[ Page 2071 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Alleged slander by Health minister. Mr. Lauk — 2071

Student summer employment situation. Mr. Wallace — 2071

Possible liaison between Colonel Sanders and B.C. Ferries. Mr. Gibson — 2072

Swampers on transportation systems. Mr. Levi — 2072

Possible AIB review of rate increases. Mr. Barnes — 2072

Dispute between CUPE and Mid-Island Employers Association. Mr. Stupich — 2073

Overcharging on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Lockstead — 2073

Statement

Vandalism in Hedley. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2074

Mr. Macdonald — 2074

Routine proceedings

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

Mr.Cocke — 2074

Mr. Davidson — 2079

Mr. Barber — 2081

Mr. Lloyd — 2085

Mr. Lauk — 2087

Mr. Stupich — 2090

Mrs. Jordan — 2097

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2097

Auditor General Act (Bill 45) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2100

Mr. Stupich — 2103

Mr. Gibson — 2104

Mr. Wallace — 2104

Mr. Lea — 2105

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the gallery this afternoon are two people: Mr. Larry Hope, the owner-manager of Decker Lake Forest Products of Burns Lake in the great constituency of Omineca, and Mr. Bill Korth of North Vancouver. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are over 40 members of the Comox Social Credit constituency, and the president of that constituency, Mr. George Smith. I would ask all members of the House to bid them a very hearty welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'd like the members of the Legislature to make welcome this afternoon a group of students in the gallery from the D.W. Poppy Secondary School in Langley.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED SLANDER BY HEALTH MINISTER

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. members of the government benches have missed me, and I'm glad to be welcomed back.

I have a question for the hon. Minister of Health. Has the minister yet received a writ issued under the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the name of Wilmer J. Pettit, a civil servant in the Health department, alleging damages for slander made and published by the minister to members of the news media at Victoria, B.C., and subsequently communicated by them to such persons as would identify Mr. Pettit as being the subject of the minister's words? The minister's words were alleged to have defamed Mr. Pettit in Mr. Pettit's office and employment as director, hospital finance division, hospital programmes for the Department of Health of the government of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Pettit alleges that the slander took place on April 29,1976.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

POSSIBLE LIAISON BETWEEN
COLONEL SANDERS AND B.C. FERRIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Last week, on one of the B.C. Ferry runs, certain coffee tops were issued reading in part "Kentucky-fried chicken; poulet frit a la Kentucky," of which I have sent the minister a copy, and I would like him to indicate to the House whether this means that the B.C. government is promoting Colonel Sanders.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Where did he go? He was there a minute ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister had to leave his seat for a moment, Hon. Member. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Oh! Perhaps I might yield the floor until he returns, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT SITUATION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary, in view of the increasingly urgent situation of student employment, if she has been able to get the figures which she said she would try to obtain last Wednesday as to how many students have been employed by the government and how many are awaiting employment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the information for the hon. member at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, a supplementary.

In view of the figures released by the director-general of Canada Manpower for the Pacific region that unemployment will soon exceed 10 per cent and the particular problem of the students in financing their studies this fall, in view of that serious hardship, has the minister initiated any discussions with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in light of the fact that the demand for student loans this fall will be greater than ever, in seeking to look ahead and try to come up with programmes that at least might neutralize some of the effects of the unemployment this summer?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. leader of the Conservative Party, first of all I would like to say that all members of cabinet are addressing themselves...and the government recognizes the dire situation that you reiterate that the federal government has expressed. We appreciated that when we tried to get the initial student

[ Page 2072 ]

programme off the ground, and the initial programme that the government wished to get off the ground was not successful. However, we do recognize the problem and we have said ourselves that it will probably be the worst year for students. All members of the government are working together to alleviate the situation. I am, in cooperation with the Minister of Education, addressing myself to that, as are all members of cabinet.

POSSIBLE LIAISON BETWEEN
COLONEL SANDERS AND B.C. FERRIES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the minister a supplementary, so to speak.

I'd like to ask him if the use of this Colonel Sanders coffee top on the B.C. Ferries indicates that the government is promoting Kentucky Fried Chicken, or purchasing recycled cups, or is this an indication that they will be getting the food franchise on the ferry system?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Colonel Sanders bought the fleet. (Laughter.)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, no, no, to the three questions.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Then would the minister launch a small inquiry to understand how these coffee-cup tops came to be used?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SWAMPERS ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the Minister of Human Resources a question about the tragic occurrence of the 81-year-old blind man who was killed in the elevator shaft. I said to him that it was my feeling that because of the reduction in the grant to the New Westminster transportation system, staff were laid off, and had that not been the case, there would have been a swamper and the accident would not have happened.

Yesterday, we got a very quick report from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) on the situation regarding the elevator. The minister indicated that he would look into it. He didn't say — and I read the Blues — that he would report back, but is he prepared to report back on what he has found out in respect to the grant made to the New Westminster transportation system, and is he prepared to admit that because of the staff cutback this tragic accident occurred?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Part of the question was in order: the reference to a report that you indicated you would give to the Legislature, Hon. Minister.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I will be getting more detailed information, but if it's of some assistance to him now, the information I've received thus far is that there were no swampers on the vehicles previously. This sort of confuses the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: The minister said there were no swampers on there. That's a mistake; there were swampers. I would suggest you look at last night's Sun and see the statement, made by the person who directs that programme. There certainly were swampers there. You cut a programme back from $180,000 to $117,000. That's why there were no swampers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

Interjections.

POSSIBLE AIB REVIEW
OF VARIOUS RATE INCREASES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): A question to the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

This refers to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who yesterday, in his remarks speaking on Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act....

MR. GIBSON: I didn't speak yesterday.

MR. BARNES: Did I say Capilano? I meant Burnaby.

But he stated that this government is committed to do everything possible to help in the national attack on inflation. He went on to state with confidence that he believed the raising of the ICBC rates was based on strict break-even actuarial principles and that we, meaning the government, I suppose, welcomed a review by the Anti-Inflation Board.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he

[ Page 2073 ]

would advise the House today whether or not the statement by that member subjects ICBC, B.C. Ferries, social service increases, medicare, medical insurance, hospital rates and a host of other increases, all of which exceed federal Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, to Anti-Inflation Board ratification after Bill 16 is passed?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: these are all matters which are under discussion by officials with the Ottawa officials, regarding the potentiality of an agreement which we hope to sign with them.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the member indicated that the government would be pleased and would welcome any subjection of any of the increases that it has made to the Anti-Inflation Board. I wonder if this is in fact or if the member was speaking only for himself and not for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think anyone who takes their place in debate on the floor speaks for themselves.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: the question is completely in order. Is a statement of a government backbencher in accord with the policy of the government? That is a question that is always in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That was not the question that was posed to the minister at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is a matter of policy of the government. I am not aware of the statement having been made by the member, but I would indicate that it is a matter of policy of the government.

DISPUTE BETWEEN CUPE AND
MID-ISLAND EMPLOYERS ASSOC.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: I wonder if he has anything at all he could report on the matter of the continuing dispute between the Mid-Island Employers Association and CUPE, which certainly has interfered very seriously with education in the Nanaimo school district and has done away completely with bus transportation. I understand their negotiations have been on and off, and I wonder if the minister has an up-to-date report.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the most recent report I have had from the mediation officer directly involved in the dispute, Mr. Clark Gilmour, is that he is pursuing with the parties avenues which he considers appropriate, but there has not yet been any indication from the employers that they are prepared to utilize any of the additional assistance that may be available under the Labour Code. Until that takes place, the appointment of a third party into the dispute remains very much in doubt. The success of a third-party intervention and through an industrial inquiry commission, to a large measure, depends upon the willingness of the parties to cooperate fully with such a commissioner in the hopes of arriving at a settlement. My office is in daily receipt of reports from the mediation officers and, in addition, we have had the Department of Education monitoring the situation in the Nanaimo schools.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is considering or has considered the possibility of asking both parties whether or not they would accept binding arbitration, whether they would voluntarily accept binding arbitration.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I met with the parties and discussed the possibility of the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission. I always do; I asked them to consider whether it should be binding. That concept is not acceptable to the union. I might say that in my proposal to the parties with respect to a commission, I proposed there be a five-person commission: a chairman, who is professional and skilled in the matter, and four citizens, two to be chosen by the union and two to be chosen by the management, and which would, in effect, function as a jury in such a case, because, after all, it is the citizens who are largely bearing the brunt of any increase there may be as a result of any negotiation. That was turned down by the employers.

MR. STUPICH: A further supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I believe the minister did say that the mediator is following procedures that he believes are appropriate under the circumstances. I wonder if the minister could tell us anything about that — or would he rather not at this stage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The task of the mediation officer is a very sensitive one, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result, I would prefer not to have it discussed. But I would be happy to meet with the member to assure him of the steps that are being taken. I don't think it would promote a settlement to have it discussed publicly.

OVERCHARGING ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the hon. Minister of Transport: I would like to know if the minister made a statement to elected

[ Page 2074 ]

representatives of my riding last Friday morning in which he talked about new cash registers for B.C. Ferries vessels, in which he alleged that B.C. Ferries personnel have been overcharging the customers and pocketing the extra money. If so, I would like to know what evidence you have, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I made no statement to that effect, either at that meeting or at any other time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister was quoted in the March 25 edition of the Sunshine Coast News as having made that statement, and I would request that he look at that issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think that you should refer to the rules of questions when you quote from newspaper articles.

VANDALISM IN HEDLEY

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members may have read in this morning's Province an article bearing the headline: "Punks Terrorize Hedley Old Folks." It was written by Mr. Tony Eberts, a highly respected Province staff reporter. Having received that article in the morning paper, Mr. Speaker, I requested that the matter be brought to the attention of authorities in this department. That has been done, and I have also had the benefit of discussions with the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), who is as disturbed and as concerned as I am with the report. I can certainly assure the members of the House that we don't have any intention of seeing citizens harassed, as the article indicated. The attendant facts will be checked and we are treating the matter as one of serious and considerable concern.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern, but I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he consider sending the Police Commission in, through himself, its officers, or such volunteers as it may wish to enrol. I'm sure there'd be no trouble getting them, because it's basically a civilian body, and with this kind of a problem that kind of an investigation could be made in terms of restoring health, in a justice sense, in that particular community.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) referred to a statement that I made in a speech yesterday in the House. If he reads back a little further in Hansard he will find that I was quoting from a statement that the Premier made two weeks ago in the House.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to second reading of Bill 16, by leave.

Leave granted.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 has been before the House for quite a considerable time now. We're surprised to see it coming and going as it is. However, we're delighted to have an opportunity to say something on the question of the attachment of the provincial government with the federal government AIB — the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting scenario that has been set up by this government is one, I think, we should all pay attention to just for a second. We see a government now talking in terms of restraint; we see a government now saying that one must tighten the belt and get involved in the federal anti-inflation programme, and, Mr. Speaker, being very, very beautiful in the act.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government would like us to forget some of their attitudes toward restraint in recent months. They'd like us to forget that they increased sales tax 40 per cent. They'd like us to forget the monstrous increases in ferry rates. Mr. Speaker, they'd like us to forget the increases in ICBC, and all of the other increases, Mr. Speaker, that they justified by casting their eyes over their shoulders and talking about the last government. But, Mr. Speaker, what have we seen during the last number of months? We've seen a group of people, a coalition called government, who have made it their direction to see to it that every action they took was an action that they could justify by virtue of talking in terms of the past government.

Mr. Speaker, let's just think a minute. What have they really done?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Cleaned up the mess.

MR. COCKE: Cleaned up the mess, the member for Columbia River says. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, I'm here to tell you there's a bigger mess now.

[ Page 2075 ]

This businesslike government has increased the budget, not decreased it, has increased the budget substantially.

Mr. Speaker, not only have they increased the budget, they have made monstrous cuts in services. So that would indicate to me that you can't have it both ways. Either you're going to do a businesslike job of reducing expenditures, which you haven't done — that would be compatible with the reduction of services, which you have done — or, on the other hand, you could show how good you are at business and continue the services at their past rate and show no budgetary increase — if, in fact, the past government was a spendthrift government, which you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt was not true. So that's precisely the kind of attitude that went into the workings of this present coalition.

Let's take a look at this bill. Let's take a look at who's exempt. Let's first think in terms of Ottawa and their attitude towards the anti-inflation bill. of their own.

I have before me a news article that I think most people would be somewhat interested in. This, Mr. Speaker, is just a little snip that says: "Look Who's Exempt."

"Are government departments and agencies and, more important, the fees of various services they charge exempt from the anti-inflation guidelines? The answer, befitting a programme that has more than its share of subtle distinctions, is maybe."

In January the cabinet — and I'm talking about the federal cabinet — decided to exempt all of its departments and most of its agencies from the jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board. An order-in-council was quietly passed and later printed in The Canada Gazette. The only agencies remaining under the vote's jurisdiction federally are 17 Crown corporations.

But, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, we even exempt our Crown corporations. ICBC is obviously exempt because they did all of their increasing prior to the government taking action under Bill 16. Their rate increases — and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) seems to be quizzical about this whole question — Mr. Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, were somewhat more than 8.5 or 10.5 or any other increase that would be considered to be anything within the realm of reality. So in B.C. we can be sure that the exemption applies to our Crown corporations as well as government departments.

Obviously government departments are exempt. We saw an increase in medicare of 50 per cent. We saw an increase in hospital per diems of 400 per cent. So restraint is a one-way street with the coalition. Restraint is something that they understand for others but not for themselves.

Federally we notice that the government is trying now a sort of deathbed repentance. When they announced their budget this week, they discussed the question that they're going to harden up on prices and they're going to harden up on profits.

We replied, when we were government and the AIB first came in, to Ottawa that it was a one-way piece of legislation that was sure to control wages, but the possibility of its controlling either prices or profits has been relatively remote. And we asked the then people that we were dealing with to harden up in that particular area. But we have seen in B.C. particularly in the last two or three months a greater inflation than in all the rest of Canada, an inflation rate that has mostly been created by our own government.

Ottawa replied, I think probably best, when the director himself was in Vancouver not too long ago. When he was asked by the press at a press conference, "How's the AIB doing?", he said: "It's doing well with wages but we're praying about prices." Not good enough, and that's why we're so very, very much opposed to the direction that this government has taken, particularly a direction that they've taken after seeing to it that all of their increases have been implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), who has been a mighty fighter over the years. He missed three years in the House and we kind of missed him. That member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) has always been a great fighter for containing oil prices in the north, bringing them down to parity with the south part of the province and getting a fair deal for the north. Mr. Speaker, that fighter hasn't said very much about our Premier agreeing with Ottawa on a 25 per cent increase in the price of oil in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, again, it's outside the AIB. It's too much, particularly for those people in more remote areas who are going to have to pay the price in spades.

