[ Page 1629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23).

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Fraser — 1629

Oral questions

Gas price increase request by Imperial Oil. Mr. Lauk — 1630

Changes in stumpage revenue and timber volume. Mr. Gibson — 1630

Abortions in greater Vancouver. Mr. Wallace — 1631

Emergency employment programmes. Mr. King — 1631

Effects of BCR layoffs. Mr. Cocke — 1632

Effects of ferry layoffs. Mr. Lockstead — 1632

Increase in welfare applications. Ms. Brown — 1632

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1633

Mr. King — 1634

Mr. Gibson — 1645

Mr. Wallace — 1648

Mrs. Dailly — 1654

Mr. Hewitt — 1657

Mr. Skelly — 1659

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome with me two gentlemen who are here today representing the Canadian Paraplegic Association, an association which has done many good works in British Columbia: Mr. Doug Wilson and Mr. Doug Mowat.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Center): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my personal welcome to the two gentlemen just introduced, and I expect the hon. Minister of Human Resources will join me on Saturday at their annual Wheelathon and give it a good start.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a gentleman, a chartered accountant from the great city of Kamloops, Mr. Lawson Barnes, who is just about to open a new office in Williams Lake in the great constituency of Cariboo. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on the desk of each member today is an explanation of the new salmon-enhancement programme that we are embarking on this year. I have it on your desk today because, as you know, we had hoped to have the federal Minister of Fisheries (Hon. Mr. LeBlanc) introduced to the House today. Unfortunately, although he met with us for the first time today in Victoria, in the capital city, he has returned on an urgent call to Ottawa. I just wish to recognize his first visit to Victoria under this new administration and look forward to the time when I can introduce him from the floor of the House.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon from the great municipality of Burnaby is a group of some 50 students, accompanied by their very able chaperon and teacher, Miss Holly Rogers. Would the House bid them welcome, please?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today, from Columbia River constituency, Mrs. Winnifred Weir, formerly editor of the Lake Windermere Valley Echo in Invermere. I would like the House to join me in welcoming her to the assembly.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I was inspired to rise. I had no intention of doing so, but when the hon. Minister of Consumer Services brought to my attention the presence of my cousin, Mr. Lawson Barnes, I simply had to get up. I think the two of us must be ordained for something later, because I found out also that he and I used to play golf together 10 years ago, and look where he is. (Laughter.)

But, in any event, I do have a friend up there, Mr. Lawson Barnes, whom I knew long before I went into politics. We have over the years developed a very close friendship and we refer to each other as cousins. I would like to have the House wish him again a very happy visit with us, and I thank you, Hon. Member, for bringing him to my attention.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery later on this afternoon there will be 50 students from the Osoyoos secondary school. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Mr. John Wallace. This group of grade 10 students are known as the "1076" group and they've raised over $4,000 to pay for their trip to come to Victoria to see the House in action and to tour Victoria and the parliament buildings. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I would like to welcome to the gallery today a very senior member of the Cowichan Indian band, a historian of that band and a long-time friend, Mr. Joseph Elliot.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): My brother Martin is with us today. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the request and on behalf of the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), I would like to introduce two people from his constituency, Mr. Ken Macdonald and Denise Mallinson, who are sitting in the Speaker's gallery. I bid welcome to them.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
BUILDINGS CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Now the Shrum report.

[ Page 1630 ]

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Vancouver Centre, I now table the Shrum report.

MR. LAUK: You give good service. Did you check with Bill?

Oral questions.

GAS PRICE INCREASE
REQUEST BY IMPERIAL OIL

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier. Yesterday I asked the Premier if the government was going to comply with Imperial Oil's request to be allowed to increase the price of gasoline immediately when the federal government allows an increase in the price of oil by the barrel. The Premier replied that the province now has a freeze at the refinery level.

Our staff checked with the B.C. Energy Commission this morning and they were unable to refer us to any order-in-council or other document that actually freezes the price.

Can the Premier clarify his answer by telling the House exactly what document spells out the freeze that he referred to yesterday?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the freeze is an extension of the freeze that was first put on last October. While our government extended the freeze twice on all goods that were covered — to February 16 — when we removed that freeze we left it in this particular area.

MR. LAUK: A supplemental question. If the hon. Premier is referring to the Energy Act....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you not? Could the hon. Premier...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was put on last October.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you state your question?

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to indicate what power the government has to freeze the price at that level and what document we can refer to.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is the extension of the freeze that was put on by the previous government. The freeze was relieved on all products with the exception of petroleum products at the refinery level by order. I will bring into this House tomorrow the statement we made when the freeze was lifted on all other products.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary. If the hon. Premier is referring to section 67 of the Energy Act which does not impose an actual freeze, but gives the government power to prevent undue increases in price, may I repeat my question: will the government comply with Imperial Oil's request to be allowed to increase the wholesale price of gasoline when the oil barrel price goes up as advocated by the Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. There is no increase contemplated, and no change in the present freeze that we extended on this product is being considered. I might say that before the House now is a bill which also contains the right of the government to freeze all products to fight inflation.

MR. LAUK: You've got it already.

CHANGE IN STUMPAGE
REVENUE AND VOLUME OF WOOD

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Before the relaxation of the close utilization standards which were announced by his deputy yesterday, I assume the minister obtained certain statements of impact. I wonder if he could tell the House an estimate of the change in stumpage revenue for the balance of the year as a result of this move and the change in the volume of wood to be removed from the forests.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, there will be a very slight increase in revenue to the provincial government because we are doing away with the 55-cent wood increment when the standard changes to somewhere between close utilization and intermediate utilization.

What'll happen is that we will, instead of this time next year having an anticipated surplus of pulp logs of somewhere near 527,000 units, hopefully be down to about 175,000 units, so that will be roughly the difference in wood not taken out of the woods.

MR. GIBSON: Just on a supplementary, then. That's an expected decline, if I did my quick arithmetic correctly, of 350,000 units over that period? Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary to the hon. Minister of Forests with respect to the question asked by the hon. Liberal leader. As this relaxation of regulations

[ Page 1631 ]

for close utilization in the forest industry — will inevitably lead to greater profits to the forest companies as well as an upturn in the forest market in the United States currently underway, is the Minister of Forests considering raising stumpage levels to their normal rate? Because they were artificially lowered by the NDP last year during a slump.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The intention of these minor changes in utilization was primarily for the purpose of relieving the terrible surplus we have of both pulp logs and wood chips. Now if this should reflect a minor change in the profitability of the forest companies....

MR. LAUK: Substantial.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: A minor change. No, we're not at this time anticipating any changes in the stumpage regulations. As the member knows, Dr. Peter Pearse is assessing the whole forest sector and we're not going to make any substantial changes until such time as his report is in.

MR. LEA: The answer is "no."

ABORTIONS IN GREATER VANCOUVER

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question with regard to statistics showing that in British Columbia there are 41 abortions for every 100 live births in greater Vancouver. In view of the fact that the B.C. rate is by far the highest of any province in Canada, and since cases can be documented where the abortion was carried out beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, has the minister conducted any specific investigation into the fact that the provisions of the Criminal Code in regard to abortion in British Columbia are being broken every day?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, I have this afternoon asked my department to investigate many of those allegations which have been made by the Pro-Life Society and others. I hope for a report very quickly.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary. First of all, I very quickly commend the minister for his prompt action. I appreciate his answer. I'd like to know if the minister, on any of the cases where it has been brought to his attention that the child was born alive and subsequently died, has notified the Attorney-General's department with a view to laying charges against the surgeon for negligent management of a live birth.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay again, the answer is no. I have not officially, until today, had any indication of that happening and no direct indication to our office.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary, I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to make that report to which he referred public and table it in this House when it's received.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have a report, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Liberal leader.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I'm sure that that will be available at that time. It will be a public report when it comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government.

POSSIBILITY OF EMERGENCY
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Premier. I note that yesterday he indicated there were no special employment programmes being contemplated by the government to accommodate the extremely high level of unemployment, and he talked about a three-year programme. Again I would ask the Premier whether he is now considering any emergency steps to deal with the extremely high level of unemployment in the province and the announcements that yet more people will be added to the ranks of the unemployed as a result of layoffs in Crown agencies.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the programmes that the government introduced after December 11, both through the Department of Economic Development and other departments, to seek ways to create employment are now beginning to take shape. The continuing unemployment that was with us then, and is still with us, as I said yesterday, hopefully would start to respond soon but I couldn't see a major breakthrough before the end of the three years because of the lead time required to get many projects going. It's one of the difficulties in British Columbia that we've lost two years of investment because of lack of confidence that creates this situation today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: My supplementary is very brief, Mr.

[ Page 1632 ]

Speaker. I'm not interested in a political debate; I'm interested in learning whether or not the Premier has plans to initiate any direct employment programmes this year, as opposed to any appraisal of the long-term economic prospects,

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is yes.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier then outline for the House precisely what these direct employment programmes are and when they might be initiated?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of government policy. I'm surprised that the opposition leader didn't question the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who just had his estimates up and who has several very major programmes underway. During my own estimates I will be prepared to answer questions of this nature.

EFFECTS OF BCR LAYOFFS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Premier of the province. Since 1,200 people have been laid off on the BCR has the Premier, as responsible minister for the whole province, ordered a report on the ripple effect that that will have on jobs that will be highly influenced all along the BCR and all through the north and the Cariboo in this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we've been alarmed for some time at the lack of operation on the B.C. Railway that emanates from both sides. I've been in discussion with the minister responsible, and I hope that when he has a report from management we can share that report with the House. I'm hopeful that by then the two sides can get together and perhaps in a very concrete way do something for British Columbia rather than against British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier then, or the minister involved on the board of BCR — the minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — if he was consulted by the BCR board about the decision to lay off the 1,200 workers? Did he give his personal agreement on the decision, even although UTU workers are not on strike but simply working to rule?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I wasn't consulted.

EFFECTS OF FERRY LAYOFFS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, in view of the large number of unemployed in British Columbia at this time, are any studies being contemplated as to what effect may be felt in a small community like Gibsons which relies on B.C. Ferries and which will be having large numbers of laid-off ferry workers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the member might direct that question to the Minister of Transport, under whom the ferries come. I as the Premier have not instigated such a study.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary then to the hon. Minister of Transport. Perhaps he could once again answer this question.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member, we've been endeavouring to find employment in other areas in the public service for ferry workers who will be laid off June 1, and that effort will continue.

INCREASE IN WELFARE APPLICATIONS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact, Mr. Premier, that by the actions of your government there has been such a rapid increase in unemployment in this province, have you spoken to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) with a view to having him lift the freeze on certain areas of the province where people will not be allowed to live if they are to receive welfare payments, in view of the fact that there are more people on welfare as a direct result of the actions of your government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the political statement of the member for Burrard, the unemployment rate hasn't been as a result of actions of this government, if you look back. If the member had taken the trouble to read the document filed in this Legislature yesterday showing the unemployment statistics, and if the member had made herself aware of the change in the measurement of unemployment by the federal government just recently in which those statistics are calculated, she would realize that last September was the peak of unemployment in numbers of people and that we continue to have the high unemployment that started in late 1974. Yes, it's a problem, but I resent the fact that that member tries to place responsibility on this government after four months when we're living with the result of two or three years of inactivity of that government.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M., McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 16.

[ Page 1633 ]

Leave granted.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, Bill 16, which has been before the House for some three or four weeks, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act, has two primary objectives and they are reasonably simple. No. 1 is to empower this government to sign an agreement with Ottawa under their national anti-inflation programme. No. 2 is to put legal authority behind the regulation, investigation and reviewing of prices within the province.

Previous price freezes and so on, which have been reasonably successful within this province, have not actually had the legal authority to support them, so we feel that in the future this should be fundamentally necessary, because in the past these could have been brought under a legal attack.

Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak in support of this bill. A few hours after this government was sworn in last December, the Premier dispatched three ministers and two of our senior officials to Ottawa to discuss the national anti-inflation programme with federal ministers and their advisers. I was honoured to join that delegation, and with me were my colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair).

Now in going to Ottawa within hours of our appointments we wanted to make very clear the commitment of this government to fight inflation, and we wanted to make it very clear that there must be equity in the fight against inflation. We agree entirely with the suggestion that any call for wage restraints must be echoed just as strongly by a call for restraint in prices. Our misgivings about the ability of the federal programme to ensure equity have been stated publicly at the time of our trip to Ottawa and later when this government twice extended the provincial price freeze to February 16.

We want the ability to keep prices under review to be stated unequivocally in the statute books. We don't want any doubts on that score, such as might have been the case with the last price freeze. That is why, Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 clearly sets out the procedure for reviewing and studying prices of commodities and services and, if necessary, for fixing maximum prices and/or establishing price-restraint guidelines in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times, and the measures before this House speak to the responsibility of provincial governments to practise restraint, to move against inflation and, very importantly, to make it clear that provincial interests will be safeguarded in these times of economic uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to protect provincial interests, while at the same time cooperation with the national anti-inflation programme. In his statement of February 27 the Premier made it clear that provincial machinery would be established to review pricing decisions of Crown corporations providing services in the public sector, and that the exercise would drive home the point that these corporations are to operate on sound financial principles and are accountable to the people of British Columbia for the prices that they want to charge.

The anti-inflation programme makes it clear that these are the goals to follow. Mr. Speaker, you don't cure the disease of inflation by incurring ever-rising deficits in the operation of public-sector suppliers. We have practised fiscal restraint and financial responsibility in this regard and we shall continue to do so. We will not postpone price increases where, in fact, common sense shows that they are absolutely necessary.

Again, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of prices, we intend to continue the present programme limiting rent increases. The preparation of guidelines is in its final, stages whereby the B.C. Marketing Board will be instructed to review carefully any pricing decisions by the various individual marketing boards to ensure that only fair and reasonable price increases on farm products are permitted.

Bill 16 would give proper authority to this government to enter into an agreement with Canada under the federal Anti-inflation Act to carry out anti-inflation programmes. This is one of our immediate goals, and we are anxious to conclude our discussions with Ottawa in order to close ranks with our other provinces which have all — except for one, namely Saskatchewan — signed agreements with Ottawa to have the national guidelines apply to the provincial public sectors for a period of time, most likely to April, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, any agreement that British Columbia signs will make it clear that the arrangement is temporary and is meant to give united support to the fight against inflation. My colleague, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), on April 9 stated that British Columbia would be supporting the federal Anti-Inflation Act in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada scheduled for the end of May on the basis that Ottawa has the authority to act in the interest of all Canadians during a time of national crisis or emergency. As the Premier noted on April 9, the national guidelines will apply to the provincial public sector. And for the life of any agreement with the federal government, British Columbia intends to refer all public-sector compensation agreements arising since October 14, 1975, to review by the Anti-Inflation Board.

