[ Page 75 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Grizzly Valley Field Gas reserves. Mr. Macdonald — 75

Pharmacare changes. Mr. Gibson — 75

Meeting with Western Canada Party. Mr. Wallace — 75

Delays in court proceedings. Mr. Barnes — 77

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson — 78

Mr. Wallace — 92

Appendix — 108

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

GRIZZLY VALLEY
FIELD GAS RESERVES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the hon. Premier. Would the Premier tell the House what were the proven gas reserves in the Grizzly field at the time he made his big announcement of the $100 million pipeline on December 10,1976?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know now?

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

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

A question to the Minister of Forests.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same matter?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. My question is to the Minister of Forests who, on August 11,1976, was the director of BCPC. At the time the $2 million advance to Quasar Petroleum Ltd. was authorized from BCPC, of which you were then a director, what were the proven gas reserves according to the reports of B.C. Petroleum, or other sources, in the Grizzly Valley field?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

PHARMACARE CHARGES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Human Resources. A Manitoba public servant, apparently consulted by the government of British Columbia, predicts that there will be a $25 deductible for Pharmacare charges for senior citizens. Will the minister assure this House that there will be no loss of current non-deducibility rights imposed on seniors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MEETING WITH
WESTERN CANADA PARTY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier whether he has had any meetings with Mr. Ed Fleming, president of the Western Canada Party, or with any official representatives of the Western Canada Party.

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

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary to that question, Mr. Speaker: can the Premier then tell the House if the statement which has recently appeared by the Minister of Human Resources, in which he includes comment and in which he is appearing to speak on behalf of the Premier — that a large number of the Social Credit MLAs are in favour of some form of Western separatism — in any way represents the policy of this government?

[ Page 76 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to the member for Oak Bay, I read the same article and I didn't draw the inference that he was speaking for the Premier. In fact it quite clearly stated that it was an opinion of the person.

This government has stated its opinion on Confederation in Canada, both in our paper that's been well-circulated on presentation on dealing with patriation of the constitution, and as such this party is committed to Canada. We have in fact advocated a more flexible confederation, more responsibility to the regions. If you read that article carefully you will realize that the Minister of Human Resources indeed spoke out for a decentralized and stronger authority for the regions. That same message was carried on in the throne speech.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the Premier is obviously strongly supporting the statement reported by the Minister of Human Resources, does he also agree with the statement that bilingualism is hogwash?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There again, member, quite respectfully, you're having difficulty understanding. I do not support your latter assumption. The statements we've made on behalf of Confederation and our country stand. The statements as were stated in the throne speech, and our commitment to a stronger Canada, are the commitments of this government.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Premier's clarification of his own policy, and his party's policy, on the very serious issue of western separatism. I would like to know whether or not the Premier takes the position that any MLA of the government side who supports the position of western separatism will be asked to leave the government party.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. KING: Answer the question.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That may be the way in which the insecure position of your own leadership will have to be protected in the NDP, and your phony fights with some members of big labour. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that in this party there'll be no witch-hunts and every member will have a right to make his views known, but this party stands committed to Canada.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If we are to be assured that the party is committed totally to the continuation of Canada as a Confederation, does the Premier consider it an anomaly to have any MLA, a member of that party that is so clearly committed to Confederation, being opposed to Confederation? I'm not suggesting you name any witches at all. Mr. Speaker, I've never described any backbencher as a witch, and I find that an analogy.... Well, I find that strange that it would spring to the First Minister's lips, Mr. Speaker. I'm suggesting that he canvass.... The question simply is this: If the party's position is clearly in favour of Confederation, does it tolerate anyone absolutely opposed to that position still being a government MLA? Very clearly.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the frivolity that has hit question period with the return of the Leader of the Opposition, who wasn't here during this period last year, for some reason or another.... I'd like to just reassure him that No. 1, our party has, and our government has, made suggestions on how we can strengthen Canada. And those suggestions, I'm hopeful, will be taken up not only by the Government of Canada but by the other provinces. It's more than just a frivolous question in question period. The future of our country is important to us as a party and as a government...

MR. BARRETT: Will your backbenchers toe the line?

HON. MR. BENNETT:...and our party takes British Columbia's position in Confederation seriously. We also advocate there cannot be a strong Canada without a strong British Columbia. I would hope the Leader of the Opposition will remember that we are here to guard the interests and to advance the interests of British Columbia. In doing so, that makes us no less Canadian but, in fact, makes us strong Canadians indeed, because a weakened British Columbia, such as the one you advocated when you said, "Give away the provincial resources to the federal government in the interests of socialism," when you were Premier and went back and offered

[ Page 77 ]

to give away our petroleum resources to the Government of Canada, was not in the best interests of a strong British Columbia. As such, while we are government we will advocate the type of powers and responsibilities for this province that can truly build a strong Canada, because we're committed to Canadianism, not socialism, first.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary based on the question that was not answered. However, if the Premier wishes to present me a choice in my asking the supplementary as to who should own the oil resources — the people of Canada or the international oil companies — I suggest the people of Canada come before the international oil companies. However, that is a debate for a different setting and I do not intend to misuse question period, as the Premier did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: I asked this question simply and clearly: if the party is committed to Confederation and that is the absolute policy of that party, will you tolerate a cabinet Minister or a backbencher who espouses western separatism? Yes or no?

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Premier for his very eloquent expressions about the unification of the country and suggest that the hon. Attorney-General will follow the same vein in taking very seriously the question I am about to pose. I ask the Attorney-General if he would explain to the House how he, as chief guardian of the provincial justice system, can reconcile the dropping of legally laid charges against offenders for drunk driving, assault, soliciting, possession of dangerous weapons, false pretences and others, which he, in good conscience and respect for the justice system, can permit.

This is a personal question, Mr. Attorney-General, because your Premier just explained that he would like the people of British Columbia to feel that they are part of a unified country and to believe in the laws of the land. I would like to know how you reconcile that personally within your own conscience.

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

First of all, as I informed the hon. members yesterday — and I do recall the presence of the member who just posed the question — from discussions that I've had with the Deputy Attorney-General, there has been very significant progress made to this point. The lists are being more effectively approached and a lot of the delays are being most effectively brought forward. Part of the ills that were being experienced is being cured.

I also informed all of the hon. members that I was continuing to review the matter. We have the better part of five or six weeks. I informed the hon. members that I had yesterday requested the Deputy Attorney-General to have top-level consultation and meeting with the chief judge, with the chief prosecutor, with the defence bar, and members of the Canadian Bar Association, and we're very interested to receive their views. But what we're proposing here, Mr. Member, is subject to exception. I filed in the House yesterday the letter from the Deputy Attorney-General to Crown counsel, and if the hon. member has not read a copy of it I most respectfully suggest that he receive one. It deals with summary conviction proceedings; it deals with trying to eliminate cases that were over 180 days in length; but it's subject, Mr. Member, to a raft of exceptions: where bench warrants have been issued; where adjournments have been granted by the court over the objection of Crown counsel.

In other words, the motivation behind it, as I tried to explain yesterday — and if I didn't make this point clear, the only person at fault there is myself — is to ensure that the cases are ready and they are able to proceed and that we don't run into bureaucratic delay and we don't run into the problems of Crown counsel delay.

Now it states that in cases where preliminary points of law have been raised they must be considered outside of the ambit of the direction. It also said other exceptions will be rare and they must be approved, but there's an open door for approval for requested exceptions. But we don't wish, Mr. Member, to get ourselves into the situation of having some case that is, for practical purposes, insignificant, shall we say, being in the system for 475 or 583 days or what have you, and I can say thank the Lord there are very, very few of them. But I think if the hon. member — and I'd say all members, and certainly the public in the province who are rightfully concerned about this — just bears with us a bit to see the results that are being produced, I think everybody would be quite content with the rationale of the step that was taken at this point in time. As I said, it's not cast in stone.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, may I draw your attention to the fact that we have a group of students in the gallery today? They are eighteen students, approximately, from Parkland Senior Secondary School on the northern Saanich Peninsula, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Harker. I know the members will make

[ Page 78 ]

them welcome.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, after some introductory remarks yesterday, I'll commence today with some thoughts on the government's opening speech and then a few ideas of my own.

As to specifics in the speech — and I direct this particularly to the Attorney-General — we welcome, of course, the Ombudsman Bill being reintroduced. I hope, sir, that it will be expanded to make the authority of that gentleman cover the municipal field as well. Local governments have as many injustices and bureaucratic inefficiencies as does the provincial field. With respect to the conflict-of-interest legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait and see how good it is to be supported. It will not only need teeth; it will need jaws. It has to be the kind of thing that can bite back at the grizzly bears, if I could put it that way, and make it certain that a high standard is followed, not only at the political level but throughout the public service.

The announcement of revenue sharing with municipalities is welcome. Through you, sir, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that revenue sharing, I suggest, must not only be generous in order to allow the decentralization of government services to the local level as much as possible, but it must be predictable. That has been one of the worst vices of our existing largesse to municipalities. They have to come every year on bended knee to the government, never knowing how to plan their own budgets.

I was concerned at the mention of land-use legislation. It could foreshadow a loosening of the powers of the Land Commission and the integrity of the Land Commission. Mr. Speaker, that must not be. We will keep that criticism in abeyance until it happens.

We will need to see the fine print on the shelter allowances, and, Mr. Speaker, we need an early statement from the Attorney-General on the subject of rent control and the allowable rent increase — or the minister who is now responsible, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

I think everyone on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, was glad to hear of the free use of campsites by seniors; a delightful announcement. I hope that use by seniors of the provincial campsites will not — like use of the ferries — be ruled out on the weekends or restricted only to periods when the bears are feeding or something like that. It could save on Mincome, as an hon. member points out. I hope that's not the idea behind that important announcement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, will the government allow some kind of meaningful privilege to seniors like, say, the right for all seniors to buy passes on Hydro buses, instead of just those who are on social assistance? Will they do something meaningful of that kind? I ask the minister responsible, the Minister for Energy, (Hon. Mr. Davis) to think about that.

Pharmacare — universal Pharmacare — we don't know quite what it means and I take it being rather ominous that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) today declined to reassure the senior citizens of this province that their current right to non-deductible Pharmacare will not be revoked.

Mr. Speaker, that's not a budgetary pronouncement at all. That's just a confirmation to this House that an existing practice will be continued. There's no announcement there. And, to me, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister refused to make that commitment says to me that that's going to be changed. I think, and I hope, that every member on this opposition side will submit the minister to enough of a storm of criticism on that one that we can get them to back off by the time the budget finally comes in.

With respect to the field of education, I would say to the minister that I like his core curriculum approach, basically. The one thing I would comment on — and, of course, we'll go into this more in the Estimates — is I believe it's a shameful exclusion, Mr. Speaker, that family life and sex education was kept out of the core curriculum — what must be learned. Mr. Speaker, it must be learned by every citizen growing up in British Columbia and it's going to be learned. Let's make sure that it's learned in some kind of proper environment, rather than taking that chance. I'm surprised at the minister on that but, other than that, the core curriculum looked pretty good.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Now as to independent schools, Mr. Speaker, what does this word "eventually" mean? What's this "eventual aid to independent schools?" I looked it up in the dictionary. It eventually means "ultimately resulting," and that's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. I invite the minister to go back and read some of his old speeches and do some of the things that he said in his old speeches he should do like vote against Social Credit, for example. I won't ask him to do that part of his old speeches now, but he might do the parts about education, about taking the tax off the residential property owner and so on — but in particular, immediate aid to the independent schools.

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

[ Page 79 ]

for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) in his reply statement spent a lot of time on that — on the importance of the family. That was very nice and I agree with it. Then, Mr. Speaker, what about the paltry $58,000 that was asked by the Conference on the Family in British Columbia to provide a continuing secretariat service for this year? That most useful association, bringing together members of all political parties and the churches of this province in a study and work very supportive of the development of the institution of the family in British Columbia, had the rug pulled out from underneath them by this government in its refusal to continue their funding. I say that that gives the lie to all that the throne speech may say about the good wishes of this government to the family.

Legislation with respect to property-sharing on marital breakdown is long overdue. We will await the details. The same thing is to be said with respect to secure facilities for young offenders.

The statements on labour are a bit of a mystery. But, Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate something of a year of realism in the management-labour relations field in this province because things are in tough shape in British Columbia, and I think that the responsible parties on both sides know that.

We had good assurances on summer employment. The trouble is that we had fine promises on summer employment last year, too, and they didn't materialize very well and there was tremendous bureaucratic confusion among the various departments. I hope the minister, when he takes his place in this debate, will give us some detail as to exactly how the summer employment plan is to be organized this year, and what kind of dollars will be available.

New highways: one can only appreciate. I regret that no word was mentioned of the improvement of the now rudimentary road down to Bella Coola, which is a needed additional link to the coast of this province.

Under economic development much was made of what the opening speech calls the "team" approach. Whoops, where's the team? They're gone. The minister's still there — maybe he's doing the work of the whole team all by himself. But half the team's been sent to the showers, Mr. Speaker; if this is the team, we're in trouble.

The biggest joke in this opening speech, to me, was the claim by the government that it intends to improve the flow of information to the citizens of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, our most important industry in this province is forests. It provides 50 cents of every dollar.

The most important document today, having to do with the forest industry in this province, is the Pemberton Securities report to the government which was an updating of the report that was given to the Pearse commission, and which makes very grave predictions about the future of the forest industry in this province. It was submitted to the government around about September or October of this year. It has been held in complete secrecy since then, with numbered copies called back at the slightest sign that there might be any kind of leak to the public of this information on our most critical industry which has been paid for by the people of this province. That is an example of what this government means by an improvement of the flow of information to the people of British Columbia.

The second most important industry in this province is the coal industry. There was a report done by the coal task force and given to the government last February. It was in two parts: one part was a technical appraisal — that report was made public; the other part was a policy and economic document which remains secreted — sequestered I suppose would be a better word — from the public view. Why can we not obtain that when the government is planning during 1977 to make decisions that will echo through the decades in this province as we develop those literally billions of tons of coal? Why can the public not have this information? The government has spent literally millions of dollars in acquiring information on the development of coal in this province. It would be criminal if decisions are made without those facts first being made public.

I say that this talk about improving the flow of information that's in the opening speech is propaganda itself, and we needn't expect much more than that from this government.

There was a little comment in the opening speech on gasoline marketing. All I have to say about that, Mr. Speaker, is that I had always thought it was the NDP that was the expert on the waffle. The government was sure doing the waffle-stomp on that one; who's got to them?

