[ Page 311 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before you rise, I want to see that a correction is made with your forbearance in the Votes and Proceedings and in the orders of the day. Page 2 of Votes and Proceedings, the middle of the page in regard to Bill No. 3 — it should state that the bill is in second reading and did not move beyond that stage. Bill No. 3, actually, as I recall, and I hope that Members will assist in this, was adjourned by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) in the debate on second reading, and that therefore should be corrected in the Journals of the House accordingly, and will be. Agreed?

Then also I note that it said,"Bill No. 5 reported complete with amendent." That's a printing error. It should read "without amendment". Is that agreed?

Then, naturally, it follows that when you look at orders of the day you would have to change that where it says "second reading". You would put in "adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3" and delete it where it says "in committee". Is that agreed? Thank you. The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often that the representatives of the areas of the province where all the money is produced or the wealth is produced, and it trickles down to the lower main land, that we have an opportunity to welcome a guest from that area because very seldom do any guests come down from the far out places because they're so busy making that wealth. But I'd like the House to welcome Alderman Ogilvie from the City of Kimberley.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH: (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy this afternoon through the courtesy of yourself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to be able to introduce to the House four people from Fort St. John who are seated on the floor of the House to my right. Would the House welcome Mayor Frankiw, Alderman Lorne Welsh, Pappy Galdreath and Steve Fedoruk.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to add my welcome to the Mayor and his Alderman.

When I first paid my visit to Fort St. John, the Mayor was very, very kind to me. He gave me about an hour-and-a-half of his municipal problems, and a half-hour of a gracious run down of the history of Fort St. John.

I remember the half-hour of the history and I've forgotten the hour-and-a-half of problems. (Laughter),

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I complained about the absence of a bell in the distant office in the buildings. I would like to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on the prompt and efficient manner in which you placed a bell there. But I have one simple request now. Could the Conservative hordes be provided with ear plugs? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: We're always concerned for whom the bell tolls. (Laughter). The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to introduce teacher Bill Carney and the students from West View Senior Secondary

[ Page 312 ]

in Maple Ridge. Many of these students in the provincial and in the federal election have shown a lot of interest in all the political parties and I commend them for their interest and being in the House today.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we adjourned this debate and I thank the Premier for that adjournment, because the amendments to the bill proposed by the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) were complex.

I've had a look now at the amendments which he put in — which I'm afraid came before the House into my hands only minutes before I was called upon to speak yesterday. And I would like to say that they do not change the principle of the bill.

They do, however, make it possible to implement the principle of the bill. And therefore I'm very pleased that I've had that time. It is, I might add, a complex bill. I will have to go through figures once more. It's a necessary fact. I have here a few speech notes which I might give the Minister of Social Improvement and Rehabilitation so that he can shake his head yes or no when he agrees with me or doesn't. Perhaps the page would take this over to him.

Yesterday I was speaking about the interaction of these various pension provisions. Quickly, they are of course, the basic old age pension — a pension of $82.88 a month. Followed by a guaranteed income supplement, a federal supplement of up to $67.12 per month for a single person. And in addition the so-called provincial supplement which is a welfare payment, I believe it is more accurate to call it — a welfare rather than a pension payment which is jointly shared by the federal and provincial governments.

I pointed out at that time that there was a possibility, in fact it's unfortunately a real certainty, that inflation will result. Of course, the cost of living adjustment factor increases that total, which is now at $191.10, I believe up to $200 in April of next year.

It's something which I would question the minister on now. If it so happens that this cost-of-living escalator clause results in an increase in the federal contributions to a pension scheme, will under his scheme — the provincial supplemental scheme — will it also be cost-of-living adjusted? Instead of simply having the $200 per month, will it be possible for the pensioner to take the benefit, if you can call it that? It's really not a benefit, it's just an adjustment for extra payments under first the federal scheme and secondly the provincial. In other words will both be cost-of–living adjusted? He shakes his head in agreement with me. Good! He won't have to answer that question in his speech.

I'll carry on with some of the things I discussed yesterday. We have at present the case load of pensioners, if you can call it that — and I guess that's a social worker's term — 208,000. Of that, we have 106,000 of those who get the guaranteed income supplement and well under 17,000 of those get the joint federal-provincial welfare supplement. Now the total

[ Page 313 ]

costs as we worked out yesterday came to approximately, to the federal government, approximately $23 million a month in B.C. — to the provincial government approximately $260,000 or slightly above that per month.

A difference which means, Mr. Speaker, that on the actual money reaching the hands of pensioners you have 98.8 per cent coming from federal sources and 1.2 per cent coming from provincial sources. These figures were all discussed yesterday. I repeat them only to refresh the minds of those people who may have forgotten them.

We are, in other words, dealing with the situation in which virtually all money at the present time getting into the hands of pensioners either under a universal pension scheme or an income test scheme is provided by the federal government and I commend this provincial government for its willingness to come forward with a substantial increase in terms of provincial funds to enrich the life of our senior citizens and enrich, of course, the pension programme of the federal government.

I did however, have a few questions and comments…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll carry on with my part in this debate. I gave you the example yesterday of a fellow who might have $50 a month from income from the investments that he has made during his lifetime.

In other words, a man who retires and has a total income-generating capital, if I could use that terrible term, of say around $9,000 or $10,000. He's not a big man — he's a relatively small man in economic terms. He may in addition own a house or he may not. But in any event he gets $50 a month from his investment income. He again is a man with only about $10,000 or less in terms of total economic resources. I gave the example that he would receive at this time a basic pension of $82.88. The standard old age pension. He would then receive on top of that a credit of half of his investment income. In other words, $25 of that $50 — and I trust the Minister has received the notes that I've made. You'll find it a lot easier to follow. I find my notes make it much easier for me to follow myself.

Anyway, he gets under the present G.I.S. programme — Guaranteed Income Supplement programme — the G.I.S. Is reduced $1 for every $2 for his independent income. If the person has an income of say $50 in my example his G.I.S. would be reduced by $25, in other words 50 per cent of that total income of his.

So, back to my example. His combined pension and G.I.S. would be $82.88 plus $42.12 plus his own $50 a total of $175.

Now, I assume that under the Minister's scheme this man would receive an additional $25. Which is correct. The Minister nods in agreement with me. Well, what I would like to suggest, sir, is that if that is the case we should seriously consider in this House a scheme whereby the provincial supplement also has some sort of provision which would permit, I don't know what you might call it, a "thrift recognition factor" are the words that we've dredged up. Perhaps there's a better term than we could use but anyway some recognition of the fact…

HON. MR. LEVI:…. . certainly regulation factor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You should have my notes, Mr. Minister. O.K., that's the term we'll use at the moment. It should be a possible for him in other words to have some benefit from that little bit of income that he gets or from the investment income that he gets. Because let me give you the examples — I mentioned to you he'd get his basic pension $82.88, his guarantee income supplement $42.12, his own income $50, and the provincial supplement of $25 and wind up at $200.

So what value to him is that $50 investment income? Alright, let's consider the case if he didn't have it. He would get his basic pension of $82.88, he'd get his federal guaranteed income supplement of $67.12 and he would receive from the provincial government $50. In other words, enough to raise him up to the $200 level, so that no matter how much income he

[ Page 314 ]

received from his little bit of investment he would really get no benefit from it.

Now the Minister rightly stated in his speech when introducing this bill, and I hope I paraphrase him correctly, if income is more from other sources nothing will be taken away. I think that's true. Nothing is in fact taken away from this man. He still has his investment. He still has that investment income. The only difference is it's now worthless. He has it but it's worthless. It's this thing, this feature, which I would like to get around.

Mr. Speaker, were you that man's adviser, and I know you're not a gambling man who throws money away recklessly, what would you say to him? He's got $10,000 of capital. And it's worthless to him. Now what would you say?

Well, there's a number of things you could say. "The only way you can get around this bind is by gambling the capital on the most wild bit of gambling you can, he perhaps will wind up with a million or perhaps will wind up with nothing. It doesn't matter if you wind up with nothing, because it doesn't make any difference to your income". You could do that. Secondly, you could say: "Alright now, I suggest you go into the Irish Sweepstakes or something of that nature to take a real plunge. All your life savings."

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to be a little bit more restrictive in what I'm doing. My wife is in the galleries. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, now that we have Hansard coming out so quickly, I feel that we'll have to be much more careful of what we say here. Nevertheless I'm suggesting a hypothetical case where you or I are advising a man with a small investment portfolio.

The other thing you could suggest to him instead of gambling, and instead of trying to make himself a millionaire by gambling, you could say: "Spend it. Take a trip around the world. Go and take the Queen Elizabeth or the France or the Leonardo da Vinci or any one of the big liners and really enjoy it." And that would not necessarily be a bad thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that had been arranged.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's an awful lot of comments to my right and I hope they…. .

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Members keep order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The third thing he could do is put this money into improving his housing. In other words he perhaps has a perfectly adequate home — a home which may be perfectly correct, but why doesn't he spend the extra, the $10,000, on improving his home because it's income that counts under this scheme, it's not what you have in terms of assets.

So you have three possible choices for this man. And none of them I think are particularly what we'd like to see in this province.

Now, I suggest, with the encouragement of my colleagues in this party, that the Minister seriously considers the same type of 50 per cent credit provision for his provincial scheme. I know that some will say: "Well, you're trying to protect investment and the New Democratic Party is not a believer in putting aside large amounts of capital and that type of thing." O.K., fine. But what type of people are we talking about?Big capitalists? We're talking about senior citizens with investment income of between 0 and $20-25,000. We're not talking about people who are wealthy. We're talking about people who in economic terms are relatively in modest circumstances. People whose whole life savings may be represented by $10,000, $15,000, $25,000 — and these are the people who will get no benefit whatsoever under this present scheme, as I understand it, for the efforts they've made.

Now, I think this is such an obvious flaw in this scheme that I urge

[ Page 315 ]

the Minister to very quickly make changes to it because what I fear is that the arguments that I've put forward today based on this scheme will of course naturally be accepted by people because under this legislation that's the sensible thing to do. But this scheme is so obviously phoney and wrong in this aspect that two or three years from now this government or another government will change it and we will find there will be a group of people who acted on the basis of this legislation and then found that later on the legislation has changed, putting them again at a disadvantage.

So it's not the type of thing which should be dealt with in due course, in the future some time. I think it's something which should be dealt with very quickly now.

Let me repeat in case there are any Members opposite who feel that we're talking about wealthy people. We're talking about people whose total income generating capital is under $25,000. It may be $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, but they're not in economic terms wealthy people. And these are the people we're trying to help. Now, the comment was made yesterday that:"Well, you can't do that"– and this is just before we adjourned the debate –"You can't do that because of federal G.I.S. provisions." Well, that, Mr. Speaker, is not the case. The federal G.I.S. can be received and the provincial income supplement can also be received without necessarily getting into the bind of having the federal income supplement reduced because the provincial income supplement is put on top of it.

The Minister knows what I'm talking about — I realize it's complex. It's not a situation where federal legislation prevents such a provincial scheme from taking place. It can be put into effect . Of course, there'll have to be discussions on the modalities but it can be put into effect under federal legislation and it would help these people. And we think the small people who are elderly with a little bit of savings, who are frightened about the future and quite understandably so because of the erosion of their capital by inflation, we think these people deserve a hand as well as the people, of course, who would be assisted by the Minister's bill who don't have such assets.

So, I do most strenuously urge that this be taken very seriously and it can be done. It's not something which is impossible. It's not something which is impossible. It can be done in conjunction with the federal G.I.S. perhaps, by making the provincial supplement a percentage of the federal guaranteed income supplement. Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, say for example a man receives 50 per cent of the guaranteed income supplement. It's quite simple for you to arrange for him to receive 50 per cent of your supplement. You don't have to necessarily talk about dollar figures, you can talk in terms of percentages. This, I think, would get around what lingering difficulties the Premier had in his mind yesterday when he interrupted me to say that it couldn't be done because of federal legislation.

It can, I assure you. It's just a question of making this work.

So, I trust that this plea on behalf of these people will be recognized. I am sympathetic with the problems of bringing in a very complicated bill — an immensely complicated bit of legislation which had to be amended even yesterday and probably should be amended tomorrow as people start thinking about what is wrong with that– but nevertheless, such a complicated bit of legislation in such a short time. I know you've got difficulties but this is not one that is insurmountable and I urge that you write in this type of provision to assist these people.

You've said, and I repeat again, if they have more income from other sources nothing will be taken away. Well, could I just ask you to extend that and that if they have such investments, nothing will be done to reduce this value to 0. Reduce it to 50 per cent. Perhaps that's also pretty savage in terms of taxation, but at least let them hold on to some of it because as my Hon. friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, these people fear the future. They have concern about nursing home care and as yet we haven't dealt with that problem in this House. And they do like to hold on to that little nest egg and they should get some benefit from it. Now, it may be that this has some effect upon the federal payments to the province under the provincial supplementary scheme. Now it may be

[ Page 316 ]

that it has. I think it's arguable. It certainly is arguable whether it has or whether it hasn't and this is something which can only be worked out over many weeks of debate between your officials, Mr. Minister, and those of the federal government.

But let's say if the worse comes to the worse and it does affect the provincial supplement, what are we talking about? The Minister stated, in introducing this bill, he stated that it was a $3.7 million figure. That's what we're talking about, that's the amount in jeopardy. Well, it's not a great deal, it only constitutes 1.2 per cent of what the pensioners now receive. And I think this government would be making an enormous mistake if they allowed debate and concern and uncertainty over 1.2 per cent of the pensioner's total income to prevent adding perhaps another 25 per cent to a pensioner's income. In other words, don't let yourself be blinded by any possible difficulties in this very small financial area of the total pension scheme, or total pension picture. Don't allow yourself to be so blinded by your confusion over federal-provincial cost-sharing relationships that you ignore the possibility of bringing in a genuine provincial supplement to assist our senior citizens in this province.

