[ Page 2291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act (Bill 24) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading — 2291

Statement

Progress in B.C. Ferries dispute. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2291

Mr. King — 2292

Mr. Gibson — 2292

Mr. Wallace — 2292

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Government policy to deal with economic slump. Mr. Barber — 2292

Bulbous bribes in Vancouver East. Mr. Gibson — 2293

Food services on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2293

Effects of ferry rate increases. Ms. Sanford — 2294

Funding of Brunette Street overpass. Mr. Cocke — 2294

Mid-Island schools closure. Mr. Stupich — 2294

Presence of Agriculture minister at Women's Institute conference.

Mrs. Wallace — 2295

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13) .

Committee, report and third reading — 2295

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20) Committee stage.

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

On section 14.

Mr. Lauk — 2296

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2296

Report stage — 2296

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 2296

Report and third reading — 2297

Anti-Inflation Measures Act, 1976 (Bill 16) Committee stage.

On section 6.

Mr. King — 2297

Mr. Gibson — 2297

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2298

Mr. Gibson — 2298

Mr. Wallace — 2299

Mr. Cocke — 2300

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2300

Division on section 6 — 2300

Report stage — 2301

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates.

On vote 2.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2301

Mr. King — 2302

Ms. Sanford — 2306

Mr. Gibson — 2308

Mr. Shelford — 2312

Mr. King — 2314

Mr. Wallace — 2315

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2321

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a long-time resident of Revelstoke who was a long-time alderman for that community and a regional member of the school district of Revelstoke for many, many years — Mr. Oscar Domke. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him this afternoon.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have guests of the Municipal Officers Association, which is having its 37th annual convention in Victoria from June 1 to 4. I would like the House to welcome them.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today a student from Comox Junior Secondary School, Robert Wilson. He is here today to spend the day watching the MLA for Comox at work, as part of their work-in- community programme.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Bill Hawkins, visiting here from Oakville, Ontario. Bill and I used to work together in the Ford office back in Windsor, Ontario, in 1950. Since then he has gone on to attain the high office of vice-president of the Ford Motor Co., and I don't know where I fell by the wayside. I hope the House will bid him a warm adieu.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRY
CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act.

Bill 24 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. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to you and to the members of the House the appointment of Mr. Hugh Ladner as an industrial inquiry commissioner to intervene in the dispute between the Government Employees Union and British Columbia Ferries. Mr. Ladner is a barrister and solicitor who has extensive experience as a third party in the resolution of labour-management issues.

Because of the number of questions which will be placed before him for consideration, the term of his appointment is being set initially at 30 days.

The decision to appoint an industrial inquiry commission was made following a series of meetings with representatives of the British Columbia Government Employees Union and of the Public Service Commission. The executive committees of the licensed and unlicensed components of the ferry service employees have undertaken to ensure that there will be no work stoppage or other job action pending the receipt of recommendations made by Mr. Ladner.

While there will be no change in the decision to lay off a number of workers as a result of the reduction in catering services on board the ferries, the Public Service Commission and the ferry service have instituted a programme for the interviewing of all personnel who are subject to layoff in order to place as many of them as possible in other positions in the public service, subject to their willingness to avail themselves of this opportunity.

It is anticipated that the interviewing process will take one month. Those employees who have been laid off will continue to receive wages during this period. Employees who have not been laid off but have been placed in other positions within the ferry service at no change of pay will also be afforded the opportunity of being interviewed for other positions in the public service. It is hoped that the relocation of ferry workers within the ferry service or other sectors of the public service will help to minimize the effects of the reduction in catering services.

I wish to make it clear that the Government Employees Union and the Public Service Commission have not agreed to accept the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commission as binding. However, the availability of Mr. Ladner's services will enable the parties to deal with the issues that are in dispute in a manner which was not heretofore available to them.

To date, all negotiations between the parties, both before and during the time when the mediation officer was providing them with assistance, have dealt solely with one issue: namely, scheduling and the related subject of overtime. With the appointment of Mr. Ladner, other significant issues not yet discussed between the parties will be reviewed by the parties and by the commissioner with the exception of the question of wages. In keeping with the negotiating procedures which have been established by the union and the Public Service Commission, the question of wages is reserved for consideration along with the other components of the public service until

[ Page 2292 ]

non-monetary issues have been dealt with.

MR. KING: I want to say that the opposition is pleased to hear that any disruption of the ferry service has been headed off for a period of one month. I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour has not been able to announce a positive intervention that would guarantee some resolution to the dispute but rather another inquiry which may simply have the effect of delaying a final resolution of the dispute that does exist on the ferry system.

I want to welcome the news that the government will continue to pay the laid-off employees until they receive opportunity for either retraining or re-establishment in some other branch of the public service. However, I do think it's regrettable that this approach was not taken at the outset. I believe that the Minister of Labour whose department of manpower bears responsibility for trying to initiate a similar approach in the private sector would agree that perhaps before arbitrary layoff notices were put forward in the public service it would have been well and less disruptive and less inflammatory to have met with the people involved and discussed a retraining programme or a relocation programme rather than facing all the hostility that has ensued and then trying to cope with that very problem.

In any event, I do want to say that I hope the minister's intervention and the appointment of Mr. Hugh Ladner are successful in recommending a resolution that will be acceptable to both of the parties.

I hope at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that the minister may well consider some similar type of intervention with respect to the dispute that exists in the school district of Nanaimo and Cowichan-Malahat between the school district boards and the CUPE union. It is having a very serious impact on the educational opportunity of students in those areas.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the sense that the lack of bad news is good news, I welcome this announcement of the industrial inquiry commissioner. The minister did not make clear what would happen at the end of the 30 days if the commissioner's term of office needs to be extended. In particular, if at that point positions are not found for all of those who would otherwise be affected by the layoffs, will the payroll continuation carry on until such time as adequate positions are found? It would seem to me that would be of assistance in coming to a peaceful resolution.

The minister noted that the recommendations will not be binding, as they cannot be under the Act at the moment, so I would express the hope that this is not merely a prelude to job action at the very busiest season of the ferries one month from now, when the Legislature may not be sitting, to take steps that could be required at that time. We will just have to keep our fingers crossed and wish the minister in his efforts, and the industrial inquiry commissioner, the very best.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's announcement since at the very least it has averted either a complete strike or at least a slowdown in ferry service just at the time when the tourist season is beginning, we hope, to pick up. I feel very confident that the minister has chosen an excellent individual in the form of Mr. Hugh Ladner to carry out the task of commissioner. I hope the fact that Mr. Ladner is a very close friend of mine will not be held against him by any of the parties. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly not.

MR. GIBSON: It's a point in favour, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the issue that had caused so much deep concern on the part of the employees, and which I'm sure the minister recognizes, was the layoff of such a large number with apparently limited effort to reassure them that they would have every opportunity to be relocated within the ferry system or within the public service.

The whole success of any labour-management dispute lies in some evidence of conciliation and compromise. It's very obvious that the minister in his wisdom has recognized the natural concern of the employees not to contest the right of the ferry management to close the dining rooms — that has not been in dispute. What has been the deep concern of the workers has been the hope that they would be given every possible access to alternative employment. It's quite obvious from the minister's statement that that underpins the agreement to go ahead with the commissioner approach in the form of Mr. Hugh Ladner.

I feel that it's disappointing that the two parties have not agreed to make the commissioner's decision binding, but as the Liberal leader has said, we just hope that the issues will be resolved and that the commissioner's report will be acceptable to both parties. As far as I'm concerned, as a member of the opposition I will do all I can in an unaligned way to either party to bring about an atmosphere within which we can be more hopeful of getting an acceptable solution.

Oral questions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY TO
DEAL WITH ECONOMIC SLUMP

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have

[ Page 2293 ]

one question in two parts to the hon. Premier. The manager of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brian Small, said yesterday that the unemployment situation in Victoria is, in his words, "nothing short of a disaster." And because of increased ferry fares and the high cost of food, tourists are saying, in his words: "Victoria is the worst place to go."

The first part of my question to the Premier is: has the government any specific plans to overcome the economic slump caused by their policies?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Victoria: I must take issue that the slump was caused by our policies, because the high unemployment has been a recurring problem for the last two years in British Columbia, and we've just now achieved the numbers that were unemployed last September.

However, it is a problem. This is the first indication I've had that the tourist industry, in fact, is in decline or in a slump this year. Certainly it will be discussed with ourselves and the travel minister, the minister responsible for tourism and travel, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), as the government is concerned about the economy of this province, whether it's Victoria, Fort Nelson or Vancouver.

MR. BARBER: I have a supplemental question, following on the Premier's comment that he's been able to achieve the same employment rate that he himself attacked last September. The manager of Canada Manpower in Victoria, Mr. Stan Purdy, also said yesterday that unemployment in Victoria was up 1.5 per cent over last May and indicated further that tourism, retail sales and real estate sales are all in decline.

In the light of that information about unemployment, may I put to the Premier this question: has the government any specific plans which will halt this steady deterioration of the economy as reflected in unemployment figures in the greater Victoria area?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the second member for Victoria is facetious about unemployment, because it's a very real problem to all parts of the House. We're concerned about it, but perhaps he regards it as something to play politics with.

I would say that I question whether retail sales are down, because the latest indications from the Department of Finance for the month on the five per cent sales tax — now seven — collected on retail sales indicate that retail sales are considerably higher than similar periods last year.

MR. BARBER: Not in Victoria.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's just not true — that last statement.

BULBOUS BRIBES IN VANCOUVER EAST

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. I would draw the Provincial Secretary's attention to section 162 of the Provincial Elections Act which prohibits the giving of gifts as an inducement for the voting towards any candidate. I would also draw her attention to the fact that there was this morning given the gift of a gladiolus bulb to a number of voters in Vancouver East to induce them to vote for the Social Credit candidate. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to say whether she or her department gave any advice to the candidate or his agents as to the legality of such a gift.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, if the minister finds the facts to be as I have said, will she launch an investigation under section 162? Also, since the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) claims that certain of these bulbs are edible, I wonder whether she would also check under section 164, which deals with treating. (Laughter.)

FOOD SERVICES ON FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications regarding the changes in the food service on B.C. Ferries: as a result of his inquiries following my question yesterday about frozen foods being supplied to the B.C. Ferries, can he confirm that they are supplied by Chef Ready Foods Ltd., and can he tell the House if that company was awarded the contract after the contract had been put out to tender?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the detail of that question as notice. But basically the purchasing policy practices of B.C. Ferries have not changed in recent weeks.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister also answered yesterday that the whole matter of supplying food to the ferry system was under review. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what form of independent consultation was used in reaching the decision to switch to the use of frozen food?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Again, I'll take that question as notice but there's no substantial switch to the use of frozen food whatsoever.

[ Page 2294 ]

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can ask a question which I've asked, I think, at least twice and which has not been answered, in the review of the whole matter, as the minister has described it, can he tell the House if as yet a decision has been made — yes or no — in offering a franchise to private companies to provide the total catering service on the ferries similar to the catering at airports?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.

I might add, in answer to a question which I wasn't able to answer yesterday, that 50 letters of protest about service in the cafeteria which had been received by B.C. Ferries management yesterday appeared all on B.C. Ferries letterhead paper, substantially all written in the same hand and also mailed on one single vessel,

EFFECTS OF FERRY RATE INCREASES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Premier. I would like to advise the Premier before I start, in case he misinterprets again, that my question is a serious one and is not facetious.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) yesterday informed the House following question period that no price monitoring is going to be carried out in the areas affected by the 100 per cent increase in ferry rates, and in view of the fact that no governmental department carried out any impact studies on the effects of the ferry rate increase prior of June 1, and in view of the fact there is a large quantity of foodstuffs carried on the ferries...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please state your question.

MS. SANFORD: ...will the government reconsider the decision, as announced yesterday by the Minister of Consumer Services?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, the Premier just stated to the House that he was concerned about prices and increases in unemployment and problems throughout the province, including Fort St. John. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government should reconsider that position.

MR. SPEAKER: That was not a question, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Arrogant government!

FUNDING OF BRUNETTE STREET OVERPASS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Highways if in fact the present government has decided to opt, either for or against, a decision that was taken last year with respect to the Brunette Street overpass. Last year it was decided that this government would provide for their share of the Brunette Street overpass, which connects New Westminster and Coquitlam. Now that the federal government has come through with their end, it would strike me that it's about time that the provincial government comes up, one way or the other, very quickly.

HON. MR. FRASER: That matter is now under active consideration.

MID-ISLAND SCHOOLS CLOSURE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): With respect to the continuing dispute between CUPE and MIPEA, I know the Minister of Labour has been in communication with the employers, employees and parents and, very recently, with the employers' organization. I wonder whether the attitude of the employers' organization leads him to be confident that the matter may soon be resolved and that the schools will soon be fully re-opened.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Based upon the attitudes expressed to me yesterday morning by the representatives of the employers, I am not satisfied that there will be any early resumption of those services which have been withdrawn from the people in the Nanaimo and Ladysmith areas. This morning I spoke with the chief negotiator for the union about this matter and I have asked for arrangements to be made to meet with me this afternoon to determine the effect action I can take may have upon the earliest possible resumption of those services. I would be happy to meet with the member for Nanaimo and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) following that meeting. I will also have, hopefully before 6 o'clock, a further statement to make to the members dealing with this serious and continuing dispute.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is that meeting with the employees' group only or with both?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The meeting this afternoon will be with the representatives of the union only. Having met with the representatives of the employer yesterday morning, I think that I must extend that same courtesy to them.

[ Page 2295 ]

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): A supplementary on the same question but to the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education, I understand, was awaiting a report on the deteriorating conditions in the classrooms in Nanaimo, and he informed the House that he would have further comments after he had received that report. Could he tell us what the situation is for the education of those students?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I will be happy to table that report later on this afternoon and the member will be able to judge for herself. I think that there is an indication that the education of the youngsters in that area is being impaired by the dispute. If the Legislature, in its wisdom years ago, had placed the education of children paramount so that disputes could be settled in their interests, we could have dealt with this situation. Perhaps at some future time the Legislature might be willing to re-assess its position in this regard in view of what has happened in this particular area.

