[ Page 2197 ]

CONTENTS

Address

Hon. D.J. Evans (Governor of the State of Washington) — 2197

Mr. King — 2199

Mr. Gibson — 2199

Mr. Wallace — 2200

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2200

Routine proceedings

Energy Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 54) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading — 2201

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2201

Oral questions

Monitoring of prices affected by ferry rate increase. Ms. Sanford — 2201

Resignation of B.C. Steamship Co. general manager. Mr. Gibson — 2201

Egg Marketing Board problems. Mr. Wallace — 2201

Quota sale policy of Egg Marketing Board. Mr. Macdonald — 2203

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15) Second reading.

Mr. Lockstead — 2205

Mr. Shelford — 2206

Mr. Barber — 2207

Mr. Kempf — 2208

Mrs. Wallace — 2209

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2210

Mr. Macdonald — 2210

Mr. Barnes — 2211

Mr. Kahl — 2215

Mr. Wallace — 2216

Mr. Gibson — 2218

Mr.Cocke — 2219

Ms. Brown — 2221

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2223

Division on second reading — 2225

Interprovincial Subpoena Act (Bill 19) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2225

Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act (Bill 18) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2226

Mr. Macdonald — 2226

Mr. Mussallem — 2227

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2227

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2228

Mr. Macdonald — 2229

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2229

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would ask leave of the House for the temporary use of the lights and the cameras to greet the occasion of the visit of the Governor of the State of Washington.

Leave granted.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, before I introduce to the House some distinguished visitors we have with us today, I would like to advise the House that His Excellency The Right Hon. Jules Leger and Madame Leger have honoured the capital city today during the course of their visit to western Canada.

The Governor-General and Madame Leger have been visiting in B.C. since May 26 and will be going on from Victoria for further visits to Vancouver, New Westminster, the city of North Vancouver, Burnaby and Harrison Hot Springs. I'm sure the House would want to recognize the visit of the Governor-General and Madame Leger.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have distinguished visitors with us today. I would ask leave of the House at this time to allow our distinguished visitor to address the Legislature, and at the same time ask leave for the House to defer question period to the conclusion of his address.

Leave granted.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce to this assembly, and to you, Sir, a delegation from the State of Washington, our friends and neighbours. Seated on the floor of the House is Governor Daniel J. Evans, and in the members' gallery, Mr. Speaker, is the official party: Chairman for Utilities and Transportation Commission, Mr. Donald H. Brazier; Director for Washington State Energy Office, Mr. Keith Sherman; Director for Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Mr. John S. Larsen; Director for Department of Ecology, Mr. John A. Biggs; Director for Office of Community Development, Mr. Richard W. Hemstad; Director for Department of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart Bledsoe; Administrative Assistant to Governor Evans, Mr. William C. Jacobs; Press Secretary, Mr. J. Fredericksen; Special Assistant for Energy and Transportation, Mr. David W. Stevens; Director for Department of Highways, Mr. William A. Bulley; Washington State Patrol, Col Bill Lathrop. I ask the House to welcome the official party.

Hon. Members and Mr. Speaker, I would extend a particular welcome to Governor Evans, who, in the 11 years that he has been Governor of the great state of Washington, has distinguished himself as one of the strongest chief executives in the United States. He is a governor who has gained wide acclaim for his courage and leadership in confronting problems caused by rapid growth and organization, and who has a reputation for not being afraid to take a stand on a tough issue.

This is probably Governor Evans' final visit to Victoria as Governor of his state because he has announced that he will not seek a fourth term, but it is my hope — and I'm sure the hope of all of us — that he will pay many more visits to Victoria and that his contribution to the public life of his country will continue in other ways.

I have the honour to introduce to this assembly Governor Dan Evans.

HON. D.J. EVANS (Governor of the State of Washington): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, our friends and neighbours from this side of the border.

Mr. Premier, I am delighted that you have asked that the question period be delayed until after my remarks. This is a common practice, I understand, in your assembly. It is quite unknown in our Legislature — to have a governor faced by the members of the Legislature would strike terror into my heart. That's one of the differences between our systems that I'm delighted exists. There are some other differences that I wish we could borrow from you, such as the opportunity for a governor to always be assured of a sufficient majority in a legislative assembly to get his programmes passed.

It is a privilege to come again once more and to speak to this body. I understand the privilege and the rarity with which it is granted. That makes the invitation all that much more desirable, and I am delighted to take advantage of it. As the Premier has mentioned, this perhaps will be a farewell of sorts. I have announced that I will not seek re-election as governor. In doing so I perhaps join one of that rare breed of political leaders — those who leave voluntarily. There aren't many. However, I'm confident that I will always retain an interest in and, perhaps at some time in the future, some participation in another way in public life of a different sort.

While it is a farewell of sorts, nonetheless the problems, the challenges and the interests continue, and they will continue beyond my government in Washington, this government in Victoria and beyond any of our generation.

A border does divide us — an international border — but the interests of this part of North America, both to the north and to the south of the border, are

[ Page 2198 ]

very much the same. In fact, I suspect the continued interests and contact of people of Washington are more frequently with those of British Columbia than any other American state, and I suspect the same is true in reverse, especially if you try to go skiing at Mount Baker on some winter weekend and find that Canadians quite outnumber those from our side of the border.

These contacts which have been made during the past several years I hope will continue and be expanded and become a much more ordinary thing in the future, because those issues which do join us are far more critical today and will be even more critical tomorrow than they have been in even the recent past.

I think most of us can remember just half a dozen years ago when there was little thought on this continent, and in fact in most parts of the world, that an energy shortage would exist and would plague us to the extent it has in the intervening years.

Not too many years ago few of us would have predicted that shortages and conflicts between various users of our marine supplies, particularly fish, would cause the problems they have in the intervening years.

A few years ago I doubt that members of this assembly or our Legislature would have given great thought to the potential shortage of land and conflict over the uses of land which could lead to great conflict between people and the need for public action.

Gas, and the supplies of other forms of energy; fish, and the use of them both for commercial and for sports enterprise; hydroelectric power and other forms of power which we need in increasing quantities on both sides of the border; land use and the expanding interest of people in land across the border — all mandate a much more continuous interaction and reaction between the government here in Victoria and our government in Olympia.

But I think, even more importantly, we are at the birth of a new age of mankind. At the risk of being a little presumptuous, I suspect that when another 100 years, or 200 years perhaps, has passed, people will look back on the mid-1900s as the birth of a new age, in much the sense we now look back at the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and the industrial revolution as typifying major shifts and major new directions in mankind's endeavour.

Of course, this new age, begun in the mid-1950s, was the atomic age, an age where we, at one and the same time, found we finally had the power to destroy ourselves on a worldwide basis; and we also, perhaps, were beginning to find the resources, the capacity and the ability to resolve the poverty, the plagues, the illnesses and all of the other major problems of mankind which have been with us for so many centuries. So this is indeed a critical age, an age in which the dangers are enormous and, I hope, the potentials even more enormous.

Energy today is perhaps our most critical problem, a problem which plagues all of us, both supplier and user, but a problem which I believe most strongly will be behind us for the most part by the turn of the century, or perhaps even before. I've enough faith in human technology, in the innovative spirit of people throughout the world and in our capacity to believe that in that period of time we will discover new and virtually inexhaustible energy resources, or develop those which are now a laboratory experiment but which soon can be supplying major sources of energy, both to this population and to a greatly expanded world population. But it does plague us today and it deserves the best of those on each side of our border, to attempt to assure that energy supplies of all kinds, whether electric, hydroelectric, gas or oil, are made available in reasonable quantities and in a fashion that allows the economies of both our two great areas to continue to expand.

By the turn of the century, however, I suspect a new and perhaps even more critical problem will face us and will face most of mankind. That is how to feed and to house and provide the basics for a world population which will be perhaps double that of the world population of today. I guess the most striking, and in some respects the most frightening, simple experience that gave me pause was a visit two years ago to the People's Republic of China. I was the head of a delegation of American governors and we spent almost two weeks in that country. During one of the day tours outside Shanghai we visited a commune, a people's commune, an agricultural commune. They were very proud of it and I think it was quite obviously a commune that was the target of most foreign visitors. But they did have a headquarters...

Interjection.

HON. MR. EVANS: It may have been at the same one.

...a headquarters building, and inside on the walls were the measurements of production and of progress of this commune over the almost 25 years of that communist government. That was impressive enough, but the startling and sobering and somewhat scary statistics were two very simple ones on the right-hand edge of the wall.

This set forth the number of transistor radios the members of the commune owned and the number of bicycles the members of  the commune had and the geometric escalation in the numbers during the 20 years preceding that day. I thought to myself, how long will it be before the measurement of individual gain or individual progress or individual well-being is in black-and-white television sets and motorcycles, and how long after that will it be in colour television

[ Page 2199 ]

sets and automobiles? When you multiply that acquisition by almost a billion people, the statistics have to be frightening. We happen to live in an age when perhaps we can see the end of some of the non-renewable resources of this planet. We simply have got to be good enough and smart enough to find alternative resources or we a will pass on to our children and to their children a legacy for which they will give us few thanks.

I suspect that in this assembly, and certainly in our Legislature and in the national legislative bodies of our two countries and perhaps in the United Nations itself, too much time is spent on the immediate problems of today with too little of our time spent on assessing the effect of those policies on tomorrow.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. EVANS: We do have a responsibility, a far greater responsibility than most of us realize except on rare occasions. Then again, responsibility is not only to do well for ourselves and our colleagues and our families and our voters, but also to recognize that we do have a major responsibility to our children and to the generations which follow us.

As I said at the beginning, new governments and a new people will sit in this hall in years to come. New governments and new people will sit in our legislative body in Olympia, and new generations will inhabit these two rather special areas of the world. We do have a unique heritage to preserve, the heritage which has brought so many people to British Columbia and to the state of Washington, a heritage rich in resources, rich in natural beauty, which has led to a human richness in the unique abilities of our citizens.

We are an independent sort, people who care very much about the physical and natural environment which surrounds us, and, I think, people who have a rather unique concern about not only the present, but the future.

Perhaps we, individually or maybe even jointly, a can provide some leadership to other parts of our countries, and perhaps even to other parts of the world, in showing that people can live well with a respect for the environment in which they live, a moderate use of our resources with a particular concern to renew those which can be renewed, and a concern that we not only do well for ourselves, but pass on to the next generation an even better opportunity.

That challenge is a big challenge and I am privileged to stand before you to share these few remarks, to hope that as future generations in Washington and in British Columbia look back on these 1970s, they will say to this assembly, this government, and to the government and people of our state: "Good job. Well done." Thank you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition in the British Columbia Legislature, I would like to extend our warmest and most hearty welcome to Governor Evans and to his delegation from our neighbour state. I want to say just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the words and the wisdom which Governor Evans has shared with our Legislature this afternoon is deeply appreciated. I think his remarks indicate an awareness and an ability to identify many of the problems that not only beset our province and the State of Washington, but the world over. Certainly the ability to share those kinds of concern is welcome and I think is a worthwhile exchange between neighbouring countries, neighbouring nations and legislatures, and one that I hope continues in days to come.

I don't want to mention anything specifically about the Governor's remarks other than to say that here is an overriding issue that I am sure is shared by people of the State of Washington and the people of British Columbia, the members of this Legislature no matter which side of the House they sit upon and, I'm sure, the members of the state Legislature in Washington. That is one issue which the governor did touch upon briefly, a matter of energy, but energy of destructive sort: namely, nuclear energy directed as is proposed to a nuclear missile site in Bangor, Washington.

I do hope that the governor's concern over this issue — and I know he has concern — and the Premier of British Columbia's concern, leads to a discussion on this matter which is of overriding interest to the future security of the peoples of this part of the North American continent and, indeed, the people of the world. I do hope that that is a priority for their discussions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR, G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, Governor Evans and distinguished visitors, on behalf of the Liberal Party I would first of all appreciate the governor's opening remarks. He paid tribute to our great institution of the question period, which is a marvellous thing, but I would suggest to him that he need not fear too much because it's not necessarily called the answer period. (Laughter.) But I might trade all that, Mr. Speaker, or the delicious uncertainty of not knowing how a vote might come out in the Legislature. There is much to be learned from both our systems.

I am delighted to welcome you, sir, the more so as my mother was an American and I spent some years studying in your great country. We have so much in common and so much to cooperate with.

You brought us a message of hope and inspiration, and concern for such questions as the world food supply and things of this nature with which we ought to concern ourselves more often. There are many problems of mutual concern between our two

[ Page 2200 ]

jurisdictions on which, in my opinion, sir, you have taken extraordinarily enlightened stands, such as tankers and pollution in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Skagit Valley, the land-use questions and other questions such as energy supplies, in which I think both province and state want to be good neighbours and mutually facilitate good answers.

