[ Page 1073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Telephone Directories Dual Listing Act (Bill M 205). Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 1073

Committee of Supply. Executive Council estimates

On vote 18.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1073

Mr. Barrett — 1074

Mr. Gibson — 1079

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1084

Mr. Macdonald — 1088

Mr. Rogers — 1092

Mr. Cocke — 1093

Mr. Wallace — 1093

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1097

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): In the gallery later today I will have the third and final contingent from the Lake Cowichan Senior Secondary School visiting. Presently in the gallery is a group of students from Ladysmith Senior Secondary School under the auspices of Crown Zellerbach and accompanied by their teacher Mr. Helmcken. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming both groups.

Introduction of bills.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
DUAL LISTING ACT

On a motion by Mr. Macdonald, Bill M 205, Telephone Directories Dual Listing Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): This is such a small vote in comparison with the other departments, I'm sure it will pass quickly in the House. I would like to just reiterate the restructuring of the vote to the executive council. I know I went through part of this last year but we have a new member since that time so perhaps we can explain what took place in the restructuring of the office.

The office has been divided into not only the Premier's office vote, but Intergovernmental Relations has taken the place of the former planning advisor to the cabinet whose vote used to be found under the Provincial Secretary. As for Intergovernmental Relations, that vote was transferred, renamed and most of the staff, who were there when we took over government in December 1975, brought into the Premier's office.

Additionally, to correlate the various activities of the various departments, the executive council has a vote within the framework of the Premier's office to provide support staff and temporary research. It allows us to go outside the government for consultants, to university professors and others, to provide information on specific negotiations relating not only internally but in our relationships with other governments not only in Canada but in some of the discussions we've had with our neighbouring states and provinces.

As you know, last year with the new Intergovernmental Relations co-ordinating it, this Premier's office met with the adjacent states of Alaska, Washington and Idaho. We had a visit from a representative from Montana, and we had related discussions and visits with the governor of Oregon, all on problems of mutual concern to their states and our province. We also attended, of course, the western Premiers' conference in Alberta and will be attending another one this spring — not the spring we're having in Victoria and B.C. now, but the spring that's expected on the Prairies later this year.

I would like to give you some idea of how the cost of this vote for executive council relates to other provincial governments because these functions are all handled by all of the other nine provinces in this country. We have a vote of $713,648 for the executive council in British Columbia. Starting from east to west — and this is using British Columbia's estimates this year because we're the only province to have presented a budget yet this year — comparing the votes of last year for the various provinces against our $713,648, Newfoundland has a budget of $1,260,600...

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): They've got more problems!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...Prince Edward Island, $436,300; Nova Scotia, $500,000; New Brunswick, $1,441,000; Quebec, $6,578,400; Ontario, $3,494,500; Manitoba, $1,773,600; Saskatchewan, $1,175,020; Alberta, $2,738,400; and, of course, British Columbia, $713,648.

1 think the interesting statistic, Mr. Chairman, is the cost per capita to the taxpayers for the executive council, Intergovernmental Relations and the Premier's office. In Newfoundland, it costs $2.25 per capita…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are we getting that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...P.E.I., $3.61 per capita; Nova Scotia, 60 cents per capita; New Brunswick, $2.08 per capita; Quebec, $1.05 per capita; Ontario, 42 cents per capita; Manitoba, $1.72 per capita; Saskatchewan, $1.25 per capita; Alberta, $1.48 per capita; and in British Columbia it's costing 28 cents per capita.

I might go on to point out just what the function of the various parts are, because they're covered in

[ Page 1074 ]

the vote...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you going to pass the hat?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...but Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Chairman, not only correlates our activities with other governments but it acts as a focal point, along with the executive council support staff, for correlating the various departments of government, a very important function when you realize the overlapping nature in programmes or in thrusts of government which involve one or more departments. It's this type of cohesion that this department has brought to government that is helping us to reduce the cost and also to reduce some of the confusion that surrounds government programmes. It is attempting to prevent two or three or more departments going in different directions, trying to solve a common problem of need of a service for our people.

The office, after just 15 months, is functioning fairly well. Last year we found that we didn't use all the vote that was given to us, particularly in what was called "other expenditures," which was in the need for additional consultants and short-term staff. But we've increased that this year in anticipation of the number of meetings with the government of Canada and other governments, particularly with the new problem of the constitution and Confederation and the additional pressures that will be placed on all our governments and all political leaders in this country in dealing not just with the problem of separatism — or proposed separatism — by Quebec, but in looking at restructuring Canada not in a negative way but in a positive way to build a stronger country.

We are going to try and utilize all of the ideas and suggestions that can be provided to us as government. That means not only suggestions from those we will bring on in a professional way, but from the other political leaders in this House whom we expect will have positives suggestions to make on restructuring Canada. We appear to have three schools of thought concerning our country at this time.

In light of the many problems that we all face, whether they're economic, cultural or whatever, there are those who would choose to suggest that they cut and run and separate. I think that's a cowardly way out of facing problems. That's not the answer. There are those who want to stand around and wring their hands and say something's wrong, but they keep looking backwards or keep talking about maintaining the status quo. I think that all political leaders, not only in this country, but in this assembly, should be prepared to make some new suggestions for how we can build a strong country.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was just reminding me of one of the lines that came up at the Jack Horner dinner the other night in Calgary. One of the lines ascribed to him was: "To heck with looking to the future; let's get on with building the past." I think there are many political leaders in this country today who spend too much time looking at the boundaries and decisions that were developed when this country was initially formed in 1867 and who are not prepared to deal with Canada in the realities of today.

Mr. Chairman, that's just a brief outline of how the money will be spent, how it's structured in the executive council vote. I certainly hope I've given the members a fair picture of how this small vote plays a vital role in the government of British Columbia.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, the Premier makes my job much easier when he spends 12 minutes out of 15 discussing the clerical aspects of his office. It's hardly what we had hoped for in terms of the priority or discussion of the problems that face the people of this province. Two and a half minutes on clichés about the future of Canada and a reference to Mr. Jack Horner's dinner is hardly appropriate in terms of the very serious situation in which we find this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: But in actual fact the 12 minutes that we've been given are really an extension of the gross mentality of this government. It views everything on the basis of a separate blinker-viewed approach, a department-by-department view of government on a basis of a balance sheet, separating each department, each category, each ministry and each section as if somehow it were a unique, separate, individual, unconnected part of a total government thrust or a total government push forward.

We have 112,000 people unemployed in this province, and we get a clerical review of the Premier's office. We have a lack of capital investment in this province, and we get a few discussions about the per capita costs of coffee machines in the relative offices across this country.

We have no statement on the Anti-Inflation Board; we have no discussion of the economic situation in this province; we have no comment from the Premier about some rather irresponsible statements made

[ Page 1075 ]

perhaps in jest by various cabinet ministers; and we still find no overall statements of philosophy. In 15 months we've seen a vacuum in terms of a statement by this government as to its philosophy, its frame of reference and its direction. We can be sure that before the morning is over we will get a repeat performance of blaming everything from the original cause of Easter right down to the present economic state on the NDP government and its leader. We will then get a rhetorical resumé of the classic arm-waving clichés about how everything was horrible 15 months ago and it remains horrible simply because they said it was in their own messages to themselves.

There's not much point in cataloguing the events that have taken place prior to the last 15 months. But the Premier, in his last two and a half minutes of comments about those who want to rebuild the past.... That's all we've had from this government — a re-writing of history politically so the interpretation could suit their daily purposes, rather than one major statement talking about where they intend to take this province for the next 30 months, or 25 months, or 20 months, or whatever it is before they go back to the people for a mandate.

I find it somewhat incredible where we have in regions of this province unemployment ranging as high as 20 and 25 per cent, where we have in regions of this province business failures ranging at 15 to 20 per cent, where we have situations in this province where there is a slowdown of private capital investment, even in the 15 months that this administration has been in office. I find it more incredible that not one word of comfort or guidance is given to those people who are handicapped, who are separate and remote from any possible hope of developing a good life because of circumstances beyond their control.

Wild and irresponsible statements made by individual members of the cabinet have not been repudiated by the Premier. The hope, the comfort and the leadership of the main spokesman of the government that should be providing these people with some guidelines and some understanding that somebody up there understands them is not there. We get the greatly magnificent announcement this morning that it's only costing us 28 cents per capita to run his office. Well, if you really want to save us money and heartache, Mr. Premier, why don't you just pack it all up? Twenty-eight cents per capita to run his office is the big announcement we've been given today. Now, if it takes another 28 cents to do a better job, I'd gladly send over the 28 cents — and I'd like a receipt, please — but don't put it through the ICBC machinery that your other minister has really fouled up.

I find an absence of concern, an absence of philosophy and an absence of statement of leadership to be an incredible insult. After 15 months of holding power that was desperately sought, that was fought for, that every single means, fair or foul, was used to obtain, with a conglomeration of political philosophies that said they were opposed to democratic socialism — after all that we're offered a squib of a report which says: "My clerks are all there at their desks totalling up the figures, my good little office staff are all there and have their mandatory coffee breaks on time, and gosh, folks, it's only costing you 28 cents per capita. Good news for British Columbia today."

I want to talk a little bit about the question of Confederation and then come to the details of some of the serious problems that we have facing this province. I think that there is enough confusion abroad without necessarily putting forward one's own red-line drawing on a map of Canada. The question of five regions, of course is a decision for the Premier to make, if he wishes to espouse that, but I think sensitivity and understanding of the changes that are already taking place in this country, without those gratuitous remarks being made, have been absent in his understanding.

There has been a council of maritime provinces for some years working towards closer cooperation. There is a certain degree of chauvinism, matched by British Columbia's chauvinism about its own borders, in other provinces. I must say modestly that all of us display that on occasion, especially in Santayana's reference about politicians: "The last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism." When we're all in trouble, perhaps Santayana's admonition would be well worth reminding ourselves of. Nonetheless, we are chauvinists in this province, and for us to make the pronouncement that no one else should be chauvinists and that we have the answer — that there are five other regions that should be put together — is obviously a negative contribution.

I notice that Premier Regan was critical of our Premier for having espoused that. Premier Regan has been one of the most forceful people in attempting quietly to overcome maritime chauvinism by bringing the maritime council together. Premier Regan, Premier Moores, and especially Premier Hatfield, who has had his own problems in his province, have been prime movers both in public statements and private correspondence. Premier Hatfield has been one of the best, in terms of crossing party lines to discuss the possibility of bringing the Maritimes together. But there are bitter, long-standing feelings about bringing provinces together, and outside comments do very little to assist in what is already a natural process in the Maritimes.

As far as the comments on Quebec, well, Mr. Chairman, through you, perhaps the Quebec situation may indeed be the one catalyst that can really hold this country together rather than the beginning of its destruction. The problems that plague Quebec are

[ Page 1076 ]

exactly the same in many, many instances as those that plague British Columbia. The only difficulty is that there are distinct racial and religious overtones to the Quebec problems that are not that easily defined here in British Columbia. The question of language and language usage becomes the emotional focus point that takes away rational and calm discussion about the real underlying problems that upset communities, that upset towns, that upset cities and, yes, upset whole provinces and the country.

The luxury of discussing at an emotional level the split-up of this country would be greatly diminished if there was a national economic policy that dealt with providing employment for all Canadian citizens. The discussion would scale down if there was a national and provincial policy dealing with better housing, more security in one's senior years, a greater life potential for every Canadian citizen and, more than anything else, the most potential social and economic problem in this country — a lifestyle that is meaningful, that has some dignity and self-respect for the young people of this country.

There is a severe social problem in this country that involves the young people between the ages of 19 and 24 who are ill-equipped, ill-educated and not available to the employment competition that exists. A social time bomb exists in those young people who will find emotional outlets, who will follow demagogues, who will follow a whim or a fancy of day based on their own frustrations. None of this is new. None of this is spectacular. It is a repeat of history, and if anyone cares to read history similar situations did exist.

