[ Page 1663 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporate Disclosure Act (Bill 42)

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Skelly — 1663

Oral questions

Gulf Island ferry rates. Mr. Cocke — 1663

UBC plans. Mr. Gibson — 1663

Operation of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Wallace — 1663

Withdrawal of funds from Kelly Lake project. Mr. Levi — 1664

Hunting of peregrine falcons. Mr. Lea — 1664

B.C. Steamship Co. tax relief. Mr. Wallace — 1664

Absence of Health minister. Ms. Brown — 1665

PWA move to Alberta. Mr. Gibson — 1665

Report on gasoline marketing and service stations. Mr. Macdonald — 1665

Free ferry travel for students. Mr. Nicolson — 1665

Removal of Sunshine Coast commuter cards. Mr. Lockstead — 1665

Hiring of Human Resources personnel. Mr. Wallace — 1665

Stein River Valley logging. Mr. Skelly — 1666

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

Mr. Skelly — 1666

Mr. Kempf — 1667

Mr. Barnes — 1669

Mr. Kerster — 1676

Mr. Shelford — 1677

Mrs. Wallace — 1679

Mr. Kahl — 1682

Mr. Lea — 1684

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1690

Mrs. Jordan — 1692

Mr. Lockstead — 1697

Mr. Rogers — 1699

Ms. Brown — 1699

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the assembly to join me today in welcoming a group of 30 ladies and gentlemen from Surrey who are visiting Victoria and the Legislature. I would ask that you welcome them.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the legislative precinct today and visiting in the gallery in about an hour are students from Gulf Island Secondary School. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, two introductions if I may: first of all, Joan and Cyril Fihrer and Frank Horwitz from Vancouver and, secondly, from the great constituency of Atlin, our former Liberal candidate there, Mr. Peter Curran.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, there's a group of students here today from northern Vancouver Island, accompanied by their teachers and sponsors, Mr. and Mrs. Parker. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming students and teachers from the North Island Senior Secondary School.

Introduction of bills

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill 42, Corporate Disclosure Act, 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.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm and Hon. Mrs. McCarthy file answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Oral questions

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. In response to the opposition demands for reduced ferry rates, has any final decision been made on Gulf Island rates, in particular?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but an announcement will be made shortly.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has a final decision been made? was the question of the member for New Westminster. I don't believe it was answered. You said an announcement will be made shortly, but has a final decision been made?

MR. SPEAKER: The answer was given by the hon. minister.

UBC PLANS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education: In view of the ultimatum the Minister of Education gave the University of British Columbia over 60 days ago that they were to bring forward plans within that period, and now that that period has elapsed, can the minister tell us whether the university has performed satisfactorily?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the university did produce a report within 60 days. That report has been referred to a task force which has been set up, involving the downtown teaching hospitals, which also had been announced by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and that task force is now at work.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, can the minister tell us whether the B.C. Medical Association and the downtown hospitals are now satisfied with the procedure that's being followed?

HON. MR. McGEER: I believe they're very satisfied, Mr. Speaker.

OPERATION OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport with regard to the government decision that B.C. Steamship Co. will operate the Princess Marguerite, and in view of the failure to conclude a wage settlement between management and employees and the fact that this is May 13 and the schedule is due to start on the 21st, can the minister tell the House what immediate steps he has taken to bring about a resolution of the impasse of negotiations between the B.C. Steamship Co. and the three unions concerned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, discussions are continuing today between the management of B.C. Steamship Co. and the several unions.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary. Since the main issue in the negotiations appears to be a wage increase which has been reported to be outside the guidelines, has any party to the negotiations requested that the wage increase be submitted to the Anti-inflation

[ Page 1664 ]

Board, and that the ship can go into service pending a decision by the Anti-Inflation Board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The negotiations, Mr. Speaker, have not been completed, as yet, and so no reference to the Anti-Inflation Board is an immediate prospect.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary. Inquiries reveal that many bookings have already been made for the Princess Marguerite — I gather in excess of 170 group bookings have been made. Could the minister assure the public and the parties who have reserved these sailings that the Princess Marguerite will definitely be in service this summer between Victoria and Seattle?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our utmost to ensure that those bookings will be honoured.

WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS
FROM KELLY LAKE PROJECT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources, regarding the Kelly Lake project. Could the minister tell us why the funding for this project in Kelly Lake, which is in the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') riding, was discontinued? The funding was used for the purchase of service from the Frontier College, in terms of their social programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, and I will table the answer in the Legislature.

HUNTING OF PEREGRINE FALCONS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. Her department, under the provincial fish and game branch, has announced that there will be allowed permits for the harvesting of five peregrine falcons in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I would like the minister to give me, if she would, one good reason why these permits are being allowed, as there hasn't been a permit allowed since 1972.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice and have the information for the member in the next question period.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be for the interest of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The minister has taken the question as notice. It's very difficult to take a supplemental question on a question that's been taken as notice, Hon. Member. If there's some other area you wish to pursue after the answer comes back, that's a different thing. It comes back to the floor of the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if you'll just allow it, I think you'll see the urgency. I think the urgency is that I would ask the minister to please look into this as soon as possible because I think it would be a catastrophe if this was allowed.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'd like to ask the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry: is she aware that the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit found definite evidence that there was an organized international syndicate capturing peregrine falcons in the Queen Charlotte Islands? Does she intend to check that with the Attorney-General? Because that is part of the problem of this vanishing species.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

B.C. STEAMSHIP CO. SEEKING TAX RELIEF

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs a question with regard to the B.C. Steamship Co. seeking relief from taxes from the City of Victoria: was the minister consulted in any way either by the B.C. Steamship Co. or by the Minister of Transport and Communications, prior to this request being made to the city of Victoria?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member — this constant barrage of questions directed to me over the last few weeks is just proving more than I can...(laughter) — the answer is no, but I would not expect such consultation in a matter relating to the B.C. Steamship Co. and the city of Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister continues to be this frank, perhaps we will barrage him with questions as the weeks go by.

Since the property concerned is reported to be paying a 15 mill grant in lieu of taxes at the present time, which in effect means that the city is getting less revenue than from a privately owned company, has the minister held any meetings with the city of Victoria to discuss this issue, or has he held meetings to discuss it with UBCM — either or both?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: on the specific, no. On the general — that is, full payment of provincial taxes — yes, I've had discussions with the mayor of the city of Victoria,

[ Page 1665 ]

mayors of other communities and the UBCM.

MINISTER OF HEALTH'S ABSENTEEISM

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to the hon. House Leader. Will the hon. House Leader let us know when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is going to be here? I have been trying to ask him a question for a number of days and he's never in the House during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I suggested before to the members of the House that this is a matter that the Whips of the parties should confer about. If there is a reason for a minister to be absent, I would hope that your Whip of the party would confer with the government Whip to find out when he'll return.

MS. BROWN: I just thought that maybe the House Leader knew something, Mr. Speaker.

PWA MOVE TO ALBERTA

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications: the other day in question period the minister suggested that in current circumstances if British Columbia wishes to stop any move of the head office of PWA to Alberta, pending a supreme court decision, the only possibility was to talk to Alberta. I would ask him: are there any such talks going on at this time, or planned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there are no talks going on currently. There have been discussions in the past and there may well be in the future, but not presently. In answer to a question of the other day, and more explicitly, the government did make a submission to the Canadian Transport Commission immediately prior to the closing date of May 4 of this year.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister mentions that there have been talks with Alberta in the past and maybe in the future. I would ask him if Alberta has been unequivocally told that British Columbia would consider such a move an unfriendly act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, and on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker.

REPORT ON GASOLINE MARKETING
AND SERVICE STATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Transport and Communications, who has a report from the Energy Commission on gasoline marketing and service stations: will he table that report in the House forthwith?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this will be a matter for a decision of the government as a whole, and I hope soon.

MR. MACDONALD: My question is: why is the report, paid for by the taxpayers, not being made available for public discussion at the present time, and tabled in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that's a repetition, really, of the same question endlessly asked.

MR. MACDONALD: I didn't get an answer to the first question: will you table the report?

FREE FERRY TRAVEL FOR STUDENTS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. He made an announcement yesterday that students who have to commute by ferry would be allowed to travel free. Was he trying to indicate a change in policy there? It is my understanding that students who have had to commute from Bowen Island to the mainland have been allowed to travel free since the government was involved in providing ferry service.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to regularize our fares throughout the entire system, and free travel to and from school will apply throughout the entire system.

REMOVAL OF SUNSHINE
COAST COMMUTER CARDS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): To the Minister of Transport and Communications: I wonder if the minister has reconsidered his decision to remove the commuter cards from residents of theSunshine Coast, and could he let us know that decision if he has reconsidered?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been reconsidered.

HIRING OF HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources regarding the statement last Thursday that 75 persons have been hired to carry out job-finding and welfare fraud investigation programmes: can the minister tell the House the total cost of the salaries of those 75 persons and if these salaries are all included within the estimates in our

[ Page 1666 ]

estimate book for Human Resources?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you a total. I cannot give the hon. member a total figure now. The people have not been hired as yet, though we are in the process of preparing for the hiring of these people, and I will get the figure for the hon. member. Yes, we do have the money for it in the budget.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if, as regards these 75 people, it is the intention of the government to hire them on a permanent basis, or is the intent to deal with the immediate problem and then reduce or discontinue these particular jobs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Much of what we do, Mr. Speaker, will depend upon the success of the programme. It is my hope that they will be there permanently.

MR. WALLACE: Does the minister have any figures based on recent research of the situation to measure the cost or the expense of proven welfare frauds? Is there any figure upon which the minister is basing his programme, namely the amount that it is costing the government at the present time in payments that are fraudulent to applicants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the purposes of the programme, Mr. Speaker, will be to determine just exactly how much there might be. We really don't have any figures available to us now.

CONSULTATION WITH ELUC ON
STEIN RIVER VALLEY LOGGING

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): To the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ELUC has now allowed logging exploitation in the Stein River Valley in the Fraser Canyon. I wonder if the minister has consulted with environmental groups and with the ELUC secretariat on that decision.

HON. LA. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): The ELUC, of course, would not allow exploitation. If it were forestry, presumably the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would be involved in granting any licences.

The secretariat, yes; not only was it consulted, the secretariat provided material to us on which that decision was based, not to exploit the timber necessarily but to develop the Stein River drainage system in a manner which would be compatible with the various desires of various segments of society, including the mountain-climbing people and others. The reports were considered and a decision was made. Communication is going forward to those who have contacted us since the decision was announced.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period.

Orders of the day

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

Leave granted.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has the floor. Hon. Member, — l would just draw to your attention the fact that you've used up some of your time. You have a maximum now of 24 minutes left.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to recap some of the points that I made before adjournment at 6 p.m. yesterday. I stated at that time that I was specifically opposed to the bill that is before us right now; that our party is opposed to this bill; that we are not, as a party or a caucus, opposed to specific and effective controls on the economy that will prevent the ravages of inflation, but we are opposed to a bill such as this which is essentially blank-cheque legislation which will have no effect on prices or the cost of living in this province, and yet is designed to rigidly control wages in the public sector.

I also make the point, Mr. Speaker, that the major impact on the cost of living over the past year or so in this province is the result of Social Credit policy over the past five months.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: During our term of office we imposed controls on essential items, on rentals, residential tenancies, food and drugs, transportation, energy, home heating oils, this type of thing. We increased Mincome payments to protect the senior citizens of this province, and handicapped people, from the ravages of inflation. We announced our intent to control rents and rent increases on commercial tenancies as well. The Socreds lifted those controls in February and that caused a significant jump in the cost of living, as reported by Statistics Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The Socreds lifted those freezes

[ Page 1667 ]

and caused significant jumps in the cost of living in this province, a jump higher than any other place in Canada. The cost of living, as recorded in Vancouver, was higher than any other place in Canada. So it seems a little hypocritical to us on this side of the House that the Socreds are bringing in a bill like this, which they say attempts to control inflation, when they are the major cause of inflation in this province, and have been the major cause of inflation in British Columbia over the past six months.

One of the major things in this bill which disturbs us, especially in relation to section 6 of the bill, is the vague, extremely discretionary powers granted under section 6 to the cabinet and to the ministers who will administer this bill. The Act is, essentially, to be enforced by that Cadillac coalition over there behind the closed doors of cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I suspect that those people who supported that coalition during the last election — those people who are essentially responsible for the production of commodities in this province — will speak with louder voices behind the closed door of cabinet, and those people will be the ones who will be, essentially, making the decisions on whether price increases will be allowed or prohibited in this province — not the cabinet but the people who supported that party during the last election. Those people will be speaking with louder voices behind the closed doors of cabinet and not in public, not before an independent tribunal.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) mentioned yesterday some of the salaries of the people in the province who talk about wage restraints. He mentioned the salaries of people like J.V. Clyne, as was reported in The Vancouver Sun — material that he received from the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. J.V. Clyne receives $90,000 from MacMillan Bloedel corporation, a major producer of forest products in this province, along with $25,000 pin money that he gets every year from the same corporation; J.0. Hemmingsen of the same corporation, $98,000; Anson Brookes, $54,000 — those people with close connections with that government over there will be able to make representations behind the closed door of cabinet under section 6 of this Act, behind the closed door of cabinet, outside of the public view. Those people will be setting the commodity prices in this province and will be dictating the prices, wages, salaries in this province.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Don't you know anything?

MR. SKELLY: You'll have your opportunity to speak, Mr. Member. Other people in this province, major producers of commodities — Edgar F. Kaiser, Jr., according to form 10K that he submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, has a salary of $206,000, before taxes.

Why is the government not increasing coal royalties in this province? Is it because of the fact that their own friends can meet behind the closed door of cabinet and dictate just what the prices and public-sector prices are going to be in this province? Section 6 allows ministerial discretion, allows cabinet discretion behind the closed door of cabinet. There is no guarantee that prices are going to be controlled, especially in view of the previous performance of the Social Credit government in this province over the past five months, a performance which has driven up the cost of living tremendously, driven up the cost of living higher than anywhere else in Canada. So we're very concerned about the discretionary powers granted to the cabinet under this bill, and we are very much opposed to those types of powers.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do support tight, economic controls fairly applied. This party has always adopted that position — that in order to curb inflation, in order to protect our citizens from the ravages of inflation, we must enforce economic controls fairly and across the board. But in view of the Social Credit performance over the past five months in imposing exorbitant rate increases in public-sector rates, fees and premiums, we simply cannot trust that coalition government to apply regulations fairly. We simply cannot trust them with the discretionary powers granted under this Act. We as a caucus, and I personally, simply cannot support this bill. Thank you.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I rise to speak in favour of this bill, Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act, a bill that speaks out against the devastating effects of inflation, a bill that will give the government the security needed to impose regulations when necessary, regulations that will limit the price we pay for food in the supermarket, gas at the pumps, building materials...

MR. SKELLY: Where does it say that?

MR. KEMPF: ...fertilizer for our farmers, as my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) pointed out yesterday, rent paid by senior citizens...

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: ...rent paid by senior citizens, Mr. Speaker — all those things that in the last two months I have heard the members on that side of the House say that they wanted controlled. Yet I hear them one after another stand and speak against this bill. I don't

[ Page 1668 ]

understand it; I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker.

When they were government they imposed on the people of this province those very regulations, imposed them for a 90-day period, and then called an election — turned tail and ran, knowing full well that with the record they had chalked up in this province in the three and a half years they would never have to face the day, never have to face the end of those 90 days, never have to face that moment of truth. Now they speak against this legislation; they oppose this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You lifted them.

MR. KEMPF: I have heard them go on and on about how they are the representatives of the working people of this province, go on and on about how they are here to protect those working people, and they speak against this bill.

I repeat to the hon. members of the opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, what they have said many times to this side of the House: what will your constituents say? What will those working people who you profess to represent say when they hear that you have voted against this bill? What will you tell the people that voted for you? They do not know what responsible government is, Mr. Speaker. They have spent scores of years in opposition, three and a half years in government and they still do not know what responsibility to the people of this province is.

