[ Page 1051 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 37) Ms. Sanford.

Introduction and first reading — 1051

Oral Questions

Sneak preview of studies for polluters. Mr. Lea — 1051

Fringe benefits for student summer employees. Mr. Gibson 1051

Payments to hospitals. Mr. Wallace — 1051

Thompson River study report. Mr. Lea — 1052

Negotiations with Fraser Valley vegetable growers. Mrs. Wallace — 1053

Keep Women Alive Programme. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 1053

B.C. participation in The Kootenay Lake Study. Mr. Nicolson — 1053

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1054

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1058

Division on motion that the House go into Committee of Supply — 1058

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 14) .

Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 1058

Mr. Wallace — 1059

Mr. Lea — 1063

Mr. Levi — 1065

Mrs. Wallace — 1066

Mr. Skelly — 1067

Mr. D'Arcy — 1067

Mr. Stupich — 1070

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1070

Division on second reading — 1072

Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 1072

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1072

Mr. Wallace — 1072

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1072

Mr. Lea — 1072

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1073

Mr. Lea — 1073

Mr. Gibson — 1073

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1073

Mr. Wallace — 1073

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1073

Mr. Wallace — 1073

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1074

Mr. Nicolson — 1074

Mr. D'Arcy — 1075

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1075

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 1075

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1075

Mr. Gibson — 1075

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1075

Report stage — 1076

Division on third reading — 1076

Royal assent to bills — 1076

Appendix — 1076

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to grant leave so that we may make provision for a question period this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Immediately following introduction of bills?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

SNEAK PREVIEW OF

STUDIES FOR POLLUTERS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. Is it the policy of the government that, after an environmental study is completed, the polluters named in that study be given a sneak preview of that study prior to environmental groups or the public at large?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, you are couching the questions in terms of asking policy of the government, or future policy of the government. If you are going to question the minister, could you couch the question in such terms as it doesn't include words or direction on government policy, please?

MR. LEA: Is it now the habit of government, after having an environmental study done, that the polluters named in that environmental study be given a sneak preview of that study prior to environmental groups who have been concerned with that topic, or the public at large?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You are still framing your question in an argumentative manner which is not allowed.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a matter for the Chair to decide whether it's argumentative or not. That's part of the job of the Speaker during question period. Perhaps if the member would reconsider his question, and we'll pass on to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, he can frame it in such a manner that it will not offend the rules of the House.

FRINGE BENEFITS FOR

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYEES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: I would ask the minister if it's correct that the Department of Labour is presently negotiating with the B.C. Government Employees' Union to have student summer employees exempted from many of the fringe benefits that are currently given to temporary and seasonal staff — those hired under code 4 of the estimates — such as a reduction in holiday pay, for example.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano would be good enough to reframe the question? I wasn't listening. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed. We all need a holiday. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Maybe we could get about 30 seconds added to the question period, Mr. Speaker. Do I have the minister's attention?

Is it true, I ask the Minister of Labour, if his department is currently negotiating with the B.C. Government Employees' Union to have student summer employees exempted from many of the fringe benefits presently given to temporary and seasonal staff — those hired under code 4 — such as, for example, a lower rate of holiday pay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it is not true. I think that in circumstances of this kind one should perhaps be a little clearer than such an answer would indicate. We are not negotiating with the union — that is not the responsibility of my department — but I would advise the members that this question of summer student employment is one which is important to the B.C. Government Employees' Union, and discussions are taking place. But we are not opening up the agreement or renegotiating the matter at all.

PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Health

[ Page 1052 ]

with regard to payments to hospitals prior to March 31 and the nature of some of these payments, or the suggestion that they are not outright payments. I am referring particularly to the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria when I ask this question. Was a cheque in the value of just over $2 million sent to the Royal Jubilee Hospital in March, which was not accompanied by any written explanation but was preceded by a phone call explaining that the amount was a loan to be repaid during the 1976-77 fiscal year?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the question about the specific cheque as notice, but there have been no loans made to hospitals by our department.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Regardless then of the specific cheque to which I am referring, could I ask the minister: do any payments made to hospitals prior to March 31 in any way involve repayment during 1976-77, to the knowledge of the minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no. I answered that question. There are no loans made to hospitals. It is common practice by B.C. Hospital programmes to make advances to hospitals up to the end of March every year based on deficits that the hospitals may have, adjustments that are necessary for salary increases, increased costs of equipment, increased costs of supplies. It's normal practice — it's done every year, and it was done again this year — but I repeat, Mr. Speaker, there have been no loans made to hospitals which will be expected to be repaid.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The payment the minister refers to — one of the earlier payments — did state that this was to meet the deficit to which the minister has just referred, but this other cheque, or other payments, have been received by hospitals without any explanation as to what the amounts cover. This is puzzling to the hospitals.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, again I'll take this specific question as notice. I'd appreciate it if you would perhaps put it on the order paper. If you have others, then I would be happy to look into all of them for you specifically, but there are two separate ways in which payments are made to hospitals. One of them is to pick up deficits, if the government decides to do that. This year we decided to pick up two-thirds of the deficits of the hospitals who were in a deficit position.

There are also adjustments made, as I've mentioned, for other things, including salary increases which were unexpected, fringe benefits, sick leave to bring their per diem rate to a different level. That happens every year, and those are the two separate payments which are made. The deficit payment has nothing to do with the other.

THOMPSON RIVER STUDY REPORT

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. In answering a question previously in question period, the Minister of Environment said that a commitment had been made in 1976 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops that the Thompson River task force study that was done would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents. My question is: who made that commitment in 1974 or 1975, and who were the people at that meeting in January between Weyerhauser (Canada) Ltd., the city of Kamloops and members of the provincial government and the federal government?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): In answer to the first part of your question, my understanding is that the commitment made to the major polluters was made by the deputy minister level of the department at that time. The information which was permitted to be viewed by the major polluters was of a technical nature.

It was by way of explanation from the technical people of Environment Canada and the pollution control branch, so the people at the city of Kamloops level and Weyerhauser would understand precisely what the report was speaking about in technical language. I do not have the list of persons who were present at that meeting. However, I believe I did answer that in the previous question — representatives of Environment Canada and the pollution control branch and so on. I believe that was contained in my previous answer.

MR. LEA: I wonder if the minister would get the names for me of the people who met from Weyerhauser, from the city of Kamloops and from both levels of government, provincial and federal. The report that was shown, I believe, was a summary report which did not contain the technical data. That report is to follow. Is that not true?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My understanding of your original question was with reference to the report issued in January. The report issued in January was the final report.

MR. LEA: Supplementary. I wonder if the minister would check that, because it's my understanding that it was a summary report that was made available to Weyerhauser and Kamloops at that time and that the technical data report is yet to come out.

[ Page 1053 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister taking that as notice?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll take that as notice and supply you with that information.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRASER

VALLEY VEGETABLE GROWERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It's relative to the Fraser Valley vegetable growers, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering what progress has been made in negotiations with the growers, as I understand the government has been sitting with them. Inasmuch as planting season is coming so close to us now, I'm wondering just what his department is doing to rush this thing along so we get some settlement.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): In response to the member's question, I do want to say that in spite of the opposition saying that I haven't spent any time on agriculture, I have had a great number of meetings with the processors, with the food buyers, with the growers...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Let's get back to the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm trying to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

...and with the Department of Agriculture. We've had several meetings. We've explored various avenues in a sincere desire to help the growers in that area. We haven't reached a firm conclusion yet. Negotiation and studies are still going on and we're doing everything possible to be of assistance to those growers in that area because we realize the great economic effect that it has on the province and on agriculture in that particular area. I want to tell you, we're sincere!

KEEP WOMEN ALIVE PROGRAMME

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, some few weeks ago I was asked to report back on a grant that was given to the Keep Women Alive project, and this is the first opportunity that I've had to do so.

I would like to report to the House that I, along with the staff of the Provincial Secretary's department, have had an opportunity to study the grant given to the Keep Women Alive programme related to the cause of breast cancer. We met with representatives of the Women's Bureau of Vancouver, which is sponsoring the programme, and we're impressed with their whole-hearted sincerity and their desire to collect data which might assist in the conquering of this dread disease.

The project seeks the support of women in voluntarily providing information on their lifestyle by means of a questionnaire, and data from this source will be stored in a computer for later statistical analysis. We shall, moreover, take every opportunity to ensure to the greatest extent feasible that all information gathered as a result of this grant will be made available to help in the struggle against this disease. We have consulted with the Minister of Health and officials in his department and the Keep Women Alive programme will be monitored by Dr. George Elliot and Mr. W. Lyle, deputy ministers in the Health department, and by members of my staff.

The Keep Women Alive organization itself has agreed to make all of their data available to and to cooperate in every way with the cancer control agency.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the minister for her report. She mentioned that she has consulted with the Department of Health. I would ask her if the project has the support of the Department of Health.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The project itself, Mr. Speaker, was one of an educational nature. It will be monitored and it does have the cooperation of the Department of Health.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, does it have the support? That was the word I used.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A further supplementary to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Did the staff of the department or the minister consult with the Medical Advisory Grants Committee, referred to by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), before making the decision?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Member, my staff has given this a great deal of consideration in the past few weeks. The information is not at hand as to whether or not they consulted specifically with that advisory committee. I shall take that as notice.

B.C. PARTICIPATION IN

THE KOOTENAY LAKE STUDY

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): To the Minister of Environment. The federal Ministry of the Environment is doing a study called "The Kootenay Lake Study." It is headed by E.M. Clark, the pacific region director of the Inland Waters Directorate. I would ask the minister to what extent his department is involved or cooperating in the study.

[ Page 1054 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I want to take that question as notice and get the information for you.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, before speaking to and giving my support to this budget, let me congratulate you on your election as Speaker, and also the Deputy Speaker, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I know many members have risen and offered you their congratulations for the fairness with which you have already conducted the House and the fairness with which you will conduct it in the future. But nobody yet has recognized what I consider your first achievement and perhaps an innovative achievement. That was, for the first time ever in British Columbia, as Speaker-designate you have established a programme of instruction in parliamentary procedure for new MLAs, the first ever in this province.

Mr. Speaker, you are to be congratulated. As one of those who came in and lived in confusion for the first few months, as all members usually do, I know that the old members more than anyone appreciate what you have done for the new members. Perhaps the conduct of the House would indicate that next year you should conduct such a course for the older members in this assembly. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget. It is a budget for our times. It is a budget for our times, Mr. Speaker.