In the areas where there is unemployment as high as 20, 25 and 30 per cent among young people between the ages of 19 and 25, one could almost see the parallel between the Weimar Republic and the debates in the republic compared to the kind of emotionalism and destabilization that can, and possibly will, take place in Quebec and in Ontario. So it does little good or little service to this nation to come forward with map-drawing lines. One is reminded of the Yalta Conference when the three powers sat down and carved up the world like a turkey and came out saying how wonderful they had been at solving these problems and then labelled it with "Unconditional Surrender" on top of it. Great political stuff. Heady decision. Great copy. But in terms of social and economic consequences it was absolutely devastating! I do not make the comparison with the Weimar Republic lightly. The same social conditions and the same psychological atmosphere — i.e. the stab-in-the-back-philosophy — exists in Canada today in Quebec in terms of its relationship with other parts of this country. To glibly suggest five divisions as an answer without any real thought of the social, economic and, yes, cultural impact of those statements does not serve this nation well.

I want to talk about the 112,000 unemployed. All of us must ultimately be responsible for our political statements. None of us can avoid that if we are in public life. It is very easy for all of us, at any given time, to make grandiose statements, to make promises that we might know deep in our own hearts cannot be fulfilled — certainly not within a matter of hours, days or months — or even to make statements attacking those in power as being "we know best and we know how to run things better."

Fifteen months ago the people of this province were asked to make a choice between one philosophy — i.e. democratic socialism — and another one, free enterprise. I don't think the people of this province really understood either one clearly. As a consequence, like 99 per cent of all elections in North America, most decisions were based on emotion, an accumulative, image-gathering process that is part of the mystique of North American decision-making when it comes to politics. As a consequence of that vote, 49 per cent said they opted for what was free enterprise and 40 per cent opted for democratic socialism and the 11 per cent was squeezed into the two members who now represent some other form of philosophy than what is presented there or is presented here.

What really happens, though, Mr. Chairman, is that the reality forces those lines to be blurred. Once governments come to power there is a continuum that must be maintained, not set by a previous administration alone, but by perhaps two, three or four previous administrations, related to the general economic condition that any government inherits. One of the inherited factors was the public utility field in this province.

A decision had been made in the 1960s that we would go public in the public utility field and a major thrust of capital investment by government was then directed to that public utility. It is a fact of life in this province that more than $1 billion has been sucked out of the economy of this province because of a decision made to go into the Columbia River Treaty. Everyone can spend hours flailing back and forth. Was it a good decision? Was it a bad decision? That's now irrelevant. What has become a factor of life in this province, when we discuss 112,000 unemployed and capital investment, is that the greatest draw on private capital borrowings in the United States by this government is competing for public utility dollars that B.C. Hydro is currently eating up at over $2 million a day. There is $2 million a day taken out of capital borrowings available, from our good neighbour, the United States, essentially, and perhaps from other world jurisdictions such as petrochemical dollars or Arab dollars, as they are commonly known, or European borrowings. We have a situation in this province where the private sector was touted as being the one area where new capital

[ Page 1077 ]

investment would be coming from. But in actual fact, even as early as this morning's paper, in the Vancouver Province, on the business page, there is an admission by the Employers' Council that the major thrust in the economy has to come from the public sector and that the services will be providing the basic capital costs, and those capital costs will be going into hydro projects.

Not one single public initiative that has not been there before is in place now after 15 months of a new government. Hydro goes on because of its commitments out of the Columbia River Treaty and the need to provide power in this province; the B.C. Rail goes on because of it's commitments — very, very coloured in terms of political decision — but a reality of a child that is there, perhaps unwanted but nonetheless there, and must be fed. We find these two corporate structures draining in terms of the competition for borrowings.

In the private sector there has not been one single move of leadership by private initiative. There has not been one major announcement other than Crown Zellerbach stating that they're going to go on with the maintenance that was absolutely necessary in any event. The proof of that statement is Mr. Hamilton's own criticism of Crown Zellerbach attempting to foist off the announcement as if it were new dollars.

In actual fact in this province, Mr. Chairman, any leading forester, any leading observer of the industrial scene, would tell you that it is not a question of one exotic project such as northeast coal that's needed but rational decisions based on the indigenous economy of this province that need to be made and be made quickly.

We can have great and lengthy debates about philosophy — you said, he said, I said, what said — but in actual fact there is a narrow range of decisions that have to be made, regardless of who is in government. The challenge around those decisions depends upon not a 28 cent per capita review of the Premier's office but a question of leadership both to the private sector and the public sector to make those decisions.

There is a need at this point in this province for two more pulp mills. The private sector has not responded to that need simply because government, because of its lack of device, intention or design, has not challenged the private sector to deliver. Perhaps the NDP would challenge the private sector differently from a free-enterprise government. But in any event, the private sector is not being challenged at all while it is lazy in its use of our resource.

There is a current happening in this province, Mr. Speaker, where the Big Seven who dominate the forest industry are not being told that caution, wisdom and some care must be used in using the resource material that is available to them. There is no government philosophy. After the Pearse report we're now given a committee to have some comments on the committee that will have some comments on the report that will have some comments on the committee.

Two pulp mills are needed now, and two approaches can be taken: an immediate demand to a private enterprise philosophy that they get on with it, or that they be challenged with some taxation method that will force them to return the capital that they're making in profits back to the province of British Columbia. I don't like seeing profits made from this province going into the United States in plant facilities and in market potentials in that country because labour may be cheaper for that company in the States, especially the southern states. It is the labour of this province, it is the resource of this province that made those companies wealthy enough to take their profits and reinvest them. If the government hasn't got the guts to demand that some percentage of that money should be reinvested here in British Columbia, then even a free-enterprise government has to develop a philosophy that taxation at the end of the delivery of that product should provide reinvestment here in this province.

With 112,000 people unemployed, the existing sawmills could be employing two and three shifts rather than one if they could get rid of their chips and their sawdust in pulp mills that were told you must take a higher percentage of pulp manufacturing out of chips and sawdust. These are known facts. It's not an NDP story or a Social Credit story or a Liberal story. It is a fact of life that exists in this province right now. For 15 months, since the change of government, there has been no direction, no philosophy, no statement to the industry of where you want it to go.

A rhetorical catechization of attacking the NDP as being socialist — and you would have done it this way and you would have done it that way — is totally irrelevant. I hope we're not treated to a display of bad manners and rhetoric about the NDP. I hope we are given some statement today of what is intended by this government to get the pulp industry moving and to get those two major pulp mills going. We have thousands of people out of work, and I find it incredible that even that most obvious private sector in need of investment has not even been addressed by any government spokesman.

Frankly, I would prefer to see a situation where we move in as a government and say that on the price of pulp and paper an additional $10 to $15 be put on as a tax incentive. That money would go back into a central pool controlled by the Canadian Celanese Corp., that money to be used as a base and, if necessary, to allow the private sector an equalized sharing process in building two pulp mills. If the private sector won't build those pulp mills, Mr. Chairman, then it is mandatory for the government to

[ Page 1078 ]

go ahead with those two pulp mills.

For anyone to suggest that government doesn't have the will or the capacity to run forest products, let us review the history in a less rhetorical vein than an attack between the NDP and the Social Credit. A decision was made to buy the Celanese Corporation operations in this province, and they have been successful, albeit that they were bought under the NDP, albeit that they have been successful under the NDP and continue to be successful under Social Credit. The project stands on its own merits. Governments can run indigenous economic endeavours if there is common sense and the will to see that they are run.

AN HON. MEMBER: And no political interference.

MR. BARRETT: And no political interference. Having run those pulp mills, having achieved that, surely to goodness that experience alone demands, in terms of leadership to the people of this province who are waiting for jobs, waiting for some measure of economic growth, that the government step in where private industry is unwilling to pick up its moral obligation.

It is not an economic risk. The very success of Can-Cel proves that. An ironic twist on that very thing is the success of Ocean Falls — proof again that an appeal to the productive work force that they too have a stake in seeing that that enterprise continues raises productivity.

Kootenay Forest Products is around, surviving and healthy. The greatest irony of all is that the only major industrial opening attended by the Premier in his public function of cutting ribbons was at the publicly-owned Plateau Mills sawmill that was initiated under public ownership.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the Grouse Mountain Skyride.

MR. BARRETT: The Grouse Mountain Skyride was there before.

Mr. Chairman, I facetiously referred to the Premier's visit to Vanderhoof and the opening of that mill as a bit of an insult in that I understand he didn't use at least a red ribbon. One would have thought the Premier, venturing into such a socialist enterprise to cut the opening ribbon of that sawmill and brag about its growth, would have at least had the decency of using a red ribbon.

All of the rhetoric, all of the argument comes down to a simple fact: it doesn't matter whether you're in power or we're in power. It has been a proven case that when it comes to the indigenous economy of this province, government can step in and be a success where private industry has been a failure.

In terms of competing for capital funds, a direct taxation on the existing industry or incentives — if you want to go the private enterprise way — to the industry, saying: "We will lay off in certain areas of taxation if you redirect your profits to those two pulp mills...." If those two pulp mills were announced and put on stream, the direct and indirect employment would involve, very easily, 30,000 people in this province, a province desperate for economic direction and economic growth. And we get a 28-cent-per-capita review of the clerical functions of the Premier's office.

While this is going on, we see a government that has not had a clear-cut statement as to its own philosophy and some discipline related to that philosophy. We were treated some months ago to a very intriguing commitment by the Premier to the philosophy of a guaranteed annual income to all Canadians. That is part and parcel of a great Canadian debate, and I think it's worthwhile that the Premier engage in that debate. Certainly a predecessor of mine in office also had the same philosophy in terms of avoiding the bureaucracy and adopting really my own essential belief that one of the major problems with the poor is that they don't have enough money. It's very simple, very clear: one of the major problems of the poor is that they don't have enough money.

A guaranteed annual income is an intriguing approach advocated by economists both left and right. Friedman, who is no left-winger, has talked about the negative income tax as a form of guaranteed income. While this debate is taking place in the moving and shaking parts of the bodies politic, while the political parties themselves discuss this, we find a cabinet colleague of the Premier who is noted for his loose lip shooting down the concept of a guaranteed annual income before his thoughts, or anyone else's thoughts, have been given the opportunity to grow into something beyond rhetoric. The Premier has to tell us whether or not he fosters or agrees with the statements made by his cabinet colleagues.

I understand the green light, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. We need to know something about that, not 28-cent-per-capita coffee cups.

There are other things that have to be raised here and I hope my colleagues — yes, the leaders of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) — will raise them as well. We need to know something about the Anti-Inflation Board. We need to know something that says to us, as individual politicians, when we leave this chamber and go back and talk to people in this province: "Well, we don't agree on philosophy but at least there's some hope. The government is trying to do this, trying to do this, and trying to do this." Fifteen months, and all we've

[ Page 1079 ]

had is compartmentalized bottom-line thinking with no heart, no head, no dream of the future, no understanding of the past, and no broad concept of where this province is going. I hardly find that answered with a 28-cent-per-capita rundown on the clerical duties of the Premier's office.

MR. GIBSON: I certainly enjoyed the speech of the Premier, and I enjoyed the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I'm wondering if the Leader of the Opposition is the inspiration for a small piece of graffiti which is to be found on the walls of our building. Mr. Chairman, I'm not generally in favour of graffiti, but this is written in such a small hand, hidden away on a small marble partition in an obscure room of this building, and it's so philosophical in content that I thought it was not an undesirable thing.

The particular inscription starts out, in one particular kind of penmanship and in black ink saying, "What is reality?", which is an appropriately philosophical question for this chamber. The reply is written underneath in a different hand and a different ink and it says: "It is certainly not Social Credit." I was reminded of that by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have here the Premier who is responsible, in general, for the overall thrust of the government in detail for federal-provincial questions, and in particular, in my thinking, for the preservation of our democratic institution. I want to say a few words on each.

First of all, as to the general thrust of this government on the economy, they have, I believe, attempted to adopt a generally conservative approach on the economy. I'm quite prepared to support that, in general. I have several problems with the details, which I'll bring up, but in general Liberals have no difficulty with a conservative type of economic thrust. We are a middle-of-the-road party, Mr. Chairman, only on balance. We're to the right on economics; we're to the left on social questions. So I have no difficulty on that general concept. In fact, the fact that we're to the right on economics and to the left on social policy...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...is schizo!