Here is a bill before this House designed to protect all of the people, including those who they profess to represent, and they vote against it. They just don't know, Mr. Speaker. That is not all that they do not know. They do not know who they represent. They do not know who the working people of this province are. They do not know. Are they the mechanics in the shops making $8 an hour? Are they the workers in the sawmills pulling lumber on the greenchain making $1,000 a month? Are they the third-class stenographers in the civil service making $1,200 a month? Are they the small businessmen working 12 hours a day, six and seven days a week and barely making ends meet? Are they the little guys who have their money invested in the large corporations at a return of 4 to 6 per cent on their investment? Who are they? Who do they represent when they speak against this bill?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the new member in the House doesn't realize that you are not to read a speech in second reading of a bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there is a tradition also in the House that members use copious notes. It's for them to refer to their notes as they desire.

MR. KEMPF: Or do they represent, Mr. Speaker, the freeloaders, the unemployed employables on welfare or the thousands on unemployment insurance who really don't want to work in this province? Who do they represent, hon. members of the opposition? Who do you really represent?

Mr. Speaker, because they do not know and speak against Bill 16, I am going to take a little time today to tell them who the working people of this province really are. Oh, yes, we have heard the accusations from those socialists over there. We hear them call us millionaires, wealthy car dealers and hardware store operators. There again, they don't know. But I know who the working people of this province are because I have been there; I have been there and I know. I was born the son of a hardrock miner, a dirt farmer in this province, a man who is now retired and who has given all of his life to this province. He is now retired on the pensions provided by this country and is doing very well on those pensions, hon. members of the opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, but would like to see the regulations that will be brought down in Bill 16 that will ensure that the groceries in the grocery store will not go up.

Mr. Speaker, my first 18 years were spent on a farm.

MR. SKELLY: As a vegetable?

MR. KEMPF: When I graduated from high school I left that farm, not to further my education, Mr. Speaker, because there was no money for that, but to go to work in the mines and in the mills and in the woods of this province, pulling lumber, setting chokers, digging ditches. Yes, because I worked hard and lived in this province, in a province of individual enterprise, I was elevated to management and went from there to a business of my own and from there to this Legislature. Yes, hon. members of the opposition, I made a few dollars. But I worked for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: So you see, Mr. Speaker, I think I know who the working people of this province are. I think also that I know who represents those people and, in fact, all of the people of this province, and that is why, hon. members of the opposition, I am on this side of the House. That is why I support Bill 16, for all of those people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, because those socialists over there, that poor, misled, unorganized bunch of socialists who...

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Pinkos!

MR. KEMPF: ...profess to represent the working

[ Page 1669 ]

people of this province don't know, they speak against Bill 16.

I heard the word "hypocrite" spoken by one over there just previous to my getting up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blasphemy!

MR. KEMPF: Those socialists with their $200,000 homes in Point Grey, their Mercedes cars, their wealthy families, and their huge basements full of our files, that bunch after three and a half years in government left only bills and an empty treasury. They still do not know what responsibility is. There is no more important priority in British Columbia and, in fact, in Canada today than to bring inflation under control. We must do everything in our power to see that that is done.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say that inflation is a worldwide phenomenon which really has very little to do with what is happening in British Columbia. Our inflation rate is, and has been, dangerously above that of major competitors, notably the United States. Clearly we have been doing something wrong. Rather than controls, increased productivity and greater efficiency are needed in British Columbia.

If British Columbians wish to continue to enjoy the high standard of living that they have, they must buckle up, Mr. Speaker. If labour and management are not accountable, and it would appear that they are not, then government must take the next step and provide the deterrent, should it be necessary, to curb that inflation. That is why I support Bill 16.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): No claps? Applause! Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my daughters are in the gallery and I would like the House to indulge for a moment if I could recognize them. I have three daughters, but two of them are here, I believe, this afternoon. They've been excused from St. Margaret's School to hear their dad discuss this most important bill. Let's see, Constance and Beverley, where are you? They're up there some place.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon to oppose the bill...

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): What?

MR. BARNES: ...unfortunately. I say that it is unfortunate because I really was hoping that the government would show a real concern by its actions. I thought that we could really get somewhere when they were suggesting that they were concerned about inflation and that they were going to follow the federal government's programme. I was assuming that they were going to suggest that if the federal government were to clean up its act respecting the guidelines it is suggesting the provinces follow to make it more equitable for the various problems they were faced with, then they would be coming forward and saying the province of British Columbia supports the Anti-Inflation Board programme provided it is equitable for all of the people of the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, they seem to be prepared to accept carte blanche the federal government's recommendations. But, Mr. Speaker, you know I'm just a little bit suspect of the government's motives. You know, they're very good with rhetoric, very good indeed. The reality is that their words don't match their actions.

I had thought this afternoon that I would just say a few words, but once I get on my feet, you know, I become alarmed. I feel that this is something we can't allow to go unchallenged, the kind of things that this government has been suggesting.

Did I hear someone say "such as what"?

"Such a long trip up," he says. Well, that's true. Standing six foot six I guess I have to yell in order to be heard down there where the government is, but I'll do my best, Mr. Speaker. I'll try very hard to try and reach the government, because I believe the government has gone underground in trying to hide from the people's crying voices. The people are trying to reach the car of the Premier. They're trying to say: "Don't! Please don't wage war against us, because we believed you during the last election when you said that we were your most important resource" — that the people were the most important resource — "that we would indicate by our legislation, our Acts, that we put people first, the concerns of people first, the basic essentials that people require to live in dignity and respect in this province first." People, hearing something like that, are bound to pay very close attention.

When they made these pronouncements about their programme, Mr. Speaker. I think they were really thinking in terms of exploitable commodities. You have to learn the language of this coalition government. When it talks about resources, it is talking about resources in respect to management of natural resources and so forth, and people being a resource are equated with natural resources in the sense that they're exploitable commodities — exploitable commodities — to be used, to be manipulated, to be battered about, depending on the needs of the government, as it sees fit. I think it has demonstrated this by the fiscal programme it has introduced under the guise of being a budget of recuperation, a budget that intends to put the province of British Columbia back on its feet again. It will do that at all costs, obviously. The government may be back on its feet, but most of the people will be on their backs.

[ Page 1670 ]

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: There are so many disparities between what this government espouses and what its actions indicate that, for want of a better word, I would almost suggest as criminal the kinds of irresponsible programmes that are being brought in recklessly and ruthlessly. And they call it leadership! "We're going to lead the people back to the road of the good old days," this government says. "We're going to roll everything back." That would be really nice, you know, because if you rolled some things back things would be a lot better for the working people, because the way they're going now it's getting worse.

Personal income taxes the federal government collected during the 1974 and 1975 fiscal period from working people were $10,669 billion. Corporate taxes, over the same period, were $4,285 billion. It's better than two to one. It just gives you an idea about who pays the tab in this country.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Who pays the tab? You want to argue that? You'll get your chance. You stand up. You'll get your opportunity, and I hope you make it good because we're going to study the wage situation as well and talk about the differences between what has happened since 1971 -just as a comparison — the difference between corporate gains and wage gains. We're going to talk about that difference and, believe me, the gap is widening. It's widening very, very much, so much so that I, for one — at least in this one category — would suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea to roll back, to start at a base rate, to go back and take a look at why the unions are struggling so hard to try and maintain parity and try and keep up with corporate gains, with interest gains, with the gains in the private sector where they have the advantage of governments who believe that the cause of inflation is people trying to get equality and equity within the economic system. That's not a philosophy, in my view, that's very encouraging for the masses of the people when they are the ones who must carry the brunt at all times, no matter what the situation, for the government's political gains.

You know, we've mentioned all of the programmes — and I'm going to mention them again — that the government has introduced that have contributed to inflation, but I feel we've got to deal with the general idea, the general atmosphere, that is being perpetrated upon the province of British Columbia by this government. We've got to take a look at the political implications of what the government is doing, not have them wrap us in details and actuarial charts and try to confuse people in terms of percentages here and there. Let's just take a look at what this government is really doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you've interjected one time too many. I was going to leave you alone. That's the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . Mr. Speaker, I believe you perhaps were distracted at the time, but this member was making his speech just a few moments ago and someone interjected after he had indicated that for 18 years he'd working on a farm, diligently and, I'm sure, with a great respect.

I certainly acknowledge that because I did something similar myself, so I don't think we've had that much different in terms of experience and hard work. I also respect your father, whom I understand you feel supports this anti-inflation bill. But I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that someone said that when he was on the farm it was as a vegetable. Did you hear that? I believe, had you heard it, that you would have asked that member to withdraw because although he was on the farm, certainly he's not a vegetable.

AN HON. MEMBER: A flower.

MR. BARNES: Yes, perhaps a flower.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's not rose.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the government's politics must always be kept in mind. Let's take a look at what's really happening with this legislation they've brought in: they are coming around telling everybody that they are all for equality; they're going to get the province back on its feet again and see that everybody's needs are met.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): We're trying.

MR. BARNES: Well, you sure are trying. Yes, I'll say that; you're trying. You tried very hard with ICBC rates which you raised 100, 200, 300 per cent. You're trying very hard.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmunds): To pay your bills.

MR. BARNES: You're trying to do two things at once. You raise the rates — 200, 500 or whatever — it depends.... I know some people who are paying $1,000, $1,200 for public liability, property damage and perhaps some collision, and who were paying before maybe $200 or $300, but these figures are so astronomical now that they've lost all hope of ever really.... You are just committed; you are locked in — the system requires that you drive a car, so you

[ Page 1671 ]

have got to have it. There's no decent commuter services — you're trying to cut back on those which we were attempting to bring in, so the car is really the only hope these people have, and you've locked them in. That's a fixed cost; they have no way out, but you raised the rate 300 or 400 per cent. That's one thing you did before you committed yourselves to the idea of bringing in Bill 16.

You bring in Bill 16 after the fact. Are you going to tell me that you're going to go all the way back down to ICBC, sales tax...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Be quiet and listen, Mr. Member, you'll get your chance in a minute.

...income tax, ferry fares, gasoline, hydro and on and on and on — who knows? Are you going to bring all that back in as soon as you get this Bill 16 through and say: "Fine, we're now subjecting ourselves to AIB, and we want you to roll these things back so that we can make sure that the people believe us when we tell them that we care about inflation." Do you think you're going to do that? No way!

I'll tell you what you're going to do. This is a deliberate attempt for you people to get out of your responsibility for dealing with your public service, comes the time for bargaining. You're going to roll back and try and lock them in, and you're going to try and lock the school teachers into it. But you're going to do all this now that you've got your goodies. You balanced your books but you have balanced them at the expense of the people. That's what this is, a camouflage. It's an attempt for you to hide your true motives, your political motives. You have no intentions of doing anything about inflation.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you'll get your chance in a few minutes. But I'm going to tell you that when I take a look at the kinds of things you've been doing in this province, I have no reason to be excited about any hope.

Take a look at the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and some of the programmes he's bringing in under the guise of being concerned about the people, I'll tell you what he's doing.... You're clapping. Right on! But I'll tell you, freedom of movement for the first time is in jeopardy in this province, because the first thing he did was test it out — he flew a kite and not too many rumbled because most of you people have conned an awful lot of people into believing that the poor person is the cause of inflation, and if we run them out of town we'll balance the books.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Run them right out of the province.

I'll tell you, at the rate you're going you are going to succeed. Now I know what the chief minister of the plan, the Premier, meant when he suggested that in a few years we would see a turn for the better in this economy. He said: "Before long, things will get better." They're going to get better and it'll take a little time. What he meant was that it'll take a little time for us to organize our plans where there can be a little exodus of those people that we no longer need or find desirable. That's what he's doing, and he knows it. He knows that's what he's doing, but he hopes no one will bring it to his attention by turning attention on the people.

But now just tell me, in a free democratic society such as this, where would you fire all those people? We're firing everybody — 1,200 people you want to get rid of in the BCR. You want to get rid of another 400 or so on the B.C. ferries. You got rid of everybody on the Vancouver opportunities programme. You closed down the resource boards. You're putting the squeeze on guys on UIC — on unemployment insurance. You put the squeeze on and you say: "Look, you guys, after two weeks we'll — let you have a little social welfare, but after that we're going to cut you off."

Those people are out there looking for a job, and you claim that they're lazy, shiftless bums and should be shuttled out somewhere else. You just want to get rid of them; you haven't created any jobs. You haven't.

In fact, what have you done for the university students? You know, you've cut that programme by 60 per cent. When the summer comes around, what are you going to do with all those people?

Since you've been in government, you've definitely started to tighten up. You've squeezed everything, including all the people. You know, when you squeeze, you have to have a release someplace. What's happening is that when you squeeze, only those with a pocketful of money can manage to stay. Those with no money have to split. In that way you balance the budget. You get rid of those people who don't fit. It is effective.

It's effective, but it sure isn't democratic, and it certainly doesn't encourage people to feel comfortable in this province and to make it their residence. You don't encourage people as far as their chosen interests; you come out with jokes, insults like: "Get a shovel, " flippant remarks like "If you can't buy insurance, sell your car." Come on! Those are insults from elected officials to people who put them in in good faith. You have no right to take such arrogant attitudes about people. You have a reason to hang your head in shame.

I think you have a duty to come clean and tell us what you really think. I know that we have

[ Page 1672 ]

differences politically, but come clean and tell the people what you really think. Tell them that you're going to close the doors. Tell them that you're going to squeeze things up nice and tight.

You people got together as a coalition, right? You never will get together as a bunch of Socreds, because I'm sure that any self-respecting Socred would be ashamed of the kind of things that you people are bringing forward under their name. So don't tell me that. You've got every shape, cut and style over there. Everything is over there — and all of your own vested interests.

You talk about restraint. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) suggested that he would like to see certain officials in the public service cut 10 per cent off their salaries, but 10 per cent on all that money doesn't make much difference anyway. What about you personally demonstrating to us your desire to cut your profits on your businesses by 50 per cent? Now that would be some kind of leadership, as far as I'm concerned. All you guys who own the cars — why don't you do that personally?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister of Finance, you've been eavesdropping. We have a right to caucus on this side — now you just wait your turn.

I think that we should keep in mind that the best example is by performance. One's own performance is what you go by. All of us should recognize that. We talk about setting examples and say that we're going to take the lead. The Minister of Finance, in his opening remarks during the budget debate, indicated that he was prepared to step up front. The first minister says "we're going to cut our salaries, and we're going to indicate that we're here to give the people leadership, " but the kind of leadership they're providing for them relates very well with what happened back in the Forties, in the Second World War. You lead the people down a very, very treacherous path, and they may end up in a very serious situation.

I'm not going to suggest what that was — it's not the purpose of my discussion today to bring in all of those unpleasant past things of our history — but you can lead people down the path under the guise of helping them when in fact you may intend to put shackles on them. You may intend to lock them up. You say you want them to have freedom of speech and freedom of everything. You say you want them to have the right to go and do their own thing, like the right to work, and the people say: "Why, the right to work — now that's a good democratic principle! We're all for them!" I'm sure each of you members over there on the government side will say: "What's wrong with that? That's democratic." — except for one thing, which is that your politics is through conquering by dividing.

If you get too many people organized and together in groups that's a problem, so you tell them one by one: "My friends, you stand alone — don't stand together, stand separately." Look what you've done to all those people in ICBC. I'm just giving you an example of why this anti-inflation thing is a big hoax. No way will it every resolve the problem because you are picking on a certain group of people from a certain segment of the population.

You are doing nothing against inflation as far as interest is concerned on loans and financial institutions. You're doing nothing about the profit margin, and there's nothing you can do under this type of legislation. Why don't you face it? You come down with a blanket programme and say we're going to fix the base rate at some point. You want to go back in time, fine. I'm quite willing to do that, because as far as I'm concerned the working people in this province are losing. I'd love to go back to find a point where things were a little more equitable, and then we'll work out the value from there and say that's where we're going to peg everything, including our profits, including gains from investments, including wages, including the whole works — but not just one side, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's all right, but I'll tell you that we're going to have some fun, though, watching you people dig your own graves, because that's exactly what you're doing. I think that you just went too far with your politics. You see, it's all right to use rhetoric, but there's one way to get people angry at you. You can talk all you want, but when you reach in their pockets and take their money in this society, they start getting mad. I'll tell you, you fellows have fleeced the people in this province, you have cleaned them out, you have taken every dime they've got, and you still try to get more! You try to tell them that they should lock themselves into a system where you can sew them up for the next 18 months. You guys are incredible — absolutely incredible! You know that, Mr. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . It's just incredible.