We have the ironic picture of the Automotive Retailers Association, who probably worked as hard to get rid of the NDP as any group in this province, now finding that the Socreds are better friends of big business than they are of the ARA, and it's the NDP that's standing up and defending them in this House. It's kind of interesting how ironic these things are.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a bit about the specifics in the throne speech, but the underlying themes are the more important ones. The real guts in the opening speech relates to the social, economic and constitutional foundations of our province, and the document is terribly vague there. It calls for restraint, yes, but what kind of restraint? How will the government show restraint? Where are the specifics there? — because restraint has to start with the government.

How does the government intend to reconcile the need for investment in our province, which means investment incentives, which means profits of some

[ Page 80 ]

kind? How does it intend to reconcile that with restraint? Because that's been the problem that's been bedeviling the national government as well. So these are just fine words and empty words without that kind of detail.

What about these words: "Canada to be a more flexible union"? What are the details on that one? Because the Premier should know, and we had an exchange on that during the question period today, that it is a very short step from a strong central government to a set of Balkan states. And Canada is dangerously on the margin of those things at the present time.

What is really important to British Columbia about the Canadian union? What is our major grievance? Our major grievance is not a constitutional one, it is an economic one. It's a system of tariffs which costs our province well over $1 billion a year, which costs probably over $500 per capita — per man, woman and child — in British Columbia every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freight rates.

MR. GIBSON: And freight rates to some extent, Mr. Member. That's the kind of thing that the government should spend a bit of time talking about. But I don't know if the Premier understands these things.

Separatism. You know, our Premier went and made a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto. I don't know why he didn't make it here, because I was embarrassed about this speech and I wish he'd made it in British Columbia. The news might not have spread to the rest of the country. This speech was made about the end of November and here's a quote. First of all he says he's been amused by the Monday morning quarterbacks after the Quebec election. And then he goes on to be a Tuesday morning quarterback himself and he says this: "Let not this country be diverted from the real problems facing us by the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists."

Mr. Speaker, "...by the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists." "Let it not be diverted from the real problems..." Our Premier said that. If separatism is not the real problem of Canada, I don't know what is.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal Liberals.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: The federal Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: Everything has to be in dollars and cents with this government, Mr. Speaker, because here's another quote: "Bennett said he does not believe the people of Quebec would ever support separation in a referendum because they would lose too much financially by doing so." There are other things in life, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. It's not all the bottom line; it's not all the financial cost. The motivations of the people of Quebec are not purely economic. They have a strong nationalistic feeling among a large percentage of the population. They have a new Premier who is a dedicated, tough, charming man. If it is possible for anyone to convince the citizens they should leave Confederation, it is this man, Rene Levesque. It is not something to be taken lightly and I hope that the Premier's mind has come around to this way of thinking now, and that he will tell this House that separatism is an important problem and propose what British Columbia can do to help in keeping our country together.

So in sum, on the government's opening speech, Mr. Speaker, there were some nice specific thoughts; there were some vague underlying themes. I can't say it's bad, I won't say it's bad. But I can certainly say it's not good enough as an opening speech. So I thought I might try my hand at writing one myself. And I tried a few lines, you know, and I found out this is a pretty easy thing to do. I said: "Maybe I'll make it tougher and try and put some content in it." So I tried that too.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to read this document because I think that that kind of thing should only be done by somebody heavily weighted down by gold braid. But may I at this point ask the permission of this House to table this document, which is a Liberal throne speech? May I have the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Hon. Members.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's more Liberal than that. Mr. Speaker, I start out my talk again with a review of the basic situation of British Columbia and I suggest that we have many strengths, which we do. Things are not all black in our province. We have a fundamentally skilled and productive people. We have an inheritance of technology and capital stock and infrastructure which has come to us from the past. We have a good gross provincial product per capita at the moment. We have a good resource base and, most importantly in 1977, we have a situation where the growth — the new people coming to this province — has abated, so that we can turn some of our energies and some of our capital investment from the problem of building

[ Page 81 ]

new schools and hospitals and roads and so on for new people, and finding new jobs for new people, to the problems of doing the best we can for those that are already here, and that's a lot easier to do. So that's an advantage. It won't continue forever, but in 1977 that's an advantage.

But we also have many problems, Mr. Speaker, going into this year. We have high unemployment, as you know. We have very high costs, which in some areas are pricing us out of the world market. Those are costs of capital and of labour and of government. In all of those areas the costs are unacceptably high.

We have the problem of continuing inflation, and of a Canadian dollar which remains at persistently high levels, to the detriment of our export industries.

We have the problem of a depreciating plant and equipment in our basic industries and of depleting resources in the non-renewable field.

We have continuing political uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, let no one underestimate the impact of continuing political uncertainty on the investment climate in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that if people in various industries don't know what the groundrules are going to be three or four years down the road, they've got other places to put their money. One of the finest things that could be done in this province would be to have all parties on all sides of this House agree that no matter who is going to be the government, there'll be some predictability in economic policy in this province. Perhaps that's too much to ask for, but we're paying a high-priced penalty for it.

We have, as we go into 1977, a completely unacceptable distribution of wealth in British Columbia. There is no reason to think that our distribution is much different from that in the rest of Canada, and the figures there are unacceptable. The richest 20 per cent of Canadians dispose of over 40 per cent of the income; the poorest 20 per cent of Canadians dispose of just over 4 per cent of the income.

A 10-to-1 ratio is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It is not justified on the human merits and the differences between people; it is not justified on the different effort that different people put into this world. Income simply must be redistributed in our society more successfully than it has been to date. I urge that in particular on the government opposite, knowing full well that its basic economic instincts are conservative. But I suggest that that need not be incompatible with a better distribution of the wealth in our society.

We face difficult world markets. We face some inadequacies in our own market system, in our own government system, in terms of the allocation of resources and the production and distribution of wealth.

We face a continually ageing population. In this regard, I would draw the government's attention to the recent report of the Science Council of Canada, which, in this context, will apply even more to British Columbia than to the rest of the country. Here's a quote: "It's anticipated that the actual number of elderly people" — and these figures are for Canada — "will double by the end of the century from 1.7 million to 3.4 million." Elderly is 65 in this context.

Later on in the same report it notes that the baby boom is moving through the system. They've pretty well gotten through the school system now; they're just working through the housing system. Therefore, the report notes, for demographic reasons, between now and 1985 we will have built 90 per cent of all housing units required to the end of the century, That's quite a shocking statistic, too, Mr. Speaker, isn't it — that our housing boom is going to continue, but only for another 10 years. Those are the 10 years in which we have to make the decisions as to whether our new housing is going to be automobile-related or transit-related, and so on.

We go into 1977 with a lot of problems and difficult questions. It's not as simple or rosy as the government suggested it was in its opening speech. It is the duty of a government, as I see it, to play a part in setting the climate and moulding the resources to exploit the strengths we have, and work with the weaknesses, and provide, insofar as we may collectively do, opportunity and happiness for British Columbians. To this end I have some specific suggestions.

First of all, jobs are required in the short run, in the medium term and the longer run. In the short run, direct stimulation is about the only way it's going to be done. That is not an option that I like because it has to be done by government, but it's unavoidable in the short run. Mr. Speaker, almost 9 per cent unemployment is unacceptable in the short run.

There should be a programme of direct stimulation of expenditure at the community and local level entered into by this government. I think they could budget about $50 million over the next six months and provide, after working at it a couple of months, an extra 10,000 jobs over that period. By then we'll be into the summer situation- there'll be a bit more time to look at things. But in the meantime, let's not waste all this human energy. God knows that's not a panacea. Ten thousand jobs out of 100,000 unemployment is not an overall solution to the problem but it could help.

In the intermediate term, I think the government has to be looking at private sector jobs which are stimulated by government assistance. I think there are a lot of federal dollars available as they develop their new so-called "community employment strategy" — a lot of dollars available to that end.

In the longer run there have to be private sector

[ Page 82 ]

jobs. For that to happen, the government has a number of things it must do. It must be, first of all, predictable and constant, as the last government was not and as this government has not been up to now. It's been very erratic and rough in an economic sense.

It has to do its best to stabilize activity over the business cycle, particularly in construction. This is well within the control of the government as it plans its public works projects and its housing financing. It has to give definite and strong tax incentives for investment in British Columbia as opposed to consumption in British Columbia. I'm looking at the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as I say that, Mr. Speaker, and hope that he is listening for his budget.

In the Department of Economic Development the minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has a division which gives assistance to small business. Let him upgrade that division; let him have the kind of small business administration they have developed down in the United States, a small business development bank; let him put his experts to work on that and come back a year from now in the throne speech with a specific programme.

Let the Minister of Economic Development recognize that British Columbia must focus on certain specific areas where we'll be experts to make our living in this world. One of those areas must be forestry. Let us do more research in the area of forestry.

One of those areas, Mr. Speaker, must be ocean engineering. Of all the localities in the world, we are admirably suited to exploiting the enormous opportunities for undersea mining. We have got to carry our mining frontier outside, beyond our own boundaries, because while we have some resources here, many of them are very low grade compared to the rest of the world.

We have here the expertise, we have here the capital accumulation. What it needs to get it going is a definite government thrust and insistence that they will support initiatives in ocean engineering. We have a building at the B.C. Research Council, exactly the kind of facility needed to do that. It basically gives us the capability for undersea mining operating out of British Columbia.

I ask the minister to set up an Economical Council of British Columbia in order to give him the advice that he obviously sorely needs, the independent kind of advice to work with the peculiar economy that is British Columbian. The advice of the Economic Council of Canada only applies in small measure to us. Our economy is different to that of most of the country — much less manufacturing, much more primary resources.

I ask the government to fight and fight and fight on Canadian commercial policies, on the tariff structure, because, as I say, this is British Columbia's greatest grievance in Confederation. There is now no longer any question that the Economic Council of Canada has come out with the statement that it would be good for all of the country. Now let's use that as a lever. Let's push the Government of Canada on that one and make a cause of it at every possible opportunity.

On taxation policy, I ask the Minister of Finance to work with the federal government to fight for these objectives: first of all, an indexation of capital gains, the lack of which is hurting investment not only in British Columbia, but in all of Canada; next, the integration of transfer payments with the general income tax system. This is similar to what the Premier has been advocating in terms of negative income tax. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I go further and say that if Ottawa will not, within a reasonable length of time, give us this kind of package, let us set up our own income tax system and insofar as the taxes we collect let us introduce those reforms in British Columbia.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: More bureaucracy.

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

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

MR. GIBSON: I would say this: the bureaucrats that collect taxes in British Columbia are already here in British Columbia, largely in the Department of National Revenue, so you needn't have a larger bureaucracy. You have the same people doing the work, except doing it for the province rather than the federal government. It's a last resort. I agree, Mr. Speaker, but how long are we going to wait for these kinds of essential reforms to be introduced? Go down there and try that on.

Mr. Speaker, the next topic I have down here is coal. When I was talking about government information, I asked the Minister of Economic Development to tell us the story, because there are a lot of very difficult issues involved here. If we're talking about — and I've heard the work used — $1.5 billion investment, of which something like $0.5 billion might be public investment in infrastructure and transportation, my question to the minister is this: has he done a study which will show that that $0.5 billion is better invested in northeast coal, which is where he seems determined to put it, than in, for example, the promotion of two or three new pulp mills around this province?

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

[ Page 83 ]

Columbia: "We can assure you that by developing northeast coal we will not be displacing development in the southeast, which would otherwise happen at no public expense"? This is not a small question, Mr. Speaker, because the minister is talking about eight or 10 million tons in the northeast. Yet others are talking about four or five million additional tons in the southeast. So is there just going to be a trade-off one for the other? I don't call that progress, if that's all it's going to be.

Give us the facts, Mr. Minister. What prices are assumed when you talk about the development of northeast coal? We have to know that because, Mr. Minister, I'll tell you one thing else we know: we know that at present prices it is not economic unless it's subsidized. I say to you that it is not a useful thing for a province to get involved in — to be in the business of producing a product for $1.05 and then selling it for $1 and saying that that causes prosperity. Give us the numbers so that we can be assured that you are going in the right direction. We hope you are. We want to see this for British Columbia, and we want to see you get as much federal money as you can to that end. But give us the figures.

With respect to Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, I have some brief advice for the minister. I hope he will see fit this year to index Mincome. I hope he will see fit to guarantee to the handicapped people of British Columbia that he will restore that which was taken away from them in terms of support level by the GAIN regulations published in the fall. I hope he will see fit to reactivate the community resource board legislation because I would have thought he was a man in favour of local control, Mr. Speaker, and that community resource boards do the same thing in the social field that school boards and municipal councils do in their respective fields, That was the concept of them. I agree it was passed by the former government, but let's not throw out all of their ideas. Some of them may have been good. This was a good one. That legislation is still there. I ask the minister to reactivate it. I hope he will continue his existing support on day care. I appreciate the difficulties of increasing it, but if he can't increase day care then I ask him to press the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to provide funding for age four kindergarten.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Age four kindergarten.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister....

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

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

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

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

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: A spirit of cooperation is needed.

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

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

MR. GIBSON: That would be a good place to get it, Mr. Member. I am anticipating something a little later on in my talk, but that university hospital at the University of British Columbia might be a good place to get some money for other useful things, but I'll get to that later.

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

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

With respect to agriculture, I would suggest to the government an increased emphasis on income stabilization and a removal of those monopoly powers of the marketing boards that operate against the public interest. When you see the price of some of the quotas that are being traded in the dairy field and others, there can be no question that they are operating against the public interest. Mr. Minister, overall there has been so much complaint on these things. Who do you believe? Who is causing high food costs? Is it the supermarkets? Is it the middleman? Is it the transportation companies? Is it the cost of energy? Is it the farmer? Is it the marketing boards? Why do so many of our citizens go to Bellingham to shop? What is the needed degree of self-sufficiency in British Columbia agriculture? I would ask the minister to wrap all of these things up in a royal commission on food costs, which he should establish without delay, and attempt to finally come to grips with all of the people saying, "it's not me, it's the other guy," in the whole food chain.

I have a word of advice for the government with

[ Page 84 ]

respect to the Anti-Inflation Board. The time is coming when we must decide as a province whether or not to stay in that programme for another year. I think it's essential that we do. I'll go further and say that I believe it would be useful and desirable to keep the public sector under the AIB for at least one year after the private sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. GIBSON: Why? Because, in my opinion, during the term of the former government settlements in the public sector were acceded to that disturbed historic relationships to the extent that the cost pressures were built up in the private sector which have made a certain part of our economy uneconomic, because when the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) suggests that all of a sudden close-utilization standards have to be relaxed in part of our province, what he's saying is that part of our wood which used to be economic is now uneconomic because of our cost structure. I don't think that's good for this province, and I think that historic relationship has gotten out of line. That's an opinion, Mr. Member, which is mine and which I am offering to the government.