The other day the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) quoted the new Prime Minister of Great Britain, Prime Minister Callaghan. I thought his quote was apt because the situation Great Britain finds itself in is very similar to a situation that many countries find themselves in and could have been British Columbia's position to a greater degree had we continued on the course we were embarked upon in this province.

Prime Minister Callaghan said: "Let me say to you quite bluntly that despite the measures of the past 12 months we are still not earning the standard of life that we are enjoying. I think that is applicable in British Columbia as it is applicable to a greater degree in Great Britain and other countries of the world. We need greater opportunity, greater productivity. Governments today have a responsibility to expand the economy so we can, indeed, have the funds to send to government, so we can afford the standard of life that we have become accustomed to and so we can afford the standard of life and the benefits that we want for future generations.

This government was elected on December 11, took office on December 22, and as a new government we had three responsibilities facing us — three things any new government must do. Any new government must review the past, must deal with the realities of today, and Mr. Speaker, any new government must then accept the responsibility for shaping the future, planning our economy and planning our government so it can provide benefits and allow the people to build and expand this province.

In this Legislature during the budget debate we have been accused of fighting the last election. But, Mr. Speaker, we have looked back not in anger but in the very attempt to learn from the past, whether it was the immediate past or the past that has affected other governments, as B.C. has had a history of successive governments. We have looked back in order to be able to plan for today and build for the future.

There has been much talk about the financial position of British Columbia, much talk about the financial condition of the government as we found it, and there has been much confusion. It started with the Barrett/Stupich report. It went on to the declaration of Mr. Stowe, a respected civil servant. We then had the Clarkson, Gordon review. Then we have this budget. Yes, clouding the picture, perhaps, is last year's budget.

I will not attempt today in the Legislature to reopen the arguments of the past two weeks. I do say that we will be better able to understand the position of British Columbia and the confusion that surrounds all the varying opinions when the year-end review comes out in July, I hope, of this year, Mr. Minister of Finance. When that review comes out we will in fact have the accurate financial picture of where British Columbia is today and where it was when we took over. I think that history will prove that we have taken the correct course. In assessing the information available to us and in getting an independent financial review, this government has provided itself with the type of necessary information so that we can deal with the present and we can plan for the future.

Since December 11 and since December 22 we have been in government four months. Since that time we have moved, we have acted and, I believe, in the best traditions of the new government, we have led. All of our decisions have not been easy because we were faced with difficult decisions. We came in at a difficult time. We came in at a time when there was an immediacy surrounding several different areas. Whether it was ICBC, anti-inflation, whether it was the price freeze that was running out or the back-to-work order, this government was faced with immediate decisions. We accepted that responsibility, and from day one we started to act on those

[ Page 1055 ]

decisions.

The first thing we did was to send ministers to Ottawa, right in front of Christmas, to deal with the anti-inflation programme of the federal government, because during the election campaign the people of this province indicated to me, our members and candidates — as I am sure they did to all members of this assembly — their concern with the rising inflation and the loss of purchasing power, especially those on fixed incomes. This was a priority of our government, and we acted quickly. We acted quickly in initiating talks with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, what's more, we took an active part in making recommendations to the federal government.

I think the Minister of Finance is to be commended, along with those on our anti-inflation committee, for leading the fight against the export levy. A new government, a new minister who led the fight across Canada, rallied the support of other provincial governments, and stopped the federal government, not with confrontation but with sound argument, from embarking on a programme that would seriously have hampered not only this province but all of the western provinces at a time when we do not need restriction — we need opportunity — and at a time when we do need the type of economic hardship this would have created, especially following the difficult times our major export industries have had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right, it was December 23. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) brings that up and he should remember it, Mr. Speaker, because you know yourself that during the Christmas holidays it's impossible for even cabinet ministers in British Columbia to get flights to eastern Canada. We had to use one of the provincial planes that has a very limited range. I think it took the three ministers who went — was it 11 hours? — 11 hours, flying all night. They had one hour's sleep in preparation to hold intensive discussions with members of the Anti-Inflation Board of the federal government. Then it took them 16 hours to fly back, giving them three hours sleep before they reported to the cabinet of British Columbia before we left, Christmas Eve, to go home. If that's not dedication, and if that's not concern.... I think that indicated the work and responsibility this government was prepared to accept.

We also worked hard to develop an economic strategy for this province, an economic strategy that will build industry, create opportunity and get our people working again. This strategy will unfold itself, and I will deal with that a little later in speaking to the budget. But this was a first priority of your new government.

We also established social priorities in preparation for a programme to present before this Legislature. We had commitments from the election, but over and above just mere political commitments, these are commitments we carried as individuals; these are commitments we carry as a party. These are commitments we carry and feel towards the people of this province.

When we realized that the economy wasn't there to be able to meet all these commitments, to send the money to government, we had to break an election promise. We had to break a promise that we would not increase taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, these commitments and the ongoing programmes for people are more important than trying to justify a commitment not to increase taxes at this time. It was a decision we had to make.

We couldn't cut back on the existing programmes to people in health. We couldn't cut back on income support for those in need, and, Mr. Speaker, we couldn't cut back on the educational requirements. Even with the difficult decision of having to raise over $200 million in new taxes, today we're still faced with difficulties in budgeting for education. Even though we've given them an 11 per cent increase, they will have difficulty this year in the schools of our province. Even though we've given increases of over 20 per cent to health, to the point where it takes a quarter of the provincial budget, they're still going to have to effect economies to get the best value to provide the type of health care in this province that we would provide for our people. But we have gone beyond; we have provided a 20 per cent increase, and more, in income support.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone beyond British Columbia's traditional commitment. We will be placing before this Legislature new legislation that, in the tradition of British Columbia governments, will extend benefits to those people in genuine need beyond what we have ever provided before. The new GAIN programme — the Guaranteed Available Income for Need — will indeed re-establish British Columbia as the traditional leader in Canada in providing income support. A needed social commitment from government will place us in the position of leadership of all provinces in Canada, because the GAIN programme that will be brought in and introduced by our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will extend benefits to those 55 to 59, to single-parent families and will have extended benefits to handicapped.

We had to put up taxes to guarantee the continuing programmes, Mr. Speaker. We had to put up taxes to meet these commitments because these people were suffering from inflation; these people could not survive in the economic realities of British

[ Page 1056 ]

Columbia today. I do not apologize for breaking our commitment not to raise taxes; in fact, I'm proud that we've faced the realities and we've met our first commitment — a commitment to people.

Simply raising taxes, Mr. Speaker, is not a long-term solution in this province.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to cut it back?

HON.  MR. BENNETT: It's not a long-term solution. The funds for government are raised in a far better way by building the economy. Raising taxes was necessary because of the immediacy of the problem and the short time we had in which to solve it, but that's not the answer, Mr. Speaker. The long-term answer — and our answer — is building the economy. Our answer is building the economy and providing jobs for our people. Our answer, Mr. Speaker, is getting people to work, giving them an opportunity to build for themselves and build this province.

When you have people working and building and an economy growing, they'll have the money to send to government and we won't need tax increases. We will have an economy that will be able to provide greater benefits. We'll have an economy that will provide more for our people. If we're successful with such an economy, then it is possible, in the future, that perhaps someday we can reduce the heavy burden of taxation upon our people. With more people working and producing, less people will be takers and more will be givers, more will be producers. That's the only long-term solution for British Columbia.

I said we'd put up taxes, and we have. To get further better value for the taxpayers' dollars we've made some significant moves. We've cut the cost of government. Not in this speech, but later, Mr. Speaker, I will show this assembly that rather than trying to build a larger deficit, on the month-by-month financial projections of last year's budget by the staff inside, the greatest economies were effected from December to the end of March, and the greatest savings in the month-by-month expenditures were made since we became government. This is compared with what was saved in the previous months before the election. We haven't tried to building a larger deficit; we've tried to give good, efficient government.

Later in this Legislature I will provide the figures that will prove that since we became government we've cut the cost of government month by month, and provided better value for the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. Speaker, we've asked this Legislature to show leadership to this province — and perhaps leadership to the country, because I haven't seen it done anywhere else. We've asked the members of this

Legislature to take a cut in their salaries this year — not just freeze them, but take a cut, because leadership is more than words; leadership is leading by example. Sure, it's tough and sure you're underpaid, but nobody ran for their own personal economic security.

I think all of us ran because we were concerned about this province. We were prepared to show leadership by establishing programmes; this Legislature is being asked to show leadership by example. When we ask the people to show strength in the private sector, when we ask people to show restraint in the public sector, the example must start here. This Legislature will set an example, not only for British Columbia, but for the rest of Canada.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You didn't ask us; you told us!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this Legislature has been asked, because the bill is before the Legislature and is still to be debated. (Laughter.) It's still to be debated, but I am confident that it will pass unanimously.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that we had a strong social commitment and that we would have social programmes for the people of this province. Already there is a bill before this Legislature to increase the purchasing power or the spending power of our citizens over 65, our pioneers, by reducing their property taxes.

This will be just a first move in a continuing commitment to recognize the contribution of the early pioneers, those who built this province without asking for much, saved for their old age, bought their own homes, and all they want is the opportunity and right to continue living in their own homes and not to be taxed out of them. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when our senior citizens, 65 and over, pay no taxes on their homes.

I've already mentioned the GAIN programme that will again make B.C. a leader in income support. B.C. has been a leader, traditionally, in Canada — British Columbia in 1942 was the first province in Canada to give provincial income support to the federal old-age pension. Since that time succeeding governments have given us the highest benefits in all of Canada for our seniors. Yes, the last government expanded that programme into their Mincome programme and extended benefits, and they are to be congratulated.

We will take those traditional programmes, right from 1942, and expand them into the GAIN programme, and British Columbia again will provide and be a model for all of Canada to follow.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has come up with new housing incentives. All the members in this House, government and opposition alike, recognize that in the last few years housing has

[ Page 1057 ]

been priced beyond the reach of the average citizen of British Columbia. Housing no longer is affordable. It's no longer affordable because of prices. It's no longer affordable because of supply. It's no longer affordable because of the high price of land in a province where 96 per cent of the land is owned by the Crown.