PRESENCE OF AGRICULTURE MINISTER
AT WOMEN'S INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Presently going on in this city at the University of Victoria is a conference of the B.C. Women's Institutes. It is historic that the Minister of Agriculture personally open this meeting. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not he was able to preside at the opening ceremonies of this organization this week.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, believe it or not, I'll take it as notice. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: I just don't believe I heard that!

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could help you out. The hon. minister said he took the question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: But the opening was on Monday! It was Monday afternoon!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I misunderstood the question. I thought you asked if I was going to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wasn't there. No. The answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I'm still a little confused by this answer. The Women's Institute, as I am sure the minister is aware, is not only a British Columbia organization but a world federal organization and is associated with Countrywomen of the World. It is, I think, the only women's organization....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you please state your question?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm leading up to my question, Mr. Speaker. This is the only organization which has representation in the United Nations. I'm wondering, in view of the fact that the provincial grant to Women's Institutes amounts to the sum of only $10 per year, if the minister is considering increasing that grant.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, just so we don't mislead the House, you are talking about grants to individuals, and not the total grant. Certainly this government, when money becomes available and when we get the economy of this province rolling, will certainly look at increasing grants to everybody, but due to the tight situation created by that government over there....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period was terminated by the bell, hon. members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, public bills and orders — committee on Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to move to public bills and orders?

Leave granted.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear whether leave was asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Schroeder

[ Page 2296 ]

in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to section 10(d), referring to subsection (13a), by adding the words "or receptacle" after the word "mail box" in the second line. The purpose of this amendment, hon. member, is this: it will read now as follows:

"...'deliver,' with reference to a notice or other document, includes mail to or leave with a person, or deposit in a person's mailbox or receptacle at the person's residence or place of business;"

It was felt that the word "mailbox" by itself was not sufficiently distinctive.

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment in section 12. Under subsection (b)(f), there was a reference in the second line to the letter (d) which is incorrectly stated. It should refer to the letter (e). I so move.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Section 14 should not pass without the Attorney-General standing in his place, for at least a half a minute of silence, for the passing of the Latin phrase.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's just a speck of dust, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 2 1.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just very briefly want to take this opportunity to correct the statistic I gave yesterday. I said that the return on investment on the British Columbia mining industry was 5.8 per cent. I should have said in British Columbia it was 10.6 per cent. The 5.8 per cent figure was the Canadian average.

I went on to say — and I had some disagreement here with the hon. member seated to my right — that the 1974 rate of return was around 11 per cent. I've had the opportunity to check that, and indeed it was. It was 12.7 per cent, to be precise. The 1973 figure was the 24 per cent that the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) gave.

I might add, incidentally, that excluding coal, in

[ Page 2297 ]

1975, the rate of return in the mining industry in British Columbia was not, by any means, 10.6 per cent. It was only 2.2 per cent, and I think hon. members might bear that in mind as they vote for this excellent little bill.

Sections 1 and 2 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 16.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 6.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just to briefly recapitulate the position taken last night and the comments made in consideration of this particular section of the bill — indeed, consideration of all the sections of the bill — I want to remind the House that the main reason the official opposition objects to this particular section of the bill, section 6, as we do, indeed, to the entire contents, is because of the one-sided initiative taken through this piece of legislation.

On the one hand we have the delegation of authority to the federal Anti-Inflation Board to enforce and apply a specific and a precise formula of wage restraint to the wages and salaries of all working people in this province. But we have in section 6 only the vague promise of some similar programme of restraint when it comes to the question of prices and when it comes to the question of profits.

As well as the rather extreme powers which the government has taken unto themselves through this section, I regret and decry the fact that there is no precise statutory formula for a discernable, understandable system of price control which, in my view, would be necessary to convince the people of British Columbia that the government is in fact serious about an anti-inflation programme which will call upon all citizens of the province to make a sacrifice in recognition of national needs to combat the problem of inflation.

So because of the fact that this section of the bill is devoid of any precise formula for price control, we certainly cannot support it. The concerns which we hold regarding the extreme authoritarian powers which the government is taking unto themselves under this section have been, I think, put forward in very forceful fashion both from the official opposition, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace).

It comes as somewhat of a shock that a self-righteous government, which condemned the former administration for unnecessary legislative powers, should take unto themselves far more sweepingly broad authority than has heretofore been witnessed in any Legislature in this nation. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose this section of the bill.

Again, I call upon the provincial government in light of all of the defects that have been revealed in this total bill to do the proper thing, to do the safe thing, to do the prudent thing and withdraw the bill until they can get an adequate and proper review of the language, the authority required and get on with the job of bringing in something that is equitable and fair.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, this monstrous section of this bill is one that we haven't had a word on from the government in justification of the enormous powers that are proposed to be exercised without let or hindrance, without any machinery specified, without any right of hearing on any of the persons, be they in labour, be they persons who make prices, be they persons who have contracts or agreements of any kind which can be interfered with by this Act — no right of hearing and no word from the minister on that; no right of appeal and no word from the minister on that. It is a completely unacceptable section and, as I say, monstrous powers.

The only way in which this could conceivably be made acceptable is if there were to be a genuine legislative check on the bill, which there is not under the terms of the present wording, Mr. Chairman. As it is at the moment, if the Legislature should happen to be sitting, then 60 days after that time the regulation would have to be terminated. But it would be possible for the government, through its majority, to simply continue the regulation in the exact form that it is in. I really think that we deserve some word from the minister on better protection than that, because what if the Legislature is not sitting?

What if we were in a situation where the House recessed at, say, the end of June, and July 15 the

[ Page 2298 ]

minister and the government felt inclined to bring in some kind of controls under this legislation. Then, let us say that we are past 1976 and past the initial rush of legislation of this government and they decide not to have a fall session. Then month after month after month of this kind of regulation will continue, again without any appeal, without any machinery for a hearing of any kind. It is simply not good enough protection, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister to stand up and try and justify that, because to me it is just entirely wrong.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, section 6, as I see it, is all the more important to British Columbia at this stage with questions being raised yesterday as to the legality of the federal measures being questioned in the supreme court. This section becomes all the more important because it will empower this government in the future to back up the necessity to establish price guidelines or price control or price maximums, if it does in fact become necessary so to do. As I see it, this section is even more important now than it was two or three months ago.

As I have said before, it is simply to allow the cabinet to freeze the maximum price of a commodity or service, or to establish general guidelines for the restraint of such prices for a period of 60 days.

MR. GIBSON: Or longer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If the Legislature is sitting when the 60-day period expires, then the regulation or guideline also expires. If the House is not sitting at the end of the 60 days, then the regulation or guideline will continue in force unless revoked by the cabinet to a point in time 60 days after the House starts its next ensuing sitting. That's really the intent of that clause.

This particular Act, of course, forms an important part of the provincial attack on inflation, and it gives a firm legal basis to, as I said, any price-freeze power. This government and the previous government twice extended the previous price freeze. It agrees that a province should have the power to freeze prices, provided that power is strictly circumscribed and made very clear in the statute. That was not the case before, Mr. Member...

MR. GIBSON: I know that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...as we are all aware, and therefore we should support the need for this legal authority so to do.

A province, similarly, should have the power, within carefully limited terms, to fix guidelines for restraint of prices since a simple price freeze for one or more commodities or services might not be appropriate in every case. Provincial jurisdiction is clear here, and this Act tries to set out the rules of the game that have to be followed by the government if it is felt necessary to take such steps in the future, and only, Mr. Member, if it is felt necessary.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the minister that that is unacceptable. The moderate powers that he seems to see in this section are not what the words of the section say.

This section gives the government the power to enter into any private agreement that has denominated in money terms between any citizens of this province. It gives him and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to go into any factory, shop or place of work in this province and say that person shall not be paid more than X, even if they're being paid two X at that particular point. It gives the right to go into contract relationships and say that the terms of this contract are too high; they are going to be brought down to whatever level the minister sees fit. That is in there in section (b) and section (c) .

Section (b) says "...establishing the maximum price that may be charged for the supply of a commodity or service," and that means virtually anything because a commodity is anything that's sold in this province in trade, and a service is any act of labour that is performed in this province by any person for any other person and paid for in money. Therefore that gives the minister the right to fix anything. What is so serious is that it gives him that right with no hearing machinery and no appeal machinery, and that is what is so wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says that it is subject to all the legislation. What legislation?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): There is no other overriding legislation.

MR. GIBSON: There is no other legislation except in a few cases like marketing boards and the Energy Act. But the great bulk of the commerce of this province is carried on in ways not subject to any such legislation. All of the forest industry, with the exception of the price of wood chips — as the minister knows — is subject to regulation by this bill. The minister can go and tell an IWA member, a chokerman, let's say, that he's making 50 cents an hour too much. This bill gives him that power. It gives him the power to say to a small contractor for M&B, working on the west coast of Vancouver Island, that M&B is paying him too much and it's going to be rolled back. It gives complete power to enter into private arrangements — I would estimate 90 per cent

[ Page 2299 ]

of the private arrangements — between wage-earners and between contractors everywhere in this province.

I suggest that is a power that is completely inadmissible in a democracy, and the minister and the government ought to be ashamed for ever having introduced it in this Legislature.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, the minister has made the point that the previous price freezes were illegal, that the initial price freeze was illegal and the extension of the freeze was illegal, and he seems to use that argument to justify providing far more power in this bill than is simply necessary to legalize this kind of action of freezing prices.

I made the point last night in debate that, particularly under subsection 3, we could have a price freeze on a certain commodity for many months in this province if the price freeze were applied soon after the House completed its session, and if, in fact, we had only one session. I think particularly of the example of prescription drugs. Now the freeze that was applied on a temporary basis in the case of prescription drugs caused no real hardship. But the fact is very clearly established that almost 100 per cent of all the prescription drugs sold in British Columbia originate outside of British Columbia, in eastern Canada, in Europe and in the United Kingdom.

To give this kind of power to apply a price freeze to that particular commodity I cited, or perhaps to many other commodities in a similar situation, could mean that the individual pharmacist, over a period of 120 days or 180 days, or whatever, could be paying much-increased prices at the wholesale level and be compelled to sell at either no markup at all, or even at a loss.

That's a point the minister doesn't seem to recognize, while he has every logic behind his argument that the government must have the legal power to freeze prices. We seem to be back on the old pendulum situation in this debate. Because there was no power before, now that we're bringing in a bill we must have very extensive power. It's that moderation that seems to be missing from this particular bill and this particular debate.

Similarly, as the Liberal leader has just mentioned and as we discussed yesterday, subsection 6(2) gives such authority to the government to define the meaning of every single word that's used in this bill — price, commodity, services, to name but a few. This makes a mockery of collective bargaining, and here again we have a government that says it's very conscious of the serious nature of labour-management disputes in this province, which it has shown an example of by bringing in a certain other bill which I would neither number nor name, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the rules of this House, which takes a very reactionary approach to the management-labour problems of this province.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bill 22.

MR. WALLACE: Yet in this anti-inflation bill, section 6 is, in fact, making a total mockery of the collective bargaining process. Because parties can bargain until they're blue in the face and perhaps come up with some very hard-earned agreement where both sides give and take, but under section 6 of this bill it's very easy to say, "Well, sorry, fellows, you maybe worked very hard and maybe figured that you'd come to a very amicable compromise, but in the eyes of the provincial legislation this service, or this price, or that commodity shall be priced as follows."

I know the minister's answer will be: "Well, we have a national emergency and this kind of power has to exist to deal with the emergency." We'll have a much worse emergency if we have a general strike right across Canada because the labour movement in its collective wisdom decides that all the progress that's made in the last 50 or 100 years goes right out the window in the face of section 6 of this one bill.

I'm not even sure, even after all the discussions we've had, that the minister seems to be fully aware of the scope of power in this bill and the real concern that there is throughout the labour movement and throughout all employee groups as to the real threat that a bill such as this poses to their freedom to bargain for what they consider the best and fairest return for their labours.

It seems to have very little balance and moderation, this bill. It certainly provides the legal authority which the minister says was formerly missing by which government could freeze prices. But brother, does it ever correct that situation! We're going from a situation where there was no legal authority to one where the minister under this bill can fix the price or value or definition or interpretation of any single factor in the marketplace.

That coming from a government, as I said yesterday, that got itself elected because it decried the NDP for these very sins in the most vociferous and repetitive way — it just has to be the greatest paradox that I can imagine. The very government we now have received a mandate based on a commitment that it wouldn't use this kind of heavy authoritarian club. Now we find it creating a Crown corporation that can do all kinds of things to the property and land of an individual. Now we have it barging into the marketplace in blunderbuss fashion asking not just an authority to freeze prices, but authority to do any single thing in the marketplace in relation to prices, wages, whatever.

The government, Mr. Chairman, seems to be surprised that we on this side of the House are just a

[ Page 2300 ]

little upset about that. It's a contradiction of so much of the basic election platform by which this government sought the confidence and support of the majority of voters as recently as December last year.

I realize, as I mentioned yesterday, that we won't get the.... We've failed to have the minister consider withdrawing the bill, or at least adjourning debate until we have certain other information at the federal level.

I was very interested in the minister's comments just a few moments ago that section 6 has added significance because of the doubt which applies to the validity of the federal Anti-Inflation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I would just draw your attention to the fact that there is not the customary clause in this bill or a clause in the bill which allows proclamation of parts of the bill without proclaiming the whole bill.

If the Supreme Court of Canada does choose to decide that, in fact, there is not a national emergency and the federal legislation is ultra vires, the minister's implication.... It was only an implication, Mr. Chairman. I'm not suggesting he made a blunt statement. But he said that in the absence of the validity of the federal Act, section 6 would give the provincial government, of its own existence, a chance to implement various controls.

