[ Page 1463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 20) .

Hon. Mr. McClelland. Introduction and first reading –– 1463

Oral questions

Aid to handicapped persons. Ms. Brown –– 1463

Removal of land from agricultural land reserve. Mr. Gibson –– 1464

Amounts of handicapped persons' allowances. Ms. Brown –– 1464

Status of Mr. Lillico. Mrs. Dailly –– 1464

ICBC rates. Mr. Macdonald –– 1465

Mill Bay-Brentwood ferry service. Mrs. Wallace –– 1465

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1466

Denial of binding arbitration in psychiatric nurses' dispute. Mr. Gibson –– 1466

Mill Bay-Brentwood ferry service. Mrs. Wallace –– 1466

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill

4) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. King –– 1467

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1467

Mr. Skelly –– 1470

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1470

Division on third reading –– 1470

Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 17) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1470

Change of Name Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 3) .

Committee stage

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 1471

On the amendment to section 2.

Ms. Brown –– 1471

Mr. Lauk –– 1471

Ms. Brown –– 1472

Mr. Gibson –– 1472

Mr. Lauk –– 1472

Mr. Gibson –– 1472

Ms. Brown –– 1473

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1473

Division on the amendment –– 1473

Report and third reading –– 1473

Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 13) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1474

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates

On vote 18.

Mr. Gibson –– 1474

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1475

Mr. Lea –– 1477

Hon. Mr.Bennett –– 1478

Mr. Nicolson –– 1480

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1481

Ms. Sanford –– 1484

Mr. Wallace –– 1486

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1489

Mr. Lea –– 1491

Mr. Lockstead –– 1493

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1494

Mr.Cocke –– 1495

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1495

Mr. Barber –– 1496

Hon. Mr. Bennett 1496

Appendix –– 1497

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, as you know, sir, we have distinguished guests in the members' gallery today from the northern part of the province in the persons of His Worship, Mayor Patrick D. Walsh, the city administrator, Jack Hardy, and the public works engineer, Dick Penny, of the city of Fort St. John. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today is a former MLA of this Legislature. I would like the House to join me in welcoming the former member for Shuswap, Don Lewis.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a constituent of the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and myself from the great constituency of Vancouver- Little Mountain, Mr. Burt, who is sitting in the gallery this afternoon.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have in the gallery today my father, Mr. Steve Kempf, and with him an aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Klein. Accompanying them is my sister, Jan Conti. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

Also, on behalf of the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , I am happy to introduce to the House a group of students from Centennial Secondary School in Coquitlam and with them their very able teacher, Mr. McLean. I would like also for the House to make them welcome.

MR. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are my father and mother-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Stewart, together with Mrs. Stewart's sister and her husband, Margaret and Henry Anderson. I ask the House to please welcome them.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a group I met with this morning. They are representatives here today from the First United Church and the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled.

Introduction of bills.

MEDICAL SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Services Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 20 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.

Oral questions.

AID TO HANDICAPPED PERSONS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, in view of the fact that the year-end report shows a surplus of $114.4 million, are you now ready to authorize your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to pass on the $22.50 per month to the handicapped people of this province Which you have been putting in your general revenue since the time it was approved?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member may or may not know, the report merely shows the cash flow of the funds to government, but in the report it did indicate that we don't anticipate a surplus at the end of the year but a break-even position or a very small surplus. The amount of money is mostly committed to programmes that were voted on and approved by this Legislature last year.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: does this mean that the Premier is not prepared to authorize the Minister of Human Resources to pass on the $22.50 a month to the handicapped people of this province?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, it doesn't mean I'm not prepared to recommend that.

MS. BROWN: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the Premier's statement, is the Minister of Human Resources prepared to look into this matter before he makes his official statement on Friday pertaining to the handicapped people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MS. BROWN: He's going to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. A supplemental question really would follow

[ Page 1464 ]

in line the same minister to whom you had originally directed the question. It follows that if I take supplementals that are directed to another minister, then it takes up time in the question period which would ordinarily be allotted to you if you were to gain the floor a second time.

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling. I would then ask: would the Premier pass a message on to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) asking that this be part of his official statement on Friday to the handicapped people in the province?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll come back to you, hon. member, as soon as I've recognized others.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

REMOVAL OF LAND FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Economic Development. I'd ask the minister if the B.C. Development Corporation has any special expertise or influence in dealing with the B.C. Land Commission that other corporations would not have to assist a client of BCDC in having land removed from the agricultural land reserve.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): No.

MR. GIBSON: As a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that in the case of a proposed sawmill at Houston, Eurocan-Weld wood approached the BCDC for the sole purpose of getting assistance in having the Lieuwen farm removed from the land reserve on which they wish to build a sawmill?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, my understanding of the situation is that the Development Corporation is trying to purchase that land in order to lease it back and assist the construction of an industry in Houston which will provide jobs in that area.

MR. GIBSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You stand up later, Mr. Member.

Is the minister aware that the Lieuwen farm is not the site most preferred by Eurocan-Weldwood, and that there are other prime locations which the current owners are not prepared to sell? Would the minister be prepared to use his influence to try to get these other areas which are not valuable agricultural land in the reserve and use the BCDC to do that, instead of trying to remove this precious land from the reserve when it's not necessary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is argumentative and based on an opinion only.

MR. SPEAKER: The supplemental question was taken. The minister gave his answer, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the minister not aware that in the area other forest companies are sitting on non-agricultural industrial land a couple of thousand acres, as a matter of fact not in the agricultural land reserve?

AMOUNTS OF HANDICAPPED

PERSONS' ALLOWANCES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could address a question to the Minister of Finance. He took as notice a couple of days ago a question pertaining to the $22.50. 1 asked how much money was going into the general revenue as a result of the government not passing on the $22.50. 1 asked also what the interest was that has accrued on that sum of money, and also whether that was part of the money being used to allow the succession duties to be withdrawn. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would like to answer that question now.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that's not my recollection of the member's first question, but I took those questions on notice and I will be developing an answer for her. In any event, I'm sure that with regard to her second question of how much interest has been earned on this money, the answer is none.

STATUS OF MR. LILLICO

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary: in view of the fact that Mr. Dick Lillico has purchased shares in the Grizzly Valley Gas, would the Minister now perform her ministerial responsibilities by dismissing Mr. Lillico?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. That whole subject is now in the hands of a public enquiry and not in the hands of the government.

[ Page 1465 ]

MRS. DAILLY: 1 don't believe that it is up to a judicial inquiry to decide on dismissal of a public servant. That only comes under the purview of the minister. So my question is: in view of that - that it is entirely up to you as minister to make this decision - could you explain to us why you will not make it and what the difference is between Mr. Lillico and Mr. Weeks, who was fired by the minister who sits beside you?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, for the member's information, the difference is that when Mr. Weeks was fired by government there was no judicial inquiry in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That action was done by government to initiate the move which finally resulted in a public inquiry. This government will not go on a witch hunt of all public servants, Mr. Speaker. As 1 said earlier through the media when being asked about this question last week, we do not intend to make a witch hunt throughout the public service. There may be others in the public service who hold the same shares, or some sorts. of shares, in the companies which were under question. Therefore it is under the jurisdiction of the inquiry and that is where it will lay. The government will receive that report in due course.

MRS. DAILLY: 1 would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if we are to understand then that her colleague, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , performed a witch hunt when he fired Mr. Weeks.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Right on!

MRS. DAILLY: That is exactly the implication.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. The question is argumentative and presents its own answer.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The minister should be aware that the judicial inquiry does not take away any prerogatives of the Crown or her administrative responsibilities as the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question, please?

MR. LAUK: Arising from that, could the minister obtain legal advice from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to that effect? Because that's clear -the judicial inquiry has no Mr. Lillico.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Is the minister just hiding behind the j judicial inquiry to hide her ineptitude and incompetence in handling the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: That was a question. Answer the question.

ICBC RATES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): This is to the Minister of Education, as president of ICBC: since about 10,000 drivers have not been given the safe-driving discount of 17.5 per cent because they've been in an accident and have been judged blameworthy by ICBC, may I ask the minister who decides when a driver is blameworthy? Is it just the computer? If so, will you buy the computer a robe and a wig and make him a judge and give him a summer vacation?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether the member is recommending that the computer replace the advice of the legal profession, but I can assure you that anybody who feels that they have been unfairly treated in this matter may appeal to the corporation and they'll be given very close consideration. If that isn't satisfactory, there are always the courts.

MR. MACDONALD: I suggest that there's no appeal to the courts whatsoever, and that the corporation, through its adjusters....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question, please? You're becoming argumentative, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Under what section is there an appeal to the courts?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't carry the Act and the regulations and the policies around in my head, but I'd be very pleased to provide the information to the member on notice.

MILL BAY - BRENTWOOD FERRY SERVICE

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and it relates to the Mill Bay-Brentwood Ferry. I'm very concerned, as are many of the people who use that ferry as a commuter service from Saanich to Cowichan, about rumours

[ Page 1466 ]

that it may be taken off the run. I wonder whether or not the minister can assure the House that that is not the intention of the ferry authority and that the run will continue.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, costs on that run are under review. Whether or not it will run is a matter of policy to be announced later.

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): On a supplementary, almost three weeks ago the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications answered a question indicating confidence that the federal government will, within a couple of weeks, reach its decision on a request for approximately $16 million as a ferry subsidy. In view of the fact that the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) was visiting British Columbia yesterday and today, and in view of the fact that the Premier and the minister met with the federal minister, is the minister now prepared to tell this House what agreement was reached and what progress was made in terms of ferry subsidies to assist central and north coast shipping problems on this coast?

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, it was not a supplementary question. It was a question on ferries but on a different subject matter, really; but I'll take the question.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, discussions did take place yesterday with the federal Minister of Transport and we're hopeful that an announcement or announcements will be made before the end of this month.

DENIAL OF BINDING ARBITRATION

IN PSYCHIATRIC NURSES DISPUTE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question to the minister for GERB: could the minister please explain why the Government Employees' Relations Bureau, which is responsible to him, has denied binding arbitration in the case of the psychiatric nurses?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you had better address your question to a proper minister. There is no such thing as a minister of GERB. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impress-ion-they-recited __to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . I'll address-it then-to the Provincial Secretary. It is the Minister of Finance? So-1 addressed it to the proper minister, the Minister of Finance. The question is: could you explain why the Government Employees' Relations Bureau, responsible to you, has denied the request of the employees - the Psychiatric Nurses Association - for binding arbitration in the case of their current dispute?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Quite appropriately, the matter is in the hands of the Government Employees' Relations Bureau negotiators, and I am hopeful that they will be returning to the bargaining table at a very early stage. I think it would be inappropriate to debate the matter further in the House while this is taking place. Are you suggesting, Mr. Member, that we interfere with this process?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not making any suggestions. I am asking him for a statement as to why binding arbitration was turned down - a simple question.

MS. BROWN: They asked for it.

MILL BAY - BRENTWOOD FERRY SERVICE

MRS. WALLACE: This is really a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications on my original question regarding the Mill Bay ferry, I would like to ask the minister whether, in his cost review of the operating of that ferry, he will take into consideration the following: the fact that there is a group of people -longshoremen, in fact - who would like to use that ferry on an earlier run for commuter service; the fact that the scheduling has never really taken into consideration commuter use; and also the fact that the commuter rate, when it was finally introduced after some time delay, was not thoroughly advertised and a great many people who used to use that ferry are perhaps not aware of the fact that there are commuter rates on that ferry now.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We will be taking all possible users into account in any future decision.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, by leave I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1467 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND

POWER AUTHORITY (1964)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I am interested in some kind of breakdown of the amount of money contained in section 1, the authority to increase the borrowing power by $650 million. I understood from the Minister of Finance's statements to the House during the discussion on second reading that these moneys were partially, at least, intended to cover the construction of the proposed canyon dam at Revelstoke.

I am particularly intrigued, Mr. Chairman, by the proposition that the water licence has been granted to construct the Little Dalles Dam on the Revelstoke Canyon and that in fact contracts have already been let to start the tunnelling for the river diversion, as well as other preparatory work. But the water comptroller who issued the conditional licence has indicated in the conditions of the licence that should any problem develop in the engineering design of a stabilization programme for the Downie Creek Slide, the programme could be abandoned.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no time frame set down in terms of when the engineering work on the Downie Slide will be complete. That may be a year from now; it may be two years from now before the final engineering design for stabilization of Downie Slide is completed and submitted to the water comptroller for his approval.

If, at that point, Mr. Chairman, the engineering conclusion is that it is impossible to stabilize the Downie Slide, or indeed that additional engineering work has to be done to the extent that the cost of the stabilization becomes uneconomic, we are in the meantime committed to the expenditure of huge volumes of public moneys for the initial construction of the dam, which may in the final analysis be rendered unfeasible from an engineering viewpoint and ultimately abandoned. This is the public position, as I understand it, of the water comptroller, and the conditional water licence which has been granted.

Mr. Chairman, there was great discussion in the House regarding the wisdom of allowing B.C. Hydro to grow like Topsy, to increase the public debt in spectacular fashion without any appropriate public accounting, without any obligation to report and to justify their expenditures to any independent agency. But in the particular case that I have just outlined, Mr. Chairman, we have a frightening proposition.

We have the proposition where perhaps half a billion dollars could be expended over the next two years on preparation of the dam site and initial construction without final and complete assurance that the Downie Slide can, in fact, be stabilized at a cost that is economically acceptable and to the water comptroller's satisfaction with respect to the safety required to guarantee that that slide is not going to precipitate any major problem in terms of the safety and the security of the dam.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances, how the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) can come before the Legislature asking us to authorize the increased borrowing power for this public Crown corporation to the extent of half a billion dollars - in excess of half a billion dollars -without being much more specific in terms of the precise use to which these moneys are to be put, and particularly with certainly some more security with respect to the Revelstoke Canyon Dam project development.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government and private lending institutions go to great lengths to secure loans in the private money market in the financial way. I suggest that it's no less important and fundamental to make sure that the moneys that are proposed to be borrowed here are secured through proper engineering analysis and preparation to ensure that we don't venture into a position where we as taxpayers - the citizens of British Columbia - shoulder yet another further ominous tax burden to enter us onto a course of construction which could conceivably, by any stretch of the imagination, be interrupted and halted, leaving the people with an edifice to the imprudence of this government in approving a further financial borrowing before they had absolute assurance that the project was safe and was feasible from an engineering and safety standpoint.