He said that this government will start initiating a programme or expand a programme, because it's been continued in this province for many years — even in Prince George — making Crown land available to local governments so that our citizens can afford to buy and own their own piece of British Columbia. This programme has been so successful in Prince George that our fastest-growing city provides serviced lots at around $7,500.

We will expand this programme and we will encourage the type of decentralization to move people to where the land is available. Many have said that this type of land isn't available in the lower mainland where our population growth or density is at its highest and pressure is the greatest. Many governments have talked about decentralization and encouragement to reduce the pressure on the lower mainland.

I would hope that this government will be able to start the moves in its economic programmes to take the pressure away from this crowded area of British Columbia, and move our people into the vast interior and the north of what is an exciting province.

Mr. Speaker, along with housing decentralization, our government has given more to health in this budget, and the Minister of Health has announced that a new children's hospital will be initiated and started this year. I think all of us recognize the need for hospital facilities, and I was privileged to be present at a meeting called by the Minister of Health — and the Minister of Education was also there, and all of the representatives from the hospitals in the greater Vancouver area — to try and resolve and come up with a plan for hospital facilities.

One of the members there attending made a very revealing statement. He said: "You know, this is the first time we've all been in the same room in over 10 years."

I think the Minister of Health is to be congratulated. In the short time he's been minister he's trying to bring some cohesiveness. He's trying to provide a blueprint for health care in this province. I know he will accept the advice of members who've spoken in the Legislature on health care over the years. It's not a programme that belongs to any one political party. Health care is everybody's business, and we want health care provided in the most efficient and inexpensive way so more people can be covered. I like it when the Minister of Health says he's going to work on a programme of preventive health so people will not need the type of facilities of chronic care and extended care that we are using today.

Perhaps this Legislature should be prepared to show some leadership in physical fitness, and perhaps we'll have something more to say about that later. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is providing 11 per cent more in this budget to education in this province. Forget the early outcries of teachers who were going to lose their jobs. I think now the minister has explained the budget so the teachers are satisfied that no one will lose their jobs.

The school trustees and the Department of Education are going to work together to make sure that, above all, our children will receive a good education this year, because that's what the budget's all about. It's not about government or trustees, or really even the teachers. It's about our children receiving the best possible education.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour in his capacity of dealing with the very sensitive area of native Indian land claims, has taken significant steps since he has had this area of responsibility in assuming office. For the first time the federal government, the provincial government and members of the Nishga tribe have sat down in a three-party discussion in an attempt to resolve claims. This early meeting signals the type of cooperation and discussion that will take place. We do not expect early resolution but, Mr. Speaker, the fact that meetings are now being initiated and that these meetings have been started indicates that British Columbia again will take a leading position to resolve the Indian land claims, the cutoff land claims, and yes, the many complaints, in hopes that we can get early resolution to what is a very difficult problem. I commend the Minister of Labour.

People have said — and you hear it everywhere — we know what's wrong. The government is telling us that we've got to tighten our belts. It's a time of restraint. We've got to fight inflation. We've got to ask for less. Yes, it is such a time, but, Mr. Speaker, such a time is only with us temporarily, because we have a great future in this province.

Our Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is establishing an economic blueprint for all of British Columbia to utilize our resources, to encourage mining, to encourage the expansion and extraction of our coal. We will be talking about major announcements in regard to natural gas. We will bring great stability to our forest industry. The minister is working in conjunction with the Energy minister to provide the energy — perhaps our greatest resource in British Columbia — to be the basis of that prosperity. He's working also with our transportation facilities, the B.C. Rail, that perhaps is going through a difficult period. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that the means being taken and the plans being made will make that railway one of our proudest possessions again.

[ Page 1058 ]

Much discussion has taken place on the Northwest Rail Agreement and our involvement with expanding port facilities. Let me tell you, we haven't abandoned all the work of earlier governments, going back into the 60s, to bring about the type of co-ordination so that we can have the transportation system to move our produce and our resources to build the economy of British Columbia. But when we make the deal it will be a good deal for the people of British Columbia — not a deal accepted in desperation right in front of an election.

Our province has the energy, we have the resources, we have the people; we have the expected market, from our position related to the Pacific rim. Mr. Speaker, the economic blueprint for British Columbia as developed by this government and the Department of Economic Development in conjunction with the minister responsible for energy, the Minister of Mines, Petroleum and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), will guarantee the greatest surge of prosperity this province has ever seen.

Today we talk of restraint. While today we talk of the realities of the situation that faces us, as it does other governments, 1et us not lose our hope for the future or our confidence in this province, because our confidence should never be greater. All our hopes were never brighter. This recovery budget paves the way; this realistic budget paves the way. This government prepares to take a hard look at the realities of the financial situation, share the information with the public, make the tough decisions and assure our future.

Mr. Speaker, this government, as prior governments have left, will leave not only a history of strong social programmes and government benefits to people; we will leave more than that. When we leave office — as we will — this government will leave a sound economy, a strong economy that will guarantee that those programmes can not only be continued, but expanded in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I will be very brief This budget is a commitment to show necessary restraint while at the same time answering our ongoing commitment to sustain programmes which are absolutely essential, particularly in Health, Education and Human Resources. We characterize this budget as a recovery budget; it is a step on the road back, moving in a positive direction, to restore confidence in British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work and to live.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask that the question be placed.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 2: executive council, $636,598.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to move to second reading of Bill 14.

Leave granted.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this today, having said most of what I wanted to say last night.

I am much struck this morning by the contrast between this particular bill and, I thought, the very

[ Page 1059 ]

conciliatory speech given by the Premier in the House a few minutes ago. The Premier spoke at some length about an economic blueprint for the province which was to be developed by the Department of Economic Development in co-ordination with a couple of other departments, notably energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Forests. Mr. Speaker, this is just fine, but this is all in-house work, all inside government work, all work which is accessible to the people of this province only to the extent that the government chooses it to be.

I suggest that this institution we are being called upon to abolish today is exactly the kind of group which could have provided external comment on whatever sort of economic blueprint our government chooses to develop over the next few years. It's the kind of group that could itself have developed some kind of an economic blueprint in cooperation with labour and industry and environmental groups around this province. By putting the axe to this institute, as this bill would have us do, that sort of possibility is foreclosed.

Last night I canvassed the peculiar need for such an institute in British Columbia. Our economic problems are different than those of much of this country because of our natural resources base and because of our geographical position, our relationship with foreign markets and so on. To me the need is absolutely clear.

I canvassed the accomplishments of the institute to date, which have been very considerable, given the short time of operation, with a good many publications only now becoming public and a reasonably high standard of work in this very short period of time. I can say a little more about the accomplishment. I think that given the constraint it has been good.

I canvassed what I believe to be the government's thinking behind abolishing the institute. First, there is the concern about an outside auditing group in terms of economic policy which might conceivably cause them problems in the future in terms of criticism. No government likes criticism. I can understand that, but every government should also know that it could profit from criticism. That's one motive.

Another motive, I would suspect, would be to remove from the face of the province some of the more noticeable works of the previous government. Again, that's the right of the new government, but they ought to pick and choose very carefully where they do their pruning, and this is a bad place to do it.

That's the essence of my remarks on the grand policy of what's being done, Mr. Speaker. I will say a couple of things, and hope that the minister will respond to them or deal with them at some point, about the ongoing problems that the cancellation will cause. The institute had entered into certain long-term contracts, as for example with the

University of British Columbia Press for a publication schedule. I hope he will attend to any disruption that might be caused there.

I am particularly concerned about the field of thesis supervision which the institute has entered.into with a number of students. Some of them will be ongoing past this summer when the institute will be cancelled. What arrangements will be made — and I hope some can be made — for the continuing supervision of these theses?

These are some of the human problems you get into when you make a cancellation of this kind. They are important. I hope the minister will look at them sympathetically. But far more important is the ultimate impact on this province, because bereft of coherent external economic advice, no government — I care not about their particular wisdom — can do a good job in running an economy as unique and complex as that of our province.

The policy analysis institute was by no means the only external economic policy adviser. But it was, in embryonic form, certainly one of the most important. We should not be abolishing it today. Rather we should be discussing changes in the terms of reference, changes in personnel, if that is what the government wishes, and changes in the staff and the resources of the institute to do its work. We should not be abolishing it. I think it is a very, very retrograde step. I strongly oppose it and shall vote against it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to agree with the former speaker on the very arrogant way in which this bill was introduced for second reading, a bill of this importance — important not because of the sum of money involved but because of the basic principle underlying this bill. That principle is that simply in the complex, modern world, individuals and governments no longer have all the answers if, in fact, they ever did in a simpler world of years ago.

This institute, not only is it of very short duration — the bill setting it up was given royal assent on June 20, 1974. So it actually has been in existence less than two years. I think, as I have said several times in this House this session, that if we are to have a better Legislature and better government and more intelligent and informed participation by the opposition, then the very least we should have had on the introduction of second reading by this minister was some explanation of the motive of the government as to why this institute is being abolished.

We have already had other debates, Mr. Speaker, on the removal of other...not quite the same types of institutions as this but the removal of funds which we were told were necessary to balance the budget. In this case we are talking about money that was set up

[ Page 1060 ]

to the value of $5 million to provide revenue of about $400,000 a year to finance this institute.

In passing, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the report issued by the institute.... This is really not a large part of the argument as far as I am concerned, but on page 1 of the report it is mentioned that the government invested the $5 million for 20 years at 8 per cent. I would just like the minister perhaps to enlighten us as to just where that $5 million was placed. If it was invested for 20 years, is that something that can be changed, or is that a permanent long-term investment and that the government will not, in fact, be getting its hands on the $5 million even after we pass this bill? But that isn't a large part of the argument.

The big part of the argument is that the institute was set up in an era when life is complicated and the economies of either provincial or national governments are very complicated. I couldn't agree more with the Premier that the long-term future of this province surely does depend on the wise development of the very many natural resources with which this province is blessed. We will not prosper by just solving problems — financial problems — by increasing the tax burden on the individual citizen. That is why I opposed the budget — for the very simple reason not only that the tax increases in the budget were excessive and unnecessary, but they do not represent anything more than a very short-term approach to British Columbia's problems.