We are talking of a small amount — 3.7 from the province, 3.7 from the federal government under that provincial welfare scheme. It should not in my mind be any stumbling block to a decent provincial income supplemental scheme for senior citizens. There have been, I think, too many statements indicating this is a real problem, but it's not. It's a real problem just as perhaps the distance between here and the Empress Hotel is a real problem if I invited the Minister to go for lunch with me over there. It's a problem to walk that distance, but it certainly can be done if you're willing to put one foot in front of the other. And if the Minister is willing, as I say, Mr. Speaker, if he's willing, and I think he is, to bear in mind some of these constructive comments, I'm sure that he will find that the difficulties that have been expressed and exaggerated about federal-provincial cost-sharing schemes will not stand in the way of a good provincial supplement to the federal scheme.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been introduced in a very curious way. It was introduced by the Minister some time ago, the debate was adjourned and an amendment came in which made it a very different and much better bill and much of what I prepared for the earlier bill, of course, had to go by the way.

Then at that stage we had the Hon. lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) make her contribution without knowledge of the amendment. We adjourned the debate again and we are now on the floor. It would have been better for all of us had all the information been available on the floor at the beginning, but that's not the way it's been worked out.

There has, however, been one thing added to this debate which does affect the principle of the bill which I should comment upon. And that is the statement made by the Premier in this House on October 24 — a statement which I appreciate, all Members appreciate, him making. But, with reference to that statement, all I can say is that it's an unfortunate fact sometimes but that is that laws do have to be obeyed.

Members of Parliament who passed the Canada Assistance Plan expect the executive of the federal government to obey it. It's not a question of semantics and legal niceties, it is just not that. The laws of the Dominion, in the views of my former colleagues of Ottawa, are passed with the intention that all people obey them — even cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister.

Now, I'm not going to dwell again on the need to keep executive power curbed. We've discussed this before in this House. We haven't had much effect upon the present administration with our arguments. So perhaps it's best that I stop here.

I think that principle is a pretty important one and I regret that it seems to have got lost in the Premier's statement of October 24. What I would like to do is simply mention to the House a statement made by a former colleague of mine, the lady Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the Hon. Grace MacInnis, in the House of Commons. Last March she was commenting upon a bill

[ Page 317 ]

of this Legislature, Bill No. 49. She stated at that time in a question to the Minister, the intent of which was clear, and that was that if the then Minister, the former Member from Kamloops (Mr. Gaglardi) was not obeying the federal law then the federal government should cease to pay out funds to the Province of British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Now I suggest that Mrs. MacInnis, for whom I have great respect, has a point. She was correct in stating that the law has to be obeyed by provincial legislatures and provincial Members of this House, as well as federal Members. She was correct in stating that the Hon. the then Member for Kamloops, was incorrect. And the Federal Government should not permit the law to be ignored by him.

Similarly, the same rule applies here when we are dealing with this Canada Assistance Plan. Again the same rule is there. It may be considered to be legal niceties but that is the law and the executive must obey the law.

It's unfortunate perhaps but it exists and until it's amended we're going to have to learn to live with it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn now for a moment or two to the costs of this whole bill because although we've had very little information on this so far it's pretty important in terms of the principle of it whether or not the province can afford it and how much it's going to cost.

I personally think the province can afford it. I've done some calculations on this and I'll spare my friends in the chamber my involved mathematics because it did take an adding machine to help me. But I came up with a figure that to bring all those people in B.C. up to what we're after it probably would take $95 million. I calculated $95,396,887. Oh, undoubtedly there are errors in my figures somewhere — I don't put them forward in terms of being all that accurate — but I do think that they're ball-park figures and I do think it's important for us at some stage in this debate to get the factual material on what this scheme is going to cost. Not only cost the taxpayers of B.C. perhaps, but also the taxpayers of Canada.

We haven't had it yet. We've had a statement by the Premier originally — I should say the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) — that it might cost around $40 million, then the Premier upped the figure to $60 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: It started at $25 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It started at $25 million. I am corrected. Well, I don't really know — and I have my calculations here — I don't know whether they're right but in all honesty I come up with a figure of $95 million. Now, it may be that one-third of this approximately, from what we've heard from the Press statements of the Premier and the Minister, one-third may be paid by the federal government. That's fine if it is under the Canada Assistance Plan, or whatever other, the Social Assistance Act or something else. However, we're still left with a bill of approximately $60 million, and I would like to know whether the $60 million which the Premier mentioned at the most recent time that he discussed the cost of this plan, dealt with the $60 million for the overall cost of this scheme. We don't have that information yet.

Indeed, I know I'm boring many Members by discussing financial matters and figures. I know it's tough for some of them — it's impossible for everybody to follow what I'm saying, I agree. But it's the fact of life that we do have only so much money in the province. It's $1.3, 1.5 billion perhaps. But still it's a fact of life that this Legislature should know the costs of programmes it is voting on. It's the principle, an important principle, that legislatures are made aware of what moneys they are voting the government. If we put in open-ended schemes we should at least have ball-park figures to discuss and determine. It's also another principle which we tried to illustrate earlier, that legislatures should make sure that powers are given out to Ministers grudgingly. But that, obviously, is gone.

This principle I hope I have more luck with. We should know what the financial position is, and we don't know now. We have no idea and I expect

[ Page 318 ]

that later in this debate, in this very curious and involved way this debate is taking place, the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon: Mr. Barrett) will be giving us factual material.

But, may I ask, sir — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier — that in an area which involves complex interaction between federal and provincial legislation and in view of the magnitude of the public funds involved that we might get some sort of white paper on financing of this scheme, on the various contributions which can be received from federal financial sources as well as provincial which will give us something to go on when we are discussing this in more detail.

I realize this may be a difficult thing to produce in a hurry. We're going to be very generous in terms of minor errors that might be in it. We simply want, however, something which we can use which may or may not support my figure of $95 million. I don't know — some really factual material which we can discuss as we vote on a bill which will cost the people of British Columbia a substantial amount of money.

It's not that we begrudge the money. It's just a principle that Legislature should know what moneys they are voting, how much is involved, and what they're doing. And the principle today has been simply not brought forward in the debate and I hope that today we can make sure that we correct that oversight.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other questions, large areas of this bill which I'm not too sure about. I've been trying hard to understand it ever since I've first got it and I've been trying hard to understand the amendments. We again are a little leery about the regulations that are going to be permitted under this but then that's an argument that you've heard before.

We feel it's important that the thrift factor be brought to bear and that some credit be given where credit is due for the senior citizens who have strived very hard to take care of themselves in their later years. We trust that the Minister will go ahead and deal with that.

I would, however, like to comment on one other area which deals with the general principle of the bill and that is the number of opportunities there are to assist senior citizens without necessarily funding them directly – and I'm thinking in particular of low-cost housing. The amount of low-cost housing in Canada I would say probably has substantially increased in the last four years — I believe more in the last four years than ever before in our history — and yet the Province of British Columbia has not taken full advantage of the Central Mortgage and Housing scheme, section 15 in particular, which permits cost-sharing programmes and which permits assistance to the elderly in this form.

There are probably two reasons for this. One is that the administration is simply not as good at the present time as it is in Ontario and other provinces and secondly I think because of a certain unwillingness on the part of the previous government to make use of this way of assisting senior citizens. In other words, one reason is administration, one is policy.

I would urge this present government and in particular the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who I think has made some careless statements on this matter, to go back to the drawing-board and look at this very carefully, because there is financing available for senior citizens housing under C.M.H.C for the Province of British Columbia which has not been used.

It was mentioned that this, of course, may create ghettos. That the federal legislation requires that all these people live in the same building or in the same area. Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation which I looked at closely when I was a Member of the federal House, in no way requires that to happen. It in no way sets down requirements which insists upon elderly people living either together in a block or in a single building. Indeed at the present time in Vancouver, and I was surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was unaware of it, at the present time in Vancouver there is a scheme under the Greater Vancouver Regional District. A scheme whereby 300 houses-scattered throughout the city are being used for low-cost housing.

Now, this could also apply to senior citizens' housing. There is no need for them to be put together if they don't wish to be. It is a question of what the province wants. It's a question of what scheme the province

[ Page 319 ]

itself goes into, which in turn determines how this money is spent — and I urge that this way of assisting senior citizens be properly explored and I deplore remarks as quick and glib as the one we got from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Because the money is there. It is available.

If he in his turn will make sure that the housing authority in B.C. will make use of it, we can do a great deal in this area to assist our senior citizens. It's a great deal better, I think, to do it that way than simply to get up and huff and puff about naming names if rents go up. That may be embarrassing to the person whose name is named, but it may not reduce the rent and it's reducing the rent that counts. I think that we can do most by using large amounts of money that are available on a joint basis with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist senior citizens in that way.

A couple of other things. The Premier, when he introduced or first proposed that this session deal with this particular bill, which we seem to have taken a fair amount of time to come to, stated that it was because of rising costs, and that's quite correct. I think that it's a correct analysis. Well, two things that we can do about that — the first is one I mentioned to the Hon. Minister — putting a cost of living factor into pensions. The second is to start using some of the powers and authorities under the provincial jurisdiction to start affecting the cost of food. Nothing has been brought forward in this session from the government side on this point. We do have, as I mentioned in the throne speech debate, we do have authority to control freight rates on B.C. railroads, we do have authority to control marketing boards, we do have authority to control, for instance, the price of electricity. All these things are well within the provincial power and yet the only things we have done so far have been I think inflationary for one reason or another. I'm not necessarily critical of this, but nothing that we have done in this Legislature so far has done anything to reduce the cost of living. I think it's an important factor and I'm surprised more attention has not been devoted to this by all of us here in this chamber. Well, I'm pleased as I mentioned, and my party is pleased that this bill is before us. It's a bill that if we had won the election we certainly would have brought forward as the Hon. Member for Point Grey made clear many months and years ago.

We feel, however, that to debate it intelligently, to debate the financial aspects of it intelligently, we are going to have to have some sort of financial paper from the Minister of Finance which we can all have on our desks.

To go through it and see how it's going to work is going to require another statement if not by the Minister by leave of the House, and perhaps by some other Minister. Because after all, Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has spoken the bill has been radically altered by an amendment.

Now, I think it would be a good idea if we gave leave to the Minister to make another introductory statement dealing with the bill as amended, because simply to leave his remarks on the unamended bill gives the Members on this side of the House not a very great deal to go along on.

I don't know whether I could propose it at this time, perhaps not. But perhaps at an appropriate time later in this debate and not very much later we should permit the Hon. the Minister to once more make a statement without closing the debate. This could be easily done without amending the rules. It can easily be done by unanimous consent and in my view the consequences of the amendments brought in and the need for further information to inform the people of British Columbia about something that may cost between $50 to $100 million is required.

Mr. Speaker, I will consult with the table officers and at the appropriate time I will be requesting that this House give unanimous consent to the Minister making another full statement without closing the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This indeed has been a very complicated bill to understand and as the days have gone by and there have been amendments it hasn't entirely made things clear, although

[ Page 320 ]

I think the former speaker who has just taken his place has added a great deal to clarify some of the confusion.

I will in my remarks at least try to stay away from the detail and the figures which I think should be on the record but certainly don't need to be repeated. I feel from the discussion that has taken place already, that all parties in this House, and in fact certainly the Conservative Party and the Socred Party, in the campaign stated figures to which they would go in their election platform. Therefore I think that in debating in principle we are talking not so much about the goal as we are about the means to the goal. And the means spells out one vital phrase and that is "federal-provincial relations", and what is really essential to this whole debate, in my opinion, is the formula or formulas which are involved in implementing the principle of this bill.

There must inevitably be federal-provincial negotiation and I think it might clarify things for the public-at-large in discussing the Canada Assistance Plan, which is a plan dependent on a federal-provincial agreement signed some years ago and which the Prime Minister of Canada, in his interpretation of that plan, feels cannot be changed unilaterally at the wish of one province.

As is probably well known now, the Prime Minister of Canada suggested that the intention of this government could only be implemented through its own provincial Social Assistance Act.

I think in fairness to the Prime Minister of Canada, and certainly I won't want my remarks in any way this afternoon to be construed as meaning that I am going to vote for him in the federal election — vote for his party I should say — but the fact is that he takes what I think is not an unreasonable stand. He has signed agreements with all the provinces and it would create a very difficult precedent for him in his responsibility to the federal treasury to agree to the unilateral requests, not just to the British Columbia government, but anyone of the 10 governments provincially whereby he would commit federal money 50/50 for any chosen amount that the provincial governments could readily follow suit and before long the federal treasury could perhaps be burdened by an enormous escalating cost.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the whole question of federal-provincial relationships and cost-sharing programmes has been very clearly stated recently, in the past year or two at any rate, by the Trudeau regime.

This applies also, as Mr. Premier of this province well knows, to his attitude to health costs and the fact that this is one of the big obstacles in the subject that we touched upon yesterday affecting senior citizens — namely providing facilities and coverage for those citizens who require intermediate health care. There again, the former administration repeatedly said that the reason that it was not attempting to provide such coverage was that there was no cost sharing forthcoming from Ottawa. That's been said many times and I'm sure our present Premier is well aware of the fact that federal policies in regard to cost-sharing programmes are essentially those of retreat and restriction and an unwillingness certainly to increase, in any respect that I can find, other than perhaps giving the Province of Quebec a greater degree of its own autonomy in deciding some of the formulas adopted.

But generally speaking, in terms of hard cash, it's quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is restrictive in its participation in these policies whether it's to do with welfare or health care or any other cost-share programme.

And, as I said earlier, this is not to defend or attack the federal government. It's to attempt to bring some light to bear on this debate and the actions of the socialist government. The criticism, I think, can be raised that the Premier of this province acted in haste by stating that the provincial assistance would be increased to guarantee a minimum of $200 a month to those who are eligible. But I think again, as I've said in this debate in this session, the Premier conducted his campaign on certain promises and I recognise that, to the best of his ability, he is attempting to implement the promises he made in the election.