Some time ago we had an interchange of Legislatures at Western Washington State College in Bellingham. Your address to us today continues this thrust; I hope it will carry on from here. I think we all have much to learn and profit by.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party I would like to extend a warm welcome to Governor Evans and his colleagues. It seems to be appropriate, since the Liberal leader referred to his American heritage, maybe I should refer to my Scottish heritage. I note that in bicentennial year the United Kingdom has lowered its guard a little bit and has offered a copy of the Magna Carta to the United States.

MR. GIBSON: Only a copy.

MR. WALLACE: "Only a copy," the member interjects. I think that strikes a note that there are no long-term feelings of animosity, although history created battles between peoples. I think the governor has struck a central theme along the line of the sentiments behind Habitat, that we are living on a shrinking planet, that the global village has to be the philosophy of all peoples on the face of the earth in the years ahead and that the two essential facts we have to recognize today are that man has the power to destroy himself, and that population growth is unquestionably the primary problem facing humanity, because in the absence of population growth we would not have the pressing urgency of energy, land use and the development of resources.

In that regard I believe that lines on a map are so often an accident of fate or a consequence of history. I believe that man the world over is coming to recognize that truth to which he has been so blind for so many centuries. I think the kind of visit we are enjoying today and the statesmanlike message which Governor Evans has presented is a great inspiration to all of us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House Leader of the official Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party for the welcome they have extended to Governor Evans today. I can't let pass the Liberal leader's comments about the question period and the answer period because quite often those of us on this side feel it's the statement period. (Laughter.)

Governor Evans has spoken to us today and has honoured this Legislature by speaking to us a second time. The first time the governor spoke was on October 19, 1973. I think all of us share the governor's thoughts for the need of cooperation between our governments in meeting our future needs.

As this Legislature knows, through the good offices of Governor Evans, just recently we arranged a meeting with Governor Straub of Oregon, Governor Hammond of Alaska and, of course, Governor Evans of Washington, with myself representing the Province of British Columbia. I think the fact that the four of us got together, while we have met separately before, was historic in that nature. I think that meetings such as this, when we discuss mutual problems, in fact lead towards the type of solutions that the governor touched upon in his speech today.

We have an important job ahead of us, those of us in this province and in this Legislature, while those legislators in Washington, Oregon, Alaska and those in the Yukon.... We share a continent, a continent in which two countries stand side-by-side, one a gigantic country in population and industrial wealth, the other a gigantic country, our own, in terms of area and potential. Yet so many of the problems the governor outlined will demand mutual solutions.

I am hopeful that this Legislature, all the members of this Legislature, are united in our concern and our ideal in meeting this as a common goal. I would also like to congratulate the governor and give him best wishes on this their bicentennial year in the United States, a country that had a great position in the world and provided great leadership — not all of it easy — through difficult times. I want him to know that while some of our citizens may criticize, it's the criticism of those who are friends and family, and it is extended only in friendship. I can think of no other country that I'd want next door to Canada.

Governor Evans and party, thank you for coming, thank you for addressing us, and thank you for continuing the cooperation I know will develop in the future for the benefit of North America and perhaps all of society.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if there were a few introductions that we omitted prior to the start of the address by Governor Evans, the people who have those introductions to make may rise in their place now. If not, we'll proceed to introduction of bills.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House could now withdraw leave for the television lights.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I just pressed the switch,

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health):

[ Page 2201 ]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I would like the House to make welcome and give a warm round of applause to a group of 44 grade 8 to 12 students from the Aldergrove Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Nercessian,

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the House this afternoon I have four very good friends of mine, four very charming ladies: Mrs. Ivy Ford, Mrs. Eve Smith, Mrs. Jean Gross and Mrs. Janet Clouthier. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1975 annual report of the Department of Agriculture.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis presents the report on gasoline marketing in British Columbia, pursuant to order-in-council No. 3362.

Hon. Mr. Mair presents the annual report of the debtor assistance division of the Department of Consumer Services for the fiscal year 1974-75.

Oral questions.

MONITORING OF PRICES
AFFECTED BY FERRY RATE INCREASE

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer Services. Since ferry rates on most routes doubled today, I am wondering if the Minister of Consumer Services is considering instituting a monitoring of prices in those areas that will be affected by the doubling of the ferry rates?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I think there's more to the question than I originally anticipated. I'll take it as notice.

RESIGNATION OF B.C.
STEAMSHIPS CO. GENERAL MANAGER

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the minister received a letter of resignation from the general manager of the British Columbia Steamship Co.?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and with some regret on my part.

MR. GIBSON: Since the general manager in his letter makes reference to the negative attitude and total indifference of its board of directors towards company affairs, and since the board of directors includes the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I would ask the minister what steps he is taking to reconstitute the board of directors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Marguerite is sailing again. We'll have a very full schedule this summer. It is being manned by a smaller crew, economies have been effected, and I believe it will be a very successful season.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, since the general manager again makes reference to "the replacement without cause" of a very loyal agent in Seattle, Mr. Don McClary, will the minister cause an investigation to be made into this dismissal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that change. However, I'll make further inquiries.

Interjections.

EGG MARKETING BOARD PROBLEMS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture seems so eager to get into the fray I thought I would ask him a question today. In view of his assurance during debate on his estimates that the problems of the Egg Marketing Board would shortly be solved, but in light of the fact that two members

[ Page 2202 ]

of the board have refused to attend further meetings and thus will render future meetings of the egg board invalid for lack of a quorum, can the minister report to the House what progress, if any, is being made to solve these apparently endlessly recurring problems in the administration of the Egg Marketing Board?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, and I want to assure the member for Oak Bay that all of the directors of the Egg Marketing Board in British Columbia are elected by the producers in British Columbia, and therefore it will have to be the responsibility of those producers to take into consideration those matters which have recently happened in the board. I hope that they will deal with the matter with a lot of haste.

MR. LAUK: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since the minister....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister did make a commitment during debate on his estimates to carry out some kind of review procedure of marketing boards in the light of the continuing problems. I'm not being facetious. There obviously are continuing problems. Can the minister tell the House what specific action he has taken since the debate on his estimates to implement some kind of review of marketing boards?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's supplementary question, I think that he will recall during my estimates I stated that when this matter, which has been going on for a large number of years, was settled between the Egg Marketing Board and some of their producers so all of the producers were on an equal basis and everybody was equal, then we would take a look at the marketing situation — all marketing boards. As I stated at that time, if legislation which was produced by this House is not fulfilling its purpose, it is the duty and the responsibility of those of us who sit in this House to take a look at it, to examine it, and to see whether it is fulfilling its function or not. That we are prepared to do, as I think all legislators in this House, both in opposition and in government, should always be ready to do.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in the light of the minister's answer, the fact is that the elected members of the board themselves are in deep disarray. The question I'm asking the minister is: what action is he taking in his responsible position as minister to review and make recommendations for changes in the Egg Marketing Board so there will not be a continuing repetition of problems of this nature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second supplementary question of the member for Oak Bay: I'm sure he must realize, as a member of this Legislature, that we put in place that legislation, and certainly it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, or indeed of this Legislature, to go in and direct those producers who, through our democratic system, elect certain members to serve on the board. If those members have resigned, then it will be the responsibility of those producers in British Columbia who elected them in the first place. I'm sure that the member for Oak Bay, in light of the democratic system that we have in British Columbia, would not want the Minister of Agriculture to go in and interfere with that democratic system.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture: inasmuch as the existing legislation does provide a supervisory body in the Natural Products Marketing Act, is he or is he not contemplating calling upon the provincial marketing board to review the situation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question: she has studied the legislation, as I'm sure she has, and I'm sure she is aware that the superboard, as it is generally known, has the right to go in and override decisions. But I cannot find in the legislation where that superboard has the right to go in and change the directors which are duly elected by the producers on that board.

I think if you will take a real look at it, yes, they can go in and check regulations that are made by the marketing board, but I don't think there is anything in there that says they can have anything in the due process of having anything to do with the directors who are duly elected by the producers who duly elect the board to serve them in the first place.

MRS. WALLACE: On a further supplemental....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) also has a supplemental question. Do you defer?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It's on the same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

[ Page 2203 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was: was the minister contemplating calling upon the superboard to take any action there? There is provision in that Act, as I read it, for the superboard to act on your direction to investigate, and this is really the question I'm asking of you, Mr. Minister. Are you contemplating asking the superboard to review the situation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question: yes, the minister can call on the superboard to check into certain decisions which are made by the marketing board, but certainly not decisions with regard to who is elected by the producers and who resigns. That is the responsibility of the producers.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member. doesn't want me to interfere with that process.

QUOTA SALE POLICY OF
EGG MARKETING BOARD

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister from Clearbrook, the Minister of Agriculture — I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker — whether or not the B.C. Egg Marketing Board has abolished the system whereby on the sale of a quota one-tenth of that quota would be made available throughout all of the regions of the province of B.C. so the various regions could have their own eggs fresh produced from their own region at a publicly set price. Has that policy been changed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the only member for Vancouver East...

MR. MACDONALD: So far!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...who is remaining....

MR. COCKE: Wait till Thursday!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That gentleman, Mr. Speaker, served as the Attorney-General, and he knows the answer to the very question he asked. He's trying to bring politics into a very delicate situation. I will not be drawn into that affair, and the Attorney-General should withdraw the question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've asked a perfectly plain question: has the policy of the 10 per cent quota dispersion throughout the whole province of British Columbia been abandoned by the B.C. Egg Marketing Board which is under his jurisdiction? Has it? Yes or no?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, certainly I don't wish to belabour this point, and I am sure that the members of the House don't wish to belabour this point....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As the past Attorney-General knows, the happenings in the Egg Marketing Board are the responsibility of the producers, as the legislation sets out. If that is not working, as I have said before, Mr. Speaker...

MR. WALLACE: It isn't working.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...we have the responsibility as legislators, government and opposition, and we will take a look at it.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We have received no answer to that, as to what the public policy of B.C. is. I want to ask the minister whether the B.C. Egg Marketing Board has denied to the northern producers, who were sued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the right to pay off judgments totalling $100,000 over a period of five years and have insisted they be paid forthwith, to the detriment of the north and its consumers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, again the Attorney-General, as I said, is...

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...being completely and politically irresponsible in bringing into the House political politics in a very delicate situation...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...if, like his previous leader, he is trying to ask the present Minister of Agriculture to apply the wood to that board.

[ Page 2204 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. minister either answer the question or take it as notice?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No answers at all.

MR. LAUK: Do your job, Don.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture has successfully avoided the question completely so far. I'd like to ask him quite pointedly, so that even he cannot fail to understand the question: will he ask the provincial marketing board to look into the operations of the Egg Marketing Board?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The superboard has looked into certain aspects of the provincial board, but I think that if we're looking at the change in legislation and are going to take a look at the overall marketing board situation in British Columbia, then we have to do that as a Legislature.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That wasn't the intent or the purpose of creating that superboard, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes the question period for today, Hon. Members.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Lots of questions but not one answer!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, if you wish to waste the time of the House in kibitzing back and forth across the floor, that's your business, but if you want to get on with the business of the House, you'll do so now and refrain from talking when you do not have possession of the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders, second reading of Bill 15.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The hon. House Leader has asked for leave to proceed from a preceding motion, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it should be drawn to the attention of this House that the Premier is seldom in his seat, and I want to remind....

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a proper point of order.

MR. LAUK: I'm raising the point of order now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have a visitor from the state of Washington.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that is not a proper point of order, and you know it well.

MR. LAUK: I'm raising the point of order now, if you'll be patient with me.

Standing order 8 states: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Do you want to delay until the Premier gets back....

MR. LAUK: The Premier has attended less than any other Premier in the history of....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: He's afraid to face the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member who has raised the point of order knows full well that

[ Page 2205 ]

attending the House does not mean that every member must be in his seat at all times. Attending the House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: He's never here and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Attending the House means attending to the duties of the Legislature...

MR. LAUK: He's a coward.

MR. SPEAKER: ...which include periods in the House, periods in committee meetings, periods absent from the House because of commitments that take the hon. members from the House.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He can defend himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Now if I were to draw every member, or keep a record on every member who is absent from this House....

MR. LAUK: He's the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: He's the First Minister of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: If I were to try to keep a record it would mean that every member, at one time or another, was in violation. I do not interpret the rule that way. I interpret the rule to mean that if a member is absent, or is going to be absent, he advises the House if it is for an extended period of time, and in that way it will be recorded. But where members are only absent for a short period during the sitting of the day, and in some parts of the precinct, that is not being absent from the House, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not been in the House day after day after day.