MR. GIBSON: ...is the perfect reason why the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) are now in the right party, because they don't have that somewhat progressive orientation on the social side of things, but you have to have a solid economy to pay for social reform.

So the general theory of the government is right on in trying to squeeze out fat on government spending which, I think, is correct, and a lengthy and a difficult and overdue process. I sympathize with them on that, and I support the government on its stand on the Anti-inflation Board. It should be kept on in Canada, Mr. Chairman, until the fullness of the originally specified term and it should be kept on in British Columbia.

I've a direct question for the Premier. In the reaction to the suggestions from Ottawa that the programme might be lifted, the Premier hinted that British Columbia might do something on its own were that to be the case. I would ask him: is that just a hint, or does it mean more than that? It's feasible for a time, Mr. Chairman, for British Columbia to go it alone if we need to. The reason I ask the Premier that question today is that the uncertainty in this area is having a very destabilizing effect on the economy of this province. People who have to sit down at the bargaining table over the next few months don't know what's going to happen. They don't know how long a contract they should negotiate for. They don't know what the ground rules are going to be. The Premier has the power today to tell us what's going to be the continuing attitude of B.C. even if Ottawa goes the other way.

I want to say something about the thrust that I think his government should have on energy costs. There's a need for conservation in our province, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think that the government has shown enough guts in going after it. New natural gas should be priced at full rate to all new customers in British Columbia — not just for export. We're not doing that. Even old natural gas, where existing users are paying historic prices and we're sort of sucked in, you might say, by low rates should be raised to the full value over a five-year period so that we start to conserve this most precious resource in our province — this resource that, I believe, the Premier had in mind when he was talking about British Columbia's version of the Alberta Heritage Fund. These are our irreplaceable capital assets. We have to get full value for them, and also in terms of conservation we have to get full value for them.

So I strongly endorse that kind of thrust and I suggest to the Premier that he have a talk with his Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), because the billing procedures of Hydro are just the reverse of that. They give a discount for heavy volume use when they shouldn't to anything like the same extent. They have a flat rate right off the top payment, and that is 100 per cent wrong in terms of conservation.

The government is finally starting to make a distinction between capital and current account. They haven't got over their deficit bogey yet. They're concealing what used to be called deficit financing by Crown corporations, but at least they've got around to it, and I support that too. But as for that non-renewable resource fund, I say do that right now;

[ Page 1080 ]

don't wait — as the Premier said earlier this year — until we have a little bit more money. The capital should be set aside, starting right now, even if you have to make some more cuts for it, Mr. Premier. That's irreplaceable and that's a wasting asset.

The macro-economics of this government have not been good, Mr. Chairman. You look at last year's vengeance. We've gone through all that in the Finance minister's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) estimates as to the impact of those very rough, politically-motivated decisions of the ICBC and the sales tax and the ferries. Even this year it's no better — the bland, unimaginative approach. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about encouraging investment and that hasn't been done. I've advocated exactly how to go about getting those pulp mills. I've said something about how you can encourage investment in plant and equipment in this province over the next couple of years by taking the 7 per cent sales tax off that area. There's been none of this kind of initiative. In the overall, the Premier is responsible for this approach.

In terms of economic development, this government is looking for an elephant. It's like someone who has to feed their family. They're going to go out for an elephant to feed them for a whole year. They're looking for that one easy solution instead of the cautious, careful building in every area of our economy that ought to be done. They think that northeast coal is that elephant. I hope it is. But we sure aren't getting the information in this chamber which would give us too much encouragement on that. Maybe it will go. On the other hand, maybe it will, and maybe it should, start small. Maybe it should start with trucking some of the coal out of the Sukunka area to the BCR connection and then down the BCR and ship it out of Neptune terminals. Maybe that's the way to start on northeast coal rather than necessarily looking for an elephant.

Let's get the figures on it, Mr. Premier. Above all we have to have information in this. The Premier said: "Wait for the information." Deals are being made — I said it the other day — with Ottawa. They're being made with foreign customers. They're being made with the companies. In the end, we in this Legislature are going to be presented with a fait accompli and told: "Well, you can talk about it now, but it's too late. The ink's all dry." Are you afraid of questions? Is your bag so empty that this is the one big move you've got and you daren't have anybody looking over your shoulder until it's finally tied up? I'm disappointed in that, Mr. Chairman.

When I asked the Premier about his stand on the new Alcan pipeline proposal.... As he knows it was revised this week, in the wake of that ridiculous decision by Judge Litt for the Federal Power Commission down in the United States, to a point where it is no longer, in my view, as advantageous for British Columbia because we do not get an immediate throughput of our existing gas system to share the overhead. On balance, though, I believe that it is still advantageous. We still get the taxation revenue from the gas that's used in the pumping and compression. We do have a system there that is 100 per cent Canadian-owned instead of the Mackenzie Valley system which is less than that — 50 per cent, if that. We get the construction revenue. We get an all-Canada construction, incidentally, even though the new proposal, in my understanding, would be 48-in. pipe. It's a kind of 48-in. pipe which is thinner walled and could be made in Canada because they're using lower pressure. We do get a tie-in to the Pacific northwest grid which, in future years I believe, will be able to be used and will give us those economies of scale in the Westcoast Transmission system which reflect directly back to the profits of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

The government was strongly in support of the last proposal. We now have a revised proposal which may have to be the one that comes out of the other end of the meat grinder. So I would like to know: is the government still in support of it? Are they going to appear before the NEB? Are they going to intervene with the federal cabinet? What will be the thrust of our government in this? I think it's a tremendously important question, not just to this province but to the whole country. I still think that that's the right route.

I have similar questions on the Kitimat pipeline. This Kitimat pipeline was something that, in the beginning, the government enthusiastically endorsed. Now they very properly have been backing off. The Premier shakes his head but I have — I don't have them here — in my files statements by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), saying, as long ago as last April: "We're all for it." In any event, you've now backed off and that's good. What I want to know, since the Minister of Energy has guaranteed a stand with the federal government on behalf of the province, will you, as Premier, guarantee that that stand, first of all, is one that takes into account all of the west coast input opportunities? In that sense, you're going to have to discuss it possibly with some of your counterparts in some of the west coast states. Will you also guarantee that in the formulation of that provincial stand, in the interest of British Columbia — which is not necessarily the same as the national interest in this case — there is a public input for British Columbians at some stage? One of those stages is certainly the location at Kitimat and another one is the lower mainland, which is the other danger of Cherry Point.

Mr. Chairman, those are all economic questions. I wa'nt to turn briefly to the social side, which is the

[ Page 1081 ]

great failing of this government and where we seriously part company. Expenditures in Human Resources have been cut beyond all equity. There can be no clearer case of this than the fact that the Neumann case is still not resolved. That gentleman on welfare was given a criminal injuries compensation award — which is certainly an award to be technical — in the nature of capital — wear and tear. He was beaten up; he got a criminal injuries compensation award. It was not in the nature of income, yet it was deducted. That to me illustrates the whole approach of this government on the social side and the attitude to seniors — throw them a bone.

The real attitude of this government towards seniors was revealed by the Minister of Energy in his capacity of being in charge of the ferries, when he said: "Oh, senior citizens might joyride on the ferries." Imagine, joyriding on our ferries! Then he cut them back so they couldn't ride on the ferries free on the weekends either. And in Health we're going to have a high deductible on Pharmacare. We're going to have no denticare for kids. That one is even lousy economics if you look at the SPARC report.

Mr. Chairman, the initial thought of the former government was one of a fair share, a generosity of approach, but unfortunately, in my opinion, there was not enough concentration on production. This government, to my mind, is just the reverse in its economic and social stance. I say to the Premier that he does no favour to this province or to his own principles if that failing, that lack of social sympathy, re-elects the government that he just defeated.

There is a need to raise the human spirit in your social programmes, to put the trust in individuals, to pay attention to the disadvantaged of our society, the poor and the undereducated, underemployed youth, to women in terms of their equal rights, handicapped people like the example I just gave, and native peoples. You've got to pay more attention to the individual.

Now I want to move on to federal-provincial affairs. I want to insist from the Premier on an answer in respect of the strange case of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who described his view of federal-provincial affairs in this House. He was not speaking off the top of his head but was reading from a document I have here. I will read those words again. This is in respect to the division of powers in our country:

"Let us have the provinces agree, in consultation with the federal government, upon those powers and programmes upon which complete consensus can be found. Those properly belong with the national government. Then let us discover those policies and programmes on which there is not national agreement and place them securely in the hands of the provinces, along with the fiscal powers that support them."

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education had just returned from the province of Quebec. He had spent a bit of time fulsomely praising the Parti Québecois Minister of Education. He is a learned man, our Minister of Education. I assume he knows the platform of the Parti Québecois.

Let us go through the current responsibilities of the federal government and see how many would be left if we followed the suggestion of the Minister of Education. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be gone. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs would be gone. The Treasury Board would be gone, except in a very slight capacity. The Department of Justice would be gone. The Postmaster-General might be left under contract. The Ministry of Public Works would service only defence establishments. The Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport would be gone. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would be gone. The Department of Manpower and Immigration would be gone.

The Department of National Defence might remain on a contract basis; it's unclear from the PQ programme. In Mr. Lévesque's 1968 book, "Option Quebec," he suggests that they would rationalize and regroup their own establishments within the province of Quebec, so even that might not be left.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology would be gone. The Solicitor-General, which is corrections, RCMP and so on, would be gone, as the minister ought to have known at that point because he was in Quebec at the time that the RCMP had been asked by the government to completely get out of Quebec.

The Department of Supply and Services might be left a little bit. The Secretary of State for. External Affairs, of course, would be gone. National Health and Welfare would be gone. The Department of Transport — gone. Fisheries and the Environment — gone. Regional Economic Expansion — gone. Veterans Affairs would presumably still be left. The Department of Finance would really be gone because what would be left of Canada would have no taxing authority. Small Business ministry — gone. The multi-cultural minister would be gone. Department of Urban Affairs — certainly gone. Secretary of State — certainly gone. Communications — certainly gone. Agriculture — also certainly gone.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, just about nothing would be left. Is that the concept of our government of British Columbia of the way the national government of this country ought to look? Do they think we would still have any kind of a country whatsoever left if we followed that exact formulation of the Minister of Education? I've said it before and I'll say it again: that was a separatist statement that minister made in this House. I call on the Premier to

[ Page 1082 ]

repudiate it on behalf of his government. Until then, I say that that minister was speaking for that government.

I want to call to the Premier's mind some of his own statements, because I'm not sure how important a problem he thinks this is. He went down and talked to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mr. Chairman, and he said this: "Let not this country be diverted from the real problems facing us by the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists." "...the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists."

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That is incredible.

MR. GIBSON: It is incredible. Now perhaps the Premier will stand up and tell us that is an improper quote. It's written by Marjorie Nichols who is a careful journalist as he will recall from her days in the Legislature here. She studies her work. Perhaps, alternately, the Premier will tell us that he's had a change of view in the meantime, because I think separatism is an important problem in our country.

Then what else is he doing? In the budget he's replacing equalization in our country with the negative income tax. Well, I went through that with the Minister of Finance. It just shows a lack of understanding in the way our country works. The other day he was amalgamating the Maritimes — very generous. Solve the problems of British Columbia before you try and fix up the Maritimes, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit in despair of that.

Mr. Premier, you are doing a good job on one thing. You're going after the federal government for money. Keep it up. I will support you in every way possible. We ought to have the money on the British Columbia ferries, and I want to give you one more suggestion to go after. Prince Edward Island just got $12 million and Nova Scotia just got $63 million as federal grants for the conservation of energy, specifically by the insulation of homes. The theory for giving it to those maritime provinces was that they were dependent upon imported oil and therefore had a special claim. But, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, even if British Columbia doesn't rely on imported oil, every drop of oil we use here is something that can't be sent down to the Maritimes or Montreal, so it comes out to exactly the same thing.