And if we take that fact into consideration, together with the point

[ Page 321 ]

I've just made, I think it's very unlikely that Ottawa is going to give us very much money to share the cost of the increase. Personally, I may be cynical, but judged on its attitude towards health costs and the point I've already mentioned regarding intermediate care, which is a desperate need all across Canada, for a national government claiming to create a just society, its neglect of that segment is appalling. Nothing short of appalling.

If the federal government is showing this degree of neglect for that very vital segment of our people in need all across the country, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I just can't feel as optimistic as the Premier does that in the long run, by continued negotiation, we will be receiving sharing from Ottawa. I'm much less optimistic personally.

But nevertheless, to get to the end of the road and the discussion, the fact is the Premier has committed this province to go it alone if this proves to be the only alternative. And as far as I'm concerned, personally — I'm not necessarily speaking for the party when I say this — I recognise that initiative and applaud the initiative. And I think, at least in one respect, when we consider that the Premier of this province went out to the airport and discussed the matter at first hand with the Prime Minister of Canada in an atmosphere that was cordial and friendly I really, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, can hardly imagine that having happened under the former administration. I think the point must be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, of costs. And here I feel, despite the lack of time that this government has had, that they could have done better in providing more specific figures as to the cost.

Certainly, the people we represent as M.L.A.'s, in general, feel as the parties in this House do, that the need is there to increase assistance to these elderly people. I don't think the man-on-the-street doubts that. But it certainly creates an impression of concern in his mind when we use the phrase "ball-park figures". When you're talking in $10 and $20 millions the man in the street says to me, "I don't like your interpretation of 'ball park'". It seems to be that the average individual feels that the government is scrambling around somewhat in the dark for a very desirable goal.

But in trying to tell this House and in trying to tell the people what it's going to cost, there is tremendous discrepancy and tremendous confusion almost from day to day as one figure is quoted and the next time it's up by another 50 per cent.

Now, this may relate to the fact that the Premier was uncertain as to the outcome of further negotiations with the Prime Minister of Canada. But I really feel that the government must be criticised in this particular respect no matter how well-intentioned. I think the very sloppy way in which large sums of money have been mentioned must inevitably have people asking where it's to come from. And if the government is so ill-informed as to the absolute sums of money involved maybe it's not too well-informed about some of the mechanisms and some of the ideas that are to be used to implement it.

I would like to comment also, on a point I've raised in this House before — a direct experience almost all over the world shows that just giving people money is not in itself the answer to poverty. I'm not sounding any wonderful phrase when I say that. It is just that experience has shown in many countries, as much as any as Britain where there is a wide range of social legislation and programmes of this nature and yet Britain still has an incredible amount of poverty.

I welcomed the introductory remarks of the Minister of Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) when he stated that they were very well aware of two particular items, namely food and shelter.

And I would like to clarify a statement that I made, Mr. Speaker, in this regard when I spoke about rent and the need for amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act. And I did not mean to imply, if I did, that this government is being asked to bring in rent control as such. I want to make it very plain that what I was trying to say, and what I will say very clearly now, is that a landlord is just as much in the grip of inflation as the tenant. But all I was trying to suggest was that if a landlord does increase rent there should be some mechanism where he has simply to justify or that the

[ Page 322 ]

existing legislation needs review in as much as there are not adequate safeguards for that being done, namely justification of changes.

I've also spoken in the House on the question of low-cost housing and the Liberal leader mentioned this also. The figures are on record from the last debate we had on this, that indeed the former government did leave a lot of money on the table in Ottawa that could have been used in the financing of low-cost housing.

The question of incentive to thrift has also been raised. When one again listens to the man-in-the-street — this is another recurring theme that I come across — that if governments are trying to do more and more for people in the way of cash benefits, or "handouts" as the phrase is often used, there is real concern amongst many people in this province that in a persons earlier years there is less incentive to save, there is less incentive for him to be responsible for his own retirement and his own later years.

Certainly there is a very strong conviction in the Conservative Party that if you take away a persons incentive he'll reduce his own feeling of responsibility for his own future and you are indeed creating a dangerous situation whereby larger and larger numbers of people will feel that they can simply be dependent upon the state and a smaller and smaller fraction of people will be trying to carry that tax burden.

Now, Mr. Premier, I know that sounds like an old, hardline Conservative philosophy and you may feel it is. But I think it's clear, or it should be made clear to the people of the province, that since this government took office there has been — again, well-intentioned statements as to how certain benefits costing approximate amounts of money will be made available to the people of this province.

And I'm not criticising the aims. I'm simply saying that people all over my part of the neighbourhood are saying to me that this seems to be leading only to an increasing tax burden for a smaller and smaller fraction of society to provide these benefits, greatly required though they may be. This confusion and concern is increased by the point I made earlier, that if we're going to talk in figures of many millions of dollars, we feel it has been done in haste and that some delay would have been advisable if the figures ultimately announced were valid and accurate.

Another point worth mentioning in terms of a guaranteed income and in terms of this bill is that people are concerned that if this is implemented immediately and is a greatly better provision of income than in neighbouring provinces that we will have an influx of elderly citizens from other provinces to appreciate the better benefits in B.C. as compared to the benefits elsewhere.

And I think this should go on the record — this provincial government has no choice in the matter whatever. I've made some inquiries and on one point the federal government is absolutely inflexible and that is there shall never be, in their opinion, a residential requirement in terms of granting aid and assistance to the senior citizens. So while we can't change this I think at least it should be put on the record and also help to clarify the concern of many citizens who have spoken to me.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support this bill in principle. As I've said earlier, it emphasised the tremendous importance of federal-provincial negotiations in a matter that affects so many deserving people and affects the province's population-at-large, because the taxpayer who is in the taxpaying group certainly has to be the base on which this money is to be found.

I think it's also clear that, while this is well-intentioned and a step in the right direction, I would finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by appealing again to the Premier to with all haste enter into negotiations with the federal government to try and devise a nationally co-ordinated guaranteed minimum income. The various hodge-podge and interrelated agreements such as the Liberal leader outlined create only confusion and complexity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

[ Page 323 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think I'd best put some of this in a little historical context and then reply to some of the comments that were made.

In February in the year 1971 I introduced to this House a bill called An Act Respecting A Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens. Here's a photostatic copy of that bill. It says very simply, "This Act may be cited as the Senior Citizens Guaranteed Income Act. Any resident of British Columbia 65 years of age or over who has an income of less than $200 a month shall receive an allowance sufficient to bring his or her total income to a minimum of $200 per month."

Inflation has already hurt that particular aim of mine of two years ago. The funds were available out of surplus revenue alone. We had surplus revenues in this province — we've had them for many years. And I'm saying very clearly that we've never believed in a policy of taxation for surplus revenues. We believe taxation should be used for the purposes it is collected for — for the people of British Columbia.

There is a surplus in the revenue now that can handle this. And with no adjustment in taxation and with prudence we can handle it for years hence. But the point that has been made is that a government collects taxes to serve people. Not to play fiscal games. And we've always been through an experience with this province and the government that over-estimated its expenditures and under-estimated its revenues and had a surplus every year. And people went hungry because of that surplus. And I say that's wrong. O.K.?

Now, let's do some more historical review. When this debate took place in the House it became a matter of attention for the pre-election campaign in 1972.

The former Liberal leader of this province, although we don't agree in terms of fiscal approach in raising revenue, agreed with out position on $200 per month. He said so in the House and made the position clear in that debate.

He was attacked along with myself in an article written by the former Hon. Minister without Portfolio, Grace McCarthy, in an article of the voice that speaks for the B.C. elderly, the Elder Statesman:

"British Columbia socialists and Liberals are trying to hoodwink the elderly citizens of British Columbia — June 1972." Grace McCarthy says in this article from the Elder Statesman: "The socialist leader, Dave Barrett, and the Liberal Leader, Pat McGeer, have both claimed that the Social Credit government administration could raise the old age pensions to $200 a month. "This is another admission by these two parties that the Social Credit government has a sound financial policy to enable it to embark on these programmes.

"But these two Opposition parties are perpetrating a hoax on the senior citizens of British Columbia. Only too well do they know that if British Columbia raises supplementary allowances to $200 per month every senior citizen in Canada would flock to British Columbia to take advantage of it."

During the election campaign they came out and then said they were going to raise it to $225, $225. And who were they talking to in the Elder Statesman and who were they talking to a couple of months later? So any argument from that group has to be automatically dismissed as political claptrap and that's all it is.

Now to deal with the very valid analysis by both the present leader of the Liberal group and the House Leader of the Conservatives. I won't go into the details of my discussion with the Prime Minister. There were no witnesses. We had a very amiable discussion. And I said frankly, "I'm not going to vote Liberal" and he said frankly he's not voting N.D.P. either. He's not voting N.D.P. and I'm not voting Liberal. And on that basis we had a very frank discussion. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 324 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Frank was sitting there, yes.

The only comment I'll make about that is we both made statements since and he made a statement that I don't like. Perhaps he doesn't like mine — he's entitled to say anything he wants about it afterward. But this is what he said on the television show, "He", — that was Barrett, "can do what he wants with what he wishes was his money but he can't do that with our money". That's his privilege. But I want it clearly understood that this isn't "my" money in my opinion and that isn't "his" money in my opinion. That's the money of the people of Canada.

We're here to administer those funds. It wasn't the previous government's money. It's not this governments money. It's the people's money that we're dealing with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't it theirs?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I found out that it was really ours all along. The people's. The people's money all along.

AN HON. MEMBER: They fooled us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For years the Queen's Printer has been suspect. But there's no reason to believe in those suspicions. It is the taxpayer paying the money in this province, not the Social Credit money tree or funny money or any other thing you want. And they've been paying through the nose, some taxpayers. And my friend is absolutely correct when he says the middle income group are being taken for a ride. If the federal administration had taken a good look at the Carter Commission there might be a more sensible distribution of taxes in this country.

It's there. It's their comment to say where you're going to get the money from. I was asked that during the election campaign and I said then and I say now that the money must come from the natural resources of this province. Last year we shipped out $130 million worth of copper concentrates from this province with absolutely no royalties. And I tell you that is wrong.

Those resources being shipped out of this province in a raw form must pay a fair share of taxes and those taxes will be used for the social benefits of the people of British Columbia. Why the argument? Because I like to believe in politicians. I've avoided cynicism in public life, and believe me, I've had 12 years of opportunity to become acquainted with some degree of cynicism.

I want to read from March 13, 1967….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Lies, lies, lies.

HON. MR. BARRETT:…. of the House of Commons debates. The first statement I want to read is June 14, 1966 from Hon. A. J. MacEachen, then Minister of Health and Welfare, when he was asked questions about the Canada Assistance Plan. And it is complex. It is complex. I work in the field and I'm completely confused by many of its aspects. Even the people who are to administer it are confused. If you could see the memos flying back and forth and the negotiations and interpretations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want to see some of them? There's really nothing secret in any of them.

This was a statement by MacEachen when he was discussing this, and he says, "briefly stated the Canada Assistance Plan will provide a basis for co-ordinating public assistance programmes in Canada, federal sharing for the first time in mothers' allowance programmes, federal support for the strengthening of administration of welfare services relating to social assistance programmes," the route we're now taking, "emphasis on developing, improving and extending services designed to lessen the amount of dependency,

[ Page 325 ]

federal aid for buttressing child and youth welfare services, federal sharing of health care costs for social assistance recipients and, " listen to this, "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."

And the hang-up is around the word "need". That's where the hang-up is. And we say that that hang-up is a semantic hang-up, that there are regional definitions of "need" in this country and we can make an excellent case for a regional definition of "need" in the Province of British Columbia. Because the cost of living is relatively higher in the Province of British Columbia than some other areas of Canada — the highest food costs in North America. Now we believe in equalisation payments — unlike the previous administration. We believe in equalisation payments but we believe it should be a two-way street. If there are going to be equalisation payments for other provinces in need, then there should be equalisation payments in reverse under the Canada Assistance Plan so that we can have a regional interpretation of the word "need" and that's what the argument's all about.

At no time have I become involved in an emotional political exchange with the federal government, or the Prime Minister. I have no intention, whether he is returned or another party is returned, to get involved in that classic rhetoric that has marked British Columbia politics for years in attacking Ottawa.

I want to make it very clear that I do not intend to stand silently by when I think British Columbia has a case. And in this instance I think British Columbia has a case.

I welcome the route of going through Social Assistance because it's going to cover 70 per cent of what we thought the federal bill should be. But there is a matter of principle involved as well and we intend to pursue that particular principle. We even have Mrs. Margaret Rideout saying on March 13, 1967 and I quote: "It has been made clear to all provinces, Mr. Speaker, that where the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement are insufficient to meet the needs of pensioners, the federal government will continue to be prepared to share with the province in the costs of additional supplementary allowances based on need. There is no ceiling on the level of federal contributions for this purpose."

That's it, and it's stated again and it's the same question around "need" and we have a case we believe to say that there is regional need. For that argument, and I'm sorry that the House Leader of the Conservative Party has fallen into that argument, I noticed the Liberals avoided it– the argument that the elderly will swarm to British Columbia, or perhaps the fear is out there.

Let me tell you, on $200 a month per person it's very difficult to live in British Columbia. Two hundred dollars a month hardly meets rental costs, food costs, and many, many of our elderly will still be suffering even with this minimum $200 a month guarantee.

That's why we've gone further by saying that we don't believe that people who are living as man and wife should be punished for living as man and wife. Under the previous administration there was a 40 per cent penalty for living as man and wife. Common law was O.K. if you didn't get caught by the social worker. But living as man and wife, we say that both the husband and wife are entitled to the same $200 minimum guaranteed income.