MR. SPEAKER: That is your opinion, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I have sat.... Are people blind if they cannot see...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, since the former member on his feet, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, has drawn attention to the absence of the Premier, I'd like to say that in calling Bill 15 — which I did a few moments ago — the member who adjourned the debate was the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

HON. MRS McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I just say to you that the Premier is not in his seat today for a very good reason. We have had a visitor from the state of Washington, the Governor of the State of Washington, in our Legislature, and surely that is good reason for the Premier to be away.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! If a member who adjourns any debate on second reading of the bill is not in his place, it means that we pass on to the next hon. member who wishes to take his place in the debate. I am prepared to recognize whoever stands in his place to debate Bill 15, after I have recognized the hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is one worth taking. I would think that the Premier could come in here and defend himself against those charges...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ...instead of hiding behind the skirts of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You know that is not a point of order, Hon. Member.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
(continued)

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Well, now that we're back into orderly debate, Mr. Speaker, and the House is settling down nicely, I hope, I hope to spend a few minutes discussing this bill.

I expect I'll be voting for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I really don't know why; it's against my better judgment, but I guess I'm going to vote for the thing. You know, really, in this time and place when inflation.... Here we are debating a cut in our salaries when at the moment, as every member knows, large rural areas like the areas I represent are very large and difficult to service, and travelling expenses to properly service the ridings are absolutely horrendous.

[ Page 2206 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I don't have to tell you; you yourself serve a large rural area, and you are very familiar with the expenses incurred in trying to properly serve the people of that area. I believe this is exactly why we were elected as members of this Legislature — to properly serve the members of our constituencies, each and every one of us.

I believe that once again the job of serving as a member of this assembly is going to become the preserve of the rich; I really do. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, about the one-year section pertaining to this bill. I'm wondering at the end of that one year, one year from now, what's going to happen then. Are we going to go back to the $24,000 a year — $16,000 plus $8,000 — or are we going to be cut in half because there's only one session a year? I don't know, but I'm wondering. I was wondering if the Minister of Finance, if he was here, would tell me — but he's not here in the House at the moment.

However, I believe that by reducing the MLAs salaries, particularly in large ridings like mine, you are.... It's a means of perhaps throttling members of the opposition. I believe that people in our constituencies will not be receiving services they should be entitled to, Mr. Speaker. I know that in some areas I represent, remote areas on the British Columbia coast, I'm more than just an MLA; I'm the only contact some of these people have with different government agencies — the only contact they have. They don't have aldermen, mayors, access to the regional board directors or anything else; I'm the only contact some of these people have.

I really believe that MLAs should serve their constituents properly; I believe that sincerely. Therefore I'm going to suggest that the government consider one or two alternatives. I have had the opportunity to travel to other parts of this country of Canada, other provinces, and I want to tell you one or two....

Interruption.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What happened?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there's a little problem with the microphones this afternoon, and sometimes they come booming in a little louder than they should.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I noticed.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an electrical problem that we'll try to have corrected.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, one or two alternative methods that the government might look at. For instance, in several provinces, notably the province of Quebec, members representing large rural areas have an extra expense account available to them. Mr. Speaker, I do believe you were a member of that particular delegation that we attended last June in Quebec. I think it's a very fair method. It has a ceiling. Members who live within the precincts of the capital, of course, receive no extra remuneration, but members who live in larger ridings, as I said before, do receive a well-earned extra allowance. I believe they should be entitled to that, Mr. Speaker, because to serve large rural areas does entail an extra expense. I think that every citizen of this province should have the opportunity to seek elected office no matter what their income or their financial circumstances and be able to pay their bills, raise their families and do the things that other ordinary citizens of this province do.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree in a year such as this that restraint certainly is a necessity. I certainly don't agree that a cut was really a good move. The only problem I find, I think like the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and others in this Legislature, is that if I voted against this bill, then of course I'd be branded by the press in editorials as doing it for personal gain. Certainly if people want to argue this issue, it has to be the people out in the countryside themselves. I know people in my own riding — and I certainly admire their loyalty — who suggest that they should take up a collection for the members of the Legislature. I don't think this is the way government should be run, but I do not agree with the present method by which members' salaries are arrived at. Even though we do disagree, and I think we have a very good reason, I'm quite sure most of us will end up voting for this. I think really an impartial group is a proper approach to this whole salary question.

One thing I would point out for people who think MLAs are overpaid is that if anyone in here can stand up and say they can stay in Victoria for less than $1,000 a month, I'd like to know where they stay. The way sessions are going, it looks like we'll likely stay in Victoria roughly five months in a year. So you deduct $5,000 from your $21,000 salary and then you can further deduct a further $3,600 in income tax, which brings is down to just over $12,000. Then if you travel around a riding as large as that of my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), which you could drop in Omineca about four times but which is still quite a large riding, and if you took the type of travel allowance that civil servants get at the present time, which is 23 cents a mile, that would come to a further $4,600. That only leave less than $8,000 for an MLA.

I could go on and on if I really wanted to, and it does require a subsidy — let's face it. It's a subsidy that we have to put in. The people who are hurt are not the members sitting here, but the families sitting

[ Page 2207 ]

back home. My wife hasn't been down here except for the opening of this session, and the simple reason why she isn't here is because I can't afford to bring her. It's as simple as that.

Now the figures that I've used this afternoon don't include travelling to Victoria with delegations. I know some smart guy will come out and say: "Oh, that doesn't mean anything; it's only a part-time job anyway, because you can travel free by air." I've yet to see the day when that air ticket buys me a room in the hotel down here. It doesn't happen. Certainly you can add another $2,000 in a year to your total expenses easily, and I could even do better than that if I wanted to take some time.

So I would say the average MLA from an outside area — and this includes areas pretty well all over the interior — is getting paid approximately $6,000 — less by half than a janitor in a school receives. I agree with my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — and I don't often — that we certainly shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the average person should be able to run for office and not have to subsidize his salary. I've always been fortunate enough to be able to sell my farm and live for a few years while the gas inquiry was going on and sell other properties, but I don't think this should be required for members.

I think it's a full-time job. I think they should get out and do that job. If you want to go to a legitimate expense account, I'm all for it. I would get twice as much as I do today.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I admire very much the remarks and the candour of the member who just spoke. It is, as I have observed over the years, typical of his performance in the House.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, would be willing to permit a free vote; I wonder if the cabinet would be willing to permit a free vote on this issue. The reason, I think, is very straightforward and very simple. The problem of salaries and remuneration for members crosses party lines and has nothing to do with ideologies at all. It has nothing whatever to do with ideologies. We on this side of the House are well aware that a considerable debate has raged within the Social Credit caucus on this very question, as I am sure you are also well aware that a similar debate has raged in our caucus.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): There's no debate in our caucus. It was unanimous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. BARBER: I was just listening to the member who just spoke. Were you here?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: If you had heard him, you would know of what I am speaking.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, — if I might speak personally for a moment — that as the youngest member of this House with no mortgage and no family, I find it easiest of all to accept a reduction in my salary. So perhaps because I have less self-interest than anyone else it is fair for me to say that I wish the provincial government would take a second look because I have come to appreciate the very extraordinary demands placed on the northern members, especially, of this Legislature in the performance of their duties. I was never aware of that before I came to this House, Mr. Speaker; I am most certainly aware of it now. It is easy for a capital-city MLA to support this bill. It is almost as easy for a Vancouver or greater Vancouver MLA to support it as well. It doesn't really affect many of us. We live here year-round and there is no tremendous expense associated.

But I think, though, Mr. Speaker, that out of respect for those members who serve this Legislature from the northern ridings in this province we ought to reconsider. I think that it would serve this Legislature well if the government agreed to a free vote. The remarks the previous members made are, if I may repeat, candid, and I am sure they are accurate. No member in my position who lives in the capital city can possibly appreciate the time and trouble and extraordinary expense that must be incurred in the performance of the jobs of northern members of this House. I think this is going to hurt them very badly, and I think the final result of this is that it could hurt just as badly the democratic process, because what it does inevitably is rule out the possibility that ordinary men and women might ever run for public office.

There is a member in this Legislature who once said that in his career as a member here he had subsidized the Government of British Columbia to the tune of some $60,000 for the privilege of serving the people in his own constituency. This is a very expensive job, Mr. Speaker, for those members who do not happen to live in the capital city or the lower mainland. I think it would be commendable — it would be meritorious indeed — if the government did permit a free vote.

I want to say for the second time that there are no grounds of ideology here. This has nothing to do with party lines; this is not politics. We, by this bill, may make it possible that we are ruling out of order the opportunity to participate in this Legislature that a number of ordinary men and women might want to take. More prosperous, more well-off people don't have that problem. They can subsidize themselves. Some of them can write it off as business expenses. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that any citizen of this province should be free to run for public office.

[ Page 2208 ]

I support the remarks of the previous member and would support the remarks of any member from northern ridings that we should be very, very careful before we jeopardize and damage even further their right and their opportunity to participate in this Legislature. I call on the Provincial Secretary to call a free vote on this one. Call a free vote.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Every vote is a free one.

MR. BARBER: We know better than that, Mr. Attorney-General. Every vote is not a free vote.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Call a free vote, Mr. Speaker, and I think we may find an honest and a candid and a brave expression of opinion on the part of a number of members who believe, as I do, that we are going to be criticized if we vote against it and who believe as I do and as others do that we may in the long run be even more criticized for putting more into jeopardy the right and the opportunity of the citizens of British Columbia to participate in this Legislature.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I take my place today to speak in favour of the Constitution Amendment Act, not because I favour a 10 per cent cut in my salary or that of any other salary of any other member of this House but rather because I am proud and honoured to be a member of this Legislature...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): You're not going to get a cabinet post anyway.

MR. KEMPF: ...not because I am a millionaire, a wealthy insurance agent or landlord, as I am given to understand some of the opposition members are. No, Mr. Speaker, I speak in favour of Bill 15 because I am proud to be a member of this Legislature, proud and honoured to have been selected by the people of Omineca to be their representative in this House.

To me, a farm boy of meagre beginnings, that's a privilege, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, a privilege on which I can place no monetary value, a privilege that many of us, on both sides of the House, tend too often to forget.

I have to be honest and say that I am not in favour of the cut, nor were many of my constituents who spoke out against it, knowing full well that it is not easy to be a responsible member who responsibly represents a constituency as far away from Victoria as Omineca. But I was quick to respond and to say that if we as government expect them to tighten their belts and pay higher sales tax, higher ferry fares and higher hospital rates, then we as responsible representatives must also act accordingly.

I heard a member of the opposition say yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that it was a farce, a token gesture not worthy of mention. Well, I do not believe that to be true. A 10 per cent cut when, even under the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, labour is getting upwards to 50 per cent raises...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. KEMPF: ...I hardly feel is a token gesture. We as a responsible government are attempting, after three years and over three months of irresponsible administration, to set an example for British Columbians.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): We've just had three months of irresponsible government.

MR. KEMPF: We are asking the people of this province to join with us in an attempt to restore stability to our economy.

We hear opposition members rave on about bottom-line politics, Mr. Speaker, but the people of this province know that we cannot go on forever hiding mistakes, incurring debts and covering up. We as government must lead the way in restoring in British Columbians confidence in their leaders. This we do with Bill 15.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): What nonsense!

MR. KEMPF: In Bill 15 we call out to the workers of the BCR to have faith in us and join with us in restoring a stable economy to Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George and Fort St. James before the northern members, of which I am one, must induce pressure to force this to happen.

In Bill 15 we call out to the ferry workers to follow our lead, to give up their overtime so that their brothers and sisters may have jobs and feed their families.

In Bill 15 we call upon the opposition parties of this province, who know full well what the financial position of the province is, to join with us in showing leadership.

In Bill 15 we call out to the Noranda Copper Co. at Granisle in my constituency, to be responsible and find the means by which operations, on strike since February 7, may return to work and restore stability to that community of Granisle...

MR. MACDONALD: What do you say to the mining companies?

[ Page 2209 ]

MR. KEMPF: ...now plagued with many, many hardships.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to lose $2,400 from my salary by this reduction, a salary which I intend to use in its entirety, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to serve my constituency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. KEMPF: But, Mr. Speaker, I will not in any way lessen the level of service which I intend to give to that constituency. If the people of this province must sacrifice, then we all must sacrifice, and I'm sure that the hon. members opposite know what that means. It is their philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the hon. members of the opposition, especially — and he's not in the House today — that sanctimonious member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), trying to speak against the bill by speaking in favour of it. I am amused because it is doubly hard for them, because they know who caused the restraint and the hardship we now experience in the province of British Columbia. They know only too well. Why do you think they all — to a last member — walked out during a debate on Bill 45 if they didn't know, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. KEMPF: They know who cost the taxpayers of this province $541 million, and why there is a need for restraint in Canada's richest province. Hypocrites, Mr. Speaker? No, I wouldn't call them that; that's unparliamentary. But I leave it up to the people of British Columbia to decide.