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation also where during the last part of last year the then government changed the terms of reference and made an announcement with respect to rent control. We said that rent control should be changed so that the increase should not be more than 8 per cent. It didn't take the new coalition long to change that back and make rent control 10.5 per cent. When any of us that are thinking in terms of restraint, the horrendous thing that's happening under this area of rent control is that the automatic increase that takes place is an increase of 10.5 or 10.6 per cent, or whatever it happens to be. Whether justified or unjustified, that's the increase.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone into just how much this will mean in the next few years if it isn't scaled down. So let the government show where its affections are. Let the government indicate to us that they're prepared to really restrain the areas that are

[ Page 2076 ]

important to the broad cross-section of people in our province. Let the government show that they're interested in the worker who's been restrained from having access to reasonable rental accommodation. Let the government show that they're really concerned about that worker who's been restrained from having access to food that isn't escalating at an unreasonable price. Moreover, let the government show that they're really concerned about that worker or that pensioner, particularly people on fixed incomes. Let them show that they're really concerned enough to scale down some of their already very large increases.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the AIB and that our association with the AIB, under the present circumstances, give corporations a great deal more protection — almost all the protection they require — over those people who we are really interested in, those people who cannot defend themselves in this particular rarefied atmosphere. That's particularly the working poor, particularly those people on fixed incomes, particularly those people who are grossly affected by price increases and profit increases.

Let's just take a little look at history, Mr. Speaker, and see who's been looked after in our country. Rough justice, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of justice that we see before us. We see in 1965 the average percentage of profits in corporations of 8.2 per cent. We saw in 1966, 6.3 per cent; in 1967, 1.6 per cent; in 1968, 13.5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in 1969 we saw an increase of 7.1 per cent and in 1970 we saw a minus of 7.2 per cent. So they had to do some making up in 1971, and there was a profit picture of 12.8 per cent. But look where it went. In 1972 it was a 23.3 per cent average profit margin across this country; in 1973 it was 34.4 per cent of an increase; and in 1974 it was 27.2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, when we see those kinds of figures and we see the priorities in the AIB, all we can say is that the corporations, who really don't need the kind of protection they've received over the years in this country, are being once again protected, particularly because of the fact that they gain when their workers are restrained. That's their big gain, Mr. Speaker. So it's just part of the old syndrome: pay lip service to restraint, pay lip service to the whole question of dampening inflation and maybe we'll come out heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we should be looking at inflation across the world. Canada, of course, has its problems. In 1974 we had an inflation rate of 10.9 per cent and in 1975 we had an inflation rate of 10.6 per cent. The United States in 1974 had 11 per cent inflation and in 1975 they reduced theirs to 9 per cent. The rest of the western world, Mr. Speaker: Japan was 22.7 per cent and they went down to 14.4 per cent in 1975; Belgium was 12.6 per cent and 12.5 per cent successively; Denmark was 15.3 per cent and 11.9 per cent; France was 13.6 per cent and 12.1 per cent; Italy was 19.1 per cent and 19.7 per cent; the U.K. was 15.9 per cent and 25 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there has been a real travesty, because we agree that the greatest robber of people's ability to purchase from their income is inflation.

I find, just by the way of looking at other nations in the world, Mr. Speaker, that the only other Social Credit area that I can find in the world — and that's Chile — had an inflation rate of 585.9 per cent in 1974 and 371.8 per cent in 1975. I would suggest that what has occurred in Chile hasn't been the most directly beneficial to the people there, the highest inflation rate in the world that I have access to.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a great deal more concern for those most directly affected, a great deal more concern. I have before me indications of price increases. We've seen where inflation is hurting the consumer the worst. In B.C. we know that many of the government services have been hard to endure. We see such things as the high flyers of inflation, potatoes up 87.7 per cent in March of 1976. From five years ago they're up 154.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of areas indicating that there is a very, very hard inflation. One of the things that I'd like to suggest that I'm very pleased about is that milk is only up 6.2 per cent and up only 73.5 per cent over the last five years. That's a lot, but surely it's one of the most important foods that we have available.

We have it across the board, Mr. Speaker, with rare exceptions. This is where people are hurting — that and also the areas of government services. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) quoted an age-old adage that inflation is the cruellest tax of all, and I agree with the member for North Okanagan. How do we justify those kinds of statements from those members when at the same time they increase rates that they have access to? I think that the Anti-Inflation Board must at times wonder who their friends are.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities currently seem to be doing more to add to the consumer price index in the months ahead than to subtract from it. Increases in alcohol and tobacco charges, property taxes, administered energy costs could easily push the index well above its recent moderate pace.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting Ann Bower.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Ann Landers?

MR. COCKE: Ann Bower writes very well in an eastern paper, but it's just as important here, and that's in The Financial Post.

Mr. Speaker, the real high-flyers are government expenditures. I don't really think one has to do very much proving to be sure that one is right in that

[ Page 2077 ]

particular area.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the alternatives? What can we do? We certainly know that we can take another look at rents. We know perfectly well that either a subsidized rental housing situation should be embarked upon for low-income families or there should be some very hard-line rules around rental increases. Mr. Speaker, there must be effective rent controls.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there he is. The minister says "Oh." That's right. The minister says "all across the world." Yet he's endorsing Bill 16. Now you're being totally inconsistent, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. Either you're for it or you're against it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We heard the minister say "Oh!" So it would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General in this province will not support Bill 16.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. COCKE: If he supports it, then he's going against his own conscience.

AN HON. MEMBER: His conscience?

MR. COCKE: His conscience. Well, most people have a conscience, Mr. Member. Be fair.

Mr. Speaker, of course there's a division over there. We know what their attitude is towards rent control because they voted against it. And they've agonized, I presume, in order to go along with it at this point — but go along with it at too high a rate.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Adequate housing! Mr. Speaker, the only way you're going to have adequate housing is to develop the kind of initiatives that are necessary but which nobody seems to be able to deal with at the present time. So there is no question in my mind; rent controls must stay. Even this government is subscribing to rent controls through Bill 16. But it is on the record now that the Attorney-General does not favour rent controls. Therefore how could he possibly favour Bill 16 in any way, shape or form?

Mr. Speaker, another question that we should be looking at, and the question that affects every young person in this country, is speculation, speculation that's been going on in Canada for the last I don't know how many years, speculation that was started by the CPR in grabbing all the land they could get in

Canada. It's a tradition that's been carried on by major financial institutions and developers across the land. And there are too few of them; there aren't that many. Oh, there are a number of small ones, but the major land around each of the cities in Canada is locked in by speculation and by speculators.

Mr. Speaker, somehow or other that is going to have to be broken down. Young people cannot afford to pay $30,000 for a lot and then go on paying $30,000 to have construction on that lot. These are acts that somehow or other have to be modified, have to be gotten out of the purview and out of the control of the people who are hanging on for dear life.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, but you forget it was you who brought in the land freeze.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member for North Okanagan to the most recent Weekend Magazine in the rotogravure section of The Vancouver Sun. There was an excellent article telling all about the major cities in Canada. The only major city in Canada that didn't have that problem was Montreal, where they have an entirely different attitude, similar to Prince George, Madam Member. There you can buy a lot for $2,300, — here you can buy a lot for $30,000. Mr. Speaker, it's only because of the land-grabbing people who are strong enough and powerful enough to hold that land off the market and let it dribble on in such a way as to keep prices sky-high.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): She couldn't make her second million dollars because of the Land Commission Act. The Okanagan land-grabber!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Vancouver Centre has finished with his speech, I will continue. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, other areas where I think we can make some inroads are some real regulations around gas prices. Gas prices have seriously fuelled our inflation rates, seriously fuelled that rate. Yet, that is the hallowed area. They are the people who can go to the AIB for their wholesale increases. They are the people around whom Premiers and Prime Ministers make a decision for increases that, as far as the average person is concerned, are exorbitant.

Somehow someone must get a handle on it. How can we be confident of the bill that has no power in these particularly inflationary areas? How can I stand here and endorse a bill that ties us in with Ottawa on an anti-inflation programme after we have raised everything that we can possibly raise in this province with respect to payment for government services — as recently as the ferry increase which is in the process

[ Page 2078 ]

now, and beginning on June 1?

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things we can do, but more than that, in order to somehow support our economy, governments have to turn their minds to full employment, something that I don't really think we've been doing, not only in our province but also in our country. We not only have an inflation rate that is shameful, an inflation rate that is destructive for senior citizens, but we have an unemployment rate that's totally unsatisfactory and growing worse in B.C. and faster in B.C. than anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk in terms of addressing ourselves to full-employment policies, what are we as a province doing? We're laying off people as quickly as we can. Get rid of some of those ferry workers. Get rid of those other workers working for government.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Oh, no. You've got it all wrong.

MR. LAUK: Mein Kempf!

MR. KEMPF: You're all wrong.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we are not looking at full employment in this province. We are going back to the old way of keeping wages down — keeping people out of work in order to assist an economy, in order to assist our friends in the corporations to pick up cheap labour.

No, Mr. Speaker, we have to address ourselves to these areas, and if this government were, then I think they'd have a lot more credibility. They'd have a lot more credibility with our party. They'd have a lot more credibility with people in organized labour. They'd have a lot more credibility with all the young people in our province who are being denied access to the work force. I would just love to know how many young people, right now, are going to be denied post-secondary education as a result of the tremendous cutbacks we've seen in summer employment from that coalition government.

We're going to see a number of people who want to carry their own burden but who don't have rich parents to put them through, to pay their room and board. It's even worse up in your country, in the north, where they have so far to go and comparatively so much more to pay.

We, as legislators, should be working toward the end that these people have an opportunity. They're being denied an opportunity now. They're being denied an opportunity because that government is callous, Mr. Speaker. That government doesn't care about a programme that was helping people help themselves. How proud they could be, those young people, when they said: "I did it myself. I went and worked each summer and then went back to school and I finally got my degree." But now what chance have they got?

Mr. Speaker, everything they're doing is antipathetic to the need. It's not in keeping with their protests about restraint. It's not in keeping with their protests that they're supporting the federal government, let alone supporting real restraint in our province except in that one area, and that area is wages, and particularly the area of public servants — particularly in that area.

Mr. Speaker, just compare, if you will, Bill 22 and Bill 16. Bill 22 is on the order paper now, introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). I'm not going to discuss Bill 22 other than to say this: in comparison with Bill 16, Bill 22, in its essence, supersedes every other Act on the statutes. Did you realize that, Mr. Member-lawyer? Bill 22 supersedes every other Act on our statute books, but check out Bill 16.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Bill 16 is so full of "may".... No "shalls." There's only one "shall" in it, and that's mitigated by a "may" that supersedes it.

MR. LAUK: It's a "shall" game.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It is a "shall" game, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 says implicitly: "This bill is modified by any other Act of the Legislature." Bill 16 is modified. Bill 22 supersedes every other Act in our province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that shows you where our values are.

I've heard some rather marvellous arguments in this House — and I'd like to end on this note — some marvellous arguments about what causes inflation. The members of the coalition think they really have a handle on it, but I suggest to you that they're using old-fashioned economics. I'd like to refer you to something that....

Interjection.

M R. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member's embarrassed, but we'll help him. We'll help him, because I'm sure we can get somebody to read this whole thing to him if he's interested.

Mr. Speaker, this is a brochure that was put out by the Conference Board in Canada. It's called "Deficit Financing and Inflation Facts and Fictions," and it's written by Robert B. Crozier, senior economist to the

[ Page 2079 ]

Conference Board in Canada. For those who don't know, the Conference Board in Canada is probably the most sophisticated and probably one of the most prestigious boards in this country. It certainly has the respect of people who really know something about advanced economics. Mr. Speaker, what do they say early on in this treatise?

"Where, then, is the evidence to support the view that government deficit financing has produced the recent high rates of inflation in Canada?"

Remember, we were talking about that around other bills that we've had before the House, Mr. Speaker.

"Such a view must surely be based either on misreading of the economic statistics continued in the national accounts or on sources of information which are basically at variance with what the national accounts show, for, as table 1 indicates" — and there's a table in here, for those who are interested — "Canada, as a nation, has been running comfortable surpluses in the government-sector position on a national income accounts basis for all of the past decade except the year 1975, when recession eroded the tax base and led to a sharp rise in unemployment payments. In 1973 and 1974, as the rate of inflation rose, these surpluses showed major increases."

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say:

"Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests to the contrary that rising rates of taxation" — and we've seen some of that here recently — "and the increased government revenue flows which have been associated with these surpluses (and which have underwritten escalating expenditure programmes of a wasteful and non-productive nature) have contributed greatly to the emergence of cost-push factors in the economy. Upward pressures on wages and salaries have reflected, to some degree, an attempt to maintain after-tax incomes in the face of rapid increases in direct personal taxes."

Mr. Speaker, that's precisely what I started off saying: as a government we have played right into the hands of inflation. As a government that coalition made decisions outside the AIB — decisions that will cost us dearly and will reflect on the inflationary aspect of our economy for some time to come. Not only has it a continuing effect of its own, but all of the side effects that go along with it. Mr. Speaker, damage has been done. Erosion has occurred in the available income for the people in our province that only strong measures and not Mickey-Mouse, AIB, tongue-in-cheek measures, Mr. Speaker, can do anything about.

There's no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker. I have no alternative but to turn thumbs down on the government's position on the AIB, Anti-Inflation Board, Bill 16 — call it what you like, Mr. Speaker, it's a washout. It's a washout because it proves once and for all that this government has their own tongue in their own cheek, because they haven't gone along with it themselves. Everything they've done has been contrary to what they say they want to do. There's been no restraint in ICBC there's been no restraint in taxation, there's been no restraint in the taxing of services to people. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you very clearly that there's no way that we can support this piece of Mickey-Mouse legislation.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill 16, a bill which, among other things, deals with bringing the public sector of this province under the same anti-inflation guidelines as now exist in the private sector.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says there was nothing to indicate that we've done anything to attack inflation. I would suggest that he has failed to examine the budget that was brought down this year, which was only a 5.4 per cent increase, as opposed to a 58 per cent increase brought down by his government the previous year.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that after this House had the opportunity two weeks ago to hear the Minister of Labour so clearly outline the reasons for this legislation, the necessity for this legislation, and the benefits to all British Columbians of this legislation, that there need be any further debate at all. Instead of the opposition realizing their responsibility and joining with the government in charting a path towards the control of spiralling inflation in this province, they have taken a crab-like approach and moved sideways in their debate. Not only have they failed to discharge their responsibility as opposition members in supporting this legislation, but they have done everything possible to cloud the issue with misinformation and misrepresentation of the intent of this legislation.

Press coverage of the Labour minister's address two weeks ago was, to say the least, underwhelming. Through lack of interest, lack of understanding or lack of media responsibility the people of British Columbia were deprived of an opportunity to fully understand and comprehend Bill 16. As usual, too, Mr. Speaker, a smokescreen defence was taken by the NDP, and through successive improper points of order, the impact of the minister's remarks was effectively lessened by a ploy which even the most simple-minded cub reporter could clearly identify.

Clearly distinguishable also were the totally unrelated remarks dealing solely with federal jurisdiction, designed purely to detract from one of the finest presentations of any bill heard in this House.

[ Page 2080 ]

1 find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand how the NDP, which purports to be a party of the working man, a party of the poor, the deprived, those dependent upon social assistance, those on fixed incomes, can oppose a bill so clearly aimed at protecting those very same individuals. During three years of their administration the only thing they managed to accomplish in the fight against inflation was an illegal price freeze, a price freeze not even passed in this Legislature and which they knew was illegal.