One old fellow got up at a meeting I was speaking to to explain this point and he said: "Don't you think that we should get a little reward after having lived together all these years?" I said each case has to be judged on its own merits. But I made the point that we would not penalise these people by that 40 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double for Shirley! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: That part of my speech was written… The other point about people coming to British Columbia — it costs a lot of money to pick up and leave their children, and their grandchildren in Nova Scotia or in Ontario for the difference of $20 or $30 more a month. I believe

[ Page 326 ]

Canadians have more filial love than that. I really do and I can't see people uprooting themselves over that argument. And the argument advanced by the former Minister without Portfolio was incorrect.

Now, I want to make a statement about your philosophy. And you'd be surprised, as many people are surprised, to find that socialists and Tories frequently have a great deal in common. We look upon the Liberal Party in Canada as not so much a political party, but more as an alliance for power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. Nay, nay! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have been on the federal scene for so long they feel almost like they have the divine right to rule. And I can remember how upset they were when that great Canadian, John Diefenbaker, lead the Conservative Party to a sweeping victory in Canada. It was more a spanking of the Liberal Party than anything else. And perhaps it's time they had another little public spanking.

When you say that the incentive has gone because of the welfare state, I agree with you. There are inherent dangers in welfare states that are applied in response to problems rather than a total look at the social structure that that money is applied to. You made mention about the fact that money doesn't solve the problems of the poor. There was an eight-year study done by Professor Cloward at Pittsburgh University on this whole business, on the private dollar and the public dollar in charity and the minimum income and Cloward said that one of the major problems with the poor, after this study, one of the major problems with the poor is that they don't have enough money. It's interesting when you analyse the costs of all the delivery services. In terms of the agencies, and social workers, and interviews, and letters, and screening and everything else that goes on, by the time the money allocated gets down it's pretty thin. That's one point.

But the point I agree with you is on this business of incentive. In North America we have always looked upon the handling of money with a puritan ethic. Sometimes to our own disadvantage. We have built up a patchwork of welfare services that has deliberately driven some people in some instances to dissipate their savings so they could take advantage of the welfare service available. And we're confronted with that here in Canada in some of these supplementary programmes of senior citizens. That's why one of the first things we've done, one of the first things we've said is that we want to reward those people who have saved some money, who have put aside a little nest egg, and we want them to be able to protect that nest egg. That's why we're saying the exemptions will go up to $2,500 cash, for the single person, and $5,000 for a married couple. Let them have that cushion, they're entitled to it, and

AN HON. MEMBER: And the boat ride.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And the boat ride if they want to. And I'll tell you something. My friend, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is no social worker, but his suggestion that people go to Hawaii, the aged go to Hawaii on trips, is not uncommon in some countries like Sweden and others. But the point that I am trying to make is that I agree with you, we have taken away some incentive but it's been the nature of the social welfare programme that's taken away the incentive. And I say that must end and this is our first halting step to end it.

What are the consequences of doing what you suggest, and what I believe in? I'll tell you what the consequences are. If you've ever worked in a geriatric field, as you do as a doctor, the first thing that the aged become concerned about is insecurity, the lack of long-term planning, the destruction of family as they knew it, and their changing role as they get older, and the whole business of, "What do I do now?" — you know, the decision-making process.

It's frightening. You give an aged person in some instances a form to fill out and that's almost a traumatic experience. When their security gets threatened you know as a medical practitioner that there develops psychosomatic

[ Page 327 ]

illnesses that are compounded by their very age. And when the aged develop psychosomatic illnesses it's not long before they become chronic and then terminal.

Because of our foolish approach in the handling of funds for the aged, it is my guess that we could make a correlation between the increase in the need for chronic care and resthome care to the degree of insecurity that the society has created for the aged.

We are trying to not only give $200 a month to these people, we're trying to have them hang on to the amount of money they have in their home. But we're trying to create a psychological atmosphere for them that gives them a sense of security, that enables them to stay in their own homes, in their own communities living a more decent, sensible, balanced life rather than rushing into an institution that becomes a comforting mother in their last years of life.

Rest homes, nursing home care, chronic home care, does not need to be the inevitable end for the longer lived North America. And if we can design programmes to lessen the chances of that happening, then that is good for all society. One of the worst aspects of North American society is its septic suburbs in a sense of age grouping. The suburban areas in North America have a starving need for aged people living right there in the suburbs. And if this programme in a small way can start changing that, it can have an impact on our society.

I'm not saying it's going to revolutionise our society, but if we start designing our programmes in the direction you're talking about in terms of incentive, in terms of individual roles, we'll be helping society. In that sense the Conservative philosophy and the Socialist philosophy is right on together. We respect the individual. The bolstering of the individual is a difference in means, of methods, and that's what separates us.

But, the goal is the same. I didn't intend to get into that lengthy philosophical discussion but in my opinion the goal is the same.

We don't know at this point the exact figure that we are dealing with. But, in ball-park figures, if I may use your phrase, we have a pretty good idea and I want to say, very clearly publicly we can well afford to do this, right now. We can well afford to do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much? You got the figures?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister will give you the figure, as we stand now in terms of the new "goalpost" that we have after my meeting with the Prime Minister.

He'll give it to you as best as he's got it. We really won't know until after a year of performance. I'll tell you why we really won't know the kind of exact figures that everyone is entitled to know — simply that there are a lot of aged out there who will not come and make themselves available for this programme. Because they are so conditioned with the idea, of you know, staying away from government help, they believe that this kind of supplement is somehow caving in to the welfare. Psychologically that was one of the reasons why we did not want to go the social assistance route. But, now we've had to go that route. I want to tell people out there, if they qualify for this programme they are not to have one shred of guilt or doubt about applying for these funds. It is their right. They have been paying their taxes for years and they are entitled to this particular return

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your best statement of the session

HON. MR. BARRETT:…. . and I'm not even 65.

The whole purpose of this is that it is a social measure. It's going to be watched very, very closely. Not only by the people in our department but by the people right across Canada – I hope in some areas of North America, because this has been a theoretical goal of many people in the field for years.

I feel very, very happy about the debate, I feel very, very happy about the fact that British Columbia has reached the point that we're able

[ Page 328 ]

to do this.

I must say in closing it is a moment of very great personal pride, in terms of my own 12 years of politics, that circumstances would have it that I'm in the position to participate in a debate that is going to see this action take place. I feel very, very good about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Premier on a very sincere and impassioned speech. Which I know will be taken to hearts of our senior citizens everywhere in the province. When I came forward earlier this year, with our charter of rights for the elderly, it was to do precisely what the Premier suggested needed to be done. Namely, to provide security, confidence, and appreciation among the elderly of the province.

We in the Liberal Party recognise the immense administrative task that the Minister of Social Rehabilitation has taken on, in implementing this programme with so much rapidity. We certainly wish him every success. We know you're going to have a great deal of problems in making the details of this work.

We suspect that there will be a lot of amendment to the bill required, as the administrative tangles of trying to dispense fairly the amounts of money that are involved begin to reveal themselves in the coming weeks. I think every Member of the House should anticipate that this is going to happen and recognize that it is better to get on with the job, after 20 years, than to wait until all of the difficulties can be properly anticipated. So we are with you in that, Mr. Minister.

The subject of rest homes has come up in this session, the subject of chronic hospitals. But, there are still a couple of areas that I think need to be considered by the government now, in addition to these.

One of the prominent points in our charter of rights to the elderly is that they should have the right to free drugs and medical appliances, including hearing aids, batteries, eyeglasses, false teeth, crutches, artificial limbs, wheelchairs and so on.

The reason for specifically mentioning these things is because the Premier and the Minister and everyone in the House who's had any contact with the older people of the province, recognises that circumstances often take away what meager income they have, for what becomes an essential necessity of life. The profits for providing these necessities of life are very high. Therefore if we are to give the elderly of the province a genuine $200 a month income, then we need as well to make provision for these extra necessities.

The second item I would specifically like to mention for the Minister's and the Premier's attention, Mr. Speaker, is the need to make greater provision than we have for property taxes of our elderly citizens. We've specifically stated that they should be forgiven property taxes in this province, later to be repaid to the government if that were deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for older people to be able to maintain their home and place of residence. Despite the increase in the Homeowners Grant, we have many, many people who face the loss of what is the most important thing for them, next to life itself – that is the nest that they've had for many many years.

Beyond a certain age you simply cannot readjust to a new living situation. The Premier himself has said that people will not be flooding to British Columbia from other parts of Canada because of the generosity of this government in giving them the guaranteed supplement.

Family is important, home is important too. So we should do everything we can to maintain the senior citizens in their home, because they have a right to it and that is where they belong.

A great deal has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the relationship of the federal government and the provincial government with regard to the financial

[ Page 329 ]

arrangements. We're right with the government, Mr. Speaker, in trying to get as much as we can for the Province of British Columbia.

There are constitutional and legislative difficulties that prevent us from getting our way with the federal government. But, one thing I think might be considered by the government, and I don't want this to be interpreted in any way as a separatist statement, because nothing could be farther from the truth. If there is a federalist in Canada, it's me. But, we are entitled to opt out of any programme where we think we can do a better job of administering it if we just take the money from Ottawa.

It may be that if we want to be in advance of the rest of the nation in some social field, we would be better off opting out and developing entirely our own administrative scheme.

There is no reason why this province or any other province shouldn't explore those alternatives. For example, I mentioned at the last sitting of the Legislature, where it might be wise for us to take over all of the retraining programmes for unemployed people. Put it under a single administration, tailor it to the needs of British Columbians, so that you don't have constant friction between two levels of government with the people falling in between the two stools.

It may be that this is a completely wrong approach. It may be that this is a completely wrong approach. It might be that financially, we're better off even to go through the awkward route of social assistance.

Or that we're better off to try and press at federal-provincial conferences for some kind of a new deal. But among the alternatives that I think we can afford to explore is the one of simply opting out in a programme and taking over the complete administrative responsibility.

I want to support the suggestion made by the leader of the Liberal Party that we have to give some kind of recognition and reward for thrift. And there's little doubt that the setting of a $200 a month line is going to be wasted from that point of view of providing income and security.

It strikes us that there's something just a little bit unfair about that. It creates greater problems administratively, we understand that. But in the long run it will probably make for a better scheme.

These are details, Mr. Speaker. We heartily support the main principles of the legislation and we wish the Minister well in what we know will be the growing pains of an important new programme in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD(Comox): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to provide a minimum income of $200 for the pensioners of British Columbia. This bill No. 3 makes me very happy. There are other Bill No. 3's that wouldn't have made me so happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: There have been.

MS. SANFORD: Just after the results of the election of August 30 were known there were many who said to me, "it's like a breath of fresh air to have a new government in this province". That remark was made to me as late as yesterday again.

MRS. JORDAN: There's a lot of hot air over there.

MS. SANFORD: I felt more than a breath of fresh air that evening. I felt a breeze. A pronounced breeze, and I think that that breeze was the result of the combined and the collective sighs of relief that came from teachers, social workers, school boards, minimum wage workers, regional boards, council government employees — to name just a few. And for the old age pensioners of this province.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you speaking for all of them?

[ Page 330 ]

MS. SANFORD: It's inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, that in a country as wealthy as Canada the old age pensioners have had to live in substandard conditions because of insufficient funds. The old age pensioners have needed this legislation for a long time.

And I fail to understand why the previous government didn't act when this need was brought to their attention by the then Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, and us and us.

MS. SANFORD: Nor do I understand why the federal Liberal government chooses to interpret the federal legislation in such a way that they are not now paying the optimum permitted under federal laws.

If they showed the same concern for people that this government is showing through this bill they would have jumped at the opportunity to participate fully with us in providing the benefits contained in this bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, the need for this bill is greater in some parts of the province than it is in others because of the high living costs.

This was alluded to earlier by the Premier and by some of the Hon. Members. The need in some parts of the province is even greater, I say, because of the particular high living costs. The freight costs, for instance, to Vancouver Island increase the cost of living here.

Why are those freight costs so high? Why does the $2 box of apples bought up in the Okanagan cost $6.75 in Courtenay?

I would ask the government to investigate those freight rates with the view to having them decreased.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've done it already.

MS. SANFORD: To provide relief to the people that are living in the remoter part of the province. Even within my own riding the cost of living varies significantly. Goods are cheaper even in Courtenay than they are, say, in a place like Port Hardy. To reach Port Hardy goods can be transported between Kelsey Bay and Beaver Cove on the ferry known as the "Island Princess." Also referred to in our riding as the "Turtle Princess" because it travels at a full 10 knots when the sailing conditions are good.

MR. GARDOM: Order, order!

MS. SANFORD: Rates charged on that ferry are high. Too high I think.

MR. GARDOM: Order, order!

MS. SANFORD: All right — I'm trying to point out that the need for the cost of the need for these increases in minimum incomes to the people of the province, to the pensioners of the province are greater in some areas than they are in others.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you keep it in second reading, please?

MS. SANFORD: There is one specific thing I think which raises that cost of living and which makes the people of the northern end of the province more affected than others by high living costs. That is that the only road, Mr. Speaker, only public road, which leads into that north end of the island is a gravelled one and on that road the transport vehicles, and commercial vehicles are required to pay a fee. This is a road which is controlled by logging companies. It is 100 miles of gravel, is narrow, dangerous, and the people travelling on it must pay through a gate erected by the logging company.

MR. SPEAKER: I do think that you're straying from the debate before us.

MS. SANFORD: Okay. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that the

[ Page 331 ]

ferry rates up that way should be reduced to help the cost of living. I feel that the fee which the commercial vehicles are now paying to cross that road and the freight rates are things that we could look into in order to make $200 a month which the people are going to get more beneficial to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the pensioners of this province will be applauding this legislation. And I think that for those who are living in remoter areas the applause will be even louder. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there's no question of a doubt as the Hon. Premier said and many of the earlier speakers, that the province is what it is today by virtue of our senior citizens' contributions. They earned expensive dollars and they now have cheap or perhaps no dollars to spend and they've been completely eroded or almost completely eroded by inflation. But you know, they're asking two questions, Mr. Speaker, concerning the outcome of this bill which will before the end of today become the law of the Province of British Columbia.