There are well over 150,000 workers in the

[ Page 1634 ]

provincial public sector. Since the beginning of the year we have stated that it is the intention of this government to have the national guidelines apply to these employees, just as they apply right across the country now. In the longer run, and certainly after any agreement with Ottawa has run its course, we want to have in place improved systems for arriving at fair pay levels for public employees. We want an efficiently run public sector. We will be realistic, but we will resist any system of bargaining which puts public pay levels out of whack with compensation for comparable work in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 represents, the legal framework for a cooperative attack on inflationary pressures and for asserting a firm provincial presence in restraining the upward spiral of prices that affect all British Columbians. I urge all hon. members to give the measure of their support so we can get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate that we are not now in third reading, in committee, I would like to make mention of the fact that we propose an oral amendment in third reading, adding the reference to section 1 of the bill which, I might say at this stage for the information of the members, would delete (b) under section 3(2)(b).

As I said before, this bill has two main objectives: one is to authorize our proposed agreement with Ottawa; secondly, it is to reinforce the legal authority for us to review and fix prices in the commodity ranges within British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In section 1, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the reference to section 3(2)(b) should omit (b). The reference should be to section 3(2).

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very disappointed to hear such a pallid statement by the Minister of Finance on what is an extremely important issue facing not only this province but facing the nation at this particular time, as it has threatened the nation over the past number of years.

I am confident that the erosion of real income, both to organized workers, unorganized workers and to fixed-income people such as senior citizens, has been a tremendous concern. This constant erosion of the real income, has created hardship on a very, very wide, sector of our people throughout Canada; certainly that is true in British Columbia. So beyond question I think there is a collective desire among Canadians to try to do anything within the bounds of reason to attack this problem of inflation and hence protect the real income of the citizens of the nation not only against inflation per se — the erosion of the dollar value — but certainly in terms of protecting the relative positions of wage-earners throughout the nation. Lord knows, Mr. Speaker, there is enough disparity in terms of income groups throughout the nation to warrant real concern.

Our party, the New Democratic Party, would certainly like to have seen an approach taken by the provincial government which would have effectively come to grips with the problem of inflation, which would offer some equitable process for ensuring that all sectors of society bore equal responsibility in this very important desire of most Canadians to dampen the flames of inflation. But, unfortunately, we find they have done little more in Bill 16 than to say:"Yes, we will accept the direction of the federal government. We will apply the federal wage-control policy." And that's basically what it is, a wage-control policy rather than wage and price policy. We will apply this in the realm of the public sector in British Columbia.

The reality, of course, is that these restraints have been applied through the initiative of the federal government to our private sector since October last. Unfortunately, though, we see nothing in Bill 16 that clearly outlines what the provincial government intends to do, if anything, to make sure that the programme has application not only to wage-earners in the province but to the incomes of high executives, to the salaries of professional people, indeed to interest rates which are one of the prime ingredients of the inflationary problem. We see nothing in the bill that clearly spells out anything other than a programme of wage restraint in this province. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is unacceptable.

I think we should have a look at some of the things that have been said about the federal programme as it was introduced. A good deal has been said beyond the political realm by columnists, by business people, by trade union groups. Some very perceptive things have been said which give an indication of the inadequacy of the programme which the federal government introduced, of the inequity of that programme, of the fact that it bears and weighs heavily only on working people and the average income-earner of the nation while doing nothing to protect those groups against the ravages of increased dental costs, increased medical costs, increased legal fees, increased price increases because of the imported aspect of legislation — not a word about that. I say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly my worst fears have been realized. This government in concert with the federal government is prepared to wage in full the anti-inflation fight on the backs of the average people of this nation without respect to any equity, without respect to any fair and equitable call or demand upon all sectors of society that they share and sacrifice

[ Page 1635 ]

equally in this need to dull the fires of inflation. That's what we can conclude from Bill 16.

I want to deal with a few of the things that have been said about the federal wage-control programme. I've compiled here a number of statements made by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin. He has been quoted as saying: "If people don't want it to work, there are 111 ways of getting around it." He was quoted in the Victoria Colonist on October 16 as making that statement. That is the chairman of the board. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with him. There are 111 ways of getting around that programme for certain people, not for working people, not for pensioners, not for the unorganized; but there are 111 ways for the land speculators, for the banks, for the finance companies, for the food industry, for the oil companies, for professionals.

What are the problems of trying to apply a wage-restraint programme to professionals? The problems are, Mr. Speaker, that they simply have to increase the volume of the work that they do to increase their real income. If there were any serious attempt to be equitable and apply the same constraints to professionals as apply to wage-earners, there would have been a regressive tax attached to income over a certain percentage. No such thing. No such thing!

What about the real estate wheelers and dealers, the stock and share traders, the large corporations, for all business in general?

The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board is absolutely right. There are 111 ways of evading any constraints or restrictions upon the elite, upon the chosen few throughout this nation. Indeed, with the collaboration of the provincial government now we see that the average Canadian, the average British Columbia worker and senior citizen are being called upon to carry the can completely for the economic malady of inflation that's beset this nation for many years.

But I say, Mr. Speaker, there isn't even one way around it for the vast majority of Canadians. They are the majority, and the stringent wage guidelines that have been laid down in legislation applicable to workers are impossible to evade or escape. Let's look at some of the things that have been said about the Anti-Inflation Board by others. Alan Fotheringham — he's not an economist but he's a bright journalist — in a column of his on November 20, 1975, made these observations:

"The unfortunate aspect of Dave Barrett's search this week for restraint are his complaints about Ottawa. Mr. Trudeau's patchwork guidelines are unfair; that's the unfortunate part of it. The sections dealing with profits are a farce. Does anyone seriously think that the take-home pay of lawyers, to use one example, will be held to a 10 per cent increase next year? The current joke in the legal profession is that the Trudeau legislation should be entitled 'The Lawyers and Accountants Charitable Act.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true.

MR. KING: "The Lawyers and Accountants Charitable Act" — since that is what it is.

As Sun business editor George Froehlich has written:

"In essence, the Trudeau guidelines are stacked against labour and in favour of business. They represent what has been becoming evident over the past while: Trudeau has become a captive of the managerial class in Canada. His party long ago surrendered to that segment of society, and his latest action indicates the Prime Minister has succumbed also."

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): What a bunch of nonsense!

MR. KING: I have quite a number of choice quotes, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to deal with them extensively because people tend to forget what occurred when this programme was first introduced last October. I think it is appropriate that this backdrop to the current action by the provincial government be put in perspective. I want to quote George Froehlich, the business editor of the Vancouver Sun. On October 18, 1975, in the Sun, he had this to say:

"How can the board, for example, police the salaries of doctors, dentists, lawyers, management consultants, et cetera? It will be an impossible task. In essence, the Trudeau guidelines are stacked against labour and in favour of business."

The Vancouver Province, a news item on October 18, 1975:

"B.C. consumers, cheesed off with rising supermarket prices, are letting the federal government know about it 500 times a day. Since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau announced selective wage and price controls last Monday, an inquiry department at Revenue Canada's Vancouver office has been getting more that 500 complaints each day about rising prices, mainly food prices."

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that that concern expressed by so many British Columbians has received proof positive in the last number of months by revelations from Statistics Canada that food prices in this province have escalated to the highest cost area in Canada, exceeding the national norm...

[ Page 1636 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Why?

MR. KING: ...exceeding the costs of any other area of Canada.

MR. LOEWEN: Why?

MR. KING: So the concern of our citizens has been confirmed. The Daily Colonist of October 21, 1975, had an editorial about the federal programme. It had this to say:

"The controls package is lacking. Some of the contents are quite objectionable. There is the selectivity of the controls as the main stumbling block in the selling job with some segments of the work force being played against others. Controls in prices which really are curbs on profits through a highly complex formula difficult to follow are hard to swallow, particularly when they will have little or no effect on the purchase of groceries."

Another editorial in the Victoria Times on October 14, 1975, shortly after the federal programme was introduced, and I quote from an excerpt from that editorial:

"On the surface they are not equitable, favouring business at the expense of labour. For example, persons earning only $5,000 per annum would be allowed increases of $600 per annum. Those earning $30,000 or more would receive increases of up to $2,400 per year. While wage increases are limited to the 10 per cent formula, price increases will only be considered after they occur. If nothing else, this gives business a great psychological advantage. Any regulation of profit under the current proposals appears farcical. The Prime Minister was vague on this mechanism, but any businessman who sees a large profit looming can bury it in a variety of ways such as plant expansion. Profit can appear small even if it is large."

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's very common knowledge that there are a whole variety of ways open to business to hide the real profits of their operation so that the impact of the federal wage and price guidelines on them is completely meaningless. I think that's appreciated by all the citizens of the province of British Columbia and the people of Canada. They are not naive enough to believe that there is an effective mechanism offered in the programme for in any way affecting profits, for in any way affecting prices. Certainly, as pointed out in the editorial I referred to, at best, by the government's own admission, this could only happen after the fact anyway. It means that at one and the same time people, private citizens, are being regulated in terms of their income. It means that they will have to pay increasing prices for the groceries, goods and commodities they need to sustain them on a daily basis. And only down the road, at some vague point in the future, may investigation occur to decide whether those increased and accelerated prices they've had to pay were excessive and then, perhaps, the Anti-Inflation Board or the government may move. I say that's not good enough. That's not equity in the programme to fight inflation. That's no way to convince the people of this province that they should get behind the programme and lend their full cooperation to it — and that is what is needed.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the wage guidelines contained in this legislation are clear and they are enforceable. But, you know, there's only 43 per cent of the work force in British Columbia organized, and on the national basis it's much less than that. So what we have is a programme specifically enshrined in legislation which outlines very specifically the constraints on wage increases. That's enshrined right in the legislation. But no similar, specific restraints are contained in the legislation to tell how the government or the Anti-Inflation Board are going to control costs, are going to control profits, are going to control interest rates or are going to control any of these things which, in my view, Mr. Speaker, are the major culprits in fanning the flames of inflation.

There's one other area that is of primary and paramount importance, in my view, in terms of creating an inflationary problem, and that is the money supply. Nothing in any of the federal or provincial legislation indicates that different fiscal policy is going to be developed by the federal government to solve that problem of an inflated money supply being generated yearly.

I think it's inherently unfair to zero the whole focus of this programme in our province on just 43 per cent of the work force who are organized, and to which this programme of wage restraint applies, while completely ignoring the fact that that small a percentage of the work force could in no realistic way be considered as the prime villains in terms of creating inflation. That's a myth that many people have propagated with the help of some corporate interests, with the help of some of the media and certainly with the active assistance and participation of this government, Mr. Speaker.

It is a disproportionate burden that working people and fixed-income people are being asked to accept in what is referred to as an anti-inflation programme. The chairman of the Food Prices Review Board is conscious of the fact that the legislation framed by the federal government, and proposed to be accepted in Bill 16 before this House, is deficient in terms of having an impact on other than working people.

In an article in The Vancouver Sun on April 10 of this year: "Pepin Prays Companies Heeding Price Controls." He prays that those companies out there

[ Page 1637 ]

are going to heed price controls. What a weak performance, Mr. Speaker! He prays that they will heed price controls. He doesn't pray that the work force will; he imposes definite, precise, restrictive constraints upon the working people. But when it comes to his friends in the corporate area, he prays that they will be sensitive enough to heed the national good. And we find here a provincial government that apparently is prepared to accept the same approach. They pray.

Oh yes, there are sections in the bill giving the provincial government power, but there's no precise formula telling this House and telling the people of British Columbia exactly what those constraints are going to be, that they are going to be current in the same way that wages are restricted, that they are going, in fact, to be adjusted at all — simply a power given to the government to review after the fact. That's of small benefit to people who are having their wages frozen now and still have to go to the grocery store and purchase groceries, who still have to go to the architects, the dentists, the doctors to purchase their services, and pay accelerating costs because there are no constraints. It's of small benefit to those who are seeking mortgage money and bank loans with no constraints imposed thereupon either.

I wonder about the sincerity of this government, Mr. Speaker, when they sit there blandly and say: "Well, the power's in the Act."

Just a few moments ago in the question period the Premier indicated that the price freeze introduced by the NDP administration last fall to make sure that the kind of inequity that I'm talking about did not run away — the Premier tells us that he's kept the price freeze on gasoline. When the first member for Vancouver Centre questioned the Premier on his authority to do so, the Premier said: "I didn't do it under the Energy Act." Well, if he didn't do it under the Energy Act, Mr. Speaker, he's openly admitting that he has all the authority the government needs to restrain prices now — has had, ever since the anti-inflation programme was introduced last October.

The fact is that the provincial government has virtually removed every constraint upon prices in this province and allowed them to accelerate at a rampant rate, and now they come before the House with a bill that lays out the precise mechanism for applying wage restraint to the public domain of British Columbia, 150,000 public employees. There is nothing in the legislation other than the vague power to do something. If they were sincere, if they were serious, why haven't they acted before now to tighten price controls in this province? In fact, the opposite has developed. The price freezes that were instituted by our administration have been all but removed with the exception of the gasoline prices that the Premier revealed to the House today.

Apparently he was able to do that without any legislative authority. He didn't do it under the Energy Act. I say this is a phony bill before the House. It's not necessary, because if this government were serious, Mr. Speaker, they could well have controlled prices before this time and held them to some realistic level.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It did indeed. So I say, Mr. Speaker, I'll get to the performance of the provincial government. I'll reach that point where I examine the record of precisely what this government has done about holding some kind of lid on inflation in this province, on spiralling costs of groceries, rentals, home-heating fuels, automobile insurance rates, ferry rates, transportation costs generally, all of these things that affect the real income of homeowners in British Columbia. I intend to review the record of the provincial government.

You know, I think it's a bitter shame because, as I said at the outset, the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada were generally concerned and generally prepared to lend their efforts to some attack, some national attack, having a national consensus on the problems of inflation. They were prepared to do that provided everyone was called upon to make some sacrifice, but they were not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to collaborate in a programme that placed a disproportionate burden on the average guy without calling for any sacrifice at all from the corporate giants of this nation and the corporate giants of this province, from the professionals, from the money lenders and the land speculators. They're left free to play their game.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that observers are absolutely right. In order for any programme of inflation control to work it has to be seen to be equitable. It has to be seen that each and every element of society is making a sacrifice in the national good.