I would like to hear the minister's explanation of these circumstances - indeed, whether or not the Minister of Finance has even considered these very grave circumstances.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's questions and concerns about Revelstoke, certainly the government has given consideration to this matter. He refers to the contract recently let by Hydro having to do with the underground system to stabilize the dam and so on. I think the member is aware that this has a unilateral cancellation clause for any reason that Hydro could exercise.

I suggest to the member, Mr. Chairman, that this could take place for a variety of reasons, but one of them would be if a cabinet committee, which is now called, arrived at a conclusion which decided not to proceed. This would be one reason why Hydro would indicate they didn't want to proceed with that

[ Page 1468 ]

contract at an earlier date than he was concerned about.

The second reason would, of course, be if the engineering determination as they go along determined that it was simply not stabilized and not safe procedure. There has been every indication given thus far by engineering that it, in fact, is a very feasible and completely safe undertaking. Nevertheless, we do not want to leave any stone unturned. Insofar as the contract itself, it could be cancelled, as I say, for a reason that the cabinet committee hearings determined. This cabinet committee has now been called.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response. The difference, of course, is that if at the cabinet committee hearing the appeal against the issuance of the water licence overturned the decision of the water comptroller, that would happen very, very quickly. I presume that cabinet committee intends to proceed expeditiously to hear the appeals and to hand down a decision, which means, of course, that we will not be locked into any long-term construction by that period of time. There will be very little output of dollars to engage in construction.

The difference is, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to the Downie Slide, the indications given at the water-licence hearings in Revelstoke last summer were that a great deal more engineering work had to be done to determine the degree of drainage that would have to be provided to stabilize the slide and indeed whether other initiatives had to be taken also, and in the final analysis whether it was possible to stabilize the slide. The engineering opinion was given that it was indeed possible, but it was not backed up and supported by the detailed and complete engineering analysis necessary to make a definitive appraisal. It was subject to much more work, and that was conceded by Hydro and the Downie Creek Slide panel who were renowned and eminent engineers from all over North America.

There was the other concomitant question of the economics involved - in other words, if the final engineering analysis of the slide demonstrates that tunnelling and other stabilization methods became so costly that at a certain point they could render the one High Revelstoke Dam no longer economically feasible because the cost of stabilizing the slide would be too high.

Now it's kind of a complicated issue, Mr. Chairman, but there is an alternative. The original plan was for two low-level dams - one at Downie Creek and one at Revelstoke. That plan held less significance to the potential danger of Downie Creek Slide, - virtually none. But the plan is to go ahead with the one high dam at Revelstoke, and that is what creates the problem with Downie Creek Slide. It floods it to a very high level and saturates the toe of the slide.

My complaint and my concern is, quite aside from the safety aspect, that this engineering work should have been done; it should have been completed before the licence application was made by Hydro. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it was irresponsible of B.C. Hydro to seek the water licence before they had the final and detailed engineering appraisal on, first of all, the absolute and secure safety factors in securing the slide and, secondly, the economic cost of doing so.

I pointed out earlier that from an engineering viewpoint it's possible to do many things. It's theoretically possible to reach the planet Pluto, but is it feasible from an economic point of view? Is it within the financial competence of this province or B.C. Hydro? That is the dilemma we face on the Revelstoke Canyon Dam construction.

I am tremendously alarmed, Mr. Chairman, at authorizing through this Legislature the borrowing of another half billion dollars to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, a substantial portion of which, I am told, goes to the cost of constructing the Revelstoke Dam, when I can see and I can anticipate that perhaps two years down the road, when all of the engineering work is completed on the Downie Creek Slide, we are confronted with one of three things. The first could be an assessment by the engineers involved that the slide cannot be rendered safe and therefore the project must be abandoned, after spending perhaps up to half a billion dollars on the preliminary work and dam construction. The average yearly cost of construction on the Mica Dam ranged to the $100 million area, and that was six years ago. It's not unreasonable to anticipate the expenditure in the area of $150 to $250 million a year on the Revelstoke Canyon Dam. The river must be diverted first, coffer dams prepared - there is major construction in the preparation work. So, okay, that could happen. It's something we have no assurance against.

The second thing that might happen is, yes, we can make this dam safe and stable from an engineering standpoint but the cost is too high so as to render the one-dam plan uneconomic, and therefore we're reverting to the two low-dam system. Again, much of the expenditure for the particular plan which is underway now would be totally wasted.

The third possibility is that both of those bases will be covered adequately and acceptably, that the safety of the slide can be demonstrated, and that it is feasible from an economic viewpoint. But, Mr. Chairman, I think it's grossly irresponsible for Hydro and this House to approve the expenditure of funds on a shoestring. We must have some assurance that this money is not going to be wasted and that a year and a half, two years or perhaps even three years down the road that project is not going to be halted

[ Page 1469 ]

and abandoned because of inadequate preparation -early preparation - of engineering to determine its safety and its economic viability.

I'd be very surprised if the Minister of Finance was sponsoring this bill in this House without having discussed this matter with the directors of B.C. Hydro to determine what safeguards they have to ensure that public moneys won't be wasted and squandered on a project that may ultimately be abandoned, and, indeed, what their position would be in that event in terms of meeting the interest on this kind of debt and being able to remain financially viable as a Crown corporation if there were a major loss of money that's been borrowed in the first instance for a project that ultimately proved to be a complete white elephant.

I'm genuinely concerned about this. 1 would like the Minister of Finance to indicate to me whether that base has really been seriously considered, whether it's been discussed with Hydro officials, and whether Hydro officials have given any assurance of their ability to write off that kind of financial loss if the worst should occur.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, 1 would remind the member that, strictly speaking, this bill is an authority to borrow. We've wanted to discuss at length the expenditures which Hydro may plan. They may alter from time to time. This is simply an authority to borrow. It would extend it to a limit which has been restricted on Hydro by reducing their original request to a limitation which they're going to have to live within. 1 only point that out because we have gone on at great length to the detail involved in Hydro's intentions in terms of capital expenditures, and it might be really more appropriate to ask some of these questions in the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Transportation and Communications.

However, having said that, 1 think your concerns will be well satisfied in one respect by the cabinet committee hearings, because one of their primary objectives is to study these questions and to hear representations from various organizations as well as the Hydro engineers. I'm sure this will be one of their prime interests in satisfying themselves that the project in fact is viable.

You show a lot of concern about proceeding with the costs of stabilization, of the underground drainage and so on, and how this bears on the total cost of the project if they do not proceed. Certainly, as related to a total project - which is many millions of dollars - you have to agree that this is really a small portion of it and will not proceed beyond a certain point unless everyone is quite well satisfied.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this type of engineering, where Revelstoke is concerned, has been going on for years and years. The member is well aware of this. It isn't -as though it's a sudden decision to proceed without a great deal of engineering background already having been developed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think that I should take just a minute to caution the committee that it is not the intention while in committee on the bill to debate again the principle of the bill. Although some latitude has been granted in the past, I think it should be held in mind that some limitations must exist. I hope that the members will keep it in mind.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It's a rather complicated issue, this direct financial relationship, and that is what I'm trying to elicit. It's a rather complicated matter and there has to be some preamble.

I just want to say to the minister that I appreciate his remarks but I really do not believe that the cabinet appeal committee has any relevance whatsoever to this issue, because the engineering data on the Downie Slide is not complete yet. Certainly the cabinet is not in a position then to determine what the financial cost of any stabilization would be. They're no more in a position to do so without the facts than the water comptroller was initially in Revelstoke. I think that the cost factor, which is mainly what I'm trying to elicit from the Minister of Finance, will be completely outside the competence of the cabinet appeal committee to adjudicate on insofar as Downie Slide is concerned, because no one knows the total cost. The engineering work is not done. That's the point.

The other matter I wanted to question, Mr. Chairman, is this. The possible cost that was held out at the water licence hearing is not insignificant in terms of its relationship to the cost of the total project. It was indicated that up to 10 miles of tunnelling would be necessary in the slide. Now that is not insignificant in terms of a cost item, and that is where I'm concerned.

I would have felt much more comfortable with the Minister of Finance's response had the public accounts committee been struck - the public accounts committee for which names were provided over three weeks ago. I would have felt happier had the opposition, through the mechanism of the public accounts committee, had the opportunity to call witnesses from Hydro - the engineering staff, the chairman of Hydro - and to question them on these points. I agree that that would be more appropriate. Nevertheless, it is the Minister of Finance's responsibility to be accountable for the bill under his sponsorship and for the authorization of public spending in this province. So perhaps the Minister of Finance, in the absence of facts with which he can answer satisfactorily, will prevail upon his colleagues - particularly the Premier and the Provincial Secretary - to activate the public accounts committee so we can get some coherent answers from

[ Page 1470 ]

those responsible within the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): 1 realize that this bill is simply granting Hydro the authority to borrow up to a certain amount. Also the minister has specified for us what the general expenditures of that amount of money will be. But we are concerned that once the cheque has been written for Hydro they won't proceed and follow in good faith what we set out for them to do.

Consider their response to an order by the water comptroller back in August, 1975, on the Pend-d'Oreille project, where he ordered that $1.8 million be set aside for habitat mitigation - it's been almost a year and a half now since the water comptroller made that order, and Hydro has done nothing about it. That $1.8 million hasn't been paid out. That plan hasn't been developed to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat behind the Pend-WOreille Dam. I'd just like some assurance from the minister that some immediate action will be taken. After all, it's been a year and a half since that order of the water comptroller was made back in the fall of 1975. No plans have been developed for habitat mitigation.

1 understand that some recommendation has been made to the Environment and Land Use Committee that part of the funds be placed in trust for management and part be used to acquire lands. But we'd like some assurance that the habitat mitigation funds that were ordered by the water comptroller will be set aside and paid out to the responsible authorities, and that steps will be taken immediately to provide that mitigation. It's been over a year and a half and we'd like some assurance from the minister, before we vote the authority to borrow this money, that the order of the water comptroller will be followed in good faith. Could the minister answer that question for us?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, 1 don't know if 1 can provide a lot of information on this question, except to say that this matter has been reviewed by ELUC and the environmental people and is well in hand.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 32

NAYS - 17

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

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. JJ. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1471 ]

CHANGE OF NAME

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern with section 2, in that I believe the restrictions that apply to the ability of a married woman to change her name remain too heavy. Section 2 (3) provides:

"A married woman shall not apply to change her surname to any other name than

" (a) her husband's surname, or

" (b) her maiden surname, or

" (c) the surname she had immediately prior to her marriage."

Mr. Chairman, to me that removes, upon marriage, a freedom that that married woman had while she was single, namely the freedom to apply to change her surname to any name that a court would ordinarily allow under the authority of the Act.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: This is section 2 of the amending Act, which amends section 4 of the underlying Act, and we are on the subsection (3) .

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that either spouse may apply, once this Act is passed, to have the family surname changed to any surname whatsoever that a court would accept. In this case the consent of the spouse is required because the family surname would be changed if the husband's surname is changed, and the surname of the children and so on. So the need for the concurrence of the spouse in that case is obvious.

In the case of the female partner, a change in surname need not be restricted in such a way and there need not be any requirement of agreement because a change in surname affects only the person making the application. The principle here, Mr. Chairman, to me is that the act of marriage ought not to remove rights that one had before marriage unnecessarily. It seems to me that the restrictions of this section do, and it further seems to me that a woman, after marriage, ought to have the same right to make application for a change in surname as she had before.

Accordingly I would move the following amendment which would change section 2 (3) (c) to read:

"A married woman shall be able to change her surname to

" (a) her husband's surname, or

" (b) her maiden surname, or

" (c) the surname she had immediately prior to her marriage, or"

and this is the new portion,

" (d) any other name which she may choose, subject to section 8 (2) of this Act." 1 so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it will take just a few moments to determine whether or not the amendment is in order. To fill the silence ' perhaps 1 could draw to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's attention May's citation at page 505. It says: "It is usual, although not obligatory, to give notice of an amendment to a bill in committee." The only reason for this citation is that it does assist the work here at the table if notice is given.

MR. GIBSON: 1 agree 100 per cent. That's my usual practice. I'm sorry there wasn't time in this case.

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

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak in support of the amendment. As the Act presently stands, any male person, married or single, really has the right to change his name under the three headings given here, as long as it meets with the requirements under section 8 - that is, that they are not trying to defraud and these other kinds of things. So maybe the minister would give us an explanation as to why he made a difference in this section as it applies to married women.

MR. LAUK: 1 am opposing this, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: First of all, any spouse can apply for a change of name and with the consent of the other spouse, with certain requisites being met with respect to the children, change their name or the individual's name. This does not necessarily restrict that right. 1 think that it's appropriate to have the law remain as it is. This added amendment, of course, has been well sought and wisely given with respect to allowing a wife the same rights as respects the husband. 1 don't think it's necessary to have someone unilaterally, within the family unit, change their name. Particularly when there are children involved, it could cause some confusion.

1, for one, have no objection to a spouse having a different name from the other. 1 think that's a good and healthy thing in the 25th year of Her Majesty's reign, but 1 think that it's inappropriate to allow a

[ Page 1472 ]

change of name without consent of the family, which is virtually the law.

MS. BROWN: Am I allowed to speak again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in the eleventh report of the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, certainly one of the recommendations was that both or either spouse could apply jointly or separately for an entirely new name. It's one of the recommendations. The minister has done such a really good job of implementing the recommendations, I'm wondering if there really is some reason why he has left this section the way it is, because it's quite possible that he has a very good reason. There are two recommendations here in this report which he used as his guide. It's also under the Ontario legislation dealing with the same thing which he also used as his guide. This option is open to both spouses. I wonder whether the minister can give us a reason why he has established these criteria. He must have a very good reason, and I'd like to hear that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, to expand on that, in the summary of recommendations of the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law relating to change of name, recommendation one reads:

"A married woman should be entitled to apply for a change of name without the consent of her husband. This option should be available to spouses in all existing and future marriages through an application to the Director of Vital Statistics. If the change of name for one spouse affects the legal name of the other spouse, a joint application should be required."

