1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

75 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Grizzly Valley Field Gas reserves. Mr. Macdonald — 75

Pharmacare changes. Mr. Gibson — 75

Meeting with Western Canada Party. Mr. Wallace — 75

Delays in court proceedings. Mr. Barnes — 77

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson — 78

Mr. Wallace — 92

Appendix — 108

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

GRIZZLY VALLEY

FIELD GAS RESERVES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask a question of the hon. Premier. Would the Premier tell the House

what were the proven gas reserves in the Grizzly field at the time he

made his big announcement of the $100 million pipeline on December

10,1976?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice in order to provide the accurate figure to the House and bring it in tomorrow.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Premier, announcing a $100 million project, would know what the reserves were.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was taken as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Pure seat of the pants — and politics.

A question to the Minister of Forests.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same matter?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. My question is to the Minister of Forests

who, on August 11,1976, was the director of BCPC. At the time the $2

million advance to Quasar Petroleum Ltd. was authorized from BCPC, of

which you were then a director, what were the proven gas reserves

according to the reports of B.C. Petroleum, or other sources, in the

Grizzly Valley field?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, I'd be very happy to take the question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Do you not know either? Does nobody know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Two million dollars and nobody knows?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: You call that competence? Or politics?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

PHARMACARE CHARGES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Minister of Human Resources. A Manitoba public

servant, apparently consulted by the government of British Columbia,

predicts that there will be a $25 deductible for Pharmacare charges for

senior citizens. Will the minister assure this House that there will be

no loss of current non-deducibility rights imposed on seniors?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, this information will be provided to the House after the presentation of the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MEETING WITH

WESTERN CANADA PARTY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Premier whether he has had any meetings with Mr. Ed Fleming, president

of the Western Canada Party, or with any official representatives of

the Western Canada Party.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, to both parts of your question.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary to that question, Mr. Speaker: can

the Premier then tell the House if the statement which has recently

appeared by the Minister of Human Resources, in which he includes

comment and in which he is appearing to speak on behalf of the Premier

— that a large number of the Social Credit MLAs are in favour of some

form of Western separatism — in any way represents the policy of this

government?

[ Page 76 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to the

member for Oak Bay, I read the same

article and I didn't draw the

inference that he was speaking for the Premier. In fact it quite

clearly stated that it was an opinion of the person.

This government has stated its opinion on Confederation in Canada,

both in our paper that's been well-circulated on presentation on

dealing with patriation of the constitution, and as such this party is

committed to Canada. We have in fact advocated a more flexible

confederation, more responsibility to the regions. If you read that

article carefully you will realize that the Minister of Human Resources

indeed spoke out for a decentralized and stronger authority for the

regions. That same message was carried on in the throne speech.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the

Premier is obviously strongly supporting the statement reported by the

Minister of Human Resources, does he also agree with the statement that

bilingualism is hogwash?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There again, member, quite respectfully,

you're having difficulty understanding. I do not support your latter

assumption. The statements we've made on behalf of Confederation and

our country stand. The statements as were stated in the throne speech,

and our commitment to a stronger Canada, are the commitments of this

government.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

welcome the Premier's clarification of his own policy, and his party's

policy, on the very serious issue of western separatism. I would like

to know whether or not the Premier takes the position that any MLA of

the government side who supports the position of western separatism

will be asked to leave the government party.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As you know, the question is out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: But I'd be quite willing to respond to the Leader of the Opposition, who yesterday in his speech set a record for inaccuracy.

MR. KING: Answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: However, that is still being detailed. No, I have no intention of having a witch-hunt in our party.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That may be the way in which the insecure

position of your own leadership will have to be protected in the NDP,

and your phony fights with some members of big labour. But, Mr.

Speaker, let me assure you that in this party there'll be no

witch-hunts and every member will have a right to make his views known,

but this party stands committed to Canada.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If we are to be

assured that the party is committed totally to the continuation of

Canada as a Confederation, does the Premier consider it an anomaly to

have any MLA, a member of that party that is so clearly committed to

Confederation, being opposed to Confederation? I'm not suggesting you

name any witches at all. Mr. Speaker, I've never described any

backbencher as a witch, and I find that an analogy.... Well, I find

that strange that it would spring to the First Minister's lips, Mr.

Speaker. I'm suggesting that he canvass.... The question simply is

this: If the party's position is clearly in favour of Confederation,

does it tolerate anyone absolutely opposed to that position still being

a government MLA? Very clearly.

AN HON. MEMBER: I notice he didn't say warlock.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the frivolity that has hit

question period with the return of the Leader of the Opposition, who

wasn't here during this period last year, for some reason or

another.... I'd like to just reassure him that No. 1, our party has,

and our government has, made suggestions on how we can strengthen

Canada. And those suggestions, I'm hopeful, will be taken up not only

just a frivolous question in question period. The future of our country

is important to us as a party and as a government...

MR. BARRETT: Will your backbenchers toe the line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and our party takes British Columbia's

position in Confederation seriously. We also advocate there cannot be a

strong Canada without a strong British Columbia. I would hope the

Leader of the Opposition will remember that we are here to guard the

interests and to advance the interests of British Columbia. In doing

so, that makes us no less Canadian but, in fact, makes us strong

Canadians indeed, because a weakened British Columbia, such as the one

you advocated when you said, "Give away the provincial resources to the

federal government in the interests of socialism," when you were

Premier and went back and offered

[ Page 77 ]

to give away our petroleum resources to the

Columbia. As such, while we are government we will advocate the type of

powers and responsibilities for this province that can truly build a

strong Canada, because we're committed to Canadianism, not socialism,

first.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary based on the

question that was not answered. However, if the Premier wishes to

present me a choice in my asking the supplementary as to who should own

the oil resources — the people of Canada or the international oil

companies — I suggest the people of Canada come before the

international oil companies. However, that is a debate for a different

setting and I do not intend to misuse question period, as the Premier

did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: I asked this question simply and clearly: if the

party is committed to Confederation and that is the absolute policy of

that party, will you tolerate a cabinet Minister or a backbencher who

espouses western separatism? Yes or no?

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to thank the Premier for his very eloquent expressions about the

unification of the country and suggest that the hon. Attorney-General

will follow the same vein in taking very seriously the question I am

about to pose. I ask the Attorney-General if he would explain to the

House how he, as chief guardian of the provincial justice system, can

reconcile the dropping of legally laid charges against offenders for

drunk driving, assault, soliciting, possession of dangerous weapons,

false pretences and others, which he, in good conscience and respect

for the justice system, can permit.

This is a personal question, Mr. Attorney-General, because your

Premier just explained that he would like the people of British

Columbia to feel that they are part of a unified country and to believe

in the laws of the land. I would like to know how you reconcile that

personally within your own conscience.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's quite a load of hay to respond to at one time, Mr. Speaker, but I will endeavour to do my very best, sir.

First of all, as I informed the hon. members yesterday — and I do

recall the presence of the member who just posed the question — from

discussions that I've had with the Deputy Attorney-General, there has

been very significant progress made to this point. The lists are being

more effectively approached and a lot of the delays are being most

effectively brought forward. Part of the ills that were being

experienced is being cured.

I also informed all of the hon. members that I was continuing to

review the matter. We have the better part of five or six weeks. I

informed the hon. members that I had yesterday requested the Deputy

Attorney-General to have top-level consultation and meeting with the

chief judge, with the chief prosecutor, with the defence bar, and

members of the Canadian Bar Association, and we're very interested to

receive their views. But what we're proposing here, Mr. Member, is

subject to exception. I filed in the House yesterday the letter from

the Deputy Attorney-General to Crown counsel, and if the hon. member

has not read a copy of it I most respectfully suggest that he receive

one. It deals with

summary conviction proceedings; it deals with trying

to eliminate cases that were over 180 days in length; but it's subject,

Mr. Member, to a raft of exceptions: where bench warrants have been

issued; where adjournments have been granted by the court over the

objection of Crown counsel.

In other words, the motivation behind it, as I tried to explain

yesterday — and if I didn't make this point clear, the only person at

fault there is myself — is to ensure that the cases are ready and they

are able to proceed and that we don't run into bureaucratic delay and

we don't run into the problems of Crown counsel delay.

Now it states that in cases where preliminary points of law have

been raised they must be considered outside of the ambit of the

direction. It also said other exceptions will be rare and they must be

approved, but there's an open door for approval for requested

exceptions. But we don't wish, Mr. Member, to get ourselves into the

situation of having some case that is, for practical purposes,

insignificant, shall we say, being in the system for 475 or 583 days or

what have you, and I can say thank the Lord there are very, very few of

them. But I think if the hon. member — and I'd say all members, and

certainly the public in the province who are rightfully concerned about

this — just bears with us a bit to see the results that are being

produced, I think everybody would be quite content with the rationale

of the step that was taken at this point in time. As I said, it's not

cast in stone.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing):

Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, may I draw

your attention to the fact that we have a group of students in the

gallery today? They are eighteen students, approximately, from Parkland

Senior Secondary School on the northern Saanich Peninsula, accompanied

by their teacher, Mr. Harker. I know the members will make

[ Page 78 ]

them welcome.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

after some introductory remarks yesterday, I'll commence today with

some thoughts on the government's opening speech and then a few ideas

of my own.

As to specifics in the speech — and I direct this particularly to

the Attorney-General — we welcome, of course, the Ombudsman Bill being

reintroduced. I hope, sir, that it will be expanded to make the

authority of that gentleman cover the municipal field as well. Local

governments have as many injustices and bureaucratic inefficiencies as

does the provincial field. With respect to the conflict-of-interest

legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see how good it is

to be supported. It will not only need teeth; it will need jaws. It has

to be the kind of thing that can bite back at the grizzly bears, if I

could put it that way, and make it certain that a high standard is

followed, not only at the political level but throughout the public

service.

The announcement of revenue sharing with municipalities is welcome.

Through you, sir, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) that revenue sharing, I suggest, must not only be generous in

order to allow the decentralization of government services to the local

level as much as possible, but it must be predictable. That has been

one of the worst vices of our existing largesse to municipalities. They

have to come every year on bended knee to the government, never knowing

how to plan their own budgets.

I was concerned at the mention of land-use legislation. It could

foreshadow a loosening of the powers of the Land Commission and the

integrity of the Land Commission. Mr. Speaker, that must not be. We

will keep that criticism in abeyance until it happens.