Getting back to Bill 15, Mr. Speaker, I guess what I am asking the people of British Columbia is to show some patriotism, some pride in this our province.

MR. LAUK: Spiro Agnew.

MR. KEMPF: You know, we don't take patriotism very seriously in this province, and we do have a great country and a great province of which we should all be proud, all the members of this House, all the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure the other day to watch a parade down Douglas Street in the city of Victoria...

AN HON. MEMBER: Demagogue! Jingoist!

MR. KEMPF: ...and I noted during that parade the high school marching bands from across our border in Washington and Oregon.

I also noticed, Mr. Speaker, how proud those people were, how proud they marched, how proud they played, and how proud they waved the flag of the United States of America. That pride is something we are lacking in the province of British Columbia — proud of their country, proud of their state. We should be also very, very proud of the beautiful province of British Columbia.

We must start by not asking of this province more than it can give. We cannot continually demand wage rates and hours of work that our natural resources cannot support. We in British Columbia already have a standard of living envied all over the world. We have this in an atmosphere of unpolluted air, with unpolluted rivers and lakes, and under a system of government in which all enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of movement and the right to live as human beings whether we're handicapped, disabled or old — something to be proud of, Mr. Speaker, something to be patriotic about. That is why I must support Bill 15.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I'm going to forgo saying anything about the last speaker's remarks.

I want to talk about some of the remarks that were made by the member for Mackenzie and the member for Skeena. I think that those two members, coming from opposite sides of the House as they do, pointed out a very critical problem with this kind of a bill. The remark was made that the riding of Mackenzie would probably go four times into the riding of Omineca. I suppose my riding, the riding of Cowichan-Malahat, would probably go at least twice into the riding of Mackenzie.

I think my riding is perhaps close enough to the metropolitan area that the few remaining metropolitan members here would recognize the kind of scope I'm talking about when I say that I have to service an area from the Malahat north to the Nanaimo River, and from the coastline, including two of the Gulf Islands — I do have two of the small islands — across the mountains, such as they are on Vancouver Island, into the Nitinat Indian reserve.

Now the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicated that perhaps, as one of the youngest members in the House, the financial burden on a younger member was not too great and it was not his own personal concern. Perhaps I come at the other end of the scale, Mr. Speaker, where I had taken an early retirement and was living quite comfortably and quite happily. I find that since taking this job I have not yet even caught up on the financial burden that this job has put upon me. Hopefully I will catch up before the end of the year.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that burden is, even in my riding, a very expensive burden, getting around to those scattered constituents in those various areas and doing the job, that we all take for granted that we're going to do, of serving those constituents.

[ Page 2210 ]

I think that again I would state it is an unfortunate thing that we are put in the position of the member for Mackenzie and the member for Skeena in having to make this decision on the floor of the House.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The trend has been set in other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker — in Australia, in New Zealand, in the province of Alberta right next door — where that decision is made not by the members of the Legislative Assembly but it is made by an independent tribunal or independent commission. I would urge the government members to take cognizance of this fact — and before we again are faced with this very difficult position of having to make a decision whether or not we are going to work this kind of an economic hardship upon the members of this House who sit in ridings and constituencies which are very difficult to serve.

Whether we are going to work that kind of a hardship on then or join forces to try and in some way compensate for the very heavy tax load that has been put on the average citizen of this province and go along with this thing, I would urge upon the government members, before another year goes by, to give some very strong and serious consideration to introducing a new bill into this House next year that will provide for that kind of an independent tribunal or that kind of an independent commission that will take this sort of decision out of this area of government.

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the points that we must never forget is that monetary success is not necessarily a criterion of ability to act as a representative in this House. It is not necessary to have sufficient funds to be self-supporting to make a good and able MLA in this chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a right that we must protect for all citizens of British Columbia: the right to offer their services and the right of voters of this province to decide who they want to represent them. This should not, in any way, shape or form, be tied to that particular person's ability to help support themselves.

Again, I would urge upon the government to consider some form of independent tribunal or commission before another year is past.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I rise to make one or two brief comments on this bill. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Kamloops, my constituency, are called upon this year to tighten their belts. Their member certainly could stand a little belt tightening, I concede, but they are called upon to tighten their belts. Mr. Speaker, they are called upon to give up the hopes they have had for new roads, new bridges, a long-overdue courthouse and, goodness knows, many other things that they felt themselves entitled to. If they are, Mr. Speaker, like all other constituencies, prepared to share the burden of restraint, then goodness knows we in this Legislature must do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some comment as to what a legislator is worth, both in opposition and in government, as well as on the government benches. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, having watched my party in opposition — not having been privileged to be here, but having watched them in opposition the last three and a half years — that they earn their pay, that they work very hard, and that the money they obtain for doing so is not by any means too much. Similarly, it can be said that the members on the government side very definitely earn their money, and I certainly know, Mr. Speaker, that those in the government earn their money.

That's not the point, Mr. Speaker. If it were the point, then the cheap political shot taken at the Premier today would have some merit. The cheap shot was taken at a man, Mr. Speaker, who works harder than any man I have every seen in my life, and who was taken to task in a cheap political shot to obtain publicity at a time when good manners and good common sense would have dictated a sober approach to the situation. But no, Mr. Speaker, we hear, under the guise of this bill and other matters, a cheap shot, a cowardly attack on a man who works long hours.

But you see, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point of this bill. The point is not how hard we work, and the point is not whether or not we are entitled and we are worth the money that we have hitherto been paid. The point is whether or not we are prepared to stand before the people of British Columbia and indicate that we, too, are prepared to be restrained; whether we, too, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to assume our share of the burden that is ours, as British Columbians, to bear. The cause of this is not important; the fact is we have a burden to bear. We must all bear it, and it is our duty to take our share of that burden.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the bill, but at the same time I'm standing up for the democratic principle that the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia should be able to be elected to this Legislative Assembly and survive in terms of their family and their budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know who they are.

MR. MACDONALD: I've listened to the bottom lines back there, particularly the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who appeals to everybody to

[ Page 2211 ]

sacrifice, and yet the multinational resource companies have increased their profits. Yep, that's right. You laugh. They take the coal out of this province at an increase last year of 300 per cent. Was that a 10 per cent reduction?

AN HON. MEMBER: The same old crap.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me go into the Omineca riding and I will debate this thing with him, because if there is going to be sacrifice, let it be equal throughout this province. There is nothing like it in terms of equality of distribution.

The bottom lines, Mr. Speaker, stood up on their feet, and when somebody from B.C. Hydro received a pension of $10,000 a year, they thought how dreadful it was that somebody engaged in the public service in the province of British Columbia should receive that kind of a pension when people walk out of MacMillan Bloedel every day through that revolving door with pensions over $60,000 a year. Not a peep on that, nor when the president of MacMillan Bloedel increased his salary in one year from $160,000 a year to $220,000 a year during the period of restraint.

So what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, is that restraints should be practised equally and should be practised by the overprivileged in this province as well as by the ordinary people of this province. That is the message that has not sunk through whatsoever with that government opposite.

MS. BROWN: There they are, the fat cats.

MR. MACDONALD: So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm supporting this bill, but, as all of us in this chamber should, I've also got my eye upon the larger issue that we are really debating here, namely the gross inequalities of income throughout the society of British Columbia, and the gross overprivileges of the few compared to the underprivileges of the many. And if you think we will forget that, I say that you're greatly mistaken. I support the bill.

Interjection.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That's interesting, Mr. Speaker. I was curious as to how you are going to arrive at who was going to be recognized. It's interesting.

I'm only going to make a few comments. I was motivated to come into the House after hearing the Minister of Consumer Services talk about how we should all practise restraint by setting an example. I wonder how many of those members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to set an example in terms of their total income, not just what they are earning in the Legislature. I would challenge them to demonstrate their good interests by cutting down on the profits they may be receiving as well in some of their businesses. I don't want to have any personal attacks on anyone, but that's just an open challenge.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: If those hon. members.... Of course, that goes for me too. Do you want to challenge me, Mr. Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster)? I'll tell you what I'll do.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What about you, Mr. Premier? Would you accept my challenge?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Anything I have I'm prepared to put on the table. It's not very much, but with what I do have, I am prepared to demonstrate my sincerity...not just 10 per cent of my salary but 10 per cent of the whole works, as long as we can set an example that everybody can follow and believe that we're sincere, because really this is a token gesture.

I would challenge the Premier to stand up and explain to this House how he arrived at 10 per cent. That would be very interesting. Come and tell us what basis or what formula he used in arriving at 10 per cent. Why not 50 per cent? Why not 75? How did he decide to raise the social services tax by 40 per cent, or ICBC by 300 or 400 or 500 per cent? What formula are you using?

What about an impact study on the economy when you come out with all these great ideas and all these figures out of the sky? What fiscal responsibility do you really have when you make these gestures about how you're going to change the rules?

Now you are the people who know; you are the experts. I'm merely a social worker asking questions. But I wonder seriously if, when you make these pronouncements about setting an example, you really had thought about the implications of what you're saying, because a lot of people out there don't believe you. It's great for a millionaire to talk about cutting back 10 per cent of what he gets....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you're not a millionaire. Are you saying that you're not a millionaire?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you'll get your chance. You

[ Page 2212 ]

know, we now have ways of looking into people's overall financial ability and we'll be checking you out. We'll probably find out that you people are in pretty good shape on that side of the House, and whether you work here or not, you are not going to starve — very few of you.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you one thing, it's because we're working people. Well, most of us work for people; we don't have people working for us. That's the truth and a fact.

So you don't really need this place; this is a part-time job for you — it's something you do as a hobby. You're looking after the people's interests, right? — because you were chosen and ordained with this authority to look after the people who can't look after themselves. They can't look after themselves. All of you know that you sit there and say: "Well, I'll tell you what we'll do; we'll see if we can work something out for for you, you poor, ordinary people."

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, I can tell you that I would be more than pleased to put everything I have on the table, not just my earnings.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: These are the only earnings I happen to have. Anything that I have accrued, acquired or am likely to acquire, put it on the table and say, fine let's take a look. Let's work out a formula and really put a grip on inflation. Let's really stop things. Let's not say that we'll do it in the Legislature when all the time you fellows are out there making all that money on the side that's not subject....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you why I'm suspicious about your motives. It's because you've got this programme that you call the anti-inflation bill that you're going to work with the federal government. But the only reason you're bringing the bill in now is because you've made all the inflationary measures you intend to make for the next little while.

You've already done everything you're going to do. Sure, you can bring the bill in now, but this is where....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but you do understand this is something that gets you pretty excited when you think about the game these people are proposing. They're telling me to go and watch the barn and they've let all the horses out. When you think about that, that's a dirty trick to pull on someone who's seriously believing that there are some horses in the barn. They tell me to go out there and stand on guard and I'm out there and I never look inside to see the horses are all out. You guys are pulling a fast one again. They're trying to tell the people, "Here we are, your government, and we're going to set an example for you by taking off 10 per cent of our income" — when they know the only people they're going to hurt are those guys in the opposition.

You're not going to suffer. None of you are going to suffer. Put some money up on the table — some real money, fellas. Let's put some real stuff on the table, and I'd be more than willing to go along with you.

HON. MR. MAIR: What are you talking about?

MR. BARNES: You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Minister, because you of all people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, kindly address the Chair, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry for neglecting you. I hope that when you are not in the chair you, too, will come down and defend the position I'm taking, because I believe you're a man of honour. You stood over here the other day and spoke very highly of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and you said that woman spoke the truth when she talked about togetherness and forgetting about party lines and being concerned for the first time about the people of this province — the same kind of things that Governor Dan Evans was talking about this afternoon.

We're going to have to forget about politics, take a look at the serious consequences of our political actions, and be concerned about the people. It's going to take some real definitive action to make a real difference to the people, because we are playing games.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You are.

MR. BARNES: Let me tell you something — this is no game I'm playing. You think I'm playing games? I'm telling you, Mr. Member, personally, through you, Mr. Chair....

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't if I were you.

[ Page 2213 ]

MR. BARNES: I hope the press is listening. I'm a hard-working man; I've worked hard all my life. That member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) told the other day about how he came off the farm and how hard he worked for 18 years. I remember that. I'm working hard too.

I'll challenge all of you to get up when I've finished speaking to tell me that you're prepared to put all your assets on the table and demonstrate to the people of British Columbia that you will take a cut right across the table. I hope your Premier and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) will follow you, and that the whole works of you — all you car dealers and everybody — will say fine, we're going to stop this business right now. I'm certainly prepared to do it. I've got some land. I'm prepared to turn it over to the government. Are you, Mr. Premier?