I say that the federal and provincial governments should be absolutely ashamed for the one-sided programme they have put forth in terms of developing any national consensus on this important issue.

The record that the Premier talks about in terms of doing things should be looked at, Mr. Speaker. I think it's appropriate that we have a look at that record and see what has happened. I think I have a list here somewhere that I want to just review in terms of precisely what the former administration in the province of British Columbia did to stabilize prices and costs to the average family in the province, because we recognized that as soon as the federal programme was introduced it was applicable, by and large, to most working people in the province —

[ Page 1638 ]

certainly all the private sector was gathered in immediately, with employees over the 500 number.

So in October, shortly after the federal programme was introduced, our government in British Columbia, on October 24, moved to increase Mincome from $250 to $265 per month for single persons and $540 for couples, to try to close some of the disparate gap that exists between incomes in this province — and which is a problem for all governments to face if they are interested in any degree of social equity.

We announced an increase in the minimum wage from $2.50 to $3 per hour, phased in over a period of months — again to try to build up the lower spectrum of the people who are struggling to keep pace, who have no economic clout, like the trade unions or others to keep pace with the rampant flames of inflation.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, by all means. Oh, yes, the authority was given to the Board of Industrial Relations to....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, you followed the policy announced publicly by the NDP. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the election of December 11 interrupted our ability, briefly, to carry through on those programmes, but come another election, I think we will be back making those kinds of decisions again, Mr. Speaker.

We announced at the same time continuation of rent control with a decrease from 10.6 per cent to 8 per cent for 1976 so the business community would be called upon, too, to show some restraint and make some sacrifice, and keep costs lower to those who had no economic clout, no upward mobility like certain members of the government have, and big business and big unions and so on which have the clout to make it very well on their own.

We announced a plan to establish a housing corporation to provide first mortgages at lower interest rates. We put a price freeze on all food and beverage products — the only province in Canada that did so. We put a freeze on all energy prices, including home heating oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas and electricity, because they are crucial, inherent ingredients in the cost of living to homeowners in this province.

We put a freeze on transportation, including ferry and bus fares. We announced new legislation to be introduced on rent control on commercial properties to help small businesses. We demanded that Ottawa control bank profits, interest rates, mortgage rates and professional incomes. We said to Ottawa: "These are the things that must be done if you want the collaboration and the cooperation of the British Columbia government in coming to grips with the problem of inflation." And we had some bargaining clout, Mr. Speaker, in terms of developing those things.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the government members can sneer all they wish, but I was in Ottawa before the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) were there. The former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) and myself met with the other ministers from the provinces and their federal counterparts in Ottawa, and we drew to their attention some of these inequities — for instance, the disparity between the allowable wage increases of $600 a year to low-income earners as opposed to the $2,400 allowed to the high-income earners. The federal government listened; they agreed with us and they took away that minimum ceiling, and that was a result of our representations.

So the Minister of Labour shouldn't sneer too much. I think if he had taken a more aggressive approach in Ottawa, the things we demanded, in terms of controlling interest rates, in terms of realistic mortgage rates and controls on professional incomes, were attainable too. They were attainable too, if this provincial government had taken a tough stand in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: They apparently failed to do that, or were sufficiently unconcerned with what it meant to British Columbians that they didn't pursue it. I don't know. But when I find him scoffing at these things in the House, Mr. Speaker, I find it curious. I find it curious, indeed.

So let's have a look at what the new government has done. That was our record between October, when the anti-inflation programme was introduced in Ottawa, and the time when we handed over the reins of government to the new administration. That was the performance.

Mr. Speaker, ICBC seems to be doing pretty well financially when they can make a loan of $181 million to the provincial government the day after they receive it from the government at 10 per cent interest rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the same day.

MR. KING: Yes, the same day. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think Major Douglas is not dead yet. We've got some funny-money adherents left in the Social Credit ranks yet when that kind of financial transaction can take place in 1976. Major Douglas is

[ Page 1639 ]

not dead by any means. The old A plus B financial theory is now being accepted by the dissident Liberals in the Social Credit coalition caucus. Would you believe it?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is becoming exercised because they know that I have dealt with the NDP record in October of last year, and they don't want to hear me deal with what has occurred since. But I am going to plough ahead, Mr. Speaker, despite all the interruptions and the catcalls. Doggedly I will stick to my direction, Mr. Speaker; with your help I shall get my story across.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: What has the Social Credit Party — the coalition party, Mr. Speaker — done since assuming office?

They increased automobile insurance anywhere from 100 per cent to 400 per cent and promised to let the U.S. insurance industry back in the field. This paid off campaign debts, I suppose, to the insurance industry that had developed during the last election.

They increased electricity and natural gas rates by an average of 12 per cent. They allowed an increase in home heating oil of 4.54 cents per gallon. This is a start, I presume, Mr. Speaker, to repay the oil companies for their campaign funds which they made available to the coalition during the last election. They eliminated the price freeze on propane and gasoline.

They allowed an increase in the allowance for residential rents from 8 to 10.6 per cent. They cancelled the plan to introduce rent control on commercial premises. This meant a consequent increase in the cost of doing business to small enterprise in this province, which they naturally pass on to the consumer.

The coalition eliminated the price freeze on food, on drugs and on beverages. They allowed price increases on bread and milk.

They have indicated and since carried it out that increases are coming on the ferry rates. They have announced them now; they are excessive — double and in some cases triple. Bus fares, freight rates and gasoline are up.

The Premier is openly advocating that the cost of petroleum products accelerate to the world market price, which again, Mr. Speaker, is going to impose additional burdens on the cost of living in British Columbia.

During the budget this year they increased personal income tax, they increased the sales tax, they increased hospital co-insurance, they increased medicare premiums, they increased the cigarette and tobacco tax.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that all of these things taken together display a complete insensitivity to the needs of people in this province. They have imposed just a fantastic cost burden increase on virtually every citizen since coming to office. They are obsessed with bottom-line economics. They are obsessed, apparently, with allowing their friends in industry to have their profits accelerate and possibly return favours that have been transmitted to them in the past.

These things, Mr. Speaker, tell a sorry story in terms of the government even attempting to portray an even-handed approach to coming to grips and fighting this problem of inflation.

It gives no encouragement, no inducement, no satisfaction to people throughout the province that this government is even serious about or sensitive to the need to demonstrate some equity — some even-handed, judicious approach to calling upon all people in the province to bear their weight in terms of fighting inflation. Rather, we have come to expect from this government and other governments of the same stripe that they thrust all the burden upon those who can least afford to pay, Mr. Speaker. It is not only a matter of that, it has the effect also of....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Oh, listen to the "member for Hawaii" down there; Mr. Peanuts is at it again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peanuts is at it again. I think he knows all about the small businesses that are in trouble but he is very vocal here today. Perhaps he would be better advised to spend more time giving the advice that he is screaming across the floor to the administration of his own businesses. Perhaps he'd be more successful. He seems to have a lot of problems, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I've talked about the inequity of the programme. I've talked about the unconscionable rate increases that have been introduced by this government over the past five months that they have been in office. And the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) seems to be a little deficient in his arithmetic. They've been there five months now, not four, and I think with all the beautiful promises they made of doing amazing things and really strengthening the economy of this province, I find it bemusing now to hear him saying: "Well, we can't do much. Maybe three years from now we'll be able to do a little bit. We've only been here three months, four months."

[ Page 1640 ]

The people of this province elected you to govern, because you said you had the ability, and I don't think they're going to accept some prophetic cry now that you haven't been there long enough to come to grips with the problems that confront the province.

So it's about time you got off that kick, Mr. Premier, and started to demonstrate that you have some policies other than punishing people, that you have something in mind to ease the burden of unemployment, to ease the increased cost burden on people, and to get the economy of this province going again.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair]

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Are you against the bill?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned that the burdens of the bill, the burdens of the programme, fall heavily upon senior citizens, upon the unorganized, upon the working poor, upon organized workers, and upon 110,000 citizens in B.C. who are now unemployed. At least 110,000. And once the new government policy is complete, Mr. Speaker, of laying off 450 ferry employees, without apparently any intention of considering an attrition approach or severance allowance or relocation, when they have finished their policy of their Crown corporation laying off 1,100 or 1,200 workers from the British Columbia Railway, we are looking at about 114,000 British Columbians who have no job at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet he doesn't even speak on the bill.

MR. KING: And yet, Mr. Speaker...

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet you he doesn't.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How much?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: ...the record is clear. The tremendous impact, the unconscionable, insensitive increase in costs that this government has visited upon all these people, is going to be a millstone around the neck of the people of B.C. for the rest of this year and probably in years to come.

I want to say to the government, in all seriousness, that there's more than one way to prime the economic pump in this province. You know, the old economic theory that you subsidize and ease off on taxation to industry is not the only way. When you have 114,000 British Columbians unemployed, you're removing from the economy of this province a tremendous ability to affect the demand for goods — and consequently the restraint and the negative effect upon the basic fundamental economy of the province is tremendous.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do when you were in power?

MR. KING: It seems to me.... Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we never had 114,000 people unemployed at one time. I can tell you that we had unemployment....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me walk around my chair, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: They asked me a question, Mr. Speaker, and then they all break out like a gang of jackals with catcalls. I hope they'll listen. They asked me a question; I'm happy to respond.

Interjections.

MR. KING: They ask what we did. I'm willing to tell you. We poured $20 million into special employment for students in British Columbia, which this government has cut back 60 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure poured it.

MR. KING: In the creation of jobs; that's right, and I tell you, the young people of this province, the university and high school students, are going to give you the message about what they thought about that programme, because there's no work for them this year, no work at all. I don't think they can even get a job in the Bennett hardware chain. They're out in the cold, and the future education, the continuing education, is jeopardized through that government's inability to recognize the problem.

That's the kind of thing we did. We initiated a special employment programme in the forest industry, in collaboration with industry. We did positive things, and the employment rate was never as high, under our administration, as it is today.

But rather than positive steps calculated to assuage this hardship, what we see by the present government is the layoffs, the mass layoffs of additional British Columbians. I question the wisdom of that move by any standard, Mr. Speaker. There's no wisdom in it. It's insensitive, it's cold and it's punitive against average British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: No guts for debate.

[ Page 1641 ]

MR. KING: Now we've talked about what has happened to the cost of foodstuffs. It's obvious that a number of moves undertaken by the government in terms of the increase in transportation rates are going to further affect the accelerating cost of foodstuffs. Food cannot be transported to the islands, to Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the northern coastal area, at double the freight rates charged on the B.C. Ferry system — where a lot of them are still transported; it's not all by private carrier — without a cost impact being passed on to the consumers in those areas. It's impossible.

So the people are not only facing double and triple increases to travel to Vancouver for medical attention which they must do occasionally — the kind of sophisticated facilities they need for medical and dental work — but for a variety of other business functions; commuting for work. They're not only going to meet the increased costs of those rate increases, but they are at the same time going to face escalating costs for the commodities they must use to live because the carrier is going to be passing on to them — the consumers — the increased freight rates that he is facing too. This is a terrible record, Mr. Speaker, just an absolutely terrible record.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) talked about what has happened in terms of the cost-of-living increases. As I said earlier, the Statistics Canada revelations in recent weeks have demonstrated beyond any argument, beyond any debate whatsoever, that this is actually occurring, that the general cost of living in the Vancouver area has escalated to the point where the average British Columbia family now, as a direct result of all the cost increases brought in by this government, is facing an increased outlay of capital each year of a minimum of $850 — a minimum of $850 — and yet the government suggests to us that we should support a bill such as Bill 16 which does nothing but grind away in a heavy-handed fashion even more sanctions on that very same group which is suffering the most.

There is nothing at all to regulate banks, nothing at all to regulate interest rates, nothing at all to regulate profits. There's the power to do something, yes, but why is it that the precise formula is laid out for wages — 8 per cent this year reducing to 6 per cent next year and 4 per cent the year after that — but there is nothing about corporate profits, nothing about executive salaries, nothing about legal fees, nothing about dental fees or doctors' fees? They're the most complicated things to try to control, and if this government was serious about doing something, they would have brought in a bill that said precisely that when your income exceeds X dollars, then there will be a negative income tax to recover that so the people of British Columbia can be assured that everyone is making a sacrifice and packing an equal burden in terms of any attack on inflation. No such thing in the bill. It's a one-sided, heavy-handed, inequitable attack on working people and low-income earners. That's what it is.

What about advertising? They talk about the psychology of inflation. They talk about cost-push and demand-pull inflation. What about the advertising industry? What's productive about the advertising industry? What does that add? What does it contribute to the gross national product of this province or this nation? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, exactly zero — exactly zero! What it does, though...

Interjections.

MR. KING: ...is heat the fires of inflation. It entices working people, young people, to buy luxury commodities that they can't afford. It inveigles them into mortgages and loans at interest rates they can't afford simply because, through advertising in the media, the average guy today is not swinging unless he has a boat and unless he has a red roadster all sold with the use of sex symbols and so on, enticing people to buy more than they can afford — to overextend themselves in terms of credit. There's not a thing here about doing anything to dampen the advertising industry's lure to people to put more demands on the economy that can really be afforded — not a thing. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that whole service is completely unproductive in terms of adding anything concrete to the gross national product, either in this province or in this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a debate in this House sometime about disparity in our society and in our economy. I think we should have that debate. I think we should talk about the disparity in wage rates, and there is disparity through the collective bargaining process. That's one of the imperfections of it. In the unorganized sector, certainly there's disparity there. People are very inclined to highlight and point to these things as reasons that trade unions are not very socially responsible, but isn't it about time we put the whole thing in proper context and talked about the real disparities, the real values of functions in society?

I think the government perhaps has been remiss in not introducing a bill that would come to grips with these problems. What is the executive worth today? Is the MacMillan Bloedel executive worth what they are reported to be receiving recently in newspaper articles? "MB Executives' Pay Tops $2 Million." J.V. Clyne and Robert Bonner: I think the government knows those people, Mr. Speaker. I think they know who they are.

I want to just read some of the articles concerning executives' salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who went to China?