But as I read the bill — and I would certainly hope maybe the Attorney-General can either confirm or contradict me — there is nothing in the bill which would allow the separate proclamation of section 6. Section 8 of the bill states that the Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation — presumably the whole Act or none of the Act. We won't reiterate all of last night's arguments about the possibility existing, at least, that the federal legislation might prove to be unconstitutional.

At the very, very least, if the government persists in this bill, I would suggest that a section be inserted leaving the provincial government the option at least to proclaim those parts of the bill within the provincial jurisdiction.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to mitigate against some of the details of the bill, such as the one I've mentioned whereby a regulation imposed may persist until 60 days after the commencement of the next sitting of the House. I wish to introduce an amendment to section 6(3), Mr. Chairman: in line 4 of subsection (3), substitute for the figure "60" the figure "10".

The obvious thought behind my amendment is that it still means there could be a substantial period of time under which a regulation like a freeze on prescription drugs could be enforced, but, particularly in the case where the House is not sitting at the time the regulation is imposed, my amendment is insisting at least that the matter would come before the House for debate 10 days after the House sits. I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

The amendment is that in section 6(3), the number "10" shall be substituted for "60" in line 4 of that subsection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me implicit in the amendment that if we were to support the amendment we would then really, in effect, be supporting the amended section of Bill 16. I have grave concern over supporting the amended section 6, amended in this way.

The amendment that I, of course, could support very easily of section 6, along with the rest of the bill, went the way of bills that die on the order paper, but certainly I question this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the wisdom of my colleague for New Westminster and I wish to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made a worthwhile suggestion with regard to the proclamation of this Act. He made the suggestion that it should be able to be proclaimed section by section in the case of the ineligibility of any particular section at any time. Actually, this is now the case in the case of any proclamation of an Act. Under the Interpretation Act, section 5(2)(b): "Proclamations may be issued at different times in respect of different provisions of the Act." Actually this would apply as it stands now.

MR. WALLACE: Okay, thank you.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 2301 ]

NAYS — 15

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I understand that the amendment was merely to delete "(b)" in the first section, and I wonder if leave might be given to report the bill now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that leave could be granted when the bill is being reported.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Anti-Inflation Measures Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WOLFE: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 2: $636,598.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I'll give just a short explanation of the change in the vote this year, Mr. Chairman. This will be the first time in 23 years that the office of the Premier has not been coupled with the Department of Finance when presenting estimates before the Legislature. In the reorganizati on of government activity, we have placed the Premier's vote within the heading "executive council" and have taken the former position of planning adviser to the cabinet away from the office of the Provincial Secretary and restructured it to be the department of intergovernmental affairs within the executive council vote. This new office of intergovernmental affairs operates with a staff very similar to the size of the staff that was the former planning adviser to the executive council, with some changes but with some of the same personnel still continuing who were with the advisory planner to the executive council.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the new department of intergovernmental relations has proved very beneficial to the government and to the province of British Columbia. In a year when most of the major cost-sharing programmes come up with Ottawa and there is a host of meetings between the various ministries involved in cost-sharing programmes, and at a time when Ottawa is involving the provinces in more more and more discussions, this department has proved invaluable in co-ordinating the activities of the various departments. It's something that has proved necessary so that the financial relationships, where they overlap, can be co-ordinated on a provincial level. There is no evidence of this having been done before. Mr. Chairman, for the betterment of the financial well-being of the province and the relationship in the amounts of money that we share with Ottawa, this should prove to be a better administrative change for the province of British Columbia.

In setting this up we did study intergovernmental affairs in other provinces — Alberta, Quebec and others. Some of them have developed separate ministries and I know that our party, during the campaign, did talk about a separate department or a separate ministry of intergovernmental affairs. In consultation with other provinces which have separate ministries and in assessing B.C.'s own unique position it was felt, Mr. Chairman, that in these first years the co-ordination would be better served out of the executive council and in conjunction with the Premier's office.

You will also notice, Mr. Chairman, that for the first time we have a money vote attributed to the executive council, and this is in line with other provincial governments that provide a sum for those services that serve the executive council. Until now most services for cabinet committees have been done by the line departments. It is to be hoped, although it is not yet in place, that there will be a staff that can serve cabinet committees on a continuing basis for

[ Page 2302 ]

the better provision of records and co-ordinating the various cabinet committees and departments. We believe this will serve the people of the province better.

Those are just a few of the changes that affect vote 2, all in better structuring the executive council, the Premier's office and intragovernmental affairs to serve the province.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I'm rather disappointed that the Premier spent such a few minutes dealing in a very, very cursory way with the record of his government and the particular policies of his office, particularly when grave economic problems face the province, both in terms of the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment in many ways brought about precisely by the very punitive policies that have been introduced by the new coalition government.

The Premier, as president of the executive council, must take the responsibility for the policies that have been introduced by his cabinet. I'm extremely disappointed that he failed to either acknowledge the problems that exist or to offer any indication of policies that the government might be considering to deal with these great problems of disruption and hardship that are being visited upon thousands and thousands of people, the citizens of this province.

During the course of this session, on every occasion that presented itself, I have attempted to demonstrate to the Premier the real impact, the real consequence of the government policies thus far. They relate to the cost impact on the average people of British Columbia, resulting from the extraordinary rate increases in automobile insurance, in the ferry rates, in home-heating fuel, new sales tax increase, personal income tax increases, increases in extended-care and medicare premiums, drugs, food — all of these things unregulated and allowed to spiral in terms of cost — and at the same time some 114,000 people unemployed in the province.

The Premier must accept the responsibility for these policies that have not sought to ease the impact of harsh economic times upon the people, but rather have compounded those problems in a brutal way by government piling increase after increase upon the backs of the people of the province, particularly those who are least able to afford the increased costs, those who lack the upward mobility to keep pace.

I've talked about this before, but I want to demonstrate to the House today, Mr. Chairman, precisely what it means in real terms to the average household in British Columbia — what the action of this government, what the policies of this government mean in real terms. I want to draw to the House's attention an example which has been compiled with public figures for the use of our party. It is the real impact, the real cost consequence, to the average citizens of this province.

I have a number of illustrations I would like to read into the record so, perhaps in dramatic form, the Premier will come to understand that the average householder is labouring under an enormous load, and is unable to cope with that hardship.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Take a family of four, as an average family in British Columbia, owning a suburban home in, say, the municipality of Burnaby: the father, an employee of the forest industry, earning the average of $289 a week; in the same family, the mother, a retail clerk working in a shopping centre or something of that nature, and earning an average salary for that kind of employment of $191 a week; two children under 16 years of age — resulting in a gross income to the family of $24,296 per year. This, I think, represents a typical British Columbia family.

Their combined income, after tax — in other words, their disposable income — would represent about $20,161. Cost-of-living increases over and above the rest of Canada, due solely to the British Columbia government's actions, are detailed as follows — and I want to read them out; I want to demonstrate carefully to the House what it means.

The total impact of policies introduced by this government over the past six months of their tenure has resulted in a cost impact to this kind of family of $1,206.46 per year — that's $1,206.46 a year that has been heaped upon the backs of that family. So the real purchasing power lost to this kind of family has been reduced 6 per cent as a direct consequence of policies introduced by the provincial government.

I want to detail some of the factors through which I have arrived at this calculation. The sales tax increase, 40 per cent to 7 points: one percentage point equals about $101,428,000 for the 2.5 million population of the province; you divide into that the average $40.50 per capita, and you arrive at a figure of $324.56 extra per year that is loaded upon the average family.

The provincial personal income tax increase results in an average cost increase of $7.60 extra per year.

The Autoplan premiums increase to 133.7 per cent results in an average.... And I'm not going to go into all the calculations which are used for the average family, but simply indicate that this cost increase results in an average extra payment of $401 per year.

The average lower mainland residential electricity bill increased 10.8 per cent, an average cost increase of $22.80.

The average lower mainland natural gas heating increased 9.5 per cent, an average of $437.20 extra per year.

Medicare — the family rate premiums increased 50

[ Page 2303 ]

per cent, resulting in an average extra cost per annum of $75.

Hospital co-insurance is added on as the burden of an additional $18. That was an increase of 300 per cent — $4 a day.

Cigarette tax, to parents who smoke, would be an average extra cost per year of $29.20.

Ferry rate increases — 100 per cent increase — an additional $154 extra per year.

Provincial campground fees, $6.40 per year.

Now all of these things indicate that a tremendous burden has been added to the average family in British Columbia. But that is an average family with a pretty fair income — the middle bracket of working persons in the province of British Columbia, and who have some economic clout, some opportunity for upward mobility, albeit eroded somewhat through the anti-inflation guidelines, but at least an ability to somewhat keep pace.

But what about the working poor in the province of British Columbia — those people who have no union to represent them, those people who are not organized, those people who may be partially handicapped and only able to participate in the work force on some limited basis? There are many, many of these. Indeed, the majority of the work force in British Columbia — some 66 per cent of the work force in British Columbia — does not belong to a union of any kind. They have no opportunity to keep pace; they have no bargaining lever.

The working poor are in this position, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, through you — and I hope he takes note. Taking an average family of four, renting a modest two-bedroom house in Vancouver: the father earns wages of approximately $4 an hour; they have two dependent children; their after-tax disposable income is $7,312. By subtracting the cost of living increases, over and above the rest of Canada and due solely to British Columbia government's actions, we arrive at the following details: $713.88 would be subtracted from that disposable income, leaving a net disposable income this year, as a direct result of Social Credit policy, of $6,598.12 — a real loss in their purchasing power of 9.8 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to contrast that percentage loss in reduced purchasing power against the position of the previously-referred-to example of the average worker where the real income loss was only 6 per cent. This provides proof positive, Mr. Chairman, that what the official opposition has been telling this government right along is that the consequences of their policies, both economic and otherwise, weigh more heavily against those who can least afford to pay — a 9 per cent loss in disposable income for the low-income people, only 9 per cent, and Lord knows that is enough of an impact on the average industrialized worker. So there are the two average kinds of situations that are real and being felt by the people of this province.

I don't know whether the Premier can associate himself with that kind of dilemma or not. Perhaps he can associate himself more readily with the last example I am going to draw to the attention of this House. That is the case of what his economic policies have meant to the average millionaire in the province of British Columbia, perhaps a millionaire coming from the Okanagan somewhere, living in the average rural setting in the Okanagan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your average run-of-the-mill millionaire.

MR. KING: The average run-of-the-mill millionaire...

Interjections.

MR. KING: ...a guy having an additional job, say a public service job — a public job in addition to being a millionaire in his own right. This hypothetical millionaire has a $200,000 home, say up in the Okanagan somewhere, just for speculation.

Interjections.

MR. KING: He has an apartment in Victoria. He rents this apartment for $400 a month. We assume that this millionaire doesn't smoke so he saves somewhat on that sales tax. We assume that he has a wife and four boys.

Interjection.

MR. KING: For one reason or other, he doesn't have to pay any ferry fares whatsoever. He doesn't have to pay that increased ferry fare that the average citizen has to pay. This millionaire for one reason or another is exempt from ferry fare rates.

Interjections.

MR. KING: From his assets of $1 million, I think it is safe to conclude.... A reasonable assumption would be that this millionaire earns interest of $100,000 a year. That is a mere 10 per cent on his capital investment. I think it is safe to conclude that he would earn that much.

Interjection.

MR. KING: But because of his most serious and sincere concern for inflation, Mr. Chairman, he has voluntarily accepted a 10 per cent cut in his public salary paid for by the taxpayers, a most magnanimous gesture by this compassionate millionaire. This, then, means that he earns from his public position a salary

[ Page 2304 ]

of $46,800. He therefore has a total taxable income of $146,800 per year and an after-tax income of $87,320 per year. That's after tax — $87,320.

We can assume that a man on a salary of this range would probably buy more than the average family. So he would probably spend more on the sales tax. He'd buy more goods than the average British Columbian. He might even buy 50 per cent more goods because he is able to afford a few luxury items that the average citizen can't afford. We assume that he pays ICBC increases on two cars. I think that kind of average millionaire would probably have two cars. Let's just assume that he has a 1975 Chrysler and another 1975 Dodge, just for the purpose of hypothesis.

The total cost to this average millionaire of the Social Credit coalition policies so far this year would be $2,171.35, which is after tax, reduced from an income of $87,320 per year. This represents a loss in purchasing power to this poor, struggling little millionaire of 2.5 per cent — 2.5 per cent, Mr. Chairman, one-quarter of the decline experienced by the average working people, by the working poor particularly, one-quarter of the decline in disposable income experienced by the working poor, and less than one-half of the impact on disposable income suffered by the average working household in this province where both parents are working.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to hear the Premier talk about the problem that is being faced by the people of British Columbia. This is an analysis which anyone can draw, which is a mere matter of doing some arithmetical homework to determine what the effect of cost increases introduced by this government means to the various income levels of people — citizens of British Columbia.

As I said at the outset, if the Premier has difficulty associating himself and his circumstances, domestic and otherwise, with the plight of that low-income earner who has no union to represent him, who doesn't belong to any trade association, who lacks any large reserve of capital either earned or inherited to back him up, if the Premier can't be sensitive to the plight of that kind of citizen in British Columbia, if he can't associate and identify himself with the average working person who belongs to a trade union in the province of British Columbia, maybe he can associate himself, maybe he can identify with that millionaire who has made the enormous sacrifice to join the Social Credit programme of inflation, the enormous sacrifice of only 2.5 per cent of the extent to which the working poor have been called. upon to sacrifice in this province.

That's what the policies of this government mean. That's precisely what they mean, and I think that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, before he goes into some casual and cursory commentary of the frills of his office, should stand up and tell this House precisely what he and his government intend to do to assuage the terrible impact of economic hardship that is being visited upon the working poor and by far the majority of citizens in this province.