We will need to see the fine print on the shelter allowances, and,

Mr. Speaker, we need an early statement from the Attorney-General on

the subject of rent control and the allowable rent increase — or the

minister who is now responsible, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

I think everyone on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, was glad to

hear of the free use of campsites by seniors; a delightful

announcement. I hope that use by seniors of the provincial campsites

will not — like use of the ferries — be ruled out on the weekends or

restricted only to periods when the bears are feeding or something like

that. It could save on Mincome, as an hon. member points out. I hope

that's not the idea behind that important announcement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, will the government allow some kind of meaningful

privilege to seniors like, say, the right for all seniors to buy passes

on Hydro buses, instead of just those who are on social assistance?

Will they do something meaningful of that kind? I ask the minister

responsible, the Minister for Energy, (Hon. Mr. Davis) to think about

that.

Pharmacare — universal Pharmacare — we don't know quite what it

means and I take it being rather ominous that the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) today declined to reassure the senior

citizens of this province that their current right to non-deductible

Pharmacare will not be revoked.

Mr. Speaker, that's not a budgetary pronouncement at all. That's

just a confirmation to this House that an existing practice will be

continued. There's no announcement there. And, to me, Mr. Speaker, the

fact that the minister refused to make that commitment says to me that

that's going to be changed. I think, and I hope, that every member on

this opposition side will submit the minister to enough of a storm of

criticism on that one that we can get them to back off by the time the

budget finally comes in.

With respect to the field of education, I would say to the minister

that I like his core curriculum approach, basically. The one thing I

would comment on — and, of course, we'll go into this more in the

Estimates — is I believe it's a shameful exclusion, Mr. Speaker, that

family life and sex education was kept out of the core curriculum —

what must be learned. Mr. Speaker, it must be learned by every citizen

growing up in British Columbia and it's going to be learned. Let's make

sure that it's learned in some kind of proper environment, rather than

taking that chance. I'm surprised at the minister on that but, other

than that, the core curriculum looked pretty good.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Now as to independent schools, Mr. Speaker, what

does this word "eventually" mean? What's this "eventual aid to

independent schools?" I looked it up in the dictionary. It eventually

means "ultimately resulting," and that's not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

I invite the minister to go back and read some of his old speeches and

do some of the things that he said in his old speeches he should do

like vote against Social Credit, for example. I won't ask him to do

that part of his old speeches now, but he might do the parts about

education, about taking the tax off the residential property owner and

so on — but in particular, immediate aid to the independent schools.

Mr. Speaker, the speech makes reference to strengthening of the family unit. The hon. member

[ Page 79 ]

for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) in his reply statement

spent a lot of time on that — on the importance of the family. That was

very nice and I agree with it. Then, Mr. Speaker, what about the paltry

$58,000 that was asked by the Conference on the Family in British

Columbia to provide a continuing secretariat service for this year?

That most useful association, bringing together members of all

political parties and the churches of this province in a study and work

very supportive of the development of the institution of the family in

British Columbia, had the rug pulled out from underneath them by this

government in its refusal to continue their funding. I say that that

gives the lie to all that the throne speech may say about the good

wishes of this government to the family.

Legislation with respect to property-sharing on marital breakdown is

long overdue. We will await the details. The same thing is to be said

with respect to secure facilities for young offenders.

The statements on labour are a bit of a mystery. But, Mr. Speaker, I

would anticipate something of a year of realism in the

management-labour relations field in this province because things are

in tough shape in British Columbia, and I think that the responsible

parties on both sides know that.

We had good assurances on summer employment. The trouble is that we

had fine promises on summer employment last year, too, and they didn't

materialize very well and there was tremendous bureaucratic confusion

among the various departments. I hope the minister, when he takes his

place in this debate, will give us some detail as to exactly how the

summer employment plan is to be organized this year, and what kind of

dollars will be available.

New highways: one can only appreciate. I regret that no word was

mentioned of the improvement of the now rudimentary road down to Bella

Coola, which is a needed additional link to the coast of this province.

Under economic development much was made of what the opening speech

calls the "team" approach. Whoops, where's the team? They're gone. The

minister's still there — maybe he's doing the work of the whole team

all by himself. But half the team's been sent to the showers, Mr.

Speaker; if this is the team, we're in trouble.

The biggest joke in this opening speech, to me, was the claim by the

government that it intends to improve the flow of information to the

citizens of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, our most important industry

in this province is forests. It provides 50 cents of every dollar.

The most important document today, having to do with the forest

industry in this province, is the Pemberton Securities report to the

government which was an updating of the report that was given to the

Pearse commission, and which makes very grave predictions about the

future of the forest industry in this province. It was submitted to the

government around about September or October of this year. It has been

held in complete secrecy since then, with numbered copies called back

at the slightest sign that there might be any kind of leak to the

public of this information on our most critical industry which has been

paid for by the people of this province. That is an example of what

this government means by an improvement of the flow of information to

the people of British Columbia.

The second most important industry in this province is the coal

industry. There was a report done by the coal task force and given to

the government last February. It was in two parts: one part was a

technical appraisal — that report was made public; the other part was a

policy and economic document which remains secreted — sequestered I

suppose would be a better word — from the public view. Why can we not

obtain that when the government is planning during 1977 to make

decisions that will echo through the decades in this province as we

develop those literally billions of tons of coal? Why can the public

not have this information? The government has spent literally millions

of dollars in acquiring information on the development of coal in this

province. It would be criminal if decisions are made without those

facts first being made public.

I say that this talk about improving the flow of information that's

in the opening speech is propaganda itself, and we needn't expect much

more than that from this government.

There was a little comment in the opening speech on gasoline

marketing. All I have to say about that, Mr. Speaker, is that I had

always thought it was the NDP that was the expert on the waffle. The

government was sure doing the waffle-stomp on that one; who's got to

them?

We have the ironic picture of the Automotive Retailers Association,

who probably worked as hard to get rid of the NDP as any group in this

province, now finding that the Socreds are better friends of big

business than they are of the ARA, and it's the NDP that's standing up

and defending them in this House. It's kind of interesting how ironic

these things are.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a bit about the specifics in the throne

speech, but the underlying themes are the more important ones. The real

guts in the opening speech relates to the social, economic and

constitutional foundations of our province, and the document is

terribly vague there. It calls for restraint, yes, but what kind of

restraint? How will the government show restraint? Where are the

specifics there? — because restraint has to start with the government.

How does the government intend to reconcile the need for investment

in our province, which means investment incentives, which means profits

of some

[ Page 80 ]

kind? How does it intend to reconcile that with

restraint? Because that's been the problem that's been bedeviling the

national government as well. So these are just fine words and empty

words without that kind of detail.

What about these words: "Canada to be a more flexible union"? What

are the details on that one? Because the Premier should know, and we

had an exchange on that during the question period today, that it is a

very short step from a strong central government to a set of Balkan

states. And Canada is dangerously on the margin of those things at the

present time.

What is really important to British Columbia about the Canadian

union? What is our major grievance? Our major grievance is not a

constitutional one, it is an economic one. It's a system of tariffs

which costs our province well over $1 billion a year, which costs

probably over $500 per capita — per man, woman and child — in British

Columbia every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freight rates.

MR. GIBSON: And freight rates to some extent, Mr. Member.

That's the kind of thing that the government should spend a bit of time

talking about. But I don't know if the Premier understands these things.

Separatism. You know, our Premier went and made a speech to the

Canadian Club in Toronto. I don't know why he didn't make it here,

because I was embarrassed about this speech and I wish he'd made it in

British Columbia. The news might not have spread to the rest of the

country. This speech was made about the end of November and here's a

quote. First of all he says he's been amused by the Monday morning

quarterbacks after the Quebec election. And then he goes on to be a

Tuesday morning quarterback himself and he says this: "Let not this

country be diverted from the real problems facing us by the spectre of

separatism, which I do not feel exists."

Mr. Speaker, "...by the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel

exists." "Let it not be diverted from the real problems..." Our Premier

said that. If separatism is not the real problem of Canada, I don't

know what is.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: I don't know what it is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The federal Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: Everything has to be in dollars and cents with

this government, Mr. Speaker, because here's another quote: "Bennett

said he does not believe the people of Quebec would ever support

separation in a referendum because they would lose too much financially

by doing so." There are other things in life, Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Speaker. It's not all the bottom line; it's not all the financial

cost. The motivations of the people of Quebec are not purely economic.

They have a strong nationalistic feeling among a large percentage of

the population. They have a new Premier who is a dedicated, tough,

charming man. If it is possible for anyone to convince the citizens

they should leave Confederation, it is this man, Rene Levesque. It is

not something to be taken lightly and I hope that the Premier's mind

has come around to this way of thinking now, and that he will tell this

House that separatism is an important problem and propose what British

Columbia can do to help in keeping our country together.

So in sum, on the government's opening speech, Mr. Speaker, there

were some nice specific thoughts; there were some vague underlying

themes. I can't say it's bad, I won't say it's bad. But I can certainly

say it's not good enough as an opening speech. So I thought I might try

my hand at writing one myself. And I tried a few lines, you know, and I

found out this is a pretty easy thing to do. I said: "Maybe I'll make

it tougher and try and put some content in it." So I tried that too.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to read this document because I think that

that kind of thing should only be done by somebody heavily weighted

down by gold braid. But may I at this point ask the permission of this

House to table this document, which is a Liberal throne speech? May I

have the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Hon. Members.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Ah, well, I'm going to recap it, briefly, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's more Liberal than that. Mr. Speaker, I start

out my talk again with a review of the basic situation of British

Columbia and I suggest that we have many strengths, which we do. Things

are not all black in our province. We have a fundamentally skilled and

productive people. We have an inheritance of technology and capital

stock and infrastructure which has come to us from the past. We have a

good gross provincial product per capita at the moment. We have a good

resource base and, most importantly in 1977, we have a situation where

the growth — the new people coming to this province — has abated, so

that we can turn some of our energies and some of our capital

investment from the problem of building

[ Page 81 ]

new schools and hospitals and roads and so on for

new people, and finding new jobs for new people, to the problems of

doing the best we can for those that are already here, and that's a lot

easier to do. So that's an advantage. It won't continue forever, but in

1977 that's an advantage.

But we also have many problems, Mr. Speaker, going into this year.

We have high unemployment, as you know. We have very high costs, which

in some areas are pricing us out of the world market. Those are costs

of capital and of labour and of government. In all of those areas the

costs are unacceptably high.

We have the problem of continuing inflation, and of a Canadian

dollar which remains at persistently high levels, to the detriment of

our export industries.

We have the problem of a depreciating plant and equipment in our

basic industries and of depleting resources in the non-renewable field.

We have continuing political uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, let no one

underestimate the impact of continuing political uncertainty on the

investment climate in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that

if people in various industries don't know what the groundrules are

going to be three or four years down the road, they've got other places

to put their money. One of the finest things that could be done in this

province would be to have all parties on all sides of this House agree

that no matter who is going to be the government, there'll be some

predictability in economic policy in this province. Perhaps that's too

much to ask for, but we're paying a high-priced penalty for it.

