time, there should be no limitation of time.

Now, particularly coming from the Liberals whose announced policy over the years has been a universality of pensions, a universality — and certainly that is what we should have. No one province, because we have good climatic conditions and these people should not be isolated on the prairies or somewhere to fight out those winters, they should be able to come to British Columbia and spend out their later years.

But by the same token, the people who have lived their life here in British Columbia, and who have staked their savings and are paying the taxes shouldn't have to bear the burdens.

It's all very easy, Mr. Speaker, to make suggestions without pointing out where the money could come from and the Liberals in this House turn around and say: "Oh, yes, Ottawa just dished out 42 cents to the pensioners therefore the provincial government should assume a greater responsibility."

I wanted to point out in the last federal-provincial conference the Premier made it quite clear that in the past British Columbia as well as the other provinces got 28 per cent of the income and corporation tax pie. The provinces got 28, the federal government got 72.

But the federal government arbitrarily changed the guideline and instead of getting 72 per cent they are now going to take 76.6 per cent of the tax dollar and I say that it is their responsibility, under their policy of pensions being universal, that is where the elderly people should get the extra money with which to spend out their years.

The federal government has laid out the policy that you can go back to China or Czechoslovakia or Cuba or Mexico and you can take your pension along. But they've said to the old age pensioners: "No, only if some province will pick up the tab then you can move to that other province and spend out your later years." I say that it is unbelievable to see the Liberals coming out with this type of an amendment when their record is so poor at the federal level.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll try not to spend the time on my comments simply repeating what I've already said in the budget speech since it related in large measure to the theme we are now debating. But I would repeat the words of the amendment and try to talk to the principle of the amendment rather than the details.

I think both sides of the House have made points which bear out their position and I feel that there is in many of the comments made by the government side real credit and I'm not trying to deny that.

But the motion does say that the budget fails to make adequate provision and as far as I am personally concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is the point on which I would argue.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, we have been labelled on this side of the House as being cynical and I would simply ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to think of one of the comments of one of the government backbenchers when I mentioned that certain poor people do indeed have difficulty in having a proper diet to the end of the month. His comment, from the North Peace River Member (Mr. Smith), was "Let them eat cake."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Now, while I've no wish to pick on personalities I feel nevertheless it is only fair for the record that when this side of the House is being lambasted as being cynical I in all conscience cannot think of a more cynical attitude than the statement made by the Member from North Peace River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that Member, I was sitting next door to him on that occasion. I can assure the House he never said such a thing. I can assure the House.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, he was reported as having said that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he heard it.

MR. WALLACE: I said I heard him make a statement in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the Hon. Member care to repeat the statement? Would he?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or would he care to have me quote from what has been written up in the paper?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

[ Page 421 ]

MR. WALLACE: I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that if what I heard is not what the Member said, and if he has been misreported, then what I think I heard was what he said but I may be wrong…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: …"let them eat cake." Now, I'm saying to this House, Mr. Speaker, that if I will be just be given the chance to state this. That if in fact the Member tells me that is not what he said then in honour I certainly would withdraw my statement and apologise for having made it. Since the Hon. Member tells me that he did not say this. He claims that he did not say it and I accept the word of the Hon. Member.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Member is referring to a statement which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday, February 9, where I was reported to have said "Let them eat cake." I categorically deny making that statement. No such statement was made by me in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine. The Hon. Member has agreed to withdraw and apologise and the matter is closed. Proceed with your address.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: To return to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, my basic opinion on this amendment is to compare the vast surplus of money which again I would agree in many directions is being directed to the welfare of the citizens as a whole in this province.

My whole point, Mr. Speaker, is that to have such an enormous surplus and not to direct some of it towards the needs of many of the elderly people I think is just something I would not agree with. I feel there should have been a larger fraction of the available surplus spent going towards the needs of elderly citizens, and I think it's important to stress that not all senior citizens require help from government.

There has been a tendency, I think, in this debate to assume because some senior citizens require help that they all do. But on the other hand I am really surprised that the assertion has been made that none of them endure real hardship. I would submit certainly that anyone whose work involves close contact with the elderly people in our society could never come to that conclusion.

There are many elderly citizens, as has already been pointed out, who are not well cared for when they are sick. They stay in their homes simply because they cannot afford to enter a nursing home or private hospital and yet they cannot be adequately cared for in the home situation.

The alternative that is often followed, to the added expense of the province I might say, is that the patient or the person enters an acute hospital at a great expense, when in point of fact he does need, or she does need a lesser level of care. Therefore, the actual cost to the province of providing care in a very expensive hospital at $55 a day when it could be provided in the appropriate type of hospital at $15 a day, I think is short-sighted.

The specific examples of why I will be voting in favour of this amendment relate indeed to these two areas of intermediate care, one intermediate care, and the other one the importance of drugs.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in the realm of intermediate care I think also it bears mentioning that the government is moving in this direction and my comment would be that the move and the pattern of development of the hospitals is not the most suitable inasmuch that to take Victoria as an example the hospital proposed for Victoria is to be built some distance from the centre of town.

Since most of these elderly patients, the only real highlight in their day is to have visitors, many of whom are equally elderly and who don't readily have cars, and may not readily be able to afford transportation, it would I think be a very important fact in helping these elderly people who finish up in the intermediate care hospital to have greater access from visitors.

I think it should also be made clear that — and I stand again to be corrected if I've heard the wrong statement — but it's my understanding that the hospital will only accommodate welfare patients. I feel this is a retrograde step inasmuch that I felt that in society we had got away from the philosophy that you segregate a certain economic sector of the community, almost in a way that was done in the alms houses in England years ago.

But while I acknowledge the fact that the government has made some move in this direction towards intermediate care I have to accept the wording of the motion that it fails to make adequate provision, inasmuch that I feel that even if they are constructing hospitals for intermediate care they are not providing for the non-welfare person whose level of income is perhaps just above qualifying for welfare. But even if you were to be admitted to such a hospital the operating costs are not covered in any way.

Again, to come back to the central meaning, as I see it, of the amendment, if we have a total amount of money to inject into the economy — namely $266 million — and since the cost of looking after all persons in intermediate care would be $16 million I think it bears out the argument that the budget hardly seems proportionate to the needs of these elderly people.

Drugs have been mentioned by many members in this debate, and I feel very strongly on this point Mr. Speaker, that there are many elderly citizens. It goes without saying that unfortunately as you grow older, as research and medical science provide more and more drugs and methods of treatment, it becomes inevitable that there is more and more you can do in this direction for elderly citizens.

Perhaps one of the biggest contributions towards giving greater longevity to our population lies in the field of available drugs dealing with many of the diseases which are essentially related to old age, or to the ageing process. So that there is little doubt in my mind that provision of drugs and the provision of intermediate care should certainly have been, if nothing else at all was done for the senior citizens, those two obvious very essential items should surely have been included in the budget.

Not that I accept that nothing else should have been done for them, but supposing you accept the argument at its very weakest, I would submit that the inclusion in the budget of at least those two items, intermediate care coverage and drugs, would be an absolute minimum.

The whole question of elderly citizens in extended care hospitals is equally worthy of attention by the government. I have already pointed out that many of these patients are

[ Page 422 ]

subject to changes in their condition and may at some stage in their illness no longer qualify. An elderly person may have a roof over his head and have all his medical and nursing needs met in one of these extended care hospitals — and I would like to go on record as stating that I have the highest regard and praise for the extended care that is given in this City of Victoria, that is not under debate Mr. Speaker. But I would say for an elderly person with illness who is in such a hospital, let us say for three months or four months or six months, and who moves from a situation of being completely disabled to being able to move a little bit and suddenly finds, Mr. Speaker, that they no longer qualify and they are told that they will have to leave this care, I think to an elderly person this is really a great disaster.

The kind of measures I would have liked to see in the budget would have been the continuous or permanent care for some such patient who at some time did qualify for such care.

I think it is a heart ache to elderly patients to feel that if they make a little bit of improvement in their condition they may no longer qualify for the care they are receiving. And, of course, apart from anything else it is psychologically bad for a patient to feel that it is not a good idea for them to show any improvement.

There have been other aspects mentioned which I will choose not to comment on except finally to say that I think that with many of the intentions of Members on both sides of the House, and talking about guaranteed this and guaranteed that, that there is one element in all this that should never be lost. And this is a fact that universal approach — which has been described tonight and commented on by many — is not necessarily the best system.

Any publications that I have read on guaranteed annual income all stress the danger of money being available to everyone, any certain group, even though there are only some in the group who realistically need the help.

I think this should be a principle or an approach which should always be kept in mind whether we're asking the federal government to implement such a plan, or whether we ourselves as a provincial government wish to take part in such a plan.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel the third point, really, in convincing me that it is fair and reasonable to support this amendment does relate to the bus passes.

I feel, as I've said earlier, that visiting of sick people is important and I also think that mobility of elderly citizens within the city — being able to go downtown, even if nothing more than to go down and return again — the mobility encourages their physical wellbeing. Not to mention the psychological effect of meeting friends and seeing what's going on around them in the world. To recap, I would say that intermediate care, free drugs, and free bus passes would really have been a reasonable amount of money to spend out of $266 million. And I will be voting for the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): It goes without saying that everyone sympathises with senior citizens today. Every Member of this House does. It's not necessary for everyone to stand here and say the great concern that they have for them because we all do. We have concern for everyone who lives on a fixed income today, and it's simply because their purchasing power has dwindled. It has dwindled to the point where their same dollar will buy far less than it used to, and this is the crux of the problem that we are now discussing about.

I guess we have more of these kind of people in Vancouver Centre than perhaps anywhere else in this province. And another thing which strikes me as very impressive when I visit these people, and I see many of them, is the numbers of them whose families have in effect cast them aside and no longer see them. They don't take the trouble to visit them, they don't take the trouble to be concerned with them.

One question which I always ask single people living alone in a suite is: Do you have a son or a daughter living in this area? Normally speaking they do have, and quite often it will amaze you how often it is that it is a great deal of time since they have seen them — years. They're living in a very restricted income condition, finding it very difficult to cope, and yet they inevitably have got relatives in the area who would help them and fail to do so.

Now, when I got on my feet to bring forward the thought that inflation is the problem, inflation is the problem. Runaway inflation. I think it is the failure of our senior government to come to grips with economic measures which would deal more positively with this condition in our country today.

They have simply sat there and allowed this to happen and said: "It's going to change, it's going to change overnight. Inflation is going to correct itself, watch the figures next month, watch the figures next month."

We watched them this month. They're just great, they're the highest they've ever been.

So, let's not fail to realise the real problem in this country with these people is inflation. They're on fixed income and they're looking at an inflationary condition that's just rising out of all proportion. At this level my friend, what do we do about it? You know what can be done about it?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WOLFE: You've picked them out because they can't do anything. There is a remedy, as a matter of fact, my friend. Not an easy one but there are very good measures which have been proposed which they are afraid to bring about, because they are afraid to face the people. This is what the people of this country want — strong economic measures, to get control of our inflationary conditions.

So Mr. Speaker, I find that although it would be out of order to add an amendment to an amendment to an amendment, that where this amendment reads that the budget speech fails to make adequate provision for the needs of the senior citizens of this province, that it should really add that this is impossible inasmuch as the federal government through its economic policies has failed tragically to come to grips with the problem of runaway inflation in this country. That's not a smoke screen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon: Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm just a little fellow and sometimes it's hard to get noticed.

I found it very sad tonight, Mr. Speaker, to note that once again might has proven stronger than right. Two always beats one. And that's how democracy gets whittled away in this

[ Page 423 ]

House.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am one who will always abide by the Speaker's rulings.

Mr. Speaker, I have never challenged your ruling. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to forget about some of the red-herrings and the smoke screens that some of the Members of the government side have tried to draw across this amendment. I think we have to come back to the fundamental points of the Bill of Rights for senior citizens, proposed by the Liberal leader in his budget speech. And I want to summarise those again because I think really they put the whole thing in perspective. Six points, Mr. Speaker:

1. The right to freedom from all property taxes for senior citizens.

2. The right to a rental supplement of $30 per month for all those whose monthly income falls below $200 — that is senior citizens.

3. The right to free drugs and medical appliances for senior citizens including hearing aids, batteries, eye glasses, false teeth, and all of the other essential aids.

4. The right to restricted passes on public transportation for senior citizens at all times.

5. The right to chronic hospital care for senior citizens.

6. The right to an abatement of the provincial personal income tax for all those in need over 65.

Mr. Speaker, some of the government Ministers tried to suggest that these proposals are playing politics. I think the Leader of the official Opposition disposed of that argument very well. But the cynical budget speech of the Minister of Finance called this "a government that cares". I prefer to belong, Mr. Speaker, to a party that believes for social reform for the senior citizens of British Columbia, not Social Credit, for the fat cats that already have the good life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find tonight's debate in the House extremely interesting and I must say that if we had to have a debate on the problems in the community that a debate on the question of the senior citizens in the Province of British Columbia is as important a debate as we could possibly have.