You people are fortunate who live out there where you can get lots and grow a little garden if you want to. You know, that member said he lived on a farm, but I'll tell you that the people in my riding have no opportunity to grow their own vegetables. I'm sure they would like to. Perhaps you might want to consider the programme that was brought in when we were the government to provide plots, if you haven't abandoned that. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if you've abandoned the availability of those plots we used to make for people who wanted to grow their own gardens. I hope we still have that.

[ Page 1673 ]

You should expand it — it's a good idea — because they're going to need it.

But at the same time you'd better give them some means whereby they can extract some resources from the land and perhaps provide their own energy as well, you know, for heating and for lighting, give them some kind of manufacturing situation where they can put together their own textiles and make their own clothing. Maybe we'll have to go all the way back to the days when people had to be more self-reliant because this system that we're locked into now and this government's plan is a straight political hoax. It is not intended to stymie inflation. It is intended to put people in their places, put the people of this province in their places, all working people. They are going to be subjected to controls on how much they can earn, while at the same time there is no guarantee that the corporations will be squeezed on the other end in terms of what they can extract.

Mr. Speaker, somebody was challenging me on some of my sources. This particular source was referred to previously in this debate by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who was quoting Dr. Michael Broadfield of the Dalhousie University who just gave a brief review on historical change of income and profits by the corporations, by those lending institutions, as far as interest income is concerned, wages and salaries, and those people who are locked into manufacturing plants, and the wages.

Now he went back to 1971. Corporations had a net profit increase of 12.9 per cent in 1971. Now in 1972 they got 21.1; 1973, 35.7; 1974 they had a drop and went down to 28.4 per cent profit. Now let's compare that with the wages and salaries. So compared to 12.9 in 1971, wages and salaries were increased 9.7 per cent; in 1972 it was 10.9 against 21.1; in 1973 it was 12.4 against 35.7; and in 1974 it was 16.7 to 28.4. Now you talk about the effect of change historically between those two figures and you get some idea why I suggest that in some respects it might not be a bad idea to go back. Because if you go back we will lessen the gap between people who work for an income and those people who exploit those people for their income.

This is one of the problems we face in this free society, but unfortunately the government's attitude and philosophy is one which says the people were here to be exploited. That's what they mean by resource — an exploitable commodity to be used to maintain the economy for those people who happen to have the financial strength to stand up and do the job. They're the ones that they're protecting. That's what this legislation is all about, Bill 16. It is a clear attempt to try and indicate to the people further that it is the working people, one way or the other, who must take the brunt of all economic responsibility when this government has many options open to it, many other options.

It doesn't have to take this narrow view in trying to deal with its fiscal management, Mr. Speaker. For one thing, not only will it not work and is doomed to failure, this particular approach to deal with anti-inflation, but this government has taken a very narrow view in terms of its responsibility on a national basis and on an international basis; and this programme, instead of being one that stimulates and recognizes changes in social patterns and economic requirements and the potential for developing new and better means of achieving and developing a provincial product and the gross national product, they're still using as the method of exploiting the individual through taxation measures.

Until I had cause to investigate some of the factors involved because of this legislation, it was really news to me that working people carry such a load respecting the total revenue for the various levels of government. You know, when you thing about it, we haven't had politicians in office who are all that imaginative. They're returning very little to the people, very little.

They're telling the people that we have no money of our own, that the only way we can obtain the money is through taxation. "We have to tax you" — that's the fundamental basis upon which this society works.

But the problem is: why is it that there are so many rich people and so many poor people? Why is it that we have in this province 110,000 people out of work, and something like almost nine million across the nation, and that we right now lead the country in terms of our share of the unemployed? Why is it that that can happen in a system where we believe in equality and equal opportunity? There are people we accuse of being hard-core welfare cases who have no hope of ever getting off the welfare rolls, and you know it.

Mr. Minister, you bring in your shovels, you bring in all your programmes, but until you can come in this House and stand up and say that we are going to eliminate unemployment — eliminate unemployment, Mr. Member....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, you've got to eliminate unemployment. When are you going to get rid of unemployment? There are people out there who want to work who you are calling bums. There are people out there who want to work and can't work. There are many of them who are professionals, many of them who have tried, and yet you file those people who have put in 50,100 applications and cannot get jobs because they are not available. They haven't been and they won't be under your government, and you know it. You have no intention of doing anything about it.

[ Page 1674 ]

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): They have a lot better chance with us than with you.

MR. BARNES: You have no intention of doing anything about it. It's rising all the time. You keep that in mind when you want to try to frighten the people on welfare and on unemployment, the people who are trying to get jobs, those who have graduated from universities. You are cutting back, tightening up, squeezing and telling people that they are lazy bums. Come off that!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You said that; I didn't.

MR. BARNES: They are not lazy bums. You talk about their long hair. You talk about their dress. You tell them that they can't live in this section, that they should be living over here, You've got all kinds of reasons for justifying your inactivity and irresponsibility as far as getting jobs for people. Come up with some programmes. You've laid off more people than you've created jobs for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Do you know how many people you've laid off since you've been in government? An astronomical figure.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Ten thousand.

MR. BARNES: You couldn't even begin to think about how many there are because of the ripple effect. You think, "well, we'll lay off a few here, " but how many of those people, do you think, also have responsibilities and families and people who are committed? You make it very subtle when you put 400 people in jeopardy who are on the ferries because of some technological changes that you have in mind. That's right, because you're going to change the ferry system, That's what it amounts to.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Technological changes? Come on!

MR. BARNES: That's what it amounts to, because technically what you should do is consider the people first before you consider efficiency. Do you want to stand up and argue that? I'm ready, Mr. Minister. I'll tell you, every one of those people can't, in their view, see why they should not have a job because of your backroom plans that you think you are going to get a little more efficiency and have a little more money for the budget — a little more money for the budget! But what's going to happen in the ripple effect to those people's lives? They go out there into the market and they can't find any work. You say: "Well, we'll always give them first priority on the jobs that are available in the public service." There are no jobs available in the public service. You have an attrition programme there. What kind of a game are you playing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who started that programme?

MR. BARNES: You said in the last election that you were going to get rid of all those people who are working in the public service through attrition. You said: "We won't fire anybody, but we are not going to hire anybody either." So you tell those guys: "Well, look, we're going to put you to work. You get first choice. Mind you, we can't raise you. We'll have to lower you. We can't raise your position. We'll give you a job that's equal to the one you have." These people are working in the kitchen. There's no way you're going to give them a job anywhere, and you know it. They've had it. You are being irresponsible and you're going to pay for it come the next election. You're going to pay for it because those people will be down and out and they are not going to recover. The only hope for you is that you do such a good job that they'll leave the province. Perhaps that's what you have in mind. You're going to run them right out of the province. Once they are gone, then you have a balanced budget and you have no dissenters. You are in a perfect position to say' "See what we did. Everything is like it was in the good old days. There's nobody but us and our friends left in the province of British Columbia."

What are you going to do about rent freezes? Now we had a bill which we brought in — 10.6 per cent. In the last election we suggested it should be 8 per cent, and I had hoped to get through with an idea where you might even want to go a step further, because the first minister suggested that he would like to put the public sector — purchasing, et cetera — into third-party hands so that there will be no interference or influence by government: "We want everything to be aboveboard." Now that's a good idea. But now that he's made all the changes, he's going to get rid of the one that's political dynamite and say "we're clean." I will go along with part of that thinking because, without being political, it's a good idea to put these things into the hands of third parties so there is no danger of political influence and games-playing like you did with ICBC. I'd like to see those things in.

Let's take a look at the rental situation. We have a carte blanche. It was 10.6 per cent. You say, "we won't life it," but it gets good the longer you leave it.

[ Page 1675 ]

Do you know what's happened in the last three years? It was 8 per cent the first year, 10.6 the last two years. That's a 33 per cent raise and in seven years that's over a 100 per cent increase. We've got to get rid of it. You can't leave that. You can't sit and say: "Well, we won't take it off." It was a good thing as an interim measure, but it's no good as a permanent situation. You have to take it off and move fast. Right now you should be bringing in legislation, if you care about anti-inflation and stopping those landlords. You don't hear them crying any more because the longer you leave it on the better it gets — the better it gets. It was never intended to be on that long.

Now you come in with a bill which says that first we are going to lower it to 8 per cent and then we are going to bring in rent review boards and we are going to discuss the economic factors around each rental unit based on the situation, including the capital investment, the kind of return that's needed, the whole situation that's required. In that way, we may have only 1, 2, 3 per cent in some cases, 4 or 5 in others but no more of this flat 10.6. It's not relevant.

Now you see what the AIB is doing. They don't stick to the guidelines and they brought them in; they deal with situations on their own merits. Now why can't you follow that? You said you were going to bring this bill in and you want to follow it. Then show it right now. It's a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate your sincerity.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to remove the rent freezes?

MR. BARNES: You follow through on that bill. You do on this bill what you said you were going to do. Do you recall what your Premier said? Do you know what he said when he was just going out?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to remove the rent freeze?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, lower it.

MR. BARNES: Who said anything about lowering it? I said make the thing work. I didn't say lift the freeze.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: If I said lift the freeze, Mr. Member, believe me, it was a mistake.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I didn't say it. What I said was, you lower that 10.6 to 8. Then you bring in the boards and start to deal with the local economic factors that are involved in that particular situation. In some cases you will have 5 per cent, 3 per cent, 2, 1 or whatever, but no more of this flat 10.6. That's what I said. It's about time you did something about that before it's too late.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's 8 per cent in 10 years?

MR. BARNES: What did you say?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: If you leave it where it is right now, in seven years or less it will have doubled. It will have doubled. We can't call that anti-inflation, allowing something like that to exist on the books — no way.

The first minister made some very interesting statements as far as his intentions were concerned. This was back on April 9. He stood in this House and said: "Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I have made it clear on several different occasions that British Columbia supports the spirit and intention of the national wage and price controls." That's what he said. "We intend to provide strong provincial leadership towards that same goal, " he said. "We intend both to preach and practise restraint and have already demonstrated" — get that one! — "We have already demonstrated, " he said, "this attitude in many, many ways. The actions that we have taken to date indicate our sincerity." I added that little bit because that's what he was trying to do, convince the people. But really, what has he done? I'll tell you. He's got the bill now. I don't know what's coming up next but you'd better hurry then and get it in quick — commit yourselves quick — before it's too late because pretty soon everything will be sky-high.

You people have broken those rules that you care about so much. How can you justify that? We must tell the people of the province of British Columbia what you have done. Do you realize that you have exceeded the guidelines of the AIB in everything you have done? Do you know what the actual effect of your increase on social services tax was? Forty per cent. You got away with saying: "We raised it 2 percentage points to 7 per cent." But that's 40, per cent. It was 5 per cent before, right? Forty per cent. He raised about 15 per cent on personal income tax. You raised the hospital insurance by 50 per cent. You went from 400 to 700 per cent on hospitalization in some cases between intermediate and intensive, I believe. Are those two different? All right. You just keep on going: B.C. Ferries, 100 per cent. I read in one case there on one of the Gulf Islands that they said it was 400 per cent. Well, you've wiped out the island, you know; you've really done a good job on

[ Page 1676 ]

the island. The capital city is now only for the elite, only for the chosen few who can afford $100 a trip, which is what it amounts to when you bring those Winnebagos over here. You see what's going to happen to those people when they can't ride those buses — you know, those long buses with the families in them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I draw your attention to the fact that you are on your final two minutes?

MR. BARNES: Ten minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Two minutes.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. Okay, I will say this: you have effectively brought in legislation that has run all the people who are in a loose situation, as far as their economic base is concerned, right back to the places where they can get jobs. Otherwise they are no longer provided their right to exist where they choose. Because the government for expedient reasons said: "You're going to have to go here. Otherwise we are not going to help you." But that is a very serious principle upon which to base your government, hon. members. Believe me, it is very serious.

It may be expedient for now but you have got to live with that attitude. When you do something like that you can't get rid of it, you know. You really did tell people that they can't stay here; they've got to move. I think that is a serious breach of a democratic society's principles. You accuse us of all kinds of games and deals with God and so forth when WAC was in. But really, you people are very tricky — very, very tricky indeed.

So Mr. and Madam Members, when I think of what you have done in your legislation and in your orders-in-council without even the benefit of discussion in the House, I have no question in my mind about the political objectives of your party and of this coalition under the guise of Social Credit calling themselves the government. You people have very, very particular goals in mind. They are not all that much connected with the concerns or the people of the province of British Columbia or you would care about all of them — not just some of them, but all of them. You have demonstrated that you care about balancing your budget.

In conclusion I would like to refer you to a little joke that was in the Times. I know my time is up. This will only take a second — just four frames. Most of you probably read it but for the sake of posterity I'm going to read it.

This is about some guy who looks like the former, former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I don't know if it is, because I'm not an authority on art. But there's a little fellow who looks like his son here — I don't know who he really is either. Anyway, this says: "Tell me, now you've convinced everyone that the province is poor, and raised taxes, cut services and got free-enterprise back, what will you do with all that money?" And the little fellow looks up there at his daddy and says: "I'll declare a huge surplus and show them what excellent managers we are." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre, I rise to speak in support of Bill 16. I will say that after listening to that hon. member, I now believe I know the reason why the NDP has just been renamed the hurricane party — it's a big wind that goes around in circles. (Laughter.)

Seriously, the debauchery of B.C.'s economy, started by and encouraged by the late socialist government, is now ended. The former government did more to boost inflation than any single factor when it gave itself and its employees wage increases big enough to make a national trend of provincial disaster.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is the basic cause of the distortions that are now wrecking the world about us. Inflation breeds fear, and fear spawns selfishness, which in turn becomes outright greed. That philosophy, espoused by the former government, has led to the overturn of a basic society that once was the best in the country, the society we enjoyed, the living we enjoyed in the province of British Columbia.

Last year we witnessed huge wage increases. B.C. Hydro bus drivers were offered something like 40 per cent raises to bring their wages to $17,000 a year. The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union asked for a 48 per cent increase for a one-year contract. The IWA sought a 33 per cent increase. And the former government encouraged this irresponsible trend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over what period?

MR. KERSTER: Well, I think it was three years, three months, 11 days, nine hours, seven minutes and 14 seconds, Mr. Member.

The former Transport minister, Bob Strachan, allowed himself and the province to be blackmailed into giving ferry workers a phenomenal wage increase, setting off a new high in wage mismanagement in this province. I believe that those trends were somewhere along 18 per cent to unlicensed employees, 48 per cent increases to licensed employees. The workday was reduced to seven and a half hours from eight hours. That gives a half-hour-a-day overtime, and that gives them, if you can figure it out rapidly — maybe your financial genius over there can figure it out with his new mathematics...oh, he's not there? — an extra 10 per cent over and above the rates I've just

[ Page 1677 ]

quoted.

When I used that term "blackmail" I meant just that. I quote out of the Daily Colonist, Wednesday, August 22, 1973 — that was a very bad day, a black day in British Columbia: "Strachan Spells Out Gun-at-head Settlement."

We get into the fine print here: "Transport Minister Robert Strachan frankly admitted Tuesday that the unlicensed B.C. Ferry workers 'held a gun to our heads' in securing a wage settlement to their five-day strike." He went on to say: "People must realize we had a gun to our heads." When a reporter suggested that the government had been blackmailed, and asks that this might not happen again, Strachan replied: "Well, that could be; we'll just have to wait and see." Strong, very, very strong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Bob now?

MR. KERSTER: I think he's in jolly old....

When anyone can rationalize such attitudes as being anywhere close to reasonable in a province that lives by its resources and its exports, then we're living in a society that's rapidly going berserk — or at least it was.

We had to endure a government that sat idly by during such criminal attacks on fiscal common sense, a gutless government who were guilty of letting the so-called democracy, which they call a socialist democracy, run amuck. Some unions were not in a fight to protect their members against real cost increases but were on a muscle-bound ego trip — they were holding guns to people's heads, supposedly or allegedly.