I suggest to the Premier that we in British Columbia deserve the same kind of federal grant in respect to insulation of homes and conservation of energy as those maritime provinces deserve. Incidentally, according to the federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Gillespie), the payback on this kind of investment is tremendously high. It's paid back in about two and a half years, if those figures are to be believed. I ask the Premier to go after that one.

Now I want to make a specific suggestion to him on the constitution. In my view, Mr. Chairman, there is far too much time wasted in bickering on the constitution at the moment. Furthermore, the bickering is going on about the wrong things. The questions are what the powers of governments should be. The people don't care what the powers of governments are. All they want to do is have government organized so that if serves them most efficiently and at the lowest cost. Yet what do the governments wrangle about? Naturally, they wrangle about the protection and expansion of their own empires.

I think we need a new constitution for several reasons. We need a new constitution to get it home. You can say that's just a silly, emotional matter of pride, but I think we should have control of our constitution in our own country. We need a new constitution so that we finally have an agreed formula on how to amend it, because we can't even do that now without unanimous consent, which is stupid. We need a new constitution to re-divide powers in this country. We need a new constitution — and this is tremendously important — to entrench a Bill of Rights, because at the moment our constitution just talks about the division of powers between governments. It gives no rights to the people whatsoever, and the fundamental purpose of a constitution ought to be to protect the people from the conceivable power of a tyrannical government. As the Premier knows, we have no such protection in our constitution.

We should bring the constitution home, or rather rewrite it, to ease French and English tensions. We should rewrite the constitution to recognize the aspirations of the west. My personal belief is that the principal grievance we have lies in the field of tariffs. We should have another look at the constitution because it's a 100-year-old contract — 110 years. Every 100-year-old contract needs a re-opener clause, surely to God. The fathers of Confederation built well, but they did not build that well that they don't need a bit of amendment after that length of time.

So if that is agreed, how should it be rewritten? First of all, let me suggest how it should not be rewritten. It should not, under any circumstances, be rewritten by the federal and provincial governments. They all have axes to grind — their own axes, not necessarily the axes of the public they represent — and we can certainly see this in the continued bickering over powers.

Furthermore, the rewriting of a constitution is a tremendously important and time-consuming process. It will, if done by the governments, detract from the business they have been elected to do. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Chairman, not one single government in this country has a mandate to rewrite

[ Page 1083 ]

the constitution, including the government of the province of Quebec, which specifically excluded that from its mandate during its election campaign. There is not one government in this country that was even elected by a majority of the people on the voters list. There are only two or three even elected by the majority of the ballots actually cast. None of them has the mandate for such a fundamental thing as redrawing our constitution, so how should it be done if it is to be done?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No. I disagree with that suggestion, Mr. Member, that was recently made that it be done by a committee of experts. I think it ought to be done by an elected constitutional conference, which is hardly a novel device in the history of the democratic nations of this world.

MR. WALLACE: You mean it would take another 100 years. That's what you're saying.

MR. GIBSON: I ask our Premier to keep an open mind on this. I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister of Canada said that this process would be acceptable to him if it was acceptable to others. An elected constitutional conference would be very different from an elected parliament. People would be elected for this specific reason — to reform, to rewrite the constitution. They would not, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, in any way be elected along party lines, but if you were worried about that you could put a condition on it that no one who is serving in this conference could serve in the ensuing governmental forms that come about for the next 10 years. You can get around that if you're really worried about it.

The community would send its best and they would meet wherever they met. Lock them up in a room for as many months or years as it takes. Give them the benefit of advice of federal and provincial appointees to this body who would carry the views of the several governments of the country and in the end, when the tensions of the various parts of the nation and the various powers that be are worked out in a final document, put that document to a referendum in this nation. Then, Mr. Chairman, you have a constitution. In the meantime, you have the subject being dealt with in a way which ought to be acceptable to Quebec separatists or western separatists or centralizing bureaucrats or whoever they may be. It's not a novel idea. The United States started that way. It's still done in various states of the union on a contemporaneous basis. It works well.

Mr. Chairman, another specific question for the Premier, for the record and for this conference, if it ever comes to pass: When will we have a definition of what our Premier means by "flexible federals" when he talks about a new division of powers? I would like to know in some specificity, if that is a word, what exactly "flexible federalism" means.

AN HON. MEMBER: I like the word.

MR. GIBSON: I want to go on and talk very briefly about democratic institutions, which to me is the most sacred trust of this or any other Premier. Democratic procedures in our Legislature must be improved. The system is negative, as that Premier knows. He has sat on both sides of the House. On one side of the House there is absolute power, and absolute power corrupts. On the other side of the House there is absolute lack of power, and absolute lack of power corrupts equally because there is a lack of responsibility that goes with it. However individuals may try they are sucked into the negativism of the system, and you see the confrontation.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): It applies to you?

MR. GIBSON: It applies equally to me. It applies to every member of this House. There is an unavoidable, pervasive atmosphere because of the way the system works. I'm asking the Premier if there isn't something he can do about that. I believe there is. It certainly isn't the kind of contempt for the House that was shown by the appointment of the Bawlf housing committee which had not one single opposition member on it. Rather, it's a trusting in the ordinary committee system in this House: for oversight into the activities of the public service by the regular reference of estimates — the public accounts committee isn't the vehicle for that; for investigation and inquiry into public opinion; for control of the Crown corporations, which should be required to report on a regular basis to some kind of legislative committee — not one that would run them but one that would at least have the right to ask questions and that would be able to call in Bob Bonner and say: "Why did you raise those rates that way?" Nobody else in this province has the right to ask those questions, it seems.

We need freedom of information legislation in this government that says that anything for which there is not a solid reason for keeping secret must be disclosed on application by any citizen. We need electoral reform, Mr. Chairman, and I know the Premier will speak with some eagerness in answering this question because it was one of his election promises. We need a transferable ballot. I'm sorry, a commission to study it was one of your promises. I'll be precise there.

[ Page 1084 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Big difference.

MR. GIBSON: We need a transferable ballot. Power should go only with a genuine mandate, and that is not necessarily what our system provides. I refer you to 1972 in British Columbia and to 1976 in Quebec. In 1972, British Columbians, in my opinion, were not voting for socialism, and in 1976 in Quebec, in my opinion, Quebecers were not voting for separatism. If they want socialism, fine. If they want separatism, fine. But make sure the voting system is one that makes sure that's what they really mean. To me, electoral reform is required for that. There are other constitutional measures that I think we have, on which I will elaborate in more detail at another time, such as the initiative and the referendum and the recall system which, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, was one of the ways in which the voters of Wisconsin almost got Tailgunner Joe when he went too far, back in those days.

These are a few comments on, first of all, the general thrust of the government, and secondly, on the specific area of federal-provincial relations, and lastly, on the most sacred trust — the democratic process. I would much appreciate any response the Premier might have to make.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would have to have a lot of time to discuss some of these areas. I'll comment first of all on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I see he's not here. I would say that sometimes his words and his actions are not compatible. I can remember being in this House and being part of a British Columbia in which he was the head of the government. The words he speaks today are not compatible with the actions they took at that time. As such, what advice was contained in his remarks to the House is taken at face value when trying to relate what he says now and what he did then, the state of the economy and the state of the province.

There were some questions, though. He did raise the question of a guaranteed annual income through the negative income tax. It was also touched on by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). Yes, I do advocate it as a method by which we could strengthen that part of the federal system. In attempting to give income support programmes to provincial governments and have everyone play king with the handout of the dollars, you have the tendency of some provincial governments to act responsibly and others to play "shovel it out of the back of a truck." That isn't an equal distribution of money. That isn't meeting the concept of the best use of the taxpayer's dollar, nor does it do much to help those in genuine need, nor does it bring equity among Canadians.

I'd just like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the concept of a guaranteed annual income scheme is essentially a system whereby government ensures that the income of any predefined family unit does not fall below a certain minimum. That minimum is usually defined in terms of a level of income below which a family is regarded to be suffering from unacceptable poverty. The minimum income level therefore is known as the poverty line. The most pervasive type of guaranteed annual income proposal is the.... A method of distributing the guaranteed annual income is through a negative income tax or through a direct payment, but using the income tax system. A reporting system may be the most easily applicable in regard to the federal government. It's actually simply a government subsidy administered through the tax system to all families and individuals whose incomes are below the guaranteed income line.

What we have in this country now, as the members of this House know, is a myriad of programmes of income support. Some of them are federal-provincial programmes, others are programmes developed by the provinces themselves, such as British Columbia guaranteeing against higher costs. I say those programmes must be rationalized. They were brought in at various times in our history from the late '30s on, and in those areas we should have a rationalization of those funds.

Another suggestion I've had is that added to those funds that are already identified as being tax dollars for income support, we should phase in those payments now that are paid in equalization to governments. I say this because there is a strong body of opinion now that, in analysing equalization as it is taking place in this country, says it hasn't done the job. We still have the same inequality between individuals that we had before. What we have done, in many cases, is send dollars to governments where the money has gone for various other purposes than that for which it was intended, and that is to bring equity amongst Canadians.

I'd like to quote from a paper by Richard Simeon, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University, that he gave to a seminar on federal-provincial relations in Ottawa on December 6, dealing with regional redistribution of the benefits of Confederation. But part of it dealt with income. On one page, if I may be allowed to quote, he says:

"Moreover, a redistribution of income which is positive from a regional point of view may be perverse from some other point of view. The clearest example concerns measures to alleviate poverty. Should one equalize across regions by transferring, as does the fiscal equalization programme, from taxpayers of all provinces to governments of the poorer provinces, or should we equalize across poor persons, no matter where they live? The argument for the latter might note, for example, that there are

[ Page 1085 ]

probably, in absolute numbers, more poor people in Toronto than in the Atlantic region.

"In addition, the fiscal transfer involved is not only a transfer from rich to poor regions, it is a transfer from both low- and high-income persons in, say, Ontario or British Columbia to both low- and high-income persons in, say, New Brunswick. Thus, the transfer from rich to poor provinces also involves an element of transfer from poor to rich individuals. Equalization of incomes across regions is different from equalization of income among persons in each region of Canada as a whole."

A. Milton Moore strongly attacks the whole concept of inter-regional equalization. He said that equalization involves arbitrary income transfers between families with similar incomes who happen to live in different regions. What is needed, he suggests, is a national income redistribution policy — in other words, equalize people, not territory.

That's the inherent unfairness in the equalization programme we have today, because there are large numbers of poor in the so-called "have provinces," but under equalization between regions we're redistributing their money as well — the money that belongs to them — to the rich and poor of other provinces. So we say the nationalization of the existing programme and phasing out the equalization to regions and adding that pool of capital will bring greater equity to Canadians.

I realize, along with all other members of this House, you couldn't just do away with the equalization system as we know it today. It would be disastrous for governments, particularly those governments in the Maritimes where perhaps 80 per cent of their total income comes from the equalization fund. But should not our concept of Canada be that of a country for the people? And should not our concern then of income support and income programmes and aid to people be made clear to people, and should not that money go directly to the people? I hate to admit it, but here I agree with what is an old statement restated in this House today by the Leader of the Opposition, saying the answer to poorness is to give people more money. That's what they lack. What we've got to do is take a rational look, then, at how we can take existing dollars that are already identified for social needs and give them the best possible use. That can't be achieved under the present system.

I throw this in not as an answer to separatists, but it also is a role that can be played solely by a federal government; in fact, the prime responsibility of a federal system is to bring equity among Canadians. But to force-feed regions for the sake of maintaining a historical population base to me is folly. The idea of a country is the free movement of people and the opportunity of free movement within that country and not to penalize the growth areas or the areas that reflect the economy of today or the potential growth of today but, in fact, to recognize that it's easier to allow people to move to where the action is now than to try and maintain them where the action was 50 years ago, 75 years ago or 100 years ago. That's the folly of using equalization through regions and governments.