We have, as we go into 1977, a completely unacceptable distribution

of wealth in British Columbia. There is no reason to think that our

distribution is much different from that in the rest of Canada, and the

figures there are unacceptable. The richest 20 per cent of Canadians

dispose of over 40 per cent of the income; the poorest 20 per cent of

Canadians dispose of just over 4 per cent of the income.

A 10-to-1 ratio is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It is not justified

on the human merits and the differences between people; it is not

justified on the different effort that different people put into this

world. Income simply must be redistributed in our society more

successfully than it has been to date. I urge that in particular on the

government opposite, knowing full well that its basic economic

instincts are conservative. But I suggest that that need not be

incompatible with a better distribution of the wealth in our society.

We face difficult world markets. We face some inadequacies in our

own market system, in our own government system, in terms of the

allocation of resources and the production and distribution of wealth.

We face a continually ageing population. In this regard, I would

draw the government's attention to the recent report of the Science

Council of Canada, which, in this context, will apply even more to

British Columbia than to the rest of the country. Here's a quote: "It's

anticipated that the actual number of elderly people" — and these

figures are for Canada — "will double by the end of the century from

1.7 million to 3.4 million." Elderly is 65 in this context.

Later on in the same report it notes that the baby boom is moving

through the system. They've pretty well gotten through the school

system now; they're just working through the housing system. Therefore,

the report notes, for demographic reasons, between now and 1985 we will

have built 90 per cent of all housing units required to the end of the

century, That's quite a shocking statistic, too, Mr. Speaker, isn't it

— that our housing boom is going to continue, but only for another 10

years. Those are the 10 years in which we have to make the decisions as

to whether our new housing is going to be automobile-related or

transit-related, and so on.

We go into 1977 with a lot of problems and difficult questions. It's

not as simple or rosy as the government suggested it was in its opening

speech. It is the duty of a government, as I see it, to play a

part in

setting the climate and moulding the resources to exploit the strengths

we have, and work with the weaknesses, and provide, insofar as we may

collectively do, opportunity and happiness for British Columbians. To

this end I have some specific suggestions.

First of all, jobs are required in the short run, in the medium term

and the longer run. In the short run, direct stimulation is about the

only way it's going to be done. That is not an option that I like

because it has to be done by government, but it's unavoidable in the

short run. Mr. Speaker, almost 9 per cent unemployment is unacceptable

in the short run.

There should be a programme of direct stimulation of expenditure at

the community and local level entered into by this government. I think

they could budget about $50 million over the next six months and

provide, after working at it a couple of months, an extra 10,000 jobs

over that period. By then we'll be into the summer situation- there'll

be a bit more time to look at things. But in the meantime, let's not

waste all this human energy. God knows that's not a panacea. Ten

thousand jobs out of 100,000 unemployment is not an overall solution to

the problem but it could help.

In the intermediate term, I think the government has to be looking

at private sector jobs which are stimulated by government assistance. I

think there are a lot of federal dollars available as they develop

their new so-called "community employment strategy" — a lot of dollars

available to that end.

In the longer run there have to be private sector

[ Page 82 ]

jobs. For that to happen, the government has a

number of things it must do. It must be, first of all, predictable and

constant, as the last government was not and as this government has not

been up to now. It's been very erratic and rough in an economic sense.

It has to do its best to stabilize activity over the business cycle,

particularly in construction. This is well within the control of the

government as it plans its public works projects and its housing

financing. It has to give definite and strong tax incentives for

investment in British Columbia as opposed to consumption in British

Columbia. I'm looking at the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as I

say that, Mr. Speaker, and hope that he is listening for his budget.

In the Department of Economic Development the minister (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) has a division which gives assistance to small business. Let

him upgrade that division; let him have the kind of small business

administration they have developed down in the United States, a small

business development bank; let him put his experts to work on that and

come back a year from now in the throne speech with a specific

programme.

Let the Minister of Economic Development recognize that British

Columbia must focus on certain specific areas where we'll be experts to

make our living in this world. One of those areas must be forestry. Let

us do more research in the area of forestry.

One of those areas, Mr. Speaker, must be ocean engineering. Of all

the localities in the world, we are admirably suited to exploiting the

enormous opportunities for undersea mining. We have got to carry our

mining frontier outside, beyond our own boundaries, because while we

have some resources here, many of them are very low grade compared to

the rest of the world.

We have here the expertise, we have here the capital accumulation.

What it needs to get it going is a definite government thrust and

insistence that they will support initiatives in ocean engineering. We

have a building at the B.C. Research Council, exactly the kind of

facility needed to do that. It basically gives us the capability for

undersea mining operating out of British Columbia.

I ask the minister to set up an Economical Council of British

Columbia in order to give him the advice that he obviously sorely

needs, the independent kind of advice to work with the peculiar economy

that is British Columbian. The advice of the Economic Council of Canada

only applies in small measure to us. Our economy is different to that

of most of the country — much less manufacturing, much more primary

resources.

I ask the government to fight and fight and fight on Canadian

commercial policies, on the tariff structure, because, as I say, this

is British Columbia's greatest grievance in Confederation. There is now

no longer any question that the Economic Council of Canada has come out

with the statement that it would be good for all of the country. Now

one and make a cause of it at every possible opportunity.

On taxation policy, I ask the Minister of Finance to work with the

federal government to fight for these objectives: first of all, an

indexation of capital gains, the lack of which is hurting investment

not only in British Columbia, but in all of Canada; next, the

integration of transfer payments with the general income tax system.

This is similar to what the Premier has been advocating in terms of

negative income tax. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I go

further and say that if Ottawa will not, within a reasonable length of

time, give us this kind of package, let us set up our own income tax

system and insofar as the taxes we collect let us introduce those

reforms in British Columbia.

I see some shaking of heads on the government side, perhaps a concern about a tax jungle.

HON. MR. BENNETT: More bureaucracy.

MR. GIBSON: More bureaucracy. But, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't let the federal government off the hook.

MR. GIBSON: I would say this: the bureaucrats that collect

taxes in British Columbia are already here in British Columbia, largely

in the Department of National Revenue, so you needn't have a larger

bureaucracy. You have the same people doing the work, except doing it

for the province rather than the federal government. It's a last

resort. I agree, Mr. Speaker, but how long are we going to wait for

these kinds of essential reforms to be introduced? Go down there and

try that on.

Mr. Speaker, the next topic I have down here is coal. When I was

Development to tell us the story, because there are a lot of very

difficult issues involved here. If we're talking about — and I've heard

the work used — $1.5 billion investment, of which something like $0.5

billion might be public investment in infrastructure and

transportation, my question to the minister is this: has he done a

study which will show that that $0.5 billion is better invested in

northeast coal, which is where he seems determined to put it, than in,

for example, the promotion of two or three new pulp mills around this

province?

Has he done that kind of study? Has he done the study which would say to the people of British

[ Page 83 ]

Columbia: "We can assure you that by developing

northeast coal we will not be displacing development in the southeast,

which would otherwise happen at no public expense"? This is not a small

question, Mr. Speaker, because the minister is talking about eight or

10 million tons in the northeast. Yet others are talking about four or

five million additional tons in the southeast. So is there just going

to be a trade-off one for the other? I don't call that progress, if

that's all it's going to be.

Give us the facts, Mr. Minister. What prices are assumed when you

talk about the development of northeast coal? We have to know that

because, Mr. Minister, I'll tell you one thing else we know: we know

that at present prices it is not economic unless it's subsidized. I say

to you that it is not a useful thing for a province to get involved in

— to be in the business of producing a product for $1.05 and then

selling it for $1 and saying that that causes prosperity. Give us the

numbers so that we can be assured that you are going in the right

direction. We hope you are. We want to see this for British Columbia,

and we want to see you get as much federal money as you can to that

end. But give us the figures.

With respect to Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, I have some brief

advice for the minister. I hope he will see fit this year to index

Mincome. I hope he will see fit to guarantee to the handicapped people

of British Columbia that he will restore that which was taken away from

them in terms of support level by the GAIN regulations published in the

fall. I hope he will see fit to reactivate the community resource board

legislation because I would have thought he was a man in favour of

local control, Mr. Speaker, and that community resource boards do the

same thing in the social field that school boards and municipal

councils do in their respective fields, That was the concept of them. I

agree it was passed by the former government, but let's not throw out

all of their ideas. Some of them may have been good. This was a good

one. That legislation is still there. I ask the minister to reactivate

it. I hope he will continue his existing support on day care. I

appreciate the difficulties of increasing it, but if he can't increase

day care then I ask him to press the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) to provide funding for age four kindergarten.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Age four kindergarten.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister....

MR. WALLACE: Get together with them and figure it out.

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

MR. WALLACE: Don't delay the speech. You get together with them and figure it out.

MR. GIBSON: If I tell you exactly where you get it — which I will during the budget debate — will you do it?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: A spirit of cooperation is needed.

MR. GIBSON: He's waffling, Mr. Speaker. I offered him the money, now he won't do it.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What are you doing with all that money you've thrown into UBC?

MR. GIBSON: That would be a good place to get it, Mr. Member.

I am anticipating something a little later on in my talk, but that

university hospital at the University of British Columbia might be a

good place to get some money for other useful things, but I'll get to

that later.

MR. WALLACE: Moving right along.... (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: With respect to land, it is essential that the government preserve the authority of the Land Commission.

With respect to agriculture, I would suggest to the government an

increased emphasis on income stabilization and a removal of those

monopoly powers of the marketing boards that operate against the public

interest. When you see the price of some of the quotas that are being

traded in the dairy field and others, there can be no question that

they are operating against the public interest. Mr. Minister, overall

there has been so much complaint on these things. Who do you believe?

Who is causing high food costs? Is it the supermarkets? Is it the

middleman? Is it the transportation companies? Is it the cost of

energy? Is it the farmer? Is it the marketing boards? Why do so many of

our citizens go to Bellingham to shop? What is the needed degree of

self-sufficiency in British Columbia agriculture? I would ask the

minister to wrap all of these things up in a royal commission on food

costs, which he should establish without delay, and attempt to finally

come to grips with all of the people saying, "it's not me, it's the

other guy," in the whole food chain.