When society is frightened and in turmoil because of its fear of the future, and when weak and irresponsible governments abdicate their responsibilities, then the spoils go to the tough.

The philosophy of some unions is simple: if another trade gets $15,000, then our tradesmen are worth $20,000; if a garbage collector gets $9 an hour, then our workers are worth $10 an hour, and so on down the line, up the line. If, as a result our senior citizens are short-changed, then an abstract and uncaring government can print money to give to them.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Stay with me, Mr. Member; I like to be alone.

Bill 16 is legislation that evokes a same approach to a very, very serious problem, a problem that that opposition, that former government put us right into. You talked about shovelling things. Where is that second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)? He departed; he's up having another gallon of coffee. Well, he talked about shovelling things away and the use of the shovels. Well, I'll tell you what; you shovelled money right into a furnace and you cleaned that mess up in a hurry.

The Premier of this province today has to resort to old-fashioned and sometimes rather quaint expressions that seem out of place in a socialist utopia — expressions such as "belt-tightening by everyone" and "self-discipline." Those are old-fashioned. Self-discipline — something we could surely use right now. The Premier is right; he's a realist. That's the difference; he's a realist: only belt-tightening hurts all of us, and that's the cure for the problem that we're presently in in this province. He states very plainly that it will not be a painless cure, but it will be far better than ongoing insanity, prescribed by the former government, that was undermining our whole society in the province.

The cabinet started positively. It set the standard for the province by instituting wage cuts in government. We didn't raise our pay; we cut our pay — and we cut your pay too, much to your chagrin — rather than the 100 per cent increases prescribed by the former government. Now the hon. Premier is showing greater courage than his predecessor, who was fueling inflation rather than fighting it — and you all know that — a predecessor who showed no signs of leadership and no trace of fiscal responsibility or any responsibility whatsoever.

The situation now is too far gone for us to sit idly by and listen to any more of this nonsense and rhetoric that's pouring from the other side of the House. We must return to a responsible government, and we have returned to a responsible government. We are taking positive action.

Now this bill isn't popular; rather it's a temporary measure. I think if you read the thing..for those of you who are able in the opposition to comprehend the meaning of the bill, if you read that bill, you'll see that it's a temporary measure; it's not an attack on labour. And that's where you are trying to mislead the people of this province into believing that this is an outright attack on labour. You are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Bill 16 is simply a mechanism whereby maximum commodity prices can be fixed, after review, on a very equitable basis with both wages and services. Thank you.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised to hear the discussion across the floor about Bill 16 when we read in section 2 that the purpose of the Act is to authorize the investigation of the effect on inflation of prices and commodities and services, and see cooperation with Canada in carrying out an anti-inflation programme.

I must say I'm quite surprised that any member of this House who listens to his constituents could stand up and object to the passage of a bill such as Bill 16,

[ Page 1678 ]

because if I read my constituents correctly, and I hope I do, I would say that at least 95 per cent of all my constituents would certainly favour an investigation to find out why prices are going crazy and all of these things are happening in our society. I would say that we're definitely on a downhill run into national suicide unless we take action.

There's no one group I think we should point a finger at; I think every one of us in society is to blame. I think it's a simple thing of all of us trying to get a quart out of a pint bottle. Our economy isn't large enough to take care of all of the demands we make upon our economy at this particular time.

I certainly support this legislation, because every single person in my constituency will lose unless we can bring inflation under control. I think we must be fair to all, because the pensioners and those on fixed incomes are the ones, of course, that can be hurt first.

We hear quite often from across the floor: "We represent the little people." I would say that they don't represent the little people at all, because if they did represent the little people, certainly they would be speaking up for the pensioner and the person on a fixed income who does get hurt first by inflation.

I would be the first to agree that the federal prices and income commission has made many mistakes, but I would say its greatest mistake is that they haven't been tough enough. They haven't been tough enough. Certainly in the case of the Ontario teachers, where they allowed a 15 per cent increase, this was not right, and there are many other cases that I could bring to your attention.

For instance, it's not fair in allowing 15 per cent increases when the Kitimat Alcan workers were held at a firm 10 per cent. I was hoping that the federal Prices and Incomes Commission would hold firmly, except on very rare occasions.

One thing we must all accept is that both the federal and provincial governments had to take action or the whole country would lose. All of the social programmes those across the way are so fond of taking credit for will collapse too, unless inflation is kept under control.

I remember very clearly what the former Social Credit Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, said. I know members sitting there right now remember these statements; certainly the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) would. He said: "Unless we can keep inflation down to 6.5 per cent we will destroy our position in foreign trade." Now we've done exactly that in three short years: we've destroyed our position in foreign trade.

What did we hear from the opposition at that time when we were talking about 6.5 per cent maximum? The opposition was crying: "You've got lots of money. You've got a surplus of $579 million. Get out and spend it. Give the teachers their 20 per cent. Give everyone else their 20 per cent, and everything will be well." Then when they came into government they allowed settlements of as high as 20 and even 40 per cent in the civil service. These settlements are what made my constituents in the depressed state they are today. They led the way, and the northern municipalities were saddled with increased costs of 21 to 23 per cent. How could the municipalities sit back and say, "We won't pay, " when they could say, "The government, in this class, allowed a 40 per cent increase to the civil servants"? They threw gasoline on the fire to make inflation spread rapidly during the three short years that they were in government.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Right on!

MR. SHELFORD: Not only didn't they pay their own bills, but they spent over $1 billion more than they made. For instance, there was a surplus of $579 million, and now there is a deficit of over $540 million.

MR. COCKE: Where do you get your crazy figures, Cyril?

MR. SHELFORD: This in itself, by increasing the wages by up to 20 and 40 per cent, helped to destroy our ability to compete on foreign markets, and the forest industry couldn't possibly keep up. I used to sit in offices up north and they'd say: "I lost my secretary. I lost this." And I'd say: "How come?" And they'd say: "Well, they went to work for the government because they've increased their rates so much that they can make $200 more working for the government than they can working for us in the forest industry." So we inflated our prices, and that is the main reason why there are so many mills shut down and why....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. SHELFORD: I thought I did.

I would say this is the main reason why we have so much unemployment today. I would like to know how many people are unemployed in British Columbia today because of the inflation that was created by those sitting across the floor during those three years.

I would say that if there's any proper criticism coming from across the floor today it shouldn't be against a bill such as Bill 16; the criticism should be that governments as far back as 10 years ago should have taken severe action. We could see what was happening, and a lot of people stood up and said what was going to happen. The former Social Credit

[ Page 1679 ]

Premier said that if we went over 6.5 per cent in Canada we would no longer be able to compete with the United States and, of course, all of the countries in the other parts of the world.

If this had been done, then the tax increases that were referred to this afternoon wouldn't have happened because we wouldn't have had to find the extra dollars to pay our civil servants and other groups. If all of us had been on a lower level we'd have been in a better position. I'll admit we wouldn't have as many dollars in our pockets, but we'd be able to buy just as much.

I'd say the best deal that the workers of Canada ever had, in my memory — I wasn't there at the time to enjoy it because I was overseas — was during World War II, when there were controls. The worker got a better deal during the wartime controls than he's ever had since. Since then it has been like a step ladder approach: one group has got up here, the next one wants parity, and then they want to get parity with someone else. The scream for years was "parity with the U.S." Parity with the U.S. Is what destroyed our ability to compete and what has hurt the workers of this part of Canada and, in fact, all parts of Canada.

I would say that every one of us in this House has a responsibility that if we disagree with the federal guidelines we should stand up and offer an alternative which is better. I thank you very much.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the statistics the member for Skeena was quoting. I wonder how it happened that when he can come up with such fantastic figures as that, he wasn't made Minister of Finance. Because I'm sure, if he had been able to come up with those kind of figures, we might have been able to have ferry rates that were quadrupled and ICBC rates....

MR. SHELFORD: Read the order-in-council when we left government.

MS. BROWN: Order! Order!

MRS. WALLACE: I would suggest that there is a great variety of difference between the figures that member was quoting and the figures the Minister of Finance was able to produce, which were still far from accurate and which I think have been questioned very ably by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the question before the House, I would like to state first that I am very strongly in favour of any measure that would really control inflation, that would get to the root of the problem and would bring about an equitable distribution of the wealth of this province and this country. I would be very much in favour of measures that would bring to our country a control of our economy and our resources. But this Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, is a flim-flam measure. It's called an Anti-Inflation Measures Act but it is aimed at one thing and one thing only and that is the control of wages.

The hon. Minister of Finance said when he introduced this bill that it has two primary objectives. The first is to empower the government to sign an agreement with Ottawa under the national anti-inflation programme. Mr. Speaker, surely this government cannot be serious in their attempt to become a part and parcel of that unworkable form of legislation. The federal government's bill and its amendment is nothing but a sick practical joke on the people of Canada. Actually, it's not a practical joke; it's an impractical joke. The coalition government wants us to support this bill to back up the anti-inflation programme when they are the single largest contributors to inflation in the history of the province.

This government went to Ottawa in December and made clear the commitment of the Social Credit to fight inflation. That was lip service, Mr. Speaker, and nothing more than lip service. To sign an agreement with the federal government on the anti-inflation Act would be a step backwards for the people of British Columbia.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

This government is not interested in fighting inflation, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest. They preach restraint and austerity to the people of this province but instead they go out and their actions speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, we have just come through five months of the most inflationary government action in the history of this province, and I would venture to suggest, any place in the world.

It has been repeated, but I think it bears repeating again, Mr. Speaker, that car insurance is up from 100 to 300 per cent, B.C. Hydro rates are up 12 per cent....

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Car accidents are way down. Did you notice that?

MRS. WALLACE: Rent controls have been dropped as far as the small businessman goes, and they've allowed personal home rents to increase to a greater extent. The sales tax is up 40 per cent, Mr. Speaker, a regressive tax — increased 40 per cent. Income tax is up, without any exemptions at the lower income level. We're giving people pensions and Mincome and then we're taxing it back from them. Medical premiums have increased by 50 per cent.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Someone has got to pay your bills.

[ Page 1680 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Acute hospital care is up 400 per cent; extended care is up 700 per cent, up because of the punitive actions of that government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Gasoline is going up $2 a barrel, maybe more. B.C. Ferries is up 100 per cent. The cost of living has gone up according to the statistics just released, by some 2.4 points. That's what this government has done in this past five short months. Now they want to bring in anti-inflation measures, Mr. Speaker. Those measures better be retroactive and they better start by rolling back the increases they have instigated.

I don't trust this government. I don't think they are really concerned about rolling back prices. They're not concerned about rolling back profits, because when you roll back prices that does roll back profits. Profits are what make millionaires, and that's the group that this coalition government is out to protect. That's the group they're protecting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Hogwash!

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Consumer Services (Mr. Mair), said he doesn't believe in tinkering in the marketplace. That's what he said early in his ministry, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that that's where this government is at. They don't believe in tinkering in the marketplace. They don't intend to control prices. It's wages that they intend to control, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said, when he introduced the bill, that it is to put legal authority behind the regulation, investigation and reviewing of prices within the province. But this bill is full of loopholes — holes big enough to drive a truck through.

We see where the loyalties of this government lie, and there's no doubt in my mind that the priorities and the real problems of inflation will not be tended to by this coalition government of millionaires and car dealers, Mr. Speaker.

This bill will add nothing to the federal legislation. It will do nothing except legalize and extend the powers of the federal Anti-Inflation Board, and it will extend those powers over the income of the workers of this province.

I would like to quote a brief column from the Guardian, November 1975, relating to the federal Anti-Inflation Board when it was first introduced.

"Wages are already restrained by the process of collective bargaining itself, while prices are imposed unilaterally. Wages are easy to control because they are negotiated in the full glare of public light and each penny is accounted for, while prices and profits are decided behind the closed doors of the corporation offices."

It goes on to say:

"The officials of the newly created Anti-Inflation Board and various ministers of government are vying with each other to assure the financial community: that the food processing and distributing industry is not responsible for inflation; that dividends will be protected, that oil, gas and hydro will be allowed to rise in price; that land speculators will not be interfered with; and that the increasing mortgage and interest rates will go unchecked."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is the thrust behind this piece of legislation: it deals with wages and not with prices.

Let's review some of the things that have gone on with the Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Speaker. What are some of the actions? On wages there has been case after case — at the last reading I heard 219 cases handled, with a backlog of 3,800 cases, all dealing with wages, Mr. Speaker. There were limitations, rollbacks, and even an order in one instance to repay wages that had been advanced and questioned as to the legality of whether or not they can repay. Repayment, in fact, Mr. Speaker, is the function of the board's administrator only. The board is capriciously assuming powers unto itself in order to intimidate workers and their organizations by rolling back prices, Mr. Speaker.

And what about prices? What has happened? Not too much, I can assure you. The board was making a list, we read. I would suggest it's making a list and is checking it twice, Mr. Speaker. Santa Claus is coming down the chimney. That's what's happening, Mr. Speaker: Santa Claus is coming down the chimney.

"Double Jump Soon in Gasoline Prices.

"Anti-Inflation Board officials are ready to clear the way for several large oil companies to raise their product prices to consumers, sources said Friday.

"Imperial Oil was given permission April 8 to increase its prices.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's the truth that hurts. All we want is a little fair play, and here we are — Santa Claus is doubting the price of gas, jumping it up, and increasing the profits to Imperial Oil.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Imperial Oil doesn't really need that kind of an increase. Figures from the annual report of Imperial Oil, the largest oil company in Canada, show that despite sizeable increases in operating revenues and after-tax profits, Imperial spent no more on exploration in 1975 than

[ Page 1681 ]

it did in 1972.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You drove them out of the province!

MRS. WALLACE: They're not using those extra funds to do the exploration they say they are going to do, Mr. Speaker. What about their profits? The profits of Imperial Oil, Gulf and Shell between 1970 and 1974 rose from $195 million to $593 million, Mr. Speaker. That's between 1970 and 1974. That's what happened to the profits, and no more was spent on exploration. Now the Anti-Inflation Board is going to sit back and allow Imperial Oil to raise the price by another $2 a barrel. I would suggest that that is Santa Claus coming down the chimney, Mr. Speaker.

Here's another one. "Commodities Get a Break From AIB. The Anti-Inflation Board announced Friday that the companies dealing in certain internationally priced commodities will be exempt from regulations restricting price increases to one every 90 days." We don't get wage increases restricted to every 90 days. It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that some companies are even exempt from that, and they can apply in seven days, Mr. Speaker.

Copper, metal, minerals — and here's another one, Mr. Speaker. It's entitled "Inflation Dodge." It was in The Province, May 5, 1976.

"Toronto. Canada Manoir Industries Ltd. Is looking for acquisition from the United States rather than in Canada because of the federal government's anti-inflation regulations, Pat Cleaver, company president said. He told the company's annual meeting the additional business in Canada would push the company over the 500 employee cut-off for mandatory compliance to anti-inflation regulations."

They now employ 490 people so they're going to extend in the United States, Mr. Speaker. There are so many ways around the regulations for companies to control profits, to control prices, and it's the wage earner that's being controlled.

Here is a company that's bragging about it, Mr. Speaker. "Chrysler confirms it's a bookkeeping matter. Chrysler is in much better shape than people think and could now make large amounts of money, " according to Chrysler's chief financial officer in a Detroit Free Press story last November.

The article described how "crafty financial manoeuvring" is rapidly shrinking the company's red ink column. "Gallagher said that despite having lost about $400 million a year, Chrysler is making money and has reason to be optimistic about its future."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If they're making a profit you'd better hit them.

MRS. WALLACE: So it's all a matter of bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker. It's all a matter of bookkeeping.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better hit them.

MRS. WALLACE: And, of course, there are other ways, Mr. Speaker, that the Anti-Inflation Board can be influenced. This is an article from The Colonist, Mr. Speaker, and it's headed: "Kellogg Takes Them All On; Food Firm Faces the Facts of Life." I would like to read it into the record because I think this is very important, Mr. Speaker.