The second thing they tried to do was strike a deal with the federal government to place our natural resource industries and our natural resources under the control of the federal government. Nothing could have been more disastrous to this province. I do not believe, however, that the members of the opposition, even today, understand the real necessity of this legislation...

AN HON. MEMBER: Author!

MR. DAVIDSON: ...or they would give their support, even reluctantly, to save face with the Canadian Labour Congress or the B.C. Federation of Labour, who are so irresponsibly opposed to the anti-inflation measures in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author!

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, as pointed out on many occasions in this House, Bill 16 deals only with the public sector and has been designed to complement federal legislation which does deal with the private sector. We in this House can no more ignore our responsibilities in dealing with the public sector than if the federal government had dealt only partially with the private sector, exempting half of those who currently fall under the Anti-Inflation Board regulations. The constant referrals by the opposition members that this government represents the millionaire club, the elite of society, the management viewpoint, is nothing short of utter nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DAVIDSON: The very fact that this government is introducing legislation to come to grips with a problem facing every single person in British Columbia is evidence itself of our concern, our responsibility and our determination to honour the commitments that we made to all the people of this province during our election campaign.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Did you tell them you'd raise taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well read.

MR. DAVIDSON: The fact that the opposition does not support this legislation is more than proof that they are dominated by and subservient to the bosses of big labour, and behind all the socialist rhetoric of concern for the little person they apparently could care less.

The anti-inflation measures introduced by the federal government may be far from perfect, but they represent the first step in facing a problem which, unattended, would spell social and economic disaster for every person in this dominion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once more with feeling.

MR. DAVIDSON: Nor is it fair to portray the trade union rank and file as irresponsible in their attempts to cooperate in bringing inflation under control. As referred to by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), the example set by the smelter workers of Alcan can serve as a model not only for labour but also for industry and management. Disregarding instructions of their bargaining unit to negotiate outside the wage guidelines, those union members rejected that plea, faced their responsibility, vetoed that instruction and negotiated within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when there was a government union....

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of example and that is the kind of determination that will turn around this province and this country and lead us all back to the road of productivity and prosperity. That is also the kind of collective thinking that has resulted in a 92 per cent success rate in the anti-inflation guidelines negotiated by over three-quarters of a million employees of this nation. Surely, with this kind of information, with this kind of success rate, the opposition must reconsider its stand and voice its support, be it even reluctant support, of Bill 16. There can be no question that if we are to cool the fires of inflation, then both the public and private sector must fall under the same guidelines. If we have two families living side by side, one individual subject to guidelines and the other not, can there be any hope of the programme working? Hardly, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a rhetorical question?

MR. DAVIDSON: If we have, however, two families living side by side, each subject to the same guidelines, each aware of his responsibility in the overall fight and each aware of the determination by all sectors joined to work together, then the

[ Page 2081 ]

opportunity is great not only for success between those families but success on each and every front. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill provides: equality between the public and the private sector and an end to irresponsible wage demands totally out of all proportion of ability to pay.

No one is saying that it's going to be easy and no one is saying that it's going to be done without some sacrifices. But clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is easier than the alternative, an alternative that, to date, the opposition has failed to see, an alternative that can only spell disaster for the economy and the future of the province. It is simply not fair for anyone to infer that the worker in British Columbia has been subjected to hardships in the last few years. Since 1972, average weekly earnings in British Columbia have increased 38 per cent, and average weekly earnings in British Columbia have always exceeded the increase in the consumer price index. I hope that this picture will continue, as it should.

Bill 16, as the opposition knows, must pass and will pass, but, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be encouraging if, on this very crucial and important matter, this House could stand united in its determination to control the inflationary trend which has so disrupted so many lives?

Mr. Speaker, I close in asking members of this House to give their unanimous support to Bill 16 and by so doing to honour their commitment of responsibility to the electorate of British Columbia, and to serve the electorate's interests to the very best of our collective abilities. Thank you.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for your permission to break procedure for just a moment. It's not too often that we get students travelling from Prince Rupert down to see the Legislature in operation, because of the difficulty of travel. I would like to ask the House this afternoon to join me in welcoming to the gallery and to the Legislature a group of students from the secondary school in Prince Rupert, and I would ask you to all be on your best behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are the Socreds applauding?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And you, too, Jim.

A coalition government has a lot of problems: they have a problem getting their act together; they have a problem deciding what their principles are; they have a problem deciding what their priorities are and how they shall follow their principles. I have said before, and I would like to repeat again, that we have a coalition government dominated by a cabinet of 15 persons. Among those 15, five of them used to be enemies of the other 10. This is a big problem for a coalition government, Mr. Speaker. This fundamental problem is reflected in their fundamental inability to set an economic policy that makes sense. It is reflected in their inability to persuade anyone, including some of their own backbenchers, of the worth of Bill 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: This coalition government has no thought-out, rigorously examined, consistent economic policy. The problem they've had persuading anyone of the merits of Bill 16 has been that their actions contradict their words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: Their actions contradict their words, and have done so from the day they took office. A coalition government has a terrible responsibility to its own members, not to act on principle or philosophy but merely to get re-elected. So they try, on the one hand, wearing their Mickey Mouse hats, to tell the people of the province that the Anti-Inflation Measures Act is going to solve the inflation problems in this particular jurisdiction. On the other hand they are doubling, tripling and quadrupling every rate in sight,

It is a very difficult act they have, Mr. Speaker. I think we should, perhaps, for a moment stand silently in respect for the difficulties this coalition is going through at the moment.

In the fight against inflation every government in the world has more than a political and more than an economic responsibility; it also has that peculiar responsibility of leadership called moral leadership. This government has failed utterly to set a moral example and that's why the bill is failing, too.

A government that comes in with increases of 100, 200, 300 and 400 per cent is setting an example, a very bad example. That's why it has been impossible for this coalition to persuade anyone of the merits of Bill 16. This bill and that coalition are hopeless and inconsistent and absurd.

It is hopeless because their cause has failed already and no one believes them. It is hopeless because the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board himself prays to God, hoping that they might find some way to control prices. They know they have found a way to control wages; he doesn't have a clue how to control prices. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board gets down on his knees to pray to God because no other remedy is at hand. This coalition is doing the same thing.

It's hopeless because it has failed already; the inconsistencies and the internal contradictions are so

[ Page 2082 ]

great that it is simply not working. The bill is inconsistent because of the failure of this coalition to get its act together. On the one hand they preach restraint; on the other they quadruple ICBC rates.

MR. CHABOT: Is that what Galbraith says?

MR. BARBER: We'll get to what Galbraith says in a moment. I had the opportunity to spend several hours with that gentleman, and I am going to be telling you something about what he says. He has grave reservations about AIB. By the way, when he came here as my guest that night in the gallery and watched this Legislature debating Bill 16, he said in one simple sentence, describing this Legislature: "A disgrace to the Mother of Parliaments." That's how impressed he is with the way the coalition runs the affairs of this House. But we'll get back to Mr. Galbraith later.

For the moment I want to point out again that this hopeless, inconsistent and absurd bill is bound to fail. It will pass this House, but it will fail the test of public approval. It will fail the test of success.

It is inconsistent because on the one hand we have a coalition that preaches restraint, and on the other hand increases acute-care and extended-care premiums by 400 per cent. Hopeless inconsistency, Mr. Speaker. Finally, this bill is absurd because, again, we see the complete inability of a coalition to get together and say the same things.

I have, personally, considerable respect for the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch). We've had a long talk; he's a charming gentleman. Yesterday he said that he believed that it would be appropriate and fair — I trust I am quoting you properly; if I am not, please correct me — for ICBC itself, and the Autoplan increases, to be the subject of AIB jurisdiction. I congratulate that honest and candid member for Burnaby-Willingdon. That is our position, too.

The fact that he says that is more than enough evidence that this coalition can't decide what its economic policy is. An honest, fair member, presently in the back bench, hopefully sometime in the cabinet — we'd like those qualities in the cabinet — tells us what we tell this Legislature, which is that if the government is to make an earnest and sincere case about inflation, that case has got to start in their own backyard.

I, Mr. Speaker, would be quite charmed to see introduced as an amendment to Bill 16 a proposal that a Treasury Board monitoring agency be established, because the worst inflator of them all, since December 22, has been that Treasury Board itself. More than charity begins at home, Mr. Speaker; a good example begins at home too. If this bill were amended to include supervision of the Treasury Board, and made retroactive to reduce ICBC rates, hospital premiums, ferry rates and all the rest of it....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Bring in the amendment? Will you vote for it? Tell me you will. Tell me you'll second it. You know you would never vote for such a thing because it would hopelessly embarrass the already embarrassed position of this government.

MR. LAUK: Jiggery-pokery.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, as I've already said, and others have mentioned it, several significant authorities dealing with economic policy in this country have already told us that the Anti-Inflation Board is not working, that it is so hopelessly one-sided and lopsided in favour of corporations and business that no one can take it seriously. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board himself, Mr. Jean Pepin, has said that.

The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in this Legislature has said it. Do you understand the political significance of that? A man who sits here as the provincial leader of the federal party now in power tells us that he himself is not satisfied with what his own federal party has done.

The hon. Liberal leader in this House is going to vote against this bill. He has told us and he's told us why. He has told us that he knows that the hopeless, absurd and inconsistent position of this coalition makes it insufferable and impossible to vote for it. The man is putting his career on the line because he knows the same truth we do. It is hopelessly biased in favour of business and against the ordinary working person. The leader of the Liberal Party is voting against a bill which his own federal government introduced originally.

Further, the leader of the Conservative Party in this House (Mr. Wallace) has also attacked Bill 16. Why? On the same honest grounds. On the same grounds of intellectual rigour; on the same grounds of concern for the facts. He knows the same facts that the people know: it is hopelessly one-sided and lopsided. And he is voting against it too.

The former leader of his party, Mr. Stanfield, lost a federal election introducing the programme which the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, introduced about six months later. The leader of the Conservative Party is putting his own career on the line. He's telling us what we know to be the case: the bill is unfair; it's not working. It's biased and deeply prejudiced against ordinary working people in this country. Of course we cannot support it.

Restraint begins at home, Mr. Speaker. A monitoring agency that had the power to tell the Treasury Board to turn back its own inflationary

[ Page 2083 ]

increases would be something in the form of an amendment which we probably could vote for. Restraint begins at home; moral leadership begins at home. This government has exercised no restraint and no moral leadership. The example it has set has been a bad one, a bad one from beginning to end.

Mr. Speaker, this coalition promised during the election campaign that it would not increase taxes. This coalition solemnly promised that it would not increase taxes. In fact, during the campaign they promised that if they were in government they would freeze taxes. The moment they came to power, piece after piece of legislation was altered; Act after Act of governments were changed; price after price was increased. Now the taxes are going up too.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) announced an increase by two-thirds in the cost to municipalities of their share in the payment for social assistance in this province. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Curtis) gave them $10 million, the Minister of Human Resources took back $6.5 million. The only way municipalities are going to be able to make up that $6.5 million is by raising taxes. This government has forced the municipalities to raise taxes. This government has broken its own promise. That coalition has once again been demonstrated to have no sound, consistent, coherent, economic policy, because they are a coalition, not based on principle but based on opportunism.

Let me tell you something about the hopeless, the absurd and the inconsistent position of this government. Let me remind this House that the government that preaches restraint increased ICBC rates by 100 to 400 per cent. The salaries and the incomes of the citizens of my riding were not increased proportionately by 100 to 400 per cent to help them pay that.

This coalition, Mr. Speaker, has increased electricity and natural gas rates an average of 12 per cent. The coalition which preaches restraint did not permit the citizens of my riding to increase their incomes by 12 per cent to make up for it.

This coalition allowed an increase in home-heating oil of 4.5 per cent per gallon. This coalition did not permit the citizens of my riding to increase their incomes in order to pay for that increase.

This coalition eliminated the price freeze altogether on propane and gasoline. This coalition preaches restraint.

This coalition allowed an increase in residential rents from 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent. They did not allow the tenants of my riding to increase their incomes proportionately. This coalition allowed rent increases of 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent — the coalition that preaches restraint.

They cancelled a plan to introduce rent controls on commercial premises, Mr. Speaker. Then they turned around and told us about restraint. They eliminated the price freeze on food, drugs and beverages. Then they told us about restraint and introduced Bill 16. They allowed price increases on bread and milk, two of the fundamentals of any diet in our society. Then they turned around and preached restraint.

They introduced a budget which increased sales tax by 40 per cent. Then they turned around and preached restraint. They increased personal income taxes; they increased taxes on the sick; they increased hospital co-insurance in acute and extended care by 400 per cent. What kind of an example is that? Where is the restraint, and how did it begin in your home? It didn't at all. There was no restraint at all by that coalition. They increased Medicare premiums by 50 per cent. Where was the restraint then? They increased the cigarette and tobacco tax. They increased B.C. Ferries by 100 per cent.

Just two days ago, Mr. Speaker, they doubled the rates for entry into provincial parks. Presumably, tomorrow there will be another doubling or tripling or quadrupling of some other rate in some other place.

This coalition has no consistent economic policy. Time after time we have seen example after example of wildly inflationary increases. Then they turn around and introduce Bill 16 and tell us they are going to control inflation. This is hopeless; it is inconsistent and it is absurd, Mr. Speaker.

This government is required to set an example. They have set one, a bad one. They have permitted in the province of British Columbia the highest unemployment rate we have ever seen in our history. As of this week some 112,000 of our citizens are out of work — 9.7 per cent of the work force. In classical economic terms, and speaking especially to the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) he is well aware, I hope, that people in positions of power tend to increase unemployment in order to reduce inflation. This is the ordinary saw-off; this is the conventional balancing act.

This government has somehow managed to beat the traditional and the classical mode: they have managed to increase unemployment, and increase inflation. A remarkable achievement. Perhaps for another moment we could stand in silence and congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Unemployment is now at 9.7 per cent; 112,000 persons out of work. Price after price has been doubled, tripled and quadrupled. This is a remarkable achievement. It is an achievement that has been noticed, Mr. Speaker.

The chairman of the board at Woodward's, in his own introductory remarks to his annual report published just days ago, informed his stockholders that for the first year ever in the history of that corporation they lost money. They lost money last

[ Page 2084 ]

year in Woodward's, one of the major British Columbia employers. The chairman of the board of Woodward's, hardly a supporter of my own party, attributed the loss last month to one single factor: a decision by the provincial government to increase the sales tax by 40 per cent, a decision by the provincial government to increase ICBC rates from 100 to 400 per cent. The chairman of the board of Woodward's informed his stockholders that because of that cut in purchasing power, because of the absence of purchasing power in the hands of the consumers, fewer people came to his stores to purchase his goods, and Woodward's lost money.

Not just the chairman of Woodward's made these remarks, though. A civil servant in this province made the same remarks. Dr. Rae, the Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development, told the people of British Columbia the same story. Last month we saw the highest cost-of-living increase anywhere in Canada right here in this province. That was attributed directly to the increase of 40 per cent in the sales tax and the increase of from 100 to 400 per cent in ICBC rates. That is a direct responsibility of the coalition government.

This government has the nerve, the audacity, to introduce Bill 16 and preach restraint, and on the other hand has to stand by and be embarrassed when one of its own civil servants blames them for the cost-of-living increase last month.