I must admit that some of the prior discussions and some of the topics which have been raised from both sides of the House, that many of the subjects which have been raised in this session haven't had the same importance. I think we find ourselves in rather an amazing situation when on each side of the House we're trying to boast that one is more cynical than the other, or to apologise that one is not as sincere as the other and I think that any Member who really doesn't have the best interests of the senior citizens of the Province of British Columbia wouldn't be in this House.

When Members on either side are implying that, I am sure they are getting carried away in a debate which really at its very heart does have the wellbeing of the senior citizens in this province. As the second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) stated, in our riding we probably have the highest concentration of the senior citizens in British Columbia.

There have been statements made as to what senior citizens' problems are. If everyone in this chamber honestly believed that all the problems of the senior citizens could be solved by so much additional dollars then I think that they too are a very long way from the truth. There are a great number of concerns that one must involve themselves in discussion such as this.

There are the questions of what have we done for the senior citizens and the second Member for Vancouver Centre stood up and made a comment about the great number of senior citizens who have come into their retirement years with an honest belief that in their bank account, in their pension account, was sufficient dollars to carry them through have been very bitterly mislead by some government agencies in either federal or provincial governments.

They believed that they had saved a good portion and the greater portion of our senior citizens were conscientious citizens who put money aside in a belief that that was how you looked after your future.

If the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, (Mr. B.A. Clark), can stand in his chair today and state that the erosion of that income was not the responsibility of the federal policies — the deterioration of the war bonds that we urged them to buy during World War II, when we told them to buy savings bonds — which if you want to look up in the chart tonight, Mr. Member, are down to $85 for a $100 bond — if you want to look at the pensions which we took and put them into whether it be teachers', whether it be any other part of our civil service and see what happened to a dollar that is deteriorating just as rapidly now. You talk about the policies that you would put in.

I find it difficult to understand when a Member will stand and say we should have a Minister for the elderly when I find no federal Minister for the elderly. I find it difficult for him to tell me that we should have recreation in our senior citizens' homes. The Member can bear this out, he knows why we do not have recreational facilities in our senior citizens' homes. Because the federal policy will not permit a sharing plan for the recreational facilities in those homes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: They are not the regulations that we oppose. The implication, Mr. Speaker, the constant implication that the problem is a singular problem of one single province is not the true concept of the total picture that we should be looking at tonight. We could stand up and we could say "do this, do that," but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that if you wish to take the totals that are received, that we do have a senior citizen here that does receive an income that is as high as any other income in Canada.

Now we can stand and say that that is not enough and there isn't anyone that would not prefer to provide more funds through the constant programmes that are there. But, let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem goes deeper than that. There was a time in the province, in the history of our country, when the responsibility both for youth and aged rested within a certain group called the family and there was a responsibility that young people took for their elders and elders for the young people.

Now we live in a society today, that for many reasons may not permit a lot of this. We are more mobile, we live in more apartment blocks, et cetera, but, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is one way for the great number of people that would like to provide more care for their parents, for the elderly that they feel responsible for, that even some compensation in the income tax that would permit them a larger deduction if they do take on the responsibility of

[ Page 424 ]

looking after their own parents would be a tremendous step along the way.

A responsibility that even for the senior citizen himself states that an income of $1,500 should not be the base level at which we start taxing him. We've talked in this House a great deal today about the dignity….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: It is $1,500 for senior citizens, over 65. It's up to $2,000 on the new one.

But we're saying that what you are talking about is a different figure on one side and a deduction for them.

We talked a great number of times and we have today about the question of the dignity. We talked today and a great number of people mentioned the dignity of the senior citizens. The same people with the same voice that have talked about dignity have turned around and said we must put in a means test.

We are now not going to have a dignity of offer but only those people who are in need. How do you suggest that you can turn to one group of your senior citizens to deliberately make an attempt to save, to provide for themselves, if you say: "The only way you are going to receive further benefits is if you don't do that but spend every cent you have"?

I suggest that there are things that are deeper and that go deeper than this. That go much deeper than this. The Member can sit and chuckle and laugh about this and I find, Mr. Speaker, by the way, as I go into this debate, a great deal of concern for the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, (Mr. Strachan), who comments about one man in this House and then walked out of a debate that I think is a serious one.

I am concerned about the points that are raised and I suggest that when we talk about a motion that is not really a motion, that is dealing only with the shortages — it is a motion, as we know, that is designed to say that in the total budget of the Province of British Columbia, we are not providing for all our citizens, that we are not providing. That Member can talk about his six points, I'll rattle off six points that the federal government hasn't done and I'll go through them faster than he can put up those.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: They talk about responsibility, they are saying that the Liberal policy is such when the Liberal policy is not that. They're saying what one single individual believes might be the Liberal policy and they'll change it tomorrow. They're talking about a general Liberal policy that has been followed across the country and I suggest that that is what we are debating here in this House — whether their policy as a group and a total group throughout the Liberal policy throughout Canada is the one that will give the more responsible government and the more responsible budget and in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the best programme for the people of British Columbia. I intend to vote against that amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am afraid the Honourable Member for Kootenay in seconding the amendment took his place in the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: No amendment. There was no amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The sub-amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no amendment. You're out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The sub-amendment.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): I never said anything. I never said anything.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm informing the Honourable Member for Kootenay that I cannot recognise him because in seconding the sub-amendment he took his place in this debate.

The Honourable Member for Surrey.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: I never took my place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anybody can speak in this debate whether they have spoken before or after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right, right!

AN HON. MEMBER: Because there's an amendment before the House and has nothing to do with the main debate, and you know that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has made a ruling that the Honourable Member for Kootenay cannot be recognised by the Chair to speak in this debate.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know on what grounds you say this. Because I haven't spoken on the amendment. I have not spoken on the amendment.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. NIMSICK: I didn't even nod my head.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never even stood up.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a basic rule of the House and the Chair must rule in that manner.

MR. NIMSICK: What debate does this prevent me from speaking in?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member in seconding the amendment under the rules of the House — the sub-amendment — is deemed to have taken his place in the debate on the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: You ruled it out of order, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: So it's a nullity, it's a nullity. You can't do this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are the rules.

[ Page 425 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Member has not spoken to the amendment that is before the House. This is the first time that he's got on his feet and you're ruling him out of order before he's even opened his mouth. You never accepted that sub-amendment from the Leader of the Opposition. It was never seconded. You're out of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has made a ruling. What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling, I understand, is that the Member loses his place to speak for seconding a sub-amendment. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right!

MR. BARRETT: The record of this House will indicate that no such sub-amendment was even recorded because it was ruled out of order. It is impossible therefore for a Member to second something that doesn't exist. That's really what's the point. Yes, the House challenged the Speaker's ruling on order. I'm speaking — can I have some order please? The Speaker accepted that the motion was in order. The House has a right to overrule the Speaker. The government in its wisdom challenged the Speaker, overruled his decision, therefore made the point that no such sub-amendment existed. Therefore the Member has not lost his place to speak.

If the government had gone along with the Speaker, as most governments do, then of course the Member would have had the opportunity to speak on the sub-amendment, but there was no sub-amendment and therefore he's not lost his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. In order for the sub-amendment even to be considered and to be ruled out of order there had to be a seconder to put it before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was done by the Liberals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This has been the rule of the House and the Chair must so rule.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on this point, would you consider calling the Speaker, on a matter of this importance. It's a precedent and we would like to have the Speaker himself make the ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're denying the Member the right to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a ruling made by the Chair and the recourse of the Members is to challenge the ruling of the Chair.

MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have continually said this is the precedent of the House. You have not quoted one standing order of the House, you've quoted no precedent from May, all you've done is arbitrarily ruled an Honourable Member out of order when it's his turn to speak. I think it's a disgrace for you to sit in that Chair and not be able to quote an order, not call the Speaker and in effect bring about closure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Members have a recourse they can take and failing that the ruling stands.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: To avoid a misinterpretation of this issue I ask you to call the Speaker back, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Speaker has the authority of the Speaker in the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Would you then, as a point of order, would you then please inform the House, on what precedent you are making this ruling.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the House just be seated for a moment?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we cannot deal with another subject. A request has been made.

Under May, 16th edition, page 449, as a Member who moves an amendment cannot speak again so a Member who seconds an amendment is equally unable to speak again upon the main question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak again? He hasn't spoken at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: After the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, we're aware of the example you cite in May and you're quite correct, except that you're talking about a motion that was not accepted by this House to debate. Therefore, if the motion was not accepted by the House, how could the Member have seconded it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The motion, as I understand it was accepted by the Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't matter.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not talking about the Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the House. The House decides. The House has authority by standing orders. That is why, when the Chair is challenged, if the Chair loses a challenge, then the rule is "back to square one". Now, if you are operating under some authority in May that we have never seen, that is that the Speaker is absolute, then you could rule. But what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, is a decision made by this House that the motion was not in order. A motion was not in order. That was the challenge to the Speaker. The Speaker ruled that the motion was in order, the government challenged his ruling that it was in order. The government won, therefore, it was not in order. Therefore, he does not lose his place to speak.

[ Page 426 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have two people standing and really the Chair has made a ruling and there is a certain way that the House can deal with that particular ruling, if not it stands.

MR. BARRETT: Where a motion….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have given the Member the basis on which I have made the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order. Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it is up to the House to challenge the ruling or else it stands.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Would you give me a specific instance in May where a motion that has been ruled out…. I want examples, I have a right to ask for this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have no right to ask for that.

MR. BARRETT: I want to know a specific example.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: It is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Will the Member be seated?

MR. BARRETT: What are you making a ruling on? I have a right to know that, I have a right to know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has made a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the right to know what you have made the ruling on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has made the ruling and it is the right of the Members to challenge the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: That does not cover this situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member may not be satisfied with it but that is the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking you to call the Speaker in. I'm asking you to call the Speaker in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member has the opportunity to challenge the Chair and failing that the House will proceed with the order of business.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker is completely wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. McGEER: May I read to you please standing order No. 50 of this House because Mr. Speaker, under standing order 50 of this House….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. McGEER: Can you bring that Member to order? Mr. Speaker, standing order No. 50 of this House, may I quote it, says: "All motions, except a motion to adjourn, and the previous question, shall be in writing, and seconded and signed by the mover and seconder, before being debated or put from the Chair. When a motion is seconded it shall be read by Mr. Speaker before debate."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that motion, the sub-amendment put by the Leader of the Opposition, was never read to the House, therefore it was never seconded, therefore the Member from Kootenay has the right to speak in this debate and your ruling violates standing order No. 50 of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. On the point of order, I must point out to the Honourable Member that the Member in moving it refers to the motion standing in his name on the orders of the day. It is there, it is….

MR. NIMSICK: My name is not on the orders of the day.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that motion was never read and the Member from Kootenay's name was not on that motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): The Speaker asked for the motion in writing from the Leader of the Opposition, that motion was transmitted to the Leader of the Opposition and I presume if the motion was in order as to form it bore the signature of the Member from Kootenay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, I'm going to draw to the attention of the Members that a ruling has been made and the House has a recourse, and failing that they should proceed with the debate.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to your attention that in other jurisdictions when there is some division of opinion as to whether or not something is in order, there is allowed an expression of opinion by individual members.

Mr. Speaker, and it's just as straightforward as this. How can any motion that was never before this House, never before this House be seconded? Because that motion was never before this House it couldn't be seconded and he didn't speak, therefore to suggest that he hasn't got the right to speak or that he's already spoken is completely irrational and, Mr. Speaker, there's been enough damage done to the democratic system in this province tonight already. And I don't want any more of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, for God's sake let's have some democracy in this House once, just once.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 427 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member be seated? Will the Member be seated?

MR. STRACHAN: Too many people have lost their lives over this system for you to sit there and destroy it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, be seated!

MR. STRACHAN: I will not be seated, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member be seated?

MR. STRACHAN: I'm asking you to act as a Speaker with some authority.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member be seated? I'm asking the Member to be seated.

MR. STRACHAN: I won't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the Speaker, call the Speaker.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm asking you to act with some authority, some decency, and some democracy.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member sit down?

MR. STRACHAN: I will not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the Speaker, we want the Speaker. We want the Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that the first principle of democracy is that the House abide by the Chair and at least give the Chair the….

MR. STRACHAN: I'm protesting an unjust Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At least give the Chair the courtesy of the….