But the long-term approach is first of all to enhance the economy depending on our primary resources and diversify the economy by trying to create different types of jobs and making British Columbia less dependent on one or two primary forms of employment in forestry and mining, for example. On that theme I would think that both sides of the House are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who bothers to take even a very superficial look at the economic powers that are at play in our modern world realizes that, whether we like it or not, we're living very much in the age of experts, that problems facing populations and facing governments require the most comprehensive and the most talented people as advisers to try and provide the information to the politicians, governments and cabinet ministers on which planning decisions will be based.

The bill that we are about to abolish makes it very plain in section 3 that the institute shall, within the university system in the province, institute and carry out research in analytical programmes, provide training, teaching and consulting services, and disseminate information regarding Crown lands, public finance, industrial organization and employment in the province.

The very outline of these four specific pillars of economic development surely outlines in the clearest possible way what the purpose of this institute was — namely to provide an objective, non-political, highly informed institution of experts who would be able to carry out independent research on these four particular areas.

I think they are worth repeating — Crown lands, public finance, industrial organization and employment — because these are four of the subjects that come up again and again and again in the House as being so vital if this province is to realize its potential economically by developing resources, by making wise use of all lands, let alone Crown lands.

The constant problem we face of unemployment, now close to 9 per cent, and the challenge we face in trying to diversify the economy by bringing in different and new industries so we are not totally dependent on one or primary resources.... So the opposition, in the absence of any explanation from the minister, has to ask: why is this institute being abolished?

One would have to assume there are two or three possible answers. One would be that the institute has not fulfilled its original goal — and I very quickly outlined the goal of the institute and the functions of the institute in section 3 of the original bill. Since the institute has been in existence less than two years, it would have to be a fairly harsh decision by government if, within that length of time, the government has decided that the institute has failed in reaching its objective. I think it is fair to ask: is that enough time for an institute, with these complex functions and a diversity of important areas to research? Can we really say that within two years you can decide whether it's worth its cost or whether it's making a worthwhile contribution in providing objective information in these vital areas that I've outlined?

The Premier mentioned earlier this morning that we have a bright future, that the bright future depends on the wise and intelligent use of all our resources, both human and material, and that we should not have any doubt about our future as a province. But at the same time he stressed that the way that can be realized is by developing the economy. He placed great stress on the word "blueprint" and said that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible for the bill we are now debating, was about to integrate planning in relation to coal, transportation, port facilities, mining and so on. Again I say we are in agreement with that.

But I think it's the very height of complacency if this government feels that within the ranks of the civil service alone, or perhaps on the basis of occasional consultant advice, it can chart this very complex economic future without some objective, non-political outside advice.

I say this about any government — it wouldn't

[ Page 1061 ]

matter; this is not a particular criticism of this government — I just say that any government in the kind of economy we're living in, and certainly amidst the problems faced by British Columbia, should surely see that we've passed the stage of ad hoc decisions where you decide on one development in isolation from another, or where you decide only on the dollar value of a development, regardless of its impact on the environment.

We've certainly had lots of examples of that in British Columbia, where we build a dam to generate our own power without realizing that perhaps even a neighbouring province will suffer environmental consequences. Then we get into litigation, disharmony and argument with our neighbours. One could go on and cite many examples. So the need for objective, non-political advice in planning the economic blueprint, I think, is self-obvious. We come back to the question: why are we abolishing this institute?

The minister, I notice, has been taking notes, and while he was out of the room for a few minutes I just want to remind him that I asked a question: why is the institute being removed? It's only been in existence for two years, and I'm wondering if the conclusion is that it has already failed in reaching its objectives. I hope the minister, in closing the debate, will answer some of these questions.

From a layman's point of view, another element about governments of the modern era is that we get so much information after the event. We get legislation, for example, presented in this House, and in all Houses, where the government has taken great pains to maintain a reasonable or a complete amount of secrecy about the information on which the legislation has been predicated, and then the timeframe within which the opposition may intelligently criticize the legislation is that much restricted,

It would seem to me, when we're talking of long-term projects like the economic development of this province and some of the potential developments which the Premier told us would be forthcoming later on, that because of the long-term ramifications of some of these projects and the very specific effect on individuals in the province, depending upon whether the project is in their area of residence, that there should be the maximum amount of public information made available long before it ever gets to the point of being incorporated in legislation. That's why, without reflecting on anything that's previously gone on in the House, the private member's bill that I introduced was debated about freedom of information. This is another aspect of the same general theme that neither ordinary citizens nor their elected representatives should be kept waiting until the 11th hour, when this legislation hits the floor of the House, before we can be in a position to have access to a great deal of the research and information which is used in drawing up the legislation.

We have had examples, just within the last week or two in this House, where policy regarding developments in B.C. Hydro have been turned around or diverted to a different direction. The former government was all set to develop Hat Creek coal. Now we find from the present minister of the new government that that is not the primary direction in which B.C. Hydro is moving, and we will go back to damming more rivers rather than using coal to generate electricity at Hat Creek.

The public, I am sure, have reached the point where they want to have more information as to why these decisions are made. As long as these decisions are made within the confines of a Crown corporation or within the confines of cabinet, and then only after legislation is introduced in the House do we have some real opportunity to know the facts, figures and information on which the legislation was base, then I think we're being a less than adequate opposition. Decisions are being taken which will affect the people of British Columbia for many years to come.

Now I would have assumed — and the evidence points to the fact — that this institute was set up to have independent research and analysis done of these very big issues which have wide consequences for everybody in British Columbia — both economic consequences as to the cost of hydro, and environmental consequences if you build a $1 billion dam at Revelstoke, and on and on and on it goes. It just seems very unusual or unreasonable, when that kind of information, research and analysis is so all-important in getting this province to make the right decisions about economic and other developments, that we should, in fact, be abolishing this institute with no evidence that there's to be any kind of replacement.

That's the next question I'd like the minister to answer. No doubt, under the way this House operates, the bill is likely to pass, although I am opposed to removing the institute.

What does the government plan to do in ensuring that some other form of objective and non-political in-depth analysis of these problems will be available to the government once the institute's abolished? It leaves the unfortunate feeling, Mr. Speaker, when we consider that this institute is to be abolished, that this government in some way is anti-academic. They're afraid even to listen or give the opportunity to some of the highly trained experts in a variety of fields to tell the government in a very objective and open and thoroughly public way what they as experts believe should be done in these different areas of unemployment and industrial organization, crown lands and finance.

It's almost, Mr. Speaker, as though they're afraid that the public would be convinced by the objective

[ Page 1062 ]

and valid strength of their arguments, and this would give the government less room to manoeuvre in actually deciding the policies which are more politically suitable rather than practically suitable from all these different points of view that I've mentioned: economic, financial, environmental and so on.

I don't have the same awareness of all the different projects to which the Liberal leader referred to, which this institute has already carried out. The projects are all listed and the reports are listed at the back of the report. I just want to say frankly that I'm not familiar with very many of them but I'm very familiar with the report on the ferry services. I can't think of a more forthright, reasonable, very easily understood report which the institute has put forward in trying to give the people of British Columbia a very accurate and up-to-date appraisal of just what the problems are in the ferry system.

Someone used the phrase the other day that one swallow doesn't make a summer, and I agree that one report does not justify this institute. But I prefer to judge what I see and what I read. As far as this report is concerned, it seems to me it has provided a tremendous amount of information and objective and critical analysis of what's been done in the past — For example, only by stressing that the rates have not altered for many years and suggestion that whatever is done at this time should be left flexible and that perhaps rates should not only be looked at annually but might even be flexible enough to be altered during a year when it appears that certain judgments as to use of the ferry at certain hours of the day might prove wrong.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it will be rather ironic if we abolish this institute and within a week or two find the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) coming out publicly suggesting that the changes in the ferry rates and usage and times of service and the use of catering facilities and so on.... It would be very ironic if we abolish the institute this week and next week we find that the Minister of Transport and Communications wants to implement pretty much the recommendations of this report.

I suppose one would have to be very cynical to suggest that he may purposely avoid following the report to the letter just because it would weaken the government's justification, if it has any, for getting rid of this institute in the first place.

There are the main issues as I see them on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I just would say that I hope above all other reasons that the minister will be frank with the House and tell us whether the actual abolition of the bill has more to do with the particular person who had a great deal to do with setting up the institute, and I'm talking about the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams).

I've noticed during the last several weeks in this House that if there's one name that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) frequently raises in this House — even though the man is no longer here — it's the former second member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams). I would hate to think that the real reason we have this bill to abolish the institute is based on the obvious deep distrust which this minister has for policies and actions and political philosophy of Mr. Williams. This minister raises that name frequently at different times when he indulges in a great deal of his histrionics, which he's wont to do on many occasions.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. It's quite right. It's on the record.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: And the fact is.... Well, it may well be, Madam member. I'm not arguing about the accomplishments of people in this House. What I'm saying is that we have an institute here which was set up with some very reasonable, sensible, modern goals, to call upon the analytical advice of highly trained, expert people to provide objective evidence on which long-term economic planning in this province could be based.

The evidence, as I see it, is that within two years the institute was well on its way to achieving these goals. We have the Premier emphasizing just moments ago that that is the basis on which the future will flourish: an economic basis developing our minerals and our forests, diversifying the economy and providing jobs in a wider variety of industries, rather than the situation as it now is where a slump in the forestry industry drops our revenues by $ 100 million and throws thousands of people out of work.

All I am saying is that the government not only doesn't appear to have a reason to abolish the institute but hasn't even given this House in second reading a single reason. I have canvassed various possibilities: one, that the institute has failed — if it has failed, I hope the minister will tell us how it has failed; secondly, that the minister has a better idea, like some of the ads we see on television, Mr. Speaker. All these people peddling products come forward and say: "We have a better idea." I am asking the minister if he would outline what the government's better idea is.

The third possibility is the least attractive one of all — that this institute, in its initial setting-up and in the publicity which surrounded it, was very much associated with the name of Bob Williams, who encouraged Mr. Mason Gaffney to come as the executive director. I think it would be tragic and

[ Page 1063 ]

small-minded in the extreme if this government is simply abolishing this institute because of old political battles or a clash of personalities from away back.

The Premier said today in his speech — I admired the context in which he said it — that this government is not going to go on fighting the last election and is not going to spend its time looking back, that its energies will be spent building a great economy in the future so that everyone in British Columbia has a better standard of living.