We didn't make that up, Mr. Speaker. We didn't invent that stuff. No guy stood in the back of a room and churned that nonsense out on a mimeograph machine. The Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development attributed the cost-of-living increase directly to a 40 per cent increase in sales tax and to a 100 to 400 per cent increase in ICBC costs.

This government is in a hopeless, absurd and inconsistent position. It preaches restraint on the one hand and practises none at all on the other. This government is required to set a moral example, and they have set a bad one.

Let me conclude by telling you about one particularly unbelievable example this government has set. Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, one of the many now-breaking campaign promises made by the coalition? They said that they were going to cut the salaries of cabinet ministers. Sure enough, they got into office and they said, indeed, they were going to cut the salaries of cabinet ministers; indeed, they were going to cut the salaries of MLAs in the back bench; and further, they were going to cut the salaries of certain persons, political appointees, hired in various political offices in this government.

They made that promise, Mr. Speaker, and when they made it they didn't put any deadline on that promise. They didn't say it would end in a year or two or five or 10. They said: "We're going to cut the salaries; we're going to set an example." They said: "We're going to start this restraint here in our own home." And we believed them and the people believed them. The people believed them, the people voted for them and sure enough they cut the salaries. But do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? We've got the bill here in our books and it turns out they only cut them for a year. Just for a year! Sure enough, the section of the Act which....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. You are now reflecting on another bill that is before the House, and you are not speaking to the principle of Bill 16. Would you confine your remarks to Bill 16, please, and not debate another bill that will be debated another day?

MR. LEA: There is no principle to Bill 16!

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am pointing out is that this government, in every aspect of its decision-making in legislation, has a responsibility to set a consistent example. They tricked the people about our salaries; the restraint only lasts for a year. There has been no restraint whatsoever in the wild and inflationary rate increases that they've introduced since they became government.

It's impossible, Mr. Speaker, to support Bill 16. They promised that they would cut taxes. I mentioned before — and I will conclude with this final remark — that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) informed, very recently, the municipalities of British Columbia that they were going to be responsible for coming up with an additional $6.5 million in order to participate in the now-increased share in provincial and municipal welfare costs.

This is quite a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker. It's a remarkable achievement. They made a promise five months ago but last week the Minister of Human Resources breaks yet another piece of it. It's quite an amazing achievement.

The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities has said that it is, in his opinion, unfair, that it is a form of double taxation, and that very form of double taxation was itself attacked by the former mayor of Surrey, the now Minister of Human Resources.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes, the small town mayor of Human Resources, the Hon. William Vander Zalm.

Mr. Speaker, this government is in trouble. That coalition is in trouble. No one believes them any more. They fought an election on the grounds of

[ Page 2085 ]

restraint, and immediately on assuming office they practised no restraint at all. Were they an example of any conviction and strength, it would be a little more difficult for us to speak against this. Were there consistency, were there soundness of argument, were there documentation to demonstrate that the Anti-Inflation Board is fair and equitable, it would be harder to speak against it. Were it part, as an instrument, of a planned economy developed in order to benefit every citizen in Canada, we couldn't vote against it at all. But it is none of those three things, Mr. Speaker. It is, in fact, an inconsistent, an impossible, an unhappy and doomed-to-a-miserable-end piece of legislation.

No one on this side supports it. I suspect some of their own backbenchers don't support it, and I suspect as well that in two or three years' time this coalition is going to be hoping desperately that everyone is going to have forgotten they ever introduced this farce, this joke, this hoax called Bill 16. It simply won't work, Mr. Speaker. They won't let it work. Their own example contradicts their own legislation.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I rise to speak in favour of Bill 16, the anti-inflation measures, and I'll try to stick a little closer to the bill than some of the members of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was quoting the price of home lots a while ago, but it's probably pretty relevant to their basic sense of values and costs anyway. He was telling us we can buy home lots in Prince George for $2,300 a lot. I admit we're quite efficient up there and we do have the best-priced lots in the province, but you can't quite buy them for $2,300, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. LLOYD: We used to range in the $6,000 to $8,000 range, and in the last sales they went at between $ 10,000 and $12,500. So where he finds his $2,300 is a little bit hard to understand. But when you see the problem they have trying to understand why ICBC rates, why the ferry rates and why the income tax and sales tax had to go up, then it really isn't all that hard to understand why they think you should be able to buy lots for $2,300.

I would just like to mention on those ICBC rates.... I was discussing with the Prince George manager of ICBC, and he tells me what the increase in rates has done, what the restoring of responsibility and driving care has done. This same month a year ago they registered four times as many claims as they have this month. I find that very heartening. Not only will our costs go down but the accidents go down, the injuries go down. I can see a whole range of benefits coming from this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He gave away his car!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I speak for Fort George, the white spruce capital of the world. Our riding depends for 75 cents out of every $1 on the forest industry, and when the public service sector and the Crown corporations allow their wages to spiral uncontrolled, the basic industries, the forestry, the agriculture, the mining, the fishing and the tourist industry cannot compete any more. I just quote a few labour statistics to show the percentage of the labour force....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: The total labour force in B.C. In 1974 was some 1,073,000 people. The ones who qualified for unionization were some 930,000 people, leaving a balance of some 143,000 people.

MR. LAUK: Table it.

MR. LLOYD: Of those qualified for unionization — the 930,000 — the unionized at that time were some 401,000, or 43 per cent. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) the other evening said that in 1976 the unionized workers have risen to 440,000, or some 47.3 per cent. Of this, the government employs some 196,000 or 45 per cent of the unionized workers in B.C. That same 196,000 is some 20 per cent of our overall total labour force in British Columbia.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

When we have a situation that started shortly after the 1972 election, when the NDP gave in to the ferry workers, they started a spiral among all the government employees there. When the ferry workers pressured Bob Strachan into those ridiculous wage increases and the hours of work, the overtime, it just started a spiral off right through all the Crown corporations.

MR. CHABOT: They held a gun to his head.

MR. LLOYD: B.C. Hydro, which has always prided itself on having one of the highest wage rates among Crown corporations, what happened to them? Their man-day productivity dropped and their costs skyrocketed. They put a lot more work out to private

[ Page 2086 ]

enterprise; they just couldn't afford their work. The lowest department, the Highways department, which has always had a problem getting good men because of their wages, what happened to the pride they used to have? Of course their production fell; road maintenance and construction costs skyrocketed there. No wonder "Pot-hole" Lea couldn't build any highways — the former Highways minister from Prince Rupert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter Pot-hole.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) speaks of the virtues and the necessity of the overtime payment requirements, portal-to-portal workdays, 35-hour weeks. It just shows what real responsibility he has, or what knowledge of the entire province he has. Some particular industries have seasonal labour, Mr. Speaker, such as farming or logging. We've all heard the old saying, "you make hay while the sun shines." Well, certainly it's true in logging as much as in farming. In our area we're very fortunate in the summertime when we get dry enough weather to log, and when we have to put the extra hours in. I think the same thing holds true on farming. If we're going to say that as soon as he starts putting in anything over eight or nine hours a day it goes to double time, and we try to compete with the government employees' wages, well, it just pushes our primary industries right off the market.

A lot of these jobs that we talk about in logging, they're miles and miles from town. They're not going to work eight hours a day and then sit around a bunkhouse the rest of the evening. They'd like that opportunity to earn some extra money, because they're not working 12 months of the year like a lot of government employees. They're working seasonally. They only have a short period to work, and it's very important to them to be able to accumulate as much as they can while they're at it.

I think the Forest Service shows pretty well what has happened in this wage spiral, in the fight for shorter hours. As soon as the overtime shift adjustment stopped, as soon as they had to drive portal-to-portal, how could they properly go and inspect a job 100 miles from town? What happens here? Efficiency drops; they can't give the same supervision.

Another problem is the look-out personnel there. This was a job that certain people took. They were older people or handicapped people, a lot of them, but they took a lot of pride in it, going up on the top of those mountains, sitting there alone all summer protecting the forests and protecting their country. But when they unionized and the shorter hours came in and they had to have overtime, what happened to those jobs, Mr. Speaker? And this was under the previous administration. What happened to those jobs? They were eliminated. I'll bet those people really appreciate what the unions and the NDP have done for them.

But probably, Mr. Speaker, the part that hurts the most up in our part of the country is what happened when the B.C. Railway employees tried to catch up with the spiralling inflation there. As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Railway is the life-blood of B.C. It's the artery joining the communities throughout the interior with the major population centres at the coast who are dependent on the interior for their sustenance and growth. The present status quo of the BCR, I think, really clearly indicates why Bill 16 is so necessary. Last year's wage increase that was granted to trainmen, that was yielded by the NDP to end a disastrous strike, is typical of the situation that has plagued the BCR and their operation.

These same BCR trainmen who a year ago were holding up the BCR so we couldn't get lumber moving, so we couldn't get freight moving, these same BCR trainmen wouldn't accept a contract that had already been issued on the national lines, on the CPR and the CNR, because they knew they could bluff and bamboozle the NDP government into a higher rate of increase. Once this was done, it started off another mighty wage spiral, another race to re-establish the ratio.

That's the most serious blow that resulted from that to re-establish the wage ratio — the pecking order. The other unions joined the race for the higher wages and the overtime benefits and the fringe conditions until today B.C.'s heartbeat has been practically stopped.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents need Bill 16 to enable our government to enter into meaningful Anti-Inflation Board regulations with the federal government to control inflation in the public sector which accelerates and inflames the race for ever-higher wages in the Crown corporation sectors. Perhaps Bill 16 will not restore the heartbeat to British Columbia. Perhaps the other bill that we have before the House will have to be required, and changes in the management of BCR are probably also necessary.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps even the joint council of unions working for the BCR....

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

MR. LAUK: One out of 10 for Howard. Keep plugging, Howard.

MR. LLOYD: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a joint

[ Page 2087 ]

council of unions working for the BCR will recognize their responsibility to their fellow citizens, to the forest industry who faced colossal losses over the last three years, and to the communities which depend on the forest industry and on the BCR for their livelihood. Yes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the council will supply the transfusion necessary to restore strength to the heartbeat of the British Columbia Railway. Perhaps it will, but my constituents aren't holding their breath in anticipation.

MR. LAUK: I wish you'd hold your breath — forever.

MR. LLOYD: Their patience, like their resources and their finances, has been totally exhausted. They are completely frustrated with the childish labour-management conflict which has gone on and on with the BCR.

My riding depends for over 75 per cent of their income on the forest industry. This ratio could change if we could encourage other resource development in the interior. We speak of the tremendous growth that's possible in developing the coal resources. We hear of possibilities of steel mills for the interior, but none of these developments will take place. Even the forest resources will falter unless the wages in the public sector are restrained. We will be unable to afford the wages to our own labour force, even.

Why should the workers in the primary industries subsidize the public sector? They cannot afford to. Our products are being priced out of the world market. Mr. Speaker, we need Bill 16. As the Labour minister, the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), stated during his earlier debate on this bill regarding the Crown employees — and this is something the opposition keeps overlooking — that's what Bill 16 is all about. Are they going to allow 55 per cent of the organized employees in this province to be regulated by the anti-inflation regulations and are they going to exempt 45 per cent from these regulations?

I will just read this again for the benefit of the opposition. They seem to keep overlooking this.

Is that what the NDP is saying? They are going to vote against this bill; they are not prepared to subject the public-sector employees — almost 50 per cent of the organized employees in British Columbia. They are going to vote against the bill which would bring them under the same control as their fellow workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour minister goes on to say in that same speech:

Virtually all of the employees we have in the public sector are unionized. The consequences of this, because this covers all the public service — B.C. Hydro employees, the ICBC, the school teachers, university employees, faculties, community colleges, B.C. Rail...hospitals, nurses, the whole range of what we have considered as a public service responsibility — those are the people who are within our sector, the public sector. Recognize, if you will, that the cost of employing each one of these employees finally comes back directly either to a minister of this government or to the responsibility of a school board or a municipality or a regional district in this province.

The burden of their compensation bears directly upon this government or the other levels of government and thence directly on the taxpayer of British Columbia.

I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore there is a double reason why we want to have those public-sector employees brought under the same influence of controls as is available to the private sector, because the demands that they make the consequences of those demands are inflation also bear directly upon the tax burden of the citizens of this province. Therefore we can lose two ways. If inflation is increased by reason of inappropriate settlements in the public sector we all suffer, and most certainly those people who are on fixed and limited incomes will suffer. But the suffering also comes in another direction because it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers to bear the burden of that compensation.

We want to have for the employees in our public sector the same treatment as those...in our private sector. This will be the thrust of the government in the days and the months to come. But, Mr. Speaker, we want them to have no more and no less, and we ask the opposition to consider seriously whether they are prepared to oppose the legislation....

MR. LAUK: We are.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are also concerned at the taxpayers footing the bill for the public sector and as citizens who are genuinely concerned about the rampant inflation that threatens our province's future. I ask all the members of this House to vote in favour of a return to realism and a return to responsibility and vote for Bill 16.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was a little upset when the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) who is not in his place at the moment read his speech. I felt it was an offence against the conventions of the House. I thought that if a member should read a speech in the House he should table it.

Then when I heard the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), I wish he had read his speech, and read the hon. member for Delta's (Mr. Davidson's) speech. The member for Fort George said, in essence, that people take great pride in earning low wages, that if they are underpaid and

[ Page 2088 ]

poorly paid they have pride in their work place and their productivity increases. I have never heard of such a thing! He's suggesting that poverty equals purity. What a bunch of cliches, half-truths and ancient homilies! More uncharitable people around here would say that speech was insincere, political opportunist hogwash!

The member for Fort George continuously comes into this House, Mr. Speaker, and represents those people he knows well — Genghis Khan and Louis XIV.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Nobody knows that for sure.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to note also that the Minister of Finance, who is sponsoring this bill through the House, was not in his seat while three of the speeches were made this afternoon. I have been told he was also absent at other times when debate on the bill that he is piloting through the House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill please, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I'm dealing with the bill. The minister....

DEPUTY . SPEAKER: You are dealing with the minister, Hon. Member. Back to the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be in the House when the bill is being debated.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Where were you yesterday, young fellow?

MR. LAUK: I was in your riding, and you are in trouble, Mr. Minister! I called on your mother and she said that she's never going to vote Socred again. Not very proud of you, Evan. (Laughter.) What you could do to try and rectify the situation is stay in the House when your bill is being debated. Don't follow the example of that wayward leader of yours who is too frightened to come into this House ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK:...and face this little opposition dominated by that overwhelming right-wing coalition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the anti-inflation bill — now that both the Premier and the Minister of Finance have come in specifically to hear my speech on the subject — there are one or two points before....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The proof of the pudding, Mr. Speaker; he's back to the countinghouse, counting up that unreasonable surplus that he's fleeced off the backs of the British Columbia taxpayer, that surplus that they're going to use in a cynical, Machiavellian, purely political fashion in election year to buy off the voters with their own money. What a hoax! Then they have the nerve to bring in Bill 16, the Anti-Inflation Board legislation. A disaster!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I seem to hear some noises in the far corner of the back bench — in the wilderness of the back bench where the frustrations for political power are seething and churning and boiling and bubbling. Some of them wander up here like to odd bubble. They sit in a cabinet seat, they swing back and forth and dream about better days. The member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) dreams about former days. (Laughter.) He knows he should be there; he knows that the AIB legislation is a disaster. He knows that the Minister of Finance and the Premier are being controlled by that old gentleman up in Kelowna. He knows that he's pulling the strings in this nonsense.