In the field of recreation and travel, I would ask the minister to enter into a long-term travel promotion budget, not just year by year at a time, because these things take a long time to have any impact.

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

I would ask him in his department, because I don't think Highways will do it, to emulate the Oregon experience and set aside 1 per cent of the Highways budget for bicycle paths.

In the very important field of energy, Mr. Speaker, it's about time we had a long-term plan for this province as to where our energy supplies are going to come from. It is not enough for us to depend on British Columbia Hydro for this kind of planning. It's just not good enough. That is an empire that's entirely unregulated, doing planning without necessary reference to the public interest but just the interests of B.C. Hydro.

I would ask the minister concerned to give a mandate to the B.C. Energy Commission to hold hearings and come up with a 25-year energy plan for this province which looks at the alternatives of hydro and coal, oil generation, nuclear and solar and anything else he wants to put in it, and say: "This is the way we ought to go, in the opinion of the commission. Here are the alternatives if you want to rule out one particular source of power or another." It's about time we had that.

In the meantime we should have B.C. Hydro placed under the authority of the Energy Commission in terms of justifying any increases they might want to make, because without that need for justification they are, as I say, a law unto themselves. It's not good enough for the minister to say that this data will be provided to the public accounts committee; it should have been provided to the public right then. But more importantly, even if it is provided to the public accounts committee, what can they do about it? What you need is a regulatory commission that can control that monster — which is what Hydro has become.

I make a recommendation to the minister that as a matter of government policy — and not having to do with anything else — natural gas marketed in British Columbia for domestic and industrial consumption should be brought up to full BTU value, which means a considerable price increase for all new installations, and that old installations should be brought up to full BTU value within five years.

I further suggest to him that we should have a law in this province that natural gas profits made by the BCPC must be earmarked for investment in replacement energy sources, because that's a depleting resource. It shouldn't be going into current government revenue because that's just like spending capital; that's just like borrowing money to finance your standard of living, which is what we're doing as a nation with our terrible balance-of-payments deficits, but which I wouldn't like to see us doing here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed that there was not a word in the opening speech about native peoples. I hope, again, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), when he takes his place in this debate, will tell us of the progress of negotiations on the cut-off lands, and on the B.C. land claims question.

Neither was there a word about the Pearse report.

There was very little on transportation.

I would urge the government to fight with everything it's got for the ALCAN gas pipeline. On the question of Kitimat, I think they should be much more reserved. We had expansive statements at the beginning, by the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and even the Premier, that they thought this was a pretty good idea. Mr. Speaker, I'd say there are enough questions on that Kitimat oil pipeline that they had better hold some hearings before they take a position. Then when they take a position, they should take a strong position in front of the National Energy Board in Ottawa. It is too important for British Columbia to have offhand comments by ministers taken as government policy without the right of all the public to put their views across.

Also on transportation, I would ask the minister to investigate what ways and means he can use to accord running rights in the Vancouver port area for all of

[ Page 85 ]

the various railways that use that facility, and which are often frustrated in their desire to move cars from one part of the port to another, or their general shipping plans and overall economy, by marketing disputes with other carriers or by industrial disputes which may be affecting just a single carrier but which may tie up a good deal of the region. Whether the solution is a terminal railway or just some kind of running rights I don't know; it's a complicated question. But I would very much ask that he look into that particular one.

Mr. Speaker, I was concerned that there was almost no mention of the status of women in the opening speech. I say to the Premier that he should designate a minister responsible for co-ordinating, developing and implementing programmes to enhance the status of women within the responsibility of the province of British Columbia. I would point out to him that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, back in the early '70s, produced recommendations of which about one-third related to provincial governments, and of those something less than around 10 per cent have been introduced to date. I have said it before and I'll say it again: this is perhaps the most important current in human affairs in North America in this latter part of the century, and I think this government should pay more attention to it.

Mr. Speaker, in the health field Pharmacare is a good thing. We still haven't seen the fine print, but I suggest to the minister that when it comes to a question of priorities, school-age denticare, as suggested by the SPARC committee, would have been a better priority to start with. I think the cost, as estimated by the relevant report on the SPARC programme, was about $30 million a year.

Interjection.

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

The emphasis in general medical expenditures I would hope could gradually be shifted from acute to intermediate and chronic, now that some flexibility has been found in federal cost-sharing arrangements as a result of the recent conference. I would strongly suggest to the minister, if he has any influence over the matter, that he cancel the plans for the University of British Columbia Medical School expansion, which is a nonsense expenditure, and find better places in the British Columbia health fund and programmes in which to put those millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: You listening, Pat?

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

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: What's the exception?

Interjection.

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

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

MR. GIBSON: The minister should know his statistics better; that's a fact. Any other province of Canada. He doesn't even know that. Or, my God! What's he doing planning a medical school?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says he's following recommendations. I would have thought he had a brain of his own. He's a brain scientist; he could have gone out and got one, if he didn't. He sure didn't on this issue.

The fact of the matter is that British Columbians who want to become doctors can be trained here to the number of 80 a year in the UBC Medical School, and can go to other parts of the country and get assistance programmes if they want to pursue that. But we have to have some difficult priorities in education and health expenditures in this province and it happens to be a fact of life that we are reasonably well doctored in this province and that there are other areas of our health programme that need it more. There should be more preventative emphasis in health, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think the minister would disagree with that for one moment. He's spoken of it often. I would suggest that the fact that abortions in British Columbia are now running at 30 per cent of live births is one of the most tragic examples of that. I support the minister as well in his feeling that alcoholism is our most serious treatable medical problem in this province and I wish him well in his efforts to combat it, as well as the Attorney-General with his plans for tougher enforcement.

I would suggest the Attorney-General consider raising the drinking age by one year as an experiment to see what happens. I do not suggest it would be a politically popular move.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The age of majority?

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: The age of majority?

[ Page 86 ]

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

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Of drinking. What I'm talking about is the drinking age. Since then they've noticed an alarming increase in the amount of young drinking, and they're very seriously considering, after a study, raising their drinking age. I think I sent the Attorney-General a copy of that study. If I didn't, it's an oversight; I'll get back to my office and send him one. To me, this is a very important problem that he should consider seriously.

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting exposes that's been done by our news media in recent months was done by Mr. Gary Bannerman on CKNW when he, in a series of programmes, made the case for a commission into crime and fraud in British Columbia to supplement, in the public theatre, the work of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, on the theory that public exposure of some of the things that are going on would not just make it easier for people to guard against these dangers but make it harder for some of the people involved in the particular kinds of fraud. I commend that suggestion to him.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to strengthen tremendously disclosure requirements as they relate to corporations and officers of corporations. I suggest to him that, had the kind of stringent requirements of the SEC been applied to Quasar Petroleum and the other company involved in the Grizzly Valley, the officers of those companies would have had to disclose, within a matter of hours, the fact that they were given assurances by the head of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation that that pipeline would be built, instead of waiting for two days in excess of a month for the announcement by the Premier, which may have gotten some nice political capital for the government but left over a month of opportunity for speculation on the basis of very reliable information — even better information than they'd had since August. Strict disclosure requirements would help avoid this kind of thing.

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

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Rafe. If we had such cooperation from all the ministers, Mr. Speaker, this House wouldn't have to sit for more than a few weeks.

MR. WALLACE: The House is strangely quiet.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, I'm glad to see, is still here. I would ask him if he has given any thought — which I think he ought to do — to the idea of a national office of education to make certain that research efforts in one part of the country or one part of the continent are disseminated to the others. It seems to me this is a possibility of cutting costs by taking full advantage of what others do and, at the same time, increasing the quality of our own educational information. Such a body might as well be of assistance in co-ordinating the interprovincial standards in education. I appreciate that the Canadian Council of Education Ministers does some of this work, but I would ask him to consider whether a national office mightn't be of some use — funded, I would think, by the federal government.

I have already spoken of immediate assistance to independent schools. I would ask him to get after the federal government for a great deal more money for French-language education for our citizens in British Columbia. One of the things that bothers me is the trend where public servants in Ottawa are being required to have a knowledge of the two official languages; not that that bothers me per se, but the fact that British Columbians are thereby somewhat being frozen out of opportunity for national public service. To me it would be most desirable if British Columbia could offer those of our children who want, the chance for a genuine bilingual education.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) I would commend an increase in the growth grants and a loosening of the restrictions that he currently makes available to municipalities in acting as a shock absorber for the differential impact of growth. I'd ask him to remove from the Municipal Act that disgraceful provision which allows municipalities to commence an expropriation proceeding, subject the owner to high legal costs and cancellation of their plans, and then drop that proceeding if, upon the award of the cost, it suits them to do so. That, to me, is wrong and it should be removed from the Act. We have a good case example on the North Shore with which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is perhaps familiar.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is also responsible for transit. He will be introducing a bill this session. I hope that that legislation — while it may provide for an overall provincial authority which might handle inter-city transit — will also provide for strong regional authorities. The Greater Vancouver Regional District in particular has unique problems, unique costs, and is of a size that is big enough to manage itself. If the government believes about local control, that is the way it should proceed.

The Minister of Labour: I make a suggestion that he encourage his colleagues to escalate their experimentation with worker participation in decision-making in the Crown corporations, which is

[ Page 87 ]

underway to some extent. I ask him to encourage the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to consider tax incentives, insofar as British Columbia can go, for employee stock ownership programmes.

Interjection.

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

With respect to Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, I was much taken by a — what would I call it? — a musing of the Premier in an interview December 22. He was talking about Hydro. He said this:

"To be accountable to the government of the people we've got to put in more controls. They've got great power beyond the normal corporation. I worry about them."

I don't blame him for worrying about them. I would start right with the top management, but I can understand also why he would worry about the lack of control. So why don't we have in the throne speech some kind of control, finally, over these Crown corporations?

I want to suggest one manner of control: there should be a year-round standing committee of this Legislature which has the job of meeting at regular intervals with the chief executives of the Crown corporations to obtain from them an accounting of their operating results, and of their plans, and the ways in which their activities — one way or another — impinge on the public. I do not suggest this, Mr. Speaker, as a way of circumventing the regular process of executive authority through the corporation management to the government, but rather as a way of public accountability. I think such a committee could do a great deal to sensitize even the B.C. Hydros of this world to the public concerns about their activities.

Next I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, a novel experiment which one might start only with profit-making corporations and consider eventually extending: why do we not find some way of getting the shares of some of our Crown corporations directly into the hands of the public? In that way, every member of the public — let's say every citizen on the B.C. voters list — would be deemed to be, and be, for all purposes, the owner of one share of whatever Corporation it might be, be it Can-Cel, be it the B.C. Development Corporation itself; would have a vote in the operation for those corporations; would be entitled to a division of the profits, if any, from year to year; and would feel a way of direct ownership in the publicly owned enterprises of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit.

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

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

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

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Labour raises an interesting point as to whether the corporations would then have to pay taxes. I would think that it would be possible to do it in such a way that they would continue to be Crown corporations with evidence of interest in the hands of the voting public.

In the long run, of course, the question of the payment of taxes by publicly owned corporations has to be grappled with by the various governments of this country. It seems to me that every so-called non-government, even though publicly owned, institution should carry some kind of burden of tax. It seems to me improper that there should be discrimination, but so long as an ending of that discrimination would work against the financial benefit of British Columbia — in other words, until we've negotiated that with the federal government — I think we should try and retain these tax advantages for publicly owned corporations. But we have to recognize that to the extent that other provinces have more publicly owned corporations than do we, a greater percentage, we are the net loser on that transaction.

Mr. Speaker, I only have one short word of advice to the Provincial Secretary at this time, and that is to provide for regional representations on the Pacific National Exhibition board. I think that the PNE is a provincial institution — a province-wide institution. I would definitely say that the city of Vancouver should be given disproportionate representation because that's where it is, and perhaps some of the GVRD municipalities. But there should be representation from all of the province on the board of directors of the PNE. I would hope that legislation could one of these days so provide.

Interjection.

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

The control of the public service, which I suppose also falls under the Provincial Secretary, is one of the most challenging areas of government, Mr. Speaker. How do you motivate for efficiency, productivity and innovation when the system is designed not for those things, but is designed for safety and security and conservatism? How do you work with that question when the traditional cycle of hiring and firing and raises, and so on, are not really too applicable, and

[ Page 88 ]

for very good reason? Somehow we must grapple with that in British Columbia, as we must all over the country, but I know that our current government is perhaps more strongly motivated in this direction than most.

The methods, it seems to me, must go more to the spiritual concept of idealism in human relations than the direct, blunt levers of hiring and firing. There have to be non-monetary systems of incentive encouraged within the public service, and to the extent it's a return, a return to the ideal of public service — of the public servant as being exactly that, of a job of prestige and honour and productivity.

Really, I think I'm more making an expression of sympathy than anything else, but I do have an interesting article here, which I will send to the Provincial Secretary, that gives the experience of some of the large Japanese institutions which have been grappling with this problem of late — they, of course, being very like civil service employers in terms of providing lifetime employment, guaranteed — and how they have been able, to the pleasure of their employees and themselves, to work in some new motivation systems.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly now about what I would call democratic institutions. We are never secure as a democracy, as I see it and as the lessons of history would seem to teach us. I read in the paper the other day the story of the collapse of democracy in Uruguay. These things ebb and flow around the world from year to year. We seem to be seeing more democratization — if that's a word — in Spain and perhaps in Portugal. We also have seen a serious setback in Latin America in the recent years. I'll just quote from this particular report, which is out of the Financial Post of December 18:

"Democracy, it would seem, is a frail vessel in face of economic storms. Indeed, both democracy and the welfare state would almost seem to be luxury products, dependent for their very existence on the continuing prosperity of a nation. Certainly, the abuses of both in times of economic decline only hasten the collapse of society."

In Canada, even having survived the Depression, two great wars and the experience of independence, I do not think we can ever take our democratic institutions for granted. In a very humble and tentative way I would like to propose some areas that could well use reform. In terms of our own Legislature — and let us understand very clearly what it is; it is a four-year elected dictatorship with the right of the opposition to speak about it; that's what our legislative system is — we should have better ways of the opposition influencing the government.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

A first important step to that end, I would say to you, sir, is televising this House. I hope that the government House Leader might see fit to introduce a resolution to that end.