The government said that we could begin to demonstrate our sincerity. In this province of British Columbia right now in the city of Vancouver, we're hosting Habitat. Let's have some real leadership by the Premier who has gone now to help them open Habitat, by demonstrating his real commitment to doing something about the problems that we have as far as land is concerned and resources and distribution of the wealth to the people.

You guys are just playing games, but the time is going to come when you're going to have to pull up, or you're going to be trying to protect a House that no longer exists because it's eroding underneath us. We have a serious problem right across the whole world, not just in British Columbia, and this 10 per cent thing that you're doing is really a hoax. There are people out there who can't get jobs, who are begging for jobs, and you're talking about going out and getting all these people jobs. You're going to give everybody a job and guarantee them a minimum income. That's another joke. There's a human factor involved. There's a realistic factor that you just can't take people and put them on jobs and pull them off welfare and tell them everything is going to be all right

How much do you really understand the effects of your actions? We talk about impact studies on the environment when we've got to bring in a new plan, whether it's a Hydro project or some other kind of project. But what do you really do about your fiscal responsibility? Do you know the effects of bringing in a 100 per cent increase on ferries? Do you know the impact of that on the community? Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the impact of telling those people that they can no longer drive their cars because it costs too much money, so they leave their cars and you end up with a load of cars at the parking facilities? If you don't have parking facilities, you cut down on the number of people who will be using the ferries, because they can't afford to pay. You say you think you're going to maintain the same number of people using the ferries with those prices. You're going to cut down, so if you cut down you don't have the service, but you jack up the prices and you still don't have that much difference in revenue, so what kind of service is that? Have you really analysed that before you made those decisions? Are we going to find that in six months we have destroyed a system that was at least providing services? You're trying to save money, but you may end up losing the money and also have a decrease in the service.

These are the kinds of things where I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this government is playing games. It's making a lot of political decisions that have absolutely no relationship to the realities that the people have to face, Whether this bill brought a 10 per cent or 20 per cent or 30 per cent cut, I would like to know how you arrived at that formula. Why not 15 per cent? I think you have a responsibility to start accounting. You've been preaching to us about accountability and about responsibility and about fiscal management and so forth. What do you know about it? How much study have you put into the effects of these decisions that you're making? That's a thing that you're going to have to start doing, because it's just the same thing as telling us that we've got to decrease the cost of one thing while you jack it up on the other end.

You guys are playing that game. Most of you play that game in business because you know how to rook the public. You say: "Okay, we'll give you a discount because if you trade this item in, we'll knock off so much for it." You tell them you're going to give them 50 per cent of what they paid originally for something they're trading in and you jack it up by the same amount on the other end and say: "Well, you see, you're saving money."

But that's games — you're just playing games. It's the end product that counts, the end result; it's the end result, the end effect.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Do you really know what you're talking about?

MR. BARNES: I know very well what I am talking about. You stand up and challenge me on my earlier offer that I will put my land up — everything that I own. I am prepared to sit down and deal with a formula that will really try and control — really try and control — because some of you people, I am sure, have more than your share.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What about Rosemary?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, look, when I challenge in this Legislature, Mr. Member, I challenge everybody, and

[ Page 2214 ]

it is about time. It is about time we had some real challenges, because it makes me sick to see people stand in this House and make speeches which mean nothing. You have a 9.7 unemployment rate in the province of British Columbia today. Those people out there aren't interested in you talking about taking a 10 per cent cut from a $100,000 income. Who are you kidding? You're not so funny. You're going to take a 10 per cent cut....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Look, it's all relative, my friends; it's all relative. What you should be doing is saying: "We have looked at the whole situation, the whole ecological problem, and we have come up with a formula whereby we can begin to solve the problem." There is no solution to what you are doing. All you have done is accumulated wealth for the government, the last place you want to accumulate wealth. You're going to end up with a surplus at the end of this fiscal period. You're going to end up with a surplus in ICBC and in general revenue and everything else....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. BARNES: The reason we are going to end up with a surplus is because we are taking money from people in an inflationary period of time when they cannot afford it. With the unemployment and the inability to participate, the only person who makes money is.... It's like the old card game, you know; the house man makes all the money. Everybody else is being taken. If you don't believe it, you watch — we'll see it. You'll be coming out with these giveaway programmes trying to put the money back into the economy when you should have put it in and left it in with a deficit programme.

MR. KERSTER: What about the Taj Mahal?

MR. BARNES: You finally realized that with your idea on Bill 23 and a deficit programme. You're doing it with the building corporation, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. First Minister, you are smiling as you are writing, but I'll tell you one thing: you are not going to lose any sleep, because you are in good shape. But you go out and talk to those people who are unemployed. Talk to the people out there who are on welfare and the ones who are trying to duck the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who is squeezing them and telling them they can't even move freely in this province any more. These are the kinds of things you should be concerning yourself about instead of gestures like 10 per cent discounts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. But I tell you, it is very appalling. I think it is about time you people on the government side were told that we aren't fooled by your gestures and your jokes. I'll tell you, when you go to Habitat and you listen to what those people are saying out there — the problems of land hoarding by very small numbers of people so there is not enough potential for building lots, of insufficient facilities respecting water supplies and energy — and you are sitting here fat and in good shape talking about cutting your salary by 10 per cent!

MR. KERSTER: How much land have you got?

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you one thing: what I've got, I am prepared to give up. Are you?

MR. KEMPF: I'll trade you.

MR. BARNES: I'll deal with the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, would you please...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Would you please make a personal commitment that when you leave here you will not only take 10 per cent off of your salary but you will go and look at all of your assets, inherited and otherwise, and you will say to the people of British Columbia: "I will show you that I am prepared, on an equal basis with you, to give up something that really matters."? Will you do it...?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Hon. Provincial Secretary (Mrs. McCarthy), would you do that?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you what is going to happen if we don't. If we don't do it in a very short course of time, we will have the wealth in the hands

[ Page 2215 ]

of very few people and most of the people in the community will have no means...

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: ...they will have no means whatsoever of surviving, and the welfare system will grow. Instead of getting smaller, it will grow.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: So as far as I am concerned, I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who was suggesting that we have a free vote, is certainly in order, because this is a facade. Do you want to make it 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker? Do you want to make it 15, 20, 25, 50? You don't give any reason for why you are doing it. You just say: "Well, we will just make it 10 per cent." What an arrogant attitude to come out and say: "Oh, I think 10 per cent is fine"! "I think 10 per cent is fine," the Premier said. I don't recall him consulting with anybody about whether it should be 10 per cent, 2 per cent or 15 per cent. He just decided 10 per cent should be fine: "Those guys will be glad because we had told them that we might cut it 25 per cent."

MR. KEMPF: Didn't we ask you?

MR. BARNES: But the thing is, what does it relate to, that 10 per cent?

MR. KERSTER: It relates to cleaning up your mess.

MR. BARNES: What does it relate to?

MR. KERSTER: It relates to restraint.

MR. BARNES: Can you give us some of your actuarial figures as to how the 10 per cent is going to relate?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you how it relates: like most of the things you have done, it is seat-of-the-pants legislation. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) used to refer to our side of the House when we were government as the "seat-of-the-pants" government. Well, it looks as though you people are trying to emulate as best you can what that member was talking about. But I am afraid that with what you are doing there won't by very much left by the time the next election comes around, at the rate you are going, because you are going to have everybody on welfare. There won't be any way. Everything will dry up. Inadvertently, you are going to become a very wealthy government. Perhaps you think that you are going to balance the books, but you have all the money. Perhaps you'll leave a little bit for your friends.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: I'm not sure about that, Mr. Speaker. Well, I only intended to talk for a minute or two, but you know, when you think about the game that's being played, it's pretty obvious that they hope that people will say: "Well, the government is prepared to take a cut at a time of restraint when everybody else is going out and not being able to survive. They're going to show, too, that they can take a cut."

When you analyse the effect of the cut, it means very little, Mr. Speaker. I'm sincere. I don't know what their tax brackets are, but I suppose by the time you take a look at what that 10 per cent really means in terms of lost dollars, net dollars, disposable dollars to any of us after taxes, I doubt if it's that much difference. It's a good political ploy on behalf of the government to make that gesture when most of the members, I'm sure, aren't going to suffer that much. Why don't we feel the pain? Why don't we seriously talk about feeling the pain?

We talk about restraint. We are going to hold the professions to the guidelines. We are going to hold all of the various retail outlets and tell people on salary that they've got to hold the guidelines. Now why don't we hold the guidelines ourselves? Seriously, why don't we take a look at what's happening around the world and learn something from what they're trying to say at Habitat? Take a real serious look. Let's feel it. You want to do that. Make an amendment to this bill. Come out with a formula and then challenge yourselves. Let the Premier be the first one to come forward with a personal challenge to himself in terms of his real capacity. What kind of real punishment has he taken by this bill?

When we do that, then I think the people out there will say: "Boy, we have got a government that has put politics aside, a government that is truly humanitarian, a government that is, believe it or not, even altruistic." That's a word that I'm sure none of us believe exists any more, but maybe altruism has a place. But I don't think it has a place on that side of the House.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I really didn't have any intention of speaking on this bill. I really thought that all the members of the House would be in favour of it. However, in listening to some of the comments from the other side, it's easy to understand why they should oppose it. Those people who are on the front bench there gave themselves 100 per cent raise in salary when they were on this side. I'm sure that the....

[ Page 2216 ]

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): What about your members? Didn't they share it?

MS. BROWN: They voted for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

MR. KAHL: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that it's difficult for them after receiving that 100 per cent increase in salary to align themselves with the 10 per cent cut. That's a difficult task for them. After all, we have to take a look at the Cadillac socialists on the other side of the House. The Point Grey socialists on the other side of the House: we have to take a look at them. They talk about sincerity — and we heard the previous member, who, incidentally, is a constituent of mine. I don't want to get into any personal attacks here. That's not the purpose of this House.

He talked about, "Let's donate what we have to the provincial government." Now I want to tell you that constituents of mine and I are busy trying to get property for a park, and the member who spoke before, a constituent of mine, who represents Vancouver Centre and lives in my constituency, I want to tell you that he's a shareholder or partner in 108 acres, approximately, in my constituency. All that land.

MR. BARNES: Imagine that! All that money!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. BARNES: That man is attacking me personally. I think that unless he's prepared to follow through he should withdraw, because I admit it. I will give every piece of that land up today to this government if he's prepared to match me and if the Premier is prepared to match me. That is unequivocal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have upset the member for Vancouver Centre. I don't think I did. He's laughing again. But I was going to say that we've been trying very hard to get a park in that particular area where he lives.

MR. BARNES: You've got it. Just follow through.

MR. KAHL: I want to say that we would be most happy to have his share of that 108 acres as a park. If he would like to donate ii to us, we would like to have it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: When the member for Vancouver Centre was speaking, some of them were even applauding what he said. Some of them were even applauding what the hon. member was saying from the galleries. I don't know if they were sympathizing with the...

MR. LEA: Sit down while you're behind.

MR. KAHL: ...poor socialists or Cadillac socialists over on that side of the House. I'm not sure of that. They continually talk about the 100 per cent that the insurance went up or the ferries went up. I would like to ask them what that money will be spent for, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: That money will be spent on bills that the NDP left. That's why those raises are there.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: I'm sure, as parents, as coaches in the community of various minor sports.... I taught school, as some of the other members have. The best way to do things is by example, and that's why I support the 10 per cent cut in our salaries. I can tell you of an example of an organization that applied to the Department of Human Resources for a grant, and the grant was out of line. They wanted a considerable increase in salaries, and after reviewing it the organization said; "In view of what the members of the assembly have done, we can also take a cut." — in order to get their grant. That's the kind of thing that's happening in the province because of this 10 per cent cut we are talking about. That is financial responsibility, not the 58 per cent in government spending that we saw and the 45 per cent in the government spending that we saw in the previous two years,

Mr. Speaker, I only want to point out again that I would hope the lawyers from that side of the House, the Cadillac socialists from that side of the House, will support this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The first

[ Page 2217 ]

problem in dealing with this bill, in my view, relates to the fact that this House should not, in the first instance, be setting its own salaries. It seems, from public opinion and from many of the debates at the federal level, that it places, if not pressure on the elected representatives, certainly difficulties in appearing to be objective in reaching the final figure they award themselves.

This is particularly ironic, Mr. Speaker, in our society today when we all emphasize, particularly the members of this House, and rightly so, the value of arbitration. Beyond the walls of this chamber, repeated disputes develop between employer and employee which cannot be resolved by negotiation and the problem is solved by some arbitration mechanism. While I'm aware that at the federal level some such mechanism was attempted when a committee was set up to make recommendations regarding MP's salaries and that it was not totally successful, I do feel that in speaking to the principle of this bill members, if they accept this very basic first step, would, perhaps collectively through one of the committees of the House, agree to review and discussion of a suitable mechanism of obviously objective and non-political people being appointed by the Legislature to bring back recommendations as to how the matter of salary should be decided.