And the two questions will be these. They're going to say this. "How much am I entitled to?" and "How do I get it?" I think the government has got to provide for them, Mr. Speaker, something that very clearly, very simply, and very concisely explains that very thing. I would suggest the Hon. the Minister put out a chart with large letters on it so they don't have to use a magnifying glass and tell them exactly what they are entitled to, what the ground rules are, where they get it, where they receive it from. What steps they are able to take and who they can reach if it is not received. I say make it a very simple kind of a chart, perhaps a couple of columns indicating the amount available and the requirements for qualification and then go ahead and set forth the when and the where and the portion which may or may not be subject to income tax.

Because the pensioners should not have to be more confused by this legislation. They should be better accommodated by it. And that's the intent of the legislation. And that's the kind of treatment they indeed deserve and I would very much urge upon the Hon. the Minister if he would give consideration for this request.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.F. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill and I really didn't think you were going to let me do it.

But first, I wish to congratulate you on your election as Speaker to this House by your fellow Members and to say, Mr. Speaker, that I consider your choice to be a wise one. I have had over the years the opportunity to sit in the gallery of this House and look down from above and to observe the keen interest and the concern for the proper order and the conduct of the business of this House that you showed at all those times. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will maintain that concern from your new position.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill and I take particular pleasure in doing so especially on this my first occasion to speak in this House. Let me convey to all those who may hear and to those who may not my great feeling of honour and appreciation in being a Member of this historical chamber, representing as I do the constituents of Esquimalt.

This bill is of particular interest to this area which I have the honour to represent and indeed to the whole capital region of Victoria. For here in the whole general area of the capital, the per-capita percentage of pensioners is twice that of the national average. So there can be no doubt of the importance of this measure to this area, and it seems to me that nowhere in our society is the misdirection of human attention so evident as it is in the treatment our society gives to its senior citizens.

Years ago, when you became older you lived with your family, you lived with your children, and felt uneasy. You felt as if you were getting charity from your children and if you didn't do that, then you lived in a squalid

[ Page 332 ]

room, spending the day on a corner and trying to eke out a living, and that was before we had pensions of any kind at all. There is still today a great deal of apathy to our senior citizens which is a left over from a less enlightened age, and we still regard whatever we do for the senior citizens as a piece of charity which we do out of the generosity of our hearts, and that the object is to keep body and soul together for the senior citizen.

Mr. Speaker, that attitude is inhuman, it is wrong, and it is immoral. Those men and women who have given their lives to building this country deserve not just enough to keep body and soul together but deserve a senior life of leisure, respect, dignity as their right — not a privilege, their right. Not, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of charity from the government, or an act of grace from some people, for that which they have earned in building this country they have earned through a life time of work.

The vast majority of them are or were working people. It is no exaggeration to say that senior citizens of our country only get a share of the rising standard of living — that is the vast majority of them — when the government grants a very small increase in the old age pension. For the overwhelming majority of them have not been able to save up enough to take care of themselves, and make provision for later years. There are over 1.7 million pensioners in this country of ours. Over half of them — 900,000 — are so poor that they qualify for either part or all of the guaranteed supplement. Citizens who have little of their own that they are able to qualify for part or all of that supplement. Because of this situation, the old age security pension should require regular review in order that it be kept in line with the increased cost of living, but also with the increased standard of living enjoyed by the rest of us.

That measure we shall ensure here. Our senior citizens have worked all their adult lives, struggling to build the economic progress of this country and they must share in the benefit enjoyed by others. Because of high rents, high cost of clothing, drugs, etc., the meagre allowances are gone before the month's end. They often spend the last week of the month existing on tea and toast and dog food, and that is substantiated and documented for anyone who wants to know. And let me point out there is no quality control on that particular food product which has been known to contain rat meat.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, all those over 65 who qualify receive the very inadequate and totally unrealistic amount from the federal government of $82.88 and over half of our pensioners are so poor that they receive part of or all of the income supplement of $67.12.

At this time in British Columbia, out of some 200,000 pensioners only some 16,000 to 17,000 are in receipt of all or part of the provincial supplemtary allowance. And only 1,300 of those qualify for the full provincial supplement. Mr. Speaker, it is the commitment of this party through this government to proceed to raise the living standard of the senior citizens so that because they are no longer producers, we shall not from now look upon them as second-class citizens. We desire to raise them to a meaningful first-class citizen in our society. Funds paid out to pensioners are spent in the local communities on the necessities of life and that's just good business. Let all those in this province, in this nation, take note that here at last a people's government has set out to correct the long record of unfair and callous treatment of our senior citizens by Liberal, Conservative, and Social Credit governments alike. No longer, Mr. Speaker, not in British Columbia, are we going to banish our senior citizens to cheap, dingy, squalid housing and shocking inadequacy of the necessities of life.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasise that this party and this government have a comprehensive programme for the senior citizens and we have the commitment and determination to see it a reality.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I would like to join briefly in this, debate to indicate my support for this bill. I suppose that I would like to agree with the Hon. Member from Esquimalt, with perhaps some regret that we, are today debating second reading of this

[ Page 333 ]

kind of bill. It is legislation which in this wealthy province should have been on the statute book many, many years ago, and it is I suppose one of the most telling criticisms that one can voice in respect of the previous administrations. The Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made a request to the Minister in which I join. Senior citizens, pensioners over the age of 65 years, like so many of our citizens who are younger than they, are confused by the language of the government, the words — the "guaranteed monthly income," "G.I.S.C.A.P." — all of the vast litany of words, phrases and abbreviations that we use when we try to describe what is really the simplest of matters. I suppose it is a failure of all politicians and something that we're justly criticised for.

But I think that it's easy to explain what this bill does and perhaps in the explanation it's also easy to see some areas where improvements must take place. But simply stated, a senior citizen, old age pensioner, whose income is so low that he or she receives the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government qualifies for some assistance under this legislation, and when you look at the limits which permit you to get the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government and therefore qualify, we see how astoundingly little really is being given by this province to these pensioners at this time.

It works out simply that for a single pensioner, if they happen to have income annually of their own in excess of $1,611 then they don't get anything under this Act. It's as simple as that.

If they fall below the level of that income, by even a dollar, then they qualify. It is in this respect that I suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Minister, that some early consideration must be given to removing the inequities which inevitably arise when we establish these arbitrary limits, because there are people, there are senior citizens, who fall just outside the limits who really need help in the same way as there is the older person not yet 65 years of age who really needs the help that the pension could give. Just the same as when we established qualifications that enable elderly citizens to obtain accommodation in low rental housing projects there is that person who falls just outside that limitation and can't get in, or is just too late and has to go on the waiting list.

The tragedies that result from placing people just outside those rigid boundaries are sometimes every bit as great, if not greater, than what the programme was designed to provide. And I hope, once this bill gets working and the government recognizes how it will function financially and how it needs to be administered in the community that we can move on from this kind of formula to one which will begin to meet the need of the senior citizen who may fall just outside the boundaries which this legislation establishes.

There is one very specific area that gives me concern about the bill and I raise it with the Minister now. Mr. Speaker, I won't deal with the specific section, but there is provision where the minister can make adjustments in the assistance provided in the event that the federal supplement rises by reason of the cost of living formulas. May I ask the Minister, when he closes this debate, to indicate whether he believes that the present regulatory powers also give him the authority to change the assistance if, in fact, the basic federal supplement is to be raised.

It occurs to me that, in the discussions which are bound to go on over the next few months between the government of Canada and the governments of the several provinces, that there is the possibility that the federal government may see fit to adjust the basic guaranteed income supplement. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would not want to find himself in the position that because the basic supplement was increased under this legislation he was not able to make the same dollar grant to each individual recipient of assistance under this bill.

I, too, must join with the Premier when he said that he did not believe that the passing of this legislation was going to encourage senior citizens from other parts of Canada to come to British Columbia, and he gave many reasons why — costs of living and so on. There is another very basic reason of course and that is that senior citizens would prefer to stay in their own communities — communities where their friends are, communities with which

[ Page 334 ]

they are familiar, communities that they helped to create and to build. That's where they want to be.

I suppose that it was not too hard to believe that the former administration, the former government, did feel that senior citizens might flock to this province if such a bill were passed, because if there was one thing that the previous government did it was to drive senior citizens out of their own communities. Now the laws of this province, and I'm speaking of the laws relating to the taxation of real property, contributed to just that result. It forced senior citizens to dispose of their homes and in many cases, having disposed of their homes, they were obliged to find accommodation in some other community. And those laws, as I say, are still with us.

I trust that, as a companion to this bill, we will shortly have from this government legislation which will stop that trend, which will permit and which will encourage senior citizens to live in their homes and in their own communities. Then we will really be making a step forward towards the day when the senior citizens in this province will really be improved. Dollars are not enough.

There are many other steps to be taken as well, but the first thing we must do, having provided some assistance in order that senior citizens may live at the sustenance level, we must then move to keep them in their own communities — places where they are familiar, where they are happy and where they will be able to spend the remainder of their lives justly enjoying the rewards which are theirs for the contributions which they have made to this province.

I, too, urge the Minister to reward the thrift of our senior citizens. A thrift merit plan would be something that this government should offer to the senior citizens. And as I read the regulations I'm convinced that the Minister has that power right now under this bill, once it becomes law, to do just that.

And I know the Minister with his experience, and his experience is far greater than mine in dealing with senior citizens… But I meet lots of them and I know them to be fiercely proud people in many cases. People who say, "Look, I made my contribution, I've made my savings, I can look after myself." And they shun any suggestion that what they're getting is charity or welfare.

I suppose this is one reason why I regret the amendment had to come in which makes reference to the Social Assistance Act. Many senior citizens do not want to feel that, after a lifetime of contribution, some how or other they are placed on the roles of social assistance. And therefore they have been thrifty. They've got that little nest egg. It's very important to them. They will hide it, in many instances, rather than have it suggested that they are taking social assistance.

I just think that this impediment to the enjoyment by all senior citizens who qualify for the assistance which this bill gives should be removed. We should extend fully to them the benefits to which we believe, the government believes, these citizens are entitled to in principle. And that's why we're debating this bill in principle today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER: (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill which I consider important. As we're all well aware in this House, the grant of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month for senior citizens over the age of 65 who are now living below the poverty level is of utmost necessity. The senior citizens of this province have waited too long for a better deal from government. They've been thrifty throughout their working years to save for their old age only to see periods of inflation take away what they have saved. But they have not given up. They want to share the good life, they want to share what this affluent society has to offer in their declining years.

The previous speakers have all agreed with this. So let us not delay in giving them something like this just because all the details haven't been worked out completely.

[ Page 335 ]

They have finally become militant and formed pressure groups of their own. Pensioners for Action Now, a pressure group started by senior citizens, began in January or February of this year. Within several months, in British Columbia alone, its membership swelled into thousands. During the provincial election campaign they lobbied with every political party to make their demands known. Mr. Speaker, many of them were at the opening of the House in Victoria. They crowded into the reception room at the Empress Hotel to shake hands with and to speak to their newly elected representatives. I have never seen so many happy faces on old people looking with hope to the future.

Many of them have been in the gallery every day. Some of them are here today. We have seen them come and go in these public galleries all afternoon and they are waiting for an answer from us. Those who are not here, Mr. Speaker, are at home listening to their radios waiting for an answer. They are waiting for the passage of this bill granting them a minimum guaranteed income of $200 a month.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it isn't heaven on earth but it's important and a great improvement over anything they have ever had before. They know, and we know too, that income security can do much to lengthen and brighten their lives.

It will help them overcome loneliness and isolation. In the past, grandparents remained as part of the family. They were not only cared for but they were made to feel useful. Grandma helped look after the children, assisted with the cleaning and with the cooking. Grandpa often did the repair work around the house or tended the lawn or the backyard garden. A great deal of this has gone now.

The first old age pensions, as a result, were really intended as a small supplement to their income to make life a bit easier for those in dire need. It was given on a means test basis and during the 1940's and 1950's the amount of the pension was slowly increased and eventually the means test was removed. In other words, it became a universal old age pension. However, even at the time, the intent of the pension was never implied to be the sole means of support for senior citizens.

Changes in our way of living since World War II have created new problems for the elderly with inflated land and housing costs. We have travelled into an era of small homes and apartment living. Families can only afford accommodation for the nuclear family — the father, the mother and the children. There is no longer room for the old folks. They are forced to be independent. I agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he says that just giving people money does not bring happiness but believe me, for many it means the difference between being able to meet monthly bills or living hand-to-mouth. In preparing what I was going to say I looked through some old files and
I found Time magazine of August 3, 1970. It's one that is dedicated almost entirely to the elderly and Patricia Welbourne, in an article on being old in a society that worships youth, has this to say, "being old in a society that adulates youth is not only undesirable, it is offensive and an unwelcome reminder that living is a journey towards dying."

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the offense is sharpened in direct proportion to the degree of poverty and privation. But how soon before this grim thought is forgotten will we have the wherewithal to make life a little more enjoyable.

Not only is the cost of food rising but the cost of clothing is rising, the cost of housing is rising. These are the basic necessities of life, but besides that, the cost of medicines and drugs are also rising and for senior citizens, for older people, medicines and drugs are very often also a necessity. Many of them live in fear of illness that could put them into hospital for an extended period of time. The private hospitals are prohibitive. At present, one out of five acute care beds in our general hospitals are occupied by old people who cannot afford extended care.

To offset the yearly rise in the cost of living, the federal government in 1970 introduced an escalative clause into the basic old age pension which at that time was $80 per month. Allowing the maximum of 2 per cent per year but that same cost of living has been rising at the rate of 5 per cent or more.