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

MR. GIBSON: No — that would actually make it happen, Mr. Member. The House has expressed its wishes in this regard, but it hasn't happened.

Beyond that, I would suggest to the government — and, Mr. Speaker, this is an example of just how powerless this House is, because I must suggest to the government, as there's no point in suggesting it to the House — that a much greater use of committees would be in their own interest: committees with staff, committees with regular sittings for the purpose of information-gathering and airing, for the purpose of oversight of government departments.

I would suggest to the government that this is a distant-early-warning line for them if they use it correctly. I would suggest that the government has more in common with other politicians when it comes to controlling the great departments of government than it may have, in some instances, even with its own bureaucracy. The opposition can be useful to the government; committees can be useful to the government if they are prepared to allow them to operate. I think that this could be an important advancement of democracy in this House.

As to reform within the area of government itself, conflict-of-interest legislation, we are told, is coming. That's good. We need now freedom-of-information legislation, which says, in effect, that the public of British Columbia should have the right to all information acquired by the government unless there is a demonstrated reason to the contrary, be that demonstrated reason to do with security, or commercial confidentiality, or personnel transactions, or medical records, or enumerated exceptions of that kind. But the residual clause, the general statement, should be that government information is public information.

There should be an official, responsible to this Legislature, with the final word — perhaps subject to an appeal to the courts — on the releasing of any document that is called for by any member of the public. I think that would be an enormous advance. Then we wouldn't have to complain, as I had to complain earlier today, of the two most important reports to the economy of this province not being available to this House.

I would suggest a certain constitutional reform, in terms of a bill of rights entrenched in our constitution, so that no government, of itself, could trifle with it.

I would suggest that we put within the British

[ Page 89 ]

Columbia constitution those three classic remedies of democratic liberalism, namely: the initiative, which gives the citizenry of any jurisdiction the right, by a certain number of signatures, to see that a thing be proposed, either to the Legislature or to the public generally; the referendum, which is the mechanical method of putting that to the public and thereby becoming a law and binding upon the government; and the institution of recall, which means that if 1, or any other member of this House, become an object of such dissatisfaction among my constituents, a certain number of signatures within my constituency can force a new election. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a healthy spur to the...

MR. WALLACE: Spur or burr?

MR. GIBSON:...application of members to the wishes of their constituents.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Could you do a preferential ballot for that recall?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many signatures do you want, Gordon?

MR. GIBSON: I've been thinking about how many signatures should be necessary. I would want to study what other jurisdictions do — 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent.

MR. BARBER: But the preferential ballot?

MR, GIBSON: I'm getting to that in a moment.

MR. BARBER: Some of us are in two-man ridings, you know.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I see. The hon. member for Victoria, which is a two-member riding, makes a very good point. He says there should be a distinction as to which member is being recalled. I think that is fair.

MR. BARBER: By preferential ballot.

MR. GIBSON: I think that is fair.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier talks about the division of powers in this country, too, I wonder if one of the things of great usefulness in this nation we couldn't do mightn't be the calling of a great constitutional conference which would say, in effect, that no government in this country has been elected with a mandate to revise the constitution; they've been elected for different reasons.

No government in this country has been elected with the majority support of their entire electorate; very few have even been elected with the support of more than 50 per cent of those voting. Therefore, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the governments of this country as a group are not the ones — the right ones — to consider and amend our constitution.

It seems to me we should have a constitutional conference or college elected from all parts of Canada for exactly that purpose. I suggest that at this time in our history it might be exactly the forum needed to thrash out some of the differences among Canadians; for western separatists to air their grievances; for Quebec separatists to air their grievances; to find, in general, if there is not some common thread of harmony running through the totality of our country — I believe there is — which we can settle on for our constitution for perhaps the next 100 years, or however long it may last.

This is not a particularly novel or radical suggestion, Mr. Speaker. The constitution of the United States, of course, was drafted in much this way a couple of hundred years ago. The constitutions of various states of the union in that country are still revised at regular intervals by exactly such a constitutional conference, I think we could use such a device in Canada. I think it could contribute to national harmony.

The last piece of democratic reform, I would suggest, is electoral reform. I advocate, as I have for quite a while, the return of the single transferable ballot to British Columbia.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): If you were in government, would you want that?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Member. If I was in government I would want that. I hope that some of my former colleagues who are now in government will continue to want that, because I know that they wanted it before and I haven't seen any motion on it recently. Something's got to be done if anything is to happen before the next election. We haven't even had that commission on electoral reform which was promised in the throne speech last year.

I have a quote from the Premier of the province from February 25: "A thorough study of B.C. electoral law will be launched in time to introduce reforms well before the next election, Premier Bill Bennett promised Tuesday."

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got to go for five years anyway.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe that means they're going five years, Mr. Member, I don't know. Maybe they're going to change the law to go six years. But the fact of the matter is it should have been appointed now if anything is to happen. To me, this is of absolute, cardinal importance. The advantages of a, single, transferable ballot as opposed to our existing system, in a case where there is a multi-party system, are well

[ Page 90 ]

known. It gives a sensitive public response on positive issues because it requires that whoever is elected in any given constitutuency must attract a majority in that constitutuency, must enjoy positive majority support in that constituency. Our current system, Mr. Speaker, responds to negative impulses.

In 1972, what the electorate in British Columbia was telling the government that was elected was that it was against the government that had been headed by W.A.C. Bennett, that it was against what it was throwing out, not that it was for that which came in. And the government that came in made the mistake of thinking that they had been voted for, rather than somebody else having been voted against, and they found to their sorrow three years later that they were wrong.

The election in Quebec in 1976 was not pro-Rene Levesque; it was anti-Bourassa. I'd say so. I would definitely say so. The percentage that Mr. Levesque achieved was something in the neighbourhood of 41 per cent — very similar, Mr. Member, to what your party received in 1972, about a point more. And I think that he reflects — he and his separatist platform — the underlying sentiment of his province no more than you and your socialist platform represented the underlying sentiment of this province in 1972. That's the trouble with the kind of voting system we currently have in a multi-party situation and in an ideological party situation where feelings become polarized and people spend their time voting against.

MR. MACDONALD: We're losing Howe Street.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the most recent Premier in our province, now the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) and the new Premier of Quebec share this in common: they thought they had a mandate for their ideas. They did not, and yet they had the power to implement them. That is when you get into trouble, because an electoral system that doesn't require that power coincide with political support is not a good one. It was one reason, I suggest to you, sir, for the tremendous rejection of the NDP government in 1975.

It is absolutely true, as Mr. W.A.C. Bennett used to say, that the transferable ballot makes it easier to defeat governments. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that except for the government particularly concerned with that, that's an advantage, because it would be a good thing if governments were more regularly defeated in our province and in our country.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I certainly recommend that voting system federally as well. I've done so privately and publicly and I think it would be a very good thing in the federal situation. I wish they would show leadership in this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you recommending the government be defeated, then?

MR. GIBSON: When the voters are ready, Mr. Premier. When the voters are ready.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that package of four items, if adopted by this province, could do a great deal to increase the responsiveness and sensitivity of government in British Columbia.

I want to say just a very few brief words about my constituency. I'm honoured to represent North Vancouver–Capilano in this House. The people in my constituency have very few axes to grind. They mostly want good government. There are a few important local issues that I will be pursuing with the ministers concerned during the session, concerning principally highways: the Upper Levels road; the new Lower Levels road that we need; the Burrard Inlet Ferry, which I think is going to be a great success when it finally gets on stream; the hospital addition which was cancelled and which we want to have. I will take these things up with the ministers during the year and I would like to take this occasion as well to pay tribute to the fact that we have a new mayor in the District of North Vancouver, Mayor Don Bell, who was here on opening day, and at the same time pay tribute to the retiring mayor, Mr. Ron Andrews, who did a wonderful job as mayor, over 17 years on the council, I think, in one capacity and another and who was a respected candidate at times of provincial elections as well. I'd like to pay that tribute to him.

Just before I sit down, Mr. Speaker — I studied yesterday's Hansard and I must say the opposition leader (Mr. Barrett) was having a bit of fun on two subjects in his talk. He made some mention of mining taxation and he imputed some motives to me as to why I had been saying a few of the things recently to the public I have been saying about his party, and I wouldn't want either of those two remarks of the former Premier taken seriously, at least not without rebuttal, so I will do so, very briefly.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to mining taxation, the member for Vancouver East was continuing the same old distortions that he so effectively used during his term in office. It's one of the reasons he was thrown out. He was talking about the mining tax as if it were a 5 per cent sales tax. When he was Premier, he never put a 5 per cent sales tax on carrots, he never put it on fish, never put a 5 per cent sales tax on trees or natural gas. All of these things were handled in a different way. You tax each industry in this province in the way that is the most economically productive way to tax it. You don't follow a stupid, dogmatic approach, which is what the former government followed in terms of mining taxation. Comparing it to a 5 per cent sales tax is nothing but a clever

[ Page 91 ]

distortion.

Mr. Speaker, the people who work in the mining business know that. I'm not concerned about the big companies. They can look after themselves; they can go anywhere in this world. But I am concerned about the workers in this province who lost 5,000 jobs in the exploration industry as a result of the activities of that former government. I am concerned about more thousands who didn't get jobs in mines that otherwise would have been developed.

MR. MACDONALD: What about the Turner budget? What effect did that have?

MR. GIBSON: What effect did that have? What I noticed, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, is that it didn't seem to have much impact on the rest of Canada. British Columbia's mining problem was home-grown by that government of which you used to be a member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: You don't believe that? The people who are employed in the mining industry in this province know. You look at how the mining constituencies voted at the last election. They voted against your party because they knew what that legislation did for them,

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: A mining employee voting for you is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's your best line, Gordon.

MR. NICOLSON: Why did I win in Salmo?

MR. WALLACE: The best line in the whole speech!

AN HON. MEMBER: The miners weren't fooled.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the former Premier also had some allegations that my criticisms of the NDP were somehow motivated by a desire to move over to the Social Credit Party. I wish to reassure both him and the Social Credit Party that it is not the case.

MR. WALLACE: You can speak for me, too, if you like, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: It would be a little bit like thinking that Chinese criticism of the Russians meant they wanted to merge with the United States or something like that. It's a completely different issue.

MR. MACDONALD: They're too far left for you.

MR, GIBSON: My comments on his party indicate two things: one is some kind of a sense of consistency. I criticized the NDP when they were government. The fact that the NDP are now opposition doesn't change that need for criticism, because the policies are still the same. I have and will continue to criticize the NDP, not so much in this chamber because the idea here is to criticize the government, and that's right, but around this province, because I believe, in spite of the unquestioned sincerity, and integrity, and personal charm, that the NDP represents tremendous threat to the well-being of this province. I can't ignore that.

I believe it because of the consistent firing-up of the something-for-nothing philosophy, the philosophy that says, "the world owes us a living here in British Columbia," the philosophy that says "rip off the large corporations and rip off the rest of the world with our high resource prices and we'll live without working," That kind of idea was gotten across.

I oppose it because of the us-against-then philosophy which was generated. In that context, Mr. Speaker, it was just like Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, who used to do the same thing: divide and rule; set one segment of society against another; us against them. It's divisive; it's not healing.

I oppose it because of the expenditure standards that were set by that government, which went a long way towards pricing British Columbia out of competition in this world. I oppose it because of the policies that were espoused that rendered investment in this province unattractive, both because of taxation practices and because of uncertainty and unpredictability of government action in the future and fear of that.

But those are only ways and means. The economy is not important in itself. That's not the greatest charge I have. The greatest charge I have is that the NDP by its term in office betrayed the social reform that they were elected for. I believe in social reform. They betrayed the principles that since 1933 socialists in this province had been working for. They blew them in three short years. That's what the economics of the NDP did, and they're still at it.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Nonsense!

MR. GIBSON: They're still at it — reaching back from the grave, as a matter of fact.

I cannot let pass this statement which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday when speaking of the Kitimat pipeline, which may or may not be a good thing. That's for public hearings and study to

[ Page 92 ]

decide. He said that if his government ever got back in office he would seize 15 per cent of that oil. Mr. Speaker, whether that pipeline is a good idea or not, that is a clear statement of NDP policy. That is reaching back from the political grave to sabotage the investment climate in this province.

What he was saying was that a new NDP government would repudiate the deals entered into by a democratically elected government of this province. Whatever I may think of them, they are the democratically elected government of the day. To me, that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I'll say this. I don't think either of the two main parties in British Columbia has the right answer. I'll criticize both of them as I see it and do my best to put forward solutions. I'm proud to be an alternative; I'm proud to be a Liberal, and that's what I'm going to stay!

MR. WALLACE: I just want to say that I appreciate being back in this chamber and would like to extend a welcome to the three new ministers who were appointed to cabinet during recess of the House.

I would also like to start by quoting one or two of the rather impressive sentences in the very first prayer that was uttered by Mr. Archer on Friday last. He said, referring to those of us in the chamber: "May they be able to disagree without being disagreeable, and to differ without being difficult." He said: "Save us all from being afraid of a new idea, or unreceptive to a new thought. Help us to learn something today that will make us a little wiser at its close."

I know that in this chamber, in fact in the world of politics, if there are any people who need prayers said for them it's us. But guidelines are popular these days and it seems to me that that was a most appropriate guideline on which to start in regard to our expectations in debate in the months ahead. Yet as I look around, although we've been away for six months, and as I listen to some of the proceedings, I have the awful feeling that I've never really been away. It all sounds rather familiar. The faces are the same, some of them more tanned than others, and the basic problems are the same. In fact the very gamesmanship which so characterizes this chamber seems to have picked up where we left off.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) has a changed face; he's saving on razor blades,

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of water has flowed under the political bridges since we sat here last spring. There are many urgent issues that do require scrutiny in debate and I think it is regrettable — and I mean this without partisan flavour — that we did not have a fall session of the Legislature. There are many serious issues which are touching the lives of all British Columbians, and which are receiving less public scrutiny in debate than they deserve.

Important legislation from the 1976 spring session died on the order paper. I want to quote the proposed amendments to the Energy Act as an example, since these were designed, among other purposes, to try and give a better deal to gas station operators. Yet in the throne speech the language says that the government "is looking for ways to ensure that small retailers of gasoline will continue to play an important role in the marketing of gas," which leaves the clear impression that the government has backed away from a specific commitment when already amendments to the Energy Act were on the order paper last spring.

Other bills will be introduced — as the Premier has stated — but these bills, combined with the ones that are already left on the order paper, will add up to what, as the Premier himself has agreed in public prior to this session, will be a very lengthy list of legislation. When you add the throne speech debate, the budget address and the estimates of 18 different ministries, it is indeed clear that we face a very long session, provided we do justice to our responsibilities.