Naturally that's a proper restriction, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, but in the case of the change of name of the female partner, it does not affect the name of the other partner. Therefore if we are to fully carry out the intent of this recommendation, which I believe we should, we should not restrict unnecessarily and this is the principle of the amendment the freedom of a female simply because she becomes married. Before she was married she had the right to apply for a change of name to any other surname whatsoever. In this Act, as it stands, that right would be taken from her. In my opinion, it should be restored by the amendment which I have moved.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano is using that report to support him, then he's got the wrong amendment on the table. That doesn't serve to do that. If the amendment is....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You're the one who hasn't read the report or the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I have so.

MS. BROWN: I'm not speaking to you! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Chairman, to my learned friend and the hon. Liberal leader, this amendment does nothing to protect the legal status of the family name or whatever name this other spouse has.

MR. GIBSON: It gives a woman the right to change her name.

MR. LAUK: No. You see, what you're doing is you're not protecting the women against the possibility that the man may change his name, affecting the legal rights of the family somewhere down....

MR. GIBSON: Yes, you are.

MR. LAUK: No, you're not. This amendment does not do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. (Laughter.) Shall the amendment pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. GIBSON: Just to reply to the learned first member for Vancouver Centre, I would point out to him that subsection 2 notes here that: "Application by either spouse may be made to change the husband's surname so long as the consent of the applicant's spouse is obtained." So the family name is protected in terms of both partners' consent. This amendment does not change that.

MR. LAUK: So you're allowing the wife to change her name without consent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to the law books, counsellor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard. Hon. members, will you please address the chair? The whole House would like

[ Page 1473 ]

to be a part of this debate.

MS. BROWN: This is the problem that always occurs when you get lawyers involved in a very simple, straightforward matter. In fact, under the common usage, if I may use a legal term (laughter) , a single woman in this province - and tell me, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the minister can tell me through you whether I am correct or not - can change her name to any name of her choice whatsoever. A single male in this province can do the same. A married male in this province can change his name.

MR. LAUK: With agreement.

MS. BROWN: With agreement. What the recommendation says in the 11th report is that a married woman with agreement should be able to change her name to any name of her choice.

MR. LAUK: I agree with that, but that's not the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: It says without agreement....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Without agreement she can change her name to her husband's name, to her maiden name or to the name that she had before she was married. This is what the Act says at present. Okay. What the amendment of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano is trying to say is that if she doesn't like her husband's name, if she doesn't like her maiden name, if she is not happy with the name of the first husband that she got rid of before she's now getting rid of this husband's name, then she should be free to have the name of her choice, jointly or separately.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, of course. Yes, yes.

Interjections.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I wish the opposition could get along, Mr. Chairman. I've enjoyed this debate. It's excellent, and very retightening and invigorating. I agree completely with the hon. learned member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that this amendment is inappropriate.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, there is a freedom of some sort given up by each side in a marriage, and there always will be, I expect. The husband loses the freedom to change his name unilaterally because it's the family name. There must be consent. The concepts that either side could change a name unilaterally within a marriage - complete freedom of that kind for husband or wife to change surnames independently of the other spouse, as advocated - is not considered to be appropriate at this time. It was given consideration but the government can't accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 12

NAYS - 32

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

On section 2.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to caution the Liberal leader that the support of members of my party only went as far as the amendment. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 3, Change of Name Amendment Act, 1977,

[ Page 1474 ]

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 13.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. GIBSON: Early on in these estimates I had occasion to ask the Premier his opinion of the statement made by his Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in terms of how powers ought to be distributed in our confederal system. I will recall to him once again the statement made by his minister in the House, which was as follows - and I might say that this was a considered statement , in my opinion, because he appeared to be reading it and a press release was distributed immediately after. I'm quoting now from what the minister said:

"Let us have the provinces agree in consultation with the federal government upon those powers and programmes upon which complete consensus - underline those words -can be found. Those properly belong with the national government. Then let us discover those policies and programmes upon which there is not national agreement and place them securely in the hands of the provinces, along with the fiscal powers that support them. Separation will not then be in the mind of any province any more than it is now in the mind of Quebec with respect to education."

Mr. Chairman, naturally separation would not then be on the mind of any province because they would all be separated.

I want to explain to the Premier what the policy of the Minister of Education would mean in terms of what would be left of the national government. The Minister of Education is a man who had just got back from the province of Quebec at that; he had met with the Parti Quebecois Education minister. He is a student of political affairs and I'm certain is aware of the platform of the Parti Quebecois.

If one goes through the departments of the national government and applies to them the platform of the Parti Quebecois, and whether that power would remain in the hands of the national government or the hands of the provincial governments, we see at once that Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be taken from the national government. Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be taken. Justice and the Postmaster General - that's a question; it might be contracted out. The Minister of Public Works, presumably, would be left for a few federal buildings. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sports - certainly to the provinces. Industry, Trade and Commerce - to the provinces. Manpower and Immigration - to the provinces.

National Defence is a little unclear, but in Mr. Levesque's book of 1968, Option Quebec, he definitely made mention there of the feasibility of taking over the defence installations within Quebec and having them run by the province. Science and Technology would be provincial; the Solicitor General, of course, provincial; and, as the Premier may be aware, the RCMP has been invited by the Parti Quebecois to leave that province. Energy, Mines and Resources would be provincial, naturally. The Premier might want to pay heed to some of the separatist sentiment within his own party, I might say.

Secretary of State for External Affairs - naturally that would be taken over by the provinces under the platform of the Parti Quebecois. National Health and Welfare would be provincial. Transport would be provincial. Fisheries and the Environment would become provincial, Regional Economic Expansion, naturally, would cease to exist. Veterans Affairs, presumably, would be left in the hands of the national government, since it's a costly thing and something from the past. Ministry of State for Small Businesses would definitely be provincial; Minister of Labour - definitely provincial; Urban Affairs -

[ Page 1475 ]

provincial; government Leader in the Senate - well, whether the Senate would remain, who knows? The Secretary of State - all those functions of cultural and other natures would become provincial. Communications would become provincial, as would Agriculture.

I think that short recitation makes very clear the devastating effect on the remnants of anything remotely resembling a national government that would be had by the application of the principle espoused by the Minister of Education. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that statement of that minister amounts to an endorsation of the separatist platform of the Parti Quebecois.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Nonsense!

MR. GIBSON: That's what I say, Mr. Member. You stand up and talk about it a bit yourself if you don't agree, but I want to say to you that if your suggestion is that the only things that remain in the hands of the national government are those things upon which all provinces agree, and therefore those things upon which the Parti Quebecois agrees, that is to me clearly a separatist manifesto. I ask the Premier to stand up and repudiate those words of his Minister of Education!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the interpretation the member for North Vancouver-Capilano puts on those statements, and we just saw, that many people disagree with interpretations he put on legislation. I have said that it's a time for consideration of how to build a stronger Canada right now. The last thing we need are people who are afraid of discussion.

I did answer this question during my estimates when it was first proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. Unfortunately he was out of the House when I made these very same statements at more length at that time,

MR. GIBSON: You have to repudiate those.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would no more start trying to read into statements of people who are offering proposals for discussion on how Canada can be stronger, any more than I would say that that member is making what I consider - what may be considered, not what I consider - an undemocratic proposal on how he would have non-elected governments deal with the constitution.

Many people have expressed to me that they consider that member an elitist, one who doesn't trust elected government only because he isn't part of the elected government. I say I trust the governments that have been elected in Canada. I trust the leaders and I trust the people's opportunity and their consideration of how those leaders act as government in dealing with constitutional matters and in dealing with building a country.

I would remind that member, Mr. Chairman, that when the country was formed, it was on the unanimous agreement of provinces getting together that divided up or ascribed certain powers and opportunities for different levels of government at that time. Since that time we've seen an erosion of what were traditionally provincial powers. That erosion has been....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, certainly in the field of the income tax.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. The erosion of the federal government moving in, as they did during the war.... I point out that even strong centralists such as the Premier of Saskatchewan, Allan glakeney, said that the main problem is the amount of intervention that the federal government has made into provincial opportunities.

Responsible leaders have a responsibility to speak out at this time. I said the danger is that there are those who are not prepared to offer any suggestions on how to build Canada except to separate, and the public shouldn't have any confidence in them. There are those who have no answers at all except to stand around and wring their hands and continue to look backwards. I say it's a time for discussion, it's a time for people of opinion to present their ideas for the public discussion on how we can build a stronger country.

To the member, Mr. Chairman, every member of this government in their public statements have made statements on how they felt they could build a stronger country, how they could build a stronger Canada. In that regard, they're putting their comments out for public discussion.

I would point out that we've participated fully in that public discussion at the First Ministers' conferences in which many ideas have been suggested and discussed among the First Ministers. I know that when ministers of the Crown from various provinces get together, they, too, are concerned enough about Canada and are unafraid of discussing many different options. What we should be prepared to do is put all the options out front and be unafraid, because I have enough confidence in the wisdom of the people of this country that in the end we will build a stronger Canada.

I have some concern, as everyone has, about the feeling of alienation that has taken place in various parts of this country. It's an alienation that can't just

[ Page 1476 ]

be ascribed to the political party of the day, but an alienation that's felt by region. Now offering proposals on how best to remove that alienation and make the country work better is a responsibility of governments and of elected officials. As such, I'm not going to comment on, or try to interpret, or comment on some people's interpretations of everyone's suggestions or statements on this subject. The member and I obviously place different interpretations on those remarks as, obviously, we place different interpretations on many events.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is skating around the issue. I can understand why, because that Minister of Education is quite an embarrassment to him. I'm awfully glad to hear that the Premier encourages discussion, but surely he will not suggest to this House that that minister is citing government policy. If he is citing government policy, the people of the province of British Columbia have a right to know it. If he's not citing government policy - a statement officially by a minister in this House which is not government policy - the people of British Columbia have a right to know that too. We have a right to know which it is. I suggest that that minister's a considerable embarrassment to him.

Now I think, as well, the Premier has perhaps not examined carefully enough the suggestion of exactly how the constitution should be reformed that I made when I suggested that it not be done by any of the governments that are currently in business at the moment. None of them were elected with a mandate to change the constitution - not a single one of them. I suggested, in brief, that we have an elected -I underline the word "elected" - constitutional conference that would be assembled in this country for the very purpose of concentrating single-mindedly upon the reform of the constitution in our country. The government of this province was elected with, I think, 47 per cent of the vote, and constitutional affairs were not an issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Forty-nine per cent.

MR. GIBSON: The government of Canada was elected with, I think, 45 or 46 - something like that - per cent of the vote, and the constitution was not really an issue. The government of the province of Quebec, even, was elected with 41 per cent of the vote, and they specifically excluded separatism as an issue in that election. There is not a single government in this country that has a mandate from the people for something as basic and far-reaching as the restructuring of our constitution.

I suggest that a group of people should be elected for that very purpose, as has been done in other countries with great success. I suggest that that would take a great deal of the heat and tension out of the relationships between Canadians and allow governments to get back to the business of doing what they were elected for, which is, namely, governing the country under its current laws. It would give the people worrying about the constitution a chance to make reforms far beyond those which any government would care to make, such as the long-delayed reform of a bill of rights. So our constitution, instead of just dividing up powers between governments, would give some protection from government.

We can be pretty sure that governments are going to resist that kind of reform because it would cut down their power. The constitution should not be reformed by people who are more interested in protecting their empires than they are in genuine entrenchment of bills of rights and that kind of thing.

I ask the Premier: what is "flexible federalism"? We hear this word from him. He says: "We need flexible federalism to save Canada." Would he kindly be a little bit more specific? I wonder about his approach in constitutional matters when he says that the federal government has constantly eroded provincial powers over the history of this country. He may not be familiar.... I ask him to turn to his left to his Attorney-General and receive some sort of a quick precis of the supreme court cases and the privy council cases that, over the years, have consistently interpreted the British North America Act in favour of the provincial jurisdictions to the point where the other day we have a column by the editor of The Vancouver Sun, Mr. David Ablett, who makes this statement. I'm breaking in in the middle of an article so it doesn't quite follow, but he says:

"First, because our country is already more decentralized than almost any other federation I can think of, except Switzerland. Our most basic rights - freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press - all these rest with the provinces, John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights to the contrary." It's a common fact by those who study such questions that we have a very decentralized federation. Perhaps it should be more decentralized. I would support certain initiatives in that direction. But we're entitled to know exactly what the Premier is talking about when he talks about "flexible federalism." Exactly what does he mean?

I want to raise one other issue, in the hope that he will deal with that as well when he answers, and that is the question of the government action on Pacific Western Airlines. This is an interprovincial relations question of considerable importance, and I want, first of all, to congratulate the government on the vigorous moves they have made since the deliverance of the supreme court judgment that found that Alberta is not a person in terms of the law and therefore acted properly in acquiring PWA without the CTC approval.

[ Page 1477 ]

It is my understanding that the government has applied to the CTC for a direction to PWA that the head office not be moved. I hope and pray that the CTC will issue such a direction. If they do not, they will be condoning a kind of economic piracy between provinces which can do nothing but spread if it is allowed to continue. As we all know, Alberta is an extraordinarily cash-rich province for the time being in this country, and if it is allowed to acquire and ship out the assets of one province in one particular area, and if this becomes a trend in this country, we will be in very bad shape indeed.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I can't tell you about that, Garde. From the newspapers, to the best of my knowledge, there is such support.