[ Page 336 ]

Last winter, under the Local Initiatives Programme instituted by the federal government, a Vancouver relocation service was established. Its primary intent was to assist the elderly and the handicapped, that is, those who could not help themselves in finding a place to live. This service set out to find reasonably priced housing for those forced out by demolition of their premises or by rent increases. The biggest problem, according to the director of the service was to find rentals in the $70 a month income bracket — all that most could afford to spend. She said, "the average rental they were able to find was $98 a month. Many were willing to pay more than that because they were desperate and as a result, they frequently were living basically on three or four major meals per week plus tea and toast."

Why? All because they have little more than $500 in liquid assets, all that the government will allow before they qualify for a supplementary assistance beyond the old age pension. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that of the 205,000 people in British Columbia over the age of 65, only about half receive all or part of that guaranteed income supplement. Now these are figures that have been repeated this afternoon but I think they are worth repeating again. Only about one-half receive all or part of the guaranteed income supplement raising their pensions to $150 a month. Yet for the past four years, Stanly Knowles, the federal Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, an N.D.P. Member, has been advocating a universal old age pension of $150 per month. This is what the pensioners themselves asked for. To date it has not become law. The guaranteed income supplement is still on a means test.

For those in real need beyond the basic pension plus the guaranteed income supplements, there is the third phase of the supplementary social allowance which is shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the provincial and federal government. In British Columbia the maximum rate is $41.10 which would raise their benefits to $191.10. As has been said previously slightly more than 16,000 pensioners receive all or part of the supplementary allowance. In fact, only 1,254 receive all of it.

In case both partners of a marriage qualify though, they only receive together a total of $52.20. Also, in their guaranteed income supplement they only receive, along with their old age pension, a total of $285. That means that rather than getting $191 each, they get only $337 as a married couple. Should they be penalised because two can live more cheaply than one? Under the new bill practically all the 110,000 senior citizens now receiving all or part of the guaranteed income supplement would be covered to raise their basic minimum incomes to $200 a month. I understand that this will cover about 95 per cent of these pensioners regardless of whether they are married or single. The remaining 5 per cent more or less do not qualify as they are already receiving $200 or more through their old age pension, their guaranteed income supplement and other sources of income. The exact number is not yet clear. Final totals are still being worked out statistically. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important measure. I urge every Member of this assembly to give it full support. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD: (Mackenzie) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I add my congratulations to Mr. Speaker on being elected to this very important post, to all the Hon. Members who are elected and re-elected and to your self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the arduous task that you will have in this House.

I will be very brief. I rise to speak in support of this bill because it is a good bill. This bill will provide our senior citizens with the start of a decent living allowance. Too long have our retired people, the very people who made it possible for all of us to enjoy the advantages we do today, been neglected by the federal and former provincial governments. I know of literally dozens of people, as I am sure you do, that have been living on the verge of starvation. This is a situation that our government is going to put an end to.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister and that our civil servants involved in the administration of these funds go to every length

[ Page 337 ]

to make sure that everyone that is eligible to receive these funds receives all the help and assistance that they possibly can.

I thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity first to welcome Alderman Ernie Novakowski and his class of grade 10 students from McRoberts school in Richmond.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) expressed concern about people just outside of the limit in receiving this supplementary pension and likes to suggest that this is exactly what the pension is geared to do — to increase the outside limits so that more people will be able to receive the pension. This is a problem that we will always have to look to. There will always be somebody just outside the limits. We have to consider this from time to time.

I would like to suggest, however, that if the federal government were to increase the basic pension then many of those people just outside the limits for supplementary pensions would receive more adequate help. If for example, the present Liberal government were to increase the pension by $150 then people would be able to receive that much without a means test and, if they were to pay their additional 50 per cent share, we would be in a position to increase the pensions, the basic minimum income in this province, to between $250 and $300 per month. I think that is where the pensions should be and if we get the support from the government in Ottawa that's where they will be. The second point I would like to make is that to make this bill more meaningful not only do we have to consider regional disparities, as one of the Hon. Members has already mentioned, but we have to consider that some old age pensioners have other problems such as medical problems. Once we're able to provide free drugs and medical-dental treatment to the old age pensioners we'll be able to assist those who have health costs that are so great that even an increase in the minimum income will not help them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill and hope that we can look to even better things in the future.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill. The bill gives me a lot of pride to belong to the party that put this bill forward. But one of the areas that gives me a great deal more pride is the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) pointing out to the people of British Columbia that not only will this bill go into effect, but he will personally look into the problems that are facing senior citizens in this province, into the situation that the people are living in and do a complete study and come up with some answers — an area that hasn't been done properly or touched upon by previous administrations.

I think that we should also examine the age that we say people can collect pensions from a federal standpoint — the age of 65. What terms of reference is the Liberal government using to decide that a person should be 65 in order to be eligible to collect pension?

What I'm going to tell you now I would suggest is the truth. I heard it on C.B.C. Radio, and having worked for C.B.C., I'll take it on face value. Now, a programme that I heard, going back to the early times when the age '65' was first determined, was in Germany after the First World War.

There was economic chaos. The government that was in power at that time was trying to find some solution so that there wouldn't be a lot of unrest within the working forces. They couldn't do anything immediately that would relieve the situation so they said, "Look, let's promise them something later on. Let's promise them a pension after they finish working all their lives." I said, "That's a good idea but what age are we going to use as the criterion." So they put a commission to work to find out what the proper age should be. They found that in those days a person very seldom lived longer than 65 so they could collect all the money and not have to pay it out. They said,

[ Page 338 ]

"Look, let's make it 65."

Now I would suggest that the federal government must be fairly lax in its duties not to have updated the age 65 from those times after the First World War.

It particularly galls me to hear Liberal people in this House suggest to this government that we don't know what we're doing, because we're only going by a set of rules that has been handed down to us by the federal government.

Rather than suggest to us, I would suggest to them that possibly they should sit quietly, listen to the debate and then vote with us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I think that this $200 a month guaranteed income to the pensioners is a good bill. I would have been much happier, of course, if it could have been $300 a month or $400 a month because, in fact, far from making all the senior citizens of this province very wealthy, in most instances it's only going to serve to raise most of them just above the minimum, the very lowest that it would be possible to live on.

I recognize a lot of the criticisms leveled at the bill in terms of the people who will not be getting this minimum wage. As a social worker myself I recognize that if it would have been possible to make it universal — that is, everyone over 65 getting this $200 a month — that would have been better. However, it seems that we have had so much difficulty getting any cooperation whatsoever from the federal government just to give this $200 a month to the people who really need it that if we had attempted to make the $200 a month universal surely we would have never gotten this thing through the House at all.

The other area of the bill that I would really like to address myself to is section 4. Section 4 says that, where a person is dissatisfied, they can appeal against this decision before a tribunal and I think that this is a very forward-looking step. No one can accuse this government of taking on to itself, and certainly cannot accuse the Minister of taking on to himself, unlimited powers. He has established a tribunal before which people can go if they are not satisfied with the ruling.

The third thing that I'm really pleased about in the bill is the fact that we have no residence requirements. I think that if there are any senior citizens living anywhere in this country who choose to make their home in British Columbia, they should be welcome.

I think we tend to forget that it was largely their sweat that built this country and we should not try, in any way, to keep the older people of this country out of this province. This is not a separatist state, Mr. Speaker.

In his introduction to the bill the Hon. Minister mentioned his concern, and I'd like to add mine to it, too, about the rising cost of living and the cost of housing. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if, as soon as this additional sum is placed in the hands of the senior citizens, their rent goes up, all that we will have managed to do is to subsidise the landlords of this province. So I would like to ask the Minister, in his summing up, to once again appeal to the landlords of this province not to immediately raise the rents of these senior citizens as soon as this bill comes into effect.

In my own particular riding of Burrard I ran across, on more than one occasion, instances where this occurred the last time that the senior citizens got a raise. As a matter of fact, in most instances the rent went up higher than the raise which they received and the senior citizens ended up being worse off than they were before.

I can think of one particular case in which the boarding house in which an older woman was living changed hands three times in the period of twelve months and each time her rent went up. In that period her rent went up $25 a month.

So this is why I would ask the Minister, in his summing up, to reiterate that he will do — he will address himself to legislation — or by whatever

[ Page 339 ]

means possible to see that this additional sum of money, when it goes into the hands of our senior citizens, does not pass through it into the hands, not only of the landlords, Mr. Speaker, but of the food chains and other areas, as consumer cost tends to go up.

And also I would like him to say one or two words about health and dental care for senior citizens and whether he is giving any thought to any help in these areas for the senior citizens of our province. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise, speaking in favour of the motion of the bill. I would like to make one point and that is my concern that in the past, when there has been an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, persons living in chronic-care hospitals, either public or private, have an increase in their ability to pay and thereby are charged more from this by the government. It is, in effect, the handing-out on the one hand to the person and taking-away with the other. What I am talking about is the comfort allowance that people with minimal incomes receive in chronic-care institutions.

Now it is very difficult when there are increases and people hear of increases in pensions, whether it be only $8, and they realize none of this increase. I know it is a very difficult matter but I would like to know just how this is going to be taken into consideration in the execution of this bill. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no other member who wishes to speak the Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON MR. LEVI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems so long ago since yesterday to the fact that we had to withdraw some amendments and re-do the bill and it was a terrible thing because we were inexperienced and really didn't know what we were doing. Well, I'd like to remind the Hon. Member that on March 22, 1972 the former Premier stood in this House and said, "Mr. Speaker, we have now a new amended Bill No. 25. We've replaced No. 25, the Gift Tax Act, and I ask leave of the House to withdraw existing Bill No. 25." Now, in case she's forgotten, just take that over to the Hon. Member.

After 20 years they couldn't even do a Gift Tax Act. In six weeks we've produced a piece of legislation which is going to give us trouble, we admit, but which, I think, in view of the amendment, is clear and fairly concise about what we're going to do.

The Premier has said it, and I've said it, that we're going ahead with this thing and we'll continue to discuss with Ottawa the exact percentage of the sharing. And that's the situation at the moment.

In respect to the statements by the Liberal leader, I think he's done a great deal of research. By and large, he was very accurate in the kind of information he was giving to the House. However, his discussion about people with $10,000 worth of assets, in terms of this bill, isn't terribly appropriate because the people that we're trying to get at in terms of existing legislation have nowhere near $10,000 in assets — in fact, they've never seen $10,000 in assets.

However, I appreciate very much the whole concept of thrift that they were talking about and I think the person who has been thrifty and saved money should not have to spend their life-savings in order to come down to the level where they have to qualify for our supplementary assistance. As the Premier pointed out, we're actively discussing with Ottawa the raising of these levels to $2,500 per person.

The Hon. leader also referred to future costs in terms of this kind of programme. In my opening remarks about the bill I said that we were dealing in the main with people who did not have enough opportunity, because of a very serious depression, to make satisfactory provision for their retirement. However, in the last 25 years in this country there have been a number of provisions introduced. We have the Canada Pension Plan which really comes into force January, 1976. We have a number of private plans that workers

[ Page 340 ]

are participating in where they work and this is going to make some considerable difference to the people who are coming to the age of 65 in terms of retirement. It may be that for some years we will have to maintain the levels that we're at now but eventually it is going to go down.

The Hon. Member was asking about the cost of living increase and I would say to him that in the bill there is provision for that. I have said that what we want to do is not only make that provision of 2 per cent, but we'd like to take a look at the realistic increase in the cost of living and add that to it because the 2 per cent is usually about 3.5 percentage points off what the reality is.

There has to be in the discussions that we have with Ottawa the whole question of assets — the whole question of people who have money yet live marginally because it gives them some income. I'm looking forward very much at the end of next month to meeting with Mr. Castonguay, the Minister of Social Affairs for Quebec, who has done some very interesting papers on the whole subject of assets in respect to welfare systems.

Just one more question to the Hon. leader of the Liberal party. I must say — and I'll try and make the information available — he is definitely more than $30 million out on his estimates. But as the former leader of the party said the other day, "After all, what is $30 million?" Well, $30 million is an awful lot of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's coffee money to the liberals…. .

HON MR. LEVI: Now, let me just say a word about the semantic problems that we have been having. I've been in the welfare field for 17 years and I understand what needs, means, and income tests are. In case the Hon. lady from North Okanagan is not aware of that, I'm fully familiar with the regulations of the Canada Assistance Plan and its provisions and I think, in the main, it's a good piece of legislation.

What we have tried to do over the past six weeks is to point out the direction in which the federal government should go. That's what we've been trying to do. And the feedback that we're getting across the country about the kind of things we're doing here tells me that people are now looking to us to continue to give this legislation. And that's fully our intention. In respect to health care, and I don't want to get into my colleague's department, but in respect to drugs, prosthetic devices and dental care, we are looking at this. The first thing we want to do is to get the money to the people. Then we will look at the next question of the free drugs, the prosthetic devices and this sort of thing, simply because I think one of the things we want to do before we get into that is to find the best possible purchasing deal that we can find in Canada, or anywhere else. That may take us a little time. And that's one of the considerations we have.

In terms of the comfort allowance, to my friend from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), we are looking at this as we are looking at all of our programmes. We understand the short-comings of some of the allowances and we will be making some adjustments.

Finally, in summing up, and I want to say that I think the debate has been a very good one, that one of the problems that we face as a government in social services is that we're having to catch up 20 years of neglect.

It's a great disappointment to me that the former Premier is not sitting in the House when we've been debating this bill because I've been waiting anxiously for some remarks from him. He decided to make them in the corridor rather than in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's par for the course.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think it's a great pity that a man who has symbolised the form of government we had for 20 years was not present. Because he more than anybody was responsible for the plight of the senior citizens of this province.