We all avoid discussing money until it's absolutely thrust upon us, and probably none of us would be taking part in this debate if it were not for the fact that our political responsibility compels us to stand up and take our place in the debate. But individuals and families and human beings in our modern society try very hard to avoid discussing their personal finances in public. The premise of this bill is very simple, and that is that the MLAs of British Columbia are overpaid. There is no other premise to a bill which suggests that our salaries should be reduced.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I hear calls of "Nonsense!" from the other side of the House. If they would be so fair as to listen to the reason, I would like to outline for the premise that I have suggested attaches to this bill.... That is, that even to hold the line would have been a symbol of responsibility, because I would like this government to quote any group of salaried persons in the whole of British Columbia, and perhaps the whole of Canada, who in the last several months have agreed to a reduction in their income.

The question which is being debated fast and furious in this province and in this country is whether or not a 10 per cent increase is a reasonable guideline for salaried employees of this country. Therefore if this government had said that for a minimum of 12 months it would ensure that elected representatives would not even receive the 10 per cent guideline increase, I think that would have been a very responsible and very credible suggestion. But, in fact, the suggestion of a 10 per cent reduction which is so contradictory to any sense of fair play, unless the first premise is that we are overpaid in the first place.... That is the only basis on which I can accept the principle in this bill, namely that we are overpaid in the first place, not that we are setting an example particularly to the rest of the country.

In my view we would have been setting a very reasonable and credible example if government had said that even although everybody else in society is receiving at least 8 per cent increase at the very least under the guidelines of the federal government, we believe that MLAs are adequately reimbursed and they shouldn't even receive the 8 per cent.

There is no question in my mind that government is attempting to set an example — and for that they are to be commended — in the battle against inflation, but for the reasons I have just mentioned I don't believe that it will be effective. There is no evidence that it is being effective, and there are several other factors that I think should be mentioned in this debate.

There is a great deal of cynicism throughout the electorate about politics and politicians, and we needn't prolong this debate unduly by reciting all the many influences which I am sure members are well aware of. But that cynicism in many ways is related to the susceptibility of MLAs to conflict of interest. Perhaps I am personally more sensitive to that because of an accusation in recent days by another member of the House about my particular integrity in regard to an issue in the greater Victoria area.

But be that as it may, voters seem to want, and rightly so, the best kind of representatives they can elect. Time and time and time again in election battles we are all told: "Your party would do better if you had better candidates." The kind of explanation you get when you ask exactly what the voter means when he or she is seeking that better candidate very often relates to the background and the capacity of the nominated candidate to serve the widest interests of the province.

It seems to me very clear that you can very readily fail in either direction. You can pay an MLA too little, with the result that it is simply impossible for certain individuals to seek office, or you can pay them too much and the very salary itself becomes a goal in itself, and you may well attract unprincipled individuals who simply want the job to get the very good salary.

So that is, Mr. Speaker, yet another reason why I believe we could have some kind of objective group of responsible people, appointed by the Legislature as a whole, in much the way that we are about to appoint an auditor-general, who would make this kind of decision as to what indeed represents a

[ Page 2218 ]

reasonable middle ground between paying an MLA too little and dissuading very good candidates, or paying an MLA too much and running the risk of having people seek office purely for the money.

One of the elements in this debate which really has not been touched upon, that doesn't just relate to money — and again I make no apology for perhaps reflecting from my personal point of view — but there are other sacrifices, Mr. Speaker, which many members make. I'm thinking particularly of members who cannot on the day that they are defeated or decide not to run again simply step back into their profession after perhaps five or eight or 10 years in this Legislature.

So it is not simply a matter of the money in dollars that the member sacrifices for the number of years he or she is in this Legislature but the kind of difficulties that are encountered or can be encountered in the member re-establishing himself or herself at his previous calling, and I'm not just, by any means, relating to professions.

There are many other aspects of the MLAs salaries which have not been mentioned. It is, if not the most important, certainly, in my view, very relevant that there is no assurance as to what degree the MLA salary will be adjusted if he or she spends two or three terms in this House. There's certainly no guarantee of indexing in this situation unless, of course, we had some neutral body to make that kind of decision and have it incorporated in legislation.

There is a gap in a career, as I've mentioned, and I would speak most strongly for the point of view of the rural and northern members who certainly have a great financial penalty compared to members such as myself who live in the greater Victoria area and perhaps don't have a quarter of the expenses — at least if I were just the MLA. But in my particular position as an MLA and not a party leader I would strongly place on record the fact that my expenses would be much less than the rural or northern member.

I've referred already, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that Legislatures, to be truly effective, should have the widest possible diversity of members in relation to their particular background, their training, their expertise and the particular fields of interest from which they came to this Legislature. All of these potential members presenting that kind of diversity come from a great variety of financial backgrounds. I feel there is no question that the electorate is liable to get the members they deserve. And if in fact the member's salary is to draw certain comparisons with relatively unskilled occupations which perhaps earn large sums of money with a great deal of fringe benefits, then you are debasing, in my view, the true value and importance, credibility — and, perhaps, the integrity of an MLA.

This really, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the last point and that is the heart of the question: what is an MLA worth to the people of British Columbia? The way in which society has moved in recent years, it has become more and more obvious that to fulfil all the functions which the voters expect, and for the member to provide voters with the access to their representative, in my view, it is without any doubt nowadays a full-time job. On that basis, taking into account the lack of any clearly defined number of hours of work, the responsibilities which are involved well beyond this chamber — Saturdays and Sundays, summertime, any other time — it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's hardly unreasonable, taking all these responsibilities, hours of work and inconveniences into account, that when you look at comparable wages it seems to me quite fair to place on record that a Member of the Legislative Assembly is worth $24,000 a year.

It isn't, as I said at the outset, at all easy to discuss one's salary or to discuss one's personal financing in public, and for that reason some members — not of this House, but members in municipal government — chose to resign when the Disclosure Act was brought in. I go along with that Act and support that Act, but I think that in this issue, the specific issue of members' salaries, it has nothing whatever to do with whether we have millionaires on that side of the House or this side of the House. It has nothing whatever to do with some of the personal financial circumstances, big or small, of any single member of this House. It rises far above any personal or personality issue.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is: how do we strive to give the electorate two particular opportunities? One is the option for each individual to seek office and to be adequately rewarded for the kind of work he or she is supposed to do, and, secondly, to succeed in drawing into this chamber the widest possible diversity of backgrounds, training, education and experience so that whatever emanates from debate in this House, it will truly represent a very positive and well-considered consensus of opinion throughout the province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Oak Bay has made an awfully good statement and an awfully good case. In considering my own position on the bill, I looked at it very seriously and I said to myself: is this an act of leadership in this province? Is this really something with which the government and this Legislature can say: "This gives us greater moral authority in dealing with people."?

Mr. Speaker, after thinking about it for a long time, I came to the conclusion that it is not; what is required for that moral authority in holding the line in expenditures in this province is holding the line in our own expenditures. So then I said to myself:

[ Page 2219 ]

"Then why this bill?" Mr. Speaker, this bill was devised as good slick politics for the government, as a way of saying to the people of British Columbia: "My, aren't we virtuous! Look at the sacrifices that we're prepared to make on your behalf."

The purpose of this bill is to attempt to give some colour of moral righteousness to the savage attack on the people of this province by the government in some of their legislation so far this session. Mr. Speaker, to the extent that it would give any colouration of moral righteousness to the government in those actions, I cannot support it.

I cannot support a bill that would allow the government to go to the people and say, "this justifies our raising your sales tax by 2 per cent," because it doesn't.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Where does it say that in the bill?

MR. GIBSON: I can't support a bill which would allow the government the moral authority — the pretended moral authority — to go to the people and say: "Now what we've done to you on ICBC is justified because, after all, we've cut our own salaries."

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why don't you vote against the bill?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I can't see that, Mr. Speaker. It's a hypocritical bill and, for that reason, I reject it, Mr. Member. Let me leave you in no doubt as to how I'm going to vote.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: This is not a bill of moral leadership. That's obvious when you look at the spending increases in this budget — the budget that we debated earlier on this year and that I voted against, and would do so again.

What's the real effect of this bill we're talking about here as far as members' allowances are concerned? About $88,000 in sessional allowances and a bit more in other salaries. And while the government is proposing to do that, Mr. Speaker, they're taking over $1 billion extra out of the taxpayers' pockets around this province, and then they're going to go out waving this bill and say: "But it's justified because we cut our own salaries." I say that's completely phony, Mr. Speaker. Just completely phony.

What kind of a government do the people of British Columbia want? If they want a government which is made up pretty well exclusively of people who can afford it from their own private means, that's fine. But I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia want. I think they want a Legislature that is full of people who can afford to be there, from whatever station of life or area of the province from which they come, because they are properly compensated in that regard.

The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that people get the members they deserve and the government they deserve. Mr. Speaker, the people deserve the very best government that can be found, but they don't just get that. They get the kind of members and the kind of government that they earn, and part of the kind of member that they're going to get to run for this chamber, and to serve in this chamber, part of the reward, is the ability to achieve something. And, God knows, in the partisan atmosphere of this particular House, that's difficult enough.

Part of the other incentive to try to come here and do something is the ability to be able to secure your future at least as well as you could have done had you remained somewhere in private life. This bill attacks that principle unnecessarily, in my regard, with all the difficulties and insecurity of the game of politics, which is one of the few businesses in which there's around a 75 per cent unemployment rate all the time.

For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is an attempt by the government, as I say, to give some kind of moral colouration to their actions against the people of this province; a moral endorsation that I do not believe they have earned and a moral endorsation that I am not prepared to condone by supporting this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I certainly very much appreciate the last two speeches we've just heard.

I think it's very difficult for us to look at this question with any kind of objectivity. I listened with real interest to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) — and I know that the member for Skeena has given a great deal in his political life, not only this time but in other periods of his political life — and I know the word is widespread that people, particularly in the rural ridings, have to cover a great deal of distance.

One of the questions that concerns me from time to time is that we stand here and we talk about a salary of $24,000. Mr. Speaker, that's not quite true. That's total income, including all expenses, for an MLA. So why do we continually call it "salary"? It's just ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge upon the government the possibility of them looking at a device which would take this question right outside of parliament. The question should not be resolved on the floor of

[ Page 2220 ]

this House, because....

MR. SKELLY: Bill 31.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Bill 31 is before us now — a private member's bill. But how can we resolve the question? This debate this afternoon, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland)....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Minister of Health, we made full-time MLAs out of MLAs who were working part time. If you don't like it, why didn't you turn your money back? But you didn't — none of you did. You all said you would be full-time MLAs. But why don't we get back to earth on this bill?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it was part time before. You were doing your thing and I was doing mine; you were acting as a lawyer, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), and I was acting as a consultant between 1969 and 1972. Don't give me any rot! You know, that's one of the bad parts of this whole question: some can do it; some in the professions can do it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Jabber, jabber over there. I thought that possibly there was one chance in a million I could get up in this House and make some remarks without those kinds of snippy counter-remarks being made by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, what they are doing — and I had hoped they wouldn't — is reflecting the kind of stuff that we got from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who got up and said that he was proud that a lot of people in his constituency criticized the fact that we were having a reduction — the only people were his family, Mr. Speaker. And if they criticized, it was that member doing his political moonlighting by being mayor and member at the same time. That's just....

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes.

MS. BROWN: He's not being paid to be mayor!

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. He's a political moonlighter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, aside from all that, why don't we once and for all resolve the matter and go to a situation where an independent tribunal makes the decision? Because we'll always get into this kind of wrangle — always. People will be voting for their political reasons, and others will be voting.... Such as myself, for instance; it doesn't really make a lot of difference one way or the other — I cover a very small constituency, can do it with a limited amount of expenses and can get around on my own shoe leather. It doesn't really make that much difference to me. But it makes an awful lot of difference to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and a number of other members who have to even rent planes to get into Bella Coola, Ocean Falls and places like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrace — the Cariboo.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. So really what we are discussing here is a situation that cannot be resolved on the floor of this House — not properly and never will.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker: Why, why, why? The question is....

MR. LEA: Why did they vote for it?

MR. COCKE: That's right; they voted for it. You had no objections. But we are suggesting now that there is a better way. Certainly to have insipid debate, going over....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the car dealer who is talking about us wasting money, who has a very nice little dealership up in Dawson Creek — I have seen it — should really content himself with dealing with this particular bill.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Wrong again.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. You sold it, did you? Well, isn't that interesting. That's a recent....

[ Page 2221 ]

MR. LEA: Was it an inter-caucus sale?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what we should be having here is a cooperative effort to get this turned over to another jurisdiction — an independent jurisdiction which can make a non-political decision around a very, very sensitive question. There aren't two people in this House who are affected exactly the same way.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) really is having himself a bit of a hey-day.