But I want to add one further thought. If all else fails, if the CTC does not do what they ought to do and instruct that that head office be retained in British Columbia, and if the head office is in fact transferred to Alberta, then I would suggest that British Columbia should appear before the CTC and argue the case that all of the British Columbia routes of Pacific Western Airlines should be severed from that company and transferred to companies operating in British Columbia by a proper process of competition. We simply cannot allow economic piracy conducted inter provincially between governments to be successful. I suggest that to the government as another string to our bow in British Columbia if for any reason the CTC fails to do what I consider to be their duty in blocking this move of the head office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Dealing first, Mr. Chairman, with the constitution, the member defeats his own argument. He talks about governments not having a mandate, as he put it, to tinker with the constitution. Yet there have been substantial constitutional changes made by governments over the years. I'm sure the member understands that the provinces have the right to change unilaterally those changes that are under provincial jurisdiction; federal can change these under federal. Then, when they can agree together, they can make such changes and have them made. Such changes have been made, and none of them have necessarily been election issues, but they have been part of the general mandate of government to be allowed to govern. To govern you must have the opportunity to deal with all aspects of matters that come before you and to deal in such areas to give you the authority in which to exercise the powers of government.

Now this has taken place since the BNA Act first created this country of Canada. Those governments didn't feel compelled, and I'm sure many of them were Liberal governments, to go to the electorate for a mandate every time they made a change in the constitution. I must say I disagree with them. I believe in the electoral system we have in this country; I believe in the British parliamentary system. I believe in the right of those governments, once elected, to carry on the business of government, and the electorate has the opportunity to remove such governments as it doesn't find satisfactory. My confidence in that system that has served this country well prevents me from agreeing with your proposition that governments anywhere in Canada have no mandate to carry out one of the prime functions of governing, and that is to deal with the distribution of powers under which they can carry out that function.

Regarding Pacific Western Airlines, substantial moves have been taken by the government. Right now we have asked for a general inquiry through the CTC. We've filed an intervention with the federal cabinet to maintain the status quo until this comes about. We are, to all intents and purposes, at the mercy of the federal cabinet in supporting the British Columbia case. As such, we've taken every possible move as the situation has developed by rulings in the court and by rulings by CTC up until now. I can't speculate on future action; we'll let the course of events take place.

We're always optimistic that the British Columbia position will be listened to. The reasons for opposing the PWA move were very similar to what were expressed by that member and other members of this House. A regional air carrier serving the country shouldn't be under the control of a single provincial government who can then use it not just for the direct jobs involved, but for the development of economic routes that may have a disastrous effect on one region as against another region. It's this ability to change the natural course of economic development and put it in the hands beyond normal political opportunity.

One of the reasons why we do have a country and why we do have interprovincial and interterritorial transportation under the control of the federal authority is to adjudicate between provincial boundaries. To have the equity in control of the hands of a single provincial government, whether it was our government or the Alberta government, is not in the best interests of the economic development of that transportation system as a system serving a general region. Those are the reasons why we've taken all the steps up to now.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, before moving into another topic, I'd like to ask the government whether they have had meetings with the Alberta government. I've talked with the Minister of Transport for Alberta who doesn't appear to me to be an unreasonable man. I think he has the well-being of the western provinces

[ Page 1478 ]

in mind.

1 think that better than to attack on this one, I believe the province of Alberta is willing to co-operate to try and work out especially third-carrier lines within the province. 1 think they're willing to talk and 1 think they're willing to negotiate. I think they're interested in British Columbia and in western Canada, and seeing us move ahead. In my experience in government and as an opposition member, 1 haven't seen any hesitancy on the part of Alberta to try and put forward good, sound policy for western Canada in transportation. As a matter of fact, 1 have found them, out of the four western provinces, probably to be one of the provinces that would most listen when we were dealing on transportation.

So 1 wonder if the Premier could tell us what kind of progress, if any, they have had with the province of Alberta.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Member, you must remember the reports we've made to the House of meeting which the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) had with his counterpart, and information provided to this House not only of meetings but of the request first going to the government of Alberta to consider such economic moves and the movement of the head office before we took such legal action as to apply to the CTC and to the federal cabinet. None of these moves was taken until after consultation and direct requests were made and refused by the government of Alberta.

1 must say that they've been in direct consultation during this whole affair. 1 must say that the initial intervention in the court case was filed not by our government but by the previous government. We followed up on the action they took. 1 don't know if they had any discussions with the government of Alberta, but 1 know that the responsible ministers have had many. 1, as the First Minister, have had discussions with the Premier of Alberta (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) . It was only after those discussions were exhausted that we had to take certain legal steps, or such steps as are available to us under the law of the country, both to CTC, courts and the government of Canada.

MR. LEA: 1 realize that we're talking about two separate issues in the moving of certain aspects of their operations to Alberta. But 1 think there is another issue that would be well worth pursuing, especially at this time, and that is to supply a better service to the rural areas of this province through PWA, and to talk to and negotiate with the province of Alberta and PWA to get those other routings put in so that we can be better served in the rural areas with a passenger service. 1 think this may be the time to talk to Alberta, and I'd like to suggest that that be done.

There is one area, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Premier has been quite successful in doing. I think it's a shrewd move, but I'm not necessarily sure whether it's a moral move of the Premier to make. Over the course of time, every time one of his ministers makes a statement that gets bad press reaction, the Premier will step in and say: "Tut, tut. It's unfortunate that the minister made that remark. I wish he hadn't." There will be some small thing that will happen, and the Premier will rush in at the last moment and change the decision a little bit. But if there is a decision to be made by that government considered to be not politically palatable in the province of British Columbia, then that minister takes the heat and the Premier walks away from it.

He's been fairly successful at it. It's his one successful endeavour - that is, to get out of the heat at any cost and not take the responsibility of decisions made by government and being told to the people by specific cabinet ministers. The cabinet minister goes out and tells the people what the policy is or isn't. He or she gets the flack and the Premier walks away.

I think one of the most blatant examples of that is the Arthur Weeks affair and the Grizzly Valley -especially Arthur Weeks. Arthur Weeks, a long-time associate of the Premier, was hired on October 1,1974, by the present Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition, not to be a research assistant to the Social Credit caucus but to be the research assistant to the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it must be disheartening for a person like Arthur Weeks, regardless of the kind of service that he has supplied to a political party and to a government, to be almost denied his existence by the Premier. The Premier was asked on his return from Hawaii in the month of December whether Arthur Weeks had worked for him in the Premier's office, and the Premier tried to let on that he'd hardly even heard of Arthur Weeks.

We know for a fact that Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office before he went to work for the Minister of Economic Development. We know that he worked in the Premier's suite. We know that he was supplied a secretary on taxpayers' money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member is aware that perhaps in committee we should be a little cautious about using in debate any material which might be used as evidence or which has been recorded as evidence which in any way would jeopardize. . . .

MR. LEA: I will be careful. I'm talking about events leading up to the public inquiry but having no part of it - just the administration of government, the Premier's office and the office of the Minister of Economic Development.

For instance, the media are saying: "Why did the

[ Page 1479 ]

Minister of Economic Development hire Arthur Weeks, who was obviously such an undesirable person to hire in the first place because of his track record?" That's unfair, because the Premier hired Arthur Weeks and the Premier placed Arthur Weeks in the Economic Development office. I don't think the Premier should be able to walk away and leave this one to dangle and blame one of his ministers, because he has direct responsibility for the administration of not only his suite but the government as a whole. I think the people have the right to know that the kind of people the Premier puts his faith in are the kind of people we now know Arthur Weeks to be.

The Premier hired him. The Premier hired him when he was in opposition. He worked for the Premier in his office after he became Premier. He wrote letters for the Premier; he made phone calls for the Premier. The Premier went in and consulted with him to make sure he had the job with the Minister of Economic Development.

The very day that Arthur Weeks went to see the Minister of Economic Development about a job, he was visited by the Premier in his own office. He was asked: "How did you make out, Arthur?" He said: "Fine, except for the matter of wages." The Premier replied: "The wages are up to Mr. Phillips." That alone should tell us that it was the Premier who placed Mr. Weeks in the Minister of Economic Development's service.

The Premier has to accept responsibility for that act, and the Premier should have know better. He worked with the man. He worked with the man when he doctored the Levi cheques. Did he fire him? No, he gave the illusion that Mr. Weeks was no longer there. They quietly moved him out, on the Premier's instructions, to a Social Credit party office on Fort Street in the city of Victoria.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): At 895 Fort Street.

MR. LEA: At 895 Fort Street. The Premier, for some reason, could not let Mr. Weeks go from employment. What is the reason? Did he have faith that Mr. Weeks could do a good job in the Minister of Economic Development's office? If so, what were those reasons? What were they?

Here was a man who had already disgraced the party with doctoring cheques before handing them over to the press. Did the Premier act swiftly at that point? Did he act swiftly, or did he just quietly put him out working for the party at 895 Fort Street in the city of Victoria?

Who was the first person back the day after the general election in December? Mr. Weeks showed up in the Social Credit caucus and stayed there and remained there until he went to work on December 23 or 24 - I'm not sure whether it was the 23rd or the 24th - in the Premier's suite. He occupied an office in the Premier's suite. He wrote letters on behalf of the Premier. He arranged a meeting between a United States senator and the Premier while working in that office. He wrote letters while working in that office to United States oil companies which the Premier signed.

Arthur Weeks worked for the Premier personally -personally, in the Premier's suite! And then the Premier personally saw that Mr. Weeks had a job at approximately $10,000 more a year than any other executive assistant in government. Why? Why was the Premier so concerned that Mr. Weeks would be looked after? What sort of special qualifications did Mr. Weeks have or what kind of special knowledge did Mr. Weeks have that the Premier would become so involved in the future of Mr. Arthur Weeks? What was it?

Will the Premier get up and deny that Arthur Weeks worked for him personally, after they formed the government, in his office? Will he deny that the Premier supplied a secretary out of taxpayers' money to Mr. Weeks? Before Mr. Weeks was even on the official payroll he was still working for the Premier privately out of party funds and in the Premier's office.

What is the story? Why does the Premier now say "Arthur Weeks Who?" He was a close confidant, a work colleague, a person the Premier defended not by firing him after he doctored cheques before handing them over to the press. Instead took care of him. As a matter of fact, he not only took care of him at 895 Fort Street, but brought him in as an integral part of the campaign itself working with Dick Lillico during the campaign. Now where is Dick Lillico? He's been looked after also, hasn't he? He's been sent to London on behalf of the government.

MR. BARBER: To visit the Queen.

MR. LEA: He's been sent to London. The Premier cannot hide behind his ministers on this one. Mr. Weeks was the Premier's man - that's who he was, Mr. Chairman. From the beginning to end, Weeks was the Premier's man. We know it. All we want to do is hear the Premier admit it or deny it. If you deny it, Mr. Premier, I think you'll find that testimony under oath will say that you're not levelling.

Did Mr. Weeks work in the Premier's office between the time you formed the government on January 8 until he went to work for the Minister of Economic Development? Did he work there? What were his duties? Did he write letters, and on whose behalf? Did he write letters to the States, to oil companies? Did he arrange for a meeting between a United States senator and the Premier? If so, did he do it by a phone call? While we're at it, did Mr. Weeks, before being employed by order-in -council for the government, make phone calls out of the

[ Page 1480 ]

Premier's suite and charge them back to the people of this province, and, if so, on whose orders? On whose orders did Mr. Weeks use the phones in these buildings, charging the calls to the people of British Columbia, before becoming an employee?

According to the testimony of Mr. Weeks, he was a personal employee of the Premier. We know that the Premier was very concerned about the conversation I related to you. "How did you make out, Arthur, when you went up to see the Minister of Economic Development?"

He said: "Oh, everything went all right except for the wages."

"The wages are up to Mr. Phillips, " the Premier then replied.

Why was the Premier so interested that Mr. Weeks should be put in that position? Why? I think that the people of this province have the right to know what the involvement was, or is, between Mr. Weeks and the Premier. I know from personal observance that they were more than casual acquaintances. I saw the Premier, Mr. Weeks and Mr. Paul Manning having a little chat during a Social Credit convention in the Vancouver Hotel. Oh, yes, I was there. I saw you. It was during your convention. I just popped in.

MR. KEMPF: You might learn something.

MR. LEA: And there you were, the three of you, having a little chat. Now you don't even know the man exists.

The first question: why did the Premier place Mr. Weeks in the Minister of Economic Development's office? Why did he place him there at a higher wage? What did Mr. Weeks do for the Premier while he worked between December 22,1975, and January 8,1976? What were his duties in the Premier's office? Why was he supplied with a secretary? Why did he write letters on the Premier's behalf? Why did he make arrangements by telephone for a senator to come to this province and to meet with the Premier?

I don't think those questions should be too difficult for a shrewd man to handle, a man who usually says: "It's unfortunate that my minister said this or that minister said that. But I'm clean; I'm doing nothing. Why, when they decide things in cabinet I don't even take any part in stopping handicapped people from getting $22.50 a month. It was all the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) ."

Why did Mr. Weeks keep his employment with the Social Credit after doctoring Levi's cheque? Why? And why did the Premier not fire him on moral grounds? Why did he just shuffle him out the back door and place him in another Social Credit office at 895 Fort Street? Then why did you bring him in again, right after they formed the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think the Premier has that question now.

MR. LEA: Okay. Let's see if he has any answers. Do you deny it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 18 pass? Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert continues.

MR. LEA: Before he denies it, I would like to know what he denies. Do you deny knowing Weeks? Do you deny that he worked for you in the office? What did he do? It's no use winking at the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . What did he do in your office? Why did you place him in the Minister of Economic Development's office at $10,000 more a year than other executive assistants? Why did you insist that he go there? Why? Why did you supply him with a secretary in your office? What were his duties? Why did he make phone calls and to whom? Why did he arrange meetings with people having to do with oil companies in the United States and yourself? Why did he arrange a meeting between you and Senator Jackson in your office? Why don't you answer those questions?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): The questions that have been raised by the member for Prince Rupert are certainly ones that have been in my mind and, I would think, in the minds of a lot of people. Other questions, too, arise around the office of the Premier, and it does have to do with the strange role that the Premier seems to take. First of all, he takes a high-profile position, and then he says he's not responsible for the actions of his ministers, which is certainly an innovation in administration in the British parliamentary system.

Mr. Chairman, last February 2 - about a month ago - there was an announcement by Finance minister Donald Macdonald that it is likely that Ottawa might decide to end wage and price controls at an early date. In response to this, the Premier said B.C. believes it's possible to control inflation and combat unemployment at the same 'time, and it would be a bad economic move to abandon controls because of the unemployment problem. A day or so later, the Premier said that he wanted wage and price controls to remain until the end of 1978. He was commenting on the announcement by the federal Minister of Finance, Donald Macdonald.