I would suggest that that's exactly the crunch, because there's a real danger of returning to former days which were too easily termed "legislation by exhaustion," where we either sit into the early hours of the morning or sit morning, noon and night, which allows no time for proper study of legislation, or the session drags on and on for months. And as the session lengthens, we all become less efficient, less tolerant, more irritable and less productive. The main consequence is the passage of new legislation which does not receive proper study, and really that's to the detriment of all British Columbians.

I would suggest that for a province like British Columbia, with the current problems that face us and a budget approximating $4 billion, we should have two sessions each year. I would suggest to the Premier that he take the suggestion without party bias and take it into serious consideration during 1977.

One might consider a selfish benefit from not having a fall session is that it allows politicians to travel. I did a fair amount of travelling in the province during the summer and fall. It makes me able to agree with the Premier, or with the throne speech, that the primary problem in British Columbia is certainly our sluggish economy, which is producing what, he quite honestly states, is an unacceptably high level of unemployment.

I was also able to determine in my travels that, despite rumours to the contrary, the Conservative Party is alive and well, and that more and more people are keen to take a look at a moderate, responsible political position which attempts to blend the best of the former and present governments, without their obvious excesses. I'm looking right at

[ Page 93 ]

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Mr. Chabot) when I make that last comment.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As party leader, I hope to play a useful role by spelling out moderate, common-sense positions, in an attempt to balance the debates which, as the Liberal leader has just said, are so often acutely polarized in this chamber. I hope to offer useful, positive, constructive criticism, and to offer alternatives.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that while we are making some progress in the ridings, I even appear to be making some progress in the buildings, because I inherited an office with a carpet that had four different types of carpet of four different shades, all threadbare to a varying degree. But this has been replaced with a lovely green carpet, which is one, uniform shade and has no holes in it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Very nice,

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it is very nice, Mr. Minister of Housing, and I just want to say that I appreciate it, and I want to thank the Department of Public Works.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Does it go past the doorway?

MR. WALLACE: No, it stops at the doorway. But what is not appreciated is the comment of one would-be wit who told me that that was the closest I was ever going to get to the Premier's office. Apparently the carpet came from the office of the former Premier.

To talk in general terms first of all, Mr. Speaker, about the throne speech: the speech seems to recognize to a greater degree, I'm happy to think, than before that the role of a modern, enlightened government is to provide a high quality of life for our citizens. It would seem that the government has recognized this wider scope of responsibility compared to its former posture, which revered a balanced budget to the exclusion of many human needs. I welcome the change and will give that kind of thrust of government my support. However, it is difficult to have a high quality of life if you're unemployed and can see little prospect of employment in the future. We have had figures bandied about, and they vary from month to month as we all know, and they can be put up or down or seasonally adjusted, or whatever. But there's no doubt that there were somewhere around 92,000 unemployed in British Columbia last month. Last July, the figure was 9.3 per cent, which was the highest in this province for any summer month since Stats Canada or its equivalent first started keeping statistics in 1946. This, I think, was a most distressing figure in a province which depends, to the degree that we do, on tourism as one of our main industries, and we can go into that later in later debates.

One of the main reasons that this government was elected was its commitment to get the B.C. economy rolling again, by pledging to restore investor confidence and to bring initiative, stability and efficiency to the process of governing. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the same ad that I have in front of me from that election, with enormous black lettering saying that 100,000 people are out of work. It says: "Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election, and to get B.C. moving again we need a government that will work with it responsibly with industries, and establish strong policies that will create jobs. We need a government that will end mistrust and restore confidence." And one of the questions posed is: "Can we afford the Barrett way?" With regret, I would have to suggest to the people of British Columbia that we are no better off in regard to unemployment — which this government recognized as being our main problem — than we were in December '75.

1 read an interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, from an American magazine called Business Week, that talks about the fact that British Columbia has always been looked upon as Lotus-land. The comments are rather interesting, to the effect that:

"British Columbia always seemed destined to be a place where things become bigger and better, as businessmen considered themselves the last of the true entrepreneurs, but today we hear more grumbling than boasting in Lotus-land."

The article, which is written by George Froehlich, says:

"Many British Columbians felt they were refurbishing their dream when they turned out Barrett and brought in as Premier a staunch free-enterpriser, William Richards Bennett, the 44-year-old son of W.A.C. Bennett, whose 20 years of conservative rule perpetuated the Lotus-land image. The younger Bennett rode to power on promises to restore B.C.'s economic vigour through businesslike management, without cutting back on social services. But Bennett's pay-as-you-go conservatism has sent taxes soaring, to the alienation of much of his business support. Meanwhile, B.C.'s principal industry, forest products, which provides 50 per cent of the gross provincial product, is in deep trouble, and labour is growing increasingly restive over recent layoffs. Businessmen are beginning to wonder when Bennett's free-enterprise government will begin to ease their problems."

I think that very accurately sums up the sense of disappointment that many British Columbians must

[ Page 94 ]

have, particularly those who voted to elect a Social Credit government on the understanding that our main economic problems would be solved.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech is correct in pointing out that we must remain competitive and avoid pricing ourselves out of world markets through the high costs of production. The government appeals for restraint and hard work asks people to hold down their demands this year and next and says that the need for restraint and the lowering of expectations in all sectors of the provincial economy must continue. I just suggest that that kind of appeal rings rather hollow when we recall the kind of promises and commitments that were made at election time. I don't think we can blame people in Canada when they look at both federal and provincial politicians who seek support on the hustings by elevating the expectations of the voter and then these same politicians tell the voter, once they're elected, that it's their patriotic responsibility to restrain their demands.

Despite all this, I personally would support anti-inflation measures, provided they are applied fairly and equitably to all sectors of society. This has not been occurring and contributes a great deal to continuing unrest. The main reason, I would say, that the measures have not been applied fairly and equitably to all sectors is surely demonstrated in the example of B.C. Hydro, where three rate increases will be imposed between March, 1975, and March, 1977. While the figures vary depending on the class of consumer, the average increase in these two years will be in the order of 60 per cent. This, Mr. Speaker, seems a complete contradiction by government — or an arm of government — and a double standard that can only alienate citizens from government and deny the government the very cooperation which the throne speech is seeking. It's a little bit like the old ancient statement that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I think that if governments are asking individuals to make sacrifices and restrain their demands, this has to be seen to be applicable throughout society.

I might say in passing that some of the commercial users of electricity — mention of a forest products company, as I recall...that two of the recent increases put up the price of production of pulp by $4 a ton. I think one could legitimately ask the question: is this how we remain competitive in world markets?

It was somewhat reassuring that the Premier is quoted in the Colonist of January 11 that perhaps he should give consideration to establishing a body similar to the former Public Utilities Commission to oversee Crown corporation increases. It's equally interesting that the following day the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), hearing of this statement by the Premier, is quoted as saying: "There's a tendency towards the ridiculous here. Do we set up another public body to review what a public body is doing?"

I just wonder whether the Premier and the Minister of Energy should maybe get their act together; or maybe the Minister of Energy is competing with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for the distinction of becoming the Minister of Embarrassment to the Premier.

But basically the fundamental issue we should be discussing in the session, in the appropriate debates, is the economy, since without a solid, healthy, enlarging economy we can talk as long as we wish about social reforms, but if the funding isn't there from a sound economy then programmes of social improvement are just not possible. Unfortunately, the throne speech is very vague as to the plans and measures that it plans to utilize to deal with the problems of the economy.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with unemployment and job-creation measures and borrowing, I have listened very carefully over recent years to both the former government and this government, and I am not particularly impressed by the capacity of either in the manner in which they've tackled the problem of unemployment. I don't think it would be unfair to say: a plague on both your houses. While there's little or no evidence of real initiatives to create new jobs, we certainly have the ministers of this government telling us about all the corporations and companies that are busy leaving British Columbia.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spoke to the North Vancouver-Capilano Social Credit constituency back in September last year. While the details he was using were incomplete from his department, he stated that 30 manufacturing companies have left British Columbia at a cost of nearly 8,000 jobs. Again, I just have to ask the question: was this government not elected for the very primary reason that it would revive the British Columbia economy and restore the confidence of investors so new corporations and new enterprises would move into the province? And here we have a very frank admission from the Minister of Economic Development that the opposite continues to happen, that companies are leaving British Columbia.

There are many reasons, including the high cost of production and labour unrest, of which we're all well aware, but there's one other reason which I thought the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) mentioned in a speech the other day in a manner which really surprised me. He acknowledged that the other reason is a fear that the NDP would return to power in British Columbia. The Minister of Mines said that.

There's a report in The Vancouver Sun of January 12:

[ Page 95 ]

"James Chabot told the annual meeting of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines in Vancouver that the mining industry could wait three years until the next election to see who wins, but the result would be no expansion, no jobs, and the economy slumps, and the voter would conclude that there must be something wrong with free enterprise."

I think that's a very revealing comment. I think it's absolutely correct that among the reasons I've mentioned there is the additional reason.

I think it was very well put in another statement by the Chamber of Commerce of British Columbia. This was quoted on September 3,1976, when the chamber of commerce presented its brief to the cabinet. Among other statements the chamber of commerce stated: "Investors are gravely concerned that legislation which could so easily be imposed in 1974 and so easily removed in 1976 can just as easily be reimposed at some time in the future." That, I think, is an absolutely logical observation. Mind you, logic isn't something that flourishes in politics. Nevertheless, the statement, I think, is very valid — that even although there are many other reasons, such as high cost of production and labour unrest, many investors have not been encouraged by the first year in office of this government. Having reached that conclusion, there seems to be a reluctance to risk their dollars when in 1978 or 1979, or whatever year the next election is held, there is a real thought that the NDP could return to power.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that it will be relatively easy for the NDP to return to power unless there is some definite shift in voter thinking in British Columbia, for the very simple reason that at the moment, and for several years, voters have only really had two choices. The practice of voters is one of finally becoming fed up with the government of the day, whether it's provincial, federal, in this province, or anywhere else. When voters lose confidence in the government of the day, they always vote for the next largest political force that is available to them.

With the greatest respect to the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), and with no intention to insult my own party, it is abundantly clear in British Columbia that if neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party becomes a more acceptable, viable political force in this province, then inevitably, somewhere down the road, the NDP will return to power in this province. That is as predictable as tomorrow's sun rising if there is no strong, second free-enterprise choice for the voters of British Columbia.

I don't think there's any profound wisdom in what I've just said. The history of this province shows it very clearly. At the present time, the voters in British Columbia are not showing any particular interest in creating a second free-enterprise party. I say that with candour, as one of the leaders trying to create that second free-enterprise force.

I say that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot), in acknowledging one of the reasons that investors are reluctant to put up their money.... Even acknowledging that there are cost factors, and labour unrest, and better tax benefits in the United States — even allowing for all that — there are many investors who would like to put their money into British Columbia, but are very much afraid that the NDP government may well return to this province in the not-too-distant future.

I recognize that it's the responsibility of my party, and myself as leader, to try and prove to the people in this province that our party has the programmes and the people and the organization to provide the kind of moderate, responsible and responsive government which would bring to a halt, or at least modify, the swings of the pendulum which have not been good for British Columbia, but which have been visible to everybody in recent years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would say that in the last four years at least — again, I say this regardless of political label — neither of the two governments has really shown convincingly that it can deal with the serious economic problems and come up with the initiatives to solve them.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that we must try to minimize the cost of production, if I could use the Liberal leader's frequent appeal for increasing productivity, and we must try to reduce industrial unrest — these are all very sensible and obviously necessary goals. Again, it would seem that there is a great deal of lip service paid by both provincial and federal governments, but very little in the way of real action in pursuing these goals.

I'm talking about some of the things that the Liberal leader mentioned earlier on this afternoon. I'm talking about profit sharing by employees and worker representation on boards of management. These practices seem to be well established in other countries, but all we seem to do, by and large, in British Columbia, is talk about them and say that it's a good idea.

It seems to me that if this government is a government that believes in giving people initiatives rather than the whip, there should be some programme by this time which should be unfolding to the private sector in the form of incentives, whether they be tax incentives or otherwise, to try and attract industry to British Columbia.

The concept of worker representation on boards of management and profit sharing, I think, would go a long way towards encouraging a happier and more contented work force with fewer interruptions.

[ Page 96 ]

Unfortunately, the government, in my opinion, moved in exactly the opposite direction to stimulate the economy when at the last budget it brought in very substantial tax increases and imposed certain rates, which the facts themselves show were excessive, particularly in the form of ICBC rates which not only cleared off the annual debt, but have produced a very substantial surplus which, I understand, approximates to $52 million.

The increase in sales tax from 5 to 7 per cent, I think, is generally acknowledged to have taken a very large amount of consumer spending out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia, and depressed retail sales.

I have a clipping somewhere where Woodward's Stores, for the first time, not only acknowledge that retail business is flat, but Mr. Woodward himself in June, 1976, is reported as saying that the loss sustained by the company in the first quarter was the first that the company has ever sustained in 50 years of business.

There is a lot more detail in his statement, but I just wish to make the point that the tax increases have created the problem of depression in consumer sales. That, in turn, can only lead to further unemployment for the obvious reason that if businesses are not selling their goods, they lay off staff. I would like to think that British Columbia could take a look at the United States and the new president, Jimmy Carter, and try to show some of the initiatives in regard to tax cuts which he seems to feel are a primary manner in which the American economy can be stimulated. I think I read just about every single day in the newspapers that once the American economy picks up, Canada, and British Columbia in particular, are bound to benefit.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of mention is made of development of our national resources. I'm telling the House nothing new when we say that developing these resources always demands a balancing of positive factors, such as the creation of jobs, against environmental and ecological factors. The one valuable source of revenue which has the positive value of creating jobs without the negative value is, of course, the tourist industry. I very much want to support this government expressing its view in the throne speech that it wishes to create a greater awareness of the benefits of tourism to the people in British Columbia.

We have a magnificent province which simply lends itself to tourism because of its natural beauty, but we have to wonder if we are using these natural assets wisely and carefully. We certainly must try to be friendly and considerate hosts, welcoming tourists with courteous and hospitable service at fair and reasonable costs.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to discuss tourism in greater detail in the budget, but I think one point must be made and made in the clearest and most unmistakable way. I am talking about the very bitter debate that has raged around the raising of ferry fares between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I just don't care how often or how long the stubborn Minister of Transport protests that the doubling of ferry rates did not seriously damage the tourist industry on Vancouver Island, and ask him to look at his own figures and at least try to be fair and reasonable in debate.