One can only come to the conclusion, in respect of the abolition of this institute which we are debating today, that there still is a large element of behaviour by this government of looking back, and perhaps looking back to issues which would now best be buried and forgotten. Instead, this minister and this government, if it really means what the Premier said this morning, should be looking at a concept such as this Institute of Economic Policy Analysis, and should be trying to make it bigger and better and spread it wider to give the government objective information and advice about all these very complex and varied plans upon which the minister has embarked. Instead of that, we find that the institute is to be abolished; worse than that, the government seems either to have no reason to abolish it or is very reluctant to tell us why. '

The sum of money involved, I gather — the annual budget — is about $400,000 a year. Perhaps the minister will tell us if that was a very significant factor in deciding to remove the institute. More importantly, would he tell the House in his blueprint where, how often and through what kind of vehicle does he mean to replace the institute so that he can avail himself of a great deal of the complex information without which no government can function these days? Or does he feel that all the information he needs will be provided by members of the public service — professional people within the various departments — and that outside advice from non-political sources is really not necessary?

If that, indeed, is the minister's conclusion, then I would just like to finish by placing my very strong conviction on record that that kind of attitude clearly spells out complacency and arrogance by the government that it knows it all within its own ranks. I would even in a friendly way suggest that it was that kind of know-it-all, "we'll tell you" attitude that led to the defeat of this government in 1972.

1 for one have sat on this side of the House hoping that the new government isn't a rerun of the old one. One of the reasons that I could in no way listen to the numerous voices that asked me during the election and earlier why I did not go back and join the Social Credit Party and that it was futile to be doing what I'm doing...one of the fundamental reasons that I stay where I am is that I am not, by any means, convinced that the new Social Credit government is any different from the old one. When we see a bill like this, which in the mind or the view of anyone who looks at the whole complexity of economic development and the need for government to have non-political advice — objective and informed advice...and we see that this is being abolished, it's quite reasonable, I think, to ask oneself the question: well, do we again have a government in British Columbia who, instead of listening, is telling? I think that's a good note to finish my comments on.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, Bill 14, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act: I have been told that in a previous parliament the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, rose on a bill that he was bringing to the House and he said that the principle of this bill is whether you are for it or whether you are against it and sat down. Up until now I would suppose that that held the record for brevity until the minister introduced the second reading of this bill.

The need for this institute has been pointed out, I think, well by the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) . Basically, what they have said in a number of different ways is that any government needs all the advice it can get, especially advice that is independent from politics and advice dealing with the economic future of the jurisdiction within which a government governs. This institute, of course, was set up in the previous parliament by the NDP when we were government, and many of the reports that were brought in we didn't agree with. But the fact was that those reports were there. The fact was that there was a differing opinion that could be put in front of cabinet, in front of government, so government would be better able to make up its mind in which direction the government wished to go or was going to go in economic development. It was a good, good move to put this institute into effect.

Both the previous speakers, the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative questioned why — why is this institute and this Act repealing the institute taking place in this parliament? The reason is obvious and the leader of the Conservative Party did skirt around it. He said: is the reason for this Act to repeal the institute because the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) brought it in in the previous parliament? Of course that's the reason.

As I sat here last night looking across at the face of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the face of the Premier, it was pure smugness — pure smugness. All the time that they had to sit on this side of the House and listen to the sharp mind and the sharp words of Bob Williams, they

[ Page 1064 ]

squirmed and fidgeted in their seats and they thought that some day, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get into power and we are going to do away with everything that that minister brought into this parliament — everything that he brought in.

That is the reason for this bill. That's the only reason for this bill. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal leader said across the floor — he was holding up an analysis of coking coal in this province — to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, "Have you taken a look at this?", the present Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) said: "No." The Liberal leader said: "I'll send it across." He said: "Don't bother, don't bother." Why? Because they don't want to be confused by anything except the myopic intellectualism that they may hold. That is the only reason, Mr. Speaker, the only reason.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What happened to Bob Williams? What did you do with him?

MR. LEA: Now you see, Mr. Speaker. "What happened to Bob Williams?", one of the backbenchers of the government yells out, proving that is the reason that this bill is in this House. It's pure vengeance, pure vindictiveness and pure folly on their part, but they're down the road this far now. They have introduced it into this parliament, into this session, and pride won't let them back off.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): You can't believe that!

MR. LEA: But I'll bet there are members in the government back bench who have never heard of the institute and have never read one report from it and know nothing about it, and they will stand in this House and they will vote for this bill to repeal that institution.

There are ministers over there who, I would wager, have never heard of it. I remember listening to CJOR, the radio station in Vancouver, when the now Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was talking about the Secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee, of which he's now in charge. He said: " Secretariat, secretariat? That's a pretty foreign-sounding name; sounds communistic to me." You know, that's the kind of intelligence that we're dealing with over there, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this bill is in front of the Legislature right now.

When one other member said that they're anti-academic, that's true. The Social Credit Party record proves that. That they are anti-intellectual has also been proved by the history of that party. That is another major reason why this bill is in front of this House.

Mr. Speaker, when this present budget was first brought down I had occasion to phone the director of this institute, Mason Gaffney, because I wanted to throw an idea at him and to see whether he agreed that it was a good economic idea or not. During the course of that conversation I said: "I am sorry to hear that the institute is going to be done away with," because I had read in the paper a comment made by the now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that the institute was going to be done away with. He said: "Well, we don't really know because we've never been contacted by the minister. We don't really know whether we can believe that the government is going to do that or not, because we have not been contacted by the minister responsible for the government, and we've not been told."

So the minister was out making announcements to the media that it was going to be done away with, even before the director of the institute had been informed. Now you would think that even out of common courtesy, Mr. Speaker, that would have been done. But it also leads one to believe that is the kind of analysis that went into the decision to do away with the institute. No analysis whatsoever; just the fact that Bob Williams brought it in and we're going to do away with it — that's the only analysis that went into this bill. Have they said that they are going to replace it with another kind of independent economic analysis institute, or any other...?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, they haven't Do away with it! When they became government they made the Minister of Economic Development chairman of the British Columbia Development Corp. And who did they fire to do that?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Gary Lauk. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: That's what you think. That's how much that minister knows, Mr. Speaker. No, one of the most respected members of the business community of this province, Mr. Peter Stanley. That's who was fired in order to do that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who was fired?

MR. LEA: Peter Stanley. They replaced him with a political appointment as chairman because they are so.... Mr. Speaker, they say the worst thing that can happen to a politician is to believe his own political rhetoric. I believe that's what that government has done; they've believed their own campaign literature, their own rhetoric during the campaign, and they're too myopic in scope to even go back and take the famous second look which the Premier's father was famous for. But they're even more arrogant than the previous Social Credit government. They're even

[ Page 1065 ]

more arrogant than that.

Mr. Speaker, the real reason for the bill is a sort of petty, vindictive vengeance against the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Bob Williams. That's been proven by a comment in this House by the now Minister of Mines, and, I think, through my conversation with Mason Gaffney, the director of that institute, when he said he had not even been contacted by the minister. He read it in the media, heard it on the media, and that was the first time that the director of that institute knew.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the minister, when he closes debate on second reading, will be no longer than the way he opened it — on any real content, that is. He'll just get up and say: "I now move second reading," because he probably hasn't even talked with the director. I know he didn't talk with the director before deciding to do away with the institute. It would be interesting to hear the minister's view as to why the institute is being abolished, when he didn't even have the common decency to talk with the director and try to get a different point of view.

It seems rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that they would come in here and try to put any high falutin' idea in front of this House as to why they did it, when the actual facts will stand on their own: no consultation with the director; pure petty vengeance against the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. That's all it is. No matter the rhetoric they come out with here today, that is the name they fear; that is the man they fear in this province because he's smarter than they are, he's better than they are, he's more modern than they are.

Mr. Speaker, that fear has brought this bill into this House, because the institute may just work; and they don't want to leave anything behind that that minister had anything to do with that might just work. They fear that name and they fear that man. The smugness on those faces across there when they introduced this bill can only mean one thing: the smugness that we're going to do away with something that minister brought in. It shames this House and it shames this province.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, as you preside over the House, I hope that you'll take the opportunity to notify the Guinness Book of Records in respect to the nature of the way this bill was introduced in second reading.

As you know, May says second reading is the most important stage through which a bill is required to pass, for the whole principle is then at issue, and at that time the minister takes the opportunity to explain the principle. But we have a departure with this minister: he obviously has no principle to explain, so we have to get up and oppose what he's doing.

The former Social Credit administration had a reputation for being "anti-academic." I would have thought that in the new government we would have moved away from that. I'm the first one to accept that all of the members in this House are people who have been successful in their careers, whether it is in terms of the academic or the business or whatever pursuit they've had, and that the academic pursuits are not the only desirable pursuits that somehow give people status. But, Mr. Minister — and I accept that you, yourself, in your own lifestyle have been extremely successful — there has to be a balance in terms of government in the way we go about producing policy. This was the intent of this agency.

The spectre of Bob Williams has been raised, but I would like to raise other spectres, Mr. Minister. You probably more than any other minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — have done more dismantling of a negative kind.

The name Peter Stanley was raised previously — summarily dumped off the board. The minister was a member of the previous Social Credit administration; I wonder whether or not that reminded him of the kind of role that Mr. Stanley had to play to clean up the mess from the Commonwealth Trust under the previous administration. Nevertheless, an acknowledged specialist in his field, a man who virtually has no politics — if any, they're certainly of a conservative nature — was summarily dumped.

We might well ask the minister what kind of consultation he is going to have. Presumably he has a very expensive executive assistant who is going to help him in the development of policy.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah, but the important thing is that that minister is carrying two portfolios. He is responsible for the future plans for the economic development of this province.

If he didn't have the courtesy to phone Dr. Gaffney about the demise of the institution, I suppose one could presume that he has read all of the papers that were produced by the institution. I would give the minister the benefit of doubt that he has, in fact, read them. Perhaps he did not completely understand them, and what he didn't understand, of course, he wasn't prepared to pick up the phone and talk to the advisers and the staff out there for some explanation.

It's interesting that several of the papers that have been published really affect many of the ministers of government. There are papers, as has been explained, on mining, on the environment, on the civil service, on the future rates for B.C. Ferries — but it seems that all of it is rejected.