A distribution system on an income level, then, for individuals in this country is a far better means of guaranteeing equity than the system we have today. Of all countries in the world, Canada is perhaps best equipped to bring in such a programme. We have the basis of the series of income-support programmes now that, say, are not available to our neighbours in the south, the United States. We already have identified a large pool of capital in what we already call equalization, which is unique in the world. So that capital is already there, provided by the taxpayers as a base of social capital that's available not to solve the job.

It's unfortunate that in the studies done in the United States that have four community areas in different regions of the country where they are also studying the negative income tax or the guaranteed annual income they have found that the greatest opponents of the guaranteed annual income system and negative income tax are not the very wealthy, not people who would be called upon to pay the bulk of the taxes to deliver such a system, but those whom we hire in the field to help the needy and the poor, because the very people we call upon to provide solutions to the needs of people are the people who are professionals and work in the field and who also, in making such a decision, would actually be deciding many of them out of a job, because they're the people who now distribute the benefits or the so-called benefits. If we're to have income transfers as simply and efficiently as possible, it means a large body of bureaucracy would be eliminated. Yet these are the people we ask for advice on how best to deal with the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged in our province and our country. It's one of the problems they've identified as being a major problem in selling the concept of a guaranteed annual income.

Secondly, the studies that have been carried out in the United States — and some in Canada — would be for the social impact of providing dollars. Would a guaranteed annual income encourage people not to work? Studies have been going on since the late 1960s in four areas of the United States, and in all cases — and these areas are different and the people have different backgrounds, so they reflect a diverse cross-section of the people — they found that the old argument that a guaranteed annual income would encourage people not to work is wrong and that, in fact, in two of the four cases, I believe, there was actually an increase in work opportunity for families

[ Page 1086 ]

involved in this guaranteed annual income experiment.

If the United States believes that the guaranteed annual income or the negative income tax is a good idea whose time has come, it's even more immediate here in Canada, because we are better prepared now and better equipped to deal with this fairer method of income distribution. I only point that out as we say that there are also side benefits in Canada because also meeting the needs of people would help strengthen what I consider to be the federal system.

Some areas touched on the B.C. Cellulose Corporation, which touches Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls and Plateau Mills. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that there was no political interference in these corporations. I can't agree with that statement. You can never guarantee that governments don't protect their own. To try and further guarantee that we wouldn't fall into the trap — because they're owned by government and the government of the day becomes accountable for them and accepts the responsibility for them — we moved them away from the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) responsibility. It's my responsibility to explain these companies to the Legislature. The Legislature was advised last year of this change. I'm prepared to deal with your questions on B.C. Cellulose and the various corporations that are touched by B.C. Cellulose which are, of course, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls, Plateau Mills, and Can-Cel, which is not a Crown corporation as such but a corporation in which the Crown owns 79 per cent of the shares of Can-Cel outright.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Some are held by the government that were....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's around 80.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've got it in my books and I'll provide that information to the House in a moment. My advisers here are spread all over the desk. These advisers are on a seven-day week, 24 hours a day.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned our proposed heritage fund. I'm sure we expect unanimous agreement in the House that out of our non-renewable resources we should be allocating a fixed percentage for future generations in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: A fixed percentage — not the whole of it. No, some of it goes. The present generation has some value in that too; it expects, and has the right to, the value of some of those resources. But some should be put aside for the future, and we will be providing such a fund.

I was surprised, though, by the suggestion from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano that we should start such a fund now when he's criticizing the government for not spending in certain areas. When we have a proposed balanced budget, does he propose that we borrow and charge a debt to those future generations to set up a fund to guarantee some continuity of service for those generations?'

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, on the contrary, it's got to be the direct allocation of those funds. We in this province today will have to deny ourselves some of the benefit of those dollars. Right now we're not doing that. All of those dollars are going to existing services. You questioned some of the cutbacks that were made, and this is the sort of attitude. Everybody talks restraint and they don't want to pay any more in tax dollars. You want more and more services and you want this fund set up. It's just that somewhere over the line we've run out of money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've run out of money.

MR. BARRETT: How about some restraint for the millionaires?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That restraint belongs to everybody, The greatest restraint should have been practised by the last government that spent like millionaires. But it was other people's money, and that's the difference. It was other people's money. They went out and wanted to play millionaire with other people's money, and that's why you're no longer government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You don't look so well, Dave.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano also brought up the question of pipelines and the new Alcan proposal. Quite frankly, I haven't had a chance to analyse it, but it certainly isn't in the British Columbia interest, as the first Alcan proposal was.

The first Alcan proposal still would have allowed British Columbia to make some demands for that pipeline if it had run through our province carrying

[ Page 1087 ]

American gas to American consumers — in effect using our province as part of a land bridge — but the new proposal is not of the same intent. It doesn't give us the higher use of our own line; it doesn't give us greater throughput. It's being analysed now, and I can't make a comment until we've had a chance to analyse it. But it is certainly not of the same economic advantage, certainly not to the degree that the first Alcan proposal was. It may not even be worthy of support of the province of British Columbia. We have to analyse that. Our departments haven't had a full opportunity to complete their study and give advice to the government.

You mentioned the proposed Kitimat pipeline. I'd just like to question that this government has never given enthusiastic support to that proposal. My statements have always been that the proposal is before the National Energy Board and that the province of British Columbia will be an intervener at such hearings. It involves more than our own interest because, quite frankly, I can't see a provincial benefit to the Kitimat pipeline in this proposal at all, unless it's taken in not only a Canadian view and a northwestern view, such as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said, but the Canadian government has got to be involved. I presume it will be discussed when the Prime Minister visits Washington — a North American view on energy use. Primarily British Columbia's oil supply comes from Alberta.

Obviously all of us are concerned with tanker traffic off our coast. It's one problem we have that I discussed with the Prime Minister when I was in Ottawa. A message that British Columbia expects him to take to the United States is to speak out strongly against the tanker traffic over which this province is very concerned but over which we have no control — that is, American ships carrying American oil to American ports. It just so happens that Cherry Point is in a very fragile area for not only themselves in the United States, but for British Columbia as well.

In the past in this Legislature, two governments ago, a private member — I think it was Dr. Howard McDiarmid — sponsored a resolution that this Legislature go on record against the tanker traffic off our coast in those waters. It was endorsed 100 per cent. We still have the same view except that it will take the government of Canada speaking and dealing with the government of the United States to make such representation on our behalf to keep the tankers out of Cherry Point. It's not comforting to us that there has been an apparent change in opinion by the governor of the State of Washington.

MR. BARRETT: What is your position as an intervener? What's the point of intervening if you haven't got a position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I'm telling the House is that we're studying the proposal, not only through our own agencies and departments that give advice to government, but we've initiated and increased the discussions with the government of Canada, which must involve what information they have as being interveners to help us develop the British Columbia position. We haven't got our case prepared for the National Energy Board hearings yet.

It's quite easy to do what the former government did, strike an opinion and then gather such evidence discriminately that will support the opinion you've already arrived at.

I've said that right now the Kitimat proposed pipeline appears of no interest to British Columbia at all and that it has no benefit. Initial reports said it has no immediate benefit to British Columbia. It may have benefit when all the studies are in if it is more acceptable. The reports are not in as to whether it would be better if we had Kitimat with the guarantee that Cherry Point and Port Angeles and other proposed ports would not go ahead. That would be part of an international agreement. That is where the government of Canada comes in. That's why we have to take a North American view, a Canadian view, a B.C. view, and a northwestern view. It needs the agreement of our national governments and it needs the agreement of the government of British Columbia, along with the governments getting that supply — particularly Washington state that has an industrial base built up on those refineries that originally depended on oil from Alberta. That's what those refineries were started from. It was because of the policy of Canada that they had to look for another source to keep those refineries busy. That's why our intervention will be based on the advice that's given to us, after assessing all the advice and the consultation with the additional advice we've sought from the research that's being developed by the government of Canada.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You've an open mind on the pipeline — at both ends.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano mentioned the anti-inflation programme. I will reiterate our position. Any suggestion that controls are coming off this year — and the type of it — has created an uncertainty over the bargaining that's about to take place in this province of about 65 per cent of the agreements. Our total forest industry, transportation, government, Hydro — all of these areas are negotiating agreements. It's created concern on both sides. We made strong representation to the federal government when we

[ Page 1088 ]

were in Ottawa that they should come out with a strong statement on the control programme. We believe that, while it's been controversial, its effects are starting to work. What's happened now is they could throw all this away with the uncertainty they've thrown over this province at this critical time. They must bear some responsibility for British Columbia as well as the pressures they are receiving from other parts of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We are already studying what options are open to the government in a legal way to step in. We've said that the control programme will continue and that this province will devise a programme to supplement the federal programme or to take its place to guarantee the restraint that we've asked for in this year and next year, to allow the restraint to take place in the private and public sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've already said that. That's your policy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's our policy.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: On the Kitimat pipeline, I find it very surprising that the Premier still hasn't got a position on something of such importance and urgency to the province of B.C. If ever I've heard a weak statement of a non-position, it was your statement on the Kitimat pipeline. You're going to intervene but you don't know what you're going to say there after all these months. You know, this is not a new issue.

AN HON. MEMBER Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: But I want to refer to some other things right in the Premier's office. On February 1, 1977, the Premier answered the former Premier in these words. Are you listening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary to the Premier: has anyone in your office ever forwarded a blacklist of names of public servants to any minister identifying them by their political sympathies?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is absolutely no.

Now that was not a full.... As a matter of fact, it was a false answer, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Of course it was. I mean, whether you call the document a blacklist or not, you play semantics with that word....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That is unparliamentary. Will you kindly withdraw?

MR. MACDONALD: Is there a point of order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw what — your answer?

MR. MACDONALD: I say that that was not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is unparliamentary. Will you kindly withdraw?

MR. BARRETT: His answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the first member for Vancouver East....

MR. BARRETT: His answer wasn't true.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, I'll withdraw the imputation that the Premier.... I didn't mean to say that the Premier was lying. I am saying that that was not a full, candid answer on a matter of importance, and that at a subsequent date in the Legislature....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I object to the statement that it was not a candid answer. That member is dealing with his own definition of what he considers to be, as he likes to describe it, a blacklist. It is not a blacklist. There has been no such list and, as such, my answer was correct.

MR. BARRETT: Is it a greenlist?

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is playing semantics with one word in his answer by saying that the document that went out from his own office identifying public servants by their political affiliation did not constitute, in his view, a blacklist. But it was a document that went out from your office identifying people as NDP and Social Credit. The Premier should have corrected that answer fully and fairly to the Legislature as soon as he read that document. It's easy to put your own meaning on a word, Mr. Premier, and say: "No, I didn't give a…." Then what do you do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly address the Chair, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: What did he do, Mr.

[ Page 1089 ]

Chairman? Instead of investigating the cause, the offence, the fire, he investigated the leak. He set up a plumbers unit to investigate the leak.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The RCMP, if necessary.... I took down the words: you ordered the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department to investigate the leak of the document. If I had been the Attorney-General I would have refused such an order, Mr. Chairman. I think it's totally demeaning to your Attorney-General to ask him to investigate how the thing came to light without investigating the real fact of what happened in the Premier's office to Dan Campbell. That is demeaning. The fact that it came to light is something that all people in British Columbia should applaud.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: You know, it's fine for somebody like Ken Raines to be libelled by being called an NDPer....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Al Raine.

MR. MACDONALD: Al Raine. He was accused of being an NDPer, eh? In some eyes, that's next to being libelous. It's all right if he and Mr. Sector, who is still a public employee.... It's all right if the thing is secret. Only "Oil Slick" knows, and those he may talk to at a cocktail party very confidentially. But reputations were damaged. It was through the Premier's office, but he has not yet even suggested that there should be an investigation of his own office and the activities of Dan Campbell. I don't deny that it was smart politics.

I don't know who suggested this to the Premier on that day — maybe it was his own innovation. When this came to light, that from his own head of intergovernmental affairs a list had gone out about public servants in the province of B.C. identifying them by their political affiliations, it was smart politics — and I don't deny that for one minute — to order an investigation into the leak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: You didn't do it with the purloined telegram, I know that. It's a double standard, Mr. Chairman, that we're seeing.