What better example, Mr. Speaker, of the fraud that's being perpetrated on the people of this province by raising these taxes, increasing tremendous surpluses in this province, than the example of the Minister of Human Resources placing an increased welfare burden on municipalities, on the homeowner, on land taxes? What a hoax! The Minister of Municipal Affairs gives them money with one hand; the Minister of Human Resources takes it away with the other. I've never seen such a flim-flam game in the history of British Columbia politics!

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): The last three years.

MR. LEA: You go drink some water from the Fraser. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Human Resources, with the acquiescence, the approval and the direction of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, stabbed the landowner and the homeowner in the back in this province. It's a shameful, disgraceful act! It was planned; it was plotted. You are fooling no one, I say through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it seems the back bench is a little restless. There should be a process of having

[ Page 2089 ]

them going on furlough, even while this session is sitting. They could go on furlough, then the hon. member for Columbia River could go to Calgary and pick himself up a new suit.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) made a speech some time ago....since we're in the habit in this House of debating a bill and pulling it back, then debating it and pulling it back, I can't recall the day on which the Minister of Labour spoke. But he spoke at length about the legislation before the House. He tried that little sophisticated jumble, the double-shuffle. He used better words than the average front bencher, longer words, but it was still the double-shuffle. It was still doubletalk.

The man from Glad, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) managed, among other things, to slander one of the members of the House before he finished his speech. He was made to withdraw in the hall. But among the things he did say, Mr. Speaker, is that through his courageous government.... The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and himself went to Ottawa and they demanded, on behalf of all of the little people in British Columbia, that the excise levy on resource exports be discontinued or not applied in the anti-inflationary programme. And they were heroes. Where were they in October and November of 1975 when the NDP administration were negotiating with the federal government? Where were they when we made those demands?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was the NDP government?

MR. LAUK: All of a sudden they said: "Oh, we did this. We came to government" — this is the way the Minister of Labour put it — "and we found out about the excise levy." It was on the front page of two Vancouver city dailies for 10 days ...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...in October and November of 1975; and the Minister of Labour claims, "We found out when we came to office." This is the kind of nonsense we get from these ministers on a constant basis. If they're not slandering, and made to withdraw in the hall, they're being sued for slander for demoting civil servants and hiding behind them, hiding their own incompetence.

He talked about labour unions and the ordinary little people in the trade union movement. He talked about Alcan. Yes, the workers at Alcan said: "We will negotiate a settlement in accordance with the standards and the guidelines set down by the Anti-Inflation Board. We will do so because we trust the NDP administration of the day to control the prices of other commodities and their cost of living."

They had the trust in the government of the day to bring about control of the prices that they were, as workers, facing from day to day: food, clothing, their homes, their cars, their gasoline, their home-heating fuels, their medical payments. They trusted the government of the day to hold that back and, yes, they said: "We will negotiate a settlement within the anti-inflationary guidelines."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They relied on the government, Mr. Speaker. They relied on any government to control the prices in public and private industry, in the public industry of the government which includes ferries and insurance, which includes taxes and hospital insurance. And they were betrayed.

The story of this bill and the story of this government of broken promises is betrayal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: The people of this province feel betrayed and they have been betrayed. They were promised a freeze on taxes and they were betrayed. They were promised a freeze on prices of food and other commodities and they were betrayed. They were betrayed every step along this cataclysmic road that this right-wing coalition is plodding along. And if only there was an election soon to put a stop to their madness, their pre-Cambrian economics and their thug-like approach to civil rights....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you kindly use more temperate language?

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw the word "thug-like" and say right-wing-coalition-like approach, which uncharitable people in the province are now describing as a thug-like approach, but I would not do that. I'm not that uncharitable.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: But you sure can't fool those people, Mr. Speaker.

This is a government of privilege for the already privileged, a government which espouses only the values of corporations, not the values of people. If lifting the price freeze on food, if increasing income taxes, insurance rates, sales taxes, ferry rates, hydro rates and medicare payments puts the ordinary citizen at a financial disadvantage in this province, Bill 16 puts them in the chains of personal bankruptcy. Bill 16 betrays the majority of British Columbians, betrays the low-income families, betrays

[ Page 2090 ]

the organized labour movement and the unorganized.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Bill 16 does something else as an encore, if you think that isn't bad enough. Through this bill they are making a concerted attempt against civil rights in this province. The province has the power under the BNA Act to legislate with respect to property and civil rights. There's a section of this bill that will allow this Big Brother government to invade our homes, our businesses, our trade union offices, our organizations' offices, seize documents without warrants and without any legal security to the citizens of this province.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This is a right-wing government that threatens the very democratic process that we've become accustomed to in this province, in this country and in the British Commonwealth for many, many hundreds of years.

Mr. Speaker, Big Brother has come eight years before Orwell expected it to arrive.

MR. KEMPF: Do you believe all that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: So do you; that's why you're embarrassed. The laughter of embarrassment.

MR. LAUK: There's a dangerous majority in this House, Mr. Speaker. There's a majority of right-wingers who are trampling on hard-won civil liberties, the hard-won civil liberties of all of the citizens of this province. I believe, therefore, that this bill is totally and completely unconstitutional because it offends natural justice. I'm not just talking about the nonsensical, W.C. Fields economics that they've been perpetrating upon us all. I'm talking about the offence against civil liberties in this province.

There was an article in Jack Wasserman's column a couple of weeks ago about a young couple who were invaded by a police force who ripped their apartment apart looking for some stolen goods, and it was found later that the police had no warrant, no evidence and no reason to come into their apartment. It was all there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 16?

MR. LAUK: Bill 16 exactly, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you recognize the article of Jack Wasserman's. It was exactly that. If you allow this bill to pass, Mr. Speaker, without immediately getting out of that chair and reporting it to the Governor-General of Canada, who should disallow this bill, then you're not doing your duty, with the greatest conceivable respect, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: It is an attack on civil liberties. Without warrant and without evidence, records, private documents, papers can be seized; premises can be entered without recourse to any legal security for our citizens.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the great freedom-fighters, with the seagull right over their heads, walking across this province and saying: "Those NDPers, they're not democratic. They're taking away your freedom?" If we brought in a bill like this, can you imagine what would happen? You know what we did with the Land Commission Act? We added the words "and the commission can acquire land." Do you remember that? With that little phrase the chicken-little gang, the hole-in-the-wall gang, went all over the province saying: "They're taking away our freedoms! There's a Red under every bed!"

This section of Bill 16 allows for the complete trammelling of civil liberties and civil rights under search and seizure protections that we've had in this province and this country for hundreds of years. It's a disgrace! For that reason alone I would vote against this bill, let alone, as I say, Mr. Speaker, what they have done to the economy of this province that's been so well catalogued by the members of the opposition. It is significant indeed, as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has stated, that the leader of the Tory party (Mr. Wallace) and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) are also opposed. It is very significant.

This government is a failure. The sad thing is that they don't know it themselves yet. They don't know it, or they'd withdraw this bill.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Premier might get involved in this debate and give us some reasons as to why we should ...

MR. LEA: He's scared.

MR. LAUK: Scared silly.

MR. STUPICH:.... . support this legislation in the form in which it has been introduced. Certainly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) didn't give us much reason. In fairness to him, I think we should admit that he told us everything he knew about it, but that took about 45 seconds. We were hoping that perhaps the Premier might get more involved and might give us some good reason as to why we should

[ Page 2091 ]

reconsider the position that has been advanced by, I think, every member of the opposition so far, and I believe most of us have spoken.

Mr. Speaker, as members of the Legislature, I think we're here to consider legislation that will serve society, legislation designed to provide at least a basic standard of living for everyone in our community, a standard that's related to our ability to produce goods and services and, as I say, to make sure that everyone in the community has some opportunity to participate in that. Through a mixture of government programmes, government legislation from time to time, and also, Mr. Speaker, through the system, if you like — if you can call it a system — of employer-employee confrontation that surfaces from time to time, we have established some measure of equity in our society, but I think we'll all admit that we have quite a way to go yet.

One of the things that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did say in introducing this legislation was that the programme — the anti-inflation programme, and we're looking at this as part of it — must seem to be fair if it is going to be accepted by the community. Well, Mr. Speaker, we wonder whether the government can really say at this point in time, whether they can pretend that the programme and the policies of this government so far indicate to the community as a whole, that this government is in any way at all trying to be fair.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention — and I think it has been mentioned already — to one action on the part of the government, and that is the ICBC rate increase, and not so much the fact that there was an increase, but the fact that the.... I assume it is a fact. It has not been denied. One of the invitations I would like to issue to the Minister of Finance when he rises to close the debate is: if this is not true information, would he tell us just exactly what the precise nature of the agreement is that this government has worked out with Ottawa with respect to the ICBC premium increases?

There were indications earlier, and Mr. Pepin said that the rate increases were going to be referred to the Anti-Inflation Board. It was subsequently reported in the press that a deal was made. I'm reading now from a press quotation:

"To put it mildly, B.C. was reluctant to sign on the dotted line when the signature could kill the upcoming boost in car insurance rates. There was not an implicit understanding or a vague promise by Macdonald to do everything he could. It was a carte blanche undertaking from the federal Minister of Finance to exempt ICBC from the anti-inflation guidelines."

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: is that evidence that this government is being fair with the people of British Columbia, when it is making that kind of deal that is working against the interests of the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a lot of baloney.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that's a lot of baloney. I have invited the minister, when he stands up.... I have not heard this disputed so far, I'm inviting him when he stands up to close the debate to answer that particular question.

Mr. Speaker, what about the increase in ferry rates that has also been talked about? It is very substantial. One newspaper report quoted that in some instances people will be paying a sixfold increase. I know there have been some adjustments in some of the rates. But again, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of convincing the people of this province that the government will be fair — and I remind the minister that he said, on opening the debate on this bill, that it had to appear to be fair as well as be fair — in the interests of making it appear to be fair, is the minister telling us that increases in rates for government services such as the ferry rates will also be subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also assured us — and I don't like that kind of assurance — that it would be a temporary arrangement. It will probably expire in April, 1977. Beyond what the Minister of Finance himself said, the Premier entered into this, although he has not taken part in this debate in the House, in a statement issued by him on April 9. He tried to reassure the people of the province that it was just a temporary programme. Well, Mr. Speaker, a temporary programme is all very well and good. We know that wage controls are intended to work right now.

As a matter of fact, effective on the day that the Prime Minister of Canada introduced his statement, October 14, 1975, wage control was to be effective from that point in time. But what about price control? They were hoping to make a system of price control work. If, indeed, we do abandon this anti-inflation programme in April, 1977, we will be abandoning it before any real measure of price control can be implemented, can be proven to be effective, because much of it will depend on profit statements that are being prepared by corporations. In the case of some of them at least, their year-end will not even be before that date.

Mr. Speaker, if we abandon the programme in those early stages, it will not be a fair programme. It will be a programme which controls wages only and, in some isolated instances, may have some influence on price, but certainly cannot pretend to control prices if it is such a short-term programme. I am concerned also that any short-term programme is bound to simply build up a temporary dam against some price increases, even some wage increases, and once you abandon the programme all you will have

[ Page 2092 ]

accomplished will be some delay in the effect of extra costs, not a permanent rollback of any of these.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in speaking on this debate, at one point.... I have notes here that I want to refer to, remarks made by a lot of the members of the opposition, but it would seem to me that the ones I want to refer to are all absent. However, I'll have to comment briefly, at least, on what the Minister of Labour had to say.

When the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the Leader of the Opposition, was talking about the remuneration for some captains of industry, the Minister of Labour interjected "So what?" as though it were not really a cost on the community as a whole when enormous salaries, compared to what others are earning, are paid to some individuals in industry. Mr. Speaker, that is part of the inflationary process.

Certainly if increasing a person's income from $3 to $3.50 an hour is inflationary, well, then it is even more inflationary when that person reads in the paper that somebody else's income has gone from $76,000 to $100,000. Maybe the total impact, in terms of dollars, is not as much, but certainly the psychological effect is much worse. So I think it is irresponsible for the Minister of Labour to be interjecting "So what?" when the hon. Leader of the Opposition is drawing to the attention of the House the large salaries and the increases in salaries that are being paid to some people.

The Minister of Labour also described the fancy skating going on by the NDP in our opposition voiced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of fancy skating, then I think the Minister of Labour should take first prize.

Quoting from a news story, January 19, 1976, referring to the Minister of Labour speaking-

" 'Ottawa's wage and price controls and other intrusions into the free market system are creating more problems than they solve,' B.C.'s Labour minister said Friday in Vancouver." Skipping a part: " 'When Prime Minister Trudeau says the free market system is not working, I assume what he means is that the system is not working in an equitable fashion for all Canadians,' Williams told the convention of B.C. Truck Loggers Association."

Mr. Speaker, in this article he is quoted as condemning the Ottawa system as just not working. On the legislation before us, in his speech in the House, he was supporting the Ottawa programme and supporting the legislation that says that B.C. is going to go along with that programme without any real questions — at least so far we have not heard of any real questions, except for one that I will come to later — raised by the government of British Columbia.

The Minister of Labour also said that labour leaders are not prepared to share the load of fighting inflation. He denied that himself when he went on to say that there was an example of the Kitimat workers who supported the programme and passed a resolution in support of the guidelines.

But, Mr. Speaker, what concerns organized labour is not the fact that they are asked to be partners in fighting inflation, but the fact that they are asked to bear the whole load of fighting inflation. They are getting no reassurance from the federal government or from the provincial government that anybody else is going to be bearing any of the load. That's the concern of organized workers, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to the Act.

If they could be reassured by the actions of this government...and I've already told you some of the actions of this government that do anything but reassure workers that they are not going to be carrying the full load. If they could have that kind of reassurance, then they might feel differently about this legislation. We would feel differently about this legislation. But we do not have that reassurance. We do not have that assurance from this government or from the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: This one's the worst!

MR. STUPICH: This one's the worst? Well, I suppose that goes without saying.

Mr. Speaker, going on with questions that were raised, I think, again by the Hon. Minister of Labour, he asked about what steps our government took to support the federal government in this anti-inflationary programme. We did take steps. We were concerned and we took action.

There was general concern in the community about inflation when the Prime Minister issued his statement in October. This concern, I think, was voiced in the Saskatchewan budget speech as well as it was voiced anywhere:

"We are doing our part to make this national effort a success. Inflation attacks the living standards of those on low and fixed incomes. It erodes the value of savings. It reduces the value of pensions for those who have retired or are about to retire. It creates economic and social chaos. It adds uncertainty to the present and compounds the problem of planning for the future."