Also on the same day, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) here in British Columbia said in Ottawa that B.C. will consider introducing its own wage and price control programme if Ottawa disbands its anti-inflation measures before the end of 1978. It was said that this was being considered. Now we see that today the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has told reporters that provincial controls

[ Page 1481 ]

would prove disastrous to the B.C. economy. So we have the Premier calling for the continuation of controls; the Minister of Finance saying that they're considering controls on a province-only basis -provincial controls; and we have the Minister of Labour saying that it would be disastrous, saying that it could lead to a mass migration of workers from the province to regions without controls, and a migration of companies seeking shelter against high wage increases to B.C.

I'd like to see the First Minister of the province get up and explain what the policy is as to price and wage controls. Who speaks for the government? Is it the Minister of Labour? Is it the Minister of Finance? Or is it the Premier?

I see that the Premier has lifted his mike and he's ready to respond to that because I'm sure he read this. I saw today that his press secretary, Mr. Arnett, was in the gallery and they were probably anticipating this, and I'm sure he will be able to read from a prepared text his remarks on this yet another unfortunate slip of the tongue by one of his ministers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just so the member for Nelson-Creston - that's where you used to live, Nelson-Creston.... To ease his mind, I was in the gallery today at invitation on the opening of their new gallery for a small presentation. I'm sorry if he, lurking around corners, is worried about the Premier or the press secretary visiting the press. But it was merely at their invitation and I hope that, to save him from lurking around corners and spying ...

MR. NICOLSON: In the members' gallery.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... I'll let him know when the press gallery has invited me to visit them.

MR. NICOLSON: Don't be paranoid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm very happy the member that used to come from Nelson-Creston ...

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I've only been there 15 days this month.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... is keeping watch on my visits.

Now on the position of the anti-inflation programme, there's no question. This government has gone on record since the beginning - when we introduced legislation in the Legislature to join the programme - that we joined the programme subject to the control programme, joined the federal programme with the other provinces of Canada. Eight of the other provinces joined in what were four-four agreements, in that we would turn our public service over to the federal government so that the controls that it had applied to all of the private sector and their employees would apply equally to the public sector in British Columbia. They came under the control of the province. Eight other provinces made the same move towards fighting inflation in the country and the province of Saskatchewan, in effect, signed a four-four agreement, which meant they put their own programme in on their own public service. But they, too, by doing that, joined in the federal programme of fighting inflation in this country -inflation that still hasn't been beaten, inflation that robs the purchasing power, especially of those on fixed incomes. It's the cruellest tax of all of those on fixed incomes. Anyone who isn't concerned in fighting this insidious tax can't be concerned with the people on the very smallest incomes and fixed incomes in this country. They are the first and they are affected the worst by any inflation.

Inflation is still a major problem in attacking their purchasing power in Canada, and it still exists in British Columbia. While inflation dropped last year in the first year of control, it did not drop to the extent of what they call the national average. British Columbia still has an unacceptable inflation rate. This government is concerned that the commitment we made to join the programme that had a fixed date ending at the end of 1978 should continue.

When I was at the First Ministers' conference in December, 1976, just a few short months ago, in a public statement after discussion it was reaffirmed by the First Ministers at that conference - and there have been no changes in the First Ministers since then - that we endorse the control programme. Inflation was still a problem for the country and to the people of this country that could least afford it. It was a major economic problem as part of the lack of productivity in allowing us to compete on world markets with our goods. It especially affects British Columbia's ability to compete, and in fact has a very serious economic impact on our province, or will have if it is allowed to continue in the future.

British Columbia, again at that conference, along with the other First Ministers, spoke up strongly that we would remain a part and would participate in the full federal programme. At that time it was unanimous.

In February, some First Ministers and some governments had a change of mind. I don't know if it was for political reasons - whether they were facing elections or whether conditions were such that it was politically expedient - but we did have some changes. The government of Quebec withdrew from the programme two months later. The province of Ontario had made a submission that certain parts of the controls be removed - those relating to business.

[ Page 1482 ]

We do not support any part of the controls being removed; they must apply equally, while the control programme is there, to all parts, all segments, all groups in the economy.

With that, some of the other provinces became a little squeamish, I guess, and questioned whether the control programme would work with some provinces opting out.

[ Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

However, there has been continuing consultation since then between the federal Anti-Inflation Board and the provincial governments. It was just a few short weeks ago that Mr. Pepin was in our capital, discussing with our anti-inflation staff and cabinet members various options in a post-control programme and options to phasing out the programme but not abruptly.

Our position has been, when the first suggestion was made that the control programme would end, that it should not end abruptly. Particularly in British Columbia, statements and rumours that it was going t o end would seriously affect major labour-management negotiations that will take place in British Columbia this year. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is well aware that this year about 65 per cent of the major contracts will be up for negotiation. It places a very uncertain climate on both sides, and there have been concerns expressed by both sides on how they could possibly negotiate in such a climate of uncertainty.

At that time we said that this government wanted the programme to continue; we would continue to make submissions. We would investigate all options that the government might have to take in order to maintain the restraint that we say is necessary in this province - applying to governments as well - should certain things happen. That is being studied by the public service who have been given the job of dealing with the anti-inflation programme since its inception and since we joined. They have not yet made a report. Many of the options they would be studying could be options of separate provincial guidelines. They are studying all options of de-control and phase-out. They are studying the options of post-control, which have always been part of the discussion.

Such a report and their recommendations haven't been made to government, but I do want to assure this committee, Mr. Chairman, that this government believes the uncertainty created by certain statements will not help the economic situation or the bargaining climate of the province. The very reason we have asked the federal programme to continue is because we need that certain climate and that continuing restraint to help the people' of this province who see their purchasing power eroded, and to help guarantee a more certain economic future.

We've seen certain of our industries in this province who live on exports become uncompetitive through higher costs, no matter how those costs are arrived at. Part of the restraint we have to show in this province falls equally on all parts that make up the higher cost of our goods so that this province can continue to grow and function.

That is the statement we made, and that is the type of information we are still waiting for from our committee. I don't anticipate an abrupt end to the anti-inflation programme. I believe that there will be an orderly procedure. Ultimately, we'll be out of controls. I don't believe - and I don't think anybody believes - in continuing controls. Ultimately we will be out. I don't think we'll be faced with having to deal with some of the options we're studying, but we wouldn't be much of a government if we didn't have the well-qualified staff in the public service studying all options in preparing various possibilities of action to the government of the day.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Premier for giving a nice precis of some of the recent events which have taken place at the First Ministers' conference and various other things. I think that members of the House, and most people in British Columbia, know that various provinces have talked about opting out of controls, that British Columbia is opposed to an early opting-out and would probably like to go beyond the 18 months which they have signed some contract for.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's out. You're making that up.

MR. NICOLSON: That's out. I'm making it up that some provinces want to get out of the controls? I'm making that up?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: That you would go beyond the 18 months. Well, that's interesting then; that's something that he hasn't told us.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's very interesting.

The Premier has pointed out that speculation about the premature ending of controls.... Then he's said that it will cause great economic difficulty. Yet he himself says that he wants them to remain until the end of 1978. His Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) says that they're considering introducing their own wage and price control programme if Ottawa disbands its programme. We have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) saying that if we were

[ Page 1483 ]

to do what the Minister of Finance is suggesting we should consider, it could lead to workers moving out of British Columbia into non-regulated areas and industries might be moving to British Columbia in order to take advantage of wage controls. Yet the Premier says that this would cause some problems.

Well, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, to pursue this matter in this manner we won't find out what is really going on in these conflicting statements. Perhaps the clue lies in another article that was in the Victoria Times, Tuesday, February 22. It was suggested that the Premier is perhaps engaged in a struggle with the Minister of Labour and that he has been trying to undercut him, and that the Premier attacked the Minister of Labour when he made suggestions such as his suggestions about duration of contracts and freedom of people on strike to seek second jobs. The Premier made remarks in a speech about that time that perhaps the labour climate would be improved if people on strike were forbidden from taking second jobs.

The Minister of Labour took exception to those remarks and the Premier invading his domain. Perhaps the statements which we read in the paper this morning - the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Labour - are a response to the Premier invading his domain. So perhaps the logic in this is that it is more a struggle within the Social Credit cabinet benches than it is based on reason, because the Premier did not answer the question. Maybe the answer is as simple as that - that there is a power struggle within the Social Credit cabinet.

Move one: an opinion is expressed on the possible removal of wage and price controls, the Premier and the Minister of Finance - one could say Gepetto and Pinoechio - being in concert. Then the Premier, some weeks later in an unrelated manner, makes comments in the field of the Minister of Labour about possible labour legislation, which he knows to be an anathema to the Minister of Labour. Now move three: the Minister of Labour says that what the Premier and his Minister of Finance were considering would lead to disastrous effects for the B.C. economy. It would lead to mass migration of workers from the province to regions without controls and to companies seeking shelter against high wage increases in B.C.

In the face of what he has just told us - that various provinces are going to pull out - 1 would like the Premier to say that if they pull out, we will not have wage and price controls right across Canada.

It's been stated by the Minister of Finance that they are considering introducing their own wage-and-price controls. The Minister of Labour is saying that that would be disastrous. What is the provincial government planning in view of this? This is not hypothetical; this is a fact. We know that you would like to see the whole country remain together on this, but in view of the facts, and in view of the fact that your Minister of Finance says that you are considering withdrawal from emergency measures -or having a unilateral or provincial price-and-wage control programme - what is the policy of the government? Is it the policy of the Minister of Labour? Or is it the policy as expressed by the Premier and the Minister of Finance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier wanted to get up to answer that question, and I'd certainly defer to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've recognized you, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I'd be quite happy to defer, though, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would like to answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is not quite correct. Only one province has withdrawn from the anti-inflation programme, and that's Quebec. The other provinces are all holding discussions with the federal government on the future of the programme, as British Columbia is.

I can speculate, but as of now all provinces with the exception of Quebec have some relationship with the national anti-inflation programme.

I think at this time it does no good to be iffy. What we have to do is provide some sort of stable climate in which not only labour negotiations can take place but under which economic planning could be done - both in the government and the private sector. What I am saying, and it is what we have said all along, is that the staff that have dealt with it and the cabinet committee that has dealt with this programme since the government of British Columbia joined it through a bill passed in this Legislature are continuing the same type of action now. They are studying all possibilities and all options in order to meet a continued goal of restraint. All options are being studied. The report on any of these options hasn't been received by the government.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point to the Premier. The Premier has said that speculation about the premature ending of price-and-wage controls will cause trouble and can cause chaos. Yet it is his two ministers who are creating this chaos. They are speculating upon the premature ending of the price-and-wage control programme. Not only that, but they are taking entirely contrary positions upon it. With that kind of speculation going on about this, I wonder if the First Minister cannot once and for all put his House in

[ Page 1484 ]

order and call those ministers to task.

He can't do it. He says he cannot call them to task. That's just exactly what I have suspected, Mr. Chairman. He can't call them to task. "Williams is Out of Control" - headline. It's the Minister of Labour and it's the Premier taking their moves in their little chess game for power when the economy of British Columbia is on the skids.

That is my concern in this, Mr. Chairman. They are not minded of some of the real problems. They are distracted from the real economic problems of this province because of their power struggle. Certainly we can see the Premier making premature announcements about the functions of the Ministry of Labour - ones which the Minister of Labour later turns around and denies. He says that we will not take this direction. He talks to the B.C. Federation of Labour, and he dissociates himself from the little forecasts of the Premier, the little kite-flyers made at $1 00-a-plate dinners.

So we see this struggle going on, and it is creating uncertainty. I can only say that my fears are realized. It is with regret that I see it this way.

MS. SANFORD: The Premier has had a lot of difficulty in controlling what the various ministers within his cabinet are saying. They keep shooting off in various directions, and from time to time he has to indicate who's speaking for whom and what the government position is. It doesn't show too much leadership and too much control by the Premier of this province.

I think that the member for Nelson-Creston is quite right that you should exercise some leadership here in trying to control what the various ministers within that cabinet are saying so that we in the opposition and the public generally have some idea of what this government stands for - if anything.

Mr. Chairman, I don't expect that the Premier can answer for all of his backbenchers and what they're saying. Whenever they speak, I think that we can assume that they are not speaking for government, that what they're saying is their own opinion. But when cabinet ministers speak, it seems to me logical to expect that their statements represent what the government stands for. Is that not a logical assumption? Or does each minister just simply speak his own mind or her own mind within that government and it is only you, Mr. Premier, who speaks for the government? It's confusing, Mr. Chairman.

We've had instances of some interesting comments made by backbenchers, and 1 really feel that the Premier should be made aware of these. Because I know he is a very busy man and he can't keep track of what everybody says in his back bench. But there are a couple of statements here that 1 think the First Minister should be aware of, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: Tell us what the back bench says.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I will. I'll tell what the back bench had to say.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Tell us about the Cumberland hospital.

MS. SANFORD: There is the MLA for Omineca.... Yes, why don't you people do something about the Cumberland hospital? That's still not finished. Why don't you do something over there, Mr. Chairman? They shouldn't interrupt like that, should they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: The problem is they don't know who the Minister of Health is.

I would like to indicate to the Premier what some of these backbenchers are saying - or some of the statements made by at least one backbencher, and that's the member for Omineca. He was in Campbell River recently. I know you wouldn't know what he's saying when he is in Campbell River, Mr. Premier, but you should be aware of this, through you, Mr. Chairman.

He was speaking to the Rotary Club in Campbell River. Let me quote to you a few of the statements that he made at that time, Mr. Chairman. He said that "after a short three and a half years, the treasury which on September 1,1972, held a half-billion dollars was empty."

MR. LEVI: How much?

MS. SANFORD: A half-billion dollars! Now they are applauding back there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you going to relate your remarks to the Premier's vote?

MS. SANFORD: Yes. Oh, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: I really feel that it's very important that the Premier knows about this sort of thing. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that he make sure that the back bench is informed because when they're going around the province giving this kind of misinformation, it gives the government a black eye. After all, as First Minister he is the minister responsible for the government and the.... Well, he can't accept responsibility for what every backbencher says.