I certainly expect to hear from the Premier regarding positive programmes he intends to introduce regarding employment opportunity. There should be direct employment opportunities offered now. When the Premier failed to give me any indication in a question I asked regarding direct employment programmes, I want the House to know, Mr. Chairman, that I sent a telegram to the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Hon. Robert Andras, asking if the federal government would undertake to make funds available. He assured me that they would and, in fact, there are federal funds available to mount direct and special employment programmes in British Columbia. I find it absolutely shocking and amazing that neither the Premier of this province nor any of his cabinet colleagues have thus far announced any initiative to collaborate with the federal government to obtain some of these funds and to mount programmes which would come to grips with the brutal unemployment which is facing so many people in our province now.

I want to remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that when questioned a few weeks ago, the Premier of the province said: "Well, it's going to take longer than we anticipated in the election to get the economy of this province going again." He talked about some economic policies three years down the road. I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Chairman: is he sitting there and suggesting that people suffering the plight of income erosion, as I have outlined here today, is he suggesting that they sit there and exist on a bare subsistence income for the next three years while this government recognizes the problem and takes some decisive action to come to grips with the economic stimulus that's necessary to get them back on the payroll and to get the economy of this province moving in such a way that people can earn a decent living and enjoy a decent standard of livelihood in this province?

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): A do-nothing government.

MR. KING: Absolutely, a do-nothing government! I think it's absolutely amazing that the Premier expects to obtain his salary through this House, was prepared to sit there and let his salary go past without comment if the opposition had not risen to question him. I think that's shocking. I think the Premier perhaps enjoys a pretty fair standard of living without being so hasty in trying to push his salary vote through this House. I think he has an obligation to try to have some sensitivity for the people in this province who are in real need now. He has some

[ Page 2305 ]

obligation as the Premier of this province, as the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the minister responsible for the conduct of all his cabinet colleagues, because he appointed them, and he has some responsibility to give an indication as to what direction this government is going to move in terms of an economic reappraisal of the shambles they have brought to this province so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of material here that I intend to deal with in the Premier's estimates. He has a lot of accounting to do. I don't want to take too long in dealing with the first question which, in my view, is the most important, and that is the plight of the people that are suffering the terrible vengeance of this government so far. I think that's the No. 1 issue that we have to have some assurance on.

I'm going to take my seat and I'm going to ask the Premier to respond in a positive way and not a politically picayune way like he has in the past, but with some recognition of the problem that does exist and some positive steps to assuage the suffering that's going on out there.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier apparently is prepared to sit down and wait for his salary of about $48,000 per year to go through, while the plight of the people I have referred to is totally ignored. I think that's a shockingly insensitive posture for the Premier of this province to take — absolutely amazing.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How about the one that doubled his wages?

MR. KING: Here's a headline, Mr. Chairman, in the Victoria Times of this date, June 3, blazing headline: "59 per cent Increase Awarded to BCR Men. The biggest 'catchup' pay increase since federal anti-inflation income controls — up to 59 per cent over two years — has gone to workers on the British Columbia Railways."

I don't know what this government, Mr. Chairman, is doing. There seems to be absolutely no equity in terms of their economic approach to government in this province. There seems to be no equity in the legislation that they bring forward in terms of coming to grips with the problem of inflation. They seem to be simply applying the old jungle philosophy of the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, you know, and "each man for himself, " said the elephant as he danced around the chicken pen. Certainly it's the little guy who is taking the brunt of this government's rather callous indifference thus far.

I read this headline as a demonstration that the trade unions are able to somewhat keep pace with the needs of their members, even in tough economic times.

What about that 66 per cent of our work force out there who have no union to bargain for them — the handicapped and so on, the indigent, the fixed-income people? These costs all weigh very heavily on them also, and I would expect the Premier to come forward with some answers to the questions I've raised here. They're raised in all earnestness, because unquestionably the kind of rate increases the government has brought in do cut much more heavily on those who are least able to afford cost increases. It's unreasonable and it's cold and discriminatory to ask people on the one hand to exercise restraint in terms of their demands upon the economy by asking for less, and on the other hand to impose upon them these brutal increases that have been demonstrated time and time again in this House.

I want to tell the Premier that I have a lot of letters to read to him, letters that I've received, letters of real anguish from residents all over this province, some from his own riding, many from the Gulf Islands, pointing out the hardship that the increased ferry fares have had in that particular area of the province.

Maybe as a bit of a prompter, Mr. Chairman, I should read the first one of those letters to the Premier now. I'll just read one as an example and I'll get into them in more detail later. The letter here was sent to the leader of the New Democratic Party, Dave Barrett.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. KING: You'll know who that is very shortly, my friend. It reads:

"Dear Mr. Barrett,

"I have just talked to your local party office and was much impressed with their attitude. I requested your home address so I could write and pass on to you personally the Social Credit Party membership cards of both my wife and myself.

"We are leaving the party, Mr. Barrett, and joining yours. I feel sure that if these cards are returned to Mr. Bennett he will naturally try to cover up the apparent trend of the same action that is taking place. I want you to have these two cards as proof of our action. You can record this move and pass them on to the Social Credit Party or do as you please with them.

"An explanation for this step is, of course, due you. We are completely disgusted with the severe cutbacks in all of your social policies. These are barbaric. Will Mr. Bennett never let up on the poor? Neither myself or my wife have ever received or requested any benefits from any programme that falls into this

[ Page 2306 ]

category. Some day we may have to do so, and in the meantime we are going to try and retain all the good you achieved during your stay in office, and we sincerely hope you will regain your office as Premier of this province.

"We wish you every success in your by-election and just know you will come out on top. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for your attention and also for the opportunity of serving you by becoming a member of your political party."

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is signed "Murray Du Guay," and I'm going to direct the cards back. They're from the riding of the hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) in Kamloops. I would like those to be delivered to the Premier so that he might get the message, a little more with feeling. Perhaps that kind of conduct will start to melt the cold, cold heart to the point where he might start to take seriously the questions — the serious questions — that are being raised in this House.

I hope he doesn't continue to sit there and smirk, but rather take seriously the feeling that he should have for the people in this province who are really suffering. I hope he'll get up on his feet and answer in a serious way, Mr. Chairman.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Following up on the remarks made by the House Leader for the official opposition (Mr. King) with respect to how people in this province have been affected by the policies of this government, I would like to speak on the subject of the people in the more remote areas. This government has showed a complete lack of concern or understanding for the people who live in the remoter areas of the province. None of these members from the north up there speak on behalf of their constituents who are suffering, just as those in the northern part of Vancouver Island are. It seems that I have to carry the load for the entire bunch of them sitting over there, speaking on behalf of these people. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, not only have the people in the northern part of my riding been adversely affected, as outlined by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader (Mr. King), in terms of paying all these increases in ICBC and taxes and that long list, but they have special problems which go completely unrecognized by this government. Every move that they take has affected adversely the people of the province, but they have affected more severely those people who live in the remoter parts. I would like to give just a few examples of the kinds of things that happen to the people in the northern part of Comox constituency.

During the estimates of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), for instance, I presented a petition which had been signed by the residents of Port Alice protesting that cutback with respect to escort service to transport patients to Vancouver General Hospital. or one of the larger hospitals in the province.

Now in the areas surrounding the lower mainland, this cutback is not as expensive for people as it is up there. Up there it is going to mean an additional charge of $200 to $300 per patient. There was no response from the Minister of Health to this petition — no indication that he understood what a difference it made to the people in the northern parts of the province and the northern part of Vancouver Island, and no indication that they even cared.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): What problem?

MS. SANFORD: There was no mention made whatsoever in the response by the Minister of Health to that petition and the concern that those people showed.

The people of Alert Bay were quite excited about the possibility of the Prince George giving them some added communication along the coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to be kidding!

MS. SANFORD: They wrote a letter protesting the sale of the Prince George at that time and cutting out that possible line of communication. At the same time there are cutbacks in Hydro, which are not all that important as far as some of the, people in the lower mainland and in this area are concerned, but up there, where they experience frequent blackouts and frequent breakdowns due to storms and due to the fact that the lines are not always as well maintained as they are in this area, what happens? They get a cutback. No more do they have a lineman to service the people at Alert Bay. He's going to be moved somewhere else, and, of course, when they suffer a breakdown in hydro service at Alert Bay, then the lineman will be brought from somewhere else whenever he has the time. Now that affects them far more up there than it does down here because of the difficulties in communications. They suffer far more from that kind of problem.

In addition, the people on the northern end of the Island have suffered over the years because of lack of services. They have a very inadequate television service, which I recognize has nothing to do with this government but is a federal problem. Whenever there is a problem with the economics of the province, the small planes operated by small companies in that part

[ Page 2307 ]

of the province cut down on the service that's available to people. In many cases, these are their lifelines. These bring in food, they bring in mail and they are the way in which they can communicate with the outside world. They're cut back. They're affected first.

The public health nurse in Port Hardy — the staffing up there for public health has been cut back. Again, the service provided under the public health unit services a great wide area and it is difficult enough with staff to try to give any of the people in that area some public health service. That's been cut back, and this government has shown no concern about that or no interest.

There is a list, a long, long list, again, Mr. Chairman, about the effect of cutbacks and the lack of concern of this government with respect to people in remote northern areas.

The doubling of the ferry costs to residents who live at Sointula and Alert Bay is going to be crippling in many cases. It'll now cost, just to take the car and a driver to Vancouver and back, $80 return. So we talk about how the increases this government has brought in affect families. Those families on the northern part of the Island are far more severely affected, and that kind of rate increase is just one of them: $15 for a car, Beaver Cove to Kelsey Bay, plus $6 for the driver — one way. In addition, people in the northern part of the Island pay fantastically high rates for their furniture, their food, their clothing and for gasoline. Gasoline at the pumps up in that area runs around 99 cents in many cases. So everything affects them more severely up there.

Now there's a subject that I would like to draw directly to the attention of the Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman, because I have worked with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I have worked with his staff. I have worked with the people who are concerned about the fact that the two remaining contracts which will give the people of the northern part of the Island a public highway, for the first time, have been cut out of this year's Highways estimates. Now I'm bringing this directly to the attention of the Premier because the Minister of Highways does not have the money in his budget this year, he tells me, and he so tells the delegations that come to see him. Therefore I must bring it directly to the attention of the Premier, and I hope he shows some concern in this.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Why didn't your government build it?

MS. SANFORD: For the information of the newer members in this House who have no idea about a road to the north end of the Island, I would like to inform them that the previous government awarded three contracts in three years. There is currently $13 million worth of work going on there and the people of the north end of the Island want that highway finished, and they want it finished now.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the people in the north end of the Island don't buy this property plea that keeps coming out at them. A large number of them up there recognize that this government is out to build up a surplus with which they're going to try to buy their votes at the next election. They're not going to buy that argument, and they would like that money now in order to complete that highway.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do with it? Where did you bury it?

MS. SANFORD: They have waited for so long. I have outlined before in this House that it was in 1956 that P.A. Gaglardi announced that road when he was campaigning on behalf of one Dan Campbell...

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MS. SANFORD: ...saying that that road would be built if they supported Dan Campbell in the election.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: After the election it became part of a 10-year programme, and, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't until 1971 that work started on that road. No wonder the people up there are campaigning and saying: "Look, we have waited long enough. We suffer enough having to live without services, having to live in remote areas, pay high prices and having to put up with the increases that have been imposed by this government. The least they can do is complete that road." Those contracts were in the estimates this year. They have been removed. They were there; I saw them. I saw the printouts.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who showed them to you?

MR. KEMPF: Did you see the money they left to do it with?

MS. SANFORD: I saw the previous Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) on this before the election, Mr. Member,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2308 ]

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly of the Premier, that the people on the north end of the Island are mounting a magnificent campaign in order to attempt to convince this government that they're not to be neglected, as far as the completion of that highway is concerned.

I would like to illustrate the kind of campaign that they are waging. This is a full-page ad which appeared in the Port Hardy Gazette. They are using the theme of a carrot. They feel that the carrot has been dangled in front of them long enough. They now have half of the carrot and they want the rest of the carrot. Their campaign is centred on getting the rest of that carrot. In addition to taking out full-page ads, they are sending off to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) cards which have been specially printed that have the carrot on them. They have prepared buttons: "Do you carrot at all?" The other one is a T-shirt; they are wearing T-shirts up there trying to promote this campaign.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, they have prepared a carrot cocktail which is a product of northern Vancouver Island. It's one for the road and it's one which they have presented to the Minister of Highways. In view of the fact that the Premier may not have heard about this campaign, I would like to send him, courtesy of the campaign people in the northern part of Vancouver Island, a carrot cocktail as well. In addition, the people in the northern part of Vancouver Island have been sending the Minister of Highways carrot seeds just in case he forgets that they are waging a campaign.

This government may not recognize the seriousness of the problem with respect to finishing the road to the north end of the Island, but at least the federal Member of Parliament, Liberal Hugh Anderson, does recognize it. He knows how important that road is to the northern part of the Island, and I give him credit. He is doing what he can in order to get that road finished, in order to get contracts awarded this year, since this government is not prepared to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

The federal Member of Parliament, Hugh Anderson, has gone to the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion in Ottawa and has asked if there is any possibility that some DREE money could be used in order to award those two remaining contracts so that the people in the north — over 12,000 of them — can finally get a public road. I have been working with the federal Member of Parliament and have been in communication with the DREE people here — the regional people here — and they are very interested in the proposal, are currently communicating with the federal minister responsible and will report back to me. Hopefully, they will be able to take the initiative so that a special contract can be signed so that both federal and provincial moneys can go into awarding those contracts this year.

The federal Member of Parliament knows how the people feel and knows how important the road is to the people of the north end of the Island. He spoke to Marcel Lessard and reported back to the people of the Comox constituency. He says it is not basically their problem, and it isn't. I quote from the paper: "But I know how important this road is and something has to be done." Now I support the federal member in this. He and I will work together to attempt, through the DREE programme, to obtain some money so that those people in the north end of the Island will be able to have that road completed.