MR. BARRETT: Where did you get the telegram?

MR. MACDONALD: That's history, eh? During the election campaign, "Bennett crowed proudly in Merritt last week when he waved the telegram before a crowd of supporters," and then he had the monumental gall, two days later, to demand a judicial inquiry into government leaks. You put the accuser in the box and don't investigate the offence. The Attorney-General's department should not have been a party to that kind of thing. It's one investigation too much.

As I recall, when I was a minister, a leak was good for the body politic. Sometimes it was the only way I could find out what was happening in my department. (Laughter.) That's right. What this government needs is not just a leak, but a real blow-out. Things are going on....

Now here's the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Keep it quiet, eh? Shh! Mrs. McCarthy, according to The Province, expressed to reporters the government's embarrassment and concern over a leak of a confidential memo — not the memo. Let not those people in the universities know that they're not going to be allowed to have governmental positions as consultants or to help with programmes. Don't let them know. Investigate the leak.

That letter should have been public knowledge not only within the university community. The Provincial Secretary's letter expresses very succinctly the anti-intellectual, anti-cultural bent of this government. They're afraid of anybody who might have a university degree because they might be to the left of Genghis Khan. Very suspicious. And the chief source of these kinds of McCarthy-like activities has been stemming out of the Provincial Secretary's office and the Premier's office.

You've lost some of the best men already that this government ever had. You've lost them because of this. They understand very clearly that there is no career open in the B.C. public service for imagination, innovation, culture and economic positions if they don't happen to be pre-Keynesian or if they're not pre-Cambrian. They might not really have approved of the fall of Babylon. This is the anti-intellectual bent of this government. What you do is try and keep it quiet. Investigate the leak. You've lost Hogarth; you've lost Neilson. Some of the best people in government are not going to stay on this basis.

I say this: when that memorandum went out from the Premier's office....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, John Hogarth is going — one of the best people that ever happened to B.C. — and Bill Neilson's gone back to teaching. They recognize that this is a Philistine government and that its economic ideas belong back in the early 1920s. That's where you are, and you don't want university people around. They're very suspicious. Am I wrong about the early 20s? My knowledge of history isn't that good.

[ Page 1090 ]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: He's doing some work, but he's gone back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it was shortly after the memorandum, when they fired Mr. Terry Ison from the Workers' Compensation Board, even though his resignation was there, even though he hadn't been consulted, even though he was an esteemed public servant, and the Ross report had not been commissioned — or it certainly hadn't been received — they were raising a warning to all of the public servants of B.C.: "Watch out. We're very suspicious, we people, that you might have modern, progressive, innovative ideas. Watch out!" That's the heavy hand of this government so far as the public service is concerned. And I say it is a disaster for the province of B.C., and it stems right out of the Premier's office.

When that memo went out with this attached to it from Dan Campbell, it was not just from a clerk in the Premier's office; it carried a heavy message. Dan Campbell — he was involved in the purloined telegram too — campaign leader, Social Credit Party hack, and hatchet man within the government, not just another clerk.

When that went out with identification of these people on it — somebody is NDP, somebody is Social Credit — that was a green light for those who were Social Credit within the public service; it was an amber light for those who didn't get any mention one way or the other; and it was a red light for those who got mentioned as NDPers. It bore the imprimatur of the Premier's office and all the weight of authority of that office. It was meant to be acted upon. And you denied that and passed it off in the Legislature by saying: "We're going to even call in the RCMP to say who brought this thing to light." I say again, Mr. Chairman: that was not a full, fair, candid answer made to the Legislature on that date...

MR. BARRETT: You get yourself in order.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and I want to ask the....

MR. BARRETT: What's wrong with "full, fair, candid"? Nothing's wrong with that. Stand up and ask him to withdraw it, then.

MR. MACDONALD: At least there should be an apology to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as you're fully aware, you cannot rephrase an allegation made which was ruled to be unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Premier to stand up when I sit down and apologize to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're fully aware that you cannot rephrase a statement that was previously ruled as unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, no. I said an accusation of lying, which I did not make, is unparliamentary. But I'm certainly entitled to say that that answer that sits on Hansard was not a full, candid and fair answer made to this Legislature. Are we entitled to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or are we entitled to a smart political trick where you make off and put the accuser in the dock?

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: Now people were injured there, but I'm asking the.... And the thing was marked when it came from your office, Mr. Premier, in terms of his heavy imprimatur that it bore — strictly personal and confidential — and that's very significant. And anybody receiving that memorandum and anybody within your government, or anybody being told about it, would certainly act as it was intended action that should be taken upon it. There's no question about that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier: what's he done about an investigation into his own office? What have you done about Dan Campbell, who is not just another public servant, but who, on that day, didn't just pass it on? He had a month to think about it. It came in December and he released this in January. He first passed on a letter of Ohlemann. The letter was dated December 22, but it was passed on in January.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's when it was mailed. When was it received?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know that, and I don't think it matters, does it? Well, he passed it on pretty quickly, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Five days.

MR. MACDONALD: He had five days to think about it.

MR. BARRETT: You know it was five days. You know more about it than you say. He didn't know anything about it but he knew it was five days.

[ Page 1091 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. That's the kind of investigation we need. Five days. That's right. Was it two days?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe we should ask the Attorney-General's department to investigate that, eh? One more in-house investigation.

MR. BARRETT: Five days. How much do you know about it? Keep talking. You're really letting us know more than you want to, eh?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, anyway, what I'm saying is that you should have investigated what was happening in your office, Mr. Premier, and you should have corrected what you said to the Legislature...

MR. BARRETT: What's Dan got on you anyway?

MR.MACDONALD: ...and the people. This was not just another passing on. The thing was doctored. The organization chart was doctored in the Premier's office by the addition of political labels. Then it was passed on by his right-hand man to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) with all the indications implicit in that action that it was to be acted upon, and that's not something for investigation, eh?

MR. BARRETT: And he knew it was five days.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): And how many other ministers got similar documents?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think you know, quite frankly. To answer the member for New Westminster.... These are not my estimates, but I'll answer questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In answering the member for New Westminster, hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: You know, from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — who looks so beautiful sitting over there — from your office has gone a stream of memorandums asking whom you employ. Are they maybe left of Ghengis Khan? Yes, oh, you bet there has been. Your little letter to all cabinet ministers about the university people — a very dangerous bunch who....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the Premier's vote. Would you kindly... ?

MR. BARRETT: Oh no, she wants to confess.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): The first member for Vancouver East has just made an accusation that there is a stream of memos emanating from the Department of the Provincial Secretary...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that mention "left wing" and whatever. If the member will not withdraw that remark, I will ask him to file immediately any memos that have that kind of accusation in them. Will he withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman? I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must accept the Provincial Secretary's....

MR. MACDONALD: You accept my statement, I'll accept yours. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask the first member for Vancouver East to make a complete withdrawal of an accusation he has just made against my office.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that anything went out from your office which identified people politically. What I am saying is that your office has been very busy inquiring in the departments as to what people have been hired, and I happen to be suspicious about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, all you have to do is accept the hon. Provincial Secretary's statement. There is no need to withdraw. Do you accept that statement?

MR. MACDONALD: I accept the minister's statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: But I say, Mr. Chairman, that the attitude of this government reminds me of the slogan of the French Foreign Legion: "Down with intelligence! Long live death!" (Laughter.) Is that what they used to say?

[ Page 1092 ]

MR. BARRETT: No one is going to check it out. It's okay, Alec. They don't read books anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this again was a leak, eh — this letter of the Provincial Secretary's, Mr. Premier? And she says: "Oh, it's a bad thing that maybe university people might be getting a per diem."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not on the Provincial Secretary's vote.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Premier this question: if you, too, Mr. Premier, object to what is called double funding, what do you think about Robert Bonner, who is drawing a $60,000-a-year pension from MacMillan Bloedel, and now you employ him at $50,000? If that isn't double funding, what is?

Oh, it's all right to put people like that on as consultants.

MR. BARRETT: What about Dr. Pat? He went to school.

MR. LOEWEN: How many socialists work for free?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, Digger! Digger, Digger, Digger!

MR. COCKE: Was that Digger?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Premier, I was going to mention the...

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not getting the attention of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps if you would address the Chair you would get their attention.

MR. MACDONALD: Here is what one of our public servants said, Mr. Sector, who was named in the letter: "Sector said he believes the letter isn't a blacklist" — so he supports you on the semantic point — "but the result of a voluntary action by Ohlemann. However, he and his staff consider it abominable for a civil servant to send such a letter about co-workers."

Mr Premier it is abominable It is contrary to all of the traditions of a public service, which should be non-political — 9 to 5 at least, and after that it's a different thing. You didn't investigate that in your own office. Here we are two months later. Have you reprimanded...? I ask you specifically, because you've hurt people with this memorandum. I don't know whether they are hurt worse by it being kept secret and not leaked, or out in the open. My feeling is that things like this should be out in the open.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear! Let the sun shine in!

MR. MACDONALD: Let people who are going to be hurt by gossip internally at least be able to rebut it.

I am asking the Premier directly: have you reprimanded Dan Campbell for passing on — after the adding of political labels — that organizational chart, and passing on the Ohlemann letter, with the imprimatur of your office and the full force of your office behind it?

MR. BARRETT: No answer. Do you approve Campbell's actions?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You approve Campbell's actions. Okay.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): It's a pleasure for me to follow the intellectual wit of the NDP caucus. I thought that the Kitimat pipeline was going to be discussed under the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, but since we are discussing it here this morning under the Premier's estimates, there are a few remarks I'd like to make about the Kitimat situation.

Essentially, the oil coming from Alaska, going via Valdez to Cherry Point, comes under the historic Jones Act of the United States government, which requires at least that the vessels be American-owned, American-crewed, and meet the standards of the United States Coast Guard. They are considerably, more rigid than those of Monrovia in Liberia, and Panama. What concerns me about Kitimat, especially for vessels carrying oil from Valdez to Kitimit, is that they won't be of Canadian registry, nor of American registry, but they will be of some flag of convenience.

There is ample documented evidence in tankers coming from the Middle East to the eastern United States, and coming from Venezuela to Maine and other places, that the quality of the tankers is, to say the least, despicable. It would concern me if vessels flying flags of convenience were to be travelling from Valdez to Kitimat. It is true that they would have a Canadian pilot boarded on them at the point of entry into Canadian waters, but that is not really good

[ Page 1093 ]

enough because they don't have the sophisticated navigation gear on board — and in recent incidents in the United States west coast it was proven beyond a doubt that most of them don't have even the rudiments of proper navigation gear on board.

You can imagine what would happen if we allowed the oil that was going to Cherry Point to be offloaded, say, at Roberts Bank, which is only five or six miles away as the crow flies. Vessels again going from Alaska to Roberts Bank could be flag of convenience carriers. While the regulations of the United States Coast Guard don't 100 per cent guarantee that we won't have oil spills, certainly the regulations of Liberia and Panama are much looser. So my concerns are those of the Premier, I presume, and certainly I wanted to voice them.

I don't see too many benefits for British Columbia in the Kitimat pipeline other than jobs, and that's only during the construction of the pipeline. I see an awful lot of disadvantages. I appreciate the fact that the energy problems of North America are ones we have to face. It's unfortunate that we didn't consider earlier on bringing the oil from Alaska down through the Alaska pipeline as opposed to, I should say, coming down the Alaska Highway and using the overland route. The ULCCs and the VLCCs are carrying these quantities of oil, both from the Middle East and Alaska, through our waters to set a really dangerous situation. I think we should give it some very serious consideration before we consider building an oil terminus in Kitimat.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I want to give the Premier an opportunity to answer one or two of the questions that were asked, particularly the questions that were asked about the blacklist. I know that we don't like that word. Most of us find that it is a word that elicits all sorts of things in our imaginations. But any time a list occurs, whether it's in the corporate structure talking about a person's past, talking about a person's beliefs or any other situation such as that, and a person's progress is impeded by virtue of that list or by virtue of the fact that someone has confided in people in authority that someone has particular beliefs and as a result of that his progress is impeded, then I would suggest that that kind of thing should not be endorsed by the government in power.