MR. LAUK: The old crocodile.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you do something about your hospitals that are going goofy? Why don't you go and do something about the rest of your system instead of sitting there making remarks that are totally worthless? The fact that there wasn't a decision in that direction before doesn't justify the f act that there isn't now. It was a very straightforward decision before; it was making a full-time job out of a part-time job. That's all there is to it.

So, Mr. Speaker, the option is there to look at a new way. I know that the government won't this time, but I am certainly very sympathetic to those people in this House who are going to be seriously affected. Their situation is never going to be resolved as long as we have this kind of circumstance.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in speaking very briefly to this bill, I would like to ask a couple of questions. If the government is really all that serious about dealing with inflation, and if the government is really all that serious about the kinds of salaries and income people make in this province, why did they not introduce legislation that deals with the really large salaries and the really large incomes being made by some sectors of the community? Maybe when the minister is closing debate we will get an answer to that.

Why was there not legislation brought down, for example, in the forest industry to deal with the fact that the president, who was fired or retired recently, was paid over $200,000 a year? In fact, last year he got an increase in his income of over 32 per cent. If you're really serious about the kind of income that people make in this province, you don't pick on $24,000 a year; you pick on a salary like $220,000 a year. That's the kind of salary if you're really serious about what you are doing.

What about the salary that Edgar Kaiser made last year of $208,000? If you're really serious about people's income, that's where you start — at the top. You don't start at the bottom, Mr. Speaker. You start at the top. You start where the real salaries are. You start where the real money is being made. You start with the people at MacMillan Bloedel, which tells us that in order to meet the pensions of the top people in their company it is going to cost them over $2 million. That's where you start, if you are really interested in inflation. Inflation isn't caused by the MLAs of this province, 55 people earning $24,000 a year.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) tells this House that he's giving everything he has to the service of his country, and forgets to mention that he is being paid to be a part-time mayor! Who is looking after your city while you are sitting down here in your waistcoat, Mr. Member, telling us that you are giving so many things to the world and forgetting to mention that you're on full salary up there? If you are going to reveal, you have to reveal everything. Let's not have any of this half-and-half revealing. I know it upsets you.

Every time one of you gets up to speak I have to listen to a long lecture about the fact that I live in Point Grey rather than in some ghetto of your choice. Of course it upsets you, and I hope it continues to upset you, because I am going to continue to live there. So go and eat your hearts out.

But I'm speaking specifically to the minister who is responsible, Mr. Speaker, through you, for this piece of legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to allow the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to disrupt me when he should be out there building himself a decent maternal- and child-care hospital. That's what you are supposed to be doing out there, getting a decent maternal- and child-care facility in this province. Instead, Mr. Minister, you're in here heckling me when I'm trying to represent my constituents.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Here I am being heckled by all those millionaires over there. (Laughter.) I'm trying to do my job for my little constituents.

According to Executive magazine, Mr. Speaker — and the reason I am quoting from Executive magazine is because I know that all of them subscribe to Executive magazine — 66 Canadian businesses paid

[ Page 2222 ]

their top executives over $100,000 a year. If you really are serious about inflationary salaries, those are the kinds of salaries that you look at. The average salary for those top executives was $131,000 a year. That's the kind of salary that you look at. You look at the kinds of things being done by those among you who are land developers, for example, making profits here, there and everywhere as they buy and sell, which is quite legal. I've nothing against it, but what I am saying is that if you are serious, and if you are genuine, like the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), who takes his title very seriously and consumes and consumes and consumes.... (Laughter.)

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. That was a very unkind statement, Mr. Speaker, and I should be ruled out of order. Absolutely.

Every single one of the top salaries in this province that I have quoted, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you have noticed, have one thing in common. They are all derived from people working in the natural resource industries of this province: the forest industry; the mining industry — Mr. Kaiser's salary of 208,000, Mr. Timmis' salary of $220,000. That's where you start when you are serious about inflationary salaries. The natural resources of this province are going to pay those huge salaries and instead the government brings in this strange little piece of legislation to affect the salaries of the elected representatives who try to work in this Legislature.

I know, Mr. Speaker, as you do, why this piece of legislation was introduced at this time. In case you have forgotten, I want to remind you that the Premier went around this province during the election, with this famous statement: "There was a time when we were the Texas of Canada." That's another campaign promise he's keeping. That's what they do in Texas. They don't pay their MLAs very much, and all of their MLAs are out being part-time mayors on full salary, or car salesmen, or....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right. And always serving the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Psychiatrists?

MS. BROWN: I love psychiatrists, serving the people. Let the records show I love psychiatrists. No question about it.

MR. WALLACE: One in particular?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, they're heckling me again. Would you please call them to order?

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the dilemma with the legislature in Texas is that they're always at the mercy of the lobby groups. I'm worried about that happening to the government MLAs if they really tried to live on the lowered salaries that they're going to be paid.

Interjections.

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who seems to know more about diamonds than about egg marketing boards. I have no diamonds. As you see, I'm bereft of all jewellery except my voodoo sign. That's the only thing I've got on.

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, I want to draw the House's attention in particular to the plight of people who really would like to work as full-time MLAs in the service of their constituency, and in particular women, for example, who would like to do this job on a full-time basis, and to the impact of a salary that is not even enough to support one and one's family if one is a sole-support parent.

I think it's very interesting that all of the women who are sitting in this House at this particular time are not responsible entirely for their own support. All of us are married, Mr. Speaker, and all of us to some extent are supported by our husbands, but there are a large number of women who continually you approach — as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did — who would be good people to have in this House but who, because they are the sole means of support of their families, find the difficulty involved in trying to survive on a salary where you have to live in two places at the same time. In fact, if you take the job seriously and you are a full-time MLA, unless you're a member for Victoria you have to maintain two residences and you have a large number of expenses.

Quite seriously, I don't know why the government introduced this bill and put it into effect just for one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Politics.

MS. BROWN: Politics, thank you. But I certainly would like to draw the government's attention to Bill 31, which is on the order paper and which therefore I cannot discuss. It lays out very clear guidelines, Mr. Speaker, for how this should be done — guidelines that would take into account even things like the member collecting his full salary as a mayor while he's working in the House, and also would deal with the fact that this province really does not have to be the Texas of Canada, and that in fact it should be

[ Page 2223 ]

possible for MLAs to work full time at their job here and be able to survive and have a decent standard of living at the same time while we're doing it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to acknowledge the very many comments and very worthwhile comments from some members of the House in regard to the debate on the decrease by 10 per cent of the salaries of those who sit in this House and serve the province of British Columbia as Members of the Legislative Assembly.

I would just like to address my remarks to the last speaker, the hon. member for Burrard, who says that we should not pick on the $24,000 indemnity of the MLAs. She goes on to say in her address to us that we should address ourselves to the larger salaries in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to say to her that the salaries that we have in this House, $24,000 for the MLAs which include expenses and the $48,000 by the cabinet ministers which include expenses....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Excluding expenses. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I did want to put in the expenses for the MLAs and emphasize it so that it would not seem as large an amount as most speakers have pointed out during this debate.

Those salaries were set by the previous government and they are the salaries that this House can do something about and can address themselves to. We have no jurisdiction over any of the private salaries. I'll tell you why we attacked the $24,000. Mr. Speaker, we can do something about this and we are. We're thinking of the very many thousands that the hon. member did not speak about — those that she refers to in many of her speeches to this House as "the little people of the province." Those are her words. I think that that looks down to the people of this province, because on this side of the House we do not think of people in the province of British Columbia as being little people at all — they're all big people.

I'm going to say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's hypocrisy from the members opposite when the member for Burrard talks about the little people and talks about millionaires being on this side of the House. That was mentioned by several members, including the member for Vancouver Centre earlier in the debate. But like Lady Bountiful bestowing her goodies to what she called the little people in her constituency, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) gets up and mouths phrases, the socialist phrases, but she forgets that there are many, many people outside of this House and throughout the province of British Columbia who are expecting things not only from the government. They have high expectations for their way of life in this province and that way of life has been very thoroughly eroded by the previous government in this province who have taken away that expectation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his address to the House mentioned that he was sorry that it was only for the one year, and he wanted to question the government attitude for bringing in the bill for just one year. I could say to you that everything we're discussing in the budget debate and in the estimates in this House is for one year. If at that time that we are addressing ourselves to the inflationary problems that this province....

MR. LEA: Come on! Are you returning the sales tax in one year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. members have had their turn to debate. It is now the turn of the hon. minister to close the debate on this particular bill.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We can and with the help of the hon. Leader of the Opposition address ourselves to that problem.

Mr. Speaker, each of the 55 members seated in this House has a great responsibility to the citizens of this province. No matter where he or she serves in this province, dollars cannot purchase a good member of the Legislative Assembly and they never have been able to buy one.

The people in our province, Mr. Speaker, want and expect their members to be good members of the Legislative Assembly, serving their province, and they expect something else. They expect the government and the members of the Legislative Assembly to give leadership in this province in all fields, moral leadership as well as economic leadership in the province of British Columbia. It has been pointed out by asides across the House, when the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was speaking, that when the former government brought in increases in salaries, a very dramatic increase, a doubling of the salaries to the MLAs and to the cabinet ministers, there was no debate in this House. It was done, and it was done in this House without debate. You have had that opportunity today.

MR. LAUK: You voted for it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker.... I wish you would bring the House to attention so I could get this message to the hon. leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. leader of the

[ Page 2224 ]

Conservative Party says that this House should not be setting its own salaries, but as I said in the introduction of the bill, this bill fulfils a commitment. It was a commitment made by this government party, by the Social Credit Party, and in this particular instance, we are voting today on a bill on which the people of British Columbia last December, Mr. Speaker, just four and one-half months ago, made the decision. It was made by them, Mr. Speaker, when they opted and gave a clear mandate to this government on the basis of those commitments.

MR. LEA: What about the tax freeze?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now there's no question that in taking office this government has had some very grave decisions to make. They have been very difficult ones for us. They have not been popular, and there isn't a government in Canada that has had the courage to take the unpopular stand that we have had to take. It has not been easy for us. We've asked the ordinary people, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) wants to call them, and, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) insists on saying, the little people of the province — we have asked people of very, very meagre means to make a sacrifice in this province. They know why they're making that sacrifice. We do not....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, and they're making it because of the moves that were made in the previous three and a half years of waste and extravagance of that party opposite. That NDP government gave great expectations to the people of British Columbia for the past three and a half years. The little people have been told that there was a never-ending well of money. Mr. Speaker, in one of my own departments, in the dying days of the NDP government, there were promises made to organizations, to municipalities, to people for swimming pools, hockey arenas, for community centres. The members opposite can reply. They were tremendously great. They were great promises, Mr. Speaker. You can't build a swimming pool, a community centre, a library, an art centre on promises.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You can't build them on promises.

MR. LEA: You've got a swimming pool. Why can't they?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: What date did they make those promises on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Lyle, be quiet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. member asked for quietness in the House and so do I, Mr. Speaker. Because when we are discussing this bill, we are saying to all of those people who had high expectations in the community....

They have a dream of a community centre. They have a dream of a swimming pool in their constituency — not one in their back yard like some of the members opposite in the NDP enjoy, but one in the community.

MR. WALLACE: I don't even have a pool table, never mind a pool.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: One in the community that they can go to. Great expectations, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got a pool, Gary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But who were those services all for? They were for all the working people, the little people that the members opposite parade before us in every single debate.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Out there there are many people, very many people, who have expected, who would have liked to have reached not only the services, not only the facilities that are provided to the members opposite, but the promises they wanted fulfilled too, and that wasn't possible. But how are they going to fulfil and pay for all of that? That is the question.

The federal government, in very recent days or very recent months, has raised the salaries of the federal members in the House of Commons, then they froze those salaries. And all through eastern Canada they call that an act of leadership, a sign of leadership.

There is no other government in Canada, Mr. Speaker, that has shown the expression of restraint and integrity in government as has this government. We believe we should set an example that was not set by the former government in this province. We are

[ Page 2225 ]

not only preaching responsibility; we are practising responsibility. It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House....