[ Page 1642 ]

MR. KING: Are you defending these salaries? Well, not Bonner and not Clyne; not Bonnie and Clyde, not Bonner and Clyne. This is an article by George Froehlich.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at this article. The government doesn't want to hear it. It's an article by George Froehlich in the Sun of April 2, 1976:

"The former president of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Dennis Timmis, and Chairman George Currie received yearly salaries of $166,667 and $137,424 respectively in 1974, a year in which the giant forest products company showed a profit of $72.3 million.

"The salaries of Timmis, Currie and other key MB executives are contained in a report filed with the central U.S. securities regulatory agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C."

We couldn't find that out in B.C. here. We had to go to Washington to find out what the salaries are of B.C. executives.

"The report is required of all companies publicly trading in the U.S. and gives a detailed account of a company's operation.

"Salary figures for 1975 when MacMillan Bloedel recorded its first loss of $ 18.9 million will not be available for some time. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that Currie's and Timmis' salaries would have increased, even though Timmis in a letter to salaried employees dated last November 24 said the top executives were taking a 10 per cent pay cut in view of the losses the company was showing.

"Last Friday in a sudden move Currie and Timmis lost their jobs after an MB directors meeting. Although companies never reveal the severance pay top executives receive, it is standard practice to pay at least a year's salary. The reports also reveal the salaries of other top MB executives; for example, J.V. Clyne, former MB chairman and chief executive officer, received a basic salary of $100,000 and $25,000 bonus in 1974. Clyne is still a company director.

"Other 1974 salaries for key MB executives were as follows: L.G. Harris, executive vice-president, $98,334; J.O. Hemmingsen, executive vice-president, $98,334; Anson Brooks, president of Powell River Alberni Sales Corp., a subsidiary, $54,416."

And on it goes. Now what's going to be done, Mr. Speaker, to make some assessment of the sacrifice that MacMillan Bloedel executives may be called upon to make in this government's fight on inflation in this province?

What is going to be done, Mr. Speaker, by this government that says they are serious about fighting inflation...

MR. LEA: They'll only allow them a 50-cent increase.

MR. KING: ...to determine the executive salaries of CP Rail subsidiaries in this province — Cominco, that struggling little free enterprise group up in the Kootenays? What are they going to do about even finding out how much money these executive people are receiving? They had to find out what Mac and Blo people are receiving, even though they appear to be close political friends, from the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States.

I say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that if this government is going to sell a bill of goods to the people of this province and tell them with any degree of sincerity that, "yes, we're serious about an even-handed attack on inflation," they had better start telling us. They had better put in the bill precisely the mechanism they intend to use to regulate the excessive disparity that exists between MacMillan Bloedel's top executives and those people that have had their Mincome cut under the compassionate hand of the new Minister of Human Resources in the past few months.

I can read the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I see no formula. I see a power vested in the government — a power that, by the Premier's own admission, they have already held and refused to exercise. Except in the one, single case of gas prices they have refused to exercise it.

So what comfort, what assurance can we in the official opposition possibly have that this gang of coalition boys over here is prepared to take on and regulate their friends in the corporate ivory towers of this province? I don't believe it, because if you were serious it would be in the legislation, and it would be precise and it would be mandatory. It wouldn't be the offer of some review a year after the fact somewhere down the line after the people have been suffering wage restraint, increased prices, increased food costs and trying to live with that kind of situation all during the year.

It's classically inequitable, classically inappropriate and unfair, one-sided legislation, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I can't subscribe to that kind of approach to what should be a unanimous and a consensus attack — an approach to not only controlling inflation but seriously coming to grips with some of the disparities that have beset our nation.

I've talked about corporate salaries. It's fashionable to get on the hotline shows and talk about the disparity and anomalies that exist between the cashier in the food market and the guy who's out in the basic industry cutting our trees and digging our

[ Page 1643 ]

minerals — and wringing our hands saying: "Well, my goodness, that cashier is getting as much or more than the industrial worker." We ought to do something about that in a legislative way.

I've heard government backbenchers espousing and mouthing that kind of cliche, that kind of superficial assessment of the ills of our society. I say, fine, but if that's what to do and if you're serious about it, then let's have some reappraisal of the worth and value of functions in our society. Let's seek out the real anomalies and the real discrepancies and disparities where they exist in exaggerated proportions. And I have outlined some. How do you justify J.V. Clyne sitting there with a salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while some poor widow with a family is trying to feed her family, trying to meet the rent increases that you have visited upon her, trying to accommodate the home heating fuel cost increases, trying to accommodate increased ferry fares?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Is that why you raised your salary 100 per cent when you were a cabinet minister?

MR. LEA: You raised yours 100 per cent when you came in here.

MR. KING: That's right. In terms of any value, I would agree with the member for Prince Rupert. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of our salaries...fine, let's throw that into the hopper too — I don't mind an assessment. I don't mind a public assessment of the value of MLAs — not a bit!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think this might be a good thing. Really, in terms of some of the government politicians, if there ever is any realistic appraisal of the value of their function, perhaps we will end up with a greater number in this House than we already have at the moment. It might be a bit of a threatening thing in terms of the government's back bench, Mr. Speaker.

But that's a bit of a red herring. I think we should talk about disparities. Can we sit comfortably by when I've talked about advertising inducing and enticing people to buy more than they can afford — an unproductive industry that contributes nothing to the gross national product, the real wealth of this nation? Can we sit idly by and zero in on the discrepancy between the cashier and the logger when the hotliner is making $200,000 a year, when the athlete is commanding salaries of $4 million? Perhaps it is time we took a serious look at the value judgments we make in our society. Maybe these are things that we should be doing.

But I see no initiative, Mr. Speaker, and I see no direction, no indication that this government is prepared to do anything to rock the boat in terms of the status quo powerbrokers. They are willing to heap additional burden, anguish and pain upon the people who can least afford it. But don't touch the guys who are in power, the elite in this province. Not a darned thing there — not a thing to regulate their freedom to ever and increasingly accelerate their recompense, regardless of the value of the function. Not one.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've given a pretty clear indication that our party cannot subscribe to a bill such as this, one that is eminently one-sided, that, in my view, is destined for failure because it can never attain the kind of provincial consensus that is needed to effectively fight inflation in this province.

It can never effectively persuade the people whose cooperation government must have that there is an even-handed approach, that there is a fair mechanism which calls upon everyone to sacrifice with some degree of equality, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I see the bill as being nothing but inflammatory. It's going to create confrontation, it's going to create distrust of the government's motives, and it's going to impair the ability of this province to play their part in doing something effective about dampening the fires of inflation.

Our party are willing to consider, willing to debate and willing to assist in a proper attack on inflation. We are willing to debate and we are willing to participate in some realistic and some meaningful assessment of why the free market system is in trouble in this nation today, and to consider some answers to that, whether it be investment policies, whether it be income policies, whether it be pricing policies.

But we say to this House, Mr. Speaker, and we say it clearly and unequivocally, that we cannot, in good conscience, participate in, or give approval to, or sanction, an approach that is once again a classic sell-out to the powerful in this province at the expense of those who can least afford to pay.

We cannot lend our support as we would like to have done to a programme which is so classically and patently inequitable, not only in light of the absence in the legislation of precise and specific mechanisms to spell out how the government will come to grips with these many areas, these many gaps that we have talked about.

We must indicate very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that as long as those gaps exist, and so long as the government pursues the direction which they have taken in increasing virtually every area of social and public services which the people of the province must rely upon for their very existence, that we can have no trust in the government's dedication and in their sincerity to embark upon a fair, even-handed,

[ Page 1644 ]

equitable approach to this problem of inflation.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, while condemning their conduct, while condemning their performance in the strongest possible way, and certainly condemning the legislation for the omissions it contains, I must state to the House that there is no way the official opposition can support this bill.

Rather regrettably, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the province has lost an effective chance to participate in a meaningful way in a programme that could have been accepted, and could have been effective in dealing with the national problem of inflation in Canada and in B.C. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order. Would the Leader of the Opposition table the material that he quoted from as has been the custom in the House? Give me the dates.

MR. KING: I'd just like some explanation from the Premier on what he would like tabled. I'm quite prepared to table the things I referred to — I'm not sure whether I referred to them all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just what you quoted.

MR. KING: All right, well, there's one other that I just quoted from briefly, and perhaps I could read it into the record of the House before I table it. It's a final point before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, since I have the floor again.

Interjections.

MR. KING: It's a letter — really I think this should be brought to the attention of the House, and I promise to table it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do it by leave.

MR. KING: I'm sure the House will grant leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Try it! Try it!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. KING: There, that's the kind of friendly atmosphere I like.

Mr. Speaker, this is a letter that I think I should quote because it's a matter of great consternation to me, and it was a point I neglected to mention.

It's a letter from the firm of Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd., management consultants, and it's directed to Mr. W.F. King, Executive Vice-president, British Columbia Railway Company, 1095 West Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C., and it came to my hands — I don't know why — but I have a copy of it. It's dated March 24, 1976, and it says: "Dear Mr. King...." And I'm not W.F. King, I'm W.S. King.

"Anti-inflation legislation has raised difficult and complex questions for all organizations affected. Wage guidelines will also have far-reaching implications for those not yet affected.

"You may be concerned about questions such as these. How many groups should you have for ease of reporting on one hand and greatest flexibility in adjusting salaries on the other? How do you use increments under the new guidelines? Should you establish a new classification programme or revise your existing programme to work within the guidelines? Should it be done now or in a later guideline year? In what way can you reward employees for outstanding performance under the guidelines? What do you pay on entry of new employees? What is the best policy to follow on promotions under the guidelines?

"These are the kinds of questions we have been studying, since a large number of organizations rely on our annual surveys and salary programmes in administering their compensation. We are combining this experience with current information from the Anti-Inflation Board to assist our clients.

"If these and similar questions are of concern to you, or if you feel that your salaries require study, we would be pleased to discuss your needs without obligation. Please feel free to call us.

(Signed)
Ian G. King,
Vice-president."

There are a lot of Kings involved in this thing — no relation to me.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this letter, directed to the executive vice-president of the British Columbia Railway, is of real concern to me. This is a group of management consultants that are willing to go in and counsel the management of B.C. Rail, a Crown corporation, on how they can perhaps bend some of the guidelines under the anti-inflation programme and escape any restraints on executive salaries. I want to say that I hope it is not the government's policy to allow Crown corporations to employ management consultants to escape any control and regulation when they have a bill before this House that commits all of the public-sector employees to the stringent application of wage restraint under the federal programme. This kind of thing is going on. It finally and conclusively confirms the statement made by Jean-Luc Pepin, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, when he said: "There are

[ Page 1645 ]

111 ways, for management to escape the regulation of the anti-inflation programme."

AN HON. MEMBER: More!

MR. KING: Do you want me to speak some more? All right, I'll table it. I'll get up and make another speech, if you wish.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I just wonder if the Premier has any more points of order before we go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, commenting briefly on what the two previous speakers have said, the Minister of Finance, in introducing this legislation, stated that it has two main objectives. I hope I am quoting him correctly: first of all, to enter into an agreement with Ottawa for the regulation of certain charges in the public sector; secondly, to authorize a very sweeping form of provincial control.

The first section I think any reasonable person would agree with. The second section is very, very worrisome, so much so that I think this Act is incorrectly named. It is called the Anti-Inflation Measures Act; I think it ought to be called the Arbitrary Measures Act, because it does go just that distance.

The Minister of Finance in opening debate stated that it is the responsibility of provincial governments to practise restraint. He suggested that that was an important component of the fight against inflation. Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, why are budgetary items on ordinary account up 16 per cent this year? Why is the Crown provincial taking $1 billion more out of the economy of British Columbia than it was last year when you add in the ICBC charges and the ferry charges and the tax increases?

The Premier is shaking his head; he can't do simple sums. Add it up, Mr. Premier; it's there. There's over $600 million on straight taxation account, and you know that — from $2.9 billion revenue to $3.6 billion revenue. There is about $700 million right there. Add in your additional ICBC charges, your additional ferry charges and your increases in the B.C. Hydro account, and it comes to over $1 billion more taken out of the pocket of the taxpayer in this province by the Crown this year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where does the deficit come from?

MR. GIBSON: I don't know where the Premier studied finance; I don't think he did. The deficit is spread over a number of years, Mr. Premier. You're not paying it off this year, are you? You're spreading it over a number of years.

In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that this has not been a year of restraint for this government, no matter how much they want to talk. What was that the Neale Adams column said in The Vancouver Sun the other night? Just so far, $870 more per family is being extracted by this government. I don't call that restraint.

The minister went on to say that there must be price increases where necessary. He should have put in parentheses: (That means we can raise our prices but nobody else can.) Nobody else can raise their wages very much either.

Then he said that it was his proposal and his intention under this legislation to refer to the AIB all public-sector wage agreements since October 14. Well now, that's fair enough on one side, Mr. Speaker, but did he go on to say anything about public-sector price increases to be referred to the AIB? I didn't hear that side of it. I heard the wage side being referred to, but not the price side. No, sir, they overlooked that one. How about that major price increase of the 2 per cent sales tax? That's the most inflationary single thing this government has yet done, tremendously inflationary — well over 1 per cent in the cost of living, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister, and you know it! You are not going to refer that one to the AIB, are you? You betcha you aren't!

Then we come to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). Now I know that the government disagrees with a lot of things that the official opposition stands for. But they would have been wise to listen to some of the things that were being said there, because, whether the government likes it or not, there is a widespread perception of unfairness about the discrepancy in incomes in our society. I don't have the answer to that, any more than I think anyone in this chamber does, but let's for God's sake exhibit some sensitivity to it and address ourselves to the question of making it better rather than simply ignoring it, as the government chooses to do.

Now I agree as well with many of the concerns of the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the federal anti-inflation programme, but that's not the main thrust of this bill, I submit, Mr. Speaker. For example, one thing I have to differ with him a little bit on is the question of the ability of professionals, for example, by doing more work in a given year, under the AIB programme, to earn more money. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be suggesting that that kind of activity should be penalized. I don't think it should. I think that where there is additional productivity in our economy, it should be rewarded, not penalized, because productivity is going to be our only salvation in this inflation problem in our country, and we have to find some way of moving the incentive on to other working people as well.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): The productivity goes right up the line, Gordon.

[ Page 1646 ]

MR. GIBSON: You have to reward productivity everywhere — that's my point — not just in this one group. You have to reward it right across the board, and that's what the guidelines should take into account.

I would say, Mr. Member, that applies to investment capital as well. We have to reward productivity there, not the kind of windfall things that a lot of us often worry about in this House, but investment capital that leads to productivity; we must reward that. I very much hope that the upcoming federal budget is going to make some changes in the existing AIB programme and take those things specifically into account.