I would like to ask the Premier, at this stage — and hopefully he will respond before too long — whether or not he would be prepared to enter into an interim agreement with the DREE people, if, in fact, the DREE people will agree that DREE money could be put in to assist in getting those contracts awarded this year, so that we can complete the road to the north end of the Island.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, since I am going to go on to a different kind of subject I would gladly defer to the Premier if he wants to make any responses to the matters raised so far, or I would gladly defer to any of the backbenchers if they are looking for a cabinet job at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're not looking for a cabinet job either?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You aren't in danger of that, are you?

MR. GIBSON: I am in no danger of that. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't take a cabinet job with this government.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you, Sam, he's closer to one than you are.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk at this time about intergovernmental affairs and federal-provincial relations. The Premier mentioned that in his opening remarks and I think he is 100 per cent right to keep that subject in the Premier's office at this particular time. I think I said earlier on in debate that perhaps the most important job in the province at the moment is economic development,

[ Page 2309 ]

but I think a close second is our relationships with the rest of the country. Since it is a brand new portfolio in British Columbia, I think it is right it should have the personal attention of the Premier.

The importance of our membership in Canada is one of the historic conditioners of what it's meant to be a British Columbian for the last 100 years. But there are some real problems in our relationship with the rest of the country and with the national government. My view, Mr. Chairman, is that every 100-year-old agreement needs some kind of a re-opener and some kind of a look to see if it is still serving the purposes for which it was originally designed. The time, by historical action, is now because we are at a stage where the national government wants to repatriate the constitution to Canada, and the provinces have a right, in view of that fact, to ask that the rest of the arrangements between the regions and the national government of Canada be re-examined.

I am going to suggest to the Premier today that an in-depth study is needed for an intelligent assessment of those kinds of questions. I suggested this to the last government and I regret to say they never took that seriously. Had they done so we would have been in better shape and knowledgeably armed for federal-provincial relations today. As it is, the studies have to go on from this point.

My basic premise is that if there are grievances between regions and between provinces and the federal government, the country will be strengthened and work better if arrangements are changed so that they are fair.

The study that I suggest into the place of British Columbia in Confederation and the benefits and costs and possible amendments of that place it seems to me should be cooperative with the federal government and the other provinces, if that can be arranged, in order that all of the parties to the study will agree in the end because we are all a part of the ongoing examination.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest some of the terms of reference of that study. It must start from the basis that British Columbia, in terms of relative position, is doing the worst of any province in Canada in economic growth. This was evident last year when our gross provincial product per person fell by 2 per cent. It was evident between 1963 and 1974 when our economic growth per capita was 10th out of 10 among the provinces. It was evident between 1954 and 1974 when our personal income for a person employed went from 25 per cent above the national average down to less than I per cent above the national average. It was evident from 1936 to 1974 when our personal income per capita in British Columbia went from 33 per cent above the national average down to just 7 per cent above the national average.

This has been a long-term trend, Mr. Chairman, for which I naturally do not blame this government, because they're just in office, but it's a long-term trend that we all must note whereby the relative performance of British Columbia, compared to the rest of Canada, has been declining. Some of those reasons are internal to our own economic management, but some of them, I suggest, are national in scope, and I think that any proper study of British Columbia in Confederation ought to look at them.

The next thing I would suggest that such a study would look at is what I would call grievances — famous grievances of British Columbia which have dragged on for many years. One of the first of these, perhaps, is ferry subsidies. They are available to all of the Maritime provinces, and even to Ontario on some runs, and we have to get them here for British Columbia. The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) earlier on mentioned Hugh Anderson, MP, a man I much admire and a man who recently has been able to at least get the agreement of the federal government to look at the case for a ferry subsidy for British Columbia. This is one of the things such a study would have to look at.

It should look at freight rates — higher rates eastbound for B.C. manufacturers.

It should look at things even relating to private business, such as, for example, the treatment of the airline which has headquarters in British Columbia. A national airline, Canadian Pacific Airlines, in my view has been discriminated against in terms of award of national and international routes, and that's important for British Columbia because it means jobs in this province.

It should look at things like the British Columbia Railway construction subsidy, which is a subsidy deserved and never given to our provincial railway — a rankling injustice over the years. When the Premier is talking about that one, I hope he will tell us what his plans are for the British Columbia Railway, because of the very interesting speculation in the press of late that it may be a part of a plan of the government to sell the BCR to the CN. This is an opportunity for the Premier to put on record his view on this question. Should we sell BCR? Under what circumstances? He makes no immediate response, so I will ask him again later.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Do you want to buy it?

MR. GIBSON: I don't want to buy it, thank you, Mr. Minister, but it's an important question as to whether or not our province keeps it.

Such a study in terms of British Columbia grievances should look at communications, such as the extent to which there is a fair degree of CBC

[ Page 2310 ]

production in our province.

It should look at questions of intergovernmental taxation — the B.C. Ferries and the application of federal fuel taxes to the ferry system as either a Crown corporation or a government department. The dispute has dragged on that many years that it has taxed the B.C. Ferries in both of those incarnations.

Part of that, Mr. Chairman, was British Columbia's fault — no doubt about it. British Columbia for many years was the only province which refused to be a member of the joint federal-provincial committee on intergovernmental taxation. We never played ball on that. Part of the reason for our difficulties with Ottawa over the years is that we haven't been willing to sit down and talk with Ottawa, and that's why I'm so glad to see a recognized department of intergovernmental affairs, because that can improve these kinds of things.

Such a study should look at facts like the fact that the federal procurement across the country is 5 per cent in British Columbia, as related to our population of 11 per cent.

It should look at questions like the Canada Development Corp. head office, which was promised to British Columbia and to Vancouver back in 1971. The head office we have here — as hon. members all know — is only a sham. The real head office is in Toronto. That's where the chief executive officer resides.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?

MR. GIBSON: Intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Member. Sit and listen to the debate for a minute, and you'll follow the train.

In looking at all of these grievances, Mr. Chairman, of course, any proper study has to put them in balance with the good things that are done by the federal government in British Columbia in return for our tax dollars. These are just one-way grievances. In most cases they're little things that could be easily fixed up. The study should look at them and highlight them.

Far more importantly, this kind of study should look at structural changes that might be examined in our country. A significant increase in provincial powers under the BNA Act, for example, is the kind of thing that might be negotiated, and in my view should be at least discussed in connection with the patriation of the constitution.

It should look at questions such as composition of the Senate, a body that was designed to take into account regional factors in this country, and has very inadequately fulfilled that role over the years, in part because of the small number of senators from each of the western provinces. British Columbia only has six, for example, as compared to Prince Edward Island with four and, I think, 10 each for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with a good deal less population than us. How could the Senate be reformed? How can we agree on that?

The suggestion that at least half of the Senators should be appointed by the provincial government is one that I happen to support, and I would also suggest that the Senate should have a standing committee on regional affairs once it's given the kind of credentials for generally dealing with regional affairs. They should have a standing committee that, in effect, represents the voice of the provinces as governments in Ottawa. The voice of provincial citizens as people in Ottawa, of course, is represented through the House of Commons, but the Senate should give direct representation to the province in a governmental sense.

Such a study should look at matters such as the impact of distance on British Columbia, in Canada, and ways of circumventing it — for example, much greater decentralization of decision-making in federal operations, and affirmative action plans to overcome the barrier where you can't have decentralization.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): What's your interest in the Senate?

MR. GIBSON: Well, I didn't expect to be appointed by the provincial government, Mr. Member, if that's the point you're getting at.

The next general area that I think such a study should consider is that of the flow of government funds across this country: the extent to which the raising of national revenues in British Columbia compare with the disbursement of national revenue in British Columbia. This would naturally include transfer payments to persons as well as direct government expenditures.

MR. LAUK: Come on, tell us about Jack Austin.

MR. GIBSON: We very badly need a study of this kind, Mr. Chairman, because we just have completely inadequate figures. We have no way of knowing at the moment whether there's a net deficit or a net gain. I strongly suspect there's a net deficit, and there's some evidence on this from a study by the University of Calgary in October last year which was done basically for Alberta, but which produced some figures for British Columbia, and showed that for fiscal 1973-74 the net outflow from B.C. to the rest of the country was on the order of $600 million, or around $258 per capita, that being at a governmental level.

MR. LAUK: Are you talking about the tariffs?

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm not talking about the tariffs at this point. I'll get on to that in a moment,

[ Page 2311 ]

Mr. Member. These are financial flows at the governmental level. This is an important sum of money, if it's correct.

A part of that probably is equalization, I think, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, and to the extent that it is I support it, because I think Canadians generally have a commitment to try to put a reasonable standard of living as a floor for all Canadians. We have a very selfish interest in equalization in British Columbia, because it's one of the things that helps keep our rate of growth down. To the extent that our rate of growth can be kept down, it's better for all of us. We're growing too fast in this province. But my point is that these things have to be measured and we don't have figures at the moment.

Incidentally, that study showed that there are two other so-called outflow provinces in terms of financial resources of this kind — one was Alberta and the other was Ontario. But the Ontario one is largely fictitious because most of the outflow dollars cycle back into Ontario through the manufacturing plant and the fact that they are suppliers of goods for most of the country.

Still on the financial side, the study should examine federal cost-sharing programmes and the extent to which the 50-cent dollars available in cost-sharing programmes markedly distort our priorities, and the ways and means in which British Columbia could opt out and receive tax points in return. The examples have been gone over time after time in this House: the bias in favour of acute beds as opposed to intermediate care, for example; the bias in favour of day care as opposed to kindergarten because the one is Canada Assistance Plan shareable and the other is not and so on.

Next, I believe that such a study should treat the area of growth. British Columbia is growing at about 3 per cent a year; Canada is growing at about 1 per cent a year. Therefore we are differentially absorbing the cost of growth in this country. Growth has high social costs: the cost of infrastructure like roads, hospitals, parks and all that sort of thing. We should be arguing, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, for some kind of recognition in the financial arrangements of this country, in recognition in the financial arrangements of this country, in recognition of the fact that we have these extra costs related to growth.

I arrive now at the question of trade, about which the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) questioned me a moment ago. Our province has a very strong balance of payments with the rest of the world. I don't have an exact figure; I don't know that it is available. I wish it were and this kind of study could find it, but I think it is probably in excess of $2 billion per annum.

When you look at the fact that Canada as a whole has a deficit of $5 billion per annum....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $6.7 billion.

MR. GIBSON: $5 billion last year, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year.

MR. GIBSON: This year it may turn out to be $6.7 billion — I don't know — but it was $5 billion last year. Obviously, British Columbia was a very strong net contributor to the balance-of-payments position of our country.

The study should identify the cost to British Columbia, as a strong net exporter, of remaining within the Canadian tariff wall. Obviously we can't get outside the Canadian tariff wall, but it is very much in our interest to do all we can to knock that wall down as quickly as possible. I happen to believe it is in the interest of all Canadians; I happen to agree with the report of the economic council which found that situation across the country.

The calculations I make as to the cost of the tariff to the average British Columbian — every man, woman and child — is around $500 per year, which is a lot of money. This is based in part on the work of Shearer, Young and Munro in 1971, who expected a gain of around 5.5 per cent of personal income for British Columbians if the tariff barriers were eliminated. R.J. Wormacott, for the economic council, suggested something much higher — between 10 and 15 per cent. I believe that is a little high. The economic councilLooking Outward report again last year made an estimate of around 5 per cent of the GNP. My own judgment out of all these figures is around $500 per man, woman and child, which is, when you multiply it by the number of British Columbians there are, something well over $1 billion, a number which is of such consequence that if we are able to get any kind of a handle on it, it becomes an important part of our discussion with the rest of Canada in this day of constitutional fluidity about the proper advantages and disadvantages to our province.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Does that mean there is a lot of drinking going on at those conferences?

MR. GIBSON: Such a study as I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, could make some economic forecasts as to how the economy of British Columbia ought to be faring, were it not weighted down with some of these national burdens such as the tariff policy. I would refer you, Mr. Chairman, the Premier and all committee members, again to this University of Alberta study done, as I say, last October — and a very interesting document it is. That Alberta exercise found the 1976 cost of "confederation" to that province to be something like $750 per capita which,

[ Page 2312 ]

interestingly enough, is quite close to the sum of the $500 tariff cost that I suggested, plus the $250 financial-flow cost. So we arrive at some kind of reasonable comparability. These figures are within the ball park; they are not only within the ball park, but they are very important.

Mr. Chairman, this kind of study, I suggest, would put British Columbia in a position to make suggestions that would strengthen the union of this nation. One of the things that works against national unity is when any region feels disadvantaged, as Quebec did for so many years — as British Columbians historically have and continue to do.... British Columbians have never received any sympathy in this regard from the rest of Canada, because we have been looked on as the fat cats of Canada with no cause for complaint. But on the other hand, we do have the right, I believe, to have lifted from us strictures and regulations such as the tariffs which do not, in the long run, assist the rest of Canada and seriously harm us.

This kind of study, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't be taken on as an exercise in separatism or anything like that. It should be looked at in the sense of reassessing a contract that's now 100 years old and that's our confederal bargaining. As I said at the outset of this talk, every contract needs a reopener at some stage, and a reopener after 100 years isn't too soon.

The results of this kind of study would give British Columbia a better standing, a better understanding as to what to be arguing in our discussions with our colleagues from the rest of this great country.

I think that British Columbians, as I said earlier in the speech, are a generous people. I think they want the best for the rest of Canada. I believe that the way that we can do our best for the rest of Canada and do our best for ourselves is to have the economic rules and the political rules of this country arranged in such a way that we are able to achieve our full potential in this part of Canada, to better absorb the tremendous tide of growth that's coming this way, to better have the ability to pay taxes to support and assist Canadians in other parts of the country where that's required.

I most sincerely suggest to the Premier that he explore, not just with the other provinces but with the federal government, in a spirit of amicability, the institution of a study which would look at, and report on, the strains, the differentials, the advantages, of present and potential confederal arrangements as they apply to British Columbia and different parts of the country.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to speak about the Skeena area, because certainly the economy of Skeena started to go down in 1973. It certainly hasn't improved up to this time.

MR. LAUK: Since December, 1975.