MR. STRACHAN: I'm protesting an unjust Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Follow the rules.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm doing that in the way I know how.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules have indicated that if the Members are not satisfied with the ruling….

MR. STRACHAN: I will not put up with this damnation of democracy from you….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members can challenge the ruling of the Chair. Will the Honourable Member be seated?

MR. STRACHAN: No, I will not be seated, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

Interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been a practiced rule of this House and indeed happened once before in this session to the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams) who seconded an amendment and by doing so precluded himself from being able to speak to that amendment.

I think possibly the point of issue here is that the matter has not been dealt with by the House. But I think this isn't quite so in that the amendment was dealt with, was ruled in order by the Speaker, and was later by a vote of the House put out of order because the Speaker's ruling was upset.

But the facts are that the motion had been dealt with and it's my view that the applicable section of May at page 449 of the edition which I understand the Deputy Speaker read to the House applies in this case and the Honourable Member forfeits his right to speak.

Now I invite any points that the Honourable Members may wish to make. I recognise the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: It is quite true that the precedent you outline is correct and was quoted in May by the Deputy Speaker. However, what we are dealing with here is not a motion that was disposed of by debate. We're dealing here with a motion that although it was ruled in order the House overruled the Chair, therefore nullifying the motion. The point being made by the Honourable Member is that had the motion, sub-motion, been in order and sustained by the House, indeed he would have spoken immediately after me as seconder. That would have been the normal procedure.

But since there was no opportunity for me as the mover to speak and since the motion was not read from the Chair by yourself but ruled out of order before there was any debate, the House overruled the fact that this could have been an order. Therefore, no motion exists at all. That's the point that we're taking, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, speaking to that point of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to standing order No. 50 of our House which says: "All motions except a motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing, and seconded and signed by mover and seconder, before being debated or put from the Chair. When a motion is seconded it shall be read by Mr. Speaker before debate."

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was the Attorney General who drew attention to the contents of that motion from the orders of the day. It was not put to the House by you, Sir, and therefore it has not satisfied the requirement of standing order No. 50.

I would point out that if this is accepted as a precedent, we're in the dangerous position of having any motion put

[ Page 428 ]

before the House being overruled by the majority on the other side and it would become a unique method of closure and we don't want methods of closure in this House because it will just stifle debate on any given issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please! The Honourable the Minister of Health.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health): I'd like to assist you with our remarks. I would respectfully point out to you, Sir, that in this instance if you were to rule otherwise than as you have, the practical effect would be of course that any Member of the House might avail himself of several opportunities to speak on the same subject, namely the amendment which we are presently debating, simply by the introduction of a sub-amendment which was clearly outside the purview of the business of the House at the moment. This would offer the individual any number of opportunities to speak either as a mover or as a seconder and I would respectfully suggest, Sir, that your ruling is a correct one.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to the point of order. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I have listened to the remarks of the Honourable the leader of the Liberal group in this House in respect to standing order 50. My interpretation, particularly of the last sentence "when a motion is seconded and shall be read by Mr. Speaker before debate," is that the purpose of this must be in part to determine whether or not, in fact, the motion is in order, and I distinctly recall you, Mr. Speaker, calling upon the Leafier of the Opposition to pass the motion up to you in writing. I can only presume that you read the motion in the course of the discussion as to whether or not it was in fact in order.

I know, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition read to the House the full content of the motion or the subamendment and I believe I did likewise so there can't be any concern as to whether or not the Members were aware of the contents of the resolution. The terms of it were also standing on the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is the only ruling that can be made under the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, on the point of order.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): A point of clarification that I wish to try and bring up, Mr. Speaker, is this. We are dealing with what the House is apprised of and I would suggest that what the House is apprised of under these circumstances where one of your rulings has been, in fact, overruled by the House we are only apprised of that which is on the orders of the day.

The amendment we are referring to is on the orders of the day, the seconder is not. In point of fact, by the rules of this House, this House is not aware of who the seconder is.

Mr. Speaker, the Members are pointing out that it was on the paper handed to you but that is no longer what the House is dealing with because the House is only dealing with its own decision which was to overrule what you had in front of you and that is not, now, what the House is dealing with. We are dealing with a proposed amendment which is on the orders of the day and if the Members will look at it they will notice no seconder is named.

The House is not aware of that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: On this further point of order, what the Attorney General said is quite true. I did read the sub-amendment and perhaps the Attorney General did too, but the standing orders make no mention of the Leader of the Opposition or the Attorney General. What the standing order says is when a motion is seconded, it shall be read by Mr. Speaker before the debate. Such did not take place. It was challenged after I read it. It was never put to the House.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that standing order No. 50 has not been complied with.

I do believe that it would be far more dangerous, there would be no opportunity as the Honourable the Member of Health indicated, there would be no opportunity to use the House in the way you suggest because the House decides as it did in this instance whether or not the amendment is in order before it can be debated.

In this instance the House decided, contrary to the Speaker, that it was not in order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds. Order, please!

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I refer to page 449 of the 16th edition of May where it says, "Formerly a Member who had moved an order of the day or seconded a motion in this manner was precluded from afterwards addressing the House upon the same question, was heard merely by the indulgence of the House. But under the present usage, the option of speaking at a subsequent period of debate has been conceded."

Now, it says also: "He must rise in his place to move, make, or second the motion." Nowhere has this Member risen in this place and seconded the motion. How then can it be said that he has either spoken in the debate or complied with the exclusionary principle that the Deputy Speaker had referred to? In the circumstances even from May it's obvious that he is not within that prohibition aside from the fact that there is the indulgence of the House to let the Honourable Member speak.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. We need no cross-fire argument when we're dealing with a point of order and I can well understand the concerns that are in Members' minds. However, the Chair has to be governed by the page quoted by the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds who stated that under present usage the option of speaking at a subsequent period of debate has been conceded.

But when one reads on, it states: In moving or seconding a motion for adjournment, a Member cannot avail himself of this privilege.

In moving or seconding a motion for adjournment or an amendment a Member cannot avail himself of this privilege as he must rise in his place to make or second the motion, and thus cannot avoid addressing the House, however shortly. As a Member who moves an amendment cannot speak again, so a Member who seconds an amendment is equally unable to speak again upon the main question, after the amendment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.

[ Page 429 ]

Now, I think the position of the Chair then is reasonably clear. And I must now rule that the Honourable Member for Kootenay has forfeited his right to speak to this amendment.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I haven't said anything on this. It says there definitely that you have to rise in your place to second a motion and this was ruled out of order as if there was no motion. Then I say you've got to go back to square one when there's no motion. The motion was the same as if it was no motion. Because it was ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've dealt with all the various points of order. I have listened respectfully to the opinions of the Members I have now ruled….

MR. NIMSICK: Well I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is nothing but a clear-cut case of closure. We'd have finished this a long time ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NIMSICK: I think it's ridiculous the way you handle democracy in this House, and I don't care who knows it. They must be mighty afraid of what I was going to say in order to rule me out of speaking. They must be mighty well afraid….

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. NIMSICK: It's the same as they treat people in this province. The same exact way they're treating the elderly people in the province. The same way as Eric Martin spoke about….

MR. SPEAKER: Will this House come to order?

Will the Honourable Member please be seated? I have tried to deal as fairly as I could with the questions. I have quoted to you the extract from "Parliamentary Procedure." I have ruled. If there is any question in the Member's mind then it has to be on the basis of the ruling that I have made. There is no further debate on the matter.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker I am not challenging the ruling. I simply want to state that after what's happened tonight the issue of the next election will be a change in the rules of this House and democracy in British Columbia. That will be the election issue.

MR. NIMSICK: I don't think that challenging your ruling is a proper thing to do and I don't think that every time you want to make a new rule that you can just put it on and then have to challenge it, and then it's a new rule on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a new rule. Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have a little order in the House? Would the Honourable Member for Richmond please be seated?

Is the Honourable Leader of the Opposition speaking to the same point of order?

MR. BARRETT: I have a question to ask of the Chair, before I make my decision whether or not I challenge your ruling.

The question is this Mr. Speaker. If in challenging your ruling, and your ruling is upheld, have we established the precedent? In any instance when a motion is made by an Honourable Member, if a majority of the House wishes to rule that motion out of order, overruling the Speaker, does that not set a precedent for at any future time in this House on any motion even though the Speaker rules it in order if the majority of Members feel that they do not wish it debated they may challenge the Speaker's ruling, rule it out of order and we will have established a procedure for closure?

I'm very fearful of this precedent. It would mean a government majority could at any time establish a ruling that it wished to rule the motion out of order.

Now I want you to consider this seriously because there will be others after we're long gone. It would mean that any time a motion was introduced a majority of Members even though the Speaker may say it's in order, a majority of Members could vote saying it wasn't in order, therefore stopping a Member from speaking. I think it's a very dangerous precedent and I'd like to know that before I make a decision on whether or not to challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it the notice of motion made by the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is still under discussion, so there's no closure on the debate on this particular motion. What the Chair has said is that a Member who moves a sub-amendment to that motion forfeits his right to speak. That's not a matter of setting a precedent but of continuing precedents already set.

MR NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, how far does that reach — just on this amendment? That I can't speak on the amendment? It doesn't bar me from speaking on the main motion?

MR SPEAKER: Certainly not. It's only from the original amendment.

MR. NIMSICK: Because, if it did then it would be….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: You'd give nothing in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are we wasting the time for then?

MR. BARRETT: Before I make the decision to challenge because I'm fearful of having this go on the record — it's still not clear in my mind, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the instance we are in with a sub-amendment. But does your ruling not mean now that even on a main amendment, not a subamendment but even on a main amendment, if you say the amendment is in order and a majority of Members say it is not in order then we have a precedent? In my opinion, if we challenge your ruling then we have a precedent of the ruling saying that when a majority overrules the Speaker the seconder cannot speak.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. But that is not setting a

[ Page 430 ]

precedent.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if we challenge your ruling it will be a precedent. And I would rather ask my Members to leave the chamber for a while, rather than set that precedent. Because it would be far more dangerous for the future than the record of this government or us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order for one moment, please. Shall we take for example the motion that was placed before the House by the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and was seconded by the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour spoke, seconded this amendment. While he spoke to it he forfeited his right to speak to the budget debate. Honourable Members in the Opposition have employed this quite proper tactic from time to time, in full knowledge that the seconder would forfeit his right to speak.

It applies equally with a sub-amendment, as it does to an amendment. So I think the House is setting no precedent.

MR. BARRETT: You missed my point, Mr. Speaker. And this is why I'm asking, and I want to be very, very clear in my mind because it's important indeed. Supposing, Mr. Speaker, we make this ruling and in the next major debate — in a future parliament, in a budget debate — the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour is in a similar situation. He makes an amendment to the budget debate, a government Member gets up and challenges your ruling.

You must make a ruling whether or not that amendment is in order. The government can get up, or a group can get up and challenge it. And in that instance the majority can overrule your decision, and we would have as a precedent established in the overrule in your decision. The precedent that the seconder has lost his right to speak. And that's what I'm fearful of.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker I want to raise just one point, that as I see contains the crux of the situation. And that is that all the rulings that you have quoted from, all the passages that the various Members have quoted from have never assumed the position whereby the government overrules the Speaker. And that I think is the essential difference that is contained in the rulings you're making in, the decisions you're quoting and the precedents that you are putting before us.

Because that's the main crux of the situation, the unprecedented fact that the government overrules its Speaker, or the Speaker of the House. I ask therefore that there must be a different quality to the ruling that you hand down.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid the point taken by the Honourable Member from Surrey pretty well reiterates the one taken by the Leader of the Opposition. We cannot read that into the section of May that I have quoted to you. And I must rule now, finally, that the Honourable Member for Kootenay without express permission from the House, by unanimous consent of the House, cannot speak to this amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, not because of the matter of concern for the Member losing his place, but frankly for a matter of deeper concern in setting a precedent on what I think is a mistake I will not challenge your ruling. But it is not because I agree with it, but I'm frightened to challenge your ruling as it may set a precedent.

MR NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in this case, in future parliaments there's going to be a fear of making a moving a motion either to the throne speech or to the budget debate because every time a motion is made there's always a danger of it being ruled out of order — not being written up right or something like that — and if it's ruled out of order either by the government or by the Speaker, then the seconder automatically loses his place in the main debate. And this is bad…this is bad.

HON. MR PETERSON: I'm sure that we would consent to his addressing the House.