I cannot go along with the Leader of the Opposition's general rejection of federal controls. The thrust, I submit, Mr. Speaker, should be to find ways to improve those controls, not to reject them. Canada cannot afford to have that control system falter, and especially B.C. cannot. There are some things that could be corrected — the profit regulation, as a device, is too slow and cumbersome as compared to a direct regulation of the prices of key commodities, and has less of an appearance of fairness. These may be the kinds of things that will be corrected.

Now moving on from that rebuttal to some comments on the bill itself, I think that every member in this House is probably united on the basic concept that we must do what we can to fight inflation. You know, inflation is the kind of thing that rewards some and takes away from others, and not in proportion to their needs or necessarily their merits.

I went to the Bible for a description of this, and it is in Matthew 25, verse 29. You may recall this: "For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, it shall be taken away, even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness...."

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, inflation regards those who have not as being the unprofitable servant. It is tax on the poor, above all. It is a tax on the powerless. Those people in our society without power, without capital, are those that suffer most and most quickly from the ravages of inflation.

There's a special impact on the British Columbia economy. As the Minister of Finance well knows, we make our living on the world market. We have to export our product, and we can only export so long as our costs remain in line. Our costs have been going up very quickly in British Columbia. Theoretically, this should be cushioned by the fact that the Canadian dollar is floating. But, in fact, British Columbia is such a small part of the Canadian economy that our particular costs and export requirements do not govern the floating value of the Canadian dollar, so it's been staying at a very high level, and that means....

MR. LOEWEN: Our Canadian dollar is sinking, not floating.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no, it's not sinking, Mr. Member. It's floating at a very high rate, at an artificially high rate caused by the fact that there have been tremendous bond issues in the United States in the first quarter of this year. I think it should be 10 cents lower or more, from the point of view of the British Columbia economy.

MR. LOEWEN: Are you predicting that federally?

MR. GIBSON: I'm not predicting anything, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, but you know more about the revenues of the province than the federal revenues, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm predicting it federally.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: What I'm saying is that it would be nice if we had control in British Columbia over the value of our dollar, but we don't. Therefore what inflation does to us is drive our costs up to a point where we cease to be competitive and we have the kind of situation today where we see the Forestry department announcing a relaxation in the close utilization standards on wood which means that we are having to move a little bit down the line towards high-grading our forests, a little bit back from exploitation of the more and more marginal stands of timber, which means that there's a little bit less employment that we can support in that particular industry in British Columbia. That's what inflation does. It very gradually and slowly and insidiously prices you out of the market. We can't afford that in British Columbia because we do not have an internally self-sufficient market. We must live by selling our productivity to others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: So, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about it: these controls must work for the benefit of British Columbia, and our thrust has to be how to make them work better.

Now let's look for a moment at the engines of the current phase of inflation we're going through. One of the previous speakers referred to those two things, demand-pull and cost-push, demand-pull being the classical kind of inflation of too much money chasing

[ Page 1647 ]

too few goods, for one reason or another, and cost-push being where the inflexibility of all the cost pressures and the upward thrust of all those cost pressures, be they the cost of capital or the cost of wages or the cost of resource rents, whatever it may be, go only up and keep going up year after year.

Those are two of the elements and, of the two, I am of the opinion that recently cost-push has been the more important. But there's a third factor that's not often talked about or recognized, and that is the actions of government. By that I mean things like the 2 per cent tax that I mentioned before. By that I mean things like the excessive and continued co-option by governments at all levels in this country of the resources of this country into increasingly less productive functions — and again that simple equation: as productivity comes down, the value of your dollar has to go down with it. By that I mean things like the money supply which is finally being handled in a more tightly reined way by the Bank of Canada but has, up until now, had an awful lot to do with the inflationary cycle we're in.

MR. LOEWEN: You tell the people in Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: So a gradual consensus formed in this country, Mr. Speaker, and Ottawa moved. Controls were put in place, and they're working after a fashion. We'd all like to see them work better, but they're working. The evidence of the last two or three months, while it's still too short term to draw any cheerful conclusions from, is at least not going in the wrong direction in terms of the consumer price index.

The pattern of price increases in the non-food sector is still uncomfortably high and, in my opinion, the AIB has to move into more direct controls over prices. The pattern of wage settlements, on the average, is not yet consistent with a long-term 8 per cent level of inflation, which is the federal government's target for this year, but nevertheless it's going in that direction.

The only loophole that was left across the country and generally plugged across the country, except for British Columbia — and I think Saskatchewan was the other the minister mentioned — was that of provincial Crown agency employees. This loophole, Mr. Speaker, could have been covered in several ways. It could have been covered by the execution of orders-in-council perhaps, as other provinces have proceeded. It could have been covered, in terms of the government's own employees, by a simple resolution that the provincial government was going to proceed in that way and follow the federal guidelines. It could equally have been covered in the area of Crown agencies and Crown corporations by directives from the government to go on that line.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's exactly my point, Mr. Minister; I'm looking for the reason for this bill. Because if that desirable achievement can be reached, namely the effective bringing of provincial public sector employees under the general ambit of the AIB guidelines — no matter who administers it directly, whether it's directly administered by the Crown provincial or by the federal AIB — if that can be achieved, that to me achieves all of the desirable purpose of this bill. What's left is thoroughly undesirable.

If the government really wants a piece of blank-cheque legislation, which is what all of this bill after section 5 is composed of, then I have to say I disagree with that. Up to section 5 it's not so bad, although there are deficiencies. The definition section, for example, is very deficient. It doesn't define what a "service" is, but I think we all know what a "service" is. A "service" is a wage. That's what they're getting at there.

They didn't want to use the words "wage control" in the bill, but that's what the bill does. I think it's shocking that they didn't come out and admit that. I guess they think you can do wonderful things with words. If you keep saying something long enough people will believe it.

The inquiries section of the bill is reasonable, the abilities to inquire into various prices and get papers and records and so on.

Then we come to this blank cheque, section No. 6, which gives enormous powers to the government arbitrarily and at any time to freeze prices — or, more than that, to establish prices, presumably not just to freeze them, but to lower them, to roll them back. Section 6(b) establishes the maximum price that may be charged for the supply of a commodity or service — and that done, Mr. Speaker, by regulation with the provision that this may be referred to the Legislative Assembly at the next sitting within 60 days. But a lot of damage can be done by that time. Besides which, of course, the majority of the government at the next sitting would simply confirm what they had done anyway. That's a nice piece of window-dressing but it doesn't do much more than that.

There are just absolutely astonishing powers, Mr. Speaker, powers to intervene anywhere in the economy, powers to intervene in existing contracts as nearly as I can see, powers to freeze wages or roll back wages, powers to freeze prices or roll back prices, powers to alter existing agreements. All of this is by cabinet regulation. It's plain. It's written there.

Mr. Speaker, governments should not have those kinds of powers except for the regulation of monopolies or other uncompetitive situations or except in times of emergency. Even in times of emergency those powers should be very carefully surrounded with checks and balances.

This government is saying "Trust us." Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1648 ]

I don't trust any government. The government calls the people in the official opposition socialists. What do they say about this measure that intrudes more deeply in the economy than, I must say, any measure I saw proposed to this House by the previous government? What do they call it? There's not anybody in the government back bench, I think, that's going to have the gall to stand up and say, "It's a free marketplace bill," because it sure isn't. It's a very, very serious arrogation of powers under the government and, as I say, I do not trust any government unless they are surrounded by far more effective checks and balances than appear in this bill.

Why do they want any price-control power at all once the emergency period's over, Mr. Speaker? Why is that necessary? Once the inflation crisis in Canada is cooled down, why does this government want powers to dig that deeply into the economy? We've heard not a word of explanation on that from the minister.

It's inexplicable. It's simply, as I said before, a piece of blank-cheque legislation that gives unnecessary power. Is this going to be the basis for the machinery that will have to be put in place once the agreement with the federal government expires next April, as both the minister and the Premier have foreshadowed? If that is to be the basis, what is the precise nature of the machinery that will be put in place? Will it simply be a group of faceless bureaucrats who will look as they wish at the labour rates and the price rates set in the marketplace of this province and say: "That is right and that is wrong" and "Here, cabinet, is what you should do about putting the world back in order again"? Is it going to be like that? Will there be any appeal mechanism? There's no mention in here of an appeal mechanism. That is a basic fundamental of any piece of administrative machinery that should be written into legislation, not assumed by regulation.

There are no due-process provisions, no provisions for the right to be heard by anyone who might have a complaint against the way in which their wages — services, as the bill euphemistically calls it — or prices might be frozen, no right of redress of any kind whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I call it the "Arbitrary Measures Act" not the Anti-Inflation Measures Act. On the basis of all this:

(1) Inflation must be fought.

(2) The federal government is doing something about it and we have to do something about it, and we have to do what we can to make that work.

(3) Other means exist, other than this legislation — or else more moderate legislation is a possibility — of cooperating with the federal government in terms of the public sector of British Columbia.

(4) Since the bill takes unto the government, and asks this House for, the delegation of powers which, in my view, are completely inconsistent with the democratic way of doing things and the way our economy operates.

For all of those reasons and, as the previous speaker said, with genuine regret I have to say that I will be voting against this bill; and I will be opposing it in committee, in particular on those thoroughly objectionable sections.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down, except at this point I will notice the lack of a quorum.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): With leave of the House, and with the cooperation of the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), I would like to now introduce from the gallery several grade 11 social studies students from Delta Senior Secondary School in Ladner. I would ask the House to make them welcome this afternoon.

Leave granted.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the principle of Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act, I'd like to start by referring to the two main points which the Minister of Finance mentioned in introducing the bill. His first emphasis was on signing an agreement with Ottawa. I would like to discuss that point initially.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think it's very obvious from federal and provincial government statements over the last several years that undoubtedly inflation is the No. 1 problem. I suppose it's almost got to the point now of just sounding like speaking in favour of motherhood when one says, yes, we must fight inflation. So when the minister introduces this bill and give the No. 1 reason for the bill, and that we must pass it in order to facilitate an agreement with Ottawa, I have to ask: what will be accomplished by signing an agreement with Ottawa?

Secondly, even if we are to sign an agreement, in light of the federal Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) statement just the other day that the federal budget on May 25 will bring about dramatic changes in the federal anti-inflation programme, we at this point in the provincial Legislature are debating a bill which has a great number of ramifications, the exact nature of which we do not know. We've had many statements from the provincial government and from the Premier that this is a very temporary approach by the provincial government, and with a maximum agreement with the federal government of one year. Even now the federal Minister of Finance is stating that substantial changes will be brought about as a result of his federal budget. So I have to ask these two questions: what is to be gained by signing a

[ Page 1649 ]

federal agreement? Do we really know what we are signing?

The policy of introducing controls is one which has a fascinating history, inasmuch as a federal election was fought on that one pre-eminent issue in 1974, and the government that was elected in Canada was elected on a firm opposition to controls. Yet on being elected, that party moved through 180 degrees in its position and implemented controls. I'm not here to argue the morality or integrity of that move, but I do think it shows that some programme of controls to fight inflation has a large measure of support among the politicians. And I understand that a recent public opinion poll showed that as many as 72 per cent of Canadians believe some measure of control is necessary to try and prevent the country from getting into very serious economic difficulties, even worse than the ones we're in.

So it seems to be accepted that some form of control is necessary. The second point is that economists, on the other hand, state that artificial interferences with the natural economic forces in the marketplace sometimes create as many problems as they solve. Above all, any such intervention should be of a short-term nature, and I'm a little surprised that the federal government considers three years to be a short-term situation. At any rate, these are some of the areas where there seems to be somewhat general agreement that controls are necessary, despite the reservations that are held by economists about their effectiveness.

I certainly would quote the former leader of the national Progressive Conservative Party, who fought an election on the issue, and admitted that a programme of inflation controls was a form of rough justice. He was emphasizing the great difficulty in applying these kinds of controls programmes equitably, both to the public sector and to the private sector, and in seeing that it operated fairly, both in relation to the wage-earner and to the person who was setting prices for goods.

If I have to wonder why we should sign an agreement with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be based on the very inconsistent performance of the federal Anti-Inflation Board in the time that it's been in existence. There has been inconsistency in application of the guidelines in the first place, and certain groups have been awarded contracts where the percentage amount of the award exceeds the guidelines, and other groups have been treated in a rather more rigid and inflexible manner within the 8 to 12 per cent figure.

The inconsistency of the Anti-Inflation Board federally has also extended to the rollbacks. This, in turn, has created a sense of inequitable treatment, and the conclusion many groups have come to is that there are certain rules for some people, but not the same rule for others. So on the record, the performance of the federal Anti-Inflation Board has not been encouraging.

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the executive director, Mr. Robert Johnson. He was interviewed in a very interesting full-page review in the Financial Post. It appeared on May 8, just a few days ago, and the critical question he was asked, right in the beginning of the interview, was: "Will the controls programme work?" The answer Mr. Johnson gave is exactly as follows: "If we administer it fairly and firmly and explain what we're doing."

It would seem to me that with all the good will to try and make this programme work, the record so far is not very encouraging. Yet here we are, as a provincial legislature, seeking to sign an agreement with the federal government, even although the evidence suggests that the federal government on its own has not really been doing a very good job in the fight against inflation. I hesitate to use the word "bogus," because I don't mean that the federal government itself is wilfully trying to deceive the Canadian citizen, but Jean Chretien did announce some weeks or months ago the percentage decrease in federal spending, and yet as the weeks have gone by since that statement it is quite clear that the degree of cutback in federal spending is going to be a great deal less than the president of the Treasury Board announced at that time.

While economists differ on the effectiveness of controls, there seems to be more or less unanimous agreement on the importance of cutting back on government spending at all levels. Again one would have to say that any objective person looking at federal government spending would not be encouraged by the evidence of their own example of cutting back at the federal level.

This government, to give it credit, has continued a policy of reducing the size of its own civil service, and in a much more personally affected way it has reduced the salaries and expenses of MLAs by 10 per cent. At least, that is some kind of example set by the provincial government which I, for the life of me, can't see at the federal level.

The more I look at the first principle involved in this bill which the Minister of Finance outlined, that we need this bill in order to provide the provincial framework to sign an agreement with the federal government, I just cannot be convinced by the federal actions in the past year or 18 months that I can have much confidence in the fact that the federal government itself is either setting the example or producing any kind of clear-cut results that would encourage us to sign such an agreement for several of the reasons that I have mentioned.