I would hope that that minister, when he does get up to close the debate, will tell us what he really feels

[ Page 1066 ]

about the use of people who have an expertise in various fields towards assisting him in the development of economic policy. I don't say for one minute that they are the only people that should be consulted. Certainly he has enough associates throughout B.C. who also, in an informal way, have an expertise in the various areas of their endeavours, and that's good too. But I hope that the minister will tell us what he is going to do for advice. What is he going to do to develop and to expand the plans as laid down by the Premier in his speech this morning? This morning the Premier gave some hope for economic development, but what has happened is that he placed them firmly in the hands of that man who is the Economic Development minister, whose first basic act is to dismantle some of the basic equipment that is needed for economic development — certainly in changing and getting rid of people on the B.C. development board, and certainly in respect to this institution.

HON. MR. MAIR: How would you of all people know that?

MR. LEVI: Ah, well, you see, we have there the loud-mouthed man from Kamloops who's been around three months and he's an expert in everything. Well, he's probably invited to join the board because short-term loudmouths are always acceptable on boards like that....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Ah, well, in the meanwhile you've been here three months and I've been here since....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, Hon. Member. To refer to another hon. member as a "short-term, loudmouth"...

MR. LEVI: Well, just a loudmouth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ....or to refer to him as a "loudmouth" at all is not really that parliamentary. Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. LEVI: Just a short-termer.

I would hope that the minister does get up. I think that the Premier did go over to him and say to him that you can't just sit there and say nothing when it comes to closing the debate. You'd better tell him the real reasons why you're dismantling this and what we're going to put in its place, because otherwise it will look a little silly, because after all you don't have a great deal of expertise in anything, and somehow we have to have some back-up. So I would hope that the minister will get up and explain it to us.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): It seems a bit of a paradox to me that a government which has been charged with all sorts of mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility would be the government to bring in an institute such as this Economic Policy Analysis Institute, and yet a government which pretends to be, or portrays to be a government of great fiscal responsibility and very knowledgeable about things economic would move to do away with that institute.

I think that if you look at the policies being carried out by many of the large corporations in this province, in this country and around the world you will find that they all have a similar bureau or branch which does just what this institute was doing for the province of British Columbia, and it seems very strange indeed to me that this government is moving to do away with this institute.

Again it seems to be a move to take back into the political arena something as important as the overall economic development of our province. Across my desk today came a copy of a letter addressed to the Premier. This letter is signed by some 100 of my constituents, and those constituents are very disturbed about northern development. They are concerned about what criteria are going to be used, Mr. Speaker, in northern development. They are concerned about the native people in the north. They are concerned about what priority will be given....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I said, Mr. Speaker, that this letter is signed by some 100 of my constituents and one of the things they are concerned about is the development in the north and, in particular, in regard to the native Indian people in the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: You showed a lot of concern when you guys were in.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we did show some concern.

HON. MR. MAIR: How about Kamloops?

MRS. WALLACE: I think we did more — and I think one of your candidates, in fact, indicated during the campaign that we had done more — for the native people around the Prince George area than any other previous government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

[ Page 1067 ]

MRS. WALLACE: These people who sign this letter and this petition are very concerned about not only the development as relative to the native Indian, but they are concerned as to what the criteria are going to be for development. Is it going to be in the best interests of all the people of this province, or is it going to be for the purpose of profit only? Are they going to have this development taking place with use of Canadian firms and Canadian people and to bring returns to the Canadian and the provincial treasury, or is this thing to be something that will take, as so often happens, the returns from our natural resources out of our country?

To me, to have an independent review committee or institute to review the overall economic development is the only way that we can move intelligently and in the best interests of all the areas of the whole economic development arena,

I think there is a great tendency — and it has been indicated by minister after minister as we have spoken of different areas within the development of this province — to compartmentalize. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is saying, well, he doesn't know about that. That's the responsibility of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . We have reference from one cabinet minister to the other. I think that something like this institute which is removed completely from the political arena, and can make an independent survey and study of the overall needs of this province, is a very essential thing in this province.

Dr. Gaffney himself, in an interview at the time the first rumours came out about the dissolution or possible dissolution of the institute, indicated that it was a very great surprise to him that the institute was being dissolved because he felt that the purposes of the institute were far more in line with the stated intent of this new government than they really had been with the previous government. It is a very great surprise, not only to the members of the opposition but, I think, to the people of British Columbia, that this government would see fit to dissolve this institute. I certainly rise to oppose this bill.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I am also opposed to the elimination of the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia. I think it is a very short-term and poorly-thought-out measure. I think this government especially requires the benefit of an independent economic policy analysis group such as the one that we set up back in 1973.

lnterjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: They didn't do much to keep you on the track.

MR. SKELLY: No, it was an independent institute, Mr. Member. If the interpretations of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), when he was speaking yesterday, are an example of the economic knowledge of the people on the back benches of the present government.... He mentioned the comments on wheat production in Soviet Russia and how.... I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, my voice is gone again.

MR. SPEAKER: It is unfortunate, Hon. Member, that your voice is bothering you. I think the hon. members should realize that the hon. member has had the misfortune to miss his turn in the budget debate because his voice was gone yesterday, and now he is not able to continue on second reading today. This is a thing that we all hope he gets over very soon. Hopefully, by the time we return from the Easter recess we will all be in better shape.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Would you spread it around? (Laughter.)

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from Alberni, who, Mr. Premier, also had a birthday yesterday, will make up for lost time.

Mr. Speaker, on this bill, I must say that it is very disturbing that it is before the House. Very often when the government, or a spokesman on the government side, says something encouraging, somebody else shoots it down. I have heard some statements over there which I thought were encouraging at times. Yet now we have this bill before us this afternoon when this morning a speaker on the government side — the Premier, in fact — said that his government was working out an economic and investment blueprint for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this sounds very much to me like centralized planning. I always thought that was something that party was very much opposed to; I always thought that was something that they fought against.

What is even more disturbing is that they are taking the independent economic policy analysis group, which, after all, didn't have any power — it merely made recommendations which the government or anybody else could take or leave, adapt, take any part of or all of — is throwing that away, taking that independence away and putting politics into economic planning. That's the only way I can interpret it: to have this bill before the House, debate it last night and today, and to hear this morning a major spokesman for the government say that we are getting into an investment and economic blueprint.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding it is almost totally economically dependent on three corporate citizens: one partially public and partially

[ Page 1068 ]

private, one totally public and one completely private. I hope that this government is not planning on making economic and management decisions directing investment for any of those corporations, because one of the things that I have always stood for, and one of the things that I have always said, is that Crown corporations, like public corporations, should make their own management decisions. They should not be interfered with politically by the government at any time.

I am very disturbed. I am very disturbed to see that party that said they were going to take the politics out of Crown corporations putting two ministers — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — on the board of ICBC, putting the Economic Development Minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on the British Columbia Railway, the Transport minister (Hon. Mr. Davis) on B.C. Hydro, the Mines and Forests minister (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on B.C. Cellulose and the Ocean Falls Co., the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Mines on the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and, as has been canvassed by earlier speakers, replacing the independent businessman who, I believe, was a small "c" if not a large "C" conservative, as chairman of the board of the B.C. Development Corp. with a minister, an elected member of this Legislature, and an appointed minister. I think those are moves in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, one of the points made here by our friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was that this move was antithetical to that government's intention to have outside auditing. You said that you are going to have outside auditing of the British Columbia accounts, which I believe is a commendable move at least on paper, although I happen to trust the inside auditors; but outside auditing is a good move. But here we are having economic development, the very life blood of our province and where we are going over the next few years, and you are removing that outside analysis and putting it all inside strictly in the realm of the politicians. Certainly for a government which said: "Look, we believe in the free market; we believe in no interference with the market whatsoever" — to take that kind of outside independence and bring it inside where the politicians are I think is a negation of the principles that you espoused during your election campaign and certainly must be tremendously disappointing to many of the people who voted for that party over there.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why you don't want outside auditing of economic policy. Is it because if something went wrong...? Suppose something isn't perfect and some economic independent analyst might say: "Well, we told you so." Would that be embarrassing because you are so sure that you are right all the time? Is that why?

Mr. Speaker, there have been some references to the fact that the director of this organization that is being done away with is, in fact, possibly loyal or possibly friendly to a former member of this House and possibly wouldn't'work for that government over there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read something into the record here which may tell something about the nature...

MR. KAHL: Who said that?

HON. MR. MAIR: Who said that?

MR. D'ARCY: ...of the individual who runs this institute, who was hired...

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit making those insinuations if you can't back them up.

MR. DARCY: ...by the former government. Mr. Member, you will get your chance to close this debate, I presume. You will get your chance to close this debate. Keep your mouth shut.

Interjection.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon. members. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston....

MR. D'ARCY: Please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Interjected across the floor was a phrase that is not very parliamentary to the hon. minister. Would the hon. member withdraw the words "keep your mouth shut."?

MR. DARCY: If it's possible for the minister to do, yes, I will withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. Proceed.

MR. DARCY: I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the following remarks will sound like someone who is dedicated to anything remotely resembling what most people in this House would think is dogma of any sort.

"The statesman in charge of leasing vast Crown lands might seem forced to direct private people how to employ their capital and their persons too. He certainly has the power

[ Page 1069 ]

and he certainly has the responsibility to use his power in the Crown's interest. But there is a way to do so without being arbitrary, capricious, meddlesome, subjective, tyrannical or inefficient. The best to serve his citizens, a statesman should act like a private landowner maximizing his net income from lands. He should resist being tempted to use his power to manipulate and control, foster and suppress, divert and channel, reward and punish, on the too-easy presumption that the market has no rationale or normative value of its own.

"Generations of economists have established that it has and governments seeking to improve on it need face a certain burden of proof. A landowner maximizing the net income from lands is tolerably likely thereby to be directing them to their highest and best use, the use meeting the most human wants and needs. Net income, after all, is a measure of the excess of benefit over cost and that's what it's all about."

Does that sound like a socialist, Mr. Speaker?

And I go on here, just briefly.

"The official who grasps that concept may then identify many costs that some people dump on others and benefits they bestow on each other. He may seek to internalize those externalities in his planning, but as one surveys the dogmas that hold sway in many professions concerned with land use, he sees a dozen bad uses for every good one. It is the rare official today who can sort out these well enough to improve on the market. This paper is an attempt to help with the sorting, but the improvements that are possible consist mainly in helping the market work better, not in rejecting it."