[ Page 1485 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I do not believe this debate is relevant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm appealing to the Premier to ensure that the members of the back bench have accurate information so that when they're speaking, particularly in my riding, they at least give some correct information. It's important that the First Minister ensure that that back bench gets informed, and that's what I'm asking him to do.

Mr. Chairman, it's not just that. He talked about giveaways, and it's important the Premier knows about this: "The giveaways during those years were horrendous. Anybody and his dog literally, gentlemen, anybody and his dog could get welfare."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the remarks of the hon. member for Omineca in Campbell River are not relevant in this debate.

MS. BROWN: They are very relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to take another tack, please.

MS. SANFORD: The only thing I'm asking you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you kindly move to another subject?

MS. SANFORD: The only appeal that I'm making is that the cabinet, the First Minister for the province, make available to the backbenchers some correct information. That's all I'm asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, hon. member. Would you kindly move on to another subject?

MS. SANFORD: All right. But let's go back to what the members of his cabinet are saying. I hope that that's relevant to the Premier, because after all, he is chairman of the executive council here.

We saw first of all, Mr. Chairman, statements made by the Minister of Human Resources about Quebec. The First Minister at that time had to say no, the Minister of Human Resources did not speak for the province on issues that relate to Quebec - only the Premier did.

MR. KING: Colourful!

MS. SANFORD: Now I'm really wondering - and I would like the Premier to answer this in the House today - whether ministers of the Crown when they speak, are speaking government policy or whether we have to ask the Premier about everything so that we know what government policy is. For instance, if the Minister of Forests says something about the forestry in the province, is he speaking for the government or do we then have to go back and ask the Premier to find out if that's the position of the government?

We've seen time and time again where ministers have made statements and then the Premier has had to move in to correct them. I want to know who to believe. Who does speak for the government on any issue? The backbenchers obviously don't, but do the ministers? Or do we have to place every question through to the Premier himself?

We have the example of the two conflicting statements with respect to assistance to the children of Vietnam. The Premier there had to step in to say what the government was going to do.

I would like to ask the Premier this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, now that he has had all of the information from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with respect to the committee's work on dealing with the medical problems of the children in Vietnam, if the Premier is now prepared to act on his commitment that was made to this House about 10 days ago with respect to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the matter of the Vietnam fund has been completely canvassed in this committee many, many times.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, but Mr. Chairman, I still don't know whether there is going to be a committee set up. I don't know who is going to chair that committee. It was recommended that the member for Oak Bay chair it. I don't know if there is going to be a committee at all. I don't know whether it's going to be dealt with in this fiscal year. After all, we now have a surplus of some $114 million in the first nine months and I would assume that that $2.25 million could be found. I would urge the Premier to tell us this afternoon exactly the timetable that's involved here, how he's going to handle the distribution of that money, whether it's going to be done directly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I draw your attention to standing order 43 which refers to tedious and repetitious debate. This matter has been completely canvassed many, many times.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we don't have answers to those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has been canvassed, hon. member. Would you kindly move on to another subject?

[ Page 1486 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier did not answer some of these questions last time because he said he wanted to get additional information. I'm pointing out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has now received that information, through the kindness of the member for Oak Bay, and I am now asking: now that the Premier has had ample opportunity to study that information, can he tell us this afternoon how that money is going to be distributed to the children in Vietnam? I think that's quite a legitimate question for me to pose this afternoon in view of the fact that he couldn't answer it before because he didn't have the information.

I would also inform the Premier that I was talking to someone who just returned from Vietnam last week. This person was urging me to continue to raise this in the House because she told me that there were three children to a bed in the hospitals all over Vietnam. And this medical aid money which we are prepared to send them is very much needed and it is needed as quickly as we can possibly get it there. I'm hoping that the Premier will indicate to the House this afternoon how that's going to be done.

We've had other examples, Mr. Chairman, of conflicting statements. Again, we have the situation where the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is critical of marketing boards in this province, but I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) doesn't feel that way. But I would like the Premier this afternoon to indicate to the House whether, in fact, they are going to have a full look at the operation of the marketing boards and how much that is going to include. When will that study get underway and what kind of study will it be?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I regret getting into the debate late and I apologize if I ask about matters that might have been touched on earlier this afternoon. I wondered, particularly - and I did hear some of the Premier's responses on the PA system - if we can clarify the confusion which I'm sure exists in the minds of the public regarding the present ongoing discussions on the removal of controls. The Toronto Star printed a report in which, later on, I read the response of , the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , to the effect that, in fact, he was not aware of having received a communication with such definite proposals although he was aware that there had been material circulated to the provincial Ministers of Finance. I don't have the precise clipping with me to quote what the Minister of Finance was reported as saying. Regardless of the specific language or the actual dates that were quoted as options....

I notice the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is paying close attention, because he was also quoted as saying that the federal Minister of

Labour, Mr. Munro, at a meeting a week or two ago, had left the clear impression that there would not be an early removal of controls. Our minister was no sooner back in his home province than there were federal leaks to The Toronto Star to suggest otherwise.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Denied. Read the papers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just trying to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that over the past three months, dating from the conference that the Premier attended in December.... When responding in question period to one of my questions just weeks ago, the Premier said he thought the member for Oak Bay was confused because he, the Premier, had taken part in a conference as recently as December, at which it was quite obvious that the controls would not be coming off early and that it was his clear understanding, in fact - I don't have the transcript of Hansard , in front of me - that the controls would stay on until the end of the programme, which was December, 1978. I'm not criticizing the Premier for making that statement. The point I'm trying to make is that what the federal government seems to be saying at conferences. . . .

I wish the minister wouldn't think this is so funny, because it's not the least bit funny, as he knows. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is smiling as though this was something frivolous. The point I'm trying to make is that if you talk to any person on the street and they read these conflicting reports in the newspaper, no wonder you're having trouble deciding what labour negotiations are going to be like for the rest of this year. So I don't know why you're smiling.

MR. KEMPF: Take it easy, Scott. You're going to have a coronary.

MR. WALLACE: Don't you bother giving me medical advice! It's you who needs the medical advice!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I came back to town this afternoon just trying to be constructive and reasonable, and I no sooner get on my feet than I run into a barrage of heckling from across the way.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): That's a good line, Scotty.

[ Page 1487 ]

MR. WALLACE: I'll try and regain my original composure.

Mr. Chairman, everyone in British Columbia and everyone in Canada knows what an immensely difficult decision it is regarding controls. In recent months, if not in recent years, the people in this province have not been overly impressed by the commitment of the federal government to keep its word with the provinces. I've already talked in this House about the unilateral way in which the federal government has welched on agreements, particularly in the field of cost-sharing in hospitals and medicare, where the co-operative spirit which is supposed to be the basis on which Confederation survives, or doesn't survive, is sadly thrown into disrepute when vital programmes, involving hundreds of millions of dollars in cost-sharing, are unilaterally changed by the federal government.

The point that perhaps I'm taking too long to get to is that in relation to the discussions going on regarding the removal of controls, I for one, contrary to what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) might think, do read the papers very carefully and see the way in which the federal position shifts from day to day and the incredible way in which our provincial ministers who are involved in this very important field are left looking rather foolish. They go to a conference with federal ministers and get one clear impression and then the federal government, Donald Macdonald in particular, make statements in the national press which completely contradict the image that's been given to our provincial ministers.

All I was trying to elucidate is the degree to which our Premier feels that the federal government is corresponding with this government and other provincial governments in good faith and to what degree, if any, they appear to be breaching confidences which take place at these crucial federal-provincial meetings where we're trying to figure out when controls should be lifted and the manner in which the post-control era should be managed. Because there's no doubt whatever - and the Premier and Minister of Labour know this better than anybody - that if controls are just lifted in an abrupt or inefficient way, we can look forward to another surge of inflation which will put us right back to where we were two years ago. That isn't any idle thought of panic or emotion. This is a voice that's being articulated by many very competent and highly respected people in both the area of business and management.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I just get the clear impression from these repeated statements in the press and, as the Minister of Labour said, subsequent denials. I just wonder how often the federal government is simply flying flags and telling our provincial ministers one thing in the conference room and then going out to the media to fly a flag in a slightly different wind.

MR. LEA: Almost every time.

MR. WALLACE: It may not be that the Premier can answer that question, and I may be wrong in implying or suggesting that the federal government's really playing games on one hand with provincial governments and on the other hand with the media right across the country. But it's most confusing.

I would like to end this comment just by asking the Premier if it's his understanding that the ball park, if I could use that phrase, that we're now in for the end of controls is somewhere between October, 1977, and January, 1978. As I quoted earlier in the House, one of the most important federal ministers in this country made the incredible statement about removing controls that if he had to make a bet, he would gamble on January, 1978. Now what kind of language and irresponsibility is that for the federal Minister of Finance? And this was a public meeting! He addressed a group, I think, in Toronto.

Are we as a provincial government supposed to divine the particular mind of a man with that responsibility, of the top financial administrator in the country, who says that if he had to make a bet he would gamble on the controls coming off in January, 1978? What kind of a ridiculous statement is that from the federal Minister of Finance? It's not just that it's ridiculous; it must make life virtually impossible for this government and this Premier to try and figure out what the federal government really is up to. Or does it know itself? I don't even know if it knows its own mind. All I do know is that they've admitted that they're finding it difficult to convince the provinces that they should take the controls off earlier.

I came in late in the debate and I just heard a member comment very aptly, I think, that one thing they should be fair about and realize is that they should respect the provinces' opinions on this issue if on no other. Because if the controls are removed federally, the kind of attempt that we might make provincially to maintain some measure of control would perhaps be little more than symbolic.

There are one or two of the other points I wanted to touch on quickly, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to go over all the arguments of separation and the crisis that Canada's fast approaching, but I noticed that the Premier was reported as saying that separation is a cowardly way out. I really think that the Premier should reconsider that statement, not only the fact that I'm not allowed to use that word in this House, Mr. Chairman. If I said that the Premier was cowardly you would ask me to withdraw, I'm sure. I'm not even going to try it on for size.

[ Page 1488 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're a wise man.

MR.WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we grow older we always hope to grow wiser.

MR. LEA: If you were allowed to say it, would you?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sympathetic to your feelings.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we are all agreed in this House that we're being outspoken and explicit in our point of view about this debate on Confederation. I just make the comment in passing that I think that kind of comment by the Premier really doesn't help to create the kind of atmosphere where we might enter into dialogue with the other provinces in a constructive and positive way. Actually, I think for Quebec to withdraw from Canada and from Confederation would not so much be a cowardly act as, indeed, an act of frustration which, in their opinion, they would be doing because they've tried the other options and the other options have failed. I'm much more willing to acknowledge the Premier's positive constructive idea, that maybe a regional form of Confederation is more appropriate in the modern context and in the light of the problems that face a country as large as Canada. By large I mean geographically, with a such a relatively small population.

Before I leave that point I still would like the Premier's reassurance that he does have a greater level of tolerance than some of his ministers, because one minister said that bilingualism is hogwash. Now whatever we might think about the way in which bilingualism has been dealt with in Canada - and I'm as critical as anyone of the actual way in which money has been wasted, albeit it in an attempt to promote bilingualism - I just suggest that this government and this cabinet doesn't add credibility to its commitment to Canada when a minister makes that kind of public statement - that as far as he's concerned bilingualism is hogwash.

I don't wish to belabour this point because many others have commented on it. But I would like some statement from the Premier, to just simply put himself on the record on behalf of the government that he leads, that he certainly respects the legitimate aspirations of both founding nations to be able to have access to service and education and other advantages in the language of their choice. To me that seems a very basic and reasonable request of either of the founding races. But it is disturbing that when the Premier makes a strong public commitment to Confederation and one of his cabinet makes a very damaging and really a very unintelligent comment of that nature, there is no corrective statement from the Premier. I feel that this is a good time - as we get to the end of the Premier's estimates - for him to give us some quick resume' of his position regarding Confederation and put some of these points that we're asking on the record.

One of the areas that I wish to touch on briefly is in regard to one of the basic principles which the Premier expounded in gaining election as leader of the new Social Credit government. That was the concern about individual rights. Perhaps the most symbolic part of that plank of the platform related to the former debate on Bill 42, the importance of property rights and the right of the individual to own land and property and to deal as he would choose with his land or his property.

I am still deeply concerned about the bill which the Premier has referred to on various occasions because of its inherent purpose, namely Bill 23, which is the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act. I can recognize the Premier's reason for trying to put the use of government office space on a rational and reasonable basis - that part of the bill I can understand. But what really still concerns me is that the actual Crown corporation, consisting of five members of cabinet and public employees, have in their own right the power to expropriate property. Since the Premier did make a strong commitment to try and protect the rights of the individual in the face of bigger and bigger governments and various arms of government such as Crown corporations, to bring in that particular bill in the first session of the new government which had been elected in large measure because, I think, many people were concerned about the growth and the size of government under the NDP administration and the danger of having various arms of government such as Crown corporations -and we've heard enough about Hydro to last us all session.... It would seem strange indeed that the Premier would agree to this type of bill where a great deal of power is given to five cabinet ministers who constitute the board of directors of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They are given very clear power to expropriate property of an individual.

Now I presume the kind of argument that could be raised is that the chances of that being used against an individual are remote. Maybe they are, but principles are principles, Mr. Chairman. It's the same as trying to suggest that a woman can be just a little bit pregnant. If we believe in the principle that modern government should be protecting the right of the individual, then slipping a little bit of expropriation power into this bill or that bill where the corporation is not necessarily responsible to the Legislature is not in keeping with a very central plank of the government's election platform, and the plank in the platform with which I could very readily agree. So I just wondered if the Premier would care to comment on that.

[ Page 1489 ]

Last but not least, I wonder if the Premier can give us any more up-to-date information on his plans regarding electoral reform. I know that he has made a commitment to set up another commission, and I would just like to know two things in particular. Can he tell us approximately when it is likely that will have to be set up? As he knows, the last one we had was set up relatively close to what proved to be the next election.