I have a word of advice for the government with

[ Page 84 ]

respect to the Anti-Inflation Board. The time is

coming when we must decide as a province whether or not to stay in that

programme for another year. I think it's essential that we do. I'll go

further and say that I believe it would be useful and desirable to keep

the public sector under the AIB for at least one year after the private

sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. GIBSON: Why? Because, in my opinion, during the term of

the former government settlements in the public sector were acceded to

that disturbed historic relationships to the extent that the cost

pressures were built up in the private sector which have made a certain

part of our economy uneconomic, because when the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) suggests that all of a sudden close-utilization

standards have to be relaxed in part of our province, what he's saying

is that part of our wood which used to be economic is now uneconomic

because of our cost structure. I don't think that's good for this

province, and I think that historic relationship has gotten out of

line. That's an opinion, Mr. Member, which is mine and which I am

offering to the government.

In the field of recreation and travel, I would ask the minister to

enter into a long-term travel promotion budget, not just year by year

at a time, because these things take a long time to have any impact.

I ask him to finally introduce a bill banning the leg-hold trap because it's been too long now, and too much talk.

I would ask him in his department, because I don't think Highways

will do it, to emulate the Oregon experience and set aside 1 per cent

of the Highways budget for bicycle paths.

In the very important field of energy, Mr. Speaker, it's about time

we had a long-term plan for this province as to where our energy

supplies are going to come from. It is not enough for us to depend on

British Columbia Hydro for this kind of planning. It's just not good

enough. That is an empire that's entirely unregulated, doing planning

without necessary reference to the public interest but just the

interests of B.C. Hydro.

I would ask the minister concerned to give a mandate to the B.C.

Energy Commission to hold hearings and come up with a 25-year energy

plan for this province which looks at the alternatives of hydro and

coal, oil generation, nuclear and solar and anything else he wants to

put in it, and say: "This is the way we ought to go, in the opinion of

the commission. Here are the alternatives if you want to rule out one

particular source of power or another." It's about time we had that.

In the meantime we should have B.C. Hydro placed under the authority

of the Energy Commission in terms of justifying any increases they

might want to make, because without that need for justification they

are, as I say, a law unto themselves. It's not good enough for the

minister to say that this data will be provided to the public accounts

committee; it should have been provided to the public right then. But

more importantly, even if it is provided to the public accounts

committee, what can they do about it? What you need is a regulatory

commission that can control that monster — which is what Hydro has

become.

I make a recommendation to the minister that as a matter of

government policy — and not having to do with anything else — natural

gas marketed in British Columbia for domestic and industrial

consumption should be brought up to full BTU value, which means a

considerable price increase for all new installations, and that old

installations should be brought up to full BTU value within five years.

I further suggest to him that we should have a law in this province

that natural gas profits made by the BCPC must be earmarked for

investment in replacement energy sources, because that's a depleting

resource. It shouldn't be going into current government revenue because

that's just like spending capital; that's just like borrowing money to

finance your standard of living, which is what we're doing as a nation

with our terrible balance-of-payments deficits, but which I wouldn't

like to see us doing here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed that there was not a word in the

opening speech about native peoples. I hope, again, that the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), when he takes his place in this debate,

will tell us of the progress of negotiations on the cut-off lands, and

on the B.C. land claims question.

Neither was there a word about the Pearse report.

There was very little on transportation.

I would urge the government to fight with everything it's got for

the ALCAN gas pipeline. On the question of Kitimat, I think they should

be much more reserved. We had expansive statements at the beginning, by

the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and even the Premier, that they thought

this was a pretty good idea. Mr. Speaker, I'd say there are enough

questions on that Kitimat oil pipeline that they had better hold some

hearings before they take a position. Then when they take a position,

they should take a strong position in front of the National Energy

Board in Ottawa. It is too important for British Columbia to have

offhand comments by ministers taken as government policy without the

right of all the public to put their views across.

Also on transportation, I would ask the minister to investigate what

ways and means he can use to accord running rights in the Vancouver

port area for all of

[ Page 85 ]

the various railways that use that facility, and

which are often frustrated in their desire to move cars from one part

of the port to another, or their general shipping plans and overall

economy, by marketing disputes with other carriers or by industrial

disputes which may be affecting just a single carrier but which may tie

up a good deal of the region. Whether the solution is a terminal

railway or just some kind of running rights I don't know; it's a

complicated question. But I would very much ask that he look into that

particular one.

Mr. Speaker, I was concerned that there was almost no mention of the

status of women in the opening speech. I say to the Premier that he

should designate a minister responsible for co-ordinating, developing

and implementing programmes to enhance the status of women within the

responsibility of the province of British Columbia. I would point out

to him that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, back in the

early '70s, produced recommendations of which about one-third related

to provincial governments, and of those something less than around 10

per cent have been introduced to date. I have said it before and I'll

say it again: this is perhaps the most important current in human

affairs in North America in this latter part of the century, and I

think this government should pay more attention to it.

Mr. Speaker, in the health field Pharmacare is a good thing. We

still haven't seen the fine print, but I suggest to the minister that

when it comes to a question of priorities, school-age denticare, as

suggested by the SPARC committee, would have been a better priority to

start with. I think the cost, as estimated by the relevant report on

the SPARC programme, was about $30 million a year.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) makes the point that it was suggested in a report prepared for his government.

The emphasis in general medical expenditures I would hope could

gradually be shifted from acute to intermediate and chronic, now that

some flexibility has been found in federal cost-sharing arrangements as

a result of the recent conference. I would strongly suggest to the

minister, if he has any influence over the matter, that he cancel the

plans for the University of British Columbia Medical School expansion,

which is a nonsense expenditure, and find better places in the British

Columbia health fund and programmes in which to put those millions of

dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: You listening, Pat?

MR. GIBSON: British Columbia has, at the moment, more doctors per capita than any other part of Canada.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: What's the exception?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Any other province. Any other province in Canada.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Most metropolitan areas.

MR. GIBSON: The minister should know his statistics better;

that's a fact. Any other province of Canada. He doesn't even know that.

Or, my God! What's he doing planning a medical school?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says he's following recommendations.

I would have thought he had a brain of his own. He's a brain scientist;

he could have gone out and got one, if he didn't. He sure didn't on

this issue.

The fact of the matter is that British Columbians who want to become

doctors can be trained here to the number of 80 a year in the UBC

Medical School, and can go to other parts of the country and get

assistance programmes if they want to pursue that. But we have to have

some difficult priorities in education and health expenditures in this

province and it happens to be a fact of life that we are reasonably

well doctored in this province and that there are other areas of our

health programme that need it more. There should be more preventative

emphasis in health, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think the minister would

disagree with that for one moment. He's spoken of it often. I would

suggest that the fact that abortions in British Columbia are now

running at 30 per cent of live births is one of the most tragic

examples of that. I support the minister as well in his feeling that

alcoholism is our most serious treatable medical problem in this

province and I wish him well in his efforts to combat it, as well as

the Attorney-General with his plans for tougher enforcement.

I would suggest the Attorney-General consider raising the drinking

age by one year as an experiment to see what happens. I do not suggest

it would be a politically popular move.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The age of majority?

MR. GIBSON: Raise it by one year to start.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The age of majority?

[ Page 86 ]

MR. GIBSON: The drinking age. The minister may recall that the Province of Ontario, some years ago, lowered the age from 21 to 18....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Of drinking. What I'm talking about is the

drinking age. Since then they've noticed an alarming increase in the

amount of young drinking, and they're very seriously considering, after

a study, raising their drinking age. I think I sent the

Attorney-General a copy of that study. If I didn't, it's an oversight;

I'll get back to my office and send him one. To me, this is a very

important problem that he should consider seriously.

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting exposes that's been done by our

news media in recent months was done by Mr. Gary Bannerman on CKNW when

he, in a series of programmes, made the case for a commission into

crime and fraud in British Columbia to supplement, in the public

theatre, the work of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, on the

theory that public exposure of some of the things that are going on

would not just make it easier for people to guard against these dangers

but make it harder for some of the people involved in the particular

kinds of fraud. I commend that suggestion to him.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs to strengthen tremendously disclosure requirements as they

relate to corporations and officers of corporations. I suggest to him

that, had the kind of stringent requirements of the SEC been applied to

Quasar Petroleum and the other company involved in the Grizzly Valley,

the officers of those companies would have had to disclose, within a

matter of hours, the fact that they were given assurances by the head

of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation that that pipeline would be built,

instead of waiting for two days in excess of a month for the

announcement by the Premier, which may have gotten some nice political

capital for the government but left over a month of opportunity for

speculation on the basis of very reliable information — even better

information than they'd had since August. Strict disclosure

requirements would help avoid this kind of thing.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I'll take care of that immediately.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Rafe. If we had such cooperation from

all the ministers, Mr. Speaker, this House wouldn't have to sit for

more than a few weeks.

MR. WALLACE: The House is strangely quiet.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, I'm glad

to see, is still here. I would ask him if he has given any thought —

which I think he ought to do — to the idea of a national office of

education to make certain that research efforts in one part of the

country or one part of the continent are disseminated to the others. It

seems to me this is a possibility of cutting costs by taking full

advantage of what others do and, at the same time, increasing the

quality of our own educational information. Such a body might as well

be of assistance in co-ordinating the interprovincial standards in

education. I appreciate that the Canadian Council of Education

Ministers does some of this work, but I would ask him to consider

whether a national office mightn't be of some use — funded, I would

think, by the federal government.

I have already spoken of immediate assistance to independent

schools. I would ask him to get after the federal government for a

great deal more money for French-language education for our citizens in

British Columbia. One of the things that bothers me is the trend where

public servants in Ottawa are being required to have a knowledge of the

two official languages; not that that bothers me per se, but the fact

that British Columbians are thereby somewhat being frozen out of

opportunity for national public service. To me it would be most

desirable if British Columbia could offer those of our children who

want, the chance for a genuine bilingual education.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) I would

commend an increase in the growth grants and a loosening of the

restrictions that he currently makes available to municipalities in

acting as a shock absorber for the differential impact of growth. I'd

ask him to remove from the Municipal Act that disgraceful provision

which allows municipalities to commence an expropriation proceeding,

subject the owner to high legal costs and cancellation of their plans,

and then drop that proceeding if, upon the award of the cost, it suits

them to do so. That, to me, is wrong and it should be removed from the

Act. We have a good case example on the North Shore with which the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is perhaps familiar.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is also responsible for transit.

He will be introducing a bill this session. I hope that that

legislation — while it may provide for an overall provincial authority

which might handle inter-city transit — will also provide for strong

regional authorities. The Greater Vancouver Regional District in

particular has unique problems, unique costs, and is of a size that is

big enough to manage itself. If the government believes about local

control, that is the way it should proceed.

The Minister of Labour: I make a suggestion that he encourage his

colleagues to escalate their experimentation with worker participation

in decision-making in the Crown corporations, which is

[ Page 87 ]

underway to some extent. I ask him to encourage the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to consider tax incentives,

insofar as British Columbia can go, for employee stock ownership

programmes.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Employee stock ownership programmes, that's right. It's not a panacea by any means, but it has worked well in some areas.