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, that is what they are rejecting. Nov do you think that the former minister or the former government was afraid of this kind of advice or didn't want this kind of advice? I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that they were not, but I suggest to you that that government is afraid of that kind of advice. They want to internalize, they want to make decision inside and they don't want outside auditing of their economic policy. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, they want to direct and channel investment of private an public capital, and I think that is absolutely heinous in this year 1976.

Mr. Speaker, one more item. I don't know whether the former Premier (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) ever said this, but he was quoted as having said once in an aside in discussing the Columbia River Treaty: "Well, it seemed like a good deal at the time."

That's what he said, or what he was reported to have said.

HON. MR. MAIR: When did he say it?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask....

HON. MR. MAIR: When, when?

MR, D'ARCY: You know, we especially in the Kootenays....

Interjections.

MR, DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Minister of Consumer Services has an attack of apoplexy coming along, but he's certainly getting rather red in the face. I would hope that he could control himself.

Mr. Speaker, that Columbia River treaty, particularly for those who live in the Kootenays — I don't want it to be suggested that we are not grateful for the flood control that we got out of that development...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell anyone about it.

MR. DARCY: ...and I don't want to suggest that the province of British Columbia has not benefited by the power generated by that. Certainly, although there has been serious environmental damage, I think we can live with that. In any event those things are in the past, but I would note, Mr. Speaker, that as a business deal it was a terrible deal. That's the basic thing that we are against here.

I really wonder, if the people had had any idea of how bad a business deal it was, whether the Diefenbaker government in Ottawa would ever have negotiated that treaty. I really wonder whether or not the Pearson government in Ottawa would ever have ratified that treaty; and I really wonder whether or not the Bennett government in British Columbia would ever have gotten away with that treaty, politically, if they'd had any idea, if there'd been any outside auditing.

MR. KAHL: What are we talking about? Is this Bill 14?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, it is, because this is economic policy and that certainly was an economic policy. I'm using it as an analogy to show that we don't want those kinds of mistakes made ever again in the province of British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not interested in discussing whether or not socialist economics — whatever that is — are good or bad for this province and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not

[ Page 1070 ]

capitalist economics are good or bad. What I am concerned about is that we have good economics at all times — the best thing for the most people in British Columbia — and this is one of the guarantees. This institute was one of those guarantees that we would have the right kind of analysis, the right kinds of recommendations, the right kinds of overviews at the ferry problems, at the copper industry — which is very important to your riding — to the mining industry and the smelting industry, which is very important to my riding.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Where are we going? For instance, in the forest industry in this province, which is over 50 per cent of our economy, I've suggested before in this House, and I say again, Mr. Speaker, that unless over the next few years there's a 20 per cent increase in the pulp-manufacturing capacity in the interior of this province, we are going to see a corresponding 20 per cent decrease in the amount of employment in sawmills and veneer plants in the same area. This is for the simple reason that there is a greater and greater percentage of pulpwood in the average annual allowable cut in any given PSYU.

What are you doing about that, Mr. Minister? What do you intend to do? How can we attract the kind of capital and the kind of development in the interior and northern parts of British Columbia to head off what I suggest could be a major economic catastrophe in the area with a substantial negative multiplier effect? But as some people have said, you probably don't even know what a multiplier effect is, economically.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I personally am very concerned with this, because I represent a riding which, until a year or so ago, had a negative growth rate, and had had a negative growth rate for many years. It's only been in the last two or three years that we've had a positive growth rate. I'm very, very concerned that we're going to see a reversion to what you might call "the good old days" — the good old days, when every municipality in my riding in the 1971 census had suffered a population loss. That trend has been reversed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you confine your remarks to the bill, please? You seem to be straying a bit.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm not articulating well enough, but this bill is concerned with the elimination of an economic policy planning institute, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is something that is of tremendous importance to my region, to my riding and to this province. I deplore the fact that it's being taken away and nothing is being put in its place. Nothing is being put in its place. You're replacing independence with politics, Mr. Minister, and I think it's absolutely shocking.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to enter the debate on this particular bill originally, but the manner in which the minister introduced the bill in second reading goaded me into saying something.

I can only suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in his way of introducing it, so contrary to the way he carries on in the House — a constant stream of interjections across the floor when he's not speaking, when he's not recognized; absolutely nothing to say when he's introducing a bill we consider important — he showed his apparent contempt for the legislation itself or possibly for the legislators, I don't know which. But that's all he did with his remarks, unless one can say that he showed his abysmal ignorance of the legislation or of the institute that this legislation is wiping out.

Mr. Speaker, we felt this institute could have done important work. The work has already been referred to by many speakers in this debate. It would appear that the minister proposing this legislation knows absolutely nothing about what the institute has been doing, is absolutely disinterested in knowing anything at all about the institute, in spite of the obvious need for studies on the kinds of topics that were being studied by this institute, or that might be, and shows absolutely no interest in proposing anything in the way of an alternative proposal that such studies will be carried on. He told us nothing we needed.

He told us nothing when he introduced the legislation — that he was dissatisfied with the institute, felt they were going the wrong direction, felt that it was wrong that the universities and government people should be doing this kind of studying. He was just absolutely disinterested, absolutely ignorant, with no alternative proposal. Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I can only say that there's no way we can support this kind of legislation or — and this is the wrong time to raise this point — this minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate all of the words that have been stated here in this Legislature. I purposely, in introducing the bill, wanted to allow the members their freedom to state their opinions without attacking what I would have said had I made an opening statement, because then you would have come back and attacked my

[ Page 1071 ]

position, I hope that their concerns were certainly voiced in sincerity, Mr. Speaker. This way I think we have had a good debate and some good suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just talk about the institute for just a few moments. Before I do, I'd just like to answer not all of the remarks but just a couple of the remarks voiced by some of the members of that leaderless group that we have opposite.

They have stated, Mr. Speaker, that the reason this institute is being disbanded is because of vengeance against a certain member who has walked away from this House and left his riding partly unrepresented, and I'm not going to talk about that. Certainly I would say that if we were having any vengeance against that particular member we would have tried to bolster up and thrust up and shore up this particular institute, because the particular member who basically created this institute — and I'm talking about the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams) — walked away from this institute after really creating the institute for a person that he brought in from the United States of America. That's how the institute came into being. So I would say that if we had any vengeance against that particular member we would have shored up the institute and made it a shining example. I'm not sure we could have done that but we would maybe have made the endeavour to do that.

Now there seems to be some concern about this government working in isolation. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in three and a half years all of the cabinet ministers in this government are working together. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that really amazes that group over there, because when they were in government they did not listen or pay any attention or give any terms of reference to this institute, because there was one man who was the architect of all of their economic policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Super-Bob.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That man is not in the House today, but the past Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) worked in complete isolation. That's why it bothers them to see our cabinet working and all the cabinet ministers and the back bench having an input into the economic policies of this province.

So it's just a little bit ironic, Mr. Speaker, to hear the members of the NDP government got up and voice now, in glowing words, great words of support for this institute.

It was interesting to me to hear the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) state that I had not even had the common courtesy to talk to any of the directors of the institute. I just want to read a final paragraph from a letter which I received from Mr. Walter Young, chairman of the board of directors of the British Columbia Institute for Analysis of Economic Policy. He says: "I would like to thank you for the courtesy you showed to me and my directors by discussing this matter with me personally." So you see there's a lot of idle talk over there and I wouldn't want the people of British Columbia to be misled.

There was some discussion about the Development Corporation of British Columbia. I just want to say that the development corporation has in the past, since its inception, worked in complete isolation from our Vancouver office — in complete isolation from the Department of Economic Development. I want to tell you that from here on the British Columbia Development Corporation and the Department of Economic Development will not work in isolation, going off in different directions, but will work in tandem to bring economic stability to this province.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) had a lot to say about studies and so forth and where are we going and what are we going to do. I want to tell you that the real essence of any government and the real test of their policies is not necessarily having studies for studies' sake. A government will be judged on recognizing the need for studies and finding the people with the expertise to do the best studies possible, but the real crux comes in implementing the studies once they are done and being able to sort out what really has to be done.

I can understand that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is very concerned about studies, because he worked with the Trudeau government. I think they've had a tremendous amount of studies done, but I just want to state in this Legislature that a government will be based on the results of their actions, and I think we'll have to consider some of the studies that have been done by certain other governments and certain other jurisdictions and how they've implemented them. You know, what we need is the ability to implement the knowledge we have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we need studies.

Interjection,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we need an outside group to do them, but we do not want to build up a bureaucracy who think that it is their sole right and purpose to bring down, supposedly in tablets of stone, the economic progress that this government will make.

MR. GIBSON: Are you against the economic council?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say I was against

[ Page 1072 ]

the economic council. All I'm saying is that we must first of all determine what studies we want. There's more than one university in British Columbia, and certainly when we determine the need we will use and ask for the advice of Canadian professors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Let's be parochial, fellows.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we're not being parochial at all.

MR. WALLACE: He's against Scottish people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just stating that there is enough expertise here in British Columbia and we will be seeking advice from those experts. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be getting the best advice possible and we will be working as a cabinet together, not in isolation, to implement it.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What? I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for leave that we go into committee on Bill 14.

Leave granted.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I was just interested in section 2(c) where it states that the remaining balance of accrued income in the fund will be transferred to the consolidated revenue fund. Does the minister have some approximate figure of the sum of money that is going to be available for recapture under subsection 2(c)?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that there is going to be approximately enough funds in the balance to wind it down and there will not be that much money, one way or another.

MR. WALLACE: Just to follow up on that, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The section says the Minister of Finance shall pay the capital and the remaining balance of accrued income into the consolidated fund. Is not the original capital of $5 million that set up the fund...am I to understand that that $5 million is tied down in some permanent investment, and if so, could you tell us what that investment is?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, this question came up in a reference to other funds by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) yesterday. Where there are long-term investments involved in some of these funds and they're transferred into general revenue, there's no problem in having those funds redirected into more current investments for the purpose of general revenue. In other words, if there are long-term investments they would simply be replaced in some other funds, like the pension funds and so on. So it doesn't create a problem that there may be long-term investments in transferring.... The fund itself will be transferred into general revenue.