MR. SHELFORD: It certainly did not. It was already on the rocks and that's why I ran.

MR. LAUK: It didn't do any good.

MR. SHELFORD: We will. You certainly didn't do any good sitting there. So we will. We will.

The mining industry is already starting to pick up in the north country, and when the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) speaks, I think he's got a map to show all of the various companies and exploration work that have already come in and ready to go to work this spring. The picture in the mining field is quite encouraging, I must say. It's the only encouraging sign right at the moment in my particular area.

In the villages in the Skeena riding there's approximately 40 per cent unemployed. In one particular village there is only one person working. This just can't continue.

MR. LAUK: Is he a car dealer?

MR. SHELFORD: I didn't see you running around there getting work for him.

A 40 per cent unemployment rate is certainly not acceptable in an area anywhere in this province or anywhere in this country. I think we can only take a look at the report that was submitted quite some time ago by a Terrace action group that is trying to get things started. Now 18 companies went bankrupt and went out of business during 1973 to 1975 with 189 men. Now 73 contractors in this area are still out of work but still in operation and they have a total of 466 workers. That again is an awful lot of idle people when there's so much work that can be done.

MR. LAUK: Did they all vote Socred?

MR. SHELFORD: Nearly or I wouldn't be here. No, I don't pretend to be representing just Socred members. Once an election is over I represent everyone.

The total cut of Can-Cel on their tree farm licence in 1973 was 832,965 cunits. By 1975 they had dropped production down to 471,255 cunits. Of course, that's the reason why so many of those people that I mentioned earlier were put out of business.

This has a ripple effect, as everyone knows, right down through the community, and the first waves started, as I said, in 1973. Now in one heavy-duty equipment company the amount of hours worked by service employees in 1974 was 10,590, and that dropped by the end of 1975 to 4,690, which is over half. The number of the employees dropped from 35

[ Page 2313 ]

down to 15.

A truck sale and service company A, five month's figures, November to March: in 1974 they sold $1,342,000 worth; in the 1975-76 period, that had dropped down to $473,000 — again more than half. The average number of employees had dropped from 23 down to 12, and you can go on and on.

Forestry equipment sales and rental company A: this is the number of rate-rented and service clients — this dropped from 180 clients in January to 58 in April, and during that period from 1974 they had 13 employees, and that dropped to six by the end of 1975.

Welding company A: the average number of employees in 1973 was 18, and that dropped down by 1975 to only 8. Welding company B had the 13 employees, and that dropped to 7.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Motel A: in 1974 they had an average occupancy rate of 60.9 per cent; by 1975 that had dropped to 23.1 per cent. Motel B: an average occupancy rate of 61.8 per cent; in 1975 that dropped down to 8.9. This was a motel that mainly catered to monthly people who were working on bridges, et cetera.

Motel A: 1974, a 54.4 per cent occupancy rate; in 1975 that dropped to 22.3 per cent. Hotel B averaged 80 per cent occupancy rate in 1974 and dropped back to 48 per cent in 1975.

Rental vacancies in apartments dropped down to 46 per cent of the total. Major moving companies.... The saying in the Terrace area, just prior to the last election, was that we needed a four-lane highway — three lanes to take the people out of Terrace and one to bring them back. And it doesn't look like it was that far from the truth. The three moving companies in Terrace reported that, on an average, 30 per cent of their moves were into town and 70 per cent were out of town.

Now I believe this little report was done quite recently.

MR. LAUK: What was the date?

MR. SHELFORD: The date? It was May of this year. The whole of Terrace, of course, hinges on Can-Cel, and that's where the problem lies. When the cut went down from 1973 to 1975, just about doubled, nothing picked up its place. Eurocan, of course, was also on a slowdown, but that doesn't affect Terrace as much because they're over at Kitimat and a few workers commute back and forth. But basically, as we all say, Terrace sinks or swims with Can-Cel, and the only real solution in that northwest, as far as I'm concerned, is a really modern Can-Cel complex based on the most modern pulp mill in the world to try and use up some of the decadent wood and poor wood in that area.

I mentioned a little earlier that the mining exploration industry has jumped substantially in the last couple of months, and the interest looks good for this coming summer. I hope it keeps up. But I would say, generally speaking, that the situation in that northwest will not change without maximum federal-provincial assistance. I realize conditions are different due to the lack of money, but certainly we can't permit a 40 per cent unemployment rate in these Indian villages and elsewhere without running into really serious trouble.

I know that the Highway department is having their problems with budgets, but certainly a maximum road programme is needed in this north country, so people can at least get around and develop it. Resource roads, whether it be to mines or timber...we should do as much as possible this summer to get some of these idle equipment operators working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just interrupt the member long enough to suggest that sometime soon I'm waiting to hear you relate this to vote 21?

MR. SHELFORD: I am, Mr. Chairman. It all relates to the Premier's salary because, after all, the Premier is head of this government and all of these things really hinge on it. I think it is a proper point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member said what I was going to say — that the Premier is responsible for policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. SHELFORD: One thing that we have to speed up as much as possible is the Indian land claims which are holding back job opportunities right across the north country. They must be resolved as quickly as possible. I think it's quite unfortunate that the expectations of some of these people are far too high. Whatever happens during these land claims, I hope the minister will have a good team of very competent practical people to help him out during these claims because it's one of the most difficult problems I think that governments, federal and provincial, have to grapple with in the next couple of years.

However these negotiations end up, in my opinion, we have to make sure we end up as equals. We can no longer create separate groups in our society, one against the other, or finally we'll end up in conflict. We have to end up completely equal and all going in the same direction to try and make a

[ Page 2314 ]

better country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: We've tried that.

MR. SHELFORD: I would say, in looking at the problems in the northwest, that we'll have to take a very serious look at the timber-cutting regulations in the north. I'll speak on this more during the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), but if the quota holders and the tree farm licence operators are not going to accept their full quota, well, then they should certainly be moved out of the public working circles and someone else allowed to do the work in those areas.

One thing I think we could do in this whole north country would be to set up streambed- and reservoir-clearing programmes. These clearing programmes should be done by using the unemployed. It would be an excellent training programme for workers because they'd learn how to use not only Cats but front-end loaders and various pieces of equipment. There's plenty that can be done, and likely we could increase our salmon harvest by double in four years if we did some of this kind of work.

I hope we'll resist further reductions in staff in all departments that are in the north country, because quite a few of them only have one or two men, and if one person quits and he's not replaced you've lost half your staff right in one chunk. This quite often happens in the northern areas of the province.

We should work with the federal government to train all of our unemployed people before we get carried away with immigration. I was quite surprised to hear our Prime Minister suggest that we should bring in more immigrants to resolve the overpopulation in other countries. I would say this is pure nonsense, because immigration will never resolve the problems of people in these crowded nations. Even if we brought in 30 million a year it would only take care of part of the increase. They'd still have the same problem at home, and we'd have tremendous problems here in Canada.

I would like to see started immediately a mobile training programme that could go from village to village and train people in all of these villages. As Chief Hubert Maitland of Kitimat said: "Why should we be advertising in England and Portugal to bring out workers when we haven't trained our own people at home?" I think this was an excellent suggestion and certainly should be looked at very carefully by the government as a whole.

One thing that is extremely important is the need to work with the national government for change in economic policy. The emphasis, of course, should be on useful projects rather than the way we're going at the present time.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that you could consider going on radio and T.V., telling the people the sacrifices we all must make in order to get the economy moving again — something the same as the late President Roosevelt's fireside chats. I think they were very good in explaining to the nation the very important things they had to do and the sacrifices they had to give in order to get their country moving again. I believe we're in exactly the same position here, not only in British Columbia but also in Canada. I think it's a place where you could start on a completely non-political basis and get it on the television and radio and tell the people exactly how it is and what we have to do to get this province moving again.

I would like to see a select standing committee of the Legislature set up, similar to what they did after World War II, to travel around the province and try to get a direction on where we're going in the next 10 years. They would have to study the cost of the exporting industries to find out how fast we can get back into line so that we can compete with our competitors in other parts of the world, especially in line with wages, transportation and all of the other problems — even climatic conditions, which are more severe here than they are in other parts of the world. I think this committee could get some very interesting information which could be turned over to the cabinet and later put into policy, similar to what was done after World War II.

There's no question that we won't be able to reduce the number of unemployed unless we can bring our costs in line. Productivity also must increase and work stoppages must end as much as possible until the economy is back on its feet. I would say we should all face the facts of life, that we won't change anything unless we can convince everyone that it's in the good of workers, management and everyone else that work stoppages do quit until the province gets back on its feet. Otherwise we'll go from bad to worse and we'll go down the trail, as I mentioned before, to a form of national suicide.

We must find ways to get our young people working; they all need a challenge. But I would say most of this hinges on the willingness of our national government to change our economic system. Otherwise, democracy will be destroyed.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't strayed too far away from the salary of our Premier because, after all, we do have to have a clear direction on which way we're going in the years ahead.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, again I express my concern and my chagrin that the Premier apparently seems prepared to ask this House to approve his salary without responding in any way to serious questions that have been raised.

[ Page 2315 ]

I raised the question of the impact of this government's economic policies on a number of categories of people in the province. I will just go a bit further and explain the impact of the government's economic policies on a couple of senior people living on Mincome — a couple between the age of 60 and 65, receiving the full Mincome, $265 per month, living in a Vancouver apartment. Their combined disposable annual income would be $6,360 per year. When you subtract the cost of living increases over and above the rest of Canada, due again solely to this government's increase in sales tax, home heating fuels — a whole range of increases that have been put forward by this government — you find that they lose another $351.54 of their disposable income, resulting in a net disposable income of $6,008.54 per year, a loss in real purchasing power, Mr. Chairman, of 5.5 per cent over the year.

And again I want to contrast that loss of disposable income with the impact of this economic policy on the benevolent millionaire who I referred to earlier from the Okanagan. Since I've had no response, Mr. Chairman, I have to conclude that that millionaire from the Okanagan must be a very insensitive son of a...hardware merchant, or something like that, who has a heart as hard as some of the haywire that he dispenses, because up to this point I have had no assurance that he cares.

I think it's imperative that we have some serious response to the plight of the poor people of British Columbia before we can consider awarding and granting a salary of some $48,000 to the Premier of this province. I seriously want to know from him what he proposes to do about the plight of these people who have suffered such a serious economic burden. I, quite frankly, find it difficult to believe that the Premier and his cabinet really had it in mind — really were aware of what precisely the impact of their policies would be on the people that I have identified.

I'm sure that he'll want to give recognition to the plight of those people, and I'm sure he'll want to announce some policies or assure this House at least that some economic stimuli are being considered by the government which would lighten the burden of these people that I have referred to. So I hope the Premier will get on his feet and have something to say that's positive, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: If the Premier wishes to deal with some of the issues raised.... I was planning to move into different areas.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with....

MR. KING: Absolute arrogance!

MR. LAUK: Lots of time, Billy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Oak Bay has been recognized.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are many areas that come under the Premier's purview. I certainly want to agree with the Premier on one of his earlier statements this afternoon, that for the first time in a long time we have a Premier who is not the Minister of Finance. I personally feel that that is a very healthy situation and that there can be a greater awareness of the complexity of financing a modern province or an industrialized nation if, in fact, it is obviously the policy of the government that the area of finance is of such importance that it merits a minister in his own right. I might add the qualification, however, that I am somewhat disappointed that in regard to other double portfolios, which the minister chose to set in his cabinet, already the example of the combined portfolios of Economic Development and Agriculture is not working well; it's not working out.

So the Premier's excellent example in appointing a Minister of Finance to the cabinet is somewhat shaded by the fact that we have two ministers who carry two portfolios each. With Agriculture being the important part of our economy it is and with the combination in two portfolios of mining and the forest industry, I think the latter is just an expanse of responsibility that no one individual can handle effectively. I know that the Premier has given a commitment to split these portfolios later on, but I do think there could have been nothing but benefit to have made them individual portfolios in the first place.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: My colleague on my left wonders if I would like one of these portfolios. The answer is no, I am committed to leading the Conservative Party, Mr. Member for Burnaby. Your interest is appreciated, but the answer is no.

Mr. Chairman, there were certain basic thrusts which the Premier enunciated in the election platform last year. I think the kind of questions we should be asking the Premier relate to the difference in actions compared to the kind of basic commitments that were made in the election campaign, not the least of which was a commitment that the economy would really surge forward and there would be a great renewal of confidence in British Columbia and in the government of British

[ Page 2316 ]

Columbia if the people threw out the NDP and elected a Social Credit government.

I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the Premier made these commitments in good faith, believing that, indeed, a clear majority mandate based on the Premier's commitment, would enable him to do many of the things he claimed he would do. So it's particularly disappointing in this debate that one of the overriding economic factors we are all faced with is an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent, announced last month, which is up 1 per cent over the previous month. I don't think we perhaps should only talk about British Columbia when we talk about unemployment, because a total of 769,000 Canadians are out of work.

This is particularly distressing in light of the very fundamental emphasis — and quite rightly an emphasis, in my view — that the Social Credit Party placed on the kind of economic surge which they were committed to bring about if they were elected to government. The kind of commitment I am talking about, Mr. Chairman, was the kind summed up in the full-page ads that appeared during the election. I happen to be quoting from the Victoria Times of December 9, 1975. I would like to quote just representative parts of the basic government commitment which the Premier mentioned repeatedly, as all party leaders do, in travelling around the province during the campaign. The opening paragraph in this full-page ad is entitled: "Jobs and the Economy." It reads as follows:

"Economic growth is the key to reducing unemployment in this province. Confidence in government is essential to spark that growth. Social Credit will open immediate discussions with our major industries and urge them to move ahead. We will encourage expansion in the forest industry. We will encourage exploration and development in the petroleum industry.

"A Social Credit government will repeal the Mineral Royalties Act, replace it with fair and sensible legislation to create a go-ahead mining industry with its many side benefits to dozens of small B.C. communities. With industries moving forward, we will tax their profits fairly to achieve services for our people and special benefits for those who need assistance."