MR NIMSICK: We'll beg you for nothing.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It's not a case of begging. It's contrary to the rules. I don't want to see the Hon. Member denied an opportunity to speak and I'm sure the Members on this side of the House don't wish to deny him an opportunity to speak. If he'd only ask for unanimous consent I'm sure it would be given.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker in that respect again it raises a question of asking leave of the House, of the majority again. And I'm frightened about that. It's another precedent and we just can't do this on the basis of precedent.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no precedent being set. As I've tried to explain to you exactly what it says in May's "Parliamentary Practice," we're not setting a precedent but really following the precedents and following the rules.

MR. NIMSICK: In taking May though, Mr. Speaker, in all those questions the amendment had been defeated, and you couldn't go back.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Would the Honourable Member like me to ask the House for leave?

MR. NIMSICK: I'm not going to ask the House for leave.

MR PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to ask for leave. We don't want to deny the Honourable Member the opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: I am asking the House may the Honourable Member for Kootenay speak to this amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR SPEAKER: Contrary if any?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Aye.

MR SPEAKER: Unanimous consent has been denied. The Honourable Member for Richmond.

ON THE BUDGET

[ Page 431 ]

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment I think I've made my position quite clear with respect to my feelings regarding the aged a couple of nights ago, and I haven't changed my mind in that respect. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, I resent what I consider a form of political blackmail at this time in this amendment coming from the Liberal group. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because of the deplorable record this party has had in their caring for the aged in Canada.

I have had the pleasure in Richmond in this past summer of having first-hand knowledge of the things that this government has done this year alone, on behalf of the aged.

I think they have spent over $500,000 in Richmond alone as an outright grant to two organisations in Richmond to build senior citizens' housing. That is in addition to housing that existed there in other areas in the years past. And I was appalled, Mr. Speaker, to find that the federal government attempt to derive some glory from the fact that they are so kind as to let them have funds for what I think is something in the way of 50 per cent of the cost at an interest rate approaching 8 per cent interest on the money for their housing and to have the gall to come to this House and ask the government to do more than they are doing now I think is ridiculous.

Yes, ridiculous is maybe the best word. I was going to use a stronger term but I had better leave it out.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic and we have to do things as we're able to do them. It ill-behoves the members of the Liberal Party to make suggestions of the kind they're making here for political reasons only and no other reason.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: It was in quite a different vein. But I do want to come back to one point and that is the matter of the interest rate which the old people are paying on the money which they borrow to build the homes for them — the money they borrow from Ottawa.

I figured it out at the time. In one housing project alone that opened this summer in Richmond, the excessive interest rates which they were required to pay increased the amount of rent which each tenant paid by over $10 a month, above what it really should be under decent and normal and properly applicable interest rates. I think that there may be an opportunity here for the provincial government to provide funds at perhaps 2 per cent interest, simply to pay the cost of administration.

I even have a further suggestion with respect to providing housing for the aged. And that is that the funds required to provide this money, this loan fund for the aged, could be raised through the holding of a provincial lottery. A provincial lottery which would be popular with the tourists.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is speaking beside the question and is importing a new argument into the amendment.

MR. LeCOURS: Is it not with respect to providing adequate care for our old people, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's remotely connected, but I think the whole subject of the type of scheme you're talking about is not related to this particular amendment. The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I have listened to this complete debate and listened very carefully to all the speakers on both sides of the question. And as it does seem to just get down to the very basic question that those who support the amendment do not feel that the present budget supplies and fills the adequate need of the citizens today, and provides the adequate provision to fill those needs.

Of course, those who are going to vote against this motion are saying in essence that they believe the present budget does make adequate provision for our senior citizens.

Now I'm reiterating this point, Mr. Speaker, even though it has been stated before many times this afternoon because I think that every M.L.A. on this floor when this vote is called really has to weigh the question strictly from that point of view.

Now the Honourable Minister without Portfolio who I know has done a lot of work with the senior citizens, she above all in a very close relationship with the senior citizens of this province must be very aware of the problems that so many of them are facing.

Yet we hear — not from the Honourable Minister without Portfolio who has not spoken yet — but we have heard from her fellow cabinet Ministers that it's an affront to even suggest that this budget is not providing adequately for the senior citizens.

This is one argument that I've heard in many other areas but I think it's an affront to the senior citizens to bring up this argument with reference to them.

We kept hearing from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) this evening that we believe in the senior citizens helping themselves. It's great to see these homes developing with the senior citizens actually taking part in the planning. What I would like to ask that particular Minister, who isn't on the floor of the House at this time, is could he tell me how any senior citizen today could help bring this about on his own, through self-help in this great spirit of being part of the whole picture?

How can he bring about lower drugs? How can he bring about an increase in his income? How can this senior citizen bring about the elimination of medicare premiums?

This really is the crux of the whole problem. Even though this government has, as some of the Members have mentioned, taken some action and some worthwhile action with senior citizens, the whole point is that many thousands of our senior citizens today are suffering because the actions that are needed today are not being taken. The point is that this budget does not point out that this government intends to bring in these needed actions.

You know, it's very interesting, even in the Vancouver Sun tonight, it takes a swipe at both the federal Liberals and this provincial government. I'm sure some of you have seen the editorial. It's headed "Honour Thy Father and Thy Mother." and it says:

Certainly there must be surprise at both the federal and provincial levels of government that their recent measures to improve life for the elderly are being dismissed, just as so many crumbs from the table from all quarters, even their own.

The article goes on to point out that along comes the B.C. provincial budget's additional $50 tacked on to the homeowner grant for the old folks. Big deal! Not, it would appear, to most people who pause to measure its significance in almost $1.5 billion budget. This is from the Vancouver Sun tonight and as I said it also is attacking the federal Liberals

[ Page 432 ]

and if you want me to read their attack on the federal Liberals I will but I feel it's irrelevant at this particular point in my speech.

But you know, what really concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that I know every M.L.A. must have throughout the year, day-in and day-out, calls, letters, complaints about the needs for senior citizens and the point is that I don't know how you answer them, frankly. I really don't because how do you answer a call that I received just before I came over here from an old couple who were living in a private hospital in North Burnaby? I went to see them and do you know that this couple were paying $800 a month for their chronic care, $800 a month, for the two of them.

When I went in to see them the old man was sitting on the bed with his hand shaking showing me his bank book and he called me over to ask me what happens now. He said: "I came in here with several thousands of dollars, my life savings. I sold my home, I came in here. After using up $800 a month for a number of years, my wife and I have no money left."

So of course, I had to tell him: "The only thing that will happen is the government will have to take you over and you will have to become a welfare recipient." This to a man who worked all his life in British Columbia.

You know, frankly, I don't know how you people can face these senior citizens. What do you say to them when you go and face them in these situations?

You know, you could include chronic care — this is what we're asking for, this is why we say you are not meeting the needs of the citizens of this province — you could include chronic care, extended care under B.C.H.I.S. It's quite possible to do so but there's nothing in this budget to show the people of British Columbia that you intend to do this. So we therefore say that you are not providing adequate care.

What about drugs? You know, one of the Hon. Ministers here tonight or this afternoon mentioned his own mother so I will also take the opportunity to mention my own mother who happens to be an old age pensioner.

She phoned me up the other day to say: "What do you think? I went to get my drugs today at the drug store," (and she only has the old age pension) and she says they've gone up. So I got her bill and I checked how much they had gone up — 50 per cent. They've gone up 50 per cent from the original price that she paid a week before and here is what they said to her: "The price of this prescription has gone up."

(My mother is not able to go out so she has to have them sent and they sent her the letter.)

"The company that makes these capsules have stopped making the bottles of 100 which we were buying and instead is only making bottles of 12. The price per capsule in these smaller quantities has tripled to us."

Now, what do you think of that? What sort of protection does that give a senior citizen? She has to have the pills. She does not qualify because she doesn't come under the special supplement. She happens to just live on the burn-out pension with my father.

Now unless I was able to assist her they would be in a pretty sorry state. But unfortunately how many senior citizens of this province do not have children who can help them out and who still have to pay these prices? You cannot show me anywhere in this budget where you are giving any hope to the senior citizens of this province, that you are going to do a thing about drugs and yet other provinces less wealthy than British Columbia are able to plan or are able to give free drugs to their senior citizens.

I know that we're going to be hearing a few more speeches about the many things that have been done by Social Credit, but the basic issue tonight when we vote on this vote is this is the year 1972, you're the government that's been in for 20 years.

Are you really meeting the needs of the senior citizens of this province? Mr. Speaker, I claim that this government is not meeting the needs therefore I am not going to at any time do anything else but support this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to take up the case of old age pensioners too. As I feel that the government often say that we deal in generalities and not in facts I took the trouble of going to some facts regarding some of the problems — and some of them have been touched on already — of old age pensioners.

First thing that's apparent, Mr. Speaker, is that the government along with the federal government and others chose some years ago to consider the provision of health care important to the people of the country. They considered it important even more for old people with a limited income because, as the Provincial Secretary boasted, we reduced the premiums for old age pensioners who are not in receipt of certain levels of income. We subsidised them in other words.

Yet it is a fact, and this is proven by the task force reports on the cost of health service, the cost of the trip to the doctor is frequently the least cost one may face. The $5 bill you pay to the doctor for the office visit is often followed by a $7.50 bill for the prescription, a $9 bill, and $18 bill and so on and so forth.

As the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) pointed out, the last count I can find — obviously we must be reading the same research material — is that a third of the prescriptions that are written aren't filled and a great number of those prescriptions must, obviously, not be filled by old age pensioners.

Therefore, if we only provide half the service of keeping our old people fit we are hardly doing the job that the government is claiming should be done. We go further and we observe in this task force report that the cost of drugs has doubled in less than 10 years and the year of this report is 1967. I suggest it's probably been doubled again since then.

We also find out that the average cost per capita in Canada of drugs, prescription drugs, in the last year of research is $11.72. That's the per capita cost.

Mr. Speaker, there are 206,000 people on old age pensions and it's our job therefore to develop this argument. How much does it cost old people in this province for prescription drugs? Well, we look at the figures that are provided by the government — the social welfare department for instance, Mr. Speaker, spends $2.5 million on providing prescription drugs for those people, some 98,000 of them on social welfare and old age security.

Now, they will cover a range of ages. But if 98,000 people cost the Department of Social Welfare $2.5 million one could therefore say, using fairly raw figures, that old age pensioners in this province are paying out certainly not more than $5 million.

We check that figure against the $11.52 that was last recorded in the task force and we're in the ball-park of $2.75 million to $5 million for drugs. The fact of the matter is that figure of social welfare prescription costs may be high

[ Page 433 ]

because of the socioeconomic climate that those people live in. That should be counterbalanced and I know that the Minister of Health's going to stand up and share some of his privy information that they be counterbalanced by the high cost of some drugs that some old people need, cortisone and so on and so forth.

Tonight we've heard two or three Members talk about their mothers. My mother just reached the age of 65, so she qualifies. I happened to be taking her out shopping just before Christmas and her prescription cost for three kinds of tablets was $18.95. Mr. Speaker, she's trying to exist on an English pension which doesn't translate very well when it comes across 4,000 miles but she too has got a family, all her family, over here who assist. But as the Member for Burnaby says that's not true in every case.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to take away that terrible problem of old age pensioners wouldn't cost more than $5 million not less than $2.75 million — somewhere in that figure. I think that when this government is standing up to its armpits in surplus funds not to do that is to do nothing and I don't know how you can honestly vote against this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I've been sitting here since quarter to five pretty nearly the whole time listening to this debate in the House. I must say that first some good things have been said, there's been some reasonable things said and some things not quite so reasonable. Some realistic and some not so realistic. But Mr. Speaker, I would say that in my work with the elderly citizens in the province that I look upon this in a serious light.

In my travels throughout the province I have met with many, many of our elderly citizens, not once not twice, but many times.

Several other people have been talking about their mothers. I also have a father who is 89 years old. He presently in a hospital in my home town so that not only do I meet with the elderly citizens in the province but I also am aware of their needs through the personal relationship with my own dad.

Indeed, long before I was ever elected to this government I had been working with the senior citizens in my own area. Since my election I've been able to continue on in this work on behalf of the government and I look upon all those elderly citizens throughout the province, many who I have come to know as friends, I think of them sometimes as of many mothers and fathers.

Our senior citizens, the pioneers of this country, are wonderful people. They have a knowledge and experience of the world that I appreciate and despite the remarks of the Hon. Members who said they were, I say to you they are not cast off in their old age I say to you nor are they forsaken when their strength fails, by this government.

Our senior citizens are independent and a proud people. They are much more reasonable to deal with, I often think, than any other area of our population because they have come to this point in life when they are matured and they are mellowed and they understand that there is just so much that can be done at one time. That nothing is really free.

Naturally, they wish certain things to come about but they also do realise that this cannot be accomplished all at once. I have continuously worked with these good people. In all the programmes that I have recommended to this government from time to time I must say that I have had the utmost cooperation of the elderly citizens of this province.