With respect to Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, I was much taken by

a — what would I call it? — a musing of the Premier in an interview

December 22. He was talking about Hydro. He said this:

"To be accountable to the government of the people we've

got to put in more controls. They've got great power beyond the normal corporation.

I worry about them."

I don't blame him for worrying about them. I would start right with

the top management, but I can understand also why he would worry about

the lack of control. So why don't we have in the throne speech some

kind of control, finally, over these Crown corporations?

I want to suggest one manner of control: there should be a

year-round standing committee of this Legislature which has the job of

meeting at regular intervals with the chief executives of the Crown

corporations to obtain from them an accounting of their operating

results, and of their plans, and the ways in which their activities —

one way or another — impinge on the public. I do not suggest this, Mr.

Speaker, as a way of circumventing the regular process of executive

authority through the corporation management to the government, but

rather as a way of public accountability. I think such a committee

could do a great deal to sensitize even the B.C. Hydros of this world

to the public concerns about their activities.

Next I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, a novel experiment which one

might start only with profit-making corporations and consider

eventually extending: why do we not find some way of getting the shares

of some of our Crown corporations directly into the hands of the

public? In that way, every member of the public — let's say every

citizen on the B.C. voters list — would be deemed to be, and be, for

all purposes, the owner of one share of whatever Corporation it might

be, be it Can-Cel, be it the B.C. Development Corporation itself; would

have a vote in the operation for those corporations; would be entitled

to a division of the profits, if any, from year to year; and would feel

a way of direct ownership in the publicly owned enterprises of the

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit.

MR. GIBSON: No, that's not Social Credit, that's Liberal.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Liberalism is selling the CNR.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You'd make them tax-paying corporations?

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Labour raises an interesting

point as to whether the corporations would then have to pay taxes. I

would think that it would be possible to do it in such a way that they

would continue to be Crown corporations with evidence of interest in

the hands of the voting public.

In the long run, of course, the question of the payment of taxes by

publicly owned corporations has to be grappled with by the various

governments of this country. It seems to me that every so-called

non-government, even though publicly owned, institution should carry

some kind of burden of tax. It seems to me improper that there should

be discrimination, but so long as an ending of that discrimination

would work against the financial benefit of British Columbia — in other

words, until we've negotiated that with the federal government — I

think we should try and retain these tax advantages for publicly owned

corporations. But we have to recognize that to the extent that other

provinces have more publicly owned corporations than do we, a greater

percentage, we are the net loser on that transaction.

Mr. Speaker, I only have one short word of advice to the Provincial

Secretary at this time, and that is to provide for regional

representations on the Pacific National Exhibition board. I think that

the PNE is a provincial institution — a province-wide institution. I

would definitely say that the city of Vancouver should be given

disproportionate representation because that's where it is, and perhaps

some of the GVRD municipalities. But there should be representation

from all of the province on the board of directors of the PNE. I would

hope that legislation could one of these days so provide.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says that the board is addressing itself to that, and I am glad to hear it.

The control of the public service, which I suppose also falls under

the Provincial Secretary, is one of the most challenging areas of

government, Mr. Speaker. How do you motivate for efficiency,

productivity and innovation when the system is designed not for those

things, but is designed for safety and security and conservatism? How

do you work with that question when the traditional cycle of hiring and

firing and raises, and so on, are not really too applicable, and

[ Page 88 ]

for very good reason? Somehow we must grapple with

that in British Columbia, as we must all over the country, but I know

that our current government is perhaps more strongly motivated in this

direction than most.

The methods, it seems to me, must go more to the spiritual concept

of idealism in human relations than the direct, blunt levers of hiring

and firing. There have to be non-monetary systems of incentive

encouraged within the public service, and to the extent it's a return,

a return to the ideal of public service — of the public servant as

being exactly that, of a job of prestige and honour and productivity.

Really, I think I'm more making an expression of sympathy than

anything else, but I do have an interesting

article here, which I will

send to the Provincial Secretary, that gives the experience of some of

the large Japanese institutions which have been grappling with this

problem of late — they, of course, being very like civil service

employers in terms of providing lifetime employment, guaranteed — and

how they have been able, to the pleasure of their employees and

themselves, to work in some new motivation systems.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly now about what I would call

democratic institutions. We are never secure as a democracy, as I see

it and as the lessons of history would seem to teach us. I read in the

paper the other day the story of the collapse of democracy in Uruguay.

These things ebb and flow around the world from year to year. We seem

to be seeing more democratization — if that's a word — in Spain and

perhaps in Portugal. We also have seen a serious setback in Latin

America in the recent years. I'll just quote from this particular

report, which is out of the Financial Post of December 18:

"Democracy, it would seem, is a frail vessel in face

of economic storms. Indeed, both democracy and the welfare state would

almost seem to be luxury products, dependent for their very existence

on the continuing prosperity of a nation. Certainly, the abuses of both

in times of economic decline only hasten the collapse of society."

In Canada, even having survived the Depression, two great wars and

the experience of independence, I do not think we can ever take our

democratic institutions for granted. In a very humble and tentative way

I would like to propose some areas that could well use reform. In terms

of our own Legislature — and let us understand very clearly what it is;

it is a four-year elected dictatorship with the right of the opposition

to speak about it; that's what our legislative system is — we should

have better ways of the opposition influencing the government.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

A first important step to that end, I would say to you, sir, is

televising this House. I hope that the government House Leader might

see fit to introduce a resolution to that end.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already have it now — from away back.

MR. GIBSON: No — that would actually make it happen, Mr.

Member. The House has expressed its wishes in this regard, but it

hasn't happened.

Beyond that, I would suggest to the government — and, Mr. Speaker,

this is an example of just how powerless this House is, because I must

suggest to the government, as there's no point in suggesting it to the

House — that a much greater use of committees would be in their own

interest: committees with staff, committees with regular sittings for

the purpose of information-gathering and airing, for the purpose of

oversight of government departments.

I would suggest to the government that this is a

distant-early-warning line for them if they use it correctly. I would

suggest that the government has more in common with other politicians

when it comes to controlling the great departments of government than

it may have, in some instances, even with its own bureaucracy. The

opposition can be useful to the government; committees can be useful to

the government if they are prepared to allow them to operate. I think

that this could be an important advancement of democracy in this House.

As to reform within the area of government itself,

conflict-of-interest legislation, we are told, is coming. That's good.

We need now freedom-of-information legislation, which says, in effect,

that the public of British Columbia should have the right to all

information acquired by the government unless there is a demonstrated

reason to the contrary, be that demonstrated reason to do with

security, or commercial confidentiality, or personnel transactions, or

medical records, or enumerated exceptions of that kind. But the

residual clause, the general statement, should be that government

information is public information.

There should be an official, responsible to this Legislature, with

the final word — perhaps subject to an appeal to the courts — on the

releasing of any document that is called for by any member of the

public. I think that would be an enormous advance. Then we wouldn't

have to complain, as I had to complain earlier today, of the two most

important reports to the economy of this province not being available

to this House.

I would suggest a certain constitutional reform, in terms of a bill

of rights entrenched in our constitution, so that no government, of

itself, could trifle with it.

I would suggest that we put within the British

[ Page 89 ]

Columbia constitution those three classic remedies

of democratic liberalism, namely: the initiative, which gives the

citizenry of any jurisdiction the right, by a certain number of

signatures, to see that a thing be proposed, either to the Legislature

or to the public generally; the referendum, which is the mechanical

method of putting that to the public and thereby becoming a law and

binding upon the government; and the institution of recall, which means

that if 1, or any other member of this House, become an object of such

dissatisfaction among my constituents, a certain number of signatures

within my constituency can force a new election. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that that would be a healthy spur to the...

MR. WALLACE: Spur or burr?

MR. GIBSON: ...application of members to the wishes of their constituents.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Could you do a preferential ballot for that recall?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many signatures do you want, Gordon?

MR. GIBSON: I've been thinking about how many signatures

should be necessary. I would want to study what other jurisdictions do

— 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent.

MR. BARBER: But the preferential ballot?

MR, GIBSON: I'm getting to that in a moment.

MR. BARBER: Some of us are in two-man ridings, you know.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I see. The hon. member for Victoria, which is

a two-member riding, makes a very good point. He says there should be a

distinction as to which member is being recalled. I think that is fair.

MR. BARBER: By preferential ballot.

MR. GIBSON: I think that is fair.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier talks about the division of

powers in this country, too, I wonder if one of the things of great

usefulness in this nation we couldn't do mightn't be the calling of a

great constitutional conference which would say, in effect, that no

government in this country has been elected with a mandate to revise

the constitution; they've been elected for different reasons.

No government in this country has been elected with the majority

support of their entire electorate; very few have even been elected

with the support of more than 50 per cent of those voting. Therefore,

in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the governments of this country as a group are

not the ones — the right ones — to consider and amend our constitution.

It seems to me we should have a constitutional conference or college

elected from all parts of Canada for exactly that purpose. I suggest

that at this time in our history it might be exactly the forum needed

to thrash out some of the differences among Canadians; for western

separatists to air their grievances; for Quebec separatists to air

their grievances; to find, in general, if there is not some common

thread of harmony running through the totality of our country — I

believe there is — which we can settle on for our constitution for

perhaps the next 100 years, or however long it may last.

This is not a particularly novel or radical suggestion, Mr. Speaker.

The constitution of the United States, of course, was drafted in much

this way a couple of hundred years ago. The constitutions of various

states of the union in that country are still revised at regular

intervals by exactly such a constitutional conference, I think we could

use such a device in Canada. I think it could contribute to national

harmony.

The last piece of democratic reform, I would suggest, is electoral

reform. I advocate, as I have for quite a while, the return of the

single transferable ballot to British Columbia.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): If you were in government, would you want that?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Member. If I was in government I would

want that. I hope that some of my former colleagues who are now in

government will continue to want that, because I know that they wanted

it before and I haven't seen any motion on it recently. Something's got

to be done if anything is to happen before the next election. We

haven't even had that commission on electoral reform which was promised

in the throne speech last year.

I have a quote from the Premier of the province from February 25: "A

thorough study of B.C. electoral law will be launched in time to

introduce reforms well before the next election, Premier Bill Bennett

promised Tuesday."

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got to go for five years anyway.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe that means they're going five years, Mr.