Those were some of the concerns that were in the community, Mr. Speaker. There was this concern in the community. There was a readiness on the part of the public, including organized labour, to support a real programme to fight inflation if everybody was convinced it was, in the words of our Minister of Finance, "going to appear to be a fair programme, as

[ Page 2093 ]

well as being a fair programme." Quoting again from the speech:

"Let me briefly summarize the facts which, for Canada, underline the urgency of taking action against inflation. In 1975 the Canadian economy had its worst year in more than 20 years: real growth in the economy was a mere two-tenths of 1 per cent."

Not just in B.C., Mr. Speaker; we're talking about Canada as a whole.

"In 1975 unemployment in Canada increased to more than 7 per cent. In 1975 the consumer price index rose by nearly I I per cent."

These are some of the problems; these are some of the reasons why the community as a whole was ready to support a real programme, if it was convinced that it was going to be a genuine and a fair programme to fight inflation.

The Minister of Labour said that the NDP did nothing after October 14 to cooperate in this programme. He asked rhetorically: "What did the NDP government of British Columbia do in Ottawa?" Mr. Speaker, I quote from a speech by the then-Premier (Mr. Barrett) on November 7, 1975. He's repeating concerns too:

"We made known our concerns to Ottawa" — and this is about the programme announced by Ottawa — "loud and clear. These were: the federal programme was unfair to those on low and fixed incomes; nothing had been done to ensure that the large financial institutions, the banks, had their profits and interest rates controlled. The federal announcement did nothing to improve the housing supply and make cheap mortgage money available. The federal position would not curb escalating food prices."

Those were some of the shortcomings that we voiced in Ottawa — the Premier did and I went to the conference as Minister of Finance and voiced these concerns on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Our Premier of the day went on to say — we didn't just talk, we acted:

"On October 24 I announced a number of measures which we were taking to make the national anti-inflation programme fairer to British Columbians. Our programme included: an increase in Mincome benefit levels from just under $250 a month to $265 a month for singles and to $530 for couples; an increase in the minimum wage from $2.50 to $3.

We weren't there long enough to do it — January 1 it was going to be effective.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You weren't here on January 1.

MR. STUPICH: To the sorrow of the people of British Columbia now, we weren't there on January 1.

The third point was continuation of rent control, with a decrease in rent control levels from 10.6 per cent to approximately 8 per cent in the coming year. We didn't do that either, Mr. Speaker, but we certainly intended to, and it hasn't been done because the people of B.C. made a mistake on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: No. 4: the plan to establish a housing corporation of British Columbia to provide first mortgages at lower interest rates. We didn't do that either, Mr. Speaker, and neither did the present government.

Restraint on provincial government expenditures: that is continuing; there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, we did act, and we did argue in Ottawa for some of the changes that should be made on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what has the Socred coalition done in this time? Their big move has been to introduce legislation that I'm not going to discuss at this time — legislation that would reduce the salaries of the elected members of this assembly. That's their biggest move. Has it created any kind of a ripple out in the community? Have you seen anybody else in the community offering to reduce their salaries as well, in response to what was supposed to be a lead to the community? If it wasn't offering us up as an example, what was the point of it all? Surely the government goofed. They haven't invited the community as a whole to follow along with this and to make it a real step in the fight against inflation. All they have done is keep one of their election promises by making this move, but they've done nothing to fight inflation by this particular step.

What else have they done, Mr. Speaker? I've already referred to the approach to the Anti-Inflation Board re ICBC, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has promised to talk about that when he gets up to close the debate. What else have they done? They have one victory in Ottawa in that they have joined with some other provinces to persuade the federal government that they should cancel the export profits tax. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a mixed blessing. Employees of large export firms will have their wages controlled. The wages are still going to be controlled, but the profits will not be controlled. Maybe the Minister of Finance can tell us a little bit more about the deal he made with Ottawa on this programme as well.

What are the safeguards for the people of British Columbia? Are there going to be any requirements that any excess profits are going to have to be invested in the province of British Columbia? What

[ Page 2094 ]

are the safeguards? Is it simply a deal to make sure that wages will be controlled but the profits will be decontrolled?

And what about companies selling to the domestic market having their prices frozen and the same companies selling in the export market and not having their prices frozen? What safeguards are there to make sure that these companies will not maximize the amount of their business done in export markets and minimize the amount done in domestic markets, since the profits are controlled in one area and not in the other? I'd like to hear something from the Minister of Finance about the protection that he got for the people of British Columbia in winning that victory — a victory that I suspect at this time is a victory of mixed blessings.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite hear that, but he suggested I ask someone. I was asking the Minister of Finance. I appreciate that maybe I won't get the answer from him, and if we don't then we'll ask someone else when the opportunity comes in estimates.

The Minister of Labour also went on to say that the Anti-Inflation Board is working, although it's difficult to prove it statistically. Well, I agree that it's difficult to prove it statistically because all the statistics prove is that they aren't working. The Anti-Inflation Board is working only with some degree of success with respect to prices. So it would be very difficult to prove the opposite, when it would appear that all the statistics, all of the evidence, is proving that they just aren't working.

There's a story today in The Vancouver Sun that's just been handed to me, and the headline is: "Unfairness Admitted in Controls Programme. Ottawa Clamps Down on Price-hike Dodgers." The programme to control prices, Mr. Speaker, is just not working. In spite of the Minister of Labour saying it's difficult to prove statistically, Ottawa is now admitting that their own programme to control prices is not working. I'm going to come back to that. I think this government, as well, is admitting that it isn't working, but that's a point that I want to make a little later on. Mr. Speaker, you can't prove it statistically because all the figures show the opposite to be the case.

What about collective bargaining? At the beginning of my remarks I talked about some of the achievements we have made through collective bargaining. While all of us at some times may feel that there are some deficiencies in that system, do we really want to abandon it? There are stories. There was a story in the Financial Post. Questions were asked of Robert Johnstone, adviser to the Bank of Canada. "What about labour's charge that the programme is destroying the collective bargaining system?" He goes on to deal with that charge. There is concern in the minds of labour that the real purpose of this programme is to destroy collective bargaining itself. Do we really want to destroy collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker? Is that one of the aims of this legislation? Is it one of the aims of the total programme? I suspect from time to time, as I listen to the speeches from the other side of the House, that there are people there who would really like to destroy the collective bargaining system. Some of them are prepared to say so; others are prepared to skate around it. But I think they should give some serious thought to that before they voice opinions in favour of destroying collective bargaining.

We have won notable advances through collective bargaining. It has deficiencies; nevertheless, we have made certain gains. I'd like to quote from one address by Senator Goldenberg:

"Before there was the Canada pension, there was collective bargaining to guarantee a deferred wage for workers in their retirement. The private pension system is still a necessary ingredient in the protection of retired workers, their spouses and dependents. Before there was medicare, the union movement bargained to achieve the right to afford to be sick."

They paved the way with collective bargaining agreements, Mr. Speaker.

"Before there were minimum wages or controls on hours of work or laws about sex, racial and religious discrimination, the union movement of Canada was pioneering, was organizing, was negotiating to obliterate discrimination so the husband would not be laid off in favour of the wife, so the father would not be laid off and the son hired, so the white would not benefit at the expense of the black."

These are some of the gains, Mr. Speaker, that have been won as a result of collective bargaining. There is an alternative to collective bargaining and he deals with that in his speech. And I will just read one more quotation:

"Strikes are the feature of labour-management relations which attracts most public attention. Under a totalitarian regime, whether fascist or communist, there is an easy formula: strikes are prohibited."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone in this House would stand up and say that is the sort of regime that he favours for this province or for this country. There is an alternative to collective bargaining and it does work in some areas of the world. But I hope no one here wants to be associated with that kind of a regime.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 2095 ]

MR. STUPICH: Surely if there is any possibility, any ideas in the minds of some members, that one effect of this legislation will be to destroy collective bargaining, then that in itself would be reason enough for backing off from this programme.

Mr. Speaker, the whole programme obviously is directed toward controlling wages. What about control of capital? There is nothing in the federal programme that will really control capital. There is nothing in the provincial one that will control capital — for example, the profits that are made by our forest giant, MacMillan Bloedel, and the extent to which these are being used to open up business concerns in other parts of the world. They can make profits here — apparently there is some indication now that they can even get around the new programme legally — and make profits in our export market and use these profits to expand their operations in other jurisdictions with absolutely no control by B.C. or by Canada. We are apparently quite prepared to live with that unless the Minister of Finance, in his remarks, tells us what protection we have against that sort of thing happening.

What about the strike on the part of the mining companies? When we imposed a very modest charge, a charge that is less than the sales tax that is currently being paid by consumers in the province of British Columbia, a 5 per cent charge, the mining companies went on strike in the province of British Columbia. What are we going to do about that? We are very upset and I am upset that people are on strike in Nanaimo, closing down the schools and closing down the bus system. We are very upset about that. But apparently there was no concern by this present government. We were concerned. The present government is prepared to go along with legislation that will control wages but it is not in the least concerned about companies, such as mining companies, that are prepared to embark on a strike by capital. Should we not be concerning ourselves with that kind of a strike as well, Mr. Speaker?

There are alternatives. We could have gone different routes. I have spoken already about the concern that people have in other areas. The Saskatchewan government was concerned as well. They have embarked on a different route. I'll read you something of their concern. Again, I am quoting from the budget speech.

"Most glaring is the federal failure to control prices in a way which not only is effective but is seen to be effective. We believe that prior approval of the Anti-Inflation Board should be required for price increases of certain key commodities such as steel, fertilizer and cement. This would make sure that price increases were fully justified before they were put in place. Further, it would demonstrate that prices are actually being controlled."

Now, Mr. Speaker, was that point of view pressed by the present administration in Ottawa? I would like to be reassured that it was. It certainly was prior to this administration taking office and I would like that kind of reassurance at this time.

Going on with the quotation from the Saskatchewan government speech:

"We are convinced that the federal government should levy a general and comprehensive excess-profits tax. Effectively applied it would be a strong mechanism to control prices." Mr. Speaker, was that kind of concern expressed by the present administration when it met with officials in Ottawa, with other ministers in Ottawa? Going on:

"We also cannot accept the lack of effective controls on the incomes of professionals. We have argued that a professional income surtax is the only way to make sure that high-income earners are subject to the same rules as those in lower-income brackets."

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the concerns and questions still unanswered as to just exactly what was the position of the province of British Columbia in the negotiations that went on in Ottawa.

I don't think there is any doubt — and I think everyone who has spoken so far in this debate would agree — that the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia wanted this programme of fighting inflation to work. There is no doubt about that at all. The man in charge of the programme, Mr. Pepin, admits — and there are any number of quotations — that it isn't working. He's done that time after time. But he gives us this assurance. He tells us that he will pray that some day it will work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's not very much of an assurance for the workers who are being controlled — not much. It's a little bit more than we are getting from the present administration here in B.C., but still not very much for the workers who are being asked to have their wages controlled.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem to us that some six months after the Prime Minister of Canada has introduced this programme, it's nothing but a cruel hoax perpetrated upon an anxious and concerned public. And this government is going along with that hoax.

What is this bill all about, Mr. Speaker? What have we — that is we from British Columbia through our government — done when they've gone to Ottawa? Has the present administration argued, as did the previous administration, for more protection for those on low and fixed incomes? Has the present administration argued, as did the NDP administration, for control of the huge profits and high interest rates levied by our lending institutions? Has there been anything raised, as by the NDP administration, that would oblige the lending institutions to put a fixed

[ Page 2096 ]

portion of their capital lending programme into a housing programme?

The federal Minister of Finance said that it had to be a two-pronged programme. We can fight inflation only if we are prepared at the same time to fight unemployment, and the way to do that is to embark on housing programmes. Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe): when he was in Ottawa, did he push for something like this — a fund of capital that would be available for housing, that would be provided by the lending institutions, who have certainly been making profits that would justify us obliging them to do this?

Mr. Speaker, what about curbing food and fuel prices? The NDP administration in B.C. acted — we showed the way. When I went back to Ottawa as Minister of Finance, they were asking questions about what we had done in B.C. Federal government officials — employees — privately were asking questions about the programme and wishing that they had done that federally as a government clear across Canada. Has our government been urging in Ottawa that the federal government in Ottawa do something more decisive to show to the people of the country that these things are going to be controlled? Private-sector wage control, Mr. Speaker, apparently is all that has been accomplished, really.

Public-sector wage control, the purpose of this legislation, is to hand over to the federal government control of the wages of the people in the public sector and nothing else, Mr. Speaker. The bill is much longer than that; there's a lot more in it.

Before I come to that part of it, I do see that the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is back in her seat and I do want to express my concern and I hope she doesn't have the ear of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) when she is continuing to express concern about the fact that we do have a Land Commission in the province that was established to preserve agricultural land. I noticed her in an aside, when a previous member was speaking, talking about inflation in the cost of housing, saying that the reason the cost of building lots went up was because the previous administration had tried to save some of our precious acreage of farmland for agriculture. She's still fighting the battle which she spoke on for 17 hours in second reading.

Mr. Speaker, if this was the only jurisdiction in the whole world where the price of building lots had gone up, then she might have an argument, or would at least have a question. But that's not the case, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to read something that came to me in the mail just yesterday. I don't know where it came from; I couldn't even read the postmark. But it's talking about the price of land in another jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.

"The most rapid rise in land values I found anywhere on Oahu over the past 25 years was on the Waianae coast, once known as a refuge for people with low incomes. Total appraisals of land values have soared in some cases to 51 times what they were in 1950."

Without the B.C. Land Commission, Mr. Speaker — 51 times.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I know the member for Hawaii would like to get into this debate and I'm not sure whether he did earlier. But I'll look at it and if he likes, I'll send it to him.

It goes on to talk about some of the profits that were made by the developers, Mr. Speaker, and it's the developer that made the profit, not the people of Hawaii. It's the developers that made the profits that pushed up the cost of these lots, not the B.C. Land Commission. He's talking here about the extent to which the state had to pay for a water system, the extent to which the state had to pay for sewerage services, and the profits that were made by the developers: $32 million on properties that cost them $1 million,

Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that pushes up the cost of building lots: the profits that are made by developers. If the member for Hawaii would like to read this, I'll send it to him. If the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) would like to read it, I'll send it to her, but I do hope that she will not have a sympathetic ear when she goes to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and continues her campaign against the Land Commission.

Mr. Speaker, getting back more directly to Bill 16, Bill 16 is obviously a bill that says to Ottawa: "We don't want to be stuck with the responsibility of controlling wages in the public sector. We want to be able to blame it on you when people come to us and say that there's something wrong with the remuneration that they're getting for their services. We want to hand to Ottawa our problems dealing with our public sector."

Mr. Speaker, I've heard from time to time other members speaking and interjecting to the effect: "Read the rest of the bill. Read the price control section." Mr. Speaker, the price-control sections are an admission that the federal government has failed completely to control prices. Mr. Speaker, there'd be nothing in this bill about price control at all if this government was satisfied that the federal government was going to work and could work and would work. Mr. Speaker, there'd be no need to mention prices if the Ottawa programme was working, because it was Ottawa that accepted the responsibility to control prices. All we are doing is saying we admit that the federal government is not going to control prices. We know they're not going to be controlled, but we want to get out of the bag of controlling the remuneration

[ Page 2097 ]

for our own public employees, so let's pass this legislation and say to Ottawa: it's your problem, Ottawa. We don't want anything to do with it. If there's any credit coming for it, we want to take the credit for it, but if there's any blame we want you to have all the blame. Let's get on with the rest of the business.