Mr. Chairman, it's the next sentence that I think is particularly worthy of some discussion. It reads as follows: "With confidence in British Columbia restored, investment dollars will flow back into the economy and new businesses will be attracted to our province."

The reasoning behind that kind of ad is quite clear and very readily understood. What puzzles me is that here we are six months after the election and so many of these absolutely essential improvements in the economy of our basic industries have not occurred. I'm not even prepared to pour all the blame on the new government, but the kind of commitments were made, that the government would open immediate discussions with major industries and urge them to move ahead...I would like to ask the Premier, when he rises, to comment on opposition points that have been raised.

Many of the indicators are that this economic revival has not occurred. I'm not aware of the government having immediate meetings with the forest industry. Or if they've had these meetings, I'm not aware of any particularly positive outcome which would lead us to think that the revenue from the forest industry, which fell $100 million short of anticipated revenue last year, is going to be improved. If it is so, to what degree this year?

We had the commitment to repeal the Mineral Royalties Act as a very important element of boosting the well-being of the mining industry. This has not occurred. The latest kind of example that I could quote to support the point that election of a Social Credit government has not brought about the expected economic resurgence, based on greater confidence in the Socreds than they could ever have in the NDP, is the announcement by Brascan that it has dropped its option on the B.C. coal development project.

An article in the Province just a few days ago stated that while the Minister of Economic Development felt that development of the Sukunka coal deposits would go ahead sooner or later, there is no doubt that Brascan of Toronto has dropped its options to develop the Sukunka coal project. One of the factors which is mentioned as bringing about that decision was stated by Mr. Freeman Atwood, who is the Brascan president. He said: "There is also the uncertainty regarding both the degree and the timing of government assistance that might be anticipated to create the necessary road, rail, hydro, electric and townsite facilities that the development of coal reserves in the total region requires."

I realize there have been statements by the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, and there was mention in the budget, of money being made available for continuing studies of the infrastructure required. But the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that either there is a lack of follow-through on the kind of commitment made by the Social Credit leader in the campaign, or, in trying to meet that commitment, he has not succeeded in persuading the mining and forest and other major industries in British Columbia to have the confidence which he sincerely believed would be there just as soon as the NDP government was dismissed from power in this province.

I think we've had a great deal of emotionalism — if not hysteria — in both directions as a result of the

[ Page 2317 ]

polarized political scene in British Columbia. But one of the more sober and obvious consequences that seems to have attracted very little attention is the improvement in our economy, which both the Social Credit leader and many voters expected would be almost an automatic consequence of defeating the NDP government. Now the NDP government was defeated and many people did, indeed, breath a sigh of relief, but it had been coupled, during the election campaign, with a greater sense of optimism that the Social Credit leader, the new Premier, and his government would take some of the initiatives outlined in the election platform which would in fact lead to economic development, which in turn, of course, provides jobs, and, hopefully, would have minimized to some degree the unemployment problems in British Columbia. That has not happened, regardless of the....

MR. KEMPF: Scotty, give us a bit of time.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Omineca injects an impatient note into the debate, saying give us a bit of time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to quote certain other parts of that same one-page ad from the Victoria Times of December 9 and remind the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that the word "immediate" was used in several of the basic election commitments. Let me quote again for the benefit of the member for Omineca. Under the paragraph of this ad dealing with health services...

MR. KEMPF: We thought there would be a buck or two left in the treasury, but there wasn't.

MR. WALLACE: ...the ad states: "An immediate commitment will be the construction of community-care nursing units for those 65 and over." Under transportation, the paragraph reads: "Immediate attention will be concentrated on our major highways and roads which have fallen into disrepair under the present government. A master plan for new highway construction will follow."

Get this one, Mr. Chairman — and I hope you are listening on this one, as a member who lives on the lower mainland "The frequency of B.C. Ferry sailings will be increased." Not only has the frequency of B.C. Ferry sailings not been increased, the whole. situation in the ferry system suggests that the number of sailings we have may well be enough judging by the increase in rates and the difficulty which many people will have in financing the same number of trips as they did before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a little time, brother.

MR. WALLACE: Here again, on my left, I have the old cry from this new government: "Give us some time." The fact is, Mr. Chairman, when these commitments were made to the electorate, they were not qualified by this now-repetitive proviso: "Give us more time." The member for Omineca says: "Well, we didn't know what the financial state of the province was." The fact is that these commitments were made using such words as "immediate commitment to community-care nursing homes for those over 65, " which is already about 15 years overdue anyway, regardless of what government we are talking about. It talks about "opening immediate discussions with the major industries." I may be misinformed and the Premier can correct me if I am wrong but I don't know what immediate discussions have been held with our major revenue — producing industries and what the outcome of these discussions has been. But I would think the word "immediate" hardly means that you have to wait six months after the government is elected.

The same kind of statement applies to the Mineral Royalties Act and the immediate action which would be taken in this regard. However, even allowing — since I am a charitable person really — some latitude in the definition of the word "immediate, " I would think that in this debate the most useful purpose the Premier could serve when he rises in his place to speak would be to answer some of the, I think, very legitimate questions based on the very fundamental thrust of the election campaign.

In the same spirit, the election campaign emphasized the importance of the individual compared to the dangers of big government. Again, I would just quote as a typical election thrust the last paragraph of that one-page ad from December 9. It is entitled "Individual Opportunity Versus Big Government":

"What life will be in British Columbia in the future is a question of choices we must make now. We can choose a lifestyle which we create through individual opportunity, or we can choose a lifestyle which will be imposed on us by big government. Bill Bennett puts it this way: 'Government should do things for people, not to People.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: "Hear, hear!" the member says. That's like putting up the sales tax by 40 per cent. That's really doing it to the people.

The paragraph continues, Mr. Chairman:

"The issue is clear. Either British Columbia will develop through individual initiative and a large measure of local control over community development, or will sink into the 'state knows best, state does best' philosophy of central government control of people. The British

[ Page 2318 ]

Columbia Social Credit Party believes that the future of this province rests on the idea that people can be asked to take a great deal of responsibility for themselves and for the development and fulfilment of the communities in which they live."

Mr. Chairman, again I have to look at the actions of the government compared to the central commitment of the party on December 11, which said: "Government should do things for people, not to people." I think when we look at the budget, which I have no wish to redebate all over again, with the cross-section of taxation increases based on the first absolute premise of this government that it must operate in the black regardless of the consequences to people.... When the government inherited a deficit position — which it did, and I have never disputed that in this House....

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was the deficit?

MR. WALLACE: The exact deficit depends on how you insert figures in the budget prior to or after March 31. We are not going to get into that red herring all over again.

Even Clarkson Gordon makes the position very clear that the precise deficit can vary, depending on whether certain entries are placed on the ledger prior to or after March 31. As far as the principle we're debating is concerned the precise figure is less important than agreeing to the fact that there was a financial deficit with a very large deficit resulting from ICBC.

The point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier gave a basic commitment, in ways that I've mentioned, to provide economic resurgence in the province with more jobs for people and the commitment to provide certain of these services such as the nursing-home units to people over 65, as a specific example.

The Premier, on assuming office, discovered there was a deficit and started step one by saying: "Well, whatever happens, we have to balance the budget." It is on this fundamental premise that I think we can reasonably take issue with the Premier, particularly in light of the fact that many other wealthy provinces in order to minimize the severe hardship of higher taxation and unemployment believe that as long as it is in a moderate and controlled way, there is a place over a short period of time for considering, at least, deficit financing.

The Premier chose the very clear, rigid position that no matter how bad the mess in inherited, which was not his fault, at least from the word go this new Social Credit government would balance the books. If the means of pursuing that goal resulted in severe increases in taxation affecting many low- and middle-income groups, and if it meant delaying the economic upsurge in the creation of new jobs and hence a very high level of 9.7 unemployment, so be it. That indeed was the conscious and calculated decision that the Premier took in the light of the financial figures he inherited when he became Premier.

Mr. Chairman, what is a little sad in one respect, regardless of politics, is that we have this ambivalent attitude by government. From one minister we hear the exhortation to various people to pick up the shovel and get to work, and yet we have several thousand very responsible, energetic, young students in this province this summer willing beyond any level you could imagine to work — in fact, desperate to work — and there's no way they can find a job.

Young people are very cynical of politicians and politics. Sometimes their cynicism, I think, is quite unjustified. But when you look at something as important as a young man or woman who sincerely and conscientiously wants to work his or her way through school, college, university...and I happen to have two daughters right now who are in exactly that position. One of them has found work and one of them hasn't. I have phone calls or letters just about every day in the week from students, particularly in the greater Victoria area, who don't expect governments to work miracles, which is another myth about our young people who are often accused of expecting governments to solve all our problems. I don't find the young people are that way at all. I think our young people are taking some very legitimate exception to some of the outbursts we hear from government, particularly from one minister to "pick up your shovel." Many of these young men would be quite happy to pick up a shovel and do some digging, but there just aren't the jobs.

Although I'm being repetitive, I wonder if the Premier again would reconsider answering the question I asked him in question period a week or two ago: does he not feel that, politics apart, in view of the situation that we are now in in these summer months, with many students out of work, and who will not have the money come September to re-enter university and college, which means an inadequate utilization of very expensive post-secondary facilities, he should consider a supplementary budget or some kind of second look at the possibility of even a very minimal deficit financing to put another $10 million into student employment programmes?

I've tried to be precise and accurate in my research, Mr. Chairman, and I gather that last year about $15.2 million was put into student employment out of an anticipated $20 million which I think was outlined in last year's budget. But I've checked the records and the actual figure, I understand, is 15.2.

Last week it was announced by the government that there would be $8 million by this present

[ Page 2319 ]

government and that phase I would provide $8 million through funding to municipalities, regional districts, school boards and so on, but that any other funding through the departments of government would have to come from the existing budgets of the different departments.

It is my information, Mr. Chairman, that when the different departments were setting up their budgets there was no clear indication given to them that student employment had to be funded out of the regular budget. But even that is not as relevant as the facts that face us today, however they have been arrived at, or however the Premier viewed the situation, let us say, three or four months ago when budgets were being drawn up.

I think it is a tragedy that we are too ready to criticize our young people and to either say or imply that quite a few of them are quite I happy to sit around or try and get welfare or unemployment insurance when there are many, many, many of them who would be very happy to go to some kind of very ordinary and not necessarily high-paying job tomorrow, but the jobs simply aren't there.

The kind of situation which develops is not only one of cynicism by our young people, but even in terms of efficient use of our dollars at the expensive post-secondary facilities there is every likelihood that student enrolment this fall will be down. This in turn, I suggest, means that we are using many hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in our colleges and universities which really are not being put to their maximum use if, in fact, the student enrolment is much impaired.

That brings me to a point just before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. If the minister cannot or does not elect to review the situation, and perhaps come up with money for the student employment programme, can he give us at least some kind of commitment that he will discuss with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the possibility of providing either more student loans and grants in the fall, or modify or ease the terms of interest under which loans are made available to students, or at least recognize that more and more students will have a tougher time financing their way through college this fall.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, starting with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Conservative Party, some of his questions were similar in nature to those of the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) . They dealt with employment opportunities in the province and how they related to our campaign promises and, particularly from the Conservative leader, dealing with investment confidence. You would know, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that confidence is easy to lose and hard to gain, but we meant what we said in trying to reactivate the economy. The appropriate ministers plus myself as Premier have held meetings with the various industries that could expand, and those industries or that investment capital that may be prepared to invest in B.C.

I know the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') estimates have already gone through, but if it wasn't canvassed then, the discussion and research that has gone in from this government into the northeast coal blocks has been intensive. I was quite surprised when the Brascan announcement, which was only one company in a group of companies dealing with Sukunka coal, was concerned about the government and the infrastructure of roads and towns, because indeed that is being studied. We have a $5 million amount going into that study this year, and there was an announcement the other day, I think it was Denison Mines, about going into the Dawson Creek area.

We're hopeful that the type of studies that have been taking place will lead to investment capital, will lead to orderly development, will lead to sustained jobs, but the lead time that's necessary is fantastic. I found that out when I was in Fort St. John the other day, while we were trying to develop some enthusiasm from other areas and the Yukon concerning the Canada-Alaska pipeline proposal. When I was in Fort St. John and we heard submissions from the gas industry, they said that because of the policies of the past, they had lost a lead time of approximately 18 months to two years in gas well drilling, and they said it is almost impossible to catch up.

We have the same problem of loss of lead time in the planning of bringing in large projects, and even small projects take a planning time in which there are no visible results. But the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), as a doctor, must know that it's like an ill patient. When you start giving them medication and treatment quite often the first visible signs of recovery aren't external but internal. One day the patient is well.

I would like the member for Oak Bay to know that the medicine is being applied, that the internal recovery has started and the planning is taking place.

I know that all members on all sides of the House are impatient, as I am impatient — impatient when we were in opposition because of high unemployment, more impatient now because, yes, it is our responsibility to do something about it. We are impatient that the lead time can't be hurried in some instances, because if we went to hurry some projects, all of the studies that are necessary.... I'm sure the members opposite would not only be jumping because we forgot to do environmental impact studies on the coal deposits or others in our search to get jobs immediately. It is trying to provide the proper balance of studies and work towards creating some employment immediately — there again, it's a matter of all ministries working, the professional staff.... We

[ Page 2320 ]

are trying to supplement it with external studies; we are trying to hurry it. We are talking to people in our own province and external capital.

We're not afraid of foreign capital coming in — subject to our laws, subject to our taxation laws, subject to our environmental laws and subject to those laws being changed by government, because they are given no guarantees. Governments don't commit future governments.

In trying to attract investment capital, our most difficult task, Mr. Chairman, is to convince them not of the good intentions of this government but of the possibility of future governments and what their intentions may be. I'm sure that you, Mr. Chairman, above all, would understand all of the ramifications of that statement.

So what we are asking people to do is trust the good sense of the voters of British Columbia not to make any errors in their selection of future governments after we return this province on the road to recovery, which I admit has been slow.