"The president of one of Canada's largest food manufacturers Monday gave all who would listen a bit of a lesson in the power of positive thinking. Arnold Langbo, 39, of Toronto, president and chief executive officer of Kellogg Salada Canada, told a group of marketing men how his company was meeting some of the slings and arrows being directed at his boardroom and suggested that some of them could be handling them the same way."

And he goes on to say:

"The latest headline-makers, the Anti-Inflation Board regulations, Kellogg meets head on, Langbo said. Even though they suspect that they weren't really needed and are likely short-lived. 'No, the thing that perhaps concerns us quite a bit, ' Langbo said, 'is that there's a growing indication that some companies are showing a willingness to sacrifice long-term planning for short-term exigencies.'

"The forceful young president said that the AIB rules recently helped his firm reach new contract agreements with five unions."

Then it went on to say:

"Langbo is a firm believer that companies should keep their lines of communication open with governments. Towards that end, a senior financial man at Kellogg Salada is on leave from the firm and working on the AIB in Ottawa. 'Our reasons are several. If the government's going to be regulating our business, we very much want the AIB to fully understand the nature and characteristics. What better way than to have a responsible, confident industry adviser on the spot.' "

We are asked to believe that this is an unbiased board that is going to bring in the same kind of findings on behalf of the workers of this province and this country as it will bring in on behalf of those who are making the profits from their companies.

It's a neat little package, Mr. Speaker, and it's all tied up with ribbon and tinsel.

There are so many ways of getting around the controls, and they go right down even to the managerial staff, Mr. Speaker. When you negotiate a wage agreement, it's cut and dried. You're a

[ Page 1682 ]

tradesman, or you're an apprentice, or you're a helper and the rate is set. But when you are a manager you may get a 10 per cent wage increase, but there's nothing in the books that says that you can't be moved from a manager 1 to a manager 2 or a manager 3, with no change in responsibilities or duties. By those kinds of moves your actual rate for the same work is increasing many, many times more than 10 per cent or whatever rate is allowed to the wage-earner.

The corporate profits keep increasing, the interest keeps increasing — but the wages and salaries are not keeping up. The profits between 1971 and 1974 of multinational corporations, the profit increase is 15.5 per cent between '71 and '74. Interest income has increased in the same period by 20.5 per cent. But what has happened to wages and salaries? Overall wages and salaries have increased only 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and if you get right down....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MRS. WALLACE: In the four-year period, that's true. They've gone from 9.7 to 16.7 increase, and manufacturing wages have gone from 9 per cent to 13.5 or an increase of 4.5 per cent. So I suggest that wages haven't kept pace with profits or with interest increases.

This has left the farmer in the squeeze too, because he is one of the wage-earners. He is caught in the squeeze; he is blamed by the public. His income is at a low ebb. Many farmers are trapped in an intolerable situation. The president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, speaking in a recent press release, noted the example of the producers of peas, beans and corns, who have been told they must take a 10 per cent price cut from last year even though their production costs have escalated by 15 per cent.

We are proposing to go into a price-fixing situation when the farmer's return is at a low ebb. The Land Commission — the pressures are on the farmland. He is being pressed to leave his land. Two or three per cent of B.C. adults are engaged in farming; not more than 2 per cent work at it full-time in this province.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must protect our farmers. If we are to freeze them at an untenable level and if we don't protect their land — if we force more and more out of business — then we become more and more dependent on imports, more and more in the hands of the multinational concerns as far as control over the cost of our food. I suggest that this bill is starting at the wrong end of the stick, Mr. Speaker; it is starting at the wrong end. It is starting to control those people who have the least.

We have set up some limits within the Anti-Inflation Board whereby, if a person is earning the minimum income — the minimum wage; I think it's up to $3.50 an hour — that is uncontrolled. But when we go to the top level, we're finding that there is a comparison of something like $650 as opposed to $2,400 that a person is allowed under the rules and regulations of the Anti-inflation Board.

As I pointed out, there are ways around even that at the higher level, Mr. Speaker. As long as we are on this percentage rate, those that have get and those that don't have get a lesser amount. This is the unfair part about the way this thing is moving. It is taking effect with people that are least able to afford it. It is not moving in a direction that will control where the controls are really needed and where the big money is being socked away.

This bill and this Act will do nothing to help the people of this province as far as prices go. I maintain it is a wage control bill only and it is aimed at those people least able to afford to pay the cost. I am unalterably opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act. The Social Credit government of British Columbia has shown leadership in the fight against inflation. This was done through its responsible action in reducing by 10 per cent the salaries of the leaders of our great province. We have not been reckless, as suggested by the members opposite. We have shown a willingness to face the inflationary spiral and accept our responsibility to lead the attack on inflation. Hence Bill 16.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the former government didn't see fit to take a similar approach to the escalating problem which has eaten away at incomes across Canada.

The previous member spoke about Santa Claus. Who was the Santa Claus when Alf Nunweiler, a CN train dispatcher, was made Minister Without Portfolio at a salary of $45,000 a year, was given a $402,657 budget, immediately hired an executive assistant at $19,000, an economic planning consultant at $19,000, a social policy co-ordinator at $19,000 and his administrative — assistant at $24,000? Who was that Santa Claus?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's parachuting into Vancouver East.

MR. KAHL: Who was the Santa Claus that gave the same Minister Without office expenses of $25,000, travel allowance of $40,000...

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! $40,000?

MR. KAHL: ...an additional $25,000 to pump out political propaganda?

MR. KEMPF: Say good morning and he was stuck

[ Page 1683 ]

for an answer.

MR. KAHL: Who was that? Who was that?

On April 1, 1973, Mr. Speaker, the NDP granted major increases in salary allowances to the members of this assembly and started the province down the road to economic chaos with little concern for financial responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. KAHL: They established the salary of the Premier at $52,000 a year...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Who wrote that speech?

MR. KAHL: ...at that time $4,000 more than the Prime Minister of Canada, and increased the members' allowance to $24,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 the cost of government per person in the province of British Columbia was $578. In 1975, the last year of your administration....

MR. LEA: Listen to this.

MR. KAHL: You're not supposed to speak from that chair. You know the rules of this House, Mr. Member.

In 1975, it wasn't $578 per person. It had risen to $1,313 per person. Disgraceful!

Speaking in Trail the then Premier said one time: "Inflation caused great pressure on wages and costs." He said: "I am not responsible for inflation pressures in Canada." How could the then Premier who'd given the members of this assembly a 100 per cent increase in wages make this type of a statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa Claus with a parachute.

MR. KAHL; Well, we have a similar name.

What was the general public to think, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you what the Town Crier in Powell River said on June 25 in 1975: "The socialists came to power in B.C. and said they were going for broke and, by golly, according to the state of our provincial treasury, they were."

AN HON. MEMBER: They went for broke.

MR. KAHL: They thought, the people of the province, that if the government can have their cake, so can we. That's understandable, Mr. Speaker. What else could we expect from the taxpayers of the province? Look at the reckless spending, the reckless financial mismanagement of the previous administration. We've heard so much about the increases in the last five months. Look at the why for that, hon. members.

Last year the government overran its budget by $343 million. That's $930,000 a day. ICBC lost $36.2 million in that particular year. That's $99,178 per day. That's why the cost of ICBC had to rise. There's no free lunch. You should have realized that. B.C. Ferries lost $68,493 per day. The increases in ferry rates should have come in 1972 or 1973 when they first started losing great sums of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the average annual percentage growth in the consumer price index over the past several years. Vancouver, British Columbia, led the national percentage growth in the consumer price index and has done so since the beginning of 1973. The consumer price index in Vancouver is ahead of Toronto, the largest city in the country, and has had that distinction since 1973.

It seems more than coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that the increase in salaries of political leaders jumped so dramatically at the same time that British Columbia took the lead in Canada in losing the battle against inflation. That is a fact. The previous administration in British Columbia cost the taxpayers of Canada billions of dollars because every province across this nation had to catch up.

Not only did the consumer price index surge upwards, Mr. Speaker, during the last two years. Average weekly earnings in this province have jumped 12.5 and 14.3 per cent in 1974 and 1975 respectively. This trend has also developed since the irresponsible action taken by the former government. This is just another example of why today, Mr. Speaker, we stand here debating the Anti-Inflation Measures Act which is needed to control our economy and the inflation which is killing it. Today we are paying the price of mismanagement, waste and extravagance of those members who sit over there.

Our Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said yesterday in the House: "We agree entirely with the suggestion that any call for wage restraint must be echoed just as strongly by call for restraint in prices." He went on to say: "We intend to protect provincial interests while at the same time cooperating with the national anti-inflation programme."

In a statement on February 27, the Premier made it clear that the 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 the province of British Columbia. We did not have that under the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 represents the legal

[ Page 1684 ]

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

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, it's quite interesting to sit in the Legislature and listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt, although I think it would be much better if more people were to come into this Legislature and give us some of their own thoughts. It was obvious that he had gone through a number of pamphlets, leaflets and things and marked in yellow the things that he wanted to read — one paragraph from here and one paragraph there, and put it all together. But when you really listen to it, you know that it's really jumbled, Mr. Speaker, because it makes no sense. It makes no sense.

I heard a rumour that a number of years ago, when Mr. Gaglardi was the minister of social improvement, he stood up in this House and said that he was going to declare war on poverty. Then I heard that that member started throwing rocks at beggars out in Esquimalt just to comply. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you will relate to Bill 16.

MR. LEA: Oh, it is related because we are talking about poverty...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm waiting.

MR. LEA: ...the war on poverty that probably everyone in this House wants to wage. You see, I don't believe there is anyone in this House who doesn't want to do the best for British Columbia and for British Columbians. I believe that. But probably that's where we differ.

The member for Esquimalt talked about Alf Nunweiler appointing someone for $19,000 as a consultant. Then we have to take a look at the actual fact and see that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), under this government, appointed one of his cronies for $29,000. When he was asked what were his qualifications, the minister said: "Well, ha, ha, ha, what are anyone's qualifications?" That was his answer to the press.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: One thing that the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) at no time did was to appoint his brother-in-law's brother to a job in the Premier's office for somewhere around $36,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LEA: Is that called nepotism, or is it called good administration?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you relate to Bill 16?

MR. LEA: I am trying to follow the remarks of that hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just relate to Bill 16. You are quite capable.

MR. LEA: I know I am. I just thought he was relating his, so I am just talking about what he talked about, Mr. Speaker.

As I pointed out at the beginning, everyone wants the best for British Columbia and British Columbians. I don't think there's a member of government or a member of the Social Credit Party in this House who doesn't really want that;

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no Social Credit here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coalition.

MR. LEA: But, you know, one of the ways that they see to help fight the fight against inflation is to balance the books. Above all else, balance the books. It reminds me of a story, which someone told me not long ago about a church that was running in the red during the normal administration of the functions of the church. So the church elders decided that this was no longer acceptable and they called a group of businessmen in to try and make sure that at least the church would break even.

So the group of businessmen came in with their only terms of reference as break even — that's your terms of reference; break even and that's it — so they started to take a look at the kind of services the church provided and they started to look at the kinds of revenue the church could take in. Now it became obvious that they were putting more out than they were taking in.

MR. KEMPF: Is this a joke?

MR. LEA: No, it's not a joke; you're the joke.

Now what happened at that point when they started to go down, these businessmen and accountants and what have you, but all from the business community? They said: "Well, let's take a look at the ushers first." They said: "Well, I don't think we can do away with the ushers, because they make the collections on Sunday and that's revenue coming in." They said next: "Let's take a look at the

[ Page 1685 ]

committee that looks at the kind of reforms that we need in this parish for the aged." They said: "Well, here's a committee that isn't making any money. It's costing us money to keep this committee going. Cancel that committee. Let's balance the books."

Now if the only motivation of the government is to balance the books, they are probably on the right course, but is that, and should it be, their only prime consideration? Now first of all they say: "Let's tag onto the programme that's being put in place under the federal administration, the AIB." I saw last night on television one of the federal ministers, John Munro, standing up. He said: "Look at this, the cost of living has gone down in the last while, so obviously the programme is working." That's what he said, but in reality what is happening is that most people in Canada buy most of their produce and most of their commodities from the United States. That's a fact. What's happened to the Canadian dollar? Not too long ago the Canadian dollar was worth 99 cents compared to the American. It's now worth $1.02.

MR. LAUK: Have they got a $3 bill?

MR. LEA: This means that when you now buy from the United States those goods, you can get $1.02 worth of products for $1. Before, you were getting 99 cents' worth for $1. Now that's a difference of 3 per cent, and that is no small difference when looking at what it costs the Canadian consumer to buy most of his goods. That's actually where the saving came in and that's why, in the last little while, we've had just a little bit of difference in the cost of living in Canada — no more, no less. But although that may bring a little relief to Canadians in purchasing commodities, it isn't all that good for British Columbia because of the kind of economy we have, where we have to ship most of our raw products to the markets in the United States. Now we're only getting 99 cents for every dollar's worth of goods that we ship out of here, so we're losing on that end. But there has been not one single item that has been brought in by the federal administration in their fight against inflation that has worked, except to freeze wages, roll back wages, and make sure that increases are not large.

But where does the real difference in philosophy come in here? You know, it's whether you align yourself with working people or whether you align yourself with the corporate structure on this continent. Most of the members on the other side have aligned themselves, because most of them are either in business or think that it is good to be in business, with the corporate structure. That reminds me of talking to probably the most successful businessman in Prince Rupert. One day I said to him: "Ray, why is it I never hear you going around town talking about the good that you're doing for this community, about your investment in this community?" And I believe that that certain businessman, Mr. Speaker, has done a lot of good for the city of Prince Rupert. But I said: "You never seem to be saying it, Ray." He said: "Look, why should I when those lackeys will do it for me?" That is what he thinks of them, and that is probably what the corporate structure thinks of this cabinet and of your party. That's what they think of you...

MR. LOEWEN: That's a bunch of nonsense!

MR. LEA: ...because really in the business world you're small potatoes. That's what you are, and they'd squash you like a bug.

The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who probably owns one of the most successful car dealerships, is a small-potato person in the world of finance and in the world of economics on this continent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly relate to Bill 16, please?

MR. LEA: I am relating to Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, because if we're looking at Bill 16, then we have to look at the kind of attitude that brings in this kind of bill. Those are the kind of attitudes. Now Andrew Mellon, one of the richest families in the United States, when he was appointed under President Hoover to be Secretary of the Treasury, one of the first things that he tried to put through was that anybody who leaves over $400,000 should not pay inheritance tax, and anybody who leaves less than that should. He brought his own bias into government, and that is what everyone does. I'm glad to say that this party brings in a bias towards ordinary people, and, believe it or not, I think that the members over there are just ordinary people. But, Mr. Speaker, they don't. They really don't.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Humbug!

MR. LEA: They feel that they're not only economically a little better, but they're socially a little better.

Do you ever get the boss of the company? Not only does he think he can tell you what to do when you're on the job, but he honestly thinks you should follow his political advice because he's Big Daddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: They try to influence everyone around them, and that's fair. Maybe they should try to influence people with their ideas. But should the average person be so stupid as to believe that his vested or her vested interest may he with the

[ Page 1686 ]

corporate structure only? Is it only the corporate structure that counts? Believe me, the small businessmen in this province have been more adversely affected by that corporate structure than by any act of any government.

The small businessman on the average downtown section in any community in this province is being more adversely affected by the rules and regulations and direction of the corporate structure on this continent than they are by any government. They go along with it because for the first time some of those people on the back bench have sat down beside a millionaire. You know, they're just thrilled to pieces, Mr. Speaker. They honestly think they've arrived. They'll go along with it because they have no ideas of their own, as the hon. member for Esquimalt has pointed out, but they just want to bask in what they consider to be the glory of hanging around with someone who has made money.

It not only ends with the back bench, Mr. Speaker. I can think of some people in cabinet who made a fortune. I'll bet you there are people in that cabinet who were hotliners who made upwards of $15,000 a year. I'll bet there are, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, what has this to do with Bill 16?