We've got the most absolutely convincing figures for the whole year and I just want to place some of these figures on record: between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen, up until May 31, vehicles were up by 3.5 per cent; passengers were up by 3.6 per cent. The rates were doubled on June 1 and between June and December vehicles were down by 24 per cent; passengers were down by 20 per cent. June was the worst month of all: vehicles were down by 34.7 per cent; passengers down by 30.3 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not about to argue that there were other factors; I admit there were other factors. But the timing, the change of utilization by passengers and vehicles and the subsequent followup.... Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is just not tourists who use the ferry system; there are business persons in British Columbia who depend on that as part of their integral business affairs and doing business in the province. All I am saying is that the figures show very clearly that the sudden increase was excessive and unreasonable. I would suggest that it is no defence to say that just because of neglect — and it happens to have been neglect by the same party — these rates have not been raised for years, despite the rising costs. That's no defence, really, in my view, to suddenly double the rates with the dramatic impact on employment on Vancouver Island.

Why could we not learn from the national scene? There came a time when the Arab nations put us all in a tremendous spot because of dramatic tripling and quadrupling of the price of oil. Did Canada suddenly try to jack up the price of oil in Canada suddenly by the same amount? I think we could learn from the nationals. It's not much you can learn from the federal Liberals, but that's one thing we could learn, and that would be to phase in increases and prices, as was done on the price of oil. As we all know, the impact on the user was cushioned and, to some degree, the hardship, much as it was still a hardship, was minimized.

I find this particular issue so terribly exercising and it's difficult to keep my patience because it's so obvious, the rationale and the validity of the points that can be made from these figures. And I just say, Mr. Speaker, it makes little sense to double the rates and reduce the number of passengers and vehicles by perhaps a third. The net financial improvement in

[ Page 97 ]

income to the ferries is really of very little value when the reduced amount of traffic has caused reduction in employment on Vancouver Island, The loss of tourist business under these circumstances, together with the unemployment of the residents of Vancouver Island.... I'm thinking particularly of student employment last summer. Many of these students depend very much on the tourists to provide them with jobs. But when the restaurants and the motels and other tourist facilities are just seeing fewer tourists they lay off staff and the impact is one of considerable hardship.

I'm not overlooking the fact that some critics have expressed the view that hotels and motels have not been charging fair rates, and I plan to discuss that at greater length in the budget debate. But I will say that I'm not even prepared simply to listen or pass opinions on newspaper material. I want to meet with the industry and meet with all sectors of it, and that meeting is being arranged. I would say that the suggestion is receiving the cooperation of the local MLAs and MPs and I think again a cooperative and non-partisan approach could bring tremendous improvements for next summer. But just to discuss it and look at the mistakes that might have been made is really no answer, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to leave this particular issue with this thought: that if the same number of passengers and vehicles who used the ferries in 1975 had continued to use them in 1976, and paid a 50 per cent increase in fares, rather than 100 per cent increase, the net income to the ferry system would have been the same. But, of course, with the increased number of persons travelling to Vancouver Island the economy as a whole would have been better off.

I think the point that must be mentioned, and mentioned again, is that to raise fares or raise charges is sometimes necessary, provided it is done in relation to the amount of the increase and a time schedule. But there is a point where the raise in charges is self-defeating, and the raise in taxes of one kind or another beyond a certain point, particularly where we're dealing with a user service, can lead, indeed, to not only no improvement in the income from the ferries, perhaps, or a very modest increase, but other consequential increases of unemployment.

I want to say a word about the coastal ferry issue, because I feel that there has been very considerable hardship imposed on our northern coastal communities by the withdrawal of the federal subsidy to Northland Navigation in the first place.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the action of neither the federal government nor this provincial government does them any credit. I had a letter, or a copy of a letter, sent to me the other day, from the chairman of the hospital board at Ocean Falls, saying that they could not guarantee an on-going supply of fresh food for the hospital. Now it seems to me that the federal government has been arrogant in the extreme at withdrawing the federal subsidy. But I think that the provincial government must show more initiative and understanding of the hardships to the people living in these small northern coastal communities while the minister attempts to carry out negotiations with what I think is a very intransigent and hard-hearted federal government on this issue. I think it's very much a primary responsibility of the provincial government to ensure that our northern residents receive satisfactory transportation services and that they not be left stranded while a provincial-federal hassle ensues. In fact, if one was fairly realistic on this issue, I suppose we could conclude that the argument over federal subsidies to ferries on the west coast will probably never be settled. The federal government pleads a belief in Confederation out of one side of its mouth, and then proceeds to act in a thoroughly unfair and inequitable manner by providing $100 million in subsidies to the cast coast ferries, and provides a mere pittance to the west coast.

Now in the spirit of Confederation — and I would like to say a few words about that later — I fully support the concept of equalization payments, by which per capita income and other sources of revenue are used to calculate grants that should be made available to the poorer provinces, and I believe that a rich province like British Columbia should help — through equalization payments — the maritime provinces.

What I do not accept is that we should pay twice, and this, in effect, is what is happening on the issue of ferry subsidies, with a discriminatory policy at the federal level which I think is completely unfair to British Columbia. I share and I sense the minister's frustration on this issue, but I really would just leave him with this thought: it may well be in politics reassuring to each of us as individuals, perhaps, to be correct in our argument, to spell out the inequity or the inequitable element in this particular issue, but I think what is completely unacceptable is to leave the people of our northern communities in this kind of hardship while we, in all good faith, hope to negotiate an agreement with the federal government. I think we can see a similar and a very distressing comparison, which has existed for all the years that I've seen in British Columbia, in regard to the nursing-home problems in British Columbia where, time and time again, the reason why we cannot provide some insurance coverage and some more modern facilities for our elderly senior citizens who are sick and can't stay in their own homes has been that there's no federal cost-sharing. I want to touch on that subject in a minute, and I realize that the groundrules are now changed. But for years and years, while this province and this country have talked about discrimination — and certainly we know the

[ Page 98 ]

kinds of discrimination that are applied in relation to colour and religion and many other areas — one of the worst forms of discrimination that we've had in this province all the years I've been here has been against the sick senior citizen who needed to go to a nursing home.

Now here we have another group who happen to live in remote coastal communities, who are citizens of Canada, and who should be treated fairly and justly, as are citizens on the eastern coastline, but just because that is not happening, I think it is very unfair — in fact, it's inhuman — to continue to penalize these British Columbians simply because we cannot hammer out a fair agreement on subsidies. In the first year of the Social Credit government it seemed to me to have shown a cold and insensitive approach to its responsibilities by choosing to balance the books at all costs, regardless of the hardship to the elderly and the handicapped and the poor, particularly in the face of the 40 per cent increase in sales tax which I mentioned. Someone has already referred to the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as being the bottom-line boys because of their obsession with black ink on the bottom line of the budget.

But Thursday's throne speech, in stressing the quality of life and proposing action in the fields of health and social services, offers grounds to hope that the earlier hard-hearted approach of the Social Credit regime is softening. We will await details, Mr. Speaker, of some of these programmes before we can judge the true significance of this change in attitude, but if the apparent change proves to be valid, then I welcome and support this greater emphasis on human needs and the acceptance by the government that there's more to life and living than dollar bills, even important as they are.

And perhaps, in looking over at some of the ministers in the House, I might say in all fairness that a cabinet containing so many Liberals could not be all bad. Why, even the Premier admitted the other day that he voted Liberal in 1968. I suspect that Liberal ideas have permeated the Social Credit ranks and softened and humanized the former hard-hearted, dollar-obsessed approach and, if that's correct, then I think a more appropriate style of government and a more human type of government is in store for British Columbians.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I haven't seen it yet.

MR. WALLACE: Now if the government would only go that next step, Mr. Attorney-General, and implement the two basic Conservative principles of responsible free enterprise and progressive social reform, then, of course, British Columbians would be getting the best possible kind of government in an imperfect world.

I want to mention two or three issues, Mr. Speaker, the first one being under the heading of "priorities." The government is proposing a universal Pharmacare programme, and until we know the details it's difficult to judge, but the question to be asked is very simple: if some additional money is available for health care, is universal Pharmacare the top priority when, in fact, government funds will be used to purchase drugs for people who can well afford to pay their own way?

This decision, Mr. Speaker, is all the more questionable when we consider the discriminated group that I mentioned a moment ago — the senior citizens in nursing homes — who often have to depend for their very existence on substandard care and pay the bills themselves, if, in fact, they can find the facility in their own community.

The Premier, on a TV interview, mentioned some of the benefits that the throne speech is offering to senior citizens. I couldn't help but think that surely the elderly bed-ridden residents of our nursing homes who fail to qualify for extended care and spend their life savings on $900 a month just to stay alive must be overjoyed that they can have the free use of provincial campsites. What a mockery of the word "priority"! Does this government have any sense of priorities in the spending of health dollars?

The most glaring omission in the whole of the throne speech, in my opinion, is the absence of any mention whatever of intermediate care for many, many senior citizens while at the same time pushing forward with a universal Pharmacare programme. I want to make my position and the position of the Conservative Party abundantly clear. If we could afford all of these programmes, they would have my support, but until the shameful discrimination against our elderly citizens in nursing homes is ended, there is no way that I am prepared to support government funding of needs which are less urgent, and where the funding will reach people who do not really require the money in the first place.

It seems to me that this is a very strange proposal from a free enterprise government which espouses and encourages individuals to develop self-reliance and not look to the state for every kind of assistance. Here we are about to offer assistance to people to purchase drugs when many of them will not really require the assistance. At the same time, the very people who desperately require and deserve modern nursing home facilities and some measure of insurance coverage are left to pay the costs of their care unaided in whatever facilities they can find.

Mr. Speaker, this is not only a shameful attitude by this government, but it demonstrates another betrayal of one of the promises which was central to the Social Credit election platform in December, 1975. I have one of the Premier's brochures: "Bill Bennett talks about people and policies." One of the

[ Page 99 ]

paragraphs states very clearly: "The Alberta system of community care homes for senior citizens will be given top construction priority."

Even more specific than that, I have an ad from the Victoria election put forward by the two Victoria Social Credit candidates, one of whom was elected and is now the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf). This ad states in the clearest unmistakable way under heading No. 4: "Community nursing care homes for senior citizens will be constructed as a top priority."

Maybe the situation is much the way the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Barrett) spoke yesterday when he suggested that we all make promises on election platforms but we're not too concerned if we ever carry them out. Actually, I would say that Leader of the Official Opposition had little room to make that kind of comment, because on this issue of nursing homes the former NDP government showed the same disregard for this group of senior citizens by peddling subsidized government car insurance when their first responsibility was to ensure fair and equitable assistance to all people requiring hospital care.

It shouldn't matter a damn whether you are in acute care, chronic care or any other kind of care. I just get so fed up with having all the espousing of high-sounding principles about health care for people when we've got about 17,000 senior citizens who get the worst deal of anybody in this society.

We've had three successive governments that have ignored this particular segment. These three governments have done many positive and praiseworthy things and provided benefits for many senior citizens. I'm not denying that for a moment. But I am pleading, I hope for the very last time, that surely some sense of priority in the allocation of health care dollars should prevail I think that the failure of the three former governments is a tragic and pathetic blot on a record of considerable ongoing social reform in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, these three governments provided no cost-sharing for nursing homes — this was true. That was no credit to the federal thinking, either. But even then Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta forged ahead in providing intermediate-care facilities which were funded out of provincial revenues. But wealthy British Columbia — one of the three "have" provinces — remained the skinflint of the western provinces on this issue, and left the B.C. senior citizens to fend for themselves in nursing homes. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, after this recent federal-provincial conference, that even that last feeble excuse cannot be dragged out in an attempt to delay any further government action in providing the facilities as promised, and some measure of insurance coverage.

I don't quote Mr. Trudeau very often, and I try to avoid quoting him completely if I can, but I think it's fair to place on record a statement he made in the House of Commons on December 14. It's recorded in the federal Hansard at page 1989: "The provinces will no longer have to submit their accounting to the federal government, or submit to a detailed set of rules, as they have been up until now under, for example, hospitalization insurance."

I know, Mr. Speaker, we could probably get into long arguments as to whether or not the new agreements have reduced money to British Columbia, or made it the same or more, but that is not the point on this issue. The point is that finally provincial governments, in their discretion, can now use federal health-care funding for nursing-home service.

You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier on we've all talked about jobs and unemployment, and the programme to develop modern nursing-home facilities would have the positive effect of creating jobs in the construction industry; it would increase the sale of consumer goods — furniture, furnishings, medical equipment, beds, mattresses and so on; and would, of course, provide employment for the personnel who would provide the ongoing care in these facilities. Those employees would in turn be earning wages, paying taxes and, in a very positive way, contributing to British Columbia's economy, So I just leave that issue with the thought and the confidence that a most legitimate argument exists for placing that particular government programme right up at the top as No. 1 priority in the provision of expanded health-care services.

I agree with the government that the state of the economy can't support expansion of all social services in 1977, but I say that the dollars which are available must be spent on those in direst need.

I'm sure that if the Premier were here, he would recognize the fact that the same problem exists to a serious degree in the south Okanagan. An excellent research project was carried out there in 1974 and published by a registered nurse by the name of Elise Clark. Although this document is three years old, it emphasizes the degree to which our services to the elderly sick are seriously inadequate. The registered nurses of British Columbia, in a very apt statement in 1975, depicted the tragic way in which many elderly senior citizens with disabilities are shuffled from pillar to post like so many chattels.

You know, when we're talking about priorities perhaps the best way to give the House some illustration is to quote from a headline in The Vancouver Sun, Friday, January 14. The headline reads: "Patients Asked to Supply Soap." Now I don't know if that's soft soap or hard soap; we get all the soft soap in here. This headline is asking residents of the Richmond area that when they go to be patients at the Richmond General Hospital, would they please take their own soap with them to try to help close the deficit in the operating budget.

[ Page 100 ]

Mr. Speaker, if our acute-care hospitals are in this degree of difficulty, if our nursing-home patients who are not on welfare have to fend for themselves completely, and if patients in Richmond have to take their own cake of Lifebuoy with them, I would suggest that this government should indeed take a very serious review of its priorities and reconsider what it might have decided, or thought of deciding, in regard to a universal pharmacare programme. If indeed there were to be new programmes, for which funding was available, I would agree that perhaps a dental programme for children — and seniors, for that matter — might be a better and fairer allocation of available funds than universal pharmacare.