Now the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) talked about high taxation or the increase in taxes. Nobody can get up and talk in favour of increased taxes; everybody's against them. We had some difficult choices as government, and it wasn't just a desire to be a bottom-liner or balance the budget. It was a matter of assessing whether hidden taxation — that is the taxation deferred for today's expenses — is any saving on the taxpayers of the province. Whether you charge it in user fees or taxes, if it's got to be paid, it's got to be paid, and the same people will pay it one way or the other because there's only one source of revenue and that's from the people of the province, the province in general. Whether it's for ferries or whether it's in user fees or partly in government subsidy, the same people end up paying the bill.

Now in regard to some of the corporations outside of government, user fee just doesn't cover all of the cost. In regard to the ferries, there will be a subsidy well in excess of, I estimated, $25 million this year to operate the ferries that will be going into the new ferry corporation. Highway ferries, which run separately in the Highways department, some those single-ferry lines, small routes, have an operating deficit, after user fees, of $600,000 and $700,000 per route per single small ferry.

So there are tremendous subsidies, and they are not all being covered by user fees, even with the type of increases we were forced to bring in. Those user fees weren't brought in without study; there were two or three studies. First of all there was a study that was here when the government took place. I think it was done by the economic policy and study institute, and we also had one done by a series of accountants. Some of those studies recommended fourfold increases. That wasn't acceptable to the government, and we had to make a decision of how much would go from taxation and how much would go from user fees, considering that the ferries are not like the insurance corporation. The ferries are, to all intents and purposes, an extension to the highway system. We tried to relate the subsidy to what it would cost to maintain similar sections of highway. I don't think we'll be right on, but there was an attempt made to relate it that way, to arrive at a formula that made some sense. That's what we have tried to do.

Taxation is never pleasant, but costs are up. Just for the same services, costs are up this year. We're caught with the costs of wage settlements that were given to the public service before we became government. I don't use it as an excuse, except that it's a cost that erodes the services to people; the same services cost more. We're caught with that, and with trying to just maintain the same services we'd have a higher cost of government this year, and that's been one of the problems that our province and other provinces face.

We have about a 5.4 or 5-point-something increase over last year's revenue over budget. Other provinces, like Alberta, have gone for 8 per cent — Manitoba, 12.7 per cent. Manitoba put up taxes to achieve it. Ontario has adjusted taxes. Most of the provinces have put up taxes. British Columbia, having a bigger catchup, put up more taxes. At the same time, we put up taxes to cover current expenses because most of the current budget priorities have been for services to people. They haven't been for capital projects; they've been for services to people.

The highways budget, which was covered by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), quite frankly, has suffered. It's actually not even an inflationary decline by trying to stay even with last year's figures. We've cut the amount because in this year of trying to meet services to people they got first priority. When Health got over 20 per cent increase and Education about 11 per cent, Highways went down. Yet I know how necessary they are — the communication links. I've been to Port Hardy. I've been shown the road. I've been there not at an election time but the year previously travelled through that area and talked to the people. I recognize the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has a valid point. In many areas of this province priority for new roads is, something we're going to have to get — not just a single-year plan but a general plan so we can project priorities of road construction.

But this year is a particular problem with highways. They all, like Fort St. John, have problems within their communities. If any communities have been underserviced, it's always been on a northern community. Whether it's the north end of Vancouver Island or northern B.C., they have a high cost of

[ Page 2321 ]

goods and a high cost of northern living. Yet they suffer many of the amenities we take for granted, even from municipal services.

There was a study done a few years ago. It was taken in 1971 and they used Prince Rupert as a model. That study has not been used and we're going to have to take that study. I haven't, quite frankly, done that yet but the study is there. It has taken into account the high cost of northern living. It will be part of the study going into the new municipal revenue-sharing formula that's being worked on this year, hopefully to be introduced next year.

This formula is trying to take into account, hon. members, through you, Mr. Chairman, the discrepancy in basic standard of services in communities, and the formula can't just work on a per capita basis. There has to be a standard of service in there.

The minister, who's been at Habitat this week, has that as a prime requisite. That's why Housing has been coupled with Municipal Affairs. Quite frankly, municipalities have the housing problem, and their acceptance of housing has to be part of the revenue-sharing problem because they are twin problems and the reluctance of some communities to put in housing revolves around the revenue they get from government or the revenue base, and this all has to be part of the same consideration. That was one of the reasons why some of the portfolios are dual now but I do make the pledge again that it's not a continuing condition. I don't believe in it. I have said to those who are interested, whether it's Agriculture and Economic Development or what-have-you, that we will be moving towards single portfolios.

Part of the reason also is a restructuring of government. Some of the existing portfolios could be better served if, now that we've had five months, we can make some adjustments of pieces of departments and put departments into new departments.

We've already made a change, with the Department of Environment taking certain areas of responsibility. We do believe forestry is that important to British Columbia that it should stand alone and it will be a single separate portfolio. It's the basis right now of most of the B.C. economy.

I hope that with some effort in the future we can broaden our economic base and depend on other areas, but forestry will still always be our prime resource and the basis of the economy of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Any hope for the students?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member mentioned the students. There are two problems. One of shortage of money. The other is that the federal government cancelled their programmes this year, and the full brunt is being felt by the province. That's not an excuse for the amounts, it's just that the existing amount...and a new programme of trying to co-ordinate student-hiring within the government service for summer jobs has not gone as smoothly as we would have anticipated, but it's an attempt.

When we talk about student unemployment it's part of the total unemployment picture. We must remember that as popular as their cause is — and I have two sons who will be looking for work — those who have families and responsibilities who are unemployed now we have a prime responsibility to employ also, and a 9.7 per cent unemployment rate is very difficult.

You've got to remember that the unemployment statistics get bogged down in the areas of measurement. We've been running with a large amount of unemployed in the province and the country for some 18 months to two years. To confuse it, we've always had the seasonally adjusted and the unadjusted rate. To further confuse it, the federal government changed the way they measured unemployment just in February, I think it was, of this year, which has further made it confusing. So you can get different numbers of people even by different measurement. We have had, by the seasonally adjusted rate last September, 110,000 unemployed. That's in what would be a peak working time of year — the fall. Harvest time is the time when we usually have our highest employment. The last government wrestled with it. We've wrestled with it, but we hope that the plans we have and are working along will do something about it.

The member questioned my statement that it would take two or three years to get employment going. That was in relation to the large-scale projects that were under question at that time. That question was related directly to the northeast coal, and, of course, those projects cannot take place overnight. The studies that I referred to earlier take time; the planning takes time. But all of the work is going on to ensure that they can take place without environmental hazard and for the benefit of B.C.

We've had committee meetings with Alberta, working out environmental standards between us, because they have similar coal deposits on their side, and it's of mutual concern that we both have high standards in the development of the coal.

One of the members mentioned something about deficit budgets being good budgets, and because some supposedly wealthy governments had deficit budgets in this particular time, that's good. But I'd like to remind you, Mr. Chairman and the House, that to do something about unemployment, those same provinces, when employment was higher, were running deficit budgets, and it seems to be a commitment that they could never be able to control their impulses to spend...and their need to be cautious with the taxpayers' money. It's easy for

[ Page 2322 ]

them to buy the credit today, buy the favours today and defer the bills to a future government. That's easy to do: buy favour today by deferring the bills to future generations.

But I would point out that in sound economics...if you've read the latest reports on the recovery of the economy in the United States, a strong part of that recovery has been the reduction of state and municipal spending, and it's the way they've handled their budgets in getting greater productivity and leading to less inflation and leading to the road to recovery. It's listed as the single most important factor at this time — what the state and local governments have done in curtailing spending, and doing some difficult cost-cutting.

As I say, we have had a difficult time with taxes. You must know that other provinces are closing hospitals this year. They're doing the very difficult things by their priority, and which we have said in this province we will not consider. We will not close hospitals. Some provinces have said that's the way they'll do it. It's not the way we're going to do it. You may argue for or against, but that's not the way we are going to do it. We think the people will pay a little more taxes to keep the hospitals open, and that was our decision. But Ontario, New Brunswick and others have said: "Close the hospitals."

Someone mentioned that even Alberta has gone to deficit budgeting, but their deficit is against accumulated surplus. I always said that you build surpluses in good years so you can run deficits in poor years to maintain a steady economic base. Their good planning has allowed them the use of a deficit — even last year there was a surplus coming into last year, but it wasn't enough to cover the deficit of the year. I just say it's a matter of good planning — continual good planning. That's up to the governments, but hopefully we're all learning from the situation we are in now.

The acting Leader of the Opposition mentioned the cost to people, and whether we were concerned about the tax cost to people. We're concerned about the cost to people in consumer goods. That's why there's a bill — Bill 16 — before this House that freezes prices.

When we came to government, and were sworn-in December 22, there was a price freeze existing that ran out December 31. We didn't cancel it; it ran out. In consultation with the professional staff here, which helped impose that freeze...it was illegal and couldn't be enforced. That freeze only existed through the good citizenship of those participating corporations and individuals who allowed it to work. These are the people who some members of this House would castigate as being poor citizens, but they cooperated with an Act, which they knew was illegal, for the good of the province and the country at a time when we were trying to hold down prices. They even cooperated with the new government when we put in our own freeze for the month of January, and we brought in an extension of that freeze to the middle of February.

By that time we'd had a freeze on in this province of those products, but one that couldn't be legally enforced. One of the first questions I got from the other Premiers of Canada in my first meeting with them was: "For goodness' sake, how did British Columbia ever get away with something like that?" I said that it was because it wasn't legal; they knew it wasn't legal. They wondered how we did it. I said that it was a credit to the people of the province, and to those who allowed their prices to be frozen as a measure of cooperation. So you see, it's not all just government, or it's not all just one sector of society, but there we had cooperation from a particular sector of society; and it's going to take cooperation from everyone.

One of the members — I think it was the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) — talked about goodness gracious, can't we get out and talk to the people and say everybody has to join in the fight. Somebody from across the floor — and I don't know who it was, Mr. Chairman — said there's someone who is naive. Well, I hope that the idea isn't naive, because I hope that everybody's prepared to participate in the fight and that it won't be used for political advantage by one group or another — one group trying to play one economic group for political advantage, because I'm sure we've seen the damage that has done in this province in the past.

So we are concerned about prices, and we have legislation now that does something about it, that gives us the legal right to do something about prices.

There was a legal right to freeze prices in the petroleum products, and that price freeze has existed. That legal part of the freeze has existed on refineries right through the illegal price freeze that wasn't continued on consumer products and kept our grocery prices down during that period of November, December and January.

The acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) also mentioned something about the people who aren't able to bargain for money suffering from inflation. I am sure that he has read the legislation. I shouldn't mention it because it hasn't been debated, but the GAIN legislation has the specific proviso of tying these benefits to people to the cost of living. I am sure that debate will come up. Many of the subjects that were brought up can come up in estimates of the appropriate ministers. But I hope, if he hasn't read it, that he will recognize that we have made some attempt to cover those areas and in broadening the number of people in need who will be covered.

The hon. Liberal leader, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), was very

[ Page 2323 ]

concerned about British Columbia's place in Canada and the terms and conditions under which we joined Confederation, and he was concerned with the constitution. Well, I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we are also concerned about British Columbia's place in the constitution and we are also concerned with being a vocal member of that Confederation of provinces that will make us strong. We'll fight for the rights of British Columbia, and, hopefully, for a stronger Canada.

We have a continuing committee. In fact, this government, the former government and the government before that, has a director of constitutional administrative law who has worked on all the constitutional conferences dating back to their initiation. We probably have one of the best departments dealing with the constitution of all the provinces. I think a case that has been heard is waiting judgment — the Georgia Straight case — was handled by this department and other areas dealing with the constitution.

We have had a committee from this department meeting with other departments and the political arm — the cabinet — on the constitution and on the revenue-sharing which the member for North Vancouver-Capilano brought up. We face major negotiations June 13 and 14 of this month and I, as the Premier, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the support staff will be leading a delegation to Ottawa. That will be a week this Sunday for three or four days in a federal-provincial conference of First Ministers. We are not going unarmed. The staff committee, for the first time, has been meeting to co-ordinate the demands and the negotiations that all our departments will make upon the federal government — not demands as wanting more but our response to their curtailment of plans, the changes that they have suggested.

In fact, there are changes that they have not only suggested but which are contained in their new budget, and we haven't had a chance to talk yet. We feel, and I am sure all the provinces feel, a little upset that the federal government is holding this meeting on June 13 and 14 and the federal budget already shows that there is no money for negotiation with the provinces. So we have to be concerned about that. But we have developed optional positions. There is a staff meeting in advance of that meeting in Ottawa which will take place on June 8.

These are some of the types of meetings and co-ordination that the intergovernmental affairs department is doing. It's doing a good job, and I think the type of discussion we've got with the departments is going to benefit this province. I hope that we never see the type of loss to the province that we lost in the university, the post-secondary education, sharing where the lid on the increase at 15 per cent per annum cost this province dearly. Now that's the type of....

MR. COCKE: Same thing as health?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, we vary. What everybody talks about — and I am sure they are talking about equalization payments. What most people don't know about is the hidden cost of equalization. We, as a so-called have province, pay in these sharing schemes because we have mini-equalization because we have an equalization formula within health, within the Canada Assistance Plan and with education which benefits the poorest provinces. So there is not only the visible equalization that the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), talked about, but the hidden equalization that British Columbia pays for its place in Canada. We want all equalization out on the table we want it visible.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, in response to a question from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), I indicated I would table a report on the impact of the labour dispute on the learning situation in School District 68, Nanaimo.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I indicated that I would make a statement this evening concerning the difficulties being experienced in Nanaimo and Ladysmith with respect to the municipalities and school district.

I have met this afternoon with a representative of the union, and I have spoken by telephone with a representative of the employers' association, and I would like to assure the members that this matter is being actively pursued. I have to have one response back, and I would like to defer any further comment until tomorrow morning.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.