As I view my department, and it keeps me awake at nights because I know that in the future we're going to have to come into this Legislature and make

[ Page 341 ]

proposals for expenditures, especially in relation to children's services, that may well be of the enormity of the particular expenditures that we're talking about today, simply because those people over there didn't give a darn about what was going on with those children.

In terms of the money that we're going to spend, let's face it, $60 million or thereabouts into the economy is $60 million that will go around and there will be a multiplier effect. It will have an impact on the economy. It will create jobs. Most important of all, it will give people a standard of living that is reasonable and they can live with dignity.

I don't want to say anything about people coming into this province from the rest of the country. They are welcome. Somebody suggested to me that we might very well wind up with a geriatric parade of people. Well, why not? It's a beautiful country. We have got lots of land and they don't come empty-handed. They usually come with money, they come with skills and it is our intention to take advantage of the skills of senior citizens. We are not just content to see them retire. We want to involve them in a number of schemes in the community. We are going to have discussions with them about making use of these skills.

What more can I say? We are two-thirds along the line of getting legislation. It's the first of its kind in North America and it's probably going to be the first of many kinds of legislation which will be the first in North America. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 3 now be read a second time. Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS-51

Bill No. 3 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 4.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I think that the House is aware that this is a companion bill to Bill No. 3, and that the financial provisions are the same as in Bill No. 3, but I just want to say one thing.

During the last election, for the first time in an election in this province candidates were faced with what I thought was one of the most provoking sights in a campaign — the handicapped in their wheel chairs sitting right in the front of the political meetings waving banners and demanding what it was that they wanted. That was the first time and I don't think there is any doubt that they had some impact on the results of the election.

Here are people who in this province were actually treated as outcasts in the real sense when it came to assistance. These were people who were stripped of all of their dignity in terms of having to apply for a pension, and in introducing this bill, it is our feeling and our hope that we will be

[ Page 342 ]

able to restore to them the dignity that they so richly deserve and must have and the financial opportunity to give them some scope and some movement to move into the community.

I have every expectation that as we open up the provision for the handicapped, and I can tell the House now that I instructed the department three weeks ago to review all of the applications that were made six months ago and were turned down on a marginal basis to be brought into the scheme immediately. These people are now being interviewed and will be in receipt in the interim. We expect that we will have possibly 2 1/2 times as many handicapped or twice as many handicapped on pension as we had previously.

But then we also expect that many of the handicapped people, once they have this basic minimum income, will be able to move out into the labour force and it is our intention as a government to make available to any of the handicapped people that need training, the scope and the opportunity to get this kind of training so that they can in fact become self-sufficient. That is their wish and that is our desire to help them. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I must have a spring in my chair somewhere. I keep popping up at the wrong time.

I rise now to speak on behalf of the official Opposition in support of this bill, not because we think it's enough and not because we approve of the way it has been handled. But we have come to the conclusion, in listening to many of the debates in this House and the statements outside this House by the various Ministers, that probably it's better to have the handicapped people in this province accept the crumbs from the cookie jar, and that's better than starving.

I welcome the minister's comments in regards to encouraging or assisting more handicapped people, but I hope that it is not as misleading — and I'm sure that would be unintentional if it was — as other statements that that Minister has made since taking office, and before taking office. I would hope that this is not another example of their financial irresponsibility and their confused action on the part of the people that I believe they genuinely would like to help. I think in this bill, and I regret to say it, we do see once again the evidence of an on-again, off-again romance, the romance which unfortunately is between the socialist government and the very needy handicapped people of this province. I suggest that it has been confusing to date and I hesitate to say it, and I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it has been cruel. It has been an on-again, off-again love feast, as the Premier chooses to call it. It has been at the expense of the handicapped people in this province and it is our duty to point this out.

In supporting the principle of the bill we must point out again that we are alarmed, very alarmed, at the loose and irresponsible way in which the socialist government has campaigned about income assistance to the handicapped, has talked about income assistance to the handicapped and has introduced legislation for income assistance to the handicapped.

Again the Minister and the Premier have shown that they simply do not understand the Canada Assistance Act. There is a little more hope in some of the amendments that are here. I am not intending, Mr. Member, to make a vicious attack. I am trying to protect the handicapped in this province from the woolly-headed financial irresponsibility of this new socialist government and some of the inane remarks that come from some of the Ministers.

Speaking of the ability of the government and the Minister and the Premier in their inability to understand the Canada Assistance Act, they've displayed a complete lack of understanding in the fact that a government has a responsibility to work within the framework of legislation of the senior government. Whether you approve of it or not and whether you wish to change it or not, if you wish to go out and try and change it, my goodness, go ahead. The objectives are most worthwhile in this instance.

But in the meantime, get on with the job and don't confuse the very people that we all want to help. Don't play games with them, don't plug-in

[ Page 343 ]

as Santa Claus and then get a short circuit around Christmastime, as you indicated in your press release you were going to have. If you want to play Santa Claus, through you, Mr. Speaker, then make sure you can come through and you can produce. Don't make the handicapped people the salami in a political sandwich.

And you can talk all you wish, through you, Mr. Speaker, to you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Premier — and that Minister made a very eloquent statement in this House yesterday in relation to another bill. I thought it tended to be a little politically biased, but I accept his sincere desire to help people. But I would suggest that you don't have any stronghold, or any captive position in a desire to help people. You haven't got a corner on the market. There are a lot of people in this Legislature and they are concerned. That's why they're here. Just as you are, and as I would hope the Premier is.

So Mr. Minister and Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that, as eloquent as he was and I'm sure as sincere as he was, that is not good enough. We're not the people you should be talking to. Perhaps this few in here are because I admit some of your problems are involved with them. But to get up and cover up the irresponsible financial bunglings of Barrett's blunderland…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member cease to use the names of Members in the House. It's unparliamentary.

MRS. JORDAN: As you wish.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're just mad because we won the election. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: No, I don't care if you won the election. I noticed, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has a few more grey hairs in his head today than he did 40 odd days ago. And there are not more in mine.

And I really don't care who wins the election and I don't think it matters who wins the election.

But the point is that this Legislature is for the benefit of the people as these socialists are so fond of saying and we're saying stop talking and get on with the job. Stop fumbling and get on with the job.

Every Member of this House is concerned except, I suppose, those few smiling, laughing Ministers around you that don't seem to think this is very serious. I suggest that the very fact, when you're trying to discuss a serious situation, that the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Premier himself, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) are laughing and making futile remarks is utterly shocking. It indicates how irresponsible this government is. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is disgusting and I hope you will call them to order and remind them of their responsibility the next time it happens.

MR. SPEAKER: I always call every Member to order, madam member.

MRS. JORDAN: Our concern, in spite of our acceptance of the sincerity of the Minister's efforts, is with his fancy rhetoric and our concern is that the solutions to the handicapped as they are espoused by this government has been confusing to these people.

I suggest that, having a common concern, the difference between the socialists and the Social Credit who were in government is that the socialists ability to carry out programmes for people is soft because it is based on rhetoric. Fancy words, and, I must say, financial incompetency.

Our concern and our solutions for the handicapped and those in need — and it extends well beyond the handicapped — are strong because they are based upon financially sound policies, they are based on responsible negotiations and they are based on a willingness to deliver to this House and an ability

[ Page 344 ]

to deliver to this House — signed, sealed and delivered — an agreement which can accomplish these aims. And it would be done without over-taxing the working people and taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You've had your chance.

MRS. JORDAN: You've talked in public and you've talked in this House. You've talked in the corridors, through you, Mr. Speaker, and you've talked and you've talked and you've talked. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, there's an old saying that talk is cheap. I would suggest that when the Premier of this province talks and when the Minister of Social Rehabilitation talks that it is expensive talk — anywhere from 25 to 60 million unnecessary expensive tax dollars to the people of British Columbia.

In this bill and in his statements and, I must be fair — more in the statements of the Premier as he has debated another bill related to this subject — we see weaving and wobbling and producing a fabric and a web of confusion at the expense of the handicapped and the needy people in this province.

If you would listen, through you, Mr. Speaker, you would see that our bill on the order paper very clearly indicates that not only $200 a month but $225 a month can be made available to every needy, handicapped person in this province. Two hundred and twenty five dollars a month…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources says, "You were here in April." One of the points of this whole debate,Mr. Speaker, is to point out that what they wish to accomplish, what everyone in this House wishes to accomplish, can be accomplished under the Canada Assistance Plan. And they're bungling it.

We've told them they don't understand it. We told the former Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of the province, in that very session that he refers to, that he didn't understand the Canada Pension Plan and what he was telling the elderly citizens of this province was not true. Then he stands up in this House, and that Minister does — and I can sympathise with his problems — and says, "We want to do it. We've been plugged into Christmas. We're going to deliver." But there are problems. We know there are problems, Mr. Speaker. But that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources thinks that he has problems but nobody else is entitled to have problems.

MR. J. CHABOT: He has, he has.

MRS. JORDAN: He has the answer to everything when he is in the Opposition and all he can do is waffle this way and that way when it comes to being asked a decision on the super port as late as last night on the television. Irresponsible! Typical irresponsibility.

But I say again, Mr. Speaker, that our bill, the Social Credit's bill that was part of the Kelowna Charter and the position of the official Opposition which is on the order paper, does clearly indicate that the elderly and the handicapped in this province can receive $225 a month through cooperative negotiation with the federal government and through responsibility with no unnecessary costs to the people and the working taxpayers of this province.

I would add, in discussing this bill, that I, on the basis of previous debate which I won't allude to directly, will be listening very, very carefully to the rhetoric of the rows of Liberals on my left. While that debate indicated a serious concern for the elderly and the handicapped people in this province, it didn't mention anything and we have not heard, and I'm sure we will not hear in this debate from the Liberals, any suggestion that the federal Income Tax Act be altered to allow a minimum exemption for every citizen over 65 of $300 a month which would come to…. . or we would even

[ Page 345 ]

settle for $3,000 a year.

And do you know, in listening to rhetoric of the rows of the Liberals on my left, I couldn't help but recall the last provincial election. If I may quote, "Uncle Davy" sort of danced all over this province here, there and everywhere handing out petals to all the pensioners and the handicapped people of this province of what the Liberal administration would do. And that Member was sitting in the federal government when they voted an 82 cent increase to the handicapped people of Canada.

What the Liberals don't understand is that the many, many limitations that plague the handicapped and the needy across Canada are the result of the so-called rosy Liberal policies. Beautiful to look at, Mr. Speaker, beautiful to talk about, but awfully thorny to hold and awfully thorny to live with and I'm sure that Minister will verify this.

But nonetheless, Mr. Minister, the Liberals are there in Ottawa for the moment and that Minister must negotiate with them. At this time, it is that Minister and that Premier's responsibility for producing an income of up to $225 per month for the handicapped of this province. The money is in the provincial treasury. You can get down.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, get away from the rhetoric, get away from the semantics. And speaking of semantics and legal niceties, those semantics are going to cost this province approximately $50 million. Some semantics!

I say, Mr. Speaker, for that Minister to get off his soap box, and I say to the Premier, "Get off your soap box. Get to work." Show some knowledge of the legislation. Show some financial responsibility and stop the confusion that is prevailing in the minds of the handicapped people in this province. Stop issuing the hollow ultimatums that have been issued. Stop weaving and wobbling. Stop the pixie-war dance that has been going on. Bring in that agreement signed, sealed, and delivered, and the money to the handicapped — $225 a month. Produce a guaranteed minimum income of which you can be proud of and which you can deliver.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member voting for the legislation or against the legislation?

MRS. JORDAN: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I think the Hon. Premier didn't hear. I said I was supporting the legislation because something is better than nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Only one Member can be on his feet at one time and rhetorical questions do not have to be answered by Members of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The performance of that Member speaking for the official Opposition lacks only one thing, from my point of view, and that is television coverage. Because if those statements were heard by all the people of British Columbia they would get minus 10 per cent of the votes in the next campaign.

A performance of responsibility from the Opposition we are told. She says, "Be fiscally responsible." And she wants to spend another 25 bucks a month more for each person when they didn't do anything all those years they were in office.

I hope there are not too many students in the gallery. I don't want them leaving this House with that taste of cynicism in their mouth, after watching that performance this afternoon. The students might get the idea that that is really the role of the Opposition — to talk out of both sides of their mouth and end up supporting the bill. If she really believed everything she said, she would have to come to the conclusion to stand up and vote

[ Page 346 ]

against this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: In the Kelowna Charter it's all spelled out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I challenge you, madame Member. I challenge, through you, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and vote against this legislation. But regardless of what you do when the vote comes, I want to tell you something. The handicapped know what it is all about. They're not voting for you anymore.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, a much-needed bill for the last 20 years. In the past, the handicapped people of this province were expected to exist on a lower income than pensioners in perfect health.

During the last election 1 can recall the previous government proposed an increase to bring the total pension of the handicapped up to $170, not $225. The disabled persons total allowance I believe, is about $139 and this is $52 less than what the senior citizens receive on pension.

The cost of living for the handicapped is higher in many cases than that of a healthy person. For example, besides the usual needs of living for everyone, the handicapped people need medical apparatus, special needs in housing and transportation. In the housing area, their needs are more essential than in most other places. I don't want to go into all the examples of the stoves and the cupboards and everything else. I think we all realize the situation that some of the handicapped people live in.

It's unfortunate, though, that the housing needs, even those planned for the disabled people, fall short of meeting their needs. At present there are 2,700 public housing units in the Vancouver area. Only 16 are acceptable to wheel chair victims. Just 16.

In transportation, the past government saw fit to give senior citizens a courtesy card for B.C. Hydro for free bus rides. What about the handicapped people? What about the people in a wheel chair? What good was that courtesy card for them.