I thought our local cartoonist, Gorde Hunter, hit it very nicely with his cartoon of January 18, where he has a picture of an elderly lady sitting in a wheelchair, addressing her equally elderly husband in bed and saying: "Good news, William. We get free camping privileges this year."

Now I'm in favour of the free campsites for senior citizens but, again, I just ask the Premier to try and take a deeper and more sensitive look at the priorities in the spending of some of the dollars that are available. I'm sorry that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) happens to be out of the chamber because I would like to ask him how his actions as minister agree with the kind of comments he made in introducing GAIN legislation. It's quite true, as the throne speech states, that benefits have been extended to those between 55 and 60. But what the throne speech does not confirm is the very blatant discrimination against persons applying for handicapped benefits after October 1,1976. We find that such persons are receiving less support than those in the same category who were receiving handicapped allowance before October 1.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): No, that's not so, Scotty. That's a "gain."

MR. WALLACE: Well, someone interjects about the issue, that it's all a gain. I don't know whether it's a gain or a game, spelled with 'm' for mother. But it's a double standard which really seems quite inexcusable. I've discussed the matter with members of the social planning and review council and I understand they're having dialogue with the minister, but surely, Mr. Speaker, all persons in the same category should be receiving the same allowance. It may be too little, but regardless of the amount, surely the arbitrary adoption of a double standard can only lead not only the social organizations such as the coalition for the disabled and SPARC and others, to wonder if this government's commitment to social reform is really sincere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two surprising contradictions in the throne speech, and I'll try to cover two or three of them very briefly.

While the speech promises monthly shelter allowances for persons over 65 — again we have to await the details before we can comment intelligently — but I think the 10.6 per cent allowable rent increase is not fair and should not have been left unmentioned in the throne speech. General guidelines, such as we are reading about in many other areas of cost to the consumer, suggest that 8 per cent would be a much fairer figure by which rents could be increased. The 10.6 per cent figure was introduced as a maximum amount, but, in fact, it's both maximum and minimum; in fact, it's the only amount. I receive many letters from tenants from various parts of British Columbia who tell me they are faced each year, automatically, with a 10.6 per cent increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in some cases I would realize that landlords are faced with increased costs of 10.6 per cent, but the blanket application of 10.6 per cent to tenants is quite unfair and is causing severe hardship to many. I think the system must be made more flexible in trying to meet the legitimate request of the landlord to meet rising costs, but also to be aware and to respect the fact that many citizens on pensions which are not indexed, and many citizens on fixed incomes, just find it a very severe hardship to have their basic cost per month — which is their rent — increased by 10.6 per cent. While we know there will be some shelter allowance for those over 65, there are many single people and married people under 65 who find the 10.6 per cent increase a hardship. The research I've been able to do shows that the former government commissioned a study early in 1975 — and I believe it was reported upon and was called the Jaffray report — and it suggested that 8 per cent would be a fair increase. I also recognize that many of the factors governing the cost of living and the cost of providing accommodation vary, but I would hope that in the budget speech we can get some indication that the government is sensitive to this problem as it hits the tenant.

Contradiction No. 3, Mr. Speaker, relates to the statement that there will be an aggressive attack on the impaired driving problem, and I would hope that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would listen to the comments I have to make.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Everyone would support an aggressive attack on the problem, but it seemed to me just the most unusual contradiction that at the very time — or days afterwards — we are made aware of the Attorney-General's directive to drop summary conviction charges which are 180 days old.

The fact that the courts are so clogged that any

[ Page 101 ]

charges have to be dropped is shattering evidence of the failure of our system of administering justice. The ramifications of that fact alone are enormous at a time when crime rates, until recently, have been increasing. I react as I think almost everyone I've talked to reacted: to talk of launching an aggressive attack on the impaired driver, when possibly that person by using various techniques might succeed in delaying his trial beyond 180 days, simply seems to be a total and complete contradiction of the thrust of the throne speech in regard to the impaired driver.

It's particularly distressing when governments pay lip service to their concern to provide a stronger and more effective application of crime detection and punishment of the offender, because, Mr. Speaker, if detection becomes more effective, clearly the system is quite unable to process the offenders through the court system. What does the Attorney-General do to respond to the increase in cases from stepped-up police efficiency? Why, he drops summary conviction charges which are 180 days old.

I think great progress has been made in this province by the functioning of the police commission and the tremendous personal efforts of Dr. Hogarth. I would like to acknowledge that in this House. But what does it gain the province if we are more effective in detecting crime and punishing or sentencing the offender if, in fact, that success, in itself, is self-defeating?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that even worse than that must be the demoralizing effect on our police forces. The police are always being asked to provide an ever more vigilant and effective protection of citizens, but the harder the police work the less able are the courts to deal with offenders. When the clogging up of the courts is tackled by dropping charges, the policeman must be asking himself, "Why bother to arrest the offender in the first place?"

This incredible cart-before-the-horse line of reasoning must have the citizens of British Columbia puzzled when the whole thrust of governments is to step up the due application of laws and thus maintain order in society. The contradiction just staggers the mind. I think it's tragic that the government has tackled the effect rather than the cause. I would suggest that instead of dropping charges the Attorney-General set about finding ways of improving the functioning of the courts, whether this involves, as someone suggested, evening courts, or more personnel, or more judges. I suspect, although it has not yet been articulated by this government, that the excuse is that the British Columbia government cannot afford the money to bring in these additional forces, staff, personnel, et cetera, and is, in effect, putting a price ceiling on what it will pay to see that justice is dispensed in British Columbia. If that is not the case, I think the government, and particularly the Attorney-General in this debate later, should make it quite clear that it is not just that the government will not pay the price to have an efficient administration of justice. Because if it is that price, then it's unacceptable. It brings the whole system of justice into disrepute and makes a mockery of the law.

I read a comment from one of the judges who said: "I would like to think it's a hoax." Alas, it's no hoax, but I think it's a serious error of judgment by the Attorney-General. He's described as the top law enforcement officer. That very phrase — that very word — shows to me that his primary responsibility is to enforce law in this province.

I don't see how, Mr. Speaker, you can enforce law if you find that a person is charged with an offence and, simply because there are inadequate services to process that offence through the courts, the charge is dropped. That is not law enforcement. How can you use the words "law enforcement" in any kind of understandable way if, in fact, the mere passage of time may prevent a charged person from going through the courts? It's a two-way street, because I think if I were charged I would want to go to court and argue my case one way or the other. It isn't just a question of the dangers inherent in charging certain offences and then not proceeding with them simply because the courts are clogged and a certain amount of time has gone by.

I'm not denying that the longer you wait for trial the more difficult it is to conduct the best kind of trial. I'm not denying that for a moment. What I'm saying is that this government is really putting the cart before the horse. I'm saying that if this society expects policemen and judges, and people who administer the system, to give of their best and to feel that they are an integral part of the system...you are demoralizing them, if nothing else, regardless of what you're doing to the public's view of the system. You are demoralizing them if, in fact, either the facilities, or the staff, or whatever other kinds of assistance are needed...if you are denying them that to make the system follow its complete course.

I think that this sets a very dangerous precedent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: They want to get their points back, Scotty — keep their licence.

MR. WALLACE: The directive of the Attorney-General states that the policy will apply, at the moment to summary conviction charges which, talking to my legal friends, I understand involves general minor offences. But they have also been asked — Crown counsel — to review indictable offences. Again talking to my legal friends, the classification of offences is a very relative matter, and I think thereby lies the very serious precedent that because

[ Page 102 ]

apparently the machinery of the system — the facilities, the staff, the personnel, whatever — because these facilities are not operating efficiently, we are trying to find the wrong way out by setting a time limit, and if the case is not finalized in court by a certain time then the charge is dropped.

HON. MR. MAIR: What's the right way?

MR. WALLACE: The right way is for the Attorney-General.... I might say, in answering that interjection from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that the Attorney-General has stated in the House that he is to discuss this issue with the various parties concerned, and I hope that you can conclude from that that the directive was sent out without some fairly in-depth consultation with all these parties in the first place.

The precedent that is being set has alarmed so many people in the province that there's tremendous public reaction, and I hope the Attorney-General will clarify this. I hope his in-depth consultation with the police, and the judges and other...

HON. MR. CHABOT: What are the alternatives?

MR. WALLACE:...is not a reaction to public outcry, but should have been the kind of consultation that preceded such a far-reaching decision.

The Minister of Mines says: "What are the alternatives?" The alternatives are to make the system work ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: How?

MR. WALLACE:...and the way you make the system work is by providing more hours of court, which would seem to be very obvious. If you're not getting your work in X hours, you add X plus so many hours until you do get through your work. I'm sure if the Premier sat in his office every day and decided to do his work in four hours but he needed clerical assistance to complete his work, he would get more staff. I don't think that....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you recommend the same for the Legislature?

MR. WALLACE: No, I recommend two sessions, Mr. Premier. You weren't here when I talked about that. I think that two sessions of the Legislature would do the job very nicely.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How about one continuous session?

MR. WALLACE: No, one continuous session overlooks some physiological facts that lead to the irritability, and the emotional outburst, and the acrimony, and fights, and all the other undesirable, but avoidable, interchanges which we could have in this chamber.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed that the response of the various ministers across the way to my suggestion is that the only way to tackle the problem of the administration of justice is to drop charges. They seem to have blinkers on and fail to realize that they're tackling the effect of a problem rather than the cause. I am just suggesting that if we believe in the concept of justice that we have in this province, in this country — and this is a system that had developed over centuries, as the Attorney-General well knows.... If an individual appears to be in enough trouble that he is being charged or she is being charged with an offence, in terms of individual rights — if nothing else — a slur or a question of that person's behaviour is on record. If I am charged with any offence, I would like to be assured that at least I have my opportunity to take my place and argue that charge in court. Just because you guys dismiss the charge for lack of judges or court space, or anything else, and because 180 days go by, does nothing to the original action of the system of justice against the individual.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, once again, Mr. Speaker.... Of course, the minister across the way is putting everybody in one category or in one bag, and if it hadn't been that through the centuries certain people and certain individuals looked upon some of these important principles a little differently and just didn't go along with it like a bunch of sheep, we wouldn't have some of the legal reform that's marked the improvements in society down through the centuries. I'm amazed to hear that argument from a lawyer! Amazed to hear it from a man who surely should have the highest regard for the system that's developed through our democratic processes and through....

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, I do, I do, Scotty.

MR. LEA: They're not amazed in Burnaby.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: On this point, Mr. Speaker — and this might strike some as being a somewhat radical solution — but I must say that I have to wonder again about the priorities in our system when it comes to laying charges and the processing of cases in the court.

We have one case which began on September 1.

[ Page 103 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: This case began on September 1; it has now occupied 52 court days. It happens to be an attempt by the court to decide whether or not prostitution was going on at the Penthouse in Vancouver. Now I just have to again wonder where we've got our priorities a little wrong.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: What was that?

MR. MACDONALD: I could have found that out in one evening!

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll not go into any depth in that case, but, Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to point out is that impaired drivers may well never have to finally answer a charge of something of the offence which could take life, but here we have a form of human behaviour that has been going on since the world began, and it seems to me that maybe we should be taking a look at just what importance or significance we apply to certain types of offences.

It seems to me that if there is a problem of clogging up the courts, and this immense amount of time can be used up on one particular trial dealing with this particular kind of offence, then we have to consider whether maybe the Law Reform Commission could take a took at at least the concept or possibility of removing prostitution as such from the Criminal Code.

Now I know there are many crimes associated with it, and we're not here to go into great detail on that, but it would seem to me that this is a form of human behaviour that certainly will be with us for a very long time and presumably forever, since it's been around since day one. I'm just suggesting that the Attorney-General might want to take a look at this particular area. Now I'm not....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not advocating legalizing it, are you?

MR. WALLACE: Let me make my position very plain in response to the Premier's question. I am not stating that we should legalize prostitution. I am saying that prostitution per se, as an offence, to me is a great deal less serious than impaired driving. Yet, apparently, because of the kind of very prolonged court cases which can take place on this other issue, the courts become clogged and we see the day when people with charges of impaired driving do not go through the system because of this 180-day period. I notice in the Attorney-General's directive that he plans to reduce the 180 days to a shorter number at a later date.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Minister from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), you protest too much and you're not dealing with the fundamental issue that if there is an inadequacy in staff, space, judges, what-have-you, in the court system, the answer is to tackle that problem. Don't deal with it backwards, with the very serious ramifications which it has on the respect of individual citizens for the law, and the demoralizing effect on policemen and many other people who give of their very best to locate offenders and have these offenders given the opportunity to both answer the accusation and to have defence in the court system.

I'm also disappointed that although this throne speech mentions a commitment to the importance of the family unit — and I won't dwell on this at great length because other members have already spoken — it is very disappointing that the conference on the family, which made very substantial and gainful contributions to the whole realm of family problems in today's society, is not receiving the ongoing support of this government. All that the conference on the family is asking is enough funding to provide a coordinator and a secretary to coordinate what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) himself phrased at the conference.

He spoke at the banquet and said that he didn't like the stress, the tendency in our society always to be looking to government for handouts and support and that there should be greater involvement of volunteers. In this particular issue that's exactly what we have, Mr. Speaker. At the conference there were at least 200 volunteers who were committed to playing an active role in the various communities in order to provide service and energy in dealing with some of these problems.

I think that if the government is really serious about its respect and concern for preserving the family unit in society, it should reconsider. I hope that the Minister of Human Resources or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) can at least fund the ongoing activities of the B.C. Council of the Family.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that others wish to get into the debate, but the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) has taken up so much of my time interjecting about the court system that he's compelled me to speak a little longer than I had intended.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting the title wrong.

MR. WALLACE: Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some people pay a lot of attention to titles; I just tend to deal with the content of what they do and say.

[ Page 104 ]

Heritage buildings are mentioned in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. Here again, I think a government that believes in the individual, and in the right of ownership of property, and the established understanding that goes with these rights, should be very concerned at some of the trends in the field of heritage legislation. I don't want to be misunderstood. I believe that we should attempt to preserve heritage buildings, but there seems to be reasonable argument to suggest that a section of the Municipal Act is unconstitutional inasmuch as it conflicts with the Land Registry Act.

In the Land Registry Act, the individual rights of a person who owns property are well established. I'm glad that the Premier is paying very careful attention to this — I'll just repeat the numbers — because section 714(a) of the Municipal Act, which is the section giving power to the municipal councils to designate heritage property may well be unconstitutional because of section 38 of the Land Registry Act, which gives clear and total right to the individual to whom the title is registered of control over his property.