Member, I don't know. Maybe they're going to change the law to go six

years. But the fact of the matter is it should have been appointed now

if anything is to happen. To me, this is of absolute, cardinal

importance. The advantages of a, single, transferable ballot as opposed

to our existing system, in a case where there is a multi-party system,

are well

[ Page 90 ]

known. It gives a sensitive public response on

positive issues because it requires that whoever is elected in any

given constitutuency must attract a majority in that constitutuency,

must enjoy positive majority support in that constituency. Our current

system, Mr. Speaker, responds to negative impulses.

In 1972, what the electorate in British Columbia was telling the

government that was elected was that it was against the government that

had been headed by W.A.C. Bennett, that it was against what it was

throwing out, not that it was for that which came in. And the

government that came in made the mistake of thinking that they had been

voted for, rather than somebody else having been voted against, and

they found to their sorrow three years later that they were wrong.

The election in Quebec in 1976 was not pro-Rene Levesque; it was

anti-Bourassa. I'd say so. I would definitely say so. The percentage

that Mr. Levesque achieved was something in the neighbourhood of 41 per

cent — very similar, Mr. Member, to what your party received in 1972,

about a point more. And I think that he reflects — he and his

separatist platform — the underlying sentiment of his province no more

than you and your socialist platform represented the underlying

sentiment of this province in 1972. That's the trouble with the kind of

voting system we currently have in a multi-party situation and in an

ideological party situation where feelings become polarized and people

spend their time voting against.

MR. MACDONALD: We're losing Howe Street.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the most recent Premier in our

province, now the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) and the new

Premier of Quebec share this in common: they thought they had a mandate

for their ideas. They did not, and yet they had the power to implement

them. That is when you get into trouble, because an electoral system

that doesn't require that power coincide with political support is not

a good one. It was one reason, I suggest to you, sir, for the

tremendous rejection of the NDP government in 1975.

It is absolutely true, as Mr. W.A.C. Bennett used to say, that the

transferable ballot makes it easier to defeat governments. But, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that except for the government particularly

concerned with that, that's an advantage, because it would be a good

thing if governments were more regularly defeated in our province and

in our country.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I certainly recommend that voting system

federally as well. I've done so privately and publicly and I think it

would be a very good thing in the federal situation. I wish they would

show leadership in this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you recommending the government be defeated, then?

MR. GIBSON: When the voters are ready, Mr. Premier. When the voters are ready.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that package of four items, if adopted by

this province, could do a great deal to increase the responsiveness and

sensitivity of government in British Columbia.

I want to say just a very few brief words about my constituency. I'm

honoured to represent North Vancouver–Capilano in this House. The

people in my constituency have very few axes to grind. They mostly want

good government. There are a few important local issues that I will be

pursuing with the ministers concerned during the session, concerning

principally highways: the Upper Levels road; the new Lower Levels road

that we need; the Burrard Inlet Ferry, which I think is going to be a

great success when it finally gets on stream; the hospital addition

which was cancelled and which we want to have. I will take these things

up with the ministers during the year and I would like to take this

occasion as well to pay tribute to the fact that we have a new mayor in

the District of North Vancouver, Mayor Don Bell, who was here on

opening day, and at the same time pay tribute to the retiring mayor,

Mr. Ron Andrews, who did a wonderful job as mayor, over 17 years on the

council, I think, in one capacity and another and who was a respected

candidate at times of provincial elections as well. I'd like to pay

that tribute to him.

Just before I sit down, Mr. Speaker — I studied yesterday's Hansard

and I must say the opposition leader (Mr. Barrett) was having a bit of

fun on two subjects in his talk. He made some mention of mining

taxation and he imputed some motives to me as to why I had been saying

a few of the things recently to the public I have been saying about his

party, and I wouldn't want either of those two remarks of the former

Premier taken seriously, at least not without rebuttal, so I will do

so, very briefly.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to mining taxation, the member for

Vancouver East was continuing the same old distortions that he so

effectively used during his term in office. It's one of the reasons he

was thrown out. He was talking about the mining tax as if it were a 5

per cent sales tax. When he was Premier, he never put a 5 per cent

sales tax on carrots, he never put it on fish, never put a 5 per cent

sales tax on trees or natural gas. All of these things were handled in

a different way. You tax each industry in this province in the way that

is the most economically productive way to tax it. You don't follow a

stupid, dogmatic approach, which is what the former government followed

in terms of mining taxation. Comparing it to a 5 per cent sales tax is

nothing but a clever

[ Page 91 ]

distortion.

Mr. Speaker, the people who work in the mining business know that.

I'm not concerned about the big companies. They can look after

themselves; they can go anywhere in this world. But I am concerned

about the workers in this province who lost 5,000 jobs in the

exploration industry as a result of the activities of that former

government. I am concerned about more thousands who didn't get jobs in

mines that otherwise would have been developed.

MR. MACDONALD: What about the Turner budget? What effect did that have?

MR. GIBSON: What effect did that have? What I noticed, Mr.

Member for Vancouver East, is that it didn't seem to have much impact

on the rest of Canada. British Columbia's mining problem was home-grown

by that government of which you used to be a member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: You don't believe that? The people who are

employed in the mining industry in this province know. You look at how

the mining constituencies voted at the last election. They voted

against your party because they knew what that legislation did for them,

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: A mining employee voting for you is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's your best line, Gordon.

MR. NICOLSON: Why did I win in Salmo?

MR. WALLACE: The best line in the whole speech!

AN HON. MEMBER: The miners weren't fooled.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the former Premier also had some

allegations that my criticisms of the NDP were somehow motivated by a

desire to move over to the Social Credit Party. I wish to reassure both

him and the Social Credit Party that it is not the case.

MR. WALLACE: You can speak for me, too, if you like, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: It would be a little bit like thinking that

Chinese criticism of the Russians meant they wanted to merge with the

United States or something like that. It's a completely different issue.

MR. MACDONALD: They're too far left for you.

MR, GIBSON: My comments on his party indicate two things: one

is some kind of a sense of consistency. I criticized the NDP when they

were government. The fact that the NDP are now opposition doesn't

change that need for criticism, because the policies are still the

same. I have and will continue to criticize the NDP, not so much in

this chamber because the idea here is to criticize the government, and

that's right, but around this province, because I believe, in spite of

the unquestioned sincerity, and integrity, and personal charm, that the

NDP represents tremendous threat to the well-being of this province. I

can't ignore that.

I believe it because of the consistent firing-up of the

something-for-nothing philosophy, the philosophy that says, "the world

owes us a living here in British Columbia," the philosophy that says

"rip off the large corporations and rip off the rest of the world with

our high resource prices and we'll live without working," That kind of

idea was gotten across.

I oppose it because of the us-against-then philosophy which was

generated. In that context, Mr. Speaker, it was just like Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett, who used to do the same thing: divide and rule; set one

segment of society against another; us against them. It's divisive;

it's not healing.

I oppose it because of the expenditure standards that were set by

that government, which went a long way towards pricing British Columbia

out of competition in this world. I oppose it because of the policies

that were espoused that rendered investment in this province

unattractive, both because of taxation practices and because of

uncertainty and unpredictability of government action in the future and

fear of that.

But those are only ways and means. The economy is not important in

itself. That's not the greatest charge I have. The greatest charge I

have is that the NDP by its term in office betrayed the social reform

that they were elected for. I believe in social reform. They betrayed

the principles that since 1933 socialists in this province had been

working for. They blew them in three short years. That's what the

economics of the NDP did, and they're still at it.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Nonsense!

MR. GIBSON: They're still at it — reaching back from the grave, as a matter of fact.

I cannot let pass this statement which the Leader of the Opposition

made yesterday when speaking of the Kitimat pipeline, which may or may

not be a good thing. That's for public hearings and study to

[ Page 92 ]

decide. He said that if his government ever got

back in office he would seize 15 per cent of that oil. Mr. Speaker,

whether that pipeline is a good idea or not, that is a clear statement

of NDP policy. That is reaching back from the political grave to

sabotage the investment climate in this province.

What he was saying was that a new NDP government would repudiate the

deals entered into by a democratically elected government of this

province. Whatever I may think of them, they are the democratically

elected government of the day. To me, that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, so

I'll say this. I don't think either of the two main parties in British

Columbia has the right answer. I'll criticize both of them as I see it

and do my best to put forward solutions. I'm proud to be an

alternative; I'm proud to be a Liberal, and that's what I'm going to

stay!

MR. WALLACE: I just want to say that I appreciate being back

in this chamber and would like to extend a welcome to the three new

ministers who were appointed to cabinet during recess of the House.

I would also like to start by quoting one or two of the rather

impressive sentences in the very first prayer that was uttered by Mr.

Archer on Friday last. He said, referring to those of us in the

chamber: "May they be able to disagree without being disagreeable, and

to differ without being difficult." He said: "Save us all from being

afraid of a new idea, or unreceptive to a new thought. Help us to learn

something today that will make us a little wiser at its close."

I know that in this chamber, in fact in the world of politics, if

there are any people who need prayers said for them it's us. But

guidelines are popular these days and it seems to me that that was a

most appropriate guideline on which to start in regard to our

expectations in debate in the months ahead. Yet as I look around,

although we've been away for six months, and as I listen to some of the

proceedings, I have the awful feeling that I've never really been away.

It all sounds rather familiar. The faces are the same, some of them

more tanned than others, and the basic problems are the same. In fact

the very gamesmanship which so characterizes this chamber seems to have

picked up where we left off.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) has a changed face; he's saving on razor blades,

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of water has flowed under the political bridges since

we sat here last spring. There are many urgent issues that do require scrutiny

in debate and I think it is regrettable — and I mean this without partisan flavour

— that we did not have a fall session of the Legislature. There are many serious

issues which are touching the lives of all British Columbians, and which are

receiving less public scrutiny in debate than they deserve.

Important legislation from the 1976 spring session died on the order

paper. I want to quote the proposed amendments to the Energy Act as an

example, since these were designed, among other purposes, to try and

give a better deal to gas station operators. Yet in the throne speech

the language says that the government "is looking for ways to ensure

that small retailers of gasoline will continue to play an important

role in the marketing of gas," which leaves the clear impression that

the government has backed away from a specific commitment when already

amendments to the Energy Act were on the order paper last spring.

Other bills will be introduced — as the Premier has stated — but

these bills, combined with the ones that are already left on the order

paper, will add up to what, as the Premier himself has agreed in public

prior to this session, will be a very lengthy list of legislation. When

you add the throne speech debate, the budget address and the estimates

of 18 different ministries, it is indeed clear that we face a very long

session, provided we do justice to our responsibilities.

I would suggest that that's exactly the crunch, because there's a

real danger of returning to former days which were too easily termed

"legislation by exhaustion," where we either sit into the early hours

of the morning or sit morning, noon and night, which allows no time for

proper study of legislation, or the session drags on and on for months.