MR. LEA: I'm talking about the kind of attitudes that would bring in this kind of bill. We're talking about the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and in order to talk about the principle of a bill, we need to talk about the kind of attitudes that bring them in.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I beg your pardon, Madam Member. I beg your pardon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: She says: "What do you know about the practices of business?" Oh, about as much as you do!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not enough. That's not much.

MR. LEA: Okay, I'll explain that. If I took the time, Mr. Speaker, to tell everything I know about business, it would take me five minutes. If I told everything that I know and he knows about business, it would still only take five minutes. That's all it would take.

MR. LOEWEN: What the people need is a responsible opposition!

MR. LEA: What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible back bench to government who wouldn't go along with every whim and fancy of that cabinet in the hope that they're going to sit in the cabinet. That's what we need. I have never seen such sycophantic speeches and heard such sycophantic speeches in my life. When those new people go in cabinet, Mr. Speaker, will you hear the speeches change back there! Won't they change back there!

You haven't got the guts to stand up and fight for your constituents, because you want so much to sit up there. That's all that it's about. The member for Esquimalt gets up and talks about the losses of the former government. They should know all about losses — $36 million on the BCR when they were in government and $800 million on the Columbia River treaty, totalling altogether, with a few other things, about $1 billion. That's what you left this province in debt. If you con't know that, you don't know very much. You don't know very much.

What have they done, Mr. Speaker, since they've been in government, to offset the need for this kind of bill? What have they done? They've taken ICBC and pulled one of the biggest kite-flying operations and one of the biggest shams on the people of British Columbia that anyone could imagine, and they honestly thought they'd get away with it. They honestly did. I'm not bitter. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it's the only government I've ever seen which has just been elected and they're bitter. What the heck are they bitter about? They won the election, they won it handily, and they sit over there, bitter, bitter, bitter.

Look at them. Look at the member for Esquimalt. I want everybody to take a look at him. I want the press gallery, I want the gallery, I want everybody to stand there and take a look at that man, and tell me honestly whether you don't think he's bitter. Look at him. Is he smiling? Frown? Goes like this to me. See that? Now that's not bitter, is it? That's what he did. He went like that. That is not bitter? Now we've just heard a man give a long speech about the economics and the province and then go...! Boy, oh boy, you're sharp.

MR. KAHL: Who do you get to polish your suits?

MR. LEA: I pick them up after Jimmy gets them from Calgary. He practically wears then out and I get them from Jimmy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who writes your speeches?

MR. LEA: Same as you — Dan Campbell.

MRS. JORDAN: He has never written a speech like that.

[ Page 1687 ]

MR. LEA: I have been talking about the kind of attitude that would bring in this kind of bill, an attitude that says that world market out there can tell the difference between the price of products that have been raised through wages as opposed to the price of products that have been raised by other means, through taxation, through corporate profits or a number of other ways. You know what the federal government does when they get into a little trouble — at least it's been the practice in Canada. They say: "Well, this year we're going to have to have a $5 billion deficit."

They say: "Well, we'll borrow half of it and we'll put the other half in the basement. In order to pay off the loan, we'll put the other half in the basement to pay the debts." Every time they go to the basement and start printing money, they devalue the purchasing price of that dollar. That's simple; we all know that.

The other way we can create economic hardship for ourselves is for the products of Canada to be so highly priced on the world market that we can't complete with other countries that produce and manufacture the same kind of products. Now what the Social Credit or the coalition policy — I guess they don't have a policy unless they have three or four policies to bring it all together.... But what they're saying is that that very sensitive world market can automatically tell if the prices have been raised by labour, but that international world market can't even notice if it's been raised by taxation or by corporate profit. They can't, can they?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You couldn't even run a peanut stand; you'd give them the peanuts.

MR. LEA: Well, I would give the nuts back to you. (Laughter.) You have played one of the biggest shell games as part of that government that has ever been committed on the people of British Columbia, Mr. Minister.

Further exploring the attitude of the government, let's take a look at some of the raises they have brought in. What they did was say to the working people: "You're going to pay. You in the corporate structure, we're going to give you some incentives so that...."

MR. LAUK: Incentives — what are those?

MR. LEA: Well, it's called welfare in any other book.

But they're going to give the corporate structure some incentives. We're going to take off the royalty legislation on mining, because, really, you shouldn't have to pay anything for the ore that belongs collectively to the people of British Columbia.

It's odd that that group over there would handle the resources of the province, which are owned collectively by the people of the province, in a different manner than they would handle their own. If any one of those cabinet ministers owned the forests of this province, or owned all the mining ore in this province, there is no way they would take the royalty off. There is no way they would give it away. They would say: "That belongs to me. I want every last dollar I can get for it." That's what they'd say.

But because it belongs to the people of this province, they say: "Well, it would create a few jobs to give it away, so we'll give it away and create a few jobs." That's your philosophy, isn't it? That's your actual philosophy: if it belongs, to the collective society, then give it away because it's not really ours anyway. It belongs to the public but who the heck do they think the public is? It's all of us; we own it collectively. You are ready to give it away.

But if it were yours under fee-simple title, if it was land, or if you owned those trees, or if you owned those mines, you wouldn't be giving it away, You'd be saying to the corporate bodies that come to you to log on your land, to mine on your land: "We want top dollar." The corporation would say: "Gee whiz, Mr. Social Credit, we're planning on logging all your logs off and mining all your ore, but we are going to create a few jobs." They're trying to tell us that if they owned it as an individual, they'd just say: "Well, gee! That's all right, then. I thought for a minute I wasn't going to get anything, but I see you're going to create a few jobs." What kind of hokey-pokey economics is that?

When we've got a Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who says that non-renewable resources are renewable, I think we have some cause in the official opposition and in British Columbia to worry just a little bit that the stewardship of our natural resources is in good hands.

I think we have some cause when the same minister, when asked on a television programme, "what about mining in parks?" says: "Well, we'll maybe change a few borders and a few boundaries around and we'll maybe allow it."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, Bill 16, please.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's what we're on. When someone pointed out to him, Mr. Speaker, that maybe it wouldn't be aesthetically beautiful with the mine in the park, he said: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it's kind of nice to see mines in parks." That's what he said.

We have a Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) who should be more than concerned about this piece of legislation. He should actually be going out and trying to help the average person in this province. Yet he has sat idly by and watched them

[ Page 1688 ]

get fleeced on ICBC, fleeced on their income tax, fleeced on the sales tax, fleeced on school taxes, fleeced on ferry rates and fleeced on the corporate taxes that will be passed on. But why should he worry? As an individual, could he afford to pay those kind of increases? The answer is yes. But could some of the people in the community? Are they able to afford some of these kinds of increases? The answer is no, they can't.

But how do they know? How do they know — sitting in their economic ivory towers, thinking "I am all right, Jack; I've made it and I don't really care. If anybody else wants to make it, let them pull up their bootstraps, work the kind of hours I work, sweat it out, invest their money and make it too."

MR. LAUK: And inherit department stores.

MR. LEA: I would like to know exactly who they think would work in the companies if everybody did that? Who would actually go in there and work in those pulp mills? Who would actually go into the bush and cut down logs? Who would do all of those tasks that are not nice tasks in our society? Most of those people would much rather sit in a lawyer's office and deal with that kind of work.

There's a great fallacy to their argument, because they honestly believe that anybody can make it. What they aren't dealing with is the reality of the situation.

They aren't looking at children and students who come from a lower socio-economic group, who do not have that same level of expectation. There is no level of expectation in those lower socio-economic groups to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to go on to university. If you handed most of those children the money and said, "go to university, " they still would not have the incentive to go because the level of expectation that they've grown up in — their background — is not the kind of incentive that's needed.

It's one thing to grow up as the son or the daughter of a very successful lawyer or businessman, or have a wife or a mother who's had university training or a father who's had it, and say: "Here's a child who should want to go to university." It's true.

Usually that child who grows up in that set of circumstances is prepared to go to university or to go out into the business world and pull himself up by the bootstraps, and do that sort of thing, but it's not possible for everyone — either economically or from a social point of view — to do that. There just have to be working people in our community to shoulder most of the burden that has to be done in our society.

This bill that they're asking the Legislature to pass is taking a toll on working people, because it's saying to working people: "We're going to allow you very little in wage increases." That's what it's saying, but where does it deal in the same kind of way with prices?

Mr. Speaker, when you take a look at the intent of his bill it really boils down to politics, because it is a reality that if you're elected, you owe the people who paid for your campaign. That's simple — you owe the people.

We owe the people of this province a great deal, because it was the working people and the ordinary people who came into our campaigns and said: 'Here's $20; here's $5; here's $1; here's $100." We didn't have the insurance corporations giving us money for our political campaigns; we didn't have the mining companies giving us money; we didn't have the forest industry. I tell you, when you're in you owe them, and you're paying them now. You're paying them with everything you've done since you've been in government.

MR. HEWITT: Who do you owe, Graham?

MR. LEA: We owe every working person in this province, every ordinary person in this province. We in this party owe them a better deal because they paid for our campaign. That's why we owe them, and that's political reality. You owe the people who paid for yours, and that's the corporate structure — and not even in this country.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Out of this country. That's who you owe. You have to pay them back. That's the rules of politics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor, and I would ask him to kindly get back to the principle of Bill 16.

MR. LEA: There is no principle to this bill. There is no principle to this bill that would come in against the working people of this province and help the corporate structure, not even of this country. When you get people of the Social Credit government going down to the United States before a campaign and making deals with American politicians and the American corporate structure....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member please do two things? One, refer to the principle of the bill....

MR. LEA: There is no principle to this bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Would you explain it to me?

[ Page 1689 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And would the hon. member also address the chair?

MR. LEA: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker — I'll do that.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): How did you get into this Legislature, anyway?

MR. LEA: What they've done, Mr. Speaker, is say: "Let's bring this bill in, and somewhere in the bill we'll mention that if we want to we can do something about prices. It gives us that power." That's what they're saying.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: You never read the bill.

MR. LEA: I read the bill. Who read it to you? (Laughter.)

The thing is, Mr. Speaker, that they mention in there that somewhere along the line they may take a look at curbing prices of goods and commodities in this province. There isn't anybody, at least in his right mind, who believes that the Social Credit government can do that, because they owe too many people from the last campaign, and they have to pay that money back. The only way government has of paying that money back is to give them concessions so they can make more money. Why do you think the corporate structure backed them? Was it because they liked them as good guys? Or did they want something? What did they want, Mr. Speaker? They wanted to get tax concessions, they wanted to get resources for next to nothing, they wanted to get as much as they can, because they can't admit that they're out to make as much profit as possible.

There isn't anything wrong with that, but it is up to government to ensure that they make only a fair return on the profits that they take for extracting the natural resources from within the boundaries of British Columbia. It is your duty to protect not only this generation but future generations, Mr. Speaker, and they are not going to do that because they are a "now" government with a "now" philosophy.

The basic difference between this side of the House and that side of the House that made this bill possible is that when our party looks at the troubled times ahead — and they are there — we take a look and we say: "Maybe there's a little bit of light at the end of that tunnel and if we work together as a society, sharing a little more equitably, we can walk out into the light at the other end of that tunnel." That group over there, Mr. Speaker, bringing in this bill, took a look at the same problems and recognized them in the same way, but they said: "Those problems are so immense that as individuals and as a government we are going to buy a first-class ticket on the Titanic." That is what they're doing because of their "now" philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what they're doing?

MR. LEA: There's no way around it. There's no way around it because if we do not look after the resources of this province properly then those who follow will have nothing.

Now what makes it possible for a government or a group of people or a political party to say, "Let's buy that first-class ticket on the Titanic"? Mr. Speaker, that is a group of people who have given up hope of the future. That is a group of people who said "We have given up. We know everything's going downhill but we're going to grab our greedy share on the way down, and we don't want to share with our brothers and our sisters. As we go down we want to take everything that we can in a very subjective way and enjoy it in a rather hedonistic way." That is exactly the policy and the philosophy of that party and of that government. They have been proving it every day since they've been in.

I feel sorry for some of the people that saw our government as such a threat that they actually walked the floor to join that kind of philosophy and that kind of action, because I honestly believe that there are people over there right now, Mr. Speaker, who are feeling ashamed of themselves, because they know better. They know better, but it's a long way back to this side.

It's a long way back, but if you want to come over to this side — and not in this party — leave them over there and some of you come over here, because I'll tell you something: the way you're going with your resource policies, the regard you have for the environment, and when you have a Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) going to Terrace and saying, "If it means the economy of this region, we'll get rid of the ducks and we'll get rid of the falcons...."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: He talked about the environment.

MR. LEA: When you have a Minister of Mines saying, "When it comes to mines, if we have to go into the parks that have been set aside for the future use of this society we'll mine the parks...."

Interjections.

MR. LEA: When you have a group of people say, "In order to balance the books we'll take our toll from ordinary working people and the Devil may

[ Page 1690 ]

care, " that is the kind of philosophy that in the long run is going to take us as a society into the depths of chaos that we've never been before. They talk about chaos, with the kind of responsibility that they've shown since they formed this government. They've shown no responsibility at all — not one whit. They have sat over there in their piety, Mr. Speaker, and have said: "We're going to balance the books — we don't care." I'll tell you, when they're really going to get it is when the Premier puts a few more in that cabinet — and I wish he'd do it now, so he could get some honest, down-to-earth opinions out of those members that I know they have.

MR. CHABOT: Speak to the Chair.

MR. LEA: I am speaking to the Chair. Mr. Premier, bring a few up, and don't leave one position open so they'll fight over that. Fill up your cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member return to the principle of Bill 16 which is under debate at the present time? We're not on the estimates of the ministers of Mines or Petroleum Resources or Environment. We're on Bill 16, please, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying once again that there is no principle to this bill to speak about. It's a bill without principle.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I hope I will not offend either you or the House if I spend a moment or two on Bill 16 and the principle of it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm distressed to see that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not here because he raised the question in this House yesterday which I think is eminently deserving of an answer and it was concerning the position that British Columbia is taking in the current intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada. He made the point, of course, that we are supporting the federal position and that we're supporting it on the grounds that a national emergency exists.

The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is really quite simple. Unless there is a national emergency, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia takes the position that the federal government cannot legislate in the private sector. That would be an enormous, immense constitutional invasion were they to do so. We take the position, I think, as all reasonable, sensible citizens in Canada have taken, that there is a national emergency. We want to intervene in the Supreme Court of Canada so that the reason for their decision is based on the true facts, the real fact that there is a national emergency sufficient to give rise to the legislation which has been put forth by the federal government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to be a member of the anti-inflation committee of cabinet since we were sworn in last December 22, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, that's usual. That's typical.

But, Mr. Speaker, as part of our committee we have had some of the best brains that British Columbia is able to offer: Mr. Matkin of the Department of Labour, to name one; Mr. Neilson, my own deputy, to name another; other members of the Attorney-General's department. We have met, Mr. Speaker, long hours. We have gone over the question of anti-inflation legislation from every conceivable point of view. We've gone over it from the constitutional point of view, from the finance point of view, from labour's point of view, from every point of view that you can possibly name.

I'm quite prepared to concede, Mr. Speaker, that many of the concerns that the other side of the House has spoken of in the last few days are, and have been, shared by our committee. We know, for example, that the controlling of prices and the controlling of wages is one of the fights against inflation, but we know that it's not the only one. We know that the supply of money is another contributing factor to inflation. We also know that the control of that factor is out of our hands, Mr. Speaker.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that there are many problems ahead, and we know that there are many representations which we, as a government, must make to the people in Ottawa. We know that there are people who, perhaps, are having a harder time in the fight against inflation than others, and we know that Ottawa should know about that. But, Mr. Speaker, before we can go to Ottawa and have any status, before we can go to Ottawa and take part in the meaningful discussions on the fight against inflation, we've got to get aboard. We have to get aboard by signing an agreement with Ottawa.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it may very well be that the Supreme Court of Canada will make a ruling which will change the course of the fight against inflation. But for the purposes of our position, Mr. Speaker, we must assume that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to hold that, indeed, there is a national emergency, and is going to hold that the federal government has, indeed, got the power to legislate in the private sector.

MR. BARNES: Why didn't you join in December?

[ Page 1691 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Why didn't I join what in December, Mr. Member?