We've worked together in working out programmes. Mr. Speaker, they have not always involved expenditure of a lot of money because money doesn't always make for the happiest of lives. Certainly they need money but they do need other things besides.

As I say I've had the utmost cooperation — I still have — of these wonderful citizens. This I've appreciated, but you know, I do deplore the fact anyone in any party using this segment of our citizens as a political gambit. It is not really worthy of anyone in this House because, Mr. Speaker, I say and I don't care what party you belong to, those are senior citizens out in the province there and I say to you that we are interested in those senior citizens.

I've heard a lot of talk about: "Let's not talk about Ottawa here." I can't help but talk a little bit about them too. Because when I meet with these elderly citizens, time and time again, they've told me of going to Ottawa, and on the doorsteps of that federal building, and trying to get an increase in the amount of their old age security.

They have tried and tried again and I say to those Liberal Members and the Opposition, if they really mean what they're saying tonight, if they really mean it, get cracking on your M.P.'s, those Liberal M.P.'s back in Ottawa to back these elderly citizens back here who need their help.

The senior citizens in this county need their help. I am not here speaking just for the elderly citizens in British Columbia, but I say for all those folks across this wonderful Canada of ours they need your help. If the federal Members won't speak for them, who is going to speak? I guess we have to. You speak for them.

You know, there has been a lot of talk tonight about programmes and I could spend a great deal of time on many of these things but I think they have been covered fairly fully tonight. I could talk to you about care facilities, I did to some extent a short while ago in the House. I think this is a great programme, the special care home programme. I say tonight that it is a new programme and I'm pleased we have it. I'm pleased and the senior citizen is pleased as well.

As I predicted, and I think I can say this with all sincerity, this programme is going to become possibly number one in the province in this area of care within two years time at least. Now you can laugh, but two years is not a great length of time. The elderly citizens certainly, with whom I've been working, have been asking for this programme. They now have it.

In regard to pensions I've heard a lot of them talk about pensions here tonight. Do you know that this province is the only provincial government to have allowances for the pensioner over 65 higher than the war veteran's allowances? The only province in Canada extending a supplement and health care services to the spouse or widow of war veterans allowance recipients? The only province.

Reception to this from the veterans that I have met is very, very well received indeed. I am pleased with this programme. I'm proud that our province has done this.

You talk about not much being in the budget for the elderly citizens. I don't think you can segregate elderly citizens entirely from other people. They are part of the community, they're in our hospital care programmes, the services, the social services within the Department of Rehabilitation. They are included in these programmes.

I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to speak

[ Page 434 ]

to the citizens in this province in regard to our older persons. These are our pioneers. These are the ones who have done so much to build our province and to build our Canada.

There was mention made on housing and I have spoken on this previous to now and I think that the way that this government feels that we don't dot the "I" and say it's got to be just so many millions of dollars and this especially applies to housing.

Do you know that the total commitment for the year that we're in now, still over a month ago, we are over-committed by almost $2.5 million? I'm glad we are and I do not doubt we are over-committed next year by $4 or $5 million. I don't care. I think it's good. This is a good programme, well received. I think that community involvement is still the best kind of programme that we can have. Because you remove the personal, the family, the home touch that people want. Create a senior citizens home into an institution, that's run by the state? I wouldn't want to live in such a set-up and I know the elderly citizens wouldn't either.

I have never heard any complaints from Kiwanis, Rotary, or anybody else, for having to raise the 10 per cent necessary for this housing. They're doing an excellent job and they're working with the government and with the elderly citizens in their areas to bring it about.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this amendment because I take strong exception to our elderly citizens being used as a political gimmick. The senior citizens of this province are well aware of my stand concerning the interest of their affairs. They are aware of our interest on their behalf. It is unfortunate that those of our citizens who, to quote Socrates, are those having the fewest wants and who collectively have enough wisdom to see around being used as a political pawn in a shabby political chess game, and must be made the object of such a piece of chicanery.

Mr. Speaker, I will back the senior citizens in this province at any time. I'll be in there working with them, but I will not lend myself to a vote calculated to confound the wise, a vote which I am sure holds no water with those of our elderly citizens, who are aware of the reasons behind it. Our senior citizens will not miss this discourse of their representatives and reflect upon how they have been used in this cheap manner.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like the Honourable Member from Mackenzie who just took her place to know that when I stand here it is not the purpose of using anyone for political or any other purposes and I really am surprised that a person of her sincerity and the care that she has taken in respect of our elderly citizens, could stand in her place and make such a statement.

Mr. Speaker, she said that these were the pioneers of this province, and she knows that they are the pioneers. They are the ones that built this province through very difficult times — who laid the foundation upon which our future now rests. Who laid the foundation which has enabled this government to produce a budget this year with $266 million available for expenditure. Yet, when the Honourable the lady Minister meets her senior citizens she tells them that "you can't do everything at once."

What did they do last year, what did they do the year before? What are they doing this year? If you happen to be an elderly citizen who owns his own home: "We'll give you $50. But if you rent we'll give you nothing, if you're sick we'll give you nothing, if you need drugs we give you nothing and we will continue," the Honourable the lady Minister, would say "to wage this senseless battle" whether they are Ottawa's responsibility or British Columbia's responsibility.

They are our pioneers, they're our responsibility. Who are these people that we call our senior citizens? You know, as this debate has raged on today, we talk of these people as if they were some special category of citizens, some special category that should be singled out and isolated and given special treatment.

Because they happen to be citizens of this province entitled to the full benefits of the financial resources of this province and the government's holding them back, that's what the motion is on. They don't treat these people the way they treat the rest of the citizens in this province.

They are citizens of this province — 10 per cent of the people in this province fall within the category of those over the age of 65. Over the next couple of decades the number of our citizens in that category will at least double. When we're debating this matter tonight, Mr. Speaker, it's not for the senior citizen today, or the one next year, but as I said in an earlier debate, we're talking about the one the decade from now.

Think who the senior citizens are going to be a decade from now. Look around this room and see who the senior citizens will be a decade from now.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's one right there.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's not only the one whom we class as a senior citizen on a pension today over the age of 65, for whom we need to have concern.

What about the one who is 64, or 63, or 62, or 61 — who's approaching that stage when, unless they have been extremely fortunate during their earning years, will be forced to exist on the pension provided by government and such private pension plan as they may have perhaps acquired for themselves during the time that they were gainfully employed?

What faces those people? What kind of people are they? Well the statistics would indicate that they will be predominantly female. Statistics also indicate that while they are financially insecure today, two decades from now they will still be financially insecure. Their future pension rights, either from government or from private pension plans will not alter their financial picture significantly.

Those people, Mr. Speaker, live in fear. Not fear that they manifest easily, but as they approach the age of 65, the age when the incidence of poor health becomes much greater, they live in fear. "What is going to happen to the savings that I have acquired during my earning years?" they say.

The Honourable lady Minister said that in the next two years she thinks that the special care homes will be one of the outstanding programmes in the province.

Two years, at the rate it costs these elderly citizens for chronic care facilities today, two years is enough to wipe out the savings of a lifetime. This is all we're offering these senior citizens today. The fear that they have of being separated from their wife or husband, the fear that they have of being unable to provide themselves with the drugs which may be necessary for the sustenance of life.

All these fears build up in these citizens of ours as they approach the age of 65 and many are the instances when those fears become realised after the age of 65.

[ Page 435 ]

That's what this debate is about tonight. Are we prepared to take that positive step in the Province of British Columbia which, along with those other challenging social programmes, such as medicare, will help to remove this kind of fear from the minds of these citizens?

It is becoming, with modern taxes, increasingly difficult to save during your earning years. Contributions to pension plans can easily evaporate with changing fiscal conditions and if the citizen who has contributed through his lifetime to this province and to this country is not able to have from its government, federal or provincial, that assurance that he can live out the balance of his reward years — that is what they should be, the balance of his reward years — comfortably and without fear, then we in this assembly this year as in years gone by fail this group of citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and I know there are others who wish to engage in this debate. In order that we may properly develop this subject, I move adjournment now until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS—16

NAYS—33

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker there's one point I think we have missed. And that is the fact that there are a great many people in private hospitals in this province who qualify for extended care. They qualify for extended care, Mr. Speaker, and yet that qualification does not give them the right to extended care unless there's a bed available. Now, if there was something in this budget that would provide for those people, but there's no beds, there's no help.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you know the right people it helps.

MR. COCKE: Yes, if you know the right people you get in, and if you don't you're often out of luck, Mr. Speaker. But the unfortunate aspect of the whole thing is the fact that if we cannot provide for extended care in this province we should be paying for these people in the private hospitals, as opposed to the dollar-a-day situation that he would enjoy if he was in the extended care facility, it's completely unfair.

So let's remember that the person who qualifies for extended care must be admitted to an extended care facility before he gets his hospital bills paid. And I think this is totally, and completely, and absolutely unjust. The rest homes, or many of the nursing homes, I would consider to be sub-standard. But at least, while we're in this interim stage, while we don't have the facilities, let's pay the bills for those people that are in there.

Mr. Speaker, people are being milked dry from their life savings and there are families that are being milked by virtue of the fact that this government does really not do a total job for the elderly citizens of this province. You can be as proud and all as you like, and make all the claims that you like — try blaming Ottawa for this — one of the things that interest me is the fact that these people to our left were not elected as federal Members. How do you hold them responsible, they were elected in this House as provincial Members and they have as much right to speak as the Member from the Vancouver Centre who speaks quite eloquently at times when he particularly is trying to polish his own image? Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion is a motion that should be supported by every Member in this House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is a matter of whether we're going to support the government or whether we're not. That's the issue.

But the Members of the Opposition would like to move away from that very important matter on to something quite different. The amendment starts with the words expressing certain regrets. A little earlier this evening when the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour rose to second this motion — the good debater that he is — he referred to this as a part of the great British parliamentary tradition.

Now let's see what that tradition means in other Houses where the Liberals are not in the Opposition but where they're on the government side of the House. Mr. Speaker we don't have to look very far. If you look in the proceedings in the House of Commons in 1969, there is a motion there put not by the Liberals but by the Conservatives.

Now here's how the motion reads, and it is relevant Mr. Speaker because it's almost word for word in sentiment with what we're dealing with this evening. Here's how it reads. The motion put by the Conservatives regrets:

The continuing inability of the government to curb the relentless increase in the cost of living since 1965 while increasing the hardship of the unemployed.

Now, here is a real good motion if you want one. This is what it is. They have a motion here pointing out the unemployment, the poor, the pensioner….

Now they come to pensioners, these old people. In that House, Mr. Speaker, when the vote of confidence was taken on this the former leader of the Liberals in this House — Mr. Perrault — voted against the pensioners. You'll find him among the names.

Now the real issue here is whether the government is going to be sustained, or whether it's not. That is always the rule in these kind of votes. And we say that when on that

[ Page 436 ]

side of the House they attempt to bring in the efforts and welfare of older people this is the very thing which is nothing more than political cynicism on that side of the House. Because what they want to do is tie together a vote of confidence with the welfare of older people, and the two are separate and distinct issues. One has nothing to do with the other.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes the Members of this House will be invited to support the government. That's what they will be invited to do. Now, the next thing. There has been not one word spoken in this debate on this amendment that could not have been spoken just as easily in the debate on the budget. There can be no question, there was no aspect of the debate on this amendment that could not have been spoken on with the same facility on the main issue before the House, namely the vote on the budget.

Therefore I think that we should come back again to the essential ingredient that this is a confidence vote. This has nothing to do with other issues. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a rather sad occasion for the elderly people of British Columbia, to hear the kind of defence that's been put up on their behalf by the Members of the government. The Honourable the Minister of Highways said: "Let's tell the elderly the truth." And that's what we're here to do this evening, Mr. Speaker — tell the elderly of British Columbia the truth. And the truth, Mr. Speaker, is that what we have in British Columbia is a $19.30 government. Because that's what they give to the elderly citizens of British Columbia, $19.30 a month.

There was a time, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, when the government would give the elderly citizens $30 a month. But that's been sliced down year after year after year. And now we're down to $19.30 and all the while the Ministers on the other side complain about Ottawa. They've brought in a huge budget. They've stripped it of over $100 million this year. Not one penny of that to the elderly citizens of the province, and what we're stripping off isn't the huge surplus that's coming in this year, and in my budget I pointed out that would be over $150 million. It's not the surplus in the budget we're discussing for this coming year. That's going to be another $150 million.