MR. GIBSON: Second reading.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm so sorry, Mr. Speaker. I now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill 15, the Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, be read a second time now.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important issue to all members of the House. I wonder, as a special measure on this division, whether the Sergeant-at-Arms office couldn't make a special plea — go through the rooms of the members and ask them to come into the House. All members should be here for this vote. It is a serious request.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think you're aware that the division....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I draw the attention of the member for Prince Rupert, speaking to his point of order, that the division bell not only rings in this chamber; it rings in each caucus room of each party. I would hope that the members are alert enough and are able to hear when a division bell rings, because it rings in all quarters of the precinct in which there are offices, Hon. Member.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 5

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MS. BROWN: Let the record show that nine of them took a dive, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Bill 15, Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPROVINCIAL SUBPOENA ACT

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, certain of our federal statutes — for example, the Criminal Code and the Winding-up Act — provide means for subpoenas which are in effect right across the country, but the provinces themselves are not able to legislate beyond their territories or accord extra-territorial powers to their own courts. So at the present time it's not possible for a province to serve....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General has the floor in introducing this bill for second reading.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't hear anyone interrupting me, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: So it's not possible at the present time, Mr. Speaker, for the province to serve subpoenas upon witnesses who are outside of its own jurisdiction and compel their attendance in front of the court.

Now there have been rather historic procedures that are available to obtain the evidence of a witness on commission — which is a rather involved and expensive technical process — evidence on commission or letters of request. But as I've said to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), these are expensive and time-consuming exercises, as no doubt his clients have experienced over the years. The court is also denied the opportunity either to observe or to question the witness, and the demeanour of the witness is not in front of the court. It's also somewhat anomalous to note that a witness, for example for a trial in Cranbrook, could be

[ Page 2226 ]

summonsed from Atlin but not from neighbouring Red Deer.

Now the procedure that is proposed here, Mr. Speaker, will be permissive before any of our courts in the province providing certain reciprocity provisions — which the hon. members will see included in the bill, namely the immunity of the witness — are available in those other provinces.

There are contempt proceedings available in the adoptive court if the subpoena is disobeyed, and a set of fees and travelling expenses are prescribed in the bill. What we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, is modernizing the process providing a more effective method of trial. Essentially what we are doing is substituting the travel for transcribing. Manitoba has a similar legislation; Alberta is working on it, as is Nova Scotia. The bill in question is one that was adopted by the uniform law conference in 1974. Accordingly, I move second reading.

This is a surprising procedure for me, Mr. Speaker. I must confess to that. This is the first time I have ever done this. Now where is it in the paper here? Let's see. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 191 Interprovincial Subpoena Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 18.

EXTRA-PROVINCIAL CUSTODY
ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting bill. I do hope all of the hon. members, as I am sure they will, support it. Once again, this emanated from the uniform law conference in Canada.

It considered two specific problems: firstly, to prevent a parent from kidnapping his or her child from another parent and transporting the child across another boundary to avoid a custody order, and, secondly, the concept behind the bill is to prevent a parent shopping for a new jurisdiction in which the original court order might be reversed.

So by this piece of legislation we are declaring that B.C. will not be a haven for those kinds of civil child kidnappers, and B.C. will now enforce custody orders that are made in other areas as its own, unless in the opinion of the B.C. court it does not have any real or substantial connection with the other territory where the order was made. Those terms "real and substantial connection" emanate from judicial finding in England.

So, for example, Mr. Speaker, if a child was wrongfully abducted and brought into B.C., say, from Manitoba, the British Columbia court would enforce the Manitoba order of custody against the parent who brought the child to B.C. unless the child didn't have any real or substantial connection with the other province.

It is interesting to note, too, Mr. Speaker, that under the statute the court is given the power to vary orders from other jurisdictions provided the minor doesn't have any real or substantial connection with any other provinces or countries, as I have mentioned, and providing the minor has a real and substantial connection with our province or where all of the parties are resident in B.C. In taking that step of varying, the British Columbia court is restricted to the normal and historic guidelines that it would give paramount consideration to the welfare of the infant. It would treat the question of custody as primary and that of visitation as secondary.

There is another rather overriding safeguard in favour of the infant because, apart from the power to enforce these custody orders of other jurisdictions and apart from the power to vary these orders, the court also reserves an overall authority to make such orders as it deems necessary if it feels that the minor would suffer serious harm, for example, be it moral or mental or physical harm or jeopardy, if he or she has to remain in the custody of the person named in the extraprovincial or foreign order.

This does not only refer to orders that are granted in other provinces in Canada; it refers to orders that essentially could be granted elsewhere in the world. The Act does not make any requirement of reciprocity. There is no requirement within the statute, Hon. Members, that the procedure may only be utilized if another province or state or country has a similar provision, because it is felt that an issue as important as the welfare of a child should not depend upon the existence of a reciprocal enactment in other areas.

But it is heartening to know that similar enactments are now found in other provinces in Canada — Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. It is indeed anticipated that the other provinces in the country will follow suit very shortly. So insofar as B.C. is concerned, a child who is abducted into our borders can now receive the full protection of our courts. I think it is a most worthwhile measure, Mr. Speaker. Accordingly, I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to support the bill, because it seems ridiculous that throughout the length and breadth of Canada we should chase, say, some father for maintenance payments for his child but not restore to the mother custody of that child in those cases. Those cases are

[ Page 2227 ]

frequent where there has been abduction either before the court has had the time to deal with the matter or even after a custody order has been made in favour of the parent. This, of course, leads to genuine human anguish.

So we are beginning to clean up the situation within Canada that if a child has been taken away without the chance of the parent to maintain a case for custody in the court, then there is a chance within Canada, as the other provinces enrol in this kind of legislation, that at least the child will be returned by orderly process of law, that the parent who has suffered the abduction, be it mother or father, will at least have some effectual court remedy within Canada.

But I hasten to add that it does nothing to solve the main problem in this field, which is the abduction of children to other countries of the world. And we've had a great many of those cases: we've had them in the Philippines; we've had them in Italy; we've had them in Portugal; and we've had them in the United States. Nowhere can the arm of the law reach out to enforce a custody order, even though justice demands that that child be with, say, its mother — and that's the usual case.

So I would recommend to the Attorney-General that he do two further things: that he get after the hon. Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ronald Basford, to look at that section of the Criminal Code, which is most ineffectual at the present time with respect to the abduction of children. It should be a crime for a parent to deliberately evade court process and to abduct a child — whether it is a common-law marriage or regular marriage — and whip that child off to another part of the world where that parent can escape, untouched by court process. It should be a criminal offence, as well as a civil remedy as provided within Canada by this bill.

The second point I would like to make is that it also behooves the Attorney-General to insist that the Hon. Alan MacEachen, the Minister of External Affairs for Canada, assist the province of B.C. in bringing pressure to bear on countries like Portugal — and I mentioned the others — where there are Canadian children who now stand abducted.

They are saying, in effect, to the mothers now, because they are the victims of this kind of abduction or child-napping at the present time: "Go to Portugal, fight the case in those courts for the custody of your child, hope that you get an order of the Portugal court, hope that their law is the same as ours" — and it isn't in terms of who has the right to custody, because there the husband or the father has superior rights — "and hope that thereby you can get back your child."

Well, the expense is immense; the technical difficulties are immense. By the time you satisfy the requirements of that particular jurisdiction, then you might find that the child being sought has been wafted off to some other country again. So I think it is a problem not only of us cleaning up our situation in Canada — which I am glad to see is being done by this bill so far as B.C. is concerned — but it is also a matter of criminal offence, because, while I don't believe in creating criminal offences for victimless crimes, this is a crime where there is a real victim, and it is usually the mother.

I also think that the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa should assist B.C.'s efforts to get back those children who have been absconded out of the province of B.C. Mission, B.C., is one I can think of where two children have been lost, and with a great deal of anguish and a great deal of damage to the child who has been forcibly kidnapped from the custody, comfort and solace of its own mother.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to appeal to the Attorney-General, and I'd like to join my remarks to those of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I join with him in what he says.

But I would like to add to this. There's another area that should be touched on in this bill, and that is in connection with a similar situation that happened with more elderly people. I know of one case in particular where a grandparent was kidnapped from British Columbia to Alberta. Now this person is fully competent, but not competent enough to resist their movement from one province to another. And financial matters are considered in this issue. I feel that the Attorney-General could very possibly put in an amendment here to bring in, under this bill, adults as well, when they are not fully competent to move on their own behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank both of the speakers for their remarks and their suggestions, to which I'll give careful consideration.

MR. COCKE: Tell your Whip that Cyril Shelford just walked by the door.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But I'd also mention to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that the point he is talking about, extra-territorially of this province, is, of course, an exceptionally difficult one, but I do feel that if other areas of the world would adopt this provision that we have in British Columbia, it would be a terrific safeguard and will certainly cut down the abuses of which he has spoken.

I'm unaware of the point that has been raised by my colleague, the Whip (Mr. Mussallem), but I tend to think there are available resources under the law today to assist the individual of which you speak.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2228 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 18, Extra-Provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 20.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: The new Interpretation Act was enacted, Mr. Speaker, at the spring session of 1974. Since then both legislative counsel and the commissioner in charge of revising the statutes of the province have been making rather daily use of this litany to the interpretation of all of our statute laws. Also, Hon. Members, the legislation committee of the Canadian Bar Association has contributed a variety of suggestions.

The object of the bill is essentially to simplify a few of the earlier sections and to expand the logic of various general provisions that are contained in many of our statutes so that the repetition could be eliminated. For example, I'd refer the members to section 9 of the bill, which adds section 23(7) to the Act which states that where in an enactment a power to inspect records is given, that power will also include the power to make copies.

Another exercise in logic is to substitute one word for a number or a long string of words regularly appearing in the statutes which you will find essentially under section 25. By clause 10 of the bill additional words are added to the list. An example is that "saving institution" is now defined to include a bank, credit union or trust company.

The bill also includes the provision that the statutory power to make regulations includes the power to provide for offences against the regulations, not necessarily generally, but by specifically specifying which ones will constitute offences and to provide penalties not to exceed those in the Summary Convictions Act.

This is part of the statutory housekeeping now ordered by the commissioner to eliminate omnibus clauses creating offences — e.g., any breach of the Act or regulations — that are not needed as offences and which may be better dealt with, say, either in the civil courts or by other means. We think this will be a desired step in the making of regulations in the future, but it's not intended at the present time to repeal the provisions in the Summary Convictions Act creating an offence for breach of regulations until the regulation-making authorities have had full opportunity to consider whether the breach of a specific regulation should be an offence.

In the statutory revision there is also going to be eliminated imprisonment following conviction of certain offences where monetary fines, sometimes with a higher maximum, would be in effect a deterrent.

All of this is going to be done by the very close cooperation and consultation between the commissioner for revision of the statutes and legislative counsel.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the work of the commissioner in revising the statutes is exactly what the title implies: it's a revision and it's not just a consolidation. I fully expect on another occasion to develop with the House a method whereby portions of his work as they are completed can be made available to the general public without waiting for the complete revision. The complete revision will take a matter of a few years yet. There are no end of provisions that will require alteration.

Just to give you a rather quick example before I sit down of some of the problems that he's facing, for example, the commissioner has power to make minor amendments to bring out more clearly what was considered to be the intention of the Legislature. For example, in the Stock Brands Act there is a provision that all stocks that are intended for shipment by motor vehicles in certain areas are to be inspected by an inspector and shall, in addition, be scaled with a seal or seals by the inspector. Well, the commissioner, of course, considers his powers to allow him to provide that the seal be placed on the trucks rather than on the animals, which we think is an exercise of rather obvious sagacity on his part.

On the other hand, if he wishes to eliminate, say, the power of a minister to make regulations or rules, then House approval conceivably would have to follow. He's following a number of basic rules at the present time which I'd rather not mention today other than the ones that I've so far indicated, but I'm sure all of the members of the House will welcome them, and that's this: that no section or subsection will ever exceed 10 lines unless it happens to be broken down into a number of paragraphs. He's utilizing computer criteria and hopefully a great deal of conformity of terminology will result. The detailed work was initiated as we all know, and for final completion we hope that we're targeting within about the next three years.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I'm rather disturbed about one little section in the bill. I see that those favourite words "mutatis mutandis" are going to be eliminated.

HON. MR. MAIR: Shame!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I feel very badly about that, Mr. Member, but it behooves me, notwithstanding that fact, to move second reading.

[ Page 2229 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, non obstante what the Attorney-General has said, I hope the bill will receive second reading and be discussed at length in committee. I notice that it refers to the word "acquire." Those of you with long memories will remember that the word "acquire" was said to mean "expropriate." Now the word is in here and it says "acquire" means to obtain by receipt, purchase, lease or whatever it may be, but does not include the power to expropriate. Well, it never did.

It's nice to see by the statute here laid out by the Attorney-General that we're now living up to the lawyer's role to expatiate on the plain and to make manifest what was already self-evident. (Laughter.) Whatever group may lose by this kind of legislation it won't be the lawyers.

I don't think you need that section 10, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, "acquire" doesn't mean to expropriate; it never did and it doesn't in this bill. So it's a good bill, eh? It's a good bill, so I hope that it will receive second reading. It's going to be a tight vote but.... (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, propelli cutem and mutatis mutandis; I now move the bill be read a second time, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.