As I mentioned, I certainly support the concept of preserving heritage buildings, but I have even more respect for the right of the individuals who buy the property. It seems to me if society wants to preserve them, it should not do so by penalizing in various ways the owner of the property. These rights of ownership, like the ownership of land which this government fought so strongly to preserve when Bill 42 was debated, are involved in some of the dangerous tendencies in heritage legislation.

It seems to revolve around the word "indefeasibility," and here again I'll depend on my legal friends. The way in which this is phrased, I understand, in section 38 of the Land Registry Act makes it debatable as to whether the amendment to the Municipal Act provides the legal authority to do what some councils are doing in relation to heritage designations. I'm not even sure that I'm right, and that's quite an admission from a politician. (Laughter.)

But I've been approached by enough people who are involved in the city of Victoria in particular, who have asked me to make this public knowledge and to ask the government.... Particularly since the throne speech mentions that the Land Registry Act is to be rewritten and the Municipal Act is to be reviewed, there could be no better time than this to study the possible conflict between these two bills.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Give me that again about section 38 seriously.

MR. WALLACE: I am told, Mr. Minister of Labour, that in the Municipal Act, section 714(a), which grants municipal councils the right to take certain decisions on designating heritage property, is in all probability.... I use the word "probability"; I'm not suggesting I'm right. But the argument is that section 38 of the Land Registry Act guarantees to the individual property owner this big long word — "indefeasibility of title." In the light of that assurance under the Land Registry Act, the Municipal Act cannot, in fact, afford this additional right to councils to say that your home or my home is now a heritage home and you can't add a window, or take away a window, or add a porch, or put up 10 steps instead of five, or whatever.

I wish to repeat that I'm no authority on this, nor am I claiming to be, but there was the very unfortunate situation in the city of Victoria whereby city council had prepared a long list of potential heritage designations. Again, I'm simply reporting what I've been told. Many of the people owning these properties were quite unaware that their property was under consideration as heritage designations.

Even worse, there is some evidence to suggest that the heritage-designation legislation is being used as a method of stopping development. In other words, where various parcels of property are being put together, it only needs municipal council to place a heritage designation on one of these properties right in the middle of the package and obviously it is then impossible to go ahead with that development.

The last thing I'm trying to do here is to stand and argue the cause of developers, but I am concerned on two grounds, Mr. Attorney-General: first of all, that there not be a conflict in legislation which might lead to some property owner being put to tremendous expense and trouble fighting the case himself or herself in court — that's point No. 1.

Point No. 2, of course, is that if councils do not wish development in a certain area, I suggest that the fair, right and honest thing is to deal with it through zoning, which is the main and proper method. But the evidence that's been presented to me is somewhat suggestive that the city of Victoria council may well be using, or planning to use, or hoping to use heritage designation to stop development in certain areas.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Is that a legal opinion, Scotty?

MR. WALLACE: I've talked to a legal opinion. He gave me the interpretation that I read to you, that the Land Registry Act should be respected and that the recent amendment to the Municipal Act could well be challenged. I can only tell the House in getting.... I didn't realize I was getting into such an issue on this.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's a good one.

MR. WALLACE: I can only add that when the same legal person submitted the suggestion to city

[ Page 105 ]

council that, in fact, they would be ultra vires in applying the Municipal Act, the city backed off. The matter seems to be in limbo for lack of.... Maybe I should say it "has been stayed," since we are dealing with all the legal terms today. But I understand the matter is in limbo.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is it a city bylaw?

MR. WALLACE: No. If I may answer another interjection, I think that's more the direction that should be followed. If a community or a society or a city wants to preserve a building, they should buy the building and then deal with it once they have ownership. But to try and interfere with the rights of ownership of the individual, however well motivated, to preserve the building, I think is wrong. So this whole area has to be looked at in depth. I really wanted to raise the issue because the throne speech mentions both these pieces of legislation: the Land Registry Act and the Municipal Act.

MR. LEA: Are you against zoning?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not against zoning. I'm just saying that if zoning.... I'm just trying to make the point that if the building should be preserved in a specific way, then the way to do it is by zoning, not by some roundabout method. One of the examples that was quoted in the city of Victoria is that there is one heritage building which is identical to another one. One has been designated and one hasn't. The one that has been designated is in an area that was intended for development.

HON. MR. MAIR: Do they get a hearing?

MR. WALLACE: I can't answer the question as to whether a hearing will be held or has been held, but it is my understanding that no public hearing has been held to my knowledge. Whether one is planned I cannot tell the House.

I just want to finish quickly by mentioning one or two of what I think were unfortunate omissions from the throne speech. I hope that government members might get into the debate later on and enlarge on these subjects. One was mentioned by the Liberal leader, namely the question of women's rights.

We have a long way to go in developing some of the legislation to give women the equal kind of rights which are mentioned time and again in the several reports by Justice Berger on family law. I realize that the throne speech does mention a fairer distribution of property on divorce, but there is a vast number of other issues where the economic opportunities for women are far from fair.

I just have to keep saying that despite all the changes in civil service staff and government, there still seems to be a surprising lack of women being promoted to the highest positions in the public service. I don't mean to be facetious, but there was some impudent remark made a few months ago that the banks don't employ women in senior positions and one of the presidents of the bank appointed a woman about a week later. We are not looking for that kind of tokenism from this government. We are looking for acceptance and recognition that women aren't getting the same access and opportunity to employment in government.

I would like to hear something either from the Premier or from one of the cabinet in this debate as to what specific areas we can look to whereby the government will give some attention to the reports of the various committees of SWAG, for example, of which we as opposition members are sent copies.

I would like to also say that I hope in this debate we can hear about the status about negotiations with the native Indian people. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been very fair in his correspondence with me telling me about some of the negotiations that are going on with one particular band whose name I would not insult by pronouncing wrongly. The member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) understands my problem as a Scotsman who does not speak very good English anyway.

But we would like to hear in the throne speech debate just what progress the government is making and what proposals it feels it can put to the native Indian people, particularly in relation to land claims, the cut-off lands and the ongoing problems that are obvious in developing lands to which the Indians claim title.

I would like to repeat a point made by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) about the need for a freedom of information Act. I've been here just long enough and have seen three governments in action and I think in each one of these governments, the private members' bills have been submitted, I think, by the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), if I remember correctly, and when our present first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was in the opposition he also submitted a sunshine Act. It seems to me that governments are getting to be so large and pervasive in the lives of the individual that a freedom of information Act is most essential.

I think the Canadian Bar Association showed some initiative this year by grappling with the problem because the problem, admittedly, is: what kind of government information should not be revealed publicly? It certainly is not an easy black-and-white situation, but it is quite obvious from much of what's come out in the United States and in some jurisdictions in Canada, that many arms of government have a very ready way of stamping "Confidential" on some document which really is not confidential or should not be confidential at all.

[ Page 106 ]

I think the most recent clear example of that was the official of CMHC who lost his job because he was reputed to have disclosed information — about a housing project concerning the Indian people — that his superiors considered was classified information. I'm not familiar with all the details but he took the matter to court and won. The reason he won was that in the course of the evidence being brought to the court, certain high officials in CMHC stamped just about everything that crossed their desks with a "Confidential" label.

I think when we realize that more and more and more the individual citizen is involved, voluntarily or otherwise, by arms of government, he or she may be receiving very inaccurate or inadequate treatment of their particular affairs because of wrong information or incomplete information or whatever. But if the individual has no access to the information upon which the government is acting, then we can see that it's very much a one-sided affair — the individual against the state. Now I agree with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), who has said: "How do you decide?" I am not suggesting that I am any authority to say how we decide, but I've done a fair bit of reading of the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. I can't remember the exact words, but they phrase it very well, that there should be the freest possible access of the individual to government information unless a clear and valid reason can be shown and that it should be a fairly narrow range of exceptions. Now those are not the precise words they use, but the meaning is that, instead of working as we tend to do today — that no information should be made available other than certain small amounts — the clear thrust of the Canadian Bar Association is that as much information as possible should be made available to the individual with a few exceptions. It seems to me that...

HON. MR. MAIR: How do you determine if the information even exists?

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't know. There were a few people in the United States who had difficulty determining that certain information existed, but when they proved that it did it certainly blew the lid off a wicked and devious and very society-destroying kind of movement, where a very few men were abusing their positions and, in fact, abusing the rights of individuals and, in fact, burglarizing their property and so on.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's the problem.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I realize it's a problem. I'm not suggesting that I, or perhaps any party, has all the answers, but I think that the time has come to look very closely at the kind of progress that we could possibly make by at least devising the first freedom of information Act for this province. Like every other first step, it will likely have its inadequacies and it will be incomplete. But then we can go on to amend it in the light of experience, as we do with any other new piece of legislation.

My last point in worrying a little bit about the throne speech is that we're right on the brink, perhaps a few months away, of having the first large oil tanker come down our coast. I was just really shattered by a report that was published, just the other day, about Alaska's concern about their own national government and its apparent ignorance or disinterest, and just where it's at on this question of oil tankers.

Very quickly just let me read at least the facts and figures. It just says that: the State of Alaska issued a stinging indictment of the tankers that will carry oil down the west coast through hazardous Canadian and U.S. straits, and Alaska also attacked the U.S. Coast Guard for failing to impose strict regulations, and pleaded with the government in Washington to take action before there is a catastrophic oil spill. The studies have been carried out and Alaska.... This is one State of the Union criticizing the federal government, and coming up with facts and figures. It states: "Studies have shown that less than half of the 26 large tankers assigned by the major oil companies to transport the oil are adequately equipped or constructed." It goes on to specify.

This should be a debate in the Department of Environment, but I'll just say this: only 12 of the 26 tankers have segregated ballast, and that was a requirement which the federal U.S. government, in 1973, said would be an absolute requirement. It was drawn up as a regulation and it has not been implemented. Only 13 of the 26 tankers will have what is called insert gas systems, and that's designed to minimize the chance of an explosion. Only 15 will have collision-avoidance equipment. The other big element is that the hulls will not be double-bottomed, which was another regulation in 1973 which President Nixon assured the State of Alaska would be an inherent requirement in any tanker negotiating these waters.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What paper!

MR. WALLACE: I'm quoting The Vancouver Sun, Saturday the 15th, page 2.

1 just wonder how long it is before human beings have to be either punched in the nose or knocked on the head, or whatever, to get the message, because the Americans are even doing it to themselves, never mind what might happen to Canadian waters from American oil.

It's hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that in this highly technological age the Alaska government carried out its own computer study because they're very

[ Page 107 ]

concerned about the physical access to the port at Valdez. This computer study was conducted by Engineering Computer Optonomics Inc. of Arnold, Maryland. This study consisted of 130 simulated voyages by tankers of 160,000 tons through Valdez Narrows, which is the approach to the terminal. Half the test runs ended in an accident. That's the computer study. So while the Americans have their own problems, and they're shipping the oil out of Valdez and these tankers are coming past our shore, I think it should be of absolutely frightening significance to us that right on their own doorstep they seem to be facing the potential of fairly frequent and serious, catastrophic accidents with the spilling of oil from inadequately constructed and poorly equipped tankers of 165,000 tons.

Now I think they've every reason to be immensely concerned about their own problem on their own doorstep, and presumably the Alaska government is trying to do something about it. It's obvious that we have our own safety and our own shores and wildlife and sea life to consider. I notice perhaps one slight note of optimism, that meetings will be held between the governors of the states that are concerned, and that Governor Hammond of Alaska has sent urgent pleas both to the federal government in Washington, and to Oregon and to transportation secretary William Coleman.

I just think, Mr. Speaker, that since we have a department of Environment, and since, according to this article, the first tanker will be sailing in a few months, this government should be taking federal initiatives through Ottawa, and we should certainly be making some very strenuous attempts, first of all, to validate the accuracy of this report. But if half these enormous tankers are in such inadequate condition to deal with the potential dangers of these voyages right off the bat, we're in enormous trouble.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: To complete the record, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quite correct in interjecting that we were against tankers sailing down our shores. But, again, the point I'm trying to make is that we've got beyond the stage where it appears that we can have any realistic impact on stopping them from sailing.

Now the very next best thing we can do is play a role in at least making the tankers themselves efficient and as safe as humanly possible and, secondly, to find out if these navigational problems are as devastatingly dangerous as it suggests. If 50 per cent of the time when they're navigating out and in to Valdez they're going to have major or minor accidents, then we have to wonder just how soon it will be before we have a major catastrophic oil spill on our own shores.

I would just finish by complimenting the government on the fact that they've been sending members of the Department of Environment to oil spills — one was in Spain, and the most recent one on the Delaware River. In fact, the report in today's newspaper gives some very useful information that's been collected by this government employee — I think it's Mr. Grikis, if that's the way to pronounce it. He points out the fact that there's tremendous need for us to establish strong understanding and measures with the coast guard service.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for going on so long; I didn't mean to get into a great deal of detail on some of these issues. But I do plead with'the government to take the closest and most earnest look at this report from the Alaska government. Since we are neighbours, and as a province that depends so much on preserving our shoreline and our wildlife and sea life, and since we have a Department of the Environment, I would hope this would be absolutely the No. 1 priority for their attention in the coming weeks. Perhaps the Premier can tell us somewhere in the debate whether he's in contact with the Governor of Alaska or whether he would at least care to check out the very devastating implication behind these figures.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They'd already built the pipeline with all its leaks.

MR. WALLACE: Now the Premier is asking how the provincial government can interfere with a federal jurisdiction. I'm suggesting that the potential for damage is so devastating that it requires the urgent attention of all levels of government. I'm not suggesting that the Premier of this province has any legal or statutory authority to have any effect or to impose any kinds of decisions on either the federal Canadian government, or the State of Alaska, or the federal U.S. government. I'm simply saying that we all stand to suffer so seriously if these kinds of facts and figures are valid and correct in relation to these tankers.

I'm acknowledging that the pipeline has been built and that it has had leaks, and I'm acknowledging all kinds of things that I would far rather never have seen happen, but they've happened. But the final, ultimate catastrophe is just round the corner and I'm wondering if a sincere and united effort by provincial and state governments with the two federal governments can perhaps at least make sure that the tankers that are carrying the oil can be made as safe as technology permits in this highly technological age.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 108 ]

Hon. Mr. Phillips tables the second annual report of the British Columbia Development Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tables the annual report of the Purchasing Commission, January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1976.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

APPENDIX

1 Mr. Rogers asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

Who were the purchasers of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Series EJ bonds, dated July 15, 1976, marketed in the United States?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe stated in his opinion the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.