And as the session lengthens, we all become less efficient, less

tolerant, more irritable and less productive. The main consequence is

the passage of new legislation which does not receive proper study, and

really that's to the detriment of all British Columbians.

I would suggest that for a province like British Columbia, with the

current problems that face us and a budget approximating $4 billion, we

should have two sessions each year. I would suggest to the Premier that

he take the suggestion without party bias and take it into serious

consideration during 1977.

One might consider a selfish benefit from not having a fall session

is that it allows politicians to travel. I did a fair amount of

travelling in the province during the summer and fall. It makes me able

to agree with the Premier, or with the throne speech, that the primary

problem in British Columbia is certainly our sluggish economy, which is

producing what, he quite honestly states, is an unacceptably high level

of unemployment.

I was also able to determine in my travels that, despite rumours to

the contrary, the Conservative Party is alive and well, and that more

and more people are keen to take a look at a moderate, responsible

political position which attempts to blend the best of the former and

present governments, without their obvious excesses. I'm looking right

[ Page 93 ]

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Mr. Chabot) when I make that last comment.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As party leader, I hope to play a useful role by

spelling out moderate, common-sense positions, in an attempt to balance

the debates which, as the Liberal leader has just said, are so often

acutely polarized in this chamber. I hope to offer useful, positive,

constructive criticism, and to offer alternatives.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that while we are making some progress in

the ridings, I even appear to be making some progress in the buildings,

because I inherited an office with a carpet that had four different

types of carpet of four different shades, all threadbare to a varying

degree. But this has been replaced with a lovely green carpet, which is

one, uniform shade and has no holes in it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Very nice,

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it is very nice, Mr. Minister of Housing,

and I just want to say that I appreciate it, and I want to thank the

Department of Public Works.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Does it go past the doorway?

MR. WALLACE: No, it stops at the doorway. But what is not

appreciated is the comment of one would-be wit who told me that that

was the closest I was ever going to get to the Premier's office.

Apparently the carpet came from the office of the former Premier.

To talk in general terms first of all, Mr. Speaker, about the throne

speech: the speech seems to recognize to a greater degree, I'm happy to

think, than before that the role of a modern, enlightened government is

to provide a high quality of life for our citizens. It would seem that

the government has recognized this wider scope of responsibility

compared to its former posture, which revered a balanced budget to the

exclusion of many human needs. I welcome the change and will give that

kind of thrust of government my support. However, it is difficult to

have a high quality of life if you're unemployed and can see little

prospect of employment in the future. We have had figures bandied

about, and they vary from month to month as we all know, and they can

be put up or down or seasonally adjusted, or whatever. But there's no

doubt that there were somewhere around 92,000 unemployed in British

Columbia last month. Last July, the figure was 9.3 per cent, which was

the highest in this province for any summer month since Stats Canada or

its equivalent first started keeping statistics in 1946. This, I think,

was a most distressing figure in a province which depends, to the

degree that we do, on tourism as one of our main industries, and we can

go into that later in later debates.

One of the main reasons that this government was elected was its

commitment to get the B.C. economy rolling again, by pledging to

restore investor confidence and to bring initiative, stability and

efficiency to the process of governing. The Leader of the Opposition

referred to the same ad that I have in front of me from that election,

with enormous black lettering saying that 100,000 people are out of

work. It says: "Unemployment is the most serious issue of this

election, and to get B.C. moving again we need a government that will

work with it responsibly with industries, and establish strong policies

that will create jobs. We need a government that will end mistrust and

restore confidence." And one of the questions posed is: "Can we afford

the Barrett way?" With regret, I would have to suggest to the people of

British Columbia that we are no better off in regard to unemployment —

which this government recognized as being our main problem — than we

were in December '75.

1 read an interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, from an American

magazine called Business Week, that talks about the fact that British

Columbia has always been looked upon as Lotus-land. The comments are

rather interesting, to the effect that:

"British Columbia always seemed destined to be a place

where things become bigger and better, as businessmen considered

themselves the last of the true entrepreneurs, but today we hear more

grumbling than boasting in Lotus-land."

The article, which is written by George Froehlich, says:

"Many British Columbians felt they were refurbishing their

dream when they turned out Barrett and brought in as Premier a staunch free-enterpriser,

William Richards Bennett, the 44-year-old son of W.A.C. Bennett, whose 20 years

of conservative rule perpetuated the Lotus-land image. The younger Bennett rode

to power on promises to restore B.C.'s economic vigour through businesslike

management, without cutting back on social services. But Bennett's pay-as-you-go

conservatism has sent taxes soaring, to the alienation of much of his business

support. Meanwhile, B.C.'s principal industry, forest products, which provides

50 per cent of the gross provincial product, is in deep trouble, and labour

is growing increasingly restive over recent layoffs. Businessmen are beginning

to wonder when Bennett's free-enterprise government will begin to ease

their problems."

I think that very accurately sums up the sense of disappointment that many British Columbians must

[ Page 94 ]

have, particularly those who voted to elect a

Social Credit government on the understanding that our main economic

problems would be solved.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech is correct in pointing out

that we must remain competitive and avoid pricing ourselves out of

world markets through the high costs of production. The government

appeals for restraint and hard work asks people to hold down their

demands this year and next and says that the need for restraint and the

lowering of expectations in all sectors of the provincial economy must

continue. I just suggest that that kind of appeal rings rather hollow

when we recall the kind of promises and commitments that were made at

election time. I don't think we can blame people in Canada when they

look at both federal and provincial politicians who seek support on the

hustings by elevating the expectations of the voter and then these same

politicians tell the voter, once they're elected, that it's their

patriotic responsibility to restrain their demands.

Despite all this, I personally would support anti-inflation

measures, provided they are applied fairly and equitably to all sectors

of society. This has not been occurring and contributes a great deal to

continuing unrest. The main reason, I would say, that the measures have

not been applied fairly and equitably to all sectors is surely

demonstrated in the example of B.C. Hydro, where three rate increases

will be imposed between March, 1975, and March, 1977. While the figures

vary depending on the class of consumer, the average increase in these

two years will be in the order of 60 per cent. This, Mr. Speaker, seems

a complete contradiction by government — or an arm of government — and

a double standard that can only alienate citizens from government and

deny the government the very cooperation which the throne speech is

seeking. It's a little bit like the old ancient statement that justice

must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I think that if

governments are asking individuals to make sacrifices and restrain

their demands, this has to be seen to be applicable throughout society.

I might say in passing that some of the commercial users of

electricity — mention of a forest products company, as I recall...that

two of the recent increases put up the price of production of pulp by

$4 a ton. I think one could legitimately ask the question: is this how

we remain competitive in world markets?

It was somewhat reassuring that the Premier is quoted in the Colonist

of January 11 that perhaps he should give consideration to establishing

a body similar to the former Public Utilities Commission to oversee

Crown corporation increases. It's equally interesting that the

following day the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), hearing of this

statement by the Premier, is quoted as saying: "There's a tendency

towards the ridiculous here. Do we set up another public body to review

what a public body is doing?"

I just wonder whether the Premier and the Minister of Energy should

maybe get their act together; or maybe the Minister of Energy is

competing with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

for the distinction of becoming the Minister of Embarrassment to the

Premier.

But basically the fundamental issue we should be discussing in the

session, in the appropriate debates, is the economy, since without a

solid, healthy, enlarging economy we can talk as long as we wish about

social reforms, but if the funding isn't there from a sound economy

then programmes of social improvement are just not possible.

Unfortunately, the throne speech is very vague as to the plans and

measures that it plans to utilize to deal with the problems of the

economy.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with unemployment and

job-creation measures and borrowing, I have listened very carefully

over recent years to both the former government and this government,

and I am not particularly impressed by the capacity of either in the

manner in which they've tackled the problem of unemployment. I don't

think it would be unfair to say: a plague on both your houses. While

there's little or no evidence of real initiatives to create new jobs,

we certainly have the ministers of this government telling us about all

the corporations and companies that are busy leaving British Columbia.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spoke to

the North Vancouver-Capilano Social Credit constituency back in

September last year. While the details he was using were incomplete

from his department, he stated that 30 manufacturing companies have

left British Columbia at a cost of nearly 8,000 jobs. Again, I just

have to ask the question: was this government not elected for the very

primary reason that it would revive the British Columbia economy and

restore the confidence of investors so new corporations and new

enterprises would move into the province? And here we have a very frank

admission from the Minister of Economic Development that the opposite

continues to happen, that companies are leaving British Columbia.

There are many reasons, including the high cost of production and

labour unrest, of which we're all well aware, but there's one other

reason which I thought the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) mentioned in a speech the other day in a manner which

really surprised me. He acknowledged that the other reason is a fear

that the NDP would return to power in British Columbia. The Minister of

Mines said that.

There's a report in The Vancouver Sun of January 12:

[ Page 95 ]

"James Chabot told the annual meeting of the B.C. and

Yukon Chamber of Mines in Vancouver that the mining industry could wait

three years until the next election to see who wins, but the result

would be no expansion, no jobs, and the economy slumps, and the voter

would conclude that there must be something wrong with free enterprise."

I think that's a very revealing comment. I think it's absolutely

correct that among the reasons I've mentioned there is the additional

reason.

I think it was very well put in another statement by the Chamber of

Commerce of British Columbia. This was quoted on September 3,1976, when

the chamber of commerce presented its brief to the cabinet. Among other

statements the chamber of commerce stated: "Investors are gravely

concerned that legislation which could so easily be imposed in 1974 and

so easily removed in 1976 can just as easily be reimposed at some time

in the future." That, I think, is an absolutely logical observation.

Mind you, logic isn't something that flourishes in politics.

Nevertheless, the statement, I think, is very valid — that even

although there are many other reasons, such as high cost of production

and labour unrest, many investors have not been encouraged by the first

year in office of this government. Having reached that conclusion,

there seems to be a reluctance to risk their dollars when in 1978 or

1979, or whatever year the next election is held, there is a real

thought that the NDP could return to power.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that it will be relatively

easy for the NDP to return to power unless there is some definite shift

in voter thinking in British Columbia, for the very simple reason that

at the moment, and for several years, voters have only really had two

choices. The practice of voters is one of finally becoming fed up with

the government of the day, whether it's provincial, federal, in this

province, or anywhere else. When voters lose confidence in the

government of the day, they always vote for the next largest political

force that is available to them.

With the greatest respect to the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), and

with no intention to insult my own party, it is abundantly clear in

British Columbia that if neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative

Party becomes a more acceptable, viable political force in this

province, then inevitably, somewhere down the road, the NDP will return

to power in this province. That is as predictable as tomorrow's sun

rising if there is no strong, second free-enterprise choice for the

voters of British Columbia.