Studies I've read show that one in five senior citizens is handicapped. It has been estimated that a disabled person's chances in getting a job are one in a thousand. That is because 90 per cent of the employers look at a person's disability and not his ability. There seems to be a certain mentality among some employers which considers all handicapped persons as invalids and not capable. I think that attitude has to change and should change.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, society must look at a person's ability, not disability, because everyone is capable of doing something. Handicapped people must have the same quality of life as everyone else. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just add to the comments of the former speaker, and mention in particular that it might be well for this government to take the services of Mr. Alex Clark in Vancouver who communicates with all of us and sends information about the point which was raised.

Mr. Speaker, although the former Speaker was not wishing to drag out the debate I think it is important to repeat the very simple things or things which appear simple to us who are not handicapped — not physically at any rate.

And I put myself in that remark because this kind of concept is often overlooked and it is the principle I tried to stress in the earlier debate today. Just giving someone money really doesn't help if they can't reach the cupboard or they can't reach the fridge, and so on.

I don't want to say much more than that, except to say the Conservative Party does regard this as a very welcome companion bill to the former bill,

[ Page 347 ]

and we heartily support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have a general question for the Hon. Member for North Okanagan. I wonder if the Hon. Member was advised by the Leader of the opposition regarding her speech and the content, or whether she has only herself to blame. Just amazing. This little band over here, the official Opposition…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hatchet men.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Just one minute, please. The use of the expression "hatchet men" is an insult and I take it as a epithet that should not be used in the House and you will find that it would be ruled out under May. Also, moaning in the House is difficult to record in Hansard.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what are we giving to the handicapped now? What was that group willing to give to the handicapped in the past? — $139 a month. Sitting in the cabinet, that over-stuffed group in these over-stuffed chairs, willing to live with $139 a month. The whole pack of them. And now, when we raise the amount by over 40 per cent, they say those are crumbs from the cookie jar, crumbs from the cookie jar.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam, what guts it takes. What guts it takes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister address the chair and not the individual members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will do that.

The Hon. Members talk about cooperation with Canada. This government has cooperated with Canada more in the past five weeks than they cooperated in the last ten years.

And to hear this from the mouths of the former Hon. Minister without Portfolio. To hear these statements: "Get to work, get to work," the Hon. Member said. We had three lady Ministers here for too long who didn't work, who didn't do the job that had to be done for the handicapped and the needy. I find it appalling to listen to this sudden hasty conversion, and I would simply suggest, madam Member, that your face should match your jacket this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Well, I'm very pleased that most of the remarks I was going to direct to the Member of North Okanagan were taken by the Hon. Minister.

I have only a brief comment to make. It was said before in a previous day of this session. It should be said again. In April of this year an amendment was put forward by the New Democratic Opposition to raise the amount of the minimum standard of living for the old age pensioners in this province. It was defeated. The Member from North Okanagan said, "No, that was too much." Mr. Speaker, she said, "No". All of the members that were sitting here in April of this year said, "No, that was too much."

Now what we are giving them are crumbs from a cookie jar. This is colossal cheek. I say, "How dare they come into this House and have the cheek to address this House and say that that is crumbs from a cookie jar." We spent 20 years living under their begging-bowl attitude towards social justice.

Let me add a few remarks a little less heated, Mr. Speaker, on this bill, the companion piece of legislation. All of us on this side of the House and probably with the Liberal and Conservative benches consider $200 a month

[ Page 348 ]

a temporary measure. As the Hon. Second Member from Vancouver South said, "$200 a month is not heaven on earth." And let me say this, I'm a little bit tired of the kind of games that the political parties play, governments particularly, in saying, "Can you top this?" when they are dealing with pensions.

In this House we have raised it to $200 a month and you can be sure that it will be raised according to the standard of living. I'm sure that the government is considering now how a standard of living index can be attached to this legislation because never again will the disabled and handicapped and old age people in this province be set with a begging bowl.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I just want to share a conversation I had this morning with a student that I went to school with. Not really a student, he's 38 years old, his name is Bill. I went to school with this fellow. He is a cerebral palsy citizen. By no fault of his own he has been this way all his life.

I just want to share his budget. This is a fellow, incidentally, who is really quite independent, who likes to get into the community, who likes to make a contribution, who did two years university, took special training to work in the Pearson Hospital as a special visitor with other handicapped and especially cerebral palsy patients.

His phone bill is $10, his rent is $120 which he shares with another student who he is trying to help get on through university. Dry cleaning and wet laundry are especially expensive things, making up $30. He skimps along at $40 for food which gives him meat probably twice a week at the most. Taxis of course are especially expensive — $50 a month. Clothing is $30, remembering that their clothing wears out especially fast, and in his case, he's not that close to his parents. He has to get volunteers and people to come in to mend his clothing. His books — he's still trying to do some studies — are $6, stationery $10, and if he's lucky once a month he can get to some kind of entertainment like a movie. That's $300.

This is a fellow who wants to be independent and wants to be in the community. He'll get the $139 disability welfare payment and has to find $161 from his friends. Now, I'm very happy with the $200. I know it's not enough but I know we will work at it.

I do hope that this House goes to people like Bill, listens to him, who incidentally sat in this House as a Member of Older Boys' Parliament 12 years ago. I would just like you to personalise your thoughts around my friend

Bill, who is very proud, who really probably feels somewhat uncomfortable about some of the remarks that have been shared here about the fact that he's even getting $200, but who still wants to make a contribution to society, who I think has helped many of us find a greater fulfillment, who wants a greater sense of faith and hope, and who believes like most of us in this House that this province certainly is wealthy enough, certainly can afford a minimum income for the disabled like Bill at $200. Certainly we hope that it will be a little more in the future. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, once more we wish to compliment the government on bringing forward a long overdue reform. We say, of course, that we will support it, and reiterate once more that we are with the Minister in the difficulties that he may well run into trying to administer the Act. But if our compassion is to go out to the people of British Columbia, it must surely go to the handicapped with even greater force than it does to the elderly.

As that well known beer commercial goes that could never be shown in British Columbia, "You only go round in life once," and for those who have been deprived of the full round in life, they deserve even more than the people who have had the greatest fortune of all which is to have sound health. Certainly, this is one group of people where there should be no hesitation

[ Page 349 ]

in complete generosity and our support will go out to the Minister in anything he can do to improve the Act and make it workable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the bill. I would also like to point out that I've received many letters and had representation made to me by many people in my area that are handicapped.

In particular, I think of one I received just this week from a gentleman who lives at Canoe, just outside of Salmon Arm. He has a — very meagre budget laid out and in this budget it costs him about $149 a month to live. In his letter he says he has sold just about everything he has to sell and yet he has come to the end of the road and wants to know where he goes from here.

Speaking to the Hon. Member from North Okanagan, who has left the House, I would like to, on her behalf, apologize for her attitude from that area. She is in the riding next to me and I'm ashamed to think that I live in the same area.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I would like to assure you that there are people in the Okanagan that have a heart. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

Before you proceed though, Hon. Member, personal allusions are not welcome in the House, reflecting on other Members. In future I hope that this will be born in mind by all Members.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll make sure the allusions won t get personal.

I would just like to point out that this is a start of something that is yet to come. I think this is just a beginning in the way of providing adequate income for the handicapped like we have been discussing about the senior citizens. Also, I would point out that educational facilities for the handicapped and the retarded — be it for adult, be it for children — is a very, very urgent matter in our area, not only to serve the immediate area, but to serve the entire northern area in which we are.

I want to point out that some people may call this "crumbs." I don't care really what you call it, I think it is a good start. But if we are going to be talking and discussing "crumbs" I think we should start looking for "plums."

I can think of a few items that have received a considerable amount of publicity a week or two ago and that is certain operations which happen to be a utility, a monopoly, being B.C. Telephone. In checking their records, it shows that they have made a total of profit and income tax of $38 million which left British Columbia last year and comparable in previous years. If you calculate this out into income for senior citizens and handicapped it would work out that we could get more than $200. We could get as much as $240, $250 and maybe up to $280 a month if this type of revenue could be utilized.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that people will eventually want to know how long the plums will continue to go out of B.C. Instead of into the pockets of people that really do need them. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I might add a word of support on behalf of this bill. I was quite moved this afternoon when listening to the comments of the Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster). She was talking with regard to the problem of the change in our society where the aged no longer have the opportunity to be maintained and kept within the family circle. I think perhaps that same observation should be made with reference to the handicapped perhaps even more so.

[ Page 350 ]

In the old days, the retarded child, the handicapped child, the crippled child and all the people of that kind were guarded within the family circle. The family was able to look after its own. The home was large enough, the family was large enough and these things were looked after in that kind of a way. We have a very much changed society today, more mobile society. Smaller homes and many problems make it impossible for that kind of care for the handicapped people. That is the reason why we have to be taking this new kind of a look and support for our handicapped people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Minister the kind of institutions that I'm sure he's aware of. Two are in North Vancouver where special facilities are provided for the handicapped to do meaningful work. This is an area where a number of attempts have been made by service clubs and other non-profit organisations to develop but I think there is a great deal more room for this kind of operation for the handicapped. Whether they are blind, whether they be retarded or physically handicapped, opportunities to feel the satisfactions and the good feeling that comes from having given something and having done something useful can be provided. And perhaps this kind of work and the encouragement of this kind of institution would do more good for many handicapped than just giving them handouts of money.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as the minister explores the things that can be done within his department, he will pay particular attention to this kind of problem — to this kind of institution.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, to the question raised in the previous bill by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) who suggested that further instructions and explanations were needed. If they're needed for our senior citizens, I think perhaps they're needed even more for our handicapped citizens.

There is a regular jungle of qualifications as to how handicapped people get this kind of help. I think if any of the M.L.A.'s have tried to explain to people who call them as to what help they're entitled to — it's a jungle of regulations. I think this needs to be summarised in clear and simple terms and I hope, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in closing the debate, will say something specific in this regard perhaps referring to both bills.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I, for one, and I think all of the Members in the Liberal and Conservative Parties feel some degree of pride this afternoon in taking part in the debate on these two bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would to rise in support of this bill and in particular to address myself to section 5.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order.

MS. BROWN: Oh, is that out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. You deal with the general principles of the bill and not specific sections. That will be in committee.

MS. BROWN: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. As you realize I'm just a babe in the woods.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. One of the things about this bill that I'm particularly happy with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it makes it possible for handicapped people to travel to other provinces and to remain there for a while.

Many times during my campaign, people would come to me and say that they would like to go to Alberta or to Ontario but if they remained there for a period of maybe a month or so they would loose their pension, whatever it was.

[ Page 351 ]

I'm very happy to see that this bill has addressed itself to that. The word "temporary residence" is used and I'm not quite sure just how "temporary" is but I'm hoping that it means at least three months.

Generally this bill also like Bill No. 3, talks about a tribunal of appeal. Again I would like to say how really pleased I am about the tribunal of appeal because I feel that until this province has an ombudsman, or at least a human rights commission that works, we're going to continually need tribunals of appeal.

I support this bill. I feel that the $200 income is one first step in an attempt to bring the living standard of the handicapped of this province above the poverty line. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, just an historical note. I was in this House when it was common practice of the then government to start the year of the wolf in 1952 and everything sort of related from the day they got elected way back then. We now have to witness the phenomenon, exemplified by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), that there's a new era of history which started on September 1, 1952. Everything that went before that went down the tube like the government. And this Member has the unmitigated gall to stand there and to tell us to get on with the job, let's do it, and all of that nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I'm trying my best to have the Members confine their remarks to other than personal allusions. "Unmitigated gall" is not acceptable. Would the Hon. Minister withdraw.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, I withdraw.

I don't think it's worthy of any of us now to get into this level of debate when we're dealing with such an important bill as the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Let me just say this, and I did intend to bring it up under the other bill, that we have worked out a programme of notifying most of the senior citizens and the handicapped people, a programme whereby there will, initially, be insertions in the cheques they receive. There will be a P.R. campaign. I particularly asked for supporting and was assured that all of the print will be very large, the language will be simple and in the case of the handicapped who do have to apply — some of them will have to apply — we'll make all the arrangements necessary so that this whole process is simple and dignified. That's the key note.

It is a beginning, this legislation. We want to be able to do the kind of things that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) was talking about. We want to give encouragement to the various organizations which work with the handicapped in his own riding. I think St. Christophers is one that he perhaps had in mind, and many others. This will be a costly process but we feel it is essential. And even as a secondary or tertiary effect, these become job-producing, not only for the handicapped, but also for the people who work with the handicapped. There will be a whole new technology needed for this kind of work and we hope that people will be training people for this.

As I said under the previous bill, we've made a beginning. Again, it's the second landmark in North America. There really is nothing like it in terms of this kind of legislation and it's only a beginning.

MR. SPEAKER: Move the motion, please. Move the motion.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move second reading of the bill. Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 352 ]

YEAS-52

Bill No. 4 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions. Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions. Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions. Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, might the House Leader indicate the order of business for this evening, please.

HON. D. BARRETT: The House will go into committee on Bills No. 2,3,9,10 and 13. And I will ask for an interpretation on the motions on Bills No. 3 and 4. If we can, we will proceed with those this evening. If not, they will have to wait until tomorrow. I think the motion allows us to go into committee with those tonight and if the House agrees that's what we will do. Then we will go on after Bill No. 13 to Bills No. 3 and 4.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and it is with reference to a question in the Votes and Proceedings, question No. 8. I will read it for clarification with your permission. "Mr. McClelland to ask the Hon. the Minister of Public Works the following questions: 1. Does the Government have any plans to place all Ministers of the Crown in the Main Parliament Buildings? 2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the estimated cost of the project?"

And the Minister very kindly answered the question. And the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "no".

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that in the paper today, the Victoria Times, there is a statement that Premier Barrett has expressed the desire to get his Ministers in the main legislative buildings and I bring it to your attention because I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Public Works does not wish to mislead this House and perhaps he would…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I would be glad to take up the question of whether, first, it is a point of privilege and, secondly, what further remedy you have if you think that the answer is not correct.

[ Page 353 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Right. We would just like a revised answer, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier always have to act that way when someone is trying to get a point of clarification?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.