What was stripped off in all these funds — and not one penny of that to the elderly — is from the budget of two years ago. The $100 million the government had then. And if it comes right down to priorities I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. We've set aside $25 million in a provincial major disaster fund. That's sitting in the bank. And I think we've got a disaster for the elderly citizens of the province right now. That money shouldn't be in the bank. It should be going out as a supplement to those who are in need.

"Tell it like it is". That's what the Minister of Municipal Affairs says. Well, Mr. Speaker, the elderly people of British Columbia are telling us like it is in their mail. And it isn't just to me that they write, and I'm glad the Premier of the province is in his chair because I want to read a letter that was written to him. The carbon copy to me, and here's what the writer said. The date is February 4:

I wrote to you last year concerning this matter but I received no reply. In light of your latest budget I feel compelled to write again. We're not interested in equity and homes at this stage in life. But rather to stretch our life span by a few years, by freeing ourselves from the problems and physical strains that are being put upon us.

In this apartment where I live, as in apartments all over Kelowna, about 90 per cent of the renters are over 65. These people live in apartments not because apartment living is great, but because they're not physically able to care for a home. Our governments keep telling us how concerned they are for people on fixed incomes. But the concern usually stops with the long speeches. If the government has money to distribute to some of the people please don't discriminate against the rest of us. We're having a difficult enough time as it is.

Here's another one from the Premier's riding.

I feel compelled to write to you because like many in my age category I have waited, hoping this government would finally do something for us.

Mrs. Donald has had cancer which has left her with a colostomy system and requires equipment including plastic bags by the hundreds, belts and rings et cetera. She has because of this a blood condition that requires medication three times daily. We sold our house because I was unable to maintain it.

Here's another one from a lady.

I'm 80 years old, living on my small income. I cannot walk as far as I could and I can't afford to pay 50 cents for a bus. I have usually voted Social Credit but feel I cannot do so any more as Mr. Bennett has done nothing to help we older people who are living on incomes which we saved for in our younger days.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member from Vancouver Centre was very brave on budget day but tonight he tells us he won't vote for the elderly. He's going to support the government despite the niggardly nothing that they give to the old age pensioners. You're a $19.30 government, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: It's not enough that the federal government puts up the rest…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR McGEER: …$157 a month from that source? $19.30 from you. What's the matter with us in British Columbia? How much of a surplus do we have to have before we can give something to the elderly people of British Columbia? All those billions of dollars, and $19.30 from the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, what we've come out with is a charter of rights for the elderly people of British Columbia. Rights that they've earned by building this province, but rights that they've been denied by a niggardly government. No surplus will be large enough for this government to help the senior citizens.

If we can't do it this year, when can we do it? How much of a surplus is enough? How many of these perpetual funds are enough before it's finally time to add the kind of supplements that we had a few years ago? Even if we could do that. Our charter of rights calls as a start for a

[ Page 437 ]

$30-a-month supplement from the provincial government. We used to do that and our public accounts show that in those years — $7,900,000 was put aside in 1966, down the next year to $2.4 million, down the next year to $2.3 million. Each year the amount of supplement that we give to these old age pensioners goes down while the surpluses grow and the profits grow.

I'm talking to the Hon. Premier. He's the one that has the huge surplus. He's the one with the profits in his budget. He's the one that's denying the elderly people of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Members on the government side have made it fairly clear they don't wish to support the pensioners of this province. They don't wish to support the elderly people and they'll sweep us all aside here, the way they always do on these votes. But Mr. Speaker, it isn't just us that are being swept aside. They're sweeping aside the elderly people of British Columbia and that's why I intend to support this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): It's only a few days ago that someone challenged us to stay a couple of weeks after the session to discuss some of these problems. Tonight we had a demonstration of how serious the Opposition can really be when there were still Members left to speak on this motion — and I waited to see if there would be, and they got up to speak. After they were so serious about this issue, they moved to go home — they couldn't stay until 11:30 at night. This was the seriousness that I waited to see — who'd really materialise and whether they would stay — whether those Members would stay or whether they'd all get up and say: "We really didn't mean anything with this debate, it wasn't worthwhile…."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TISDALLE: "We will go on playing politics with pensioners." Playing politics with pensioners. You know as well as I do the record and the tradition of the Liberal Party in this province with helping people. You wanted me to come home for Liberal policies and traditions. The people have said "no" to your policies year after year and election after election. It's still "no" tonight to your policies. So it goes…

AN HON. MEMBER: No tomorrow!

MR. TISDALLE: …for the official Opposition. They've come to the people with all of the dandied-up policies they can and they've shrunk in size year after year. The people have turned down their socialistic pills and they'll continue to turn them down because they don't perform, they make promises. Today we've been given an excursion or two through the Liberal graveyard of promises and we know what that graveyard is full of — broken promises to the people right from the provincial to the federal. They had the opportunity with their people in, over the last few years and they are asking for something tonight in the increase of pensions because of one factor and that is the inability of the federal government to deal with inflation.

That's why they are asking for this, and inflation is the robber of the pensioner today and tonight. That policy that has failed over the years is the policy of the Liberal government and they must take the blame.

There's no way in which they can get out from under that burden that they've placed upon the back of every pensioner in Canada — not only in this province but in Canada.

They said they would cool off this economy. They cooled it off, how? Every aspect of cost of living over the last few years has gone up and spiralled to such an extent there's no cooling off of the economy. It's going deeper and higher into debt all the time. Higher in inflation, deeper into debt and the people who are pensioners today suffer the burden of the day because of the inability of the Liberal policy to control inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to.

MR. TISDALLE: They haven't done anything for inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to talk about that.

MR. TISDALLE: Their generosity is in the debt type of government policy. National policies have failed and their provincial policies that they're offering tonight will fail equally.

May the people of this province know tonight that the balancing of this budget, the things that are being done for housing, someone said "well, rentals are going up" let me tell you if this government hadn't attacked the policies that affected homeowners and provided condominium legislation and placed at the availability of our young people housing that they could acquire, that the position of tenants in this country would be disastrous.

There's no better rent control, my friend — and dealing with real estate, until just a few months ago I'd been in it for 25 years in this country — there's no better rent control in the world than a surplus of housing. And we need that factor today when you have about 4 to 5 or 7 per cent vacancies in our apartments you'll see the landlords sharpen their pencils. You'll see the results.

This is what this government has endeavoured to do in the face of increased interest rates by the federal government — their policies are loans, not grants to housing. This government gives outright grants to housing. Takes the burden in the heat of the day off of the pensioners.

The Hon. Member read a letter tonight about a tenant, an old age pensioner that said "I want to live in an apartment block". This government has helped people in apartments to lower rents, not increased it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. TISDALLE: It's the federal government that has increased the cost of living everywhere in every area that is to blame for this situation.

I'm in support of the budget and against this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of supply be amended by adding the following words: "But this House regrets that the budget speech of the Honourable the Minister of Finance fails to make adequate provision for the needs of the senior citizens of the province."

[ Page 438 ]

The amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS—17

NAYS—33

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply. The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, the hour is quite young so we've got the whole day ahead of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: A brand new day with a brand new song.

MR. JEFCOAT: However, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to lay all of my side notes here and stick very close to the written word in order that I won't keep you too long.

In taking my place in this debate this afternoon or tonight…

AN HON. MEMBER: This morning!

MR. JEFCOAT: …I would like to make a few observations of importance to British Columbia. I guess I've waited too long to make this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take your time, we've got all night.

MR. JEFCOAT: If I were to place a priority on any phase of our economy, of any one problem affecting our economy I am sure it would be labour management relations.

History bears out that wars, no matter how large or how small, have never solved anything of a lasting nature. Labour management confrontation, like wars, are costly and achieve nothing but a deeper feeling of bitterness and mistrust. When I spoke in this House the other day in the throne debate I very briefly reviewed man's history and achievements.

Man has made great advancements and achievements especially in the last two spans of life. We pride ourselves with being an intelligent people capable of achieving great things and have even succeeded in going to the moon and returning. Yet we seem unable to come to an amiable lasting solution in our labour problems. Confrontations with lockouts or strikes will never solve the problem. Lockouts and strikes only throw our working force out of work and desperately harm the economy of our province.

This budget before us provides for many additional jobs, especially for our young people who will be leaving school soon. Surely we are capable of cooperating in this vital and very important issue? I believe, Mr. Speaker that cooperation with understanding and trust are the key efforts required in this issue.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. JEFCOAT: Confrontations and war will never bring lasting solutions to labour problems.

Inflation poses a serious threat to our economy and must be held in check. These checks and balances will require the cooperation and understanding of all British Columbians and indeed Canadians if indeed we are to succeed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to say a few words on the agricultural industry. Agricultural industry in British Columbia is very important to the economy of this province. Foods produced in British Columbia are of a high quality and very diversified. The revenue to the prime producer is very important and jobs created through the processing and marketing of agricultural produce is also worthy of note at this time.

In studying the budget I am made aware that increased moneys are provided to create jobs in parks, in reforestation, in building and housing programmes etc. I believe it is time we took a closer look and provided some assistance in processing facilities for agriculture products. I have on several occasions discussed this with the growers and marketing boards in my area. Large amounts of potato chips and other forms of both processed potatoes and vegetables are shipped into this province, and yet we do not have processing equipment for our farm produce.

I would recommend to the Minister of Agriculture that studies be undertaken immediately to determine the feasibility and economic values of such programmes. In a time when jobs are so important to the economy of the province, I would strongly recommend immediate action in assisting processing plants and assisting establishment of processing plants. The Okanagan areas, and including the Shuswap and Spillimacheen areas, would be a good place to start. The growers and vegetable marketing boards are very interested and have expressed a desire for such a programme.

I am pleased to note that the sum of $200,000 is provided in this budget Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Trade and Commerce for investigations and also for marketing procedure with agricultural products.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this House on many previous occasions, I have continually stressed the urgency for local road improvements. Roads have been very hazardous because of the dust created in many areas by heavy trucking and the heavy tourist traffic in the summer months.

I have maintained that once a road is constructed or reconstructed and built to accepted standards that black-top should be applied in at least the following year. This one-year period allows for any settling which may occur. It is expedient to black-top as soon as possible to reduce maintenance costs and deterioration of the road bed which has been prepared. I have been successful in getting this message across to the Minister and his department in this last year. As a result I am pleased to report that a greatly accelerated programme both in road improvement and black-topping was undertaken.

[ Page 439 ]

I want to publicly thank the Minister for the cooperation I have received. I must also state that a continued programme is requested and will be expected.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you please interpret to the Member the House rule on reading speeches to the House?

MR. JEFCOAT: Well, I have thrown my notes away to try and save time of this House.

I am informed that the construction of the proposed new Highway 97A from Grindrod to Sicamous has had some delays….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: The Member is reading his speech and that is contrary to the rules of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Member observe the rule?

MR. JEFCOAT: I wonder how many speakers in the House have adhered to that in the last while. However, I will stick very close to my notes and not read them in their entirety.

Mr. Speaker, a plan has been drawn up to re-route a portion of Highway 97A from Grindrod to Sicamous, and place it on the west side of the lake. Much surveying and engineering work has gone into this programme. However, it has been delayed for some time because of the engineering and surveys as required and changes which have to be made — alternate surveys have been made — and this has caused quite considerable delay especially with the heavy snows et cetera this winter.

However, I am told the engineers are back on site now and that investigations and further planning will proceed forthwith.

Now, Mr. Speaker about seven years ago in this House I brought up the question of an alternate route from Hope to Salmon Arm. This would save considerable mileage and would make a better route, a better truck route, a better grade. The Coquihalla Pass route through Merritt to Salmon Arm, in almost a direct route, would save some 50 odd miles from Hope to Kamloops, and about the same distance from Merritt to Salmon Arm, making a total of 100 miles or better of a saving on this route.

I said at this time that I felt that I was at least five years premature in introducing this plan for this new alternate route to relieve the heavy flow of traffic in the Fraser Canyon. I said I felt that the Yellowhead Pass should be completed before a start was made on this route. Now the Yellowhead Pass is completed and, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that it's time that we got on to this new route through the Coquihalla Pass.

I have done considerable investigation. I find that there would be some trouble going through the pass but not nearly as much as most people feel. There have quite a number of cavalcades gone through there now. I have not had the opportunity to go through myself because of time but you can go through there in a few hours now however much improvements would be needed in the Coquihalla portion. However, I would hope that this road could be started forthwith. Because of the heavy traffic that the canyon is experiencing.

Now we have in British Columbia a very heavy tourist traffic, especially in the Shuswap area. We feel that the tourist trade in there is our largest industry, or second largest at any rate. It's rated third largest in the province, but because of our location half way between the coast and Calgary, with the many many lakes that we have et cetera, we experience the very heavy tourist industry in there. And I feel Mr. Speaker that steps must be taken immediately to increase the facilities to take care of the tourist, because we need these tourist dollars.