I don't think there's any profound wisdom in what I've just said.

The history of this province shows it very clearly. At the present

time, the voters in British Columbia are not showing any particular

interest in creating a second free-enterprise party. I say that with

candour, as one of the leaders trying to create that second

free-enterprise force.

I say that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), in acknowledging one of the reasons that investors are

reluctant to put up their money.... Even acknowledging that there are

cost factors, and labour unrest, and better tax benefits in the United

States — even allowing for all that — there are many investors who

would like to put their money into British Columbia, but are very much

afraid that the NDP government may well return to this province in the

not-too-distant future.

I recognize that it's the responsibility of my party, and myself as

leader, to try and prove to the people in this province that our party

has the programmes and the people and the organization to provide the

kind of moderate, responsible and responsive government which would

bring to a halt, or at least modify, the swings of the pendulum which

have not been good for British Columbia, but which have been visible to

everybody in recent years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would say that in the last four years at least — again, I say this

regardless of political label — neither of the two governments has

really shown convincingly that it can deal with the serious economic

problems and come up with the initiatives to solve them.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that we must try to minimize the

cost of production, if I could use the Liberal leader's frequent appeal

for increasing productivity, and we must try to reduce industrial

unrest — these are all very sensible and obviously necessary goals.

Again, it would seem that there is a great deal of lip service paid by

both provincial and federal governments, but very little in the way of

real action in pursuing these goals.

I'm talking about some of the things that the Liberal leader

mentioned earlier on this afternoon. I'm talking about profit sharing

by employees and worker representation on boards of management. These

practices seem to be well established in other countries, but all we

seem to do, by and large, in British Columbia, is talk about them and

say that it's a good idea.

It seems to me that if this government is a government that believes

in giving people initiatives rather than the whip, there should be some

programme by this time which should be unfolding to the private sector

in the form of incentives, whether they be tax incentives or otherwise,

to try and attract industry to British Columbia.

The concept of worker representation on boards of management and

profit sharing, I think, would go a long way towards encouraging a

happier and more contented work force with fewer interruptions.

[ Page 96 ]

Unfortunately, the government, in my opinion, moved

in exactly the opposite direction to stimulate the economy when at the

last budget it brought in very substantial tax increases and imposed

certain rates, which the facts themselves show were excessive,

particularly in the form of ICBC rates which not only cleared off the

annual debt, but have produced a very substantial surplus which, I

understand, approximates to $52 million.

The increase in sales tax from 5 to 7 per cent, I think, is

generally acknowledged to have taken a very large amount of consumer

spending out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia, and

depressed retail sales.

I have a clipping somewhere where Woodward's Stores, for the first

time, not only acknowledge that retail business is flat, but Mr.

Woodward himself in June, 1976, is reported as saying that the loss

sustained by the company in the first quarter was the first that the

company has ever sustained in 50 years of business.

There is a lot more detail in his statement, but I just wish to make

the point that the tax increases have created the problem of depression

in consumer sales. That, in turn, can only lead to further unemployment

for the obvious reason that if businesses are not selling their goods,

they lay off staff. I would like to think that British Columbia could

take a look at the United States and the new president, Jimmy Carter,

and try to show some of the initiatives in regard to tax cuts which he

seems to feel are a primary manner in which the American economy can be

stimulated. I think I read just about every single day in the

newspapers that once the American economy picks up, Canada, and British

Columbia in particular, are bound to benefit.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of mention is made of development of our national

resources. I'm telling the House nothing new when we say that developing

these resources always demands a balancing of positive factors, such as the

creation of jobs, against environmental and ecological factors. The one valuable

source of revenue which has the positive value of creating jobs without the

negative value is, of course, the tourist industry. I very much want to support

this government expressing its view in the throne speech that it wishes to create

a greater awareness of the benefits of tourism to the people in British Columbia.

We have a magnificent province which simply lends itself to tourism

because of its natural beauty, but we have to wonder if we are using

these natural assets wisely and carefully. We certainly must try to be

friendly and considerate hosts, welcoming tourists with courteous and

hospitable service at fair and reasonable costs.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to discuss tourism in greater detail in

the budget, but I think one point must be made and made in the clearest

and most unmistakable way. I am talking about the very bitter debate

that has raged around the raising of ferry fares between Vancouver

Island and the mainland. I just don't care how often or how long the

stubborn Minister of Transport protests that the doubling of ferry

rates did not seriously damage the tourist industry on Vancouver

Island, and ask him to look at his own figures and at least try to be

fair and reasonable in debate.

We've got the most absolutely convincing figures for the whole year

and I just want to place some of these figures on record: between

Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen, up until May 31, vehicles were up by 3.5 per

cent; passengers were up by 3.6 per cent. The rates were doubled on

June 1 and between June and December vehicles were down by 24 per cent;

passengers were down by 20 per cent. June was the worst month of all:

vehicles were down by 34.7 per cent; passengers down by 30.3 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not about to argue that there were other

factors; I admit there were other factors. But the timing, the change

of utilization by passengers and vehicles and the subsequent

followup.... Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is

just not tourists who use the ferry system; there are business persons

in British Columbia who depend on that as part of their integral

business affairs and doing business in the province. All I am saying is

that the figures show very clearly that the sudden increase was

excessive and unreasonable. I would suggest that it is no defence to

say that just because of neglect — and it happens to have been neglect

by the same party — these rates have not been raised for years, despite

the rising costs. That's no defence, really, in my view, to suddenly

double the rates with the dramatic impact on employment on Vancouver

Island.

Why could we not learn from the national scene? There came a time

when the Arab nations put us all in a tremendous spot because of

dramatic tripling and quadrupling of the price of oil. Did Canada

suddenly try to jack up the price of oil in Canada suddenly by the same

amount? I think we could learn from the nationals. It's not much you

can learn from the federal Liberals, but that's one thing we could

learn, and that would be to phase in increases and prices, as was done

on the price of oil. As we all know, the impact on the user was

cushioned and, to some degree, the hardship, much as it was still a

hardship, was minimized.

I find this particular issue so terribly exercising and it's

difficult to keep my patience because it's so obvious, the rationale

and the validity of the points that can be made from these figures. And

I just say, Mr. Speaker, it makes little sense to double the rates and

reduce the number of passengers and vehicles by perhaps a third. The

net financial improvement in

[ Page 97 ]

income to the ferries is really of very little

value when the reduced amount of traffic has caused reduction in

employment on Vancouver Island, The loss of tourist business under

these circumstances, together with the unemployment of the residents of

Vancouver Island.... I'm thinking particularly of student employment

last summer. Many of these students depend very much on the tourists to

provide them with jobs. But when the restaurants and the motels and

other tourist facilities are just seeing fewer tourists they lay off

staff and the impact is one of considerable hardship.

I'm not overlooking the fact that some critics have expressed the

view that hotels and motels have not been charging fair rates, and I

plan to discuss that at greater length in the budget debate. But I will

say that I'm not even prepared simply to listen or pass opinions on

newspaper material. I want to meet with the industry and meet with all

sectors of it, and that meeting is being arranged. I would say that the

suggestion is receiving the cooperation of the local MLAs and MPs and I

think again a cooperative and non-partisan approach could bring

tremendous improvements for next summer. But just to discuss it and

look at the mistakes that might have been made is really no answer, Mr.

Speaker.

I just want to leave this particular issue with this thought: that

if the same number of passengers and vehicles who used the ferries in

1975 had continued to use them in 1976, and paid a 50 per cent increase

in fares, rather than 100 per cent increase, the net income to the

ferry system would have been the same. But, of course, with the

increased number of persons travelling to Vancouver Island the economy

as a whole would have been better off.

I think the point that must be mentioned, and mentioned again, is

that to raise fares or raise charges is sometimes necessary, provided

it is done in relation to the amount of the increase and a time

schedule. But there is a point where the raise in charges is

self-defeating, and the raise in taxes of one kind or another beyond a

certain point, particularly where we're dealing with a user service,

can lead, indeed, to not only no improvement in the income from the

ferries, perhaps, or a very modest increase, but other consequential

increases of unemployment.

I want to say a word about the coastal ferry issue, because I feel

that there has been very considerable hardship imposed on our northern

coastal communities by the withdrawal of the federal subsidy to

Northland Navigation in the first place.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the action of neither the federal

government nor this provincial government does them any credit. I had a

letter, or a copy of a letter, sent to me the other day, from the

chairman of the hospital board at Ocean Falls, saying that they could

not guarantee an on-going supply of fresh food for the hospital. Now it

seems to me that the federal government has been arrogant in the

extreme at withdrawing the federal subsidy. But I think that the

provincial government must show more initiative and understanding of

the hardships to the people living in these small northern coastal

communities while the minister attempts to carry out negotiations with

what I think is a very intransigent and hard-hearted federal government

on this issue. I think it's very much a primary responsibility of the

provincial government to ensure that our northern residents receive

satisfactory transportation services and that they not be left stranded

while a provincial-federal hassle ensues. In fact, if one was fairly

realistic on this issue, I suppose we could conclude that the argument

over federal subsidies to ferries on the west coast will probably never

be settled. The federal government pleads a belief in Confederation out

of one side of its mouth, and then proceeds to act in a thoroughly

unfair and inequitable manner by providing $100 million in subsidies to

the cast coast ferries, and provides a mere pittance to the west coast.

Now in the spirit of Confederation — and I would like to say a few

words about that later — I fully support the concept of equalization

payments, by which per capita income and other sources of revenue are

used to calculate grants that should be made available to the poorer

provinces, and I believe that a rich province like British Columbia

should help — through equalization payments — the maritime provinces.

What I do not accept is that we should pay twice, and this, in

effect, is what is happening on the issue of ferry subsidies, with a

discriminatory policy at the federal level which I think is completely

unfair to British Columbia. I share and I sense the minister's

frustration on this issue, but I really would just leave him with this

thought: it may well be in politics reassuring to each of us as

individuals, perhaps, to be correct in our argument, to spell out the

inequity or the inequitable element in this particular issue, but I

think what is completely unacceptable is to leave the people of our

northern communities in this kind of hardship while we, in all good

faith, hope to negotiate an agreement with the federal government. I

think we can see a similar and a very distressing comparison, which has

existed for all the years that I've seen in British Columbia, in regard

to the nursing-home problems in British Columbia where, time and time

again, the reason why we cannot provide some insurance coverage and

some more modern facilities for our elderly senior citizens who are

sick and can't stay in their own homes has been that there's no federal

cost-sharing. I want to touch on that subject in a minute, and I

realize that the groundrules are now changed. But for years and years,

while this province and this country have talked ab