MR. BARNES: Why didn't you sign in December?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, we'll tell you about that, Mr. Member. As a matter of fact, I can tell you right now, had we wanted to we could have initialled any number of agreements in December. And would you believe they had the cheek to present them to us?

MR. BARNES: You didn't do it.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, we didn't. We came back and we put a lot of brains to work on it, something that is sadly lacking on the other side of the House. I might add, Mr. Member, since you've raised it, that it taught me one very good lesson back in Ottawa. I know now why the founding fathers did not give the provinces the right to print money: they looked at the NDP government for the three years they were in power here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to digress. I intend....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, there he is! There's the man who leaves his $200,000 home in Point Grey every day, two professional salaries, in his Mercedes Benz, takes his salary here and comes over and clucks his tongue about poverty and the disadvantaged, comes out with pious claptrap, promotes racial discrimination...

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: ...foments racial discrimination....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. minister please get back to the principle of the bill?

HON. MR. MAIR: That's the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .

AN HON. MEMBER: Rafe, are you feeling okay?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm feeling just fine, Mr. Member. Oh, I feel just fine. As a matter of fact, I'm just beginning to warm up.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even put on his own suits.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, he doesn't even bother to put on his own suit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Let's get back, Mr. Speaker. I don't wish to digress.

MR. SPEAKER: Please get back to the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for digressing. Something came over me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, right on the principle.

Mr. Speaker, on the safe assumption that the federal government is on sound ground in legislating in the private sector, we have two alternatives: we can either sign an agreement, Mr. Speaker, which controls the public sector, or we can let it flow free and we can let happen again what happened over the past three or four years. We can let the public sector once again outstrip the private sector, get the wages up and beyond, and play the whole game of catch-up all over again and condemn future generations of this province to a continuation of the labour ferment and unrest which was started in the period of 1972 to 1975.

But we're not going to do that. Mr. Speaker, we know that you can't do that. We know that if you have controls on one segment of the population, it must be on the other. We intend to sign an agreement if for no other reason, for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that you cannot fairly control people's income without controlling the cost of what they must buy.

That is why we are asking this Legislature for power to use to put on those controls, a power that didn't exist until this bill came to this House, a power that didn't exist with the previous price freeze, I might add, Mr. Speaker, to the House.

When I was responsible for administering that price freeze, on the advice of the capable people who worked for me — very capable people who, incidentally, were hired by the previous government — I knew that we were legally in very bad shape if that price freeze was attacked in the courts by anybody. That is what we will take care of with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we must for once in this House speak for British Columbia, not for partisan politics but for British Columbia. We have an obligation to not only join the fight against inflation in the manner contemplated by Bill 16 — and it is admittedly only part of the way the fight must be carried — but we must join in the fight by going back to Ottawa,

[ Page 1692 ]

making Ottawa aware of the problems faced by our citizens, individual and corporate, those who are working, those who aren't working, those who are on fixed incomes and those who are retired. We must go back to the councils in Ottawa and make British Columbia's position felt. We can only do that when we formally join the fight against inflation, and that's what we'll do when we pass this bill.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to the comments made by the hon. minister: I do not own a $200,000 home; I do not own a home in Point Grey, or on Point Grey Street or Road in the city of Vancouver. I own a car that is valued, I can testify, at far less than the value of the car driven by the hon. minister or most other people in this city. I do not have two salaries and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where'd you get all that information?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this kind of personal attack has characterized the comments of the hon. minister. The only difference this time is that he was on his feet when he did it, because usually he's sitting in his chair.

I consider that that minister is what I said he was to be when I was speaking about him in his estimates. That is why he's got himself into a snit today.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, now that we've heard from the toddly termite of ministerial offices, we can continue with the debate. I must concur...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...with the hon. minister's comments in terms of....

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. member direct that remark to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre who has just taken his place after explaining a point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm directing my comments to the former minister who snuck into the offices and removed all the public files, but if it's offensive to the hon. member...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...then I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd ask the hon. member for North Okanagan to desist from that type of debate, which is a personal attack. I would ask her to withdraw that remark that was an imputation against an hon. member in this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: But in withdrawing, and I am not referring to my former comments, I can't help but think of the acts that preceded the presentation by the hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), and that was the one made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who has now left the House. I'm sure he left the House because he was concerned that there might be a rebuttal to his irresponsible, vindictive, and in instances libelous statements. I would challenge that member to repeat the speech he made in the House a few minutes ago on the platforms of this province.

It's very distressing, Mr. Speaker, to see a former minister of this province participate in an address as he just did in this House. I have never in my 10 years experience in this House heard such a personally vindictive, libelous and unwarranted attack on individual members on the government side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when he questions success, we know why. When he questions business principles and practices, I can only ask if he would dare state his own business principle and practice he used when he was in business.

I stand in support of Bill 16, and I must say that it is with some regret, as I am sure it is with all hon. members in this House, as well as the people of British Columbia and Canada, those of us who believe that government's responsibility in terms of marketing and pricing and wage negotiations is to set the ground rules in which as much as possible there can be fair presentation and fair competition and that the marketplace in itself, that consumer interest and demands and that working labour interest and demands can take reasonable and rational steps in finding their own levels and settling their own affairs. In short, Mr. Speaker, I as an individual and I am sure we, as a party, do not believe in the philosophy of the opposition which is that governments should control — control from the cradle to the grave on an individual basis and control all aspects of the marketplace and the labour force.

But as other members have eloquently pointed out, there is an emergency situation in Canada today. It can be no more clearly exemplified than by the fact that the present Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party, won a campaign a few months before, this move, won that campaign on the basis of opposition to price and wage controls. With the emergency situation he finally realized and completely reversed his position

[ Page 1693 ]

and brought in the anti-inflationary measures which we are now endeavouring to cooperate with in this bill and on behalf of this government. So if there could be such an immediate switch of a position by such a responsible man as the Prime Minister of this country, then surely we must, along with the knowledge that we have, recognize that this is indeed an emergency situation in Canada and it is, in fact, more profound in British Columbia for a number of reasons which I intend to go into in a few minutes.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this government is endeavouring to cooperate and this government is taking this measure on the basis of the best short- and long-term interests of the people of the province and the future of this province, not only for ourselves but for future generations. It is doing it in a spirit of cooperation with the people of Canada and the federal government. That is something that, it is sad to say, the members opposite didn't seem to understand when they were in government and don't seem to understand now. The purpose of this Act, Mr. Speaker, is to give authority to the British Columbia government to enter into an agreement with Canada under the anti-inflationary Act of the federal government to carry out this emergent anti-inflationary programme. It is to allow cabinet to freeze the maximum price of commodity services or to establish general guidelines or to establish guidelines for services for restraint for a period of 60 days, along with some other factors.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is intending to protect provincial interests, to protect provincial jurisdictions while at the same time cooperating with the anti-inflationary programme. As we've listened to this debate, it's become increasingly interesting and also a study in character as how the NDP party is standing, speaking of logging, on a greased log. They can't seem to make up their minds what they stand for or what they don't stand for. We shouldn't be surprised, Mr. Speaker, because that's how they achieved government, that's how they behaved in government and that's how they are behaving in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. JORDAN: Don't they ever learn, Mr. Speaker? Don't they ever learn? This government is one end of the umbilical cord of the English Labour Party. We heard repeated in this House when they were in opposition, we saw repeated in this House when they were government, exactly what the Labour Party did in England. We saw the fall of a once proud people, a once proud country, a once sound economic country under the administration of the socialists in England. But they learned. But this party never learns. We saw the beginnings of the demise under their administration of a very proud, a very sound and a very productive jurisdiction of Canada, British Columbia. Even now, Mr. Speaker, even now they don't understand. They don't have the courage to take a position for the benefit of this province, for the benefit of the people of this province and for the benefit of our country, They should hang their heads in shame! They're not even consistent with their leader's statements. I would remind the hon. members that it was the then leader of the government, the Hon. David Barrett at the time, who brought in price and wage controls to British Columbia — not through legislation, not through a legal position of the province, not through equity but through a cabinet order, illegally, that could be subject to the courts and undoubtedly would have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's rubber-duck Don?

MRS. JORDAN: But what did he say? What did he say? He said on November 28, 1975, after the programme had been in effect for some four or five weeks, that the lesson is clear. Consumers were ready for the price freeze. Businesses have complied with it. The spiral of higher prices has been shot down and the store shelves are as full as ever. What happened to your party position? What happened to your confidence in your leader, as if we didn't know? But then, why are you backing him again?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Why are you backing him into another position?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rosemary isn't backing him.

MRS. JORDAN: Just because this government is trying to put this programme into a legal position and to protect the position of British Columbia and the jurisdiction of British Columbia you're suddenly against it! You know, you guys don't even know when you wake up at 6 o'clock in the morning and the sun is shining whether it's day or night. You should be standing, through you, Mr. Speaker, supporting this legislation.

Another quotation, in case you've forgotten. This is quoting the Hon. David Barrett some four weeks after his own programme was put into place without legality: "The primary reason for the price freeze was to deal a body blow to the inflationary psychology so rampant today."

The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) stood up and said: "I don't understand." We realize she doesn't understand. Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, let me advise you that the members you stand with — and I must exonerate you because you are a new member — are among the major factors in that inflationary psychology and the

[ Page 1694 ]

factual runaway inflation that we have in British Columbia today.

The member talked about rising taxes. Indeed, Madam Member, the NDP and the socialists feel that the way to assume your responsibilities and to solve your financial debts is not to pay your bills. But in fact the realities of life dictate that bills must be paid.

This government is coming to grips with these problems. The people of British Columbia are not so consumed with the inflationary psychology, not so consumed with the greed that their NDP's then-leader talked about, that they can't recognize that while we enjoy among the highest standards of living, the highest health benefits, the greatest opportunities of anywhere in the world, we can't stop and pause, meet our responsibilities and say: "Hold it there, boys and girls! We're going to pull in our belt. We're going to slow down and take a breathing space and we're going to meet our responsibilities."

Madam Member, you asked why taxes have to increase. May I remind you — it's a legal document which your government never disputed — that on September 13, 1972, there was a statement made on the state of the economy of British Columbia? It pointed out that the employment in British Columbia was the highest in history. The gross provincial product, growing at an annual rate, was 11 per cent. If I recall correctly, it was around 1 per cent in 1976 when the NDP went out of office — a 10 per cent drop in three years under the NDP.

Provincial government taxes in 1972 were among the lowest in Canada. Provincial revenues in the first five months of the fiscal year 1972-73 were $85,046, 655, or 15.5 per cent over the previous fiscal year without the inflationary factor that we have in British Columbia today. Inflation was running around 6 per cent at that time, not the 12 and 14 per cent that it is today. There was $85 million in the perpetual capital fund; $126,200,000 in the special capital funds; over $200 million in temporary investments which were drawing interest for the people of British Columbia as well as protecting that fluid capital.

Mr. Speaker, what is the situation...

AN HON. MEMBER: A $100 million overrun caused the problem.

MRS. JORDAN: ...when the NDP, after three short years of irresponsible mismanagement, waste and extravagance and a child-like psychology, pure in itself but incapable of functioning without guidance and direction, had had hold of this province for three years? Deficits. Deficits.

My colleague from Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) mentioned some of them: deficits running provincially at $933,000 a day; deficits in ICBC running at $99,178 a day. He mentioned the deficit in the B.C. Ferries that was running at $68,493 a day. Madam Member, that brought a total deficit of $540 million when we added up the books. That, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, did not include many debts which will come into force this year, and it certainly doesn't include the fact that the funds are bankrupt, the funds are empty, the fact that a number of funds had to be recalled. It doesn't include the fact that overexpenditures are coming to light even today, and which occurred under the administration of the NDP. It doesn't include the fact that projects which are part of funds which were overexpended by the then government, in fact, had no provision for overruns. It is these overruns on buildings that are completed or nearing completion, projects that are completed or nearing completion, which will have to be met in this coming year.

So not only, Madam Member, were the funds bankrupt, not only were the pension programmes in serious position, not only were the debts mounting day by day, but, in fact, there were overcommitments that won't come to light for another year or so.

That, Mr. Speaker, is why the people in British Columbia today are facing the high rates of ICBC — the adjusted rates, why they're facing higher taxation. Would the members advocate that those debts of $99,000 a day in ICBC be allowed to continue? Is that how you cool down the inflationary psychology that your leader said he was going to attack?

What happened to this party? Where is their consistency? Where is their principle? Where is their stand, and where is their intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, to be responsible?

To be charitable, and not suggest that they're so consumed with political ambition that they refuse to accept any responsibility, one could assume that, in fact, on the basis of their statements in this House, they are incapable of thinking in responsible terms or of understanding these problems that they were part of and that they should be part of in terms of the cure.

I would like to quote, for an example, from the hon. member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who spoke earlier in the day. It was an amazing speech, and I'd like to quote it to you as he chastized the current ministers and government for their current role in terms of inflation. He said:

"I also make the point, Mr. Speaker, that a major impact on the cost of living over the past year or so in this province is the result of the Social Credit policies over the past five months."

Retroactive inflation? This must be some new discovery. (Laughter.)

It is like the "pay as you don't pay" philosophy of the socialists. He said that a major impact on the cost of living over the past year or so in this province is the result of the Social Credit policies over the past

[ Page 1695 ]

five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: The past five months.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, thanks, Mr. Minister. Socialist prosperity is retroactive prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, he went on to say:

"So it seems hypocritical to us on this side of the House that the Socreds are bringing in a bill like this which they say attempts to control inflation when they're the major cause of inflation in this province, and have been the major cause of inflation in British Columbia over the past six months."

In that three-minute period he brought it down from a year to six months retroactively, and then — and I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has only been in office five months and a few days — he goes back again to five months and on to six months.

No wonder that party doesn't understand. No wonder, Madam Member — through you, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — you don't understand that the reason people are paying the highest school taxes in the history of this province this year is because this is slopover from the bills you created, the policy your government created and that will be remedied by this government.

The reason the people of this province are paying the highest municipal property taxes in their history — within five months of the change of government — is a slopover from the administration of the NDP government. The people of B.C., unfortunately, are having still to live with the legislation of the NDP and with the results of the policies of the NDP. You cannot change, Mr. Speaker — through you to the Madam Member — the trend of taxation and economy overnight, and your own leader realized you cannot change the psychology of inflation overnight.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. ex-minister stand and speak, in a vindictive way, in an irresponsible way, is amazing. I would just say they had their chance. They failed. They blew it, and they don't even now have the ability or the courage or the integrity to stand up and try and help remedy that problem.

I'd like to read a few quotes that came out from the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province when the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown; Mr. Levi), for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), for Revelstoke (Mr. King), for Cowichan (Mrs. Wallace) — socialists all — asked why, why?

The Premier, in The Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, October 1,1975, was the object of an editorial, and it was just following the Premier's humble but proud words on the budget that he brought in.

I would remind you that it followed by a year or more a television interview between Andy Stephen of the BCTV and the Premier when Mr. Stephen asked the Premier, when inflation was very much the discussion across Canada and around the world, if he was not concerned that his government was spiralling an inflationary psychology, that they were accelerating spending too quickly, and that they weren't concerned that this would, in fact, lead or contribute to further inflation.

The Premier said: "No, no, I'm not concerned at all. All these pundits out there think they know everything, but I can tell you that this government's got its ear to the ground, and this government knows what's going on." And that's when he brought in his budget.

But what did the Sun have to say about his humble but proud words, and I would quote:

"He unveiled a vast revenue surplus on budgetary accounts of $94.6 million. This was in October of 1975. He pronounced himself 'humbly proud'. Perhaps he did not read the economic review which tells us what happened in the fiscal year that ended six months ago. A year of modest vintage, but given the way things are going this year, might improve somewhat with age. Humble he should be; proud he should not. He's got to be kidding. In any case, whatever revenue surplus on budgetary account is, Mr. Barrett did not use such words last year. The government spent more than it earned."

Mr. Speaker, the government spent more than it earned, and that was the beginning of the record of the NDP administration which has led this province to the serious problems it faces today.