This is money made in this province without too much outlay. It's all clear profit, so to speak, to the province. The tourist industry has increased tremendously and the demand today has changed considerably because of the type of tourists that are travelling — namely those that are pulling their own trailer, have their own camping equipment with them and wish a place to camp.

We need to put in many more roadside camps or stopping places just for lunch. These roadside camps should be equipped with drinking water, with tables — adequate room for them to pull off and park. They do not need to be equipped with over-night hook-ups as the parks and private industry look after this part of it. But we should at every few miles along the road have a place where this type of tourist can turn off and eat their lunch, enjoy the scenery and rest.

I think this would go a great way in reducing many of the accidents. Because these people have to travel too far, sometimes, and become tired and I would urge that with increased budget that steps be taken forthwith to increase the camping facilities along the highways for lunching, et cetera.

On the Shuswap lake we have a large houseboat industry. In Sicamous there have been people moved in who have established themselves for building these houseboats. I am not sure of the number of houseboats on the lake but there are quite a large number. If you are interested in a vacation on the lake these boats can be rented, with full living accomodations. You can rent them by the day, by the week, by the month, and go out on the lake.

I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, because of controversies that I have seen, to my knowledge all of these houseboats — and I interview these men that run these houseboats or own these houseboats — and to my knowledge these houseboats are all equipped with holding tanks. There is no sewage disposed of in the lake whatsoever.

They have established at intervals around the lake places where they can pump the tanks out into septic tanks. So that these people are very pollution conscious, and I think this is very good.

While I'm speaking on pollution, we have many, many forms of pollution. I have some notes here which I will not go into on pollution, except to say that I think that the public in British Columbia — especially the business people — are very conscious of the pollution situation in the province and most industries are doing what they can to improve this situation.

Now, I could go into this much further but I think that I should at this time. I don't see the Minister of Lands and Forests here….

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Right here, right here.

MR. JEFCOAT: I guess I don't have eyes behind me. But we have a problem in the interior with smoke. Now, I realise

[ Page 440 ]

that slash burning is a necessity. I realise that it must be done and I also realise that as fast as we can bring in close utilisation the better, because it will cut down on much of this smoke.

However, I would ask the Minister at this time if this burning could be delayed in the fall as late as possible. I think that in many cases another 10 days, or two weeks later would help the situation considerably.

The fruit growers are complaining, but I can't find any real proof that it harms the fruit. I don't think the smoke from burning wood, or burnt wood ever killed anybody, but it's very miserable when you can't see the sun for days at a time, and I think that if we could delay this slash burning as late as possible in the fall this would be a step in the right direction.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have before us here a very important budget. It is important first because it is a completely balanced budget. In other words, we do not have to borrow money and pay high interest rates in order to meet the obligations of the budget.

Secondly, the budget of $1.5 billion approximately allows for increased expenditures over the previous year of $151,270,000. Now requirements for education in this budget are $448,671,000, which represents 31 per cent of the budget. In 1960 it was 18 per cent of the budget. The total health expenditures are $338,813,000. The home-owner grant has been raised, Mr. Speaker, from $170 to $185 with an additional $50 for those 65 years of age and over, making a total of $235. The most revolutionary part of this budget, Mr. Speaker, is the new concept of funding. These funds draw interest, provide money for the projects as designated below.

Because of the time, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into all of these fundings, however I will mention a few of them.

$5 million to be added to the perpetual centennial cultural fund.

$5 million to be added to the perpetual physical fitness fund.

$10 million added to the accelerated parks development fund et cetera.

$10 million to be put into the reforestation fund.

$25 million to the green belt protection fund.

$10 million for power line beautification and the new rapid transit subsidisation programme introduced to assist municipalities.

Also $25 million to be added to the provincial home acquisition fund.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the highlights in this budget and I think this is one of the finest budgets I have ever seen presented.

When I came into this House in 1960 I thought we had a large budget. Each and every year since that, this budget has been greatly increased and today we have approximately $1.5 billion in a budget that I am proud of and I am sure every British Columbian is proud of. So I have no hesitation at this time, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this wonderful budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I hope the apples I put on your desks yesterday were good. I will say this is the first part of our campaign of "Buy B.C. Products". The only problem is this time I was the one that bought them and the next time we want to make sure all of you buy B.C. products. You had two? They better be B.C. apples or you're in trouble.

You'll note in my written text — and you'll all have a copy later on and no doubt I'll hear a lot more of when my estimates come up….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, we'll take it as read. That's right. I was surprised to see my friends in the Liberal group eating their apples because they've done nothing else but polish apples for the federal Liberals since they sat in this House. I hope that the apples the Hon. Member polished for his friends in Ottawa will be British Columbia apples grown in British Columbia.

But I would further challenge the Member to stand up and support the federal Liberal government agricultural policies and I guarantee if he even mentions it on a platform anywhere that he supports it that the Liberals will go down the drain every seat in the next election — which he deserves.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Even the farmers in Point Grey will put him out. (Laughter). I was amazed by my friend from Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Clark) in saying that the aid fund for those people is more important than ourselves in other countries. I expected something a little better coming from that Member and his arithmetic I must say was very bad. He said that we did not pay the most per capita of any place — Ottawa did. Now surely to goodness he knows that British Columbia is still in Canada. On the part paid by Ottawa it's paid more by British Columbia than it is by any other part of Canada because we contribute more.

I was very interested during this debate on the budget to hear the remarks made by the N.D.P. Members — especially from my friend, the Leader of the Opposition — I always enjoy him, he's a good actor. He maintains that the Indian people are being pushed out of employment all up through the northern line in the area which I represent. Vancouver Sun mentioned it was the Indians….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You'll take my word? I'm glad you do, because it's in the Vancouver Sun, I have it right here if you doubt my words. I'll file a copy of it tomorrow if you like.

But I would like to point out that this is just simply not true and at Eurocan for instance in the Ootsa Lake country, there's 13 Indians working there out of 56. And I had breakfast in camp last fall and I was mightily pleased to see so many Indian people working along with local people which you too said weren't working. There's also plenty of Indian people working at Houston and also local people.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: He was making the difference, not me. You better speak to your leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 441 ]

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Here it is, the Vancouver Sun February 8, where he said: "Barrett Charges City Slickers" the Liberals group I guess he refers to.

It was pointed out that Bulkley Valley would not hire local residents to work in sawmills previously held by pioneer farmers and Indians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pioneer farmers and Indians?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, he's wrong all around. Of these 13 Indians, nine are power-saw operators and four are skidder operators. I think it's very nice to see that they can do this type of work. At Riverbank Sawmills at Fort St. James there is 12 out of 35 are native Indian people. Takla at Fort St. James hired 93 at start-up and agreed to take all Indians that would work in that area. I want to announce right now for those people that those Members said couldn't work that again they're wrong — 15 can go to work tomorrow morning if they so desire because they're advertising over the radio tonight.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: At Bulkley Valley in Houston on their Babine operations there's more Indians hired there, there's over 30 and they can all work as I pointed out before if they so wish. They can all work.

I would like to point out that statements such as this are definitely not true and I would say they show as much regard for the truth as a tom cat does for a marriage licence.

I'm sure all Members of the House recognise a good budget when they see it — even the Opposition Members, even when they won't admit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what has upset them.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: That's right, that's what upsets the Liberals so bad. I notice they are very touchy this year because they can see the sands of time closing in around them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It was a lot better until their leader went up. You know when I looked across the way when the budget was being read I looked at the faces of the Opposition, both the N.D.P. and the Liberals and our one little Conservative in the corner….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order, please? It's difficult to hear the speaker.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You know, Mr. Speaker, when I looked across at the Opposition members on budget day they had a pretty sorry look on their faces.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still do.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: And for very good reason, because they know very well they're in real trouble. This reminded me of a story I heard not too long ago and if you want to listen to a story you better shut up.

You know this young sailor was taking his girl friend for a walk in the park and he came back a little later than he expected.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: That's right, you're both in trouble and you are, you're both in trouble. That's good, I'm glad you know. Because, you know, you're in trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you go put your foot in your mouth?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Always in any budget there are many benefits to farmers that come outside of the agricultural budget. Such as the $1 million extra for rural electrification which goes nearly entirely to the farm community and the rural areas of this province.

I hope when the Opposition mentions about the government doesn't do anything for the little people they'll think of all the thousands of people up through the north country that didn't have any electricity at all until this programme was brought into effect. I must say I won't be satisfied until there is electricity in all of these areas and believe me there is not that many left now.

What about the $21 million increase in the highway budget? This will certainly do an awful lot for people that want to move around the province and they'll open up other areas of our great province.

What about the parks development programme? And they mentioned it isn't going to help little people. What about all the people that want to use the parks? They're certainly not the millionaires, they're too busy looking after their money to have time to go walk in the parks usually. It is mainly the average person that uses the parks of this province.

The $200,000 programme to advertise British Columbia-grown products certainly is going to help a lot of farmers in this province and we do hope that all groups will support this programme and I would call on the Opposition — and if they want to give me a bad time, fine — but I hope they'll at least support the programme of "Buy B.C. Products" and I'm quite sure they will.

Another progressive programme in the budget, of course, is the green belt fund of $25 million. There is no question this is a history-making programme that no doubt will be in the history books of tomorrow that your grandchildren will read about. I would say that is the most important thing that has come out of this session on a new approach not only in British Columbia but in example for other areas in Canada.

As I mentioned before other programmes, the perpetual funds have been increased. Now this is a totally new approach from all other type of financing by all other parties as I mentioned in my last speech.

And I would hope that Liberals, Conservatives, and N.D.P. will at least take a look at what's being done with these programmes, where we have programmes for people without taxation once they've been set up.

Some of you across the way talk about the tired old government. Just take a look at the dozens of new programmes that are starting this year and I'd say that this government is coming out with more programmes now than they have done over the 20 years. The reason is of course, straight experience, teamwork on a broad representation from all walks of life.

[ Page 442 ]

I can't understand their arguments that this budget is not helping the average person. What about the thousands of Indians that are housed under the first citizens fund? Do those Members call them millionaires? If they disapprove of this kind of a fund, I'll hope they will stand up and vote against it and other funds when they have an opportunity — because they don't dare stand up and vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals will.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: The Liberals voted against it before and they're very sorry about it because they know they goofed.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals don't goof.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: If they had a fund, if their government in Ottawa had come out with financing such as this, they likely would have been in power forever instead of going down the drain like they will.

What about the home-owners grant? That certainly helps little people. Anyone that claims it doesn't, doesn't know what they're talking about. What about the medicare programme? That certainly helps the little person. The ferry system, anytime I get on the ferry they aren't all millionaires on board. I even saw my friend from Yale (Mr. Hartley) on there the other day and he doesn't seem to think he's a millionaire, does he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Except at coffee.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Another thing that concerns me — what about the 20,000 people a day, little people that would like to fly from one end of this country to the other every day and just because we've got a jelly-bean government in Ottawa that won't take a stand to keep the transportation of this nation running? What do they do? They have to stay at home.

I don't hear too many comments from the N.D.P. members in Ottawa urging that action be taken, because the northern part of this country relies entirely on airplanes.

I've never seen any of their Members get up in Ottawa and call for compulsory arbitration to stop transportation strikes. That's why they'll never be in power, because they're not smart enough, because the country is committing economic suicide if it's willing to see its transportation system tied up.

I have a letter here from one of the radio stations up north where they're very distressed about the problem of moving grain and this fellow made quite a study of moving grain from here to the Orient and he finds that we've lost market after market because of the tie-up in transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: That's right and the Member's own party in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they too were concerned about the transportation tie-up.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: That's why this province is the best off anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you're leaving.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Does the Member mean to say that he'd sit back in his fat chair and see the Eskimos and Indians of northern Canada without supplies and refuse to put in compulsory arbitration against the transportation system to get it moving again?

He just hasn't got the courage of his convictions to stand up, he hasn't got the courage of his convictions.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: The farmers of Canada, which I mentioned before, are all little people too. I might say they wanted to see their Ministers of Agriculture get to Ottawa on January 24 to try and draft an agricultural policy which will mean something in Canada. Due to the air strike it had to be cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, I hope I can get down there, I may have to walk back. I'm not sure about that.

This is the type of problem that everyone in this nation is running against and I hear more people say that if the Liberal government showed some strength and stood up and said: "Okay, we've had enough and we can't afford to see our ports and railways and airlines tied up, we have to get into the markets of the world," if they would stand up and do this they might be around just a little bit longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: They're not going to stand up, that's the reason. I would say my friend that's chattering so good tonight, that he'll have a chance to stand up in not too long. He'll have a chance to stand up and he'll have to stand up for the farmers of the Fraser Valley and that area and I bet he won't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When, when, when?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: When? I'll tell you when. When a strike comes off in the drivers of the milk trucks, that's when he'll have to stand up.