The Premier stated quite recently and was quoted in the press as emphasizing that the programme we would sign on behalf of British Columbia.... I quote from the Vancouver Sun of April 10: "Bennett told

[ Page 1650 ]

a news conference, that the proposed agreement will likely end in April, 1977." Mr. Speaker, we are already halfway through May, 1976. I have tried to outline some of the reasonably objective evidence to show that the federal efforts are not exactly an overwhelming success. We still don't know when the agreement will be signed — presumably in June.

Just as a simple observer of the scene, if nothing else, I have to say to myself, are we going through all this exercise passing a bill — I wish to comment later on in regard to the very extensive authority in the bill — for some agreement of dubious value that will be in effect for a matter of 9 or 10 months? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government might well have entered into this course many months ago with the best of intentions and with the conviction that a federal-provincial agreement was desirable. But I have to ask whether on May 12 we should be getting into the kind of agreement which has been suggested for such a short period of time and with numerous uncertainties, not the least of which is, as I said a moment ago, the recent announcement by the federal Minister of Finance that there will be very substantial changes in the anti-inflation regulations when he introduces the budget to the federal House on May 25.

In fact, I could perhaps ask the minister a specific question at this point which he could answer in his winding up of the debate, Mr. Speaker: is it anticipated that the province of British Columbia will sign the proposed agreement before the federal budget is introduced on May 25? It would seem to me that since the federal minister has signalled the fact that federal government policy and regulations on the anti-inflation programme are to be substantially affected by the budget, maybe this province should at least give itself the amount of provincial flexibility not to sign any such agreement till we know all the ramifications.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether we acknowledge the value of a federal agreement or not, the executive director mentioned that unless the wage and price controls are applied equitably and fairly and unless an explanation is given to Canadians as to what is being done, it won't work. I think one of the best studies that was done to point out some of the inequities in the programme that have already evolved was quoted in one of the newspapers in an article by Neale Adams on May 5 where he pointed out that wages in 1976, by and large, had held within the 12 per cent upper limit as suggested in the federal guidelines.

But then he pointed out that municipal governments, school boards, provincial governments had really seriously damaged any credibility of fair play to the consumer by greatly increasing taxes of various kinds. Previous speakers have mentioned all the various government measures that have increased the cost of living. The conclusion that was reached in that article on May 5 was that the average family had fallen behind to the extent of $870 in terms of real purchasing power.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill in as objective a way as one can on something that so intimately affects each individual.... The public are confused because of all the apparent contradictions that have been demonstrated again by both federal and provincial governments. Governments espouse a commitment to fight inflation. We had the initial commitment from the Prime Minister to wrestle it to the ground a year or two ago, and we've had numerous repetitions of that kind of commitment, I guess, from all the provincial governments and from municipal bodies and from school boards. Yet however sincere these commitments might have been, all that the individual consumer in this province knows is that every time he opens a newspaper or every time he goes to pay a bill, any increased income he's derived in recent months is much outweighed by the increased bills that he has to pay, whether it be for Hydro or telephone or transportation or food, or just about any other commodity that can be mentioned.

I think we should emphasize the confusion in the public mind as a result of many of the contradictory actions of government. To put it more bluntly, the government says one thing and does another. That brings me back, Mr. Speaker, to this concept of signing an agreement with the federal government. We've had a lot of statements by the Premier that he is very much committed to the confederated system of government, and national unity, and all the values which that system of government provides for Canadians. We've had the statement, and now the bill before us, that to prove that commitment to the federal system the government will sign this agreement.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, I find myself completely confused by the statement that was made in the House on April 9. It's so contradictory and confusing, I wonder if it would be worth just reading it into the record. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), on April 9, said as follows:

We consider that the distribution of powers between the provinces and the federal government as set out in sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act must be preserved in order not to curtail the constitutional autonomy of the provinces.

It is therefore British Columbia's submission that exceptions to this general rule of provincial autonomy whereby the Parliament of Canada can intrude into the provincial domain are limited to where national emergency conditions exist, for under such circumstances, according to the provisions of the BNA Act, the federal parliament can enact legislation affecting what are normally provincial powers on the

[ Page 1651 ]

basis of the peace, order and good government of Canada provision contained in that statute.

I'm still quoting the Attorney-General.

In our view, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the federal anti-inflation Act in ordinary circumstances would amount to a considerable intrusion into established areas of provincial jurisdiction, most notably that of property and civil rights — for example, powers to regulate increases in wages and prices. Hence, British Columbia will advance arguments to the supreme court that such intrusion is proper only if the court concludes that there is a situation of emergency, in degree and reality sufficient to properly commit Parliament to exercise the powers in question.

In summary, Mr. Speaker,

and I'm still quoting the Attorney-General,

we are entering the case on the basis of the support of the federal position, but on the clear understanding that evidence must be led as to the exceptional conditions that prevail and that without such proof the Government of Canada cannot encroach upon that which is historically a provincial constitutional jurisdiction.

Now for the life of me, I can't imagine how absolutely incredibly the provincial government seems to be trying to run in opposite directions at the same time. They want to sign an agreement with Ottawa expressing their concern about inflation and that it is of a national emergency nature. They've made a commitment to sign the federal agreement based on the perception in this province that we do, indeed, have a national emergency related to our economic circumstances if inflation is not controlled. That, to me, is perfectly understandable.

But the next thing we get is this statement from the Attorney-General that the Government of British Columbia will be an intervenor before the Supreme Court of Canada to ask the federal government to prove that there is a national emergency.

Now, Mr. Speaker, no wonder the people of the province and Canada are confused. The provincial government is saying: "Yes, we should sign an agreement; yes, we need authority such as we have in this bill to deal with what is a national emergency." Then, on the other hand, they turn around and contest the federal government's position before the Supreme Court of Canada, asking them to prove that an emergency does exist, and on that basis they can intrude into what, in ordinary circumstances, are provincial powers.

These are not ordinary circumstances. This contradictory behaviour of the government, to me and to many people who write letters to MLAs and raise this issue.... I have to say that that is an issue I would like the Finance Minister to explain when he winds up debate on second reading.

One of the ministers opposite is shaking his head that my interpretation of events is, perhaps, inaccurate. It may well be. But Mr. Speaker, we don't sit here in this House and get into debates to be academic among ourselves. We are trying to explain and justify policies and positions to the taxpayers of British Columbia — the consumers, the people who pay the bills. All they know is that on the one hand this government has been talking for months about signing an agreement with Ottawa because we've got a national emergency in the form of inflation, and the next day they open the newspapers and discover that we're going to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge the federal government's right to do that very thing. Now if that isn't confusing, and at least apparently contradictory, I don't know what is.

To quote the other kinds of contradictions that are apparent, we have the government's plea to the consumer to exercise restraint in wage increases demanded to an upper limit of 12 per cent. Yet, again, we have the government implementing tax increases of a dimension much, much greater than the guidelines and ceilings that are imposed on wage demands. It brings me back to the statement of Mr. Johnson, the executive director who is trying to make the federal programme work: unless it would appear that everybody is being subjected equitably to the impact of controls, then all that is likely to happen, and indeed may well happen, is that employees, through their unions, their legitimate voice in bargaining for better wages, are simply going to reach the conclusion that this is a one-sided con game. The government appeals to our sense of patriotism, national unity and all these other high-sounding goals, that you and I, in the case of MLAs, should take a 10 per cent cut or other people should, at least, have a wage increase not more than 10 per cent. But, oh, when it comes to the government itself, then actually there appear to be no guidelines at all and the government can increase one specific tax by 40 per cent, which it did in the case of the sales tax.

I don't want to get into that other parallel argument about whether one balances a budget or doesn't balance a budget. I'm talking about the basic credibility of this government or any government at any level which espouses a certain principle that everybody should act equitably towards the economy and be treated equitably by the economy. This contradiction is very obvious, that while this government has supported the principle of the federal guidelines, by its own actions it has appeared to be unwilling to do by example what it is asking the wage-earner and the consumer in British Columbia to accept.

Without getting into the argument of black ink or red ink, I personally believe that this government would have a great deal greater credibility if, at least in the short run, the measures it had sought to raise more revenue had been closer to this basic principle of 10 or 12 per cent increase in such matters as hydro

[ Page 1652 ]

rates, sales tax, ferry rates and so on.

The consequence might still have been a budget deficit, but the point I am trying to make is that at least in the government's attempt to fight inflation and treat all citizens equitably, the government would have demonstrated that it, itself, is practising what it preaches. In a time where leadership and progress by example is, indeed, a very fundamental key to the success of these programmes, I have to conclude that neither the federal government nor this provincial government have been very successful in setting such an example. I again acknowledge that this government has done a lot more than the federal government in that regard.

The other contradiction that I would like to quote.... I am glad that the Premier has returned to the chamber because we got into a shouting match the other day on this issue, and I just want to touch upon it at the moment.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Do you want another shouting match?

MR. WALLACE: No, not another shouting match — just an honest exchange of differing views, I suppose.

Again, it's a contradiction that just about everyone in Canada is well aware of — that one of the most basic elements, not only in the individual's cost of living but in relation to the economy of the country as a whole, is the price of energy, and in particular the price of crude oil and its byproducts. It must be confusing to the average Canadian — in fact, I know it is to the average British Columbian, because it's a subject which is raised all the time when you move around within your riding or within the province — that on the one hand we have governments making a commitment to control the cost of living as far as possible...and one of the vital elements in that cost-of-living index is the price of oil and gasoline and other hydrocarbons. By the blessing of Mother Nature, we happen to have oil in Canada when other producing nations have to depend almost entirely on imported oil. These dependent countries, with no control whatever of their own, are simply told, particularly by OPEC nations and in South America by Venezuela, what they will pay for a barrel of oil. They don't have any options or choices; they can't weight up certain disadvantages against certain advantages. They're just told that the price of a barrel of oil as of January 1 will be X dollars.

At least we in Canada, committed to the Canadian fabric and Canadian unity, do have some choices because we have oil in our own provinces in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It must indeed be confusing that on the one hand governments are telling the people of Canada they want to fight inflation and keep down the cost of living, but on the other hand, because some countries of the Middle East decide to demand $13 for a barrel of oil, they say that's what Canadians should be paying for a barrel of oil. As I understand it, that's the crux of the argument: that if a barrel of oil is worth $13, that's what it's worth.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is not a great deal of purpose in getting into a great debate on that particular issue on its own, but in trying to relate that issue to the confusion in the public mind about the governments saying one thing and doing another which is contradictory, I think this bears very close reconsideration by the government.

The Premier has made it quite plain that the price of Canadian oil should rise to the international price as soon as possible. In fact, he was reported as having been critical of the federal government for not moving fast enough to get the price of a Canadian barrel of oil up to the international price of $13. I'm willing to respect the view he holds that only in this way can we provide incentives to explore for new sources of oil and, by charging more, act as a disincentive to the consumer to use oil, or an incentive to be careful and economical and thrifty — I almost said conservative — in their use of oil.

I don't happen to agree entirely with these two arguments, but if you want the support of Canadians in general, just remember that most Canadians, like myself, are not economists or financiers; they're just ordinary people who make their judgments in life on the ordinary events around them, particularly financial events around them. It's very puzzling to an ordinary Canadian to hear the government say on the one hand that they want to keep down the cost of living, and on the other hand they want as quickly as possible to increase the cost of oil. Now that just has to confuse the ordinary person, because the ordinary person knows that gasoline, home heating oil and many other derivatives of crude oil constitute a very integral part of his or her basic budget. You need gas to get your car to work and you need oil to heat your home. In many other ways, industry in the country and in this province depends so intimately on the cost of oil to influence the cost of their product, which in turn is the price to the consumer and the marketplace.

So I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in these three or four different ways this government in the form of this bill is espousing beliefs in a certain need to fight inflation, and is asking Canadians to make some very substantial individual sacrifices to bring that end about, and yet by their own actions they are not at all credible in proving that they, as government, are willing to make the same kind of consistent and credible actions which would bear out in practice what they are espousing in debate in this House.

The Anti-inflation Board is quoted in the Financial Post as saying that they sometimes wonder

[ Page 1653 ]

who their friends are. Of course, when you're given the job of trying to implement a very complicated and contentious programme such as the anti-inflation programme, I doubt if you have any friends. But the point that was being made was that the levels of government — the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities — seem to be doing more than their share to add to the consumer price index. So although the Premier was shaking his head a moment ago and obviously disagreeing with my comments about raising the price of Canadian crude oil, it's very interesting that the Financial Post on May 8 states the following:

"Again, logic from the point of view of making headway in the anti-inflation programme would suggest that any increase in the domestic price of crude oil be determined with an eye to its impact on the consumer price index."

That to me is a very crucial element in this debate. At one and the same time the government is asking us to support every effort to control inflation through a series of programmes partially integrated with Ottawa and initiatives that can be provided under the bill itself.... The obvious commitment to raise the price of crude oil — Canadian crude — at the earliest possible date seems very clearly to be contradictory to the government's basic policy.

I would just quickly repeat, since the Premier is in the House, that I'd ask why if the agreement with the federal government was intended to expire by April 1977 and we're already halfway through May 1976....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier mentions that he's aware of that. I hope we'll get some answers from the government as to the essentially very short nature of the programme that seems to be developing.

Just to end, Mr. Speaker, by commenting on the basic thrust of the bill, regardless of the reasons that I don't see that it is indicated as being essential....

One section of the bill, particularly section 6, leaves me no choice but to think back to some of the bills that the NDP brought in. I used to stand here and deplore the immense powers that were incorporated in the bill with very few safeguards.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: This bill, containing the kind of tremendous authority to government without the kind of safeguards that the individual citizen would expect, matches and perhaps even exceeds some of the bills that we used to criticize that were brought in by the former NDP government.

The language — the terminology — in the bill is very subject to the widest possible interpretation.

Earlier on the bill leaves a very wide possible interpretation of some of the terms being used. The aspect of the short-lived nature of the legislation intended is somewhat contradicted in that if a regulation is introduced when the House is not in session it will be terminated 60 days after the commencement of the next sitting. But that could be quite a long time. If the government, Mr. Speaker, found it necessary to bring in a regulation a week or two after this House rises, for whatever reason there might not be a fall sitting. It could be quite conceivable that such a regulation would be in effect for at least a year despite the fact that if the House is sitting the limitation on the regulation is 60 days after the regulation is introduced.