Let's get on with the business of fighting the battles of the last election campaign, let's get on with the business of blaming the NDP administration for everything that went wrong in Canada and the western world, but let's in the meantime give to Ottawa the responsibility for the controlling of the remuneration of our public servants. Let's admit candidly in passing this legislation that the anti-inflation programme is a failure except insofar as it is going to control the wages for people in the private and the public sector.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of clarification, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who has just spoken....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm merely exercising my right as a member, when I have been misquoted by an hon. member, to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo who had just spoken once again indulged in improper statements when he said, as an aside across the floor, some two hours ago that the member for North Okanagan spoke against the land freeze and that I said that it was Bill 42 that caused the accelerated cost in land. I would like to correct his statements. I said across the floor that it was the way the NDP government introduced the land freeze that caused the overnight acceleration of land in the province in terms of cost. That is abundantly clear even in the North Okanagan, Mr. Speaker, where lots which were selling for $4,000, $6,000 and $8,000 before the land freeze one month later were selling for $9,000, $13,000 and $18,000.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order, has the hon. member already spoken in this debate? Is she being recognized as a speaker in this debate?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'd like to see observance of the rules. Members on this side of the House are constantly being brought to order and called facetious. I would like to see the rules applied evenly in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for North Okanagan, you may explain if you have been misquoted, but no further — you can't amplify.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker.

The second misquote, Mr. Speaker, was when for the fifth time in this session the member for Nanaimo said that the member for North Okanagan spoke for 17 hours on the debate of Bill 42. For the record, I'd like to make it clear that the member for North Okanagan spoke for seven hours. It's not that it really matters how long; it's this constant misuse of the truth by the member for Nanaimo that concerns me.

I believe there was a judge of the courts of British Columbia who labeled his use of the mistruth as "convenient amnesia."

MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept the member's apology.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we've heard it all now, from every member of the opposition and several from our side. I'd just like to say that the members of the NDP have put forward a Herculean effort to attempt to go up and down and sideways and all over — anywhere else but on the principle of this bill — to tell us the things that they're against but not the things that they are for.

Not one person on their side of the House, Mr. Speaker, has referred to any alternative to what the government proposes — namely, to join the Canadian programme. Not one person. They've occupied their time limit in the debate to harass and delay and obstruct and filibuster. They really haven't got to the point of the issue. I want to congratulate them for obstructing the debate, and simply telling us once again, as is their usual custom, what they're against.

Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers have referred to the price freeze. Let's be perfectly clear. That group over there are about to vote against this legislation which will allow us to authorize a freezing of the prices.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Their price freeze, Mr. Speaker, ran out December 31, was renewed by this government, and we're now putting forward steps to authorize the legal authority to freeze prices. We're going to tell the people of this province that they're about to vote against this proposal to give authority to freeze prices which is a progressive move to try to save the people of this province to a degree against inflation.

As a matter of fact, let me refer particularly to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who is now out of the House, who was in the riding of Vancouver

[ Page 2098 ]

East yesterday, knocking on doors, spreading his half truths, Mr. Speaker, about why they're against this legislation. He told us today they're against freezing the prices. They're against this legislation which purely and simply authorizes that.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've ignored once again the principle of this bill, which is two things: it's simply to enable this government to go forward and sign an agreement with the federal government on their programme to attempt to combat inflation and, secondly, it's to allow the cabinet to freeze the maximum price of a commodity or a service, or to establish the general guidelines for the restraint of such prices for a period of 60 days.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no, much longer than that.

MR. LEA: Freeze the price of Cadillacs.

MR. GIBSON: It depends if the House is sitting.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the fact that other provinces do not approve of this legislation. In fact, he pointed out statements made by the Government of Saskatchewan as to reasons why they haven't signed this agreement. Well, Mr. Speaker, the pure and simple fact is: all other provinces in Canada have signed a similar agreement with Ottawa, with the exception of Saskatchewan which hasn't signed an agreement, but its own programme, which they're instituting, is patterned closely on the national programme. The only principal exception is to give a bit more flexibility to the public sector collective bargaining, because they're fearful of losing their workers to higher-wage provinces. That is hardly the problem of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in effect the NDP doesn't want us to sign an agreement with the federal government because it covers the public sector prices and wages. That's why they don't want us to sign an agreement with the federal government. I'd like to refer to an article just two days ago in The Globe and Mail, which tells you how the people of British Columbia feel about inflation and what to do about it. It's based on a research study performed by the Elliott Research Corp., and this analysis was performed by the international business studies research unit at the University of Windsor. The surveys are based on weighted nation-wide, cross-sectional quota samples of 4,000 respondents.

Just to quote a couple of statements from this survey, Mr. Speaker, they asked two or three questions based on the prime issues of the day. One question was: "Canadian issues that are most important at the present time." The second question:

"Per cent naming wage and price controls as a preferred anti-inflation policy by region."

Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question: 59 per cent of Canadians rated inflation as a Canadian issue that is most important at the present time above all other issues. In relation to the question regarding wage and price controls as a preferred anti-inflation policy, 51 per cent of British Columbians indicated their preference for price and wage controls as the best policy for British Columbia. This compares to an answer of 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker, just one year ago.

Economic issues, headed by inflation, remain the dominant concern of most Canadians. Inflation is mentioned as the most important issue facing the country by 59 per cent of the national sample. Quoting further, Mr. Speaker, the percentage placing inflation in the top three has remained nearly constant: 86 per cent of the sample. The proportion of the national sample favouring wage and price controls as the best policy to control inflation has increased significantly from 38 per cent in the 1974-75 survey to 44 per cent in the present year — that's referring to all of Canada. Public support for reductions in government spending as a preferred policy has also increased significantly from the 1974-75 levels. In summary, the most recent survey of public attitudes toward economic issues and policies finds a discernable moderation of the pessimism that was evident a year ago, and general support for a policy of wage and price controls coupled with spending restraints.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 will not cure inflation, and we never said that it would. It will give us the tools to do our share in trying to fight inflation. There must be a national attack on this disease, and we have to pull our weight. It's certainly better than any alternatives that we have heard of or have heard anybody else put forward. Every other province in Canada has confirmed its basic involvement in the national programme: Quebec will apply the guidelines within its borders; Manitoba, the Maritimes, Ontario and Alberta have signed agreements to allow the Anti-Inflation Board to apply the national guidelines to public-sector compensation agreements, and have agreed to follow the letter and spirit of the law in public-sector pricing decisions. I referred to Saskatchewan and its intentions earlier.

Provincial interests, even in a time of national stress and strain, must be protected, Mr. Speaker. Bill 16 does just that. Any agreement that we sign with Ottawa will be for a limited period of time, most likely until April, 1977. We want the controls off as soon as possible, because you can't put a straitjacket around the economy for too long, and we don't want a national programme distorting the proper development of our provincial economy any longer than is absolutely necessary to bring inflation under control.

[ Page 2099 ]

The price freeze, the price-restraint powers are necessary and will be held in reserve to protect B.C. Consumers if the national programme falters or if it ever becomes obvious that there simply has to be a cooling-off period from escalating prices that are just getting out of hand. That's the prerogative of a province, and we want to make that abundantly clear. Any price freeze under the Act, for example, can only be for a limited period of time, and the government of the day will have to answer for its actions, or its inactions, to this House and to the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Would you say that again without Dan Campbell's notes?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now the price freeze mechanism, Mr. Speaker, is not a blank cheque.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is!

HON. MR. WOLFE: For instance, the powers are subject to all other legislation by which prices or rates may be established or approved — for example, rent controls, the Energy Act, the Motor Carrier Commission and so on. Now the freeze or guidelines can only last for a limited time. The statutory period is 60 days, which is calculated on the basis that if the Legislature is sitting when the 60-day period expires, then the regulations or guidelines also expire. If the House is not sitting at the end of the 60 days, then the regulations or guidelines will continue in force unless we vote by cabinet to a point in time 60 days after the House starts its next ensuing sitting. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a blank cheque ...

AN HON. MEMBER: It is.

HON. MR. WOLFE:...and it is not an open-ended period. The House has control of its business, and in allowing for the introduction of price-restraint guidelines, which are, after all, the essence of the federal Act, it acknowledges that this approach may be more desirable in many cases, since a simple price freeze for one or more commodities or services might not be proper in every case.

Mr. Speaker, all parties went along with and, indeed, supported the provincial price freeze which began on October 24, 1975, was extended twice and ran for over 100 days, ending on February 16, 1976. That price freeze did not have any legal basis.

MR. LEA: Did you extend it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It didn't have any legal basis. Is the government now to be criticized for bringing the rule of law into play?

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no appeal provisions.

MR. LEA: Did you extend it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, we did.

MR. LEA: Illegally?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is for the federal ground to leave that evidence.

Now I would just like to stress two final points, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): No right of hearing?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In debating Bill 16, does the official opposition really want the government to be without the ability to hold down prices? That would be an extraordinary situation since they know full well how precarious was the legality of their own price freeze. In fact, was Mr. Schreyer wrong to support the federal programme and to sign an agreement? What is the official opposition's answer? They did not have a policy on negotiations or legislation before December 11, and they don't have one now.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should approve this legislation, which is designed simply to allow us to cooperate with the national programme in the interests of the citizens of British Columbia, and get on with the job. I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

[ Page 2100 ]

the House.

Bill 16, Anti-Inflation Measures Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is Bill 45, the Auditor General Act. The creation of the post of an auditor-general has been a commitment of this government, and we are pleased to be able to honour this commitment in the first session of our term.

As you can see from the bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a report on helicopter trips.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...this is a first for British Columbia. What this bill does is to create a strong and independent office. The duties and responsibilities that this bill imposes on the auditor-general will fill a gap that has existed in British Columbia up to this time.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing second reading of this bill, I would like to deal with it under two general headings: firstly, what is new in this bill compared with the other auditor-general Acts in Canada; and secondly...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Finance has the floor.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...our reasons for introducing it and what we hope it will achieve.

Bill 45 and how it departs from existing auditor-general legislation elsewhere is what I'd like to deal with now. At present a federal statute, entitled the Financial Administration Act, embodies a series of sections dealing with the auditor-general of Canada. This legislation has remained basically unchanged for a long time and has, with some exceptions, been the model upon which provincial auditor-general legislation has been based.

In the last few years in Canada there has been a good deal of discussion concerning the role of the auditor-general of Canada. This discussion has been immeasurably aided by a fine piece of work conducted by the federal government through an independent review committee on the office of the auditor-general of Canada. The report of this committee was published just over a year ago, and I commend it to those members who are interested in this subject. It is not yet known how the federal government will react to the recommendations of the independent review committee report. In any event, we in British Columbia have profited from the committee's report, and several of the differences between Bill 45 and existing auditor-general legislation elsewhere arise from ideas we have adopted from the independent review committee.

Perhaps the major innovation presented by Bill 45 is the appointment of an auditor-general through the unanimous recommendation of a special committee of the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is our view that since the auditor-general works for the Legislative Assembly, his appointment should reflect the view of some representative group in the assembly. Among Canadian jurisdictions, only Quebec has a provision in any way similar to this. In that province two-thirds of the National Assembly must agree upon an auditor-general before he is appointed. By requiring a unanimous recommendation of a special committee of this assembly, we feel sure that it will be clear to all that we regard the auditor-general as being above any hint of partisanship. The auditor-general's independence is his most valued asset. His method of appointment will ensure his independence.

Mr. Speaker, members will also be aware of our choice of a six-year term for the auditor-general. This is somewhat shorter than terms elsewhere; in fact only Quebec has a fixed term, and that is for 10 years. Our thought here was simply that a six-year term would provide the necessary security for the auditor-general and, on the other hand, would provide for the opportunity of a turnover in office if the assembly, through the unanimous recommendation of a special committee, thought this was advisable. There is, of course, nothing to prevent reappointment.

Another difference between Bill 45 and existing auditor-general legislation elsewhere is to be found in section 5(5) which provides the auditor-general with the right to make a special report to the Legislative Assembly if he finds that his budget or his treatment by the public service commission is inadequate. The auditor-general's budget will pass through the annual estimates procedure, and his staffing, subject to section 5(4), will be subject to the Public Service Commission. Since it is crucially necessary to protect the auditor-general's independence, section 5(5) exists to ensure that he may inform the Legislative Assembly if he feels any government is trying to damage his capacity to perform his duties. This section reflects an independent review committee recommendation.

Section 8, which deals with the auditor-general's annual report to the Legislative Assembly, also differs from existing auditor-general statutes. Again we have benefited from the thought given this matter by the

[ Page 2101 ]

independent review committee. Notice first that it is abundantly clear that the auditor-general may comment on "anything resulting from his examination that he considers should be brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly." It is very difficult to give him wider reporting powers than that.

Notice also that there is an emphasis in section 8(1) on the quality of the government's rules, procedures and systems of internal control. Should these be lax, it is the auditor-general's responsibility to draw that to the House's attention. This wording is different from existing auditor-general legislation which, in general, provides a long list of specific examples of misconduct to be commented upon.

In Bill 45, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis is somewhat different and draws the auditor-general's attention more to what might be called "management auditing" — that is, if funds have been misplaced through fraud or mistake or if unauthorized expenditures have been made, the auditor-general is required to comment upon the rules and systems of control that have permitted these occurrences.

Section 8(2), of course, also departs from the normal auditor-general legislation. This section allows the auditor-general to comment on the government's basis of accounting. Should he wish to do so, he may make reference to what he considers the most appropriate basis of accounting. At the present time there is no universally accepted basis of accounting for government operation. Work is proceeding in this area across the country. This section, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that the auditor-general in British Columbia can keep the administration in British Columbia up to date through the vehicle of section 8(2)(a).

Subsection (b) of this section is, of course, also new. It is the general view now that it is appropriate for auditors-general to be asked to make these kinds of assessments. While auditors-general frequently do so now, British Columbia is the first province to place the words "economically and efficiently" in the statute itself.

Section 16, on public bodies, is also something of a variant on existing auditor-general legislation elsewhere. One kind of public body contemplated by section 16 is the Crown agencies. Over time the government will transfer some of the auditing duties of these agencies to the auditor-general. This I would judge to be desirable, particularly for those Crown agencies whose activities have a direct impact on the government's budgetary position. It is important that the auditor-general be fully aware of the interrelationship between these agencies and the government's accounts upon which he is called to give an opinion.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Crown agencies question, this section 16 cover the case where the auditor-general is not the auditor. If this is the case and he finds additional examinations are necessary, then section 16 gives him the powers to make these examinations — similarly with regard to those public bodies covered by section 4, a definition borrowed from the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. If the auditor-general wishes to go beyond the auditor's report or the information filed under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, section 16 gives him the powers to make the additional examination.

Mr. Speaker, in the vast majority of cases the auditor-general, in reporting on the government's financial statements and in reporting to the House, will find the information he requires respecting public bodies in the government books, although I repeat: with respect to several of the Crown agencies, their importance to the government's financial operation makes it reasonable that government should transfer some of these auditing duties to him. Should he feel that the books of the government do not give him the information he needs, section 16 gives the auditor-general additional examination powers if he feels such examinations are called for.