It's going to happen by the look of it unless we're very lucky. We'll have to be very lucky when they're asking for 24 per cent on some of the other groups that have already received their raise and thank goodness our good friend Senator Lawson recognises this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Do you realise that if there was a strike in this industry that we'd have a greater pollution problem than a pulp mill? Because you can't just turn a cow off when you want to and you'd be pouring milk down the gutters and the roadways which would be a real problem.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: What about the thousands of little people that are hurt by extended strikes by the recommendations often of the N.D.P. that they shouldn't appear before a mediation commission?

AN HON. MEMBER: Think up another!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: That's right!

[ Page 443 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Think up another!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: What about those thousands of people that are hurt?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I don't blame my friend for not wanting to stay married to the union bosses but I advise him to get out of bed with him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: The agriculture in British Columbia is important to the provincial economy and university studies done recently indicate that agriculture generates $1 out of every $8. That directly or indirectly employs one-sixth of the entire provincial labour force.

Agriculture is more than just farming, it embraces fruit production, fruit processing, and transportation and various other things.

Agriculture is, of course, a part of every one of our lives, and the one time we think of agriculture is about the time we go to dinner.

Remember in British Columbia the Department of Agriculture renders services to all segments of the industry. British Columbians spend approximately 20 per cent of their disposable income on food. More than what is spend on any other single commodity. Yet 20 per cent is the lowest, except for the U.S., of any place in the world. The people of Canada and the U.S. get the best buy on food in proportion to the incomes they receive than any other place in the world. So I think we can feel very pleased as Canadians that we can give a good service to our people.

In the horticultural crop of strawberries we had many problems in this field this summer with the importation of Mexican strawberries which had disastrous effects on the local growers' prices. A surtax was imposed as you know for a short time but it brought the price level down from 20 cents to 16 cents for processed berries.

One of the interesting parts about this whole problem is the fact that it's not Mexicans that are causing our problems, it's Canadian and U.S. corporations going down, buying up land and hiring cheap Mexican labour and shipping back to Canada. This is a problem that the producers have been making trip after trip down to Ottawa about without any success at all.

In this past season, cherries, prunes and pears prices were adversely affected by large crops and lower prices in the U.S. The 1971 apple crop — the ones we had tonight were good anyway — was the smallest in 10 years even though the prices were slightly better than they were in 1969.

One of the real bright spots in agriculture at the moment is a greenhouse vegetable industry where the tomato acreage is increasing but still not fast enough to keep pace with the growth of this province. We're trying to encourage more growth all the time in this field.

We had a real break-through on lettuce this year in moving large quantities of vacuum-cooled lettuce by air to the prairies.

That's why I have so many strong feelings on the need of transportation — one that we can't afford to see it tied up. Because once you've lost these markets you don't get them back. Like our friend Vantreight up here was shipping daffodils to New York, Chicago and other places by air. He lost these markets to West Germany during the tie-up a couple of years ago and he never got them back. Now this is a very serious business and in the field of transportation I don't think we as a nation can sit idly by and see our ports tied up.

Another encouraging development is in the flower crops. Where production increased to an estimated value in 1971 to $6,100,000 which is a tremendous jump because it was practically nothing a few years ago. This is an increase of $500,000 just in the last period alone.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: We did quite well on grapes but we didn't have as much as we hoped because adverse weather conditions cut down production a certain amount. But it's another really quite bright spot in the agricultural field and can be expanded, I'm quite sure, in the years ahead.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: With different varieties and such like it can be improved.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I don't think we'll be growing grapes up at Ootsa Lake but anyway….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I've asked Air Canada why they don't carry British Columbia products on their trans-Canada flights. You can buy any type of wine on Air Canada but it either comes from France, Portugal, or Ontario. I think it's a disgrace that a national air lines should discriminate against British Columbia growers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Also, I was very pleased with Pacific Western. They're the only airline that gives away British Columbia peaches and apples free on a flight and I think they deserve a great deal of credit for this approach and I would hope that the restaurants of this province would take a lead — that of Europe — and pass around the lovely fruit plates for everyone that wants to grab for them.

Another development this year was a trial carried out of the Japanese bean that they want us to grow. They'll buy any quantity we can grow. They'll take any amount.

I must say our first year of experiment was not too successful. Weather was bad right to July and they got a bad start but fortunately we have seed ready to go this spring and we hope it will be successful because there's no question we can sell all we can grow. They don't grow in too many areas.

Another development this year was in cooperation with the beef growers. We produced a picture of the beef industry and, believe me, it's a good one if any of you have an opportunity to see it. We're very proud of it and it went over very well in both Japan and Korea when it was translated into Japanese and Korean. It's in the process of being translated into Chinese, Spanish and Russian at the present time because we find it one of the best methods of selling and we may consider other films in the future.

[ Page 444 ]

Dairy production was very good this year. I might point out that the per-capita income of farmers in British Columbia is higher than any other place in Canada even though it's not as high as naturally I would like to see it.

But we have a very deceiving picture in agriculture because quite often statistics don't really tell everything and a lot of the farmers that we're calling farmers are really "hobby farmers" and they shouldn't be listed as a real farmer. So this would make the province picture quite a bit better if this were done.

The dairy industry spent $155,000 in promotion which they seem to be very pleased and there's no doubt that further expansion will take place as time goes by. Because this is a very stable industry at this time even though there is problem area as all of you know on shippage of package milk from one area to another.

A total of 200,000 lb. of honey was produced during 1971, the second largest provincial crop on record. We had an interesting experience with this when we took a Japanese fellow to the Peace River and we tried to interest him in grain from the Peace River and he pulled out his wallet and bought a ton of honey and a little while later he came back and bought 50 tons and I think it goes to show that direct contact with these people is a great asset.

We met over 100 Japanese wholesalers, processors et cetera during the year.

Another bright programme administered by the Department of Agriculture is the 4-H programme, which we're very proud of. We hope to see it doubled now that we've included horse clubs.

It's gone up a great deal and even in the last six months, in a small town in the interior they've organised as many as four clubs.

I would like to see every youngster in the province join these 4-H clubs. Because there's no question they will be the leaders of tomorrow. We've got to 4,350 members and we hope to double that even by next year. I'm quite sure it will jump that fast with the horse clubs. We want to acknowledge the help by the Royal Bank of Canada and others in supporting these 4-H youngsters because believe me, they're a real good bunch. I feel very proud of them when they go to Ottawa and stand up and say what they think should be done in the future.

They're a good bunch and you had 4-H youngsters from Hawaii, even Alaska, Texas, and elsewhere, and they were so impressed with the friendship in British Columbia that one youngster broke down and cried while he was giving his speech in Ottawa and I've never seen so many people wiping their eyes in my life.

They were so proud of the 4-H youngsters and the calibre of these youngsters, their enthusiasm of what they want to do. They've got their feet squarely on the ground and believe me, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone of us should do everything we can to encourage as many youngsters as we can to join the 4-H.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the consumer does have a good deal in buying food. Food costs in Canada, as I have mentioned before, are the lowest in the world, where the average wage-earner spends only 20 per cent. But 93 per cent naturally of all Canadians are not farmers. So what are the reasons why the farmer has a little difficult time sometimes to get through? He goes to Ottawa, but because there are so few farmers now I'm afraid our federal government doesn't take as much notice of them as they used to.

Having been conditioned to receive food products at prices below parity and often below cost of production, the community at large resists any programme which is designed to make conditions more equitable. The present philosophy seems to be that agriculture must stand on its own two feet, yet the same criteria is not applied to other segments of society nor to the rest of the Canadian economy. Some of these groups are protected from the harsh economic forces and not only are these industries protected but agriculture has to pay inflated prices because of this.

Now if the same rules were true in labour as they are in agriculture where it is permitted to move products from the lowest paid place in the world to any country, if the same rules were applied to labour, there wouldn't be one Canadian working, because there are Pakistanis, Indians, and Africans that would come over and willingly work for a $1 a day. Of course, millions would walk in if they could even get $5 a day. You couldn't blame them when the average income in India is $64 a year.

If you allow the free flow as is permitted in agricultural products there wouldn't be any Canadians working.

The same of course is true in professional groups, they don't permit their groups to flow from one area to the other either.

I would say the federal government has completely abandoned British Columbia agriculture with its price stabilisation policy. This is one of the issues we'll be going to Ottawa on. The feeling of the Ministers of Agriculture across Canada is that we should maintain an agricultural industry in Canada. This is contrary to the belief of most of the federal cabinet.

Second, we wish to keep a strong agriculture in all areas of Canada because I don't think we can afford to knock the Maritimes out of production completely. Agricultural production is one item, as the Premier has mentioned on many occasions, where there is a problem area.

Number three we want to see as many farmers as possible engaged in the agricultural industry. For instance in the U.S. 100 men control 80 per cent of the broiler industry. If you compare this with British Columbia it would mean that two men would control our $15 million industry. In the State of Washington in 1967, they produced 68 per cent of its requirements with over 500 producers. Now they produce only 41 per cent and only 189 growers left.

The last processing plants closed down this year and the movement is towards the southeastern part of the U.S. In Georgia, Alabama, where labour is cheap.

The Western Farmers' Association, the largest co-op in the Pacific northwest with 55,000 members, founded on the poultry industry, has only 12 members left out of its 7,000. I think this shows where we would be today if it wasn't for our marketing boards. Even though they're not perfect, they're an awful lot better than what we see across the line.

Integrated firms in the southern U.S. lease back rather than directly own to the farmers and pay them $3 a year on a starvation wage to raise poultry and they sell their grain to the farmers and they get about 4 cents a pound for all the work they've done. It's a real disgraceful situation and I don't think we want to move in that direction here in Canada.

Many people talk about the chicken and the egg war and I've heard my friend from Point Grey say quite a bit about this last year, about how terrible it was.

I would like to point out for his benefit that the farmers never started it, the integrators in other parts of Canada started this war. It is interesting why so many object to

[ Page 445 ]

production in all provinces. Especially after 104 years of jealously guarded provincial jurisdictions over education, the law profession, architects, chartered accountants, medicine, veterinarians, dentists, real estate, trucking, labour unions, highway traffic, taxi cabs, et cetera — all of a sudden they turn around and pick on the poultry industry and tell us we're Balkanised in Canada. I can't understand their argument at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SHELFORD: I hope you'll listen to this — this is part of our campaign of advertising this year — because we'll be doing a lot more of it. I would like to give you six good reasons why those interested in love should look towards eggs.

1. The vitamin "A" for clear complexion. I think everyone should like that.

2. Vitamin "B" complex to help one overcome nervousness.

3. Vitamin "E" is a sex vitamin that prevents sterility.

4. Iron to prevent tiredness.

5. Protein for long-lasting strength.

6. Few calories. There's only 80 in an egg. And it also keeps the body slim and beautiful and other essentials in love life.

How do you like that?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Let's go home and have some ham and eggs.

HON. MR SHELFORD: One thing we want to remember, that the loss of protection also means the loss of processing. And we want to maintain as strong an agriculture in this province as we can. Because it's very essential in the years ahead.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Well, I'm winding up now for your benefit. I would say if the advice of the provincial Ministers is followed by the federal government, the future of agriculture in Canada will be indeed bright. I would like to point out that of the provincial ministers there's four different parts, and they work very well together and I would certainly like to see this on these councils.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

HON. MR SHELFORD: Yes, it's a real nice arrangement and I hope it will continue that way.

To get people better acquainted to the problems of agriculture — because I find that when I go to Ottawa of our 23 M.P.'s in Ottawa only one is agriculturally oriented — I've thought in fairness to these M.P.'s and to help us too that it would be a good idea to have the 23 M.P.'s along with representatives from the Conservative Party sit down with myself and my staff and point out the real problems of agriculture in this nation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes there was Ray Perrault from the Liberals, I was very pleased to see him come, and there was a Conservative Member from Alberta also came in. We were very pleased to have him come and I received a letter from Mr. Stanfield today thanking us for setting up this type of arrangement. Because he said their Members learned a great deal. And I think we can all learn a great deal on this type of an approach and next year I hope to enlarge it even more.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I think my argument is better than yours. And I'm quite willing to have a representative from your group come next year.

We have a great future as long as we can find big enough people to send to Ottawa and develop a real Canadian agricultural policy — something which we've never had since this country has been a nation.

With those few words, or long words or whatever you want to call it, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for listening at this time of the morning. I thank you.

Hon. Mr. Richter moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:09 a.m.