It's difficult, as we know at the federal level, to redraw boundaries and have all the consequent administrative work done to make these new boundaries apply to the next election, whether it's provincial or federal. I am sure the Premier is well aware of the tremendous amount of work that has been involved at the federal level since the boundaries were redrawn. A great deal of time is required between the time that an electoral reform commission is set up and the date at which its recommendations can be implemented. I would be grateful to know if the Premier has some approximate idea when the commission will be set up.

Secondly, can he tell us at this time what the general terms of reference of that commission would be? Would we be dealing mainly with geographic redistribution or would we be going into the wider area of election expenses and all the possibilities that holds for per capita payment by the state as is incorporated in the new federal expenses Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean another whale?

MR. WALLACE: Could we anticipate that the electoral reform would be looking at actually providing alternative forms of balloting? I know this is a very large issue, but I was reading the editorial by The Daily Colonist on January 2 when it was reviewing the government's first year in office.

I'm sure the Premier read this editorial. I don't think it would be anything but fair to read their summation that in one year the government had kept 10 election promises, 17 were in the process of being kept, 30 were in the classification they defined as "no telling, " and 4 had been broken outright.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, that isn't altogether bad, actually. I needn't bore the House by reminding them about the one outstanding pledge that was broken, and that was the one not to raise taxes. But Mr. Chairman might suggest that I don't get back to the debate on the Minister of Finance.

Actually, while politicians should know better than to harass the media, the incredible thing about the editorial in the Colonist was that it missed out the whole area and didn't say anything about it. It even missed out the documentation of all the 92 pledges.

It didn't even mention the pledge of the government to move into the area of financing intermediate care and emulate Alberta by providing nursing-home facilities. I'm sure the first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) is very mindful of some of the discussion that went on, but I won't intrude into that area at the moment.

So the government's performance in one year in relation to the Premier's commitments at election time isn't bad. It's not as good as it might be, but I think that the Colonist summed it up reasonably well and I'd go along with that. But I think it is time, if the Premier could answer these two specific areas -the question of Bill 23, which seems to break the commitment to individual rights, and the question of electoral reform.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, members have raised several subjects that I should respond to. I think I'll respond to one of the last ones first, and that's the question of the individual rights, because I hope that most members of this Legislature have that as a primary concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) can just control himself, I'd like to deal with this very important subject.

In response to the member for Oak Bay, last year when we brought in the B.C. Buildings Corporation, it was brought in specifically to consolidate government building space, waste of which had been well identified during the last administration. Nobody needs to rehash that old debate because I'm sure that during the sitting of the Legislature this year we'll have ample opportunity to have examples of the type of costs that went on in the allocation and in the provision of space within the Public Works department.

However, I will say that this was an attempt to try to make each ministry of government accountable for the space for which they contracted, space that they had built at their request, specifications that they had provided. It was to make them accountable for those costs and make them part, on a rental basis, of their continuing expenditures over coming years. It was an easy way to expend large sums of government money without that particular department being accountable.

We were a new government then, and many of the clauses that were put in bills were put in - and we'll take responsibility for it - as a new government rushing in legislation. I want to assure that member, assure this House and assure British Columbians that our commitment to individual rights is as strong as ever. At this session you will be asked to approve an amendment taking away the expropriation rights

[ Page 1490 ]

from the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

MR. WALLACE: Right on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to the enthusiastic member for Oak Bay, we have many concerns about this after it was raised in the House by our own caucus, by that particular member and others. I see no reason why this corporation.... In fact, I would fear some of those powers being given to this corporation. We have just as much fear of this corporation reporting to us as government as we would to any succeeding government that may happen in British Columbia. I give you that assurance, Mr. Chairman - to that member and to those members of our party who have pushed to have this section removed - that expropriation procedures will be removed from the B.C. Buildings Corporation at this session, hopefully with the support of all members of the House.

The member has asked me about electoral reform. I think we touched this last year; I can touch it again. We will be appointing, as we said in the election, a full study of all aspects of electoral reform. In fact, the commission will be appointed and the report will be in and dealt with before we go to the people. That means that it should be considered at next spring's sitting of the Legislature, as there's a possible election in any of the years 1978,1979 or 1980. We don't want to call a commission and then call an election without having dealt with those recommendations. I think that's the height of hypocrisy - to see the need, call the commission and then call an election without ever dealing with the subject. We'll be very pleased to call that commission.

MR. KING: You are sanctimonious.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And we will be dealing with it, Mr. Chairman, at the next session - next spring's or next year's session - in advance of any possible election.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In time, in due course. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) ...

AN HON. MEMBER: The Socred Party's working on it now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... also asked about the Anti-Inflation Board and the anti-inflation programme. I did cover that while the member was out of the House collecting his notes. Just briefly, he did suggest.... I'm not blaming any single government, nor defending another, but in December we had unanimity. In February, not just the federal government, but we had provincial governments withdrawing. The government of Quebec had publicly withdrawn from the programme and we had other provinces - primarily the province of Ontario -asking to withdraw certain parts of the programme. The province of Manitoba was also suggesting that they would withdraw.

Because of the discussions that are going on now across Canada with the provincial governments or with the Anti-inflation Board and Mr. Pepin, I'm hopeful that we won't have an abrupt withdrawal of the programme which would be disastrous. But we have always said. . . . I'm still hopeful the programme can continue because we haven't developed the necessary type of restraint, nor have we defeated the inflation that has robbed, and is still robbing, the purchasing power of our people, and particularly those on low and fixed incomes. Inflation is a cruel tax. It's the cruellest tax of all on those of modest circumstances. Inflation, then, must be a priority of coming to grips with. British Columbia still has a very unacceptable rate of inflation above the national average.

We still occupy that unenviable traditional position that British Columbia has occupied for many years of having higher costs ahead of the rest of the country, and higher prices. This has been the tradition in British Columbia, one I hope that we could reverse or at least bring to a halt.

I know that many of the conditions that created that problem - that of being the fastest growing province in all of Canada up through the '60s and up through the early '70s when we grew at 3 per cent a year - were brought to a halt. We now have a growth rate substantially less than the 3 per cent a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good name for it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But the difficult results of that - that is the higher prices and the high costs -have not ended in British Columbia, and that's the area we have to bring to a halt. That is why we supported the anti-inflation programme and why we wanted to develop restraint in all segments of our society in this province - to meet those goals. I mean the goals that I think all members of this House have in their minds.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the meetings are continuous.

Mr. Pepin was in Victoria and in consultation with the staff - those who have worked on the programme in the public service of British Columbia with the

[ Page 1491 ]

federal government. Those discussions on the de-control and p o st-control programme are continuing. Also they are looking at the alternatives of what British Columbia should do if any one of several things happen, to give us at least the information on which we can assess the various options open to us.

You mentioned Confederation. We did discuss Confederation, Mr. Member, while you were, again, bringing your notes to the House. I have discussed it before, and I think the British Columbia statement has been well made in this House. Earlier we were discussing PWA on third-level carriers. There are British Columbia companies now that are in the position of providing third-level carrier service within our province. They have been picking up routes as some of the major carriers move out, particularly, I guess, PWA, which has been trying to remove itself from some of the third-level carrier routes.

I think this matter would be better brought up in the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Transportation and Communications. But discussions have gone on in trying to encourage more and better third-level carrier routes and service around the province. One of the areas that has been under discussion as part of the negotiations on the coastal ferry service that have gone on with the federal minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, is also their continuing responsibility to provide air service to the people in the remote areas of the province - along the coast and in other parts of British Columbia - at a reasonable cost.

There are a number of B.C. companies - not PWA - providing third-level service that are in the position to expand and provide this service.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think those are the notes I had to respond to, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there are two ways in which you can lie: you can stand up and you can say words that are untrue or you can do it by omission, by not saying any words and not letting people know what's going on. I'd like to ask the Premier again, because I know that he would not want to in any way tell an untruth by omission, by not speaking, to tell an untruth.

I would like to ask the Premier again whether or not Arthur Weeks worked for him personally in the Premier's suite for the time between December 22 and January 8. During that time did he write letters on the Premier's behalf and signed those letters or did the Premier sign the letters after Mr. Weeks had written them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with respect, 1 would suggest that these questions have been asked at least four times, and 1 think the Premier has the questions.

MR. LEA: The Premier has not answered the questions, Mr. Chairman. 1 believe that we have the right to know ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: ... whether Mr. Weeks....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have the tradition of this House which says that we cannot insist on an answer. We can ask the question, and we can ask for leniency from the Chair to even ask the question as many as four times. However we cannot insist on the answer.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, 1 am not insisting. 1 am merely asking the Premier to let the province know what happened in his office between December 22 and January 8. 1 would like to know whether Arthur Weeks worked in that office. 1 would like to know who paid him. 1 would like to know whether a secretary was supplied to Mr. Weeks at taxpayers' expense. 1 would like to know whether Mr. Weeks wrote letters on behalf of the Premier and whether he made phone calls on behalf of the Premier from his office in the Premier's suite.

MR. KING: Was he called Kojak then?

MR. LEA: Was he called Kojak then? No, this is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. The Premier should stand up in this House and acknowledge whether or not Mr. Weeks worked for him in the Premier's suite and whether he placed Mr. Weeks in the office of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

If you will recall, Mr. Chairman, when the press asked the Minister of Economic Development what qualifications Mr. Weeks had when he hired him, the Minister of Economic Development giggled and said: 'Well, what qualifications does anybody have?" But we now know that if it had probably been up to the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Weeks wouldn't have worked in his office in the first place. The only reason he worked there is because the Premier placed him there.

1 remind you, Mr. Chairman, of the conversation again. The day that Mr. Weeks went up to see the Minister of Economic Development to see about a job, when he returned to his office he was paid a visit by the Premier, in the Premier's suite, and he said: "How did you make out?" He said: "Everything went fine except about the wages." The Premier then

[ Page 1492 ]

replied to Mr. Weeks: "The wages are up to Mr. Phillips." Whether or not Mr. Weeks worked in that office, of course, was not up to Mr. Phillips; that was up to the Premier. It's obvious that Mr. Weeks has always been the Premier's man.

To what extent? Why? Why did the Premier keep him around after he doctored the Levi cheque? Why didn't he get rid of him? Why did the Premier send him to 895 Fort Street to work for the Social Credit Party after doctoring the Levi cheque? Why did he have him work very closely with Mr. Lillico and Mr. Campbell during the 1975 campaign?

What, if anything, did Mr. Weeks have on the Premier? Did he have something on him? Did the Premier, in fact, not only know about the doctored cheques, but was Mr. Weeks following orders? If so, whose orders - the Premier's, when he was leader of the opposition?

Why has Mr. Weeks been treated differently by the Premier than anyone else? Why was he so concerned about Mr. Weeks' future that he placed him in the Minister of Economic Development's office and then, when the scandal hit, won't even admit to knowing Mr. Weeks? Why is that?

MR. KING: That's loyalty.

MR. LEA: Did Mr. Weeks arrange the visit and the meeting of the Premier with Senator Jackson from the United States? Did Mr. Weeks write to Mr. Jackson on the Premier's behalf between December 22 and January 8? Will the Premier file in this House all correspondence from his office that Mr. Weeks either wrote or had a part in writing between December 22,1975, and January 8,1976? Did Mr. Weeks make phone calls at the taxpayers' expense from the suite of the Premier in the office that Mr. Weeks occupied in the Premier's suite between December 22 and January 8?

Why was the Premier so interested in Mr. Weeks that he looked after him to the extent that he got $10,000 a year more than anybody else they looked after who became executive assistants to the ministers? Why?

Mr. Weeks has testified under oath that he was the personal servant of the Premier and worked for him right up until January 8, when he went to work for the Minister of Economic Development. Is the Premier going to - by omission - not let the House know what the facts are by not speaking at all?

MR. KING: Why did you pay Weeks more than those guys?

MR. LEA: Why is right. But why did he force the Minister of Economic Development to employ Weeks in that very sensitive role, knowing the track record of Mr. Weeks - the doctoring of cheques? Why did the Premier place Mr. Weeks in that minister's office? The people of this province have a right to know why he placed Mr. Weeks in that office.

There's no use shaking your head, Mr. Premier. You put him there! Why? What did you owe him?

Does it go back to Mr. Manning and Mr. Weeks and bringing in the Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education? I realize that when you came in from Kelowna you weren't that sophisticated and Mr. Weeks could have taken you in with his education ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. LEA: ... and his knowledge of people in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Social Credit Party. You met with them during the convention. The Premier, Mr. Manning and Mr. Weeks met at the time they were trying to bring the Liberals into the caucus. Mr. Weeks is known to have inroads into the Liberal society of Vancouver - big-L Liberal. I doubt whether he has many into the little-1.

But what did Mr. Weeks have on this government? Why was he treated differently? Now they try to say: "Oh, when scandal pops up its head we cut it off and put in enquiries and we do all of that." But why did this scandal take place in the first place when it could have been avoided by not hiring Mr. Weeks? Why did the Premier hire him? Why did he insist that the Minister of Economic Development hire him? Will the Premier file in the House those letters? Will he admit now that Mr. Weeks worked for him and that he looked after him and he was his boy? Will he admit it?

Did the conversation take place? Would the Premier care to deny, Mr. Chairman, that the conversation took place? How did you make out? Everything was settled except the wages. "The wages are up to Mr. Phillips, " the Premier replied to Mr. Weeks. Will he admit it? Why did he do that? And why is he not saying anything today? Why is he letting the Minister of Economic Development take all the flak for hiring someone who shouldn't have been hired when, in fact, that minister did not do the hiring and, indeed, had no say about it? Mr. Weeks was put there by the Premier. That's who he was put there by, and the people in this province have a right to know that the First Minister is the person who made the error in judgment. That's what they have a right to know.

The Premier, not one of his other ministers, made that error in judgment, and we now have scandal in the province. Why isn't the Premier standing up and saying: "Yes, he worked for me, and I made a mistake. I thought he was a good man for the job and I told the Minister of Economic Development to take him."? Why not?

[ Page 1493 ]

MR. KING: Do you have a shower in your office, Don?