I'm not sure that the Premier had anything to do with that. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that he likely didn't. It looks to me like the fine hand of Dan Campbell, whom I have sat opposite from in this House. I listened to him talk about the teachers one time, years ago. Do you remember the statement about "art, music and all those other airy-fairy things"? Sometimes he doesn't really think things out; I suggest he didn't think things out this time.

But you know, he has a very high office in this government. His position is one of authority, I'm sure, among the rest of the ministers. While he doesn't have the clout of the Premier, I'd suggest that he has more clout than any other minister in the new government. I'm not sure that he shouldn't be spending a little more time dealing with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) than he does with other ministers.

But in any event, I think the Premier should stand up in this House today and suggest to us that what he has done in trying to get other people to take their eye off the ball, and that ball is a blacklist.... He should stand up and suggest to us that what he would like to do now is withdraw his contempt for those whom he says leaked the document and start to see to it that no other lists are circulated that might in any way hamper civil servants or appointed members' progress in the service of the people of this province. So let's hear him do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the Premier's estimates, I suppose the more general approach that would seem appropriate would be to evaluate the job that the Premier has done since he took on that role in December of '75 and to look at the leadership, or lack of leadership, as the case might be. I think one thing that has become very clear is that the so-called pendulum politics we talked about are being perpetuated. It has been too simplistic to say this, Mr. Chairman, but it does emphasize — and this debate has already pointed it out — that if we had an NDP government that had a heart but no head, we've now got a government that leaves the impression that it has a head but no heart. I know that is an exaggeration, but the pendulum nature of politics in British Columbia shows no sign of changing appreciably.

The Premier and the performance of the government have certainly created the attitude of a rather arithmetical type of government where figures and dollars and balance sheets are the overwhelming priority, and if, after they've got these details settled, there's money to do things for people, then that's fine. There doesn't seem to be any kind of concept by the Premier that really the first responsibility is people and that you find the means and the initiatives and the incentives to provide the services to people. Unfortunately, it seems to be putting the cart before the horse to say that we can only do things economically. To that extent we will then see what we can do by way of providing services to people.

I think the Premier's performance is a mixture of good news and bad news. There's no question about that. There are many very good and useful steps which the Premier has taken.

Mr. Chairman, if I could digress for a minute, I do hope that the new Workers' Compensation Board will really do something about the protection of hearing

[ Page 1094 ]

for workers, because if the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) isn't roaring in my left ear during speeches, he's thumping on his desk while I'm speaking. I really must get an ear protector for my left ear.

Now, let me see, where was I?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): By your speeches I thought you'd been deaf for five years now, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: And then, of course, the whole House is deafened by the silence.

The good news is that the Premier has taken initiatives to build strong bridges with the Ottawa administration. It only makes sense that if we believe in trying to keep Canada united, surely the first way to begin doing that is to have the strongest and most frequent lines of communication with the central government. We might argue about how much power the central government should have and how much power the provinces should have, but unless there's some pretty frequent and constant and sincere dialogue, then I see little hope that we can preserve Canada amid the present atmosphere of emotion and ignorance that seems to prevail in many of the statements that one reads.

National unity is indeed a popular topic these days, and everybody seems to have their own particular wisdom to cast on the waters, hoping that somehow or other if we all just keep making our comments, everything's going to be all right. Well, everything isn't going to be all right — and that's one of the biggest flaws, as I see it, in a lot of the comments that political leaders have made. Each one tends to be sitting back making comments, but what's actually happening in any positive or active way to try and take initiatives on whatever misunderstandings there are between Quebec vis-à-vis the central government and vis-à-vis the other provinces? What's being done even by way of any kind of initiative from this province, or any of the other provinces, to sit down and discuss, for example, some of the things that we've been discussing this morning? Should there be an elected body to review the constitution, or come up with the new constitution? There are all kinds of proposals being thrown around, but there doesn't seem to be any specific, positive, active measure being taken by the provinces to try and put that into action.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think the speech made by John Robarts, the former Premier of Ontario, is particularly useful. We should all read it. He talks about the fact that there's a tremendous amount of ignorance and unawareness of what the problems are, but even more importantly, of what the consequences of separation would be. He finished up his statement in his speech by saying: "The great sin would be to lose by default." He says:

"Let us proceed to involve ourselves in the necessary examination and debate so that when we have a chance to express our opinion, as undoubtedly we will, we will be informed and aware of what we are doing, how we propose to do it, what our objectives are, and what are the costs we are prepared to pay for the benefits we will receive."

I've never read a better summation in so few words as to exactly what should be happening in Canada today in tackling the problem of national unity. So I very much appreciate, and I would commend, the Premier's initiatives in dealings with Ottawa.

He mentioned some of his uncertainties or doubts about equalization payments. In passing, I just want to mention that Mr. Trudeau, in a statement in the federal House on December 7, made a very short statement about equalization payments and quickly went on to the larger debate which took place on the transfer of tax points. He did say that he had presented the provinces with three options regarding equalization payments. Maybe I could just quote exactly what he said. It was on December 14. I'm quoting Prime Minister Trudeau:

"I would add before discussing that…"

This was another aspect of his speech.

"... that we covered a series of subjects, notably the equalization payments, and our discussion consisted of putting before the provinces three options whereby these equalization payments could be continued by the federal government."

But then he doesn't go on to say anything about what the options were. He just goes on to say that the provinces agreed to choose one of these three options. I think it would be interesting to know what the Prime Minister was referring to. What were the three options, and did we continue with the option that we were already exercising prior to the first meeting of the Finance minister?

One of the areas of federal-provincial bargaining, however, that really has me puzzled, Mr. Chairman, is this whole question of ferry subsidies. I think the Premier is absolutely right to make the argument that he's made. One of the reasons Confederation is in jeopardy is that the ground rules don't seem to be applied equitably to all the 10 provinces. As far as ferry subsidies are concerned, while British Columbia is one of the three "have" provinces and acknowledges and respects the equalization payment system, I don't think we should have to pay twice. If we're going to equalize standards across the country by having equalization payments from the central government, then I think that if the eastern provinces receive ferry subsidy then, indeed, so should the west. I think that's a very valid and rational argument.

But what really puzzles me is that in this House

[ Page 1095 ]

the other day the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) answered the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) by saying that he had met with the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) and six other cabinet ministers and that the federal government knew our position exactly and he expected a response within two weeks. Then, just yesterday, there's the amazing statement by Otto Lang's assistant, Mr. David Cuthbertson. I'm quoting the report in the press. He said: "It's not even clear yet what type of cost-sharing programme there will be, if there is to be a cost-sharing programme, and there really have been no concrete discussions about money."

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that sounds an incredibly opposite kind of comment from the assistant to the federal Minister of Transport. I think it bears repeating. He said: "It's not even clear what type of cost-sharing programme there will be, if there is to be a cost-sharing programme, and there really have been no concrete discussions about money."

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on that question because the minister in this House gave the impression that a settlement was somewhere not too far down the road — probably within two weeks. Yet the federal minister's assistant states that they haven't even talked about money. The Premier has been quoted as saying: "We figure that $16 million would be a reasonable subsidy to the B.C. Ferry system."

All the press reports have left the impression — maybe not intentionally — that a settlement based on that kind of ballpark figure is probably about to be reached within the next two weeks. I'm pleased to see that our provincial Minister of Transport has just come into the chamber. I think there's a lot of evidence from statements he has made in the House that he has misled us by suggesting that very soon there will be a cost-sharing agreement on the ferry system reached with Ottawa. According to the minister's own words, in response to the member for Mackenzie, it will be within two weeks.

Now, somebody on this issue is either unintentionally misleading this House or they're being misled by Otto Lang. It seems to be one or the other. I don't know whether Otto Lang is telling our provincial minister that there will be a decision soon and then forgetting the whole issue or whether Mr. Lang has not, in fact, given us the degree of confidence in a settlement that has been transmitted to this House. I wonder if the Premier would care to tell us, as a result of his most recent visit to Ottawa, what was his impression about the real prospect and possibility of getting a subsidy to ferries on the B.C. coast. It's very difficult for opposition members to remain non-suspicious when you get such conflicting statements on something that's of great importance to people in British Columbia using the system and, of course, to the whole question of the tourist industry in the months ahead.

I would also like to say that while the Premier is doing a very useful and commendable job in building understanding with Ottawa, I would have to suggest the Prime Minister is being something less than altruistic in his commitment to economic development in British Columbia. It's no secret that the Liberal Party at the federal level has almost written off British Columbia as far as their fortunes are concerned at the next federal election. It's very interesting for me to read some of the statements and press reports that emanated from Ottawa during the Premier's visit there.

I'm quite sure that while the Premier had his eye on the economic stakes of British Columbia, the Prime Minister of Canada had his eye on the political stakes. I suppose that's the realism of politics. Communicating parties on the federal-provincial level have their own respective motives — and I wouldn't in any way blame the Premier for attempting to get our fair share in British Columbia for the development of infrastructure to make our coal project feasible. But I think we would be less than practical if we didn't recognize that the stakes that Prime Minister Trudeau is concerned in are the political ones in British Columbia at the next federal election rather than the question of whether we're getting a fair break under Confederation.

One of the areas in which I think the Premier's leadership has been less than we had expected and less than the people of British Columbia expected is in this area of choosing priorities and deciding that having a balanced budget is not the sole responsibility of a modern government. I keep wondering why, in the face of such larger examples — of President Carter in the United States who has decided that tax cuts are a means of stimulating the economy — the Premier still adheres to this very rigid belief that we balance the books with what money is available and then do the best we can in the way of services.

It's rather ironic or sad, I suppose, to look back over some of the statements the Premier made when he was seeking election in 1975. One of the first promises broken was that this party, if elected, would not raise taxes. The Premier makes the point that when they got into government, the financial situation was much worse than they suspected and he was left with no choice but to raise taxes. Well, to try and be fair in this whole issue, I think the Premier did find a deficit when the Social Credit Party took over, but I think the degree to which he imposed hardship on the people of British Columbia by trying to solve that problem in one great big swoop shows a rather hard and cold and insensitive approach to people.

When I read the throne speech — and it's in Hansard — I got the impression that that was not the case and this government would show more feeling

[ Page 1096 ]

than the former Social Credit government. But on the election platform in 1975 the Premier said: "Either B.C. will develop through individual initiative and a large measure of local control over community development or will sink into the state-knows-best-state-does-best philosophy of central government control of people." He also went on to say: "Government should do things for people, not to people."

1 would submit that the first budget this Premier brought in was the best example of doing things to people that I have ever seen in my life. What it did to them was create serious hardship and, worse still, further retarded any hope of economic resurgence in the province.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: One of the other aspects of leadership that I would like to ask the Premier about is the degree to which resolutions passed at the Social Credit convention are regarded by the Premier as dictating what policies the government should follow. The Social Credit convention was very closely covered by the media, and I would just like to pick a couple of examples of where the Social Credit delegates, in my view, are completely out of touch with the feeling of the people of the province as a whole.

For example, it's reported that an overwhelming majority of delegates favoured the return of the strap in our schools. There has been no statement by the Premier or the Minister of Education one way or the other as to what the government believes on that issue. Even more importantly, the Social Credit convention opposed legislation to reintroduce the bill which would make the use of seatbelts mandatory. In my view, the people of British Columbia — judging by the ongoing cross-section of opinions that are expressed — believe that the attempts to make the use of seatbelts mandatory is something worthwhile doing in the light of experiences elsewhere. The Premier, as far as I can understand, has made no commitment one way or the other.

Now, does this government believe that it is bound by resolutions passed at its convention, or is the government prepared to give some leadership instead of playing games?

1 was impressed by some of the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) comments today about the degree to which this system under which this House operates is, to say the least, outdated, and in another respect, in many ways, so childish. I'm sure that for many of the questions we ask, either in debate on estimates or in question period, the government or the minister asked a question knows very well what the answer is. But there is this gamesmanship of giving half an answer or pretending that you can't talk because you would be revealing government policy. We all have to await that breathless moment when the bill is introduced in the House.