MR, WALLACE: The investment will stay the same?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, to the minister: within

[ Page 1073 ]

the institute itself there must be a number of people who are making their living solely from the wages they earn. I wonder if the minister could tell us the manner in which these employees are going to be dealt with? There must be clerk-stenos and that sort of thing. Are they going to be given an opportunity to work within government service? And the director, what kind of severance allowance will he get?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member must understand that the institute is run by a board of directors. You were criticizing less than an hour ago about appointing another board of directors. Had you taken the time, Mr. Member, to do your research you would have known that that member was a director — the deputy minister — his term ran out and, in order to facilitate the orderly run-down of the affairs of the institute, he was reappointed. If you had known that, maybe you wouldn't be making such a big affair about it. The reason he was reappointed is so that the board of directors will make those decisions. But the government has said that we will supply sufficient funds for the orderly run-down of the institute, so we're not just going in and closing it up. Everything will be orderly, and there will be sufficient funds to honour the contracts that exist. That is why we have to have more members on the board of directors to facilitate that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on second reading I did speak against the bill in principle, but I would like to commend the minister for taking the steps that he just outlined to make sure that the employees are treated fairly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could outline to us what contracts do exist between the board and any of its staff.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, no, I can't. I haven't a complete list of them. As I said while you were out, Mr. Member, I did meet with the chairman of the institute. We had a discussion. He said there were some contracts outstanding. I understand there are some printing contracts. But it was the desire of the government to see that the in  stitute honoured all of those contracts. We stated that sufficient funds would be made available so that those long-term contracts will still be honoured.

MR. GIBSON: I am interested to hear about the printing contracts, Mr. Chairman, but I was thinking more about contracts with people who are working for the institute. I assume that the minister, in taking such a serious step, would have taken the time to s apprise himself of such contracts. Would he have some explanation for the House as to what these are and what it is likely to cost to get out of them?

HON, MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are very short-term contracts, I understand, with the people who work in the universities. It has been some time since I had this conversation with the chairman of the board, but he assured me that it is not going to create any great problems for anybody. With regard to Dr. Gaffney, I presume the board will come to some agreement with him. I understand he doesn't have any contract at all, that he was here on the basis of a letter from the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams), but the board has the power to wind down a contract with him and come to an amicable agreement. That is the desire of the government; that is our stated wish. In my discussions with Mr. Young, which were amicable, it was my desire that this was the way it be done. He said there would be no problem.

So other than the chief out there, Dr. Gaffney, there should be no problem whatsoever, I understand that they will come to an amicable agreement with him.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final follow-up on that last answer, Mr. Chairman. In other words, there will be no severance payments that you are aware of.

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: I didn't say there wouldn't be any severance payment. I said that the board of directors will check into the employees there and if some of them have long-term contracts, I imagine that,.... . But the board of directors will make that decision. I am sure that you don't want the government to go in there and interfere ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...so it is being done in a very democratic manner. The board was set up, they have been running the affairs, and they will be responsible and very conscientious, I presume, and very fair in dealing with the people involved there. I don't know what more we could ask for. I know you don't want me to go in there and sit on the board, or have anything to do with it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the government has only interfered to the extent of wiping out the institution altogether. I want this clearly understood by the House, because we've already had the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) getting uptight about somebody getting $41,000 severance pay at a college. I am only trying to establish if there are likely to be large payments in terms of severance pay. I take it from the minister's

[ Page 1074 ]

response that he is not aware of what these severance payments might be. He is taking a hands-off attitude because he doesn't want to interfere with the board of directors and the decision as to what these severance payments might be.

I think the people of British Columbia are wondering just how many more people are receiving very generous severance awards, regardless of government policy. I just want to know if there will be severance payments — and does the minister have some idea what sum of money we are talking about? We are talking about restraint, remember.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can appreciate the member's question; it is a question that we should be concerned about. There are government guidelines which the board will, I would hope, adhere to. They have to be responsible because they realize they are dealing with taxpayers' money.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think several questions were asked in debate on second reading, and the minister didn't take the opportunity to include in his summation one of the questions.

Maybe the minister can just nod. It's my understanding that the only person connected with the institute that he met with was Dr. Walter Young. Is that correct?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, he's not nodding; he's looking up at the sky.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm asking if my understanding is correct. Is the only person you met with, connected with the institute, Dr. Walter Young?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What section are you referring to?

MR. NICOLSON: I'm referring to the board of directors. The term of office of each member of the board of directors of the institute is terminated. So the board of directors members are being terminated. Is he one of those persons being terminated that you met with?

He won't nod, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the only way the minister can reply is if you are seated.

MR. NICOLSON: I thought I'd save some time, Mr. Chairman, but then in order to save time I'll ask another question as well and he can answer both when he's up.

We tried to ascertain whether the Minister has read the annual report of the economic institute, or whether he had read any of the research papers. Have you read the report?

Surely the minister is not going to just sit there and pull this same arrogant trip on us that he did in first reading and second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: This has been done once before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: I think it's a despicable contempt of this Legislature...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: ...and now he's continuing this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, must I remind you again that the minister can choose and can elect to answer all questions in his concluding statement? He can answer questions...

MR. NICOLSON: I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...as he wishes, and we cannot insist on an answer.

MR. NICOLSON: That's right. It's his prerogative to treat us with contempt. I realize that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): But arrogance is permissible?

MR. NICOLSON: One of the questions I'd like him to perhaps reconsider....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Did he meet with any other directors? Did he just meet with Dr. Walter Young? Did he meet with any members of the staff? Did he meet with the director who's also going to be terminated by this...on these actions which take place on the repeal of the Act under section 2, because the British Columbia Institute of Economic Policy Analysis, herein called the institute, is dissolved by section 2.

We've tried to ascertain whether this is a responsible Act of the Legislature that we're being asked to undertake. So far we haven't been convinced. So far we're led to believe — and can only believe — that the minister in the charge of economic

[ Page 1075 ]

development in this province has not read one of the research papers. He is not, for instance, aware that in his own riding, in Pouce, that there's a fantastic disparity between what is being charged in terms of mill rates in Pouce Coupe — or Pouce Coupee, as people in that area normally call it. He hasn't read, for instance, "Exclusionary Municipal Policies and the Supply of Housing" By Jeffrey Young, and I quote this to him....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member...

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the remarks that you are making now would better have been covered, canvassed when.... I think now we are talking about the principle of the bill. I want to draw your remarks to section 2, please.

MR. NICOLSON: We're talking about terminating or dissolving the institute, and we would like to know before passing section 2 if the minister, in drafting this section 2, gave consideration to the work done by the institute prior to its proposed dissolution, to such important information as the differences in tax base, which means that to raise $100 per capita for municipal purposes in Kitimat you must levy a tax of 9.4 mills on the actual 1969 valued land. Well, in Pouce you must tax at 42.5 mills.

Did the minister know that? Did the minister read any one of the reports? Did he read one of them? Did he read part of one of them? Did he get past the cover page, or, in fact, did he even see the cover or the summation of the various titles that have been published before taking this decision, which we will take if we pass section 2, particularly part (a) of section 2, to dissolve the British Columbia Institute of Economic Policy Analysis? Did he read any of the papers? Did he talk to anyone else besides Dr. Young of the directors? Did he talk to any of the staff?

MR. DARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief because I understand the Hon. Administrator, representing Her Majesty, wishes to address the chamber.

I would like to ask the minister if the legitimate interests of the university, which is a public institution...and I'm sure that the policy analysis institute has used services, parts of the infrastructure of the university. It's one of the reasons they're there. You assured the House that you did meet with Dr. Young and he thanked you for the consultation, but you've not indicated as to whether or not the administration of the college is entirely happy with the manner which the institute is leaving.

I'm not questioning whether or not he should leave; we dealt with that in principle. But can you assure the House that the legitimate administrative interests of the university will be looked after when this policy institute is closed out?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern and I did discuss this with Dr, Young. I asked him what facilities were being used by the institute out there: would they be able to be taken back into the college facilities without any problem? Were there are renovations made that the government should bring back to their original stance? He assured me there was no problem. I was concerned about it myself and I was assured that there was no problem.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the minister where he got the date of October 1  — out of the air, or does it have some significance?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the date of October 1 was arrived at in consultation with the board of directors.

MR. GIBSON: Could the minister then give us some clue as to the factors that were involved in that consultation? Did he meet with the board of directors?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The date factor was arrived at in determining the proper, orderly closing down of the institute, and it was arrived at by the board of directors. They advised me of that date.

MR. GIBSON: Could the minister advise us specifically whether the date of October 1 will allow the completion of work currently in progress at the institute — in the interest of greatest public efficiency that this work not be lost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can do more than accept the recommendation of the board of directors which suggested that date. Being a conscientious board of directors, I would presume that they took all those factors into being. I had to go on the recommendation of the board.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 1076 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division.

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

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

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

MR.CLERK:

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976

Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1976

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1: 14 p.m.

[ Page 1077 ]

APPENDIX

33 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

In each school district in the province which has rural components, what were the total sums collectable under the Public Schools Act in each rural component for the school budget year of 1975?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"Total sums collectable under the Public Schools Act were as follows:

34 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With reference to the co-ordinated production of certain unaudited financial information by Clarkson, Gordon & Co. dated February 18,1976—

1. What were the names of the Clarkson, Gordon & Co. personnel who worked on this co-ordination?

2. What is the total amount to be paid to Clarkson, Gordon & Co. for coordinating the figures provided by the Minister of Finance, Crown corporations, Boards, and agencies?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. I. Adam, B. Lund, F. E. Walden, K. L. Ingo, D. Gardner, R. G. Steel, R. G. Campion, D. C. Scott, F. Anstey, and R. N. Moysey.

"2. $49,916.56."

[ Page 1078 ]

14 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

1. What was the total number of employees in Government employment effective December 23,1975?

2. What is the total number of employees in Government employment to date?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Information not available for December 23,1975. The total number for December 31,1975 was 39,301.

"2. 38,569."

116 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With regard to the reception following the opening of the Legislature on March 17,1976-

1. How many official invitations were distributed?

2. How many persons attended?

3. What was the total cost of the reception held on March 17,1976?

4. What was the total cost of the reception held on February 18,1975?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Approximately 7,000 invitations were distributed.

"2. There were approximately 5,100 persons in attendance.

"3. The cost of the reception in 1976 was $5,450.

"4. The cost of the reception in 1975 was $4,097. (There were 2,000 persons in attendance.) "