MR. LEA: Maybe the Premier now will stand up and say that maybe I am full of baloney, that none of it is the truth. Why doesn't he stand up and at least say that? Why doesn't he say that the member for Prince Rupert doesn't know what he's talking about? He won't stand up and say that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He doesn't know what he is talking about. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Go one step further and stand up and say that I am lying about the conversation that took place! Stand up and say that! You don't dare!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I hate to change the question that was going because it was really getting very interesting, and I'd really defer to the Premier if he wishes to answer the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the Premier, and I won't be too long. But I do know that the Premier met recently with the federal Minister of Transport in Ottawa regarding subsidies to B.C. Ferries and, hopefully, to improve the transportation problems in the central and north coast areas of this province. I would like the Premier to tell this House just what took place in those negotiations, and what plans the government and the Premier have in regard to solving some of the transportation problems that now exist in the central and northern coastal parts of this province.

I would like to know if the government and the Premier have a policy. Is the government prepared, Mr. Chairman, to implement a policy to improve transportation services to the northern part of our coast?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The fact is, Mr. Premier, that you well know that no rational economic development can take place on the coast of our province without a proper transportation service. We have ships available; B.C. Ferries has vessels. There are perhaps some private corporations who are willing to supply a proper transportation service to these areas. I would like the Premier to answer if the government has taken steps to implement a proper service -perhaps a roll-on, roll-off service involving B.C. Ferries, perhaps the purchase or the construction of self-propelled combination freight and passenger vessels to serve these areas, some of which are now virtually isolated.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Prince George is up for sale.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to know, if and when Ottawa does announce a policy of subsidization to B.C. in terms of coast transport, how long it will take to implement that policy on the coast of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. This is a matter of urgent concern. I know that sitting down here in Victoria it's easy to say that nobody's squawking too much lately, and things aren't happening, and they're getting along all right. We lose sight of the fact that an urgent situation does exist in that area. I'm in almost daily touch with those people up there, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, by telephone and by correspondence, and the situation is not getting better. In fact, it's getting much, much worse. I intend to discuss this at greater length and in more detail under the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , but I think that it's the Premier who is responsible overall. I really would like the Premier to answer that particular question.

While I'm on that topic, the B.C. Ferry Corporation at the moment has six directors and it has room for nine. In other words, there are three positions vacant at the moment. I'd like to ask the Premier now if he's willing to consider and perhaps instruct the minister responsible to appoint a director from the mainland coast of this province. Vancouver Island and the lower mainland are very well represented, but we have no director from the mainland coast of this province. Between Gibsons and Prince Rupert, from Howe Sound right up to the Prince Rupert area, there is not one. I'm sure that in an area of possibly 100,000 people, there must be one person who is capable of serving on that board, Mr. Premier.

While we're on that topic of directors, some time ago your government, Mr. Premier, did announce that they were seriously considering union representation - the licensed and unlicensed components of our BCGEU people - to serve as directors on that corporation. I wonder if the Premier would be willing now to tell this House what their plans are in that regard.

I have quite a number of other questions, but while we're on the topic of ferries, Mr. Chairman, I would like to let the Premier know how the people on the Sunshine Coast and the Gulf Islands and the Prince Rupert area feel about this recently announced fare reduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as soon as you are getting into specifics under a particular operation they should be debated under the estimates

[ Page 1494 ]

of the minister responsible. Only general statements are in order under the Premier's.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that advice. But in this particular instance the Premier did make the statement in the opening speech of the current session about the ferry service being brought under a Crown corporation to improve the service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and it should have been debated in that debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: So the Premier has tacitly taken responsibility to improve the service. The fact is that these recently announced reductions, Mr. Chairman, are treated as a joke in my riding. In fact they don't affect the residents in my riding at all and will not stimulate the economies of the Sunshine Coast and/or Vancouver Island and I would very much like to have the Premier comment on that before I proceed with my questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I don't mind dealing partly with the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , whose estimates still have to come before the House.

Let me say that the government of British Columbia has had a long-standing claim against the federal government of Canada for their participation in the ferry service off the coast of British Columbia. The government of Canada has put over $100 million annually into the ferry service on the Atlantic coast, and British Columbia was getting $5 million until this last year when the federal government withdrew a large part of that support on the middle and upper coasts. And now B.C. is substantially only getting $1 million from the government of Canada. It was not at that point ... but it was at that point that we pressed even harder British Columbia's legitimate claim for fair treatment from the government of Canada in treating the Pacific coast with the same consideration as they do the Atlantic coast. It was the government of Canada that created the situation where that ferry service was withdrawn for the members of the middle and upper coasts; it wasn't the government of British Columbia. But we intend to make sure, through our submissions, that ferry service is adequate on the total of the Pacific coast.

We have made strong representation to the government of Canada to rationalize that service under the B.C. Ferry Corporation. If they meet their commitment, and if they meet their responsibility to British Columbia and provide the type of assistance to the B.C. Ferry Corporation where we can take over and provide the service on the total of the coast, then, of course, it goes without saying that the B.C.

Ferry Corporation directorship would be expanded to have people from those areas who would be additionally served under this new expanded B.C. ferry service when the federal government meets their responsibility to British Columbia as a whole, both in the commitment made when we joined Confederation and their responsibility for the communities that they have left with inadequate service - that is to provide the type of dollars that it will take for the Pacific coast of Canada to receive fair treatment.

So, yes, that will take place. We have had meetings. You know about British Columbia making a proposal. It was public. That proposal, in modified form, is being discussed and was discussed, and modified proposals are being discussed by both the federal and provincial cabinets. I hope that by the end of this month, this month of March, 1977, we will have the type of commitment from the government of Canada that they should have made years ago to British Columbia. British Columbians have paid both the capital costs and also the large operating costs of the ferry system on this coast for years, while the Atlantic coast was receiving huge subsidies. I guess we've lost what we have put into the system so far, but what we're looking for is equity as Canadians and fair treatment in the future.

I want to assure that member that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was suggested as the vehicle that could rationalize that service. Yes, if the federal government of Canada does commit to our proposal, then of course directors would be appointed from the additional areas to be served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation in which the federal government has withdrawn Or caused the service to be reduced to an unacceptable rate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, we have been waiting many, many years. Negotiations have been going on with the federal government regarding subsidies to coast transportation for many, many years. Usually British Columbia has been almost left out in the cold in this regard.

But should the federal government respond positively in regard to the negotiations now taking place, I would really like to know if the provincial government and the Premier are ready to respond positively and immediately to a serious situation that now exists on the coast. I can't see that response being carried out in the manner that perhaps it should be if vessels are going to be leased and sold and whatever is happening to our B.C. ferry fleet at the moment. What plans does the government have and the Premier envisage in this manner? I'd really like to know, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Given the commitment of the government to rationalizing the service and hopefully for the first time getting the commitment

[ Page 1495 ]

from the government of Canada to meet their responsibility, then the Department of Energy, Transport and Communications, in consultation with the new Ferry Corporation, I'm sure is going to provide adequate service. But the new B.C. Ferry Corporation, with the directors and the ones that would be supplemented, if we're given that additional responsibility, would have that opportunity to designate new routes on need and to deal directly with the people. That's the type of ferry corporation that we want and you want - one that will be there where the directors can meet directly with the people. That's why a government 3,000 miles away in Ottawa hasn't been sensitive to the needs of those people. That's why we've asked that, in meeting their traditional commitment to B.C., they give us this additional responsibility for those remote routes in the upper and middle coast where they've left the people with a deficient service.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, 1 listened very intently to the First Minister talking in terms of his taking away, or taking away in the future, the rights of expropriation from the new Public Works Buildings Corporation. 1 am pleased to hear that because 1 felt that it was something that wasn't really needed. It is a power vested in cabinet, and it must be a power vested in cabinet.

There are times when it's an absolutely needed situation in our province or in any other jurisdiction to have powers of expropriation. You cannot let the individual's need stand in the way of all of society or the individual's wants stand in the way of all society.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has taught us a good lesson today in this House. He has said: "Let's take those powers away from this new corporation." 1 would like to ask the Premier if he will take those powers away from an old corporation. 1 would like him to stand up in the House today and say that he will take those powers away from Hydro, which has abused those powers, which has expropriated property and ultimately found that they had expropriated beyond their needs, and then sold off the property to new people, to new investors. Mr. Chairman, Hydro has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not worthy of the power of expropriation.

Now I ask the Premier, as the one thing that he can do to show that this gesture isn't just a token gesture around a new corporation, to stand up in the House today and announce that he's going to take those same powers away from British Columbia Hydro Corporation, which has so many powers now that it motivated the Premier to say not long ago words to the effect that that company is too powerful, that the government does not have enough input. So I would like to hear the Premier just stand now and say that he's going to take those powers away from Hydro.

HON. MR. BENNETT: 1 thank the member for New Westminster for mentioning that. We aren't proposing to take those powers away from BCDC as a gesture, but because they are not needed. They shouldn't have been put in in the first place. It's more than a gesture, it was excessive power for that corporation.

What we have under review now, though, is expropriation procedures period - the total expropriation procedures and how they can be made fair to the people of B.C. by government and its agencies, without dealing with any single agency like Hydro or others that do have these powers or the powers that are there under the Water Act. We are looking into fairer and more equitable expropriation procedures to guard the rights of an individual.

1 agree with the statement of the member for New Westminster that there comes a time when an individual cannot unreasonably hold up the good of the people in the general community or the provincial community. As such, what we want is, where we have to have those powers to provide necessary services for people, to make them fairer and more equitable and provide ways in which the individual has more protection against the power of the state, either through itself or its corporations. Those powers are being studied in general, not with the view of restricting any part of government but in the view of making them fairer and more equitable to the individual.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased about that as well. 1 feel that those powers should be mitigated. They should certainly be studied. They have been studied for some long time in this province and I'm pleased that the government is looking at those powers and ways to modify those powers.

Mr. Chairman, what I was really getting at is that the powers are vested in government. Maybe those powers that government has should be modified. But, Mr. Chairman, 1 believe further that Hydro should be denied those rights. Hydro should not have those rights. If the government's own Crown corporation dealing with public works doesn't need them, then 1 suggest to you that Hydro doesn't either. Because Hydro can come to the government any time it wishes, and if it feels that its plans are being wrecked or hurt by individuals who are standing in the way of the real needs of Hydro and the real needs of the people of B.C., it can come to the government and say: "Will you please expropriate?"

1 know it's a bit of a political problem. But 1 believe that that group - not "them, " but cabinets ongoing - are the only groups that should be responsible for expropriation.

[ Page 1496 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Without accepting the suggestion of the member for New Westminster, expropriation in general is under review, in effect, to make it fairer. The first area we've identified as not needing expropriation powers is the B.C. Buildings Corporation and that's exactly what we've done and that's the extent of the commitment I can give the House right now.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, if the Premier had listened to the opposition last year, he wouldn't have given BCBC those powers in the first place. We told him they weren't needed. I'm glad that a year later he's finally wakened up to the fact that they weren't.

But I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, for the man who hired Arthur Weeks. Does the man who hired Arthur Weeks recognize that the Social Credit Party in the last campaign in Victoria promised to pay its full share of property taxes on property it owns in the capital city?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Would the man who hired Arthur Weeks care to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only way....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: One waits for the usual signal -the look, the movement of the microphone, the gesture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: I'll put my question again and take my seat in order to hear the Premier reply, yes. The question is: does the man who hired Arthur Weeks recognize that the Social Credit Party campaigned in Victoria in the last election on a promise to pay its full share of property taxes in the capital city?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's like saying, "If you stop beating your wife. . . .- I think there was a campaign pledge that as government we would see we paid our fair share of property taxes. I don't want to get into semantics with the member. I think all governments over the years - his party also as government - dealt with the problem of providing grants in lieu of taxes or dealing with municipalities, and the various benefits that certain municipalities or cities get by having government departments and weighing those advantages and the cost to those communities.

Within the framework of our budget, we'll deal fairly with the dollars available to us with local governments. I might point out to you that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will be having legislation before this Legislature this year that will give that member ample time to debate fair distribution of revenue for local government.

MR. BARBER: Fair distribution of revenue, being fair, of course, will apply equally to every municipality and regional district in the province. The fact is that the capital city has some unique problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. This is out of order in this particular debate because it does require legislation, and things requiring legislation are clearly out of order in Committee of Supply. Therefore perhaps the member would select another time in which to debate this.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that given that there's no legislation before us, your ruling is, to say the least, questionable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated, hon. member, and I'll read to you the citation. Page 725, May, 18th edition:

"The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in supply on a substantive motion." Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Then I'll simply continue asking questions and putting it to the man who hired Arthur Weeks. Does the man who hired Arthur Weeks recognize that in the capital city the province pays on the basis of 15 mills, and everyone else pays more than three times that? Every other landlord and every other taxpayer pays more than three times the mill rate that the province itself, as landlord, pays in the capital city. Does the Premier recognize that? Apparently not.

Given his silence on that matter, does the man who hired Arthur Weeks also recognize that his government enjoys the unique distinction of having been described by the mayor of Victoria as the biggest welfare bum in British Columbia? Does the Premier recognize that?

MS. BROWN: Shades of Vander Zalm.

MR. KING: I would draw Mr. Chairman's attention to the clock on the wall.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was

[ Page 1497 ]

granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 1 move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, but, Hon. Attorney-General, the committee chairman rose and reported progress and asked leave to sit again. 1 think that's really all that's necessary for the committee to continue at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, just maybe a point of clarification from you. We ran into this situation a night ago of attention being drawn to the clock. At that time 1 believe the motion was the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House, and 1 then moved the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: We were on bills at that time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Aha! Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

APPENDIX

72 Mr. King asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

1. What was the total volume of log export for the years 1975 and 1976?

2. What was the total volume of (a) cs, press, (b) spruce, and (c) pulp-grade logs exported in 1975 and 1976?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. 1975,150, 126 cunits; 1976,208, 239 cunits.

"2. (a) 1975, 29,395 cunits; 1976, 13,377 cunits; (b) 1975, 62,942 cunits; 1976, 70,963 cunits; and (c) There is no official pulp grade. Pulp logs form the major portion of No. 3 grade, which was exported as follows: 1975, 98,398 cunits; 1976,133, 443 cunits."