I just think that, while some of these practices are traditional and they may go back 100 years, it's very much like the Premier's comments on the Confederation of Canada: it might have been all right 100 years ago to have the particular provisions, let's say, in the BNA Act, but there's nothing today — or very few things today, perhaps other than truth — which hasn't changed in 100 years. I'm suggesting that the way in which the two sides of this House so frequently indulge in the most childish of games, that we might inspire a little bit of confidence in the voters at large if we would start behaving a little more intelligently, even on just the simple matter of communicating information. When the public at large realizes that the two sides of this House play games with information, how does the individual citizen out there, who feels further and further removed from government every day, feel that there's any hope of getting information out of government? It all emphasizes the tremendous need, in my view, for some attempt — even that first, faltering step — to have freedom of information legislation brought into the House.

But I would like the Premier's comments on some of these issues that were passed at the Social Credit convention. I think he has an obligation, certainly to the people as a whole in the province, as well as to the people in his party, not to sit mute about such a serious accusation as the fact that absence of seat-belt legislation means that 100 people are dying in British Columbia each year because of the lack of that legislation. I'm not here to debate that issue or to argue the figures. I'm trying to illustrate the principle that leadership, by any leader in any political party, requires above all open communication, both with his party and with every single voter in the province, so that they can know what the policies of the party area. That's never more important than when the party happens to be in government, as is the case now.

Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I can't help remarking that at the same convention somebody wanted to circumcise rapists. It sounds rather strange, but there are many people in that same party who don't favour sex education in the schools. While they may not favour sex education, I wonder if we could at least start some basic courses in anatomy and physiology.

The last Point I would like to make seems to be quite a contradiction in my estimation. The Premier just reported the other day in an interview with Richard Gwyn in The Vancouver Sun of February 17, and the headline on the story is: "Bennett — Tough Words On Big Business." Premier Bennett's first statement in this article to Richard Gwyn is to the effect that grocery chains are shafting the consumer.

[ Page 1097 ]

Now the Premier is shaking his head, Mr. Chairman, so I have to assume that he's been misquoted. Since the Premier smiles and says it's a good article, maybe I should go on and read another part of that article.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Read it all. I'd like to hear it again.

MR. WALLACE: Okay, the House wants the whole article to be read, but I'll read the telling part. Now the Premier's waving a white flag. It said: "British Columbia Premier William Bennett, rubbing that famous jaw with its permanent 5 o'clock shadow...." The Premier's got his hand over his chin. "The Premier said grocery chains are shafting the consumer: 'They are the ultimate example of a bureaucracy that has no conscience.'" Them's strong words, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting because the writer goes on to say: "I found myself rubbing my own jaw with amazement. Here was passion coming from someone the local journalists once called the Tin Man because of his gawky, marionette features and his...." Well, I won't read the rest. It's the typical extravagant use of the English language to which journalists are so frequently prone.

But the interesting thing is that the article generally suggests that the Premier of our province has some very real reservations about big business. I just wonder if he would care to make some comments in the light of these very strong words. Was he misquoted or does he, in fact, believe that the grocery chains in British Columbia are shafting the consumer? If he thinks this, could I once again appeal for an end to the gamesmanship and the playing around? Questions have been asked in this House and in this session as to what is to happen in regard to the government's review, or lack of review, of the agricultural industry — the question of marketing boards, the question of why there seems to be such a markup between the time the food leaves the farm gate and gets to the dinner plate, as somebody colloquially expressed it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time is drawing to a close.

MR. WALLACE: That's too bad. I haven't left enough time for the Premier to answer some of these questions. But I'm being serious, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, through you. It isn't really fair to us in this House, and it's not fair to the people of the province, for government to either pretend it hasn't made up its mind or that it doesn't have a position on the Kitimat pipeline or marketing boards or whatever. The Premier, in a moment of discussion with a journalist, comes out with the statement that the grocery chains are shafting the consumer and it's the ultimate bureaucracy that has no conscience. That kind of statement, if it's what the Premier believes, should be made in this House and should be explained in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just to respond to some of the questions and statements from the member for Oak Bay. He made an appeal against, I believe, balanced budgets, but I do believe that the government is elected to safeguard the spending of the taxpayers' money. They are also elected to arrange the priorities in which those dollars shall be spent. Deficit budgeting just for current services, forgetting capital projects, as attractive as it may seem in the short view, is really an easy way out for any government. It's a problem that compounds itself over the years. You only have to look at the statement from the federal government — the highlights of the recent federal budget and highlights of its spending — and you find that of the $41 billion to be expended in Canada this year, almost $5.5 billion is going to service debt. More than it takes to run the whole province of British Columbia, Canada's third largest province, is going to service deadweight debt for expenditures in the past.

Now, Mr. Chairman, out of current taxes $5.3 billion of the money that the federal government is going to spend this year is just going to service debt — expenditures that took place in the past. If they have a deficit budget this year, it will compound the problem and eventually withdraw more and more money of current taxes for current services. Then future governments will have to make very difficult decisions on what they are able to afford after paying off the expenditures of the past. They'll have to make some very difficult decisions, and they won't have the flexibility to make decisions for the benefit of the people because they'll be restricted. A large part of the money they collect in that year will go to pay for actions of governments that have preceded them.

Far better, Mr. Chairman, to build up some surpluses in good years and have that money there so you can deficit finance and cover out of your surpluses in poor years. You can budget in a cyclical way, but you have to have the restraint to build up the surplus in the good year and to show that judgment of what is a good year so you'll have the money there for the poor year.

Going into 1975-76, the last year of the former government, there was a surplus of $140 million, and it was spent. But they spent $261 million more than that. Now we carry a debt and we've made no provision to pay off that debt. That debt will be there for some years, I suppose, because there's no money in this type of economic climate to pay it off. We don't have the ability to pay it off because every dollar we have is needed to provide current services. I would hate to have to carry that debt and have it

[ Page 1098 ]

stand out there in our books year after year because we don't have the type of economy yet that can afford to pay off that year of excessive spending.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would hope the economy would be better by then, but that's a good 3½ years from now, I suppose. When is it — the fall or December of 1980? A lot can happen between then and now.

The member mentioned the ferry system. I want to make it clear that money was discussed with the federal government and with the minister, Otto Lang. Options were discussed — in fact specifically when I was there the proposal that British Columbia has set forward to Ottawa in regard to the B.C. Ferry system. I have no way of knowing whether we have reached accord or not. We reiterated our position in a very forceful way and in what I think is a very fair way. We haven't asked for the same type of indiscriminate spending that has been going on with the Atlantic coast by the federal government for the ferry systems there — over $100 million. We haven't asked for that type of money.

I think they put too much money into the ferry systems there, even though there, as here, they have a commitment under the terms of which some of those areas, like Prince Edward Island, joined Confederation to provide transportation. The federal government also, in the terms by which British Columbia joined Confederation, promised a ferry transport system to the mainland. Now, it just so happens that the main point of joining the mainland then by a transportation system was to Olympia, Washington. But the commitment was there to move people to the most advantageous point of the day. That most advantageous point of the day now is an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway from Victoria to Vancouver and Nanaimo to Vancouver, the two main routes. That is a commitment we intend to press. We pressed it most forcefully.

They've also had a commitment to help service isolated areas in water transport, as they've done on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We've asked them to consider that.

As I say, they spend over $100 million on the Atlantic coast. We've asked for a rationalization of the total service on the Pacific coast. We've suggested a single authority — the B.C. Ferry Corporation — would be the ideal vehicle to award new routes and investigate the need for new routes or the upgrading of old or when routes should be taken off as new roads are built in to service remote areas, as the government is doing now into Port Hardy. The road to Port Hardy will eventually remove a ferry system that costs them money.

We sent that proposal in 1976 to the government of Canada and the Prime Minister, and we reiterated it at our meeting with the Hon. Otto Lang. That formula calls for the federal and provincial governments, on a formula, to pick up the deficits of the B.C. ferry system and allow it to develop these routes. Right now we've had the federal government withdrawing some service from the northern part of B.C. and leaving people abandoned. Obviously they're not able to determine the priorities. We have the ideal vehicle and that's why we've suggested the B.C. ferry system to cover all the coast. And we do have available within that B.C. Ferry Corporation additional directorships where we could give area representation on the directorship for the central and north coast, so that they have a voice on that board in directing the Ferry Corporation and directing new routes or directly responding to the needs of the people in those areas.

We've received a lot of support for this proposal. The support has come not just from people serviced in those areas but has crossed party lines. I have a letter here signed by T.C. Douglas supporting the British Columbia proposal.

MS. BROWN: You'll have to investigate that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's very much a spokesman for the Canadian people whom I've admired over the years. I haven't agreed with anything they say but I think I agree more with what he said and what he intended than the actions of the party that pretends to represent them in British Columbia. Anyhow, his letter gives unqualified support for the British Columbia proposal for using the British Columbia ferry system to rationalize the service and the sharing 50-50 of the cost. He said: "I want to assure you that this proposal will have my wholehearted support, as well as that of my colleagues."

I don't know how far he extends that circle of his "colleagues" — whether it extends to this provincial House or whether he just means the federal House — but I would certainly welcome that support for the B.C. proposal. He also suggests he would appreciate being kept informed regarding the nature of the Prime Minister's response. I'll have to get back to him and give him the additional information we're sharing with this Legislature, particularly regarding the ferry system.

I'm hopeful that we can resolve that between British Columbia and the government of Canada very quickly, because the people demanding and needing service can't wait while these delays go on. But British Columbia has, I think, effectively pressed its case at a most opportune time and hopefully the users of the ferry system — and that's who we're all concerned about — will be the beneficiaries from

[ Page 1099 ]

what has been a transportation tragedy for those who have lost the service because of the actions of the department in doing one action of withdrawing a service before alternate services could have been provided. That was unfortunate. But perhaps this new agreement will be a long-term benefit and a benefit of what was a bad way of federal government handling, withdrawing the moneys that provided transportation in that northern part of our province.

The member for Oak Bay was worried about information and he questioned the system by which the Legislature works. I'm certain we all think it can be improved. I do believe that the British parliamentary system is the best system of a democratic nature available, and it's only when abuses creep into the system that it starts to fail. That'll be the responsibility of each one of us. However, one of the luxuries that member has, being by himself, is that he's free to accept no responsibility. As such, there are some luxuries to being the only one elected from his party. He can get up and talk on every issue without being accountable to colleagues or what-have-you.

MS. BROWN: Like Vander Zalm.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But he loses some of the opportunities of the responsibilities. When you come to government you're accountable. Information that's in the public service quite often is incomplete information, and there is some difficulty in incomplete information being presented, before all of the research is done in preparation for any specific proposal. In fact, incomplete information in the hands of some politicians — certainly not here — can definitely make it difficult for the public to get a full understanding of what a solution to any given problem could be. I wouldn't suggest that anyone would do that, but it has happened elsewhere, and that doesn't resolve the public's interest in being kept abreast with exactly what the problem is, the information that is gathered on how the problem is to be solved, and then the solution the government proposes. That really confuses the public, and that's not what freedom of information is; freedom of information is there to help the public.

This government, since we were elected, has taken several initiatives to give the public of British Columbia information it never had before. Quarterly financial reports, which they never had before, have been available to the people to give them the state of government spending and the state of cash flow of the government as, of that particular time. Now, unfortunately, even those figures can give an incorrect impression because they merely reflect the cash-flow system, but at least they share with the public the information that's available to government. Government has the ability to assess those figures, as do all members of this Legislature, knowing historically that we're on a cash-flow basis, but it does share with them information that rightfully belongs to them. The government also passed a bill concerning an auditor-general which, of course, will give the greater accountability to the public on information that's given to them. We have taken steps to make more information available to the people who sent us here, because they're the people to whom we're all responsible.

So I just point out to that member that while he'd like all the advantages of information that's available to the government, he has certain advantages of his own, and that's part of the British parliamentary system.

Mr. Chairman, I've some other things to say, but looking at the clock I see we're close to the time of adjournment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.