And now to move on to what we hope the auditor-general will achieve in British Columbia. Let me now turn to the second major point in introducing this bill. What do we hope that it will achieve? In the broadest sense our hope is that the creation of an auditor-general will help maintain and improve the standards of public administration in the financial area in British Columbia. There are, of course, many ways in which this can be done, but the creation of a powerful and independent office such as that of the auditor-general will aid this process and it will aid in a way that will help satisfy those who make the legitimate call for a greater accountability on the part of government.

If the government's financial statements are not presented fairly, the auditor-general's responsibility is to point that out to the Legislative Assembly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, he may comment on what he regards as the most appropriate basis for these statements. If the administration of a particular programme is not efficient, the auditor-general may comment upon that as well. Of course, many of the auditor-general's comments on these and other matters will take place on a day-to-day basis throughout each year and will not be publicly reported upon. His advice will undoubtedly be sought frequently by members of the administration, and their actions will often be taken with the knowledge of the auditor-general's view. This should make clear that the auditor-general's main job is not necessarily to be an adversary of the group in power. His expertise and independence should ensure that high standards of public administration are maintained and improved simply as a result of his existence.

Mr. Speaker, of course, if he finds misleading

[ Page 2102 ]

statements or lax administration, his responsibility is to report upon these matters to the House, and governments will have to take their chances when they find themselves in disagreement with him.

MR. CHABOT: He would have been busy in the last three years!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Some people will, of course, wait only for the auditor-general's first report and seize upon those areas where he is critical of government financial practices.

What is more important than specific areas of criticism is the effect the auditor-general will have over time on the way in which the government manages financial affairs. His effect will not be judged by headlines, but ultimately by the maintenance and improvement in the standard of public administration in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill, Bill 45, Auditor General Act, be now read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: I ask for a little bit of patience on the part of the Premier, the Minister of Finance. I won't be long, but I do have some concerns actually, Mr. Speaker, and these are genuine concerns about the legislation before us now. May I say first that I'd like to congratulate the government on introducing legislation in a form that might very well have been introduced by an opposition party and that some of the concerns I'm going to raise right now might be concerns that would be more appropriate coming from the government.

I have concerns, for example, in general that the way in which the legislation is presently before us gives all kinds of opportunities to an irresponsible opposition — not the kind of opposition we have right now, but the kind we had under the previous government (laughter) — and it's because of those....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being serious now about the opportunities, for example, that it would have given to the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) when he was sitting on the opposition side of the House if this kind of legislation had been before us when he was in opposition. I really do have some concerns about this. So, Mr. Speaker, while in general I want to compliment the government on introducing legislation that is so easy to support, I wonder if they've really considered some of the pitfalls that I see in the legislation.

The minister, in reading his opening remarks, dealt to quite an extent with the legislation by sections, and I'd like to refer to some of these myself. One he didn't mention; I notice the salary will be the same as judges, and I wonder whether even that is wise. I don't know exactly what judges make, but I read in the paper that they're getting $52,000 now. I'm wondering whether it is appropriate that the fellow who is going to be the watchdog on government, in effect, will be making a salary considerably in excess of what the First Minister for the Province of British Columbia makes. His salary right now, I believe, is $39,600, so to be paying the watchdog $52,000 when the First Minister's salary is $39,600, I wonder just what is the appropriateness of that kind of salary range and whether we should tie it to the judges, because judges, it seems, have a way of getting their salaries up pretty high. They have very good relations with attorneys-general and, one way or another, they seem to get a very high figure.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: They're set by Ottawa, are they? Okay.

MR. CHABOT: If you tied it to an MLA's salary, you'd get nobody.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's an interjection that if we tied it to the MLA's salary, we'd get nobody.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We seem to have got somebody to be Premier. Maybe it's easier, when the Premier's a millionaire, to get somebody to be Premier at that salary range.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe we could have said in this section instead that if the person applying for the job is a millionaire, then his salary would be the same as the Premier rather than the same as a judge, but if he's not that well off, then he'd be paid as a judge. In any case, it just seems to me that we're leaving control of this in somebody else's hands completely. That's not a serious concern, but I do have others.

In section 5 — as I read section 5 — what we're saying is that the auditor-general may, if he chooses, ask for the moon and he'll get it. I'm not sure that this is being responsible, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that he may hire any consultants in any number that he chooses, and may pay them any amount that he wants to pay. Now, granted, he has to come before the Legislature, and his estimates have to be approved. Of course, there is some control in that the government majority will probably....

The way I read this, Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general prepares his own estimates without

[ Page 2103 ]

any consultation with Treasury Board. Now if I stand to be corrected on that, I would be reassured by the minister. I'd like to be corrected if that is the case. But as I read it, the auditor-general can bring in any estimates that he wants, and the government of the day would almost have to go along with it. He could hire staff, and other sections of the bill make it quite clear that if the auditor-general of the day chose to, he could become the external auditor for every public body, including all the public accounts — every public body, including every school board, for example — it he chose to. He could actually go in and assume the responsibilities — while he wouldn't necessarily replace the external auditor — he could go into those accounts as thoroughly, or even more thoroughly, than the external auditor felt called upon to do in looking at those statements.

It would seem, Mr. Speaker, as though he has complete carte blanche to go as far as he wants to in all of the accounting that is being done by government and by any public body. I don't see any checks and balances on that. I'd like to be reassured that there are some — that he can do that, that he can come to the Legislature and say, "I want this number of people to do it and I want to pay them such and such," and nobody, any day, is going to be able to say "no" to him. Now as I say, Mr. Speaker, it would seem almost as though I'm on the government side arguing against an opposition proposition. The government, it seems to me, has just gone perhaps hog-wild on this.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I question whether the government is being responsible, whether they are being careful of public funds in leaving the door wide open to the auditor-general. Now if we get the right person, it doesn't matter, but we might not always get the right person, even with the safeguards that are in this.

Section 6 is the one place, I think, where maybe it would seem there is some minor curb on him — that is in section 6(2)(b): "may require and receive from any person in the public service information, reports and explanations necessary for the performance of his duties." Now there may be some argument as to whether he is the one who says they are necessary or whether it's someone else says they are necessary.

In section 8, the Minister of Finance, in commenting on this, said that work is going on now and is progressing satisfactorily, I believe, to standardize accounting within government and to standardize our accounting in our government as compared to what is going on in other governments. It's going on satisfactorily now. I wonder at the need to engage an auditor-general to do that part of what is currently going on and, according to the Minister of Finance, is going on satisfactorily. Why do we have to give him that work as well?

The minister did say that this is going to fill a gap, and certainly to the extent that it is filling a gap I would express complete support for it. But it's going beyond filling a gap, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker. The minister didn't comment on this, and it may be that he's not ready at this stage, but I would at some stage hope for some comment from him as to the extent to which it is going beyond filling a gap.

As I see the role of the auditor-general, or certainly as we read about him federally, what he is really looking at is the propriety of government expenditures, and perhaps even on the revenue side — the propriety of what is going on, not simply recording them and inquiring as to whether or not they have been properly recorded. That is something that our comptroller-general has been doing and, to the best of my knowledge, has been doing quite satisfactorily. He is the one who decides whether or not it is proper to charge the purchase of a box of pencils against office expense or whether it could go into travel. He's the one who looks at that and decides if it should go in the proper place.

As I see the role of the auditor-general, he would raise the question as to whether or not it should have been a full box that was purchased, or just half a box. It's a different role. I wonder whether it's wise to combine those two roles, as we seem to be doing in this legislation. What role does it leave for the comptroller-general? At least with the comptroller-general we, government, have some control over the staff that he hires — the number and the salaries. With the auditor-general it would appear as though we're abandoning that control completely.

Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, we have not had access — whether we could have, I don't know — but certainly I have not had an opportunity to read the independent review committee report. I have started action to try to get copies of legislation from other provinces, but this bill was introduced very recently and I just haven't been able to get copies of legislation from other provinces either. So I've not been able to do the kind of comparison that I would like to have done. The minister, it seems, has relied to quite an extent on the independent review committee report. I'm not criticizing that, but I really do question the adviseability of combining the offices to the extent we have combined them here.

The bill — section 16, I guess it is — points out.... No, it was the minister who said that if the auditor-general is not satisfied with the work that has gone on in auditing the accounts of any public body, he may then go in and audit them himself — and this is quite apart from what I said earlier. Again, it would seem that he can expand his workload as much as he wants to expand it and have complete support from the Legislature in doing that.

[ Page 2104 ]

In section 160 (1)(b) I note that the authority of the auditor-general to obtain from external auditors of public bodies would seem to exceed even the authority the income tax department has, unless it is examining fraud. Because I note that the auditor-general can demand from external auditors not just the statements but all working papers, reports and other documents in the possession of an external auditor of a public body. Now I think there may be some concern from external auditors at the extent to which the auditor-general may come in and interfere with the work and raise questions about what is being done by these other external auditors.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have questions and we have concerns. We welcome the appointment of an auditor-general. We welcome the offer of the government, in this legislation, that it will be by unanimous agreement of the Legislature. I wonder — again, to make this effective, rather than simply some motion, or by some means, the Legislature approving the appointment of a certain person as auditor-general — whether the minister has in mind that it would be the public accounts committee that would interview applicants, or at least have some opportunity to....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, good. That's fine then. This is one of the ones that we haven't had too long on. It says committee, so that's fine; I'm reassured on that score then.

So my real concern, really, is that we've given this guy a complete open door to do almost anything and everything that he wants — hire all the people he wants and pay them whatever he wants.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He can't do that, and you know it.

MR. STUPICH: Well, that's the reassurance that I want. When the Minister is closing the debate, I'd welcome that kind of....

Mr. Speaker, we'll support the legislation. We welcome it, but we are concerned about the doing away, it would seem, of the responsibilities of the comptroller-general. We feel he has done a very worthwhile service, has been doing a good job for the people of the province. It's an office that I think has not changed, regardless of changes in the administration. I think there's no need to interfere with the function of the comptroller-general, but we do welcome the appointment of an audit or-general, which is a different job completely.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is straight Liberal policy and has been for many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, that both the Social Credit and the NDP have at long last seen the light on the auditor-general legislation. We have many more policies we are prepared to offer for their observance in due course.

This bill is important because the growing complexity of government makes it necessary to have better auditing procedures than we've had in the past, and because in a way it's a manner of going some distance to redressing the disproportionate balance of power that the executive over the years has achieved over the Legislature.

The auditor-general will be a servant of the Legislature. I notice the minister in his remarks said that he will not necessarily be an adversary of the group in power, and I agree with that. On the other side of that, he will also not necessarily be an ally of the group in power. He will be first and foremost a servant of the Legislature, reporting to the Legislature, and thus a servant of the people.

I don't share most of the concerns of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) with respect to the powers that the auditor-general is given by this bill. I think that the auditor-general is less likely to abuse his powers than any government is likely to abuse its powers, whatever the stripe of that government might be. If by any chance he does, he can be brought to account by the Legislature because he remains the Legislature's servant.

I think that the auditor-general, under the terms of this Act, will be of great assistance to the public accounts committee. While I don't intend to discuss the various clauses in detail at this point, I hope that during debate at committee stage we might be able to ascertain the extent to which the auditor-general and his staff might be available to the public accounts committee in the daily course of facilitating their work during the session.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. It incorporates many desirable features not found in auditor-general legislation in other parts of this country. I commend the government very much for its introduction. I will have specific suggestions, as I said in committee, but generally speaking I very much support the principle.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what that was all in aid of except that, of course, this bill is solid old Conservative policy. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, in the last two or three elections one of the almost embarrassing features — if there's anything that's really embarrassing in politics — has been the similarity in the platform of different parties. In the few years I've been around I think all parties in all the last three or four campaigns have

[ Page 2105 ]

spoken with great feeling about the need for an auditor-general. So this really should be the shortest debate of any bill that comes before the House this session.

Having said that I suppose I should sit down. (Laughter.)

I very much support the principle of the bill. I was somewhat surprised by the speaker on behalf of the official opposition saying that he feels the bill goes too far. I think that it's practically humanly impossible for anyone to be given too much power if his job is to check the abuses of government.

I very much welcome the very thorough introduction of second reading by the Minister of Finance. We often stand on this side of the House and berate the government for very slipshod introduction of second reading of bills, Let's be fair and say that on this occasion the Minister of Finance gave a very thorough and enlightening introduction of second reading, and I commend him for that.

MR. LAUK: He wasn't ashamed of this one.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just commenting briefly on some of the points highlighted by the minister. I very much appreciate his awareness of the shades of meaning that can be attached to different methods of accounting. It's been very clear during the early weeks of this session of the House that the Clarkson Gordon report was the type of layman's explanation of government financing which was of tremendous value to the people of British Columbia and to members of the opposition who are less than skilled or professional in their understanding of accounting and financial matters.

If the minister is making the point that the auditor-general will have as part of his function the very important role of trying to explain in understandable terms to the taxpayers who are not financial experts, then I would look upon that as being one of the most important roles of the auditor-general, regardless of whether he is on occasion supporting the government or attacking practices of the government in handling the taxpayers' money. So I would hope that that is the emphasis placed on the role of the auditor-general.

I do want to just say in passing also that while it's a thoroughly commendable principle to have the auditor-general appointed by this House and responsible to this House, I notice that the terminology refers only to a special committee. It does not refer to an all-party committee. I think it would be very important for the government, and perhaps the minister when he winds up second reading, to assure the House that by special committee he really means a special all-party committee of the Legislature. That runs the risk, of course, of having one individual refusing unanimous consent in committee to the appointment of a chosen person. But I think that if this government really does have the conviction and good faith which the minister explained in introducing second reading, it should not be difficult to have an amendment to the legislation putting in the two words "all party" along with the word "special."

I just want to comment finally on the rather unusual element in the bill which describes the auditor-general's salary as being the same as a judge. I find it a little surprising to describe anybody's salary as being similar to anybody else's in a different particular position of authority. I can see what the bill is trying to say. It is trying to depict the respect which this man or woman should be held by the taxpayers — in the same way that we respect judges of the court. But I notice, for example, in the report of the independent review committee that their recommendation suggests a salary should be the same as a senior deputy minister's. Maybe I'm splitting hairs a little bit here but I would have preferred that some financial figure be placed on the auditor-general's salary in the bill rather than, in this case, relate his salary in comparable words to some other person such as a judge.

There are many points, as the Liberal leader mentioned, that we would like to discuss in committee, but the principle is sound. I very much appreciated the minister's introduction of second reading. There may be a few amendments which we will bring forward in committee stage in relation to some of the points I've raised.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when government brings in a bill that a member opposes on behalf of the constituency he represents, it's incumbent upon that member to take his place and tell this Legislature and the people of British Columbia why he opposes it or the mere fact that he does oppose it. I think that it's incumbent upon the member of the Legislature to also stand when government brings in a good bill, a good Act. I'd like to compliment the government and the Attorney-General, or maybe I should compliment the Attorney-General and the government, for bringing in this excellent piece of legislation. On behalf of the constituency of Prince Rupert, I'd like to say how much I do support this bill. I think it's excellent.

Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5: 5 I p.m.