But even more important than that, indeed, is the tremendous authority provided under the section dealing with regulations. While we will go into this in more detail in committee, Mr. Speaker, I think it's just worth mentioning that in defining the purposes of the regulation, the bill provides the authority to interpret the meaning of any other word or expression.

Since we all know the tremendous impact of semantics and what different people can attach to a word as its essential meaning, this particular part of the bill dealing with definitions and regulations is just incredible. It just gives the government complete and total authority to not only bring in regulations, but to have complete authority to interpret these regulations as the government sees fit.

I'm sure that the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who sat on this side of the House in previous years and used to be a very vigilant defender of the importance of parliament in providing checks and balances in legislation.... I'm not suggesting for a moment that perhaps other cabinet ministers are not equally concerned about a lack of protection of individual rights in this bill, but I do know the Minister of Labour must be unhappy with that particular thrust of the bill because I've heard him make many speeches from this side of the House in which he was quick to defend the established rights of individuals, corporations, unions and any other legitimate group in society not to be subject to the uncontrolled authority of either government or a cabinet minister or any designated authority under a minister.

Again, I'll be more specific in committee reading, but there's also a part of the bill which does permit designation of authority of the extent that exists in the bill generally.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Swooping powers. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I notice that the minister of Labour is smiling, but I know that, really, in his heart

[ Page 1654 ]

he knows I'm right. He's crying on the inside and laughing on the outside. (Laughter.)

To be serious, Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition of the British parliamentary system that authority that government can take to itself in a bill like this should not be unbridled or completely without some measure of restriction to protect the right of the individual affected by the bill. That's just every single citizen in this province. Yet, as has been pointed out, there is virtually no outline at all of what a person or employer, an employee, or a producer or exporter can do if the full weight of the regulations be applied against him or her in what he might well consider an unfair and inequitable manner.

Even if I were to go along with many of the other shortcomings of the bill, I would have to reject this bill on this ground if no other, that it's a frightening degree of authority in a matter of four, five or six sections in an area which intimately affects every single person in British Columbia. I would have been much happier, regardless of the main issue in the bill — namely to fight inflation — if in the manner in which it is written there was some assurance that this government, through a designated agency or minister, would not trample in a very irresponsible way over the rights of the individual affected by some of the likely regulations.

I started off by saying that the Conservative Party, nationally, was, in favour of controls and that Mr. Stanfield had described it as "rough justice." If you look at the way this bill's written, there's no guarantee you'll get any kind of justice at all — not with the very open-ended kind of authority included in the section governing the writing of regulations and interpretation of the words to be used in the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Awesome, sweeping powers.

MR. WALLACE: The last point I find very interesting is in the section dealing with agreements with Canada, Mr. Speaker. The bill not only talks about Canada, an agreement with Canada or a province, but it talks about an agreement with any state. I'm really interested to know what that means in the bill. Does it mean that we might enter into an agreement with one of the states south of the border individually, or the Municipality of Monaco, or Scotland, or...?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Never Scotland.

MR. WALLACE: Not Scotland? Oh, there goes my chance of a trip as AIB representative to Scotland for British Columbia, because I did ask earlier on in the last session, Mr. Speaker, if we weren't going to bring these multicoloured sheep from the North Ronaldsay Island in the Hebrides to boost the B.C. economy.

MR. LAUK: That's for argyle socks. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: The Agriculture minister at that time (Mr. Stupich) said that he would look into the matter, and it's a question that I mean to pursue.

To be serious, I wonder if, in winding up the second reading, the minister would give us his understanding of why that particular section relates to agreements with any state in addition to any province or to Canada as a whole.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, as democratic socialists we support the principle of wage and price controls. However, we have right before us a bill which is asking us to follow along with the present federal wage and price control guidelines which we have already pointed out — not only here but we've heard elsewhere — are not working in an equitable manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: We're also being asked to support this bill brought in by the provincial government which, by its own fiscal policies, is undermining control in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MRS. DAILLY: Now for those two basic reasons, although we believe in the principle, we cannot possibly support this bill.

When we look at the federal guidelines and some of the problems which face us if we tie ourselves in with it, as the government would like us to do, by supporting this bill we know one of the great areas of weakness is in their lack of control on prices.

I just wanted to read a little dialogue that took place between Mr. Pepin and an interviewer several months ago on the whole matter of prices. He was asked the question: "If somebody comes in today to you and asks to put the price of a product up 15 to 18 per cent, are you in a position to give any answer yet or does he have to wait for your regulations?" This was Mr. Pepin's answer: "Well, we say to them, read the White Paper on 'pass through' and we say live accordingly. You are all right, and if you don't we'll see you sometime."

Now have the unions of this country had that same opportunity? Have they been given vague guidelines when it comes to increases for their wages? Have they been told to live accordingly to vague regulations which aren't even existent actually? Then, if you don't, come and see us sometime. So how can we possibly, although we endorse the principle, support the present A and B guidelines when they

[ Page 1655 ]

have proven to be so inequitable when it comes particularly to control of prices?

Then we look at this government which is asking us to support basically a bill almost as if it were a blank cheque. What are the regulations you're talking about? We hope we're going to hear something from the hon. Minister of Finance on this, but in his opening remarks he hasn't cleared up any of the vagueness of the bill. Let's look at this government which actually has the audacity to come into this House with a bill asking us to support wage and price guidelines when, ever since it came into power, it has done everything possible to undermine these controls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: Why have they done this? Well, Mr. Speaker, it's because of their doctrinaire fiscal policy. They've become obsessed with balancing this budget of the province in one year. Show us another jurisdiction which has this same obsession as the Premier of this province obviously has. Where is it leading to? Well, the Minister of Consumer Services, who is supposed to be protecting the consumers of this province says: "Well, we'll show you a profit."

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: All right, if you didn't put it in those terms, Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. MAIR: You show me a balanced budget and I'll show you a prosperous province.

MRS. DAILLY: The whole point is — and again this is where the problem comes with a conservative fiscal policy — the steps and actions you have taken are not going to bring prosperity to this province. They're taking away purchasing power from the consumers whom you are supposed to be protecting. You know, any government, Mr. Speaker, which won't face up to what the real causes of economic depression or recession are is never going to be able to find the correct solution. This government fails to face up to the real problems.

They have not shown that they have any understanding of the cause of the present economic recession. We have listened to the Minister of Economic Development give us no guidelines or policies as to what this government is going to do to improve the economy. The Premier of the province has not to this date given us any guidelines. Instead they are going to pursue this conservative fiscal policy which is going to bring increased hardship to the citizens of this province.

Let's look at some of the areas. They've been gone over so many times. So I'm going to go over them very briefly. First of all, because of your conservative fiscal policies, you are creating unemployment. The unemployment figures today show it. To sit there, as the Premier did, and stand there today and accuse the NDP will not wash any more, Mr. Speaker, because the very actions of this government since they came in have brought about unemployment.

You have decreased the purchasing power — no question about that. The Minister of Finance was not able to rebut these points that were brought up during the time we were debating his finance bills. You have decreased it.

Unemployment has been increased by the conservative fiscal policies of this government. There has been a hardship by this government on the lower-income people of this province. They are the ones who are suffering from your policies. The unfortunate, the tragic thing is that your policies could possibly create a labour confrontation in this province, which I'm sure no one wants — no one on either side of the House. But your policies could promote this. Then what would be the result? What will be the result if we do have a labour confrontation in this province? There'll be more lost revenue from that than from all your severe, harsh measures on the consumers and the taxpayers of this province.

Your credibility is at stake, and for you to present a bill saying you believe in controls...

MR. LAUK: What's left of their credibility is at stake.

MRS. DAILLY: ...when you have undermined the controls day after day by your actions, I consider is absolutely incredible, and it's one of the main reasons we couldn't possibly support your bill. You have actually shown recklessness, sheer recklessness, in the actions you have taken against the citizens of this province; and yet you ask us to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of general areas to do with the whole matter of price-and-wage controls, and which I'd like to discuss briefly this afternoon. Some of those areas obviously cause grave concern to anyone who has to think very seriously about a bill of this nature, and particularly for democratic socialists who believe inherently and strongly in the principle of wage-and-price control. But we only have to look around us and see what is actually happening with the federal government's wage-price control legislation, and what has happened in this province because of the Social Credit government.

First of all, if we look at the matter of prices, one great difficulty faced by any major attempt at price controls, of course, is the difficulty of considering one national subsidiary in isolation from its parent company. This was proven in the United Kingdom, to give you an example, when IBM sought an increase because IBM prices had been increased elsewhere — that's why they sought an increase there. However,

[ Page 1656 ]

the board in the United Kingdom was faced with a very insoluble problem in judging the increase sought in the light of the rate of profit. The international character, they stated, of the IBM organization makes it difficult to consider the affairs of any one national subsidiary in isolation. Without access to the parent books, an informed judgment cannot be made about the level of prices being charged, and from the point of view of the return on capital achieved. Now until some solution to that problem is found, the problem of the parent company versus the national company, how can prices properly be controlled? That is a challenge and something that has to be looked at when one talks about the controlling of prices.

Now what about the matter of management personnel, and how very easily management personnel, if they so desire, can evade and not be part of wage controls? This has already been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), but I would like to point out that there is a back-up for the statements he was making in the Financial Post of April 10 where it says:

"Controls haven't sparked an epidemic of itchy feet yet. After six months of price-income controls that have kept the salaries of go-getters from leaping ahead, it's becoming clear that a mass migration of personnel in search of big, new starting levels is not so far underway. However, employers can expect to bid a few farewells and greet some new faces in the summer and the fall. Many people have been hesitant about picking up their stakes now, at this time, and finding another job because they just aren't convinced that the guidelines are here to stay."

What they are saying at the present time is: "Well, we'll wait and see, but if it is here to stay then we will go around and jump into another company where perhaps, of course, we can get more benefits, more salary." There's nothing that can control that, and yet the average worker has no such opportunity. And should he, and should anyone, when there are controls being imposed on all of society as far as wages and incomes? It should be for incomes also.

So there's another problem when we talk about inequities, and yet we're asked to support a bill which, inherently, is going to follow those inequities — if we support it.

Also, we have the Premier of the province referring to instituting "our own system of reviewing public prices and rates," but he still fails to provide, to date, any details as to when or how this is going to take place. Since most of our information still comes from Statistics Canada, this appears a very hollow promise, and needing more clarification.

We often do our own research, Mr. Premier, and I think that's one of your problems: if you've been doing your own research, maybe that's why we are in this economic difficulty in this province. Obviously we are very deeply in trouble. Perhaps if you used some research and economic advisers we could move ourselves out of the problems we're in.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. So we're still waiting for these details. The hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) expressed grave concern also that we have no details of any of these regulations — no details at all. The Premier himself returned supporting the increase of the oil prices, yet it is pointed out in a number of recent articles that one of the increased causes of inflation will be when those increases in oil prices come about. So here again we have the Premier of this province endorsing policies which are going to cause more inflation, not less inflation, and yet he is asking us to support a bill he is saying is inherently going to help control inflation. It is all completely inconsistent with the actions of that Premier and his government.

The Premier also admits at times that the federal controls are poor and therefore B.C. is only going to go into this for one year or until we can institute a better system of controls in the province. Now this bill which the Minister of Finance brought in asks for the power to create controls, as I said before, through regulations — in other words, by cabinet. So it is indeed a blank cheque which we are being asked to support in this bill — a complete blank cheque. We are hoping that the Minister of Finance is going to be able to fill us in further as we move into the debate on some of the details of how he is going to bring this about, because they certainly are not with us today.

Another area of concern when we are talking generally about controls is the whole area of corporate tax increases. For instance, will the 2 per cent corporate tax increase be considered by the AIB as an increased cost and so passed on to the consumer? Will they be able to include it as an increased cost? There is an increasing body of evidence, Mr. Speaker, which suggests that direct corporate taxes are either fully or partially shifted forward to the customer via price increases. We're aware of that. I think the hon. Premier only listens with partial hearing, because the point I made in the beginning was just a question: will they be able to go before the AIB and get approval for including that 2 per cent increase...

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your ears lowered.

MRS. DAILLY: ...or can they just simply go to you in cabinet? Are you going to accept that and say: "Yes, we accept that increase as part of your increased costs"? The average worker most certainly cannot have increases in his personal income tax

[ Page 1657 ]

considered in that manner. We will be most interested to know how this is to be handled.

The whole problem with the bill that faces us and which we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, is that it doesn't really attack the problem that we are facing in this province. Actually, the problem is the Social Credit government, and I suppose the best way to attack it is to get rid of the Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: As we at this particular moment don't have the power to do so, we are simply waiting as far as that problem goes because we know we won't have to wait long. The people of British Columbia, when they see a bill such as this asking for support of wage and some price controls — although it hasn't been explained to us; it is so vague — will then look at their pocketbooks and say: "Well, what is going on here? Here is a government asking us to endorse controls — more controls on our wages — and yet every day this government is taking money away from us. They are reducing our purchasing power."

How can you possibly present a bill to the House in the face of what you have done already as a government to the purchasing power of the citizens of this province? Mr. Speaker, there is no way, despite the fact that we do endorse the principle, that we could support such a bill brought in by such a government which already has shown that it actually has undermined the original intention of wage and price controls in this country.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place this afternoon to speak in support of Bill 16.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWITT: I would ask that the hon. members on the opposite side of the House take some time to read the bill and understand the purpose of it. In section 2 you are looking at the purpose of the bill, which says: "The purpose of the Act is to authorize the investigation of the effects of inflation on prices, commodities and wages." It says "temporary regulations" and it says "cooperation with Canada." Mr. Speaker, I would think that that would be an important part to understand what those three words meant: "investigation," "temporary regulation" and "cooperation."

Mr. Speaker, that party over there, if it was in power, would be looking at regulation on a permanent basis — regulation of people in this province, regulation of production in this province and regulation of prices in this province in a socialist state. I am not in favour of that type of thinking in this House.

Mr. Speaker, inflation spares no one, whether it be the producer, whether it be the orchardist in my riding who has to pay for his fertilizer which goes up double in price, whether it be the farmer who has to pay increased labour costs, whether it be the manufacturer who has to face increased wage settlements year after year after year, whether it be the retailer who pays more taxes every year to provide those services that are needed and, finally, whether it be the consumer. All segments of our society — wage-earner, management, pensioners, people on welfare — are affected by inflation. It spares no one, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed sometimes when I hear the people on the opposite side of the House rant and rave about the poor wage-earner and the fact that management is exempt from all these problems of inflation. You should see some of the small businessmen who actually suffer and have to close shop because they just can't make it any more with the inflation which affects their industry.

MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. HEWITT: That's right. And that is why this bill is needed, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: That's why it isn't needed.

MR. HEWITT: This bill is needed and it must be done in an equitable manner.

MR. COCKE: You're killing the small businessman in this province.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, section 2 deals with wages and it deals with prices. If the opposition would kindly read section 2, they would see that it does state "prices" in there.

It takes a long time for the administration of any anti-inflation programme to work — a long time. It takes time to concern ourselves with what wage settlements will do and what the increased cost of materials and increased prices will do. But if we do it as a nation, Mr. Speaker, then we will survive and we will control inflation in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this province needs strong provincial leadership because one of the things that I have found in a very short period of time, not just in this House but in this time of inflation, is that it's always: "Not me — don't look at me. Look at him. I'm just catching up. My wages are too low. I've been behind the eight ball all this time. I'm just catching up." I say we can't go along that way and that's why you need provincial control and national control — to hold down the inflation and to take into consideration the fact that maybe there is somebody a little behind in this classification.

[ Page 1658 ]

MR. LEA: Some people are way ahead.

MR. HEWITT: And there are some people way ahead. That is why the national programme gives that spread from 8 to 12 per cent, Mr. Member, and you should recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the programme does say "temporary regulations." We are looking at April, 1977, because it is needed now, but I would like to think there would come a time again when the marketplace would dictate the cost of the product, the cost of the goods and the cost of the services.

This inflation, Mr. Speaker, didn't happen overnight. It's not provincial, it's not really national — it is worldwide. But it must be fought on the basis of one nation, because the countries that recover quickly from this time of inflation are the ones which are going to prosper in the world marketplace. Those countries which don't recover quickly will become more and more dependent on the other nations of this world. I would like to see Canada, Mr. Speaker, take its rightful place in the world marketplace, and we must do it by cooperation of the wage-earner, the politician and industry as a nation. That's why I feel very strongly that we must participate in the national anti-inflation programme.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) keeps stating that inflation only affects the wage-earner. I would suggest to him that Canadian companies, large and small, are affected by labour costs that are ever increasing, material costs that are ever increasing and finance costs that are ever increasing. It keeps increasing to such an extent that they must raise their price to the consumer, but there comes a point in time, Mr. Speaker, that the price is priced too high. When it reaches that point there is a loss of earnings because the product doesn't sell. If the product doesn't sell, the man who invested his money in that business doesn't make a return on his investment. If he doesn't make a return on that investment, Mr. Speaker, then we can't afford to pay the wage-earner, and the man who made the investment can't afford to pay the taxes. Where do they look? They look to the state to provide a survival living for them. I can't accept that approach.

I feet we should do everything in our power as a nation to make sure that we can continue to compete in the marketplace, because if we don't we will be buying import goods continually and that way we have no gross national product. We are dependent on other countries who have mastered the problem of inflation.

America is coming out of the problem of inflation, and if we don't move we could be looking at imports, and our gross national product would be affected considerably.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a bit of a letter that I received in regard to the orchard industry:

"Our 1975 pear crop returns have been little better than half of those of 1974. To date we have received 2 cents a pound for the 1975 apple crop. We have to compete with our American neighbours whose labour costs and transportation costs are considerably lower. Our sprays, fertilizer and wage costs grow progressively.

"We acknowledge medical insurance needs increases; sales tax is a great source of government income. We don't object to paying realistic motor-vehicle insurance. Cannot the same common sense attitude be applied to the growers? We need an adequate return for our labour."

These are investors in a primary-production unit, the type of people who are the backbone of this country, and they can't even get a fair return because they are being assessed with ever-increasing costs for materials and labour. We must consider them; we must consider the small businessmen, because if we don't we will become more dependent.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) rants and raves again about the increases in ferry rates, the increases in ICBC, the increases in taxation, but the NDP increased the government's spending and they spent the people's money to the tune of $541 million in a deficit position. I don't hear them concerning themselves about that. I don't think you people can carry on on the basis that increased costs are with you this year because of what you did over the previous three years.

MR. LEA: Wait till the Minister of Agriculture hears you say that.

MR. HEWITT: The government and industry must work together. This legislation does give guidance, Mr. Speaker, to the government for government spending, to industry in control of prices, and to the labour portion of our society in understanding reasonable increases in wages.

MR. LEA: It's a blank cheque.

MR. HEWITT: It gives them guidance, Mr. Member.

The federal wage-price guidelines are working. If I'm not mistaken, this morning on the news I did hear the figure of 8.9 per cent increase in the cost of living — 8.9, the lowest increase over a period of the last year. That does indicate, I think, that it was working. It's taking time, naturally, but I'd like to see you stop a juggernaut. I'd like to see you stop an ocean liner in 20 feet. It takes time, Mr. Member; it takes time.

Interjection.

[ Page 1659 ]

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, this is a time of restraint, and I hope you can restrain yourself a little longer. It's a time of restraint on government spending, Mr. Member — something that the NDP just couldn't understand. It's a time of restraint. It's a time of restraint for prices and for wages.

If this province is to prosper, Mr. Speaker, and take its rightful place in the world community, I would ask that the opposition consider the effect of the bill and the effect of the national anti-inflation programme.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition's role is to oppose. That has always been the opposition's role: regardless of what the issue is, we must oppose it. Sometimes I wonder how negative that can be. It seems that sometimes we should all stand up together in this House and say that this is something good; this is something that is needed for the country.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: I know this wouldn't get through, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask that those members over there put their politics aside so we can work together to beat inflation as a nation. I would ask that they support Bill 16, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not simply because I'm a member of the opposition, and not because I'm opposed to the measures that are designed to control inflation, but because this particular piece of legislation does nothing specifically to control inflation, and does nothing specifically to control the vast majority of economic factors upon which inflation is based.

But given the ideological rigidity of the group opposite, I feel, and many people in our party feel, that it is simply designed to control wages in the public sector by allowing the present government to enter into agreement with the federal government to apply wage guidelines to public-sector employees.

On the other hand, sections of the bill which apply to the regulation of prices are extremely discretionary or pretty vague and permissive. If the previous activities of the coalition in establishing prices and fees in the public sector are any example, then we can except no effective action to control prices on this public sector, and the concern of the present government for inflation is just a little hypocritical on that point.

Let's look at the facts over the past five months, and the performance of the present government over the previous five months.

There's been an increase in ICBC rates averaging 139 per cent and ranging from 100 to 500 to 1,000 per cent, in some cases, across the board — but 139 per cent across the board. There has been a doubling of ferry rates, effective June 1.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) read a letter from one of his constituents concerning the cost of labour and commodities, the cost of insurance, et cetera. I'd like to read a letter into the record from one of my constituents — a letter that was sent to the Hon. Jack Davis concerning ferry rates. This is from one of my constituents who lives in Port Alberni and who must commute to Vancouver every week, not of his own choosing but because he was sent there for a job by Canada Manpower. On the B.C. Ferries alone, ferries for one year have been costing this man $728. Now he's faced with paying $1,456 in ferry fares. According to the Neale Adams article that's been quoted by other speakers in the House, the average family income is $15,900 a year. This person is paying 10 per cent of his salary in ferry fares because he has to commute to work between Vancouver and Port Alberni every week.

So this is the effect that increases in public sector fees and ferry rates are going to have on some of the people in my constituency, and the IWA estimates that the people affected on Vancouver Island are going to number about 120 IWA employees only. So that's a tremendous increase in public-sector fees, and that's the type of performance that we can expect that government ostensibly in controlling inflation — prices and those components which enter into the inflationary picture.

Third, there's been a 400 per cent increase in BCHIS co-insurance fees for acute care and a 700 per cent increase for extended care, topped off with a 50 per cent increase in medicare premiums. All of these affect people who are mainly on the low end of the scale. The millionaires sitting opposite and their friends in industry don't have too much of a problem, Mr. Speaker, with these types of increases, but the average family in British Columbia is experiencing a problem with increases of that nature in almost every tax measure brought down by the Social Credit government during its budget — a 40 per cent increase in sales tax, for example.

Again, Neale Adams in his article mentioned that the $110 million that will be raised by the sales tax on individuals, divided by the 600,000 households in British Columbia, will result in an increased cost to those households of about $135 per annum. He didn't include the sales tax on corporations which will also be passed through to those same 600,000 households and which will almost double that $135 impact on wages for the average family in British Columbia. Also there are increases in corporate income tax which are partially regressive and again have their most severe impact on low- and middle-income earners.

The people who will receive the direct impact under Bill 16, as a result of the coalition imposing an

[ Page 1660 ]

additional cost burden of $870 on each and every family in this province this year, are those middle and lower-income earners of the province. What they're doing basically is taking away 5.5 per cent of the average take-home pay of those people. They're decreasing the income of those people based on last year's average family. While tight controls are being placed on these same families by federal anti-inflation guidelines, they're not being able to compensate for that loss of income — that loss of the $875 — by increasing their wages.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) recently admitted — just after the announcement by Statistics Canada that price increases in Vancouver were far out of line with the rest of the country — that things were seriously out-of-whack. The main components of that increase were public sector costs imposed by the present Social Credit government.

HON. MR. MAIR: When did I say that?

MR. SKELLY: April 23, 1976.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where?

MR. SKELLY: Right here in Victoria. Read your own newspaper articles. You'll become a little more confused, I think.

The Minister of Consumer Services admitted that things are seriously out-of-whack, and the main reason prices are out-of-whack in British Columbia is that the present government has increased public sector fees, ferry rates, insurance rates and sales taxes. These and other measures are far out of line and are contributing to inflation and contributing to the high cost of living in this province.

In addition, the Socreds lifted the price freeze imposed by the previous government in October of 1975. That freeze was imposed because we recognized at the time that Ottawa's anti-inflation controls were not being imposed fairly on the people of this province; in fact, they were patently unfair. That was recognized by the previous government, because they were directed primarily against the wage-earning sectors of society while the controls against business, professional and other groups were, at best, vague and unenforceable.

It's interesting to consider the point, Mr. Speaker, in the social and economic history of Canada that the federal anti-inflation guidelines were imposed. I'd like to quote some figures, again from an economist at Dalhousie University, Dr. Michael Bradford, which show the percentage of the total federal earnings that each group in society has been receiving over the past four or five years. Out of a total national income in 1971 of $93.5 billion, corporate profits represented $8.7 billion. In 1974, out of a total national income of $140.9 billion, corporate profits had reached $18.3 billion. They had more than doubled at 110.3 per cent. Out of the total national income, interest was $3.8 billion dollars in 1971; it was $7 billion in 1974 — an increase of 110 per cent.

Net farm income, an increase of 131.5 per cent; unincorporated business, only 21.7 per cent. Wages, salaries and supplementary incomes had increased between 1971 and 1974 only 47.8 per cent, far below the increases in total national income, in corporate profits, in interest, and in net farm income. At the time that wages, salaries and supplementary benefits started catching up, then the wage and price controls were brought in.

In comparison with the present government's record of protecting the people of British Columbia against inflation, let's take a look at the previous government and what we did, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) outlined just a few minutes ago. We were one of the few governments in Canada to implement controls on residential rent increases to prevent hardship on tenants who, over the past 10 years, were becoming increasingly penalized by harsh rent increases. More and more people in this province over the past 10 years have been renting rather than owning their own homes. Under the previous Social Credit government, there were no supplements. There was no assistance to renters, although there was to homeowners. There was no assistance to renters until that assistance was brought in by the NDP government in the previous three years.

We also controlled prices of critical commodities — foods, beverages, prescription drugs, and even imported foods and drugs. When we were questioned on the passing on of the cost of imported foods and drugs to businesses in British Columbia, the Premier of the time (Mr. Barrett) felt that everybody in the province — not simply the working people, but everybody in the province, including the large retail chains — should have to tighten their belts and should have to absorb some of those price increases for imported foods and drugs.

MR. KAHL: Did you tighten your belt on government spending?

MR. SKELLY: Everybody in this province experienced the same type of belt-tightening — private individuals, the public sector, and private industry as well. That was the policy of the previous government.

MR. KAHL: How much did the government spend in 1972 per capita?

MR. SKELLY: We also raised minimum wages in this province, Mr. Speaker, in order to protect those people at the lower end of the scale, people whose

[ Page 1661 ]

wages were criminally low, who had to work hard to make ends meet. We increased those minimum wages to protect those people from the ravages of inflation. We produced a guaranteed income programme for seniors that was second to none in Canada.

In addition, we relieved those people of the high cost of prescription drugs and of ambulance and health services by providing the Pharmacare programme and the provincial ambulance system. In October, we also proposed a freeze on energy prices, a freeze on home heating oils, gasoline, natural gas and electricity. All of these things were done by the previous government in order to protect the average citizen of the province from the ravages of inflation.

Even with ICBC — and these people across the floor like to talk about the overruns of ICBC — the government felt there was an obligation on the part of the government, and it was never covered up. It always comes out in the annual reports, and you can read the annual reports. If you can't possibly we can give you a little instruction.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: This government protected the people from the ravages of inflation, from the high cost of insurance, by maintaining premiums at a low level. We feel it's a cardinal principle of government policy that in periods of high and increasing inflation it is the duty of the government to keep prices down and to keep costs down, even though the government may have to absorb some of the costs. Because they can more afford to absorb the costs, more afford to control the costs in the long run.

Are you going to call those raving people to order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! While I'm at it, Hon. Member, I would also suggest to you that I'm having a little difficulty relating some of your remarks to the principle of the bill that's before us, and perhaps you could bring it back...

MR. SKELLY: Oh, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LEA: There is no principle to that bill.

MR. SPEAKER: ...bring the remarks back into the principle of the particular bill that is before the House at this time.

MR. SKELLY: What I'm trying to show, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the principle of Bill 16, is that Bill 16 doesn't really offer any relief from inflation. There's nothing really specific in the bill that provides relief from inflation. Much of the high cost of living that we are experiencing in this province right now is directly attributable to what the Socred government has been doing over the past five months. I'm trying to point out what the NDP government did over the previous 39 months in order to protect the people from the ravages of inflation, and Mr. Speaker drew me to order on it. But I'd be very pleased to repeat it.

I wonder if the government would accept an adjournment at this time.

Hon. Mr. Skelly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents the 1974 annual report of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.