To be precise, it spent $13,547,427 more than it earned. A small amount, Mr. Speaker, in relation to a total budget, but, for the edification of those hon. members, mountains begin with small grains of sand. You look around the world into every jurisdiction which today is deeply in debt, and which today is usurping the taxpayers' money through debt financing, and all those debts began in a small way as they did in British Columbia; $13 million in his first budget to $451 million in the budget that follows his administration.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on quoting the former Premier of this province, but it's quite obvious....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed, Mr. Member, they sounded funny, but they aren't funny to the people of British Columbia. They aren't funny when people

[ Page 1696 ]

have to pay the catch-up costs that they do today. I'd like to quote, speaking of hypocrisy, what The Province had to say on Saturday October 25,1975, about the then Premier's statements on budgeting:

"His concern for the people at the bottom of the financial heap deserves applause" — and indeed it did, and indeed it does when the members in the House currently take that stand — 'and so does his decision that wages will be frozen next year in the higher levels of the civil service, although that would be more credible if some of those recent salaries, including his own, had not been so enormous."

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go into the problems this province faces in relation to wage settlements that were not only condoned but were encouraged and practised by the former NDP government. They talked restraint on one side and they practised greed on the other, and they involved themselves, Mr. Speaker, tragically to say, in that greed. They were partners and they were part of it, and those members sit in this House today, some of them. Those members should be standing up trying to help correct the problem.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is the cruellest tax of all, and that's what it is. It's an inescapable tax on people. Most taxes tend to relate to luxury items where there's a selection for people, but inflation hits those who can least afford to pay — the senior citizens, fixed-income people, less-skilled people, the younger and older people, and, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) said yesterday as he also related the people affected, those less organized. But I wonder why the hon. leader wasn't so conscious of this fact when he was in a position to help restrain the actions of his own government and help protect British Columbia from the disastrous situation into which it has slid. I wonder why the opposition should be saying that this government shouldn't move to protect the people as a whole, but that this government should encourage people to organize in order to be protected.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked who we aligned ourselves with. As he was preaching and fostering class discord.... What are classes in British Columbia? People never discussed or thought or operated in terms of classes until the NDP became a powerful entity and decided to foster this. This government doesn't align itself with anyone. It doesn't believe in classes. It believes in the people, it aligns itself with the people, and it will protect the rights of people to work, to be successful; it will protect the right of people to participate in programmes which are in the best interests of this province. I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province, the people out there, outside these buildings, who are working, who are examining our situation, and who are willing to stand up and be counted, will do so, not because of who they're aligned with, not because of silly talk of classes, not because of silly talk and divisive talk of racism, but because they believe in themselves and they believe in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as I mentioned, is to protect the provincial interests, while at the same time cooperating with the federal government. The purpose is to see that there is no encroachment on the rights and responsibilities of the province. It does give authority to the British Columbia government to enter agreement with Canada and the federal Anti-Inflation Act on a cooperative basis.

This government recognizes that it is a time of an emergency. I would suggest that one of the great problems we will have in the future, when the time comes, is extracting this province and our country from any form of controls and price-and-wage freezes because that, with proper legislation to protect the marketplace and to protect the rights and responsibilities of working people, is the way the economy should flourish.

This bill allows the cabinet of British Columbia to freeze the maximum price of commodity services or establish general guidelines for restraint on a 60-day basis — and this is basically through the authority of this Legislature — not on a 90-day basis without any legislative authority, as did the former administration. And if the Legislature is sitting, should this be incorporated, then within a 60-day period these regulations, such as they might be, would expire. If it is not sitting then, or if they are not revoked by the provincial cabinet, they would expire 60 days following the next ensuring session.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario tried to improve upon the federal programme. Their legislation and their programme ended up in the courts, and today it rests in the Supreme Court of Canada. This government and the author of this bill are endeavouring to protect British Columbia from that sort of a situation.

If we were to move in the direction of cooperation with the federal government on an independent basis within the province, and that move was challenged and tied up in the courts, there could be chaos in the province.

Unscrupulous people of any interest could utilize that court tie-up to increase prices, to increase profits, to increase wage demands, to increase anything they wished. This government is moving to avoid that type of situation.

It gives a firm legal basis to a price-freeze power, and this was not the case before. It makes clear the provincial jurisdiction here. In the anti-inflationary measures it tries to set up the rules of the game so

[ Page 1697 ]

that everyone will know the rules of the game, and that they will be followed by the government only if it is felt necessary.

It also makes clear that the province will hold in reserve — Mr. Speaker, if the members would read the bill — proper and necessary powers.

lnterjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Hon. Member, you should listen to this because your debate has been to a good deal centred around this.

"The province will hold in reserve the proper and necessary powers to investigate and study price levels, to cooperate with other jurisdictions on anti-inflation matters and, if necessary, to freeze maximum prices, or establish price restraint guidelines for goods and services for a 60-day period."

Mr. Speaker, what can be fairer than fair, and that effort to be as fair as possible? What can be more right than to try and cooperate with the federal government? What can be more right than to set in motion at this time of emergency the mechanics needed to protect the people from any abuses?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we don't intend to....

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't stand the heat.

MRS. JORDAN: They obviously can't stand the heat.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It hurts when the needle goes in, Mr. Speaker. They had their chance and they failed, but they have a chance now to stand up and be counted, to support the people of British Columbia, to support Confederation by operating on a cooperative basis with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of British Columbia basically don't favour price-and-wage controls and control by government as a whole. But I do believe they feel, with the government, that in this time of emergency we must act, and that in this time of emergency and this time in our history if we are ever to look our grandchildren in the eye, if we are ever to speak with price of our role as legislators in this province, or citizens of the province, we will be able and proud to say that in spite of the fact that times were tough one can consider that in Canada, really, anywhere we paused, we were responsible, we paid our bill, we cooled the economy, we took a breathing time and we proceeded in an orderly and organized pace from there.

I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that every British Columbian, whatever our interests, will say: "It's not for the other fellow to do; it's for me to do," and that each member of this House would do exactly the same thing.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to explain to the members of this House why I will not be supporting this bill and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, offer a few suggestions on actions the government might take to help curb the wage-price spiral.

This bill would, I suspect, be welcomed by most people of this province if the people had any confidence that the Anti-Inflation Board regulations would be applied equally to all sectors of the economy. But we know from experience how this government has handled the wage and price spiral to date. While they may be successful in keeping the income of the workers and people on low incomes within the wage and price guidelines, they have neglected to explain to us how they intend to control the excess profits of the corporate giants, the interest rates and profits of lending institutions, professional fees and salaries. We know, Mr. Speaker, that this coalition government will not control these areas even if they could. There is a 130 per cent to 400 per cent increase in ICBC rates and up to 400 per cent increase in ferry fares. Previous speakers have listed the number of items that this government has increased the cost of living.... They have eliminated the price ceilings on propane and gasoline, increased the personal income taxes by about 14 per cent, I understand, increased the co-insurance for extended care, increased the cigarette and tobacco tax and increased by 40 per cent the sales tax in this province. In fact, there are 32 items that this government has specifically cost the people of this province....

Previous speakers also have referred to The Vancouver Sun article of May 5 where it tells us that this government has cost the average family $870 — $870 behind the game. I won't quote from the article as so many previous speakers have done, but I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding that figure is considerably higher, once again because of the horrendous increase in ferry fares which really raises the cost of living in my riding somewhat out of proportion to the cost of living in other parts of this province, particularly in the lower mainland area. Once again the people of this province are getting it in the neck from this government.

This government is doing nothing as far as I can see to alleviate unemployment — 110,000 people in this province without work and probably more. What I would like to know is what this government is doing about unemployment for students. You know, really, literally thousands of young people, high school students and university students, require summer employment, Mr. Speaker to complete their education or continue their education. I haven't seen any meaningful example. There will be a lot of our

[ Page 1698 ]

young people in the province not working this summer, and we know the reason why, Mr Speaker. Because this government hasn't taken action, meaningful action, to assist people in finding employment.

Why don't they remove for example the 40 per cent...? Well, I discussed the sales tax but, really, this could be removed. This tax should be removed by this government. That would certainly help alleviate the inflationary condition that this province is in today.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote very briefly from an article in an IWA publication of March 1976 which really explains the views of a lot of working people and a lot of people in this province. I think it's a significant editorial and it's quite short. They say:

"As we predicted, Bill 73, the wage and price control legislation, was designed to become the straitjacket for working people and does absolutely nothing to curb inflation. By imposing fines and rolling back negotiated wage increases, the Anti-Inflation Board effectively controls wages while the corporate profit sector of the economy remains unchanged. In a business-as-usual manner profits and prices continue to skyrocket at an increased pace. Bill C-73 completely destroys the free collective bargaining process, which is the only means that working people have to maintain a decent standard of living. In spite of the national vacancy rate of less than I per cent in housing, interest rates continue to rise. The hardship that is being imposed on the working people is strictly by design to ensure the continuance of corporate profits and control.

"In British Columbia, working people are blessed with the worst of two worlds. The millionaire-oriented government in Victoria are so steeped in their own hate-venom that they completely fail to understand how much the traffic is able to hear. While wages are controlled, in the first four months in office auto insurance rates increased up to 300 per cent, natural gas and hydro rates are up better than 10 per cent with gasoline prices expected to continue to rise to $1 per gallon."

They go into ferry and transit rates. To continue the quotation:

"With the inception of power, the Social Credit government immediately proceeded to slash every programme that was designed to help the poor, the unemployed, the aged, including hospital services, welfare programmes, day care, education, transit, et cetera.

"The vindictive attitude of Pat McGeer and Bill Vander Zalm for the poor and the unfortunate, is a disgrace to government office. The witch-hunting programme of Bill Vander Zalm surely must make Joe McCarthy of the 1950s blush in his grave. The time is long overdue for working people to intensify maximum resistance against a deterioration of their standard of living."

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you quoting?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was quoting, in reply to the member across the floor, Mr. Speaker, an editorial from the IWA publication of March of this year. That's right. It was a very good editorial, in my opinion.

I'm going to suggest one or two possible ways that perhaps this government could be looking at...or should be perhaps pressing the federal government to implement, or implement some of these policies on their own. It's a very short list.

I would suggest a programme of subsidized low-rental housing for low-income families, Mr. Speaker. That's one of the things we could be doing.

An effective programme to curb land speculation and to establish land banks. I think that would be very effective, Mr. Speaker.

Subsidize mortgage rates for lower-income families to enable them to purchase homes. There's a programme, Mr. Speaker, that this government could be looking at.

Regulation of oil and gas prices which have seriously fuelled inflation. Really, Mr. Speaker, this is of the utmost importance right now. In areas like my riding, once again, in isolated parts of British Columbia, gasoline prices — and they change from station to station and pump to pump — in summer are considerably higher than need be and certainly than they are in the lower mainland area of this province.

A negative income tax, or some form of tax credits, to protect those who have little or no bargaining power and who fall into the lower-income brackets.

I would also suggest an increase in the old-age pension. Mr. Speaker, those are a few of the ways that I believe this government could effectively help curb inflation in this province.

There are one or two other items that the government should be looking at. I haven't seen that they're looking at starting secondary industry or creating secondary industry in this province to create job opportunities for our people. I know they're stopping the creation of secondary industry in this province, but I don't see where they are initiating any industry or encouraging industry. We should be looking at a steel mill, copper smelter, a petroleum plant, if these projects are environmentally sound. Projects like this would possibly effectively help create jobs and employment opportunities for our people.

[ Page 1699 ]

Mr. Speaker, just before I take my seat, one or two more items. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said yesterday that Bill 16 has two primary objectives, the first being to empower the government to sign an agreement with Ottawa under their national anti-inflation programme. Mr. Speaker, surely the government can't be serious in their attempt to become part and parcel of this atavistic form of legislation. The, federal government's Bill C-73 and the amendments to it, C-89, are nothing but a sick practical joke on the people of Canada and of this province.

Social Credit wants us to support Bill 16 to back up the anti-inflation programme when they are the single biggest contributors to inflation in the history of this province, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The government went to Ottawa in December to make clear the commitment of Social Credit to fight inflation — lip service, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, nothing but lip service.

To sign an agreement with the federal government on the anti-inflation Act would be a step backwards for the people of British Columbia. This government is not interested in fighting inflation; they're interested in filling the coffers of industries throughout this province. They preach to the people of British Columbia restraint and austerity. They ask the people of this province to help in the fight against inflation, yet the actions of this government to date are quite contrary.

Mr. Speaker, the second priority of Bill 16, as stated by the Minister of Finance, is to put legal authority behind the regulation, investigation and reviewing of prices within the province. I must say I have my doubts. The anti-inflation bill C-73 is full of holes, holes big enough to drive a truck through. Seeing where the loyalties of this government lie there is no doubt in my mind that the priorities and the real problems of inflation will not be tended to by this government. Even the federal government has admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the controls are not working; the Anti-Inflation Board has admitted that these controls are not working; and the people of this country of Canada and of this province, the overwhelming majority of them, are now aware that the wage and price controls instituted by the federal government are not working. I cannot support this bill.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, observing the clock, I would think there's just enough time for me to get my remarks in before the recess.

On Bill 16, and on nothing but Bill 16, this is a bill against inflation. It's a disease. It's a problem that affects everybody. Specifically, it's a problem that affects the old-age pensioners and those on fixed income, and it affects those industries in this province which have to compete on the world market. When we talk about inflation, we've had restraint policies, voluntary restraint by all governments, and that's lovely. They're idealistic, but they don't work. They always apply to the other guy.

Bill 16 is pragmatic. It places the responsibility where the responsibility must lie. It's a sensible bill, I support it, and I urge all other members to support it.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, unlike the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) I am not rising to support this piece of legislation.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I certainly am against this legislation because it is against the people. I think one of the things that the first member said is quite true: it is quite pragmatic. It is very pragmatic in terms of who it supports and who it is in favour of. It makes sense that that government over there would be the government to introduce a bill that would seek to control and to curb the wages of people who work and do absolutely nothing about the profits and interest rates and things that affect their personal lives over there.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) had 40 minutes during which she asked us to tighten our belts. Now I wish she would give me my turn so I can give some ideas as to how she and the rest of us can tighten our belts, because I think that was very good advice and I certainly intend to carry through on it. I wish she would quit heckling me so that I could get on with what I have to say.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. members please allow the first member for Vancouver-Burrard to continue her speech. There is a great deal of interference coming from all quarters of the House at this particular moment. Would you give the member the courtesy of listening to her, please?

MS. BROWN: They're always picking on me, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Ms. Brown moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 1700 ]

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the debate on this bill the Premier asked me if I would table some of the documents I had referred to. I am pleased to do so. I hope that with the benefit of this material he will be able to make an equally fine speech. I'm glad it impressed him so much. I table the document.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file a statement regarding a question raised earlier in the day by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

APPENDIX

36 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following, questions:

With reference to the prescription fee paid to pharmacists by the Department —

1. What was the amount of the fee paid in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976?

2. On what date in the years mentioned in No. I was the fee agreement made between the department and the pharmacists?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. 1972, 50 cents per prescription; 1973, 50 cents per prescription; 1974, $2.20 per prescription; 1975, $2.55 per prescription; and 1976, $2.75 per prescription.

"2. 1972, April 1954; 1973, April 1954; 1974, September 1973; 1975, November 1974; and 1976, March 1976."

57 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry the following questions:

1. Is the Provincial Government still a member of the Federal-Provincial committee dealing with the leg-hold trap?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the date of the last meeting of the committee and (b) what recommendations, if any, have been made by this committee?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

" 1. Yes.

"2. (a) February 17, 1976, and (b) the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping have made the following recommendations:

(i) That the trap-testing procedure to be speeded up. This has been partly accomplished by the formation of an expert sub-committee to select trapping devices of merit to be tested:

(ii) That mechanical and biological testing of traps to proceed simultaneously, rather than one after the other, thus speeding up the testing process:

(iii) That open meetings with selected public groups be continued. This

[ Page 1701 ]

APPENDIX

started with the meeting in Victoria (December 1975) and also in Winnipeg (February 1976):

(iv) That a quarterly newsletter be established and sent to supporting agencies and others as recommended. All British Columbia MLA's are on the mailing list and should by this time have received the committee's first newsletter."