[ Page 4225 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible breach of Constitution Act. Mr. Wallace –– 4225

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Release of transcript of Bawlf committee. Mr. Skelly –– 4226

Premier's confidence in Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Lea –– 4226

Continuation of the BCR. Mr. Gibson –– 4226

Relocation of highway around Revelstoke Dam. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4227

Presence of Dianne Hartwick at PREP conference. Mrs. Dailly –– 4228

MLAs' participation in museum train visits. Mrs. Dailly –– 4228

Move to reduce highway maintenance crews. Mr. Barnes –– 4228

Date of release of abridged public accounts. Mr. Stupich –– 4228

Kootenay library referendum. Mrs. Wallace –– 4228

Tabling documents

Human Rights Commission second annual report. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4229

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates

On vote 203.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4229

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4229

Mr. King –– 4230

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4231

Mrs. Wallace –– 4231

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4234

Mrs. Wallace –– 4235

Mr. Gibson –– 4235

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4238

On vote 1: legislation

Mr. Gibson –– 4240

Mr. Nicolson –– 4245

Mr. Shelford –– 4246

Mr. King –– 4247

Mrs. Jordan –– 4247

Mr. Mussallem –– 4249

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4250

Supply Act, No. 2,1977 (Bill 79) Hon. Mr. Wolfe,

Introduction and first reading –– 4251

Second reading –– 4251

Committee stage –– 4251

Report and third reading –– 4252

Systems Act (Bill 44) Hon. Mr. Wolfe. Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4252

Mr. Levi –– 4254

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to help me welcome from my constituency of Surrey Mrs. Helen Swindells and her son Freddie.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'm sure the minister will also be interested to know that another of his constituents from Surrey is here, Mr. Roy Stewart, a friend of mine. We were both charter members of Local 5432 of the steelworkers' union. He's here today and I hope the House will welcome him.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery this afternoon is a very good friend of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Paul Reitsman from Parksville. I would like the House to bid him welcome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): In the gallery today visiting us from Fairfield, California, are Mr. Robert Troub, his wife Shirley and their daughter Kathy, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can let this moment go by but that we welcome the honorary Clerk, George MacMinn, to the House.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the House today. I believe that members who have not yet been informed would want to know of the passing two days ago of Mr. George Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing.

Mr. Gray was ill for a number of months, and in fact resigned a short while ago due only to his illness. It's a matter of marvel to all of us that even though his illness was very severe he still managed to come in for part days and took a great deal of work home. As assistant deputy and in other positions in the Ministry of Housing, he served more than one government, and we are all, I think, the poorer as a result of his passing. I have extended expressions of sympathy to his family.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his remarks. I will just add that I, too, will very much miss Mr. George Gray. He served under me, and also with me with the 5th Garry Oak Scout Troop. He was the type of a person who gave his best in everything that he did.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that when I sat as a member of the steering committee of the B.C. Conference on the Family during 1976, the committee paid certain travel and hotel expenses which I incurred in the course of my duties. While the committee was composed of church representatives and other lay persons who made the decision to pay expenses incurred by committee members, the money to meet these expenses was provided from a special projects account set up by the Ministry of Human Resources. This being the case, recent events in the Legislature raise the possibility that as an MLA, I may have breached the Constitution Act by permitting the B.C. Conference on the Family to pay expenses on my behalf.

Having sought a legal opinion, I am advised that whether or not the Constitution Act has been breached is not clear. What is perfectly clear is the fact that on October 24,1976, a cheque for $5 1.86, and on December 8,1976, a cheque for $58.85 were paid by the Ministry of Human Resources to cover some of my travel expenses. On November 4,1976, the Richmond Inn was paid $82.15 to cover the cost of three nights' accommodation while I attended the conference.

Mr. Speaker, any offence I may have committed was certainly done without intent, and it may well be proven that I did not breach the Constitution Act. Whatever the circumstances and the interpretation which may be placed on them, I believe the proper thing for me to do at this juncture is to inform the House and repay the B.C. Conference on the Family an amount equal to the expenses paid on my behalf. This morning I have without prejudice forwarded a cheque in the amount of $192.85 to Canon C. Hilary Butler, who in 1976 was the chairman of the B.C. Conference on the Family.

Mr. Speaker, when this same issue was debated earlier in the House with regard to certain other members, I was of the opinion then that the penalty of disqualification and possible heavy fines was unduly harsh in relation to the alleged offence and I was also of the opinion then that the proper place to have a decision rendered was in the courts. I still hold these opinions and consequently I have today instructed my solicitor to initiate the necessary proceedings in court to obtain a declaration as to whether or not I breached the Constitution Act -and, in particular, section 23 - when I accepted payments for expenses I incurred as a member of the steering committee of the B.C. Conference on the Family.

[ Page 4226 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would seem that the point of privilege raised is more a point of information at this particular stage than a point of privilege, although I appreciate the hon. member -and I'm sure all of the members do - bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Oral questions.

RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPTS

OF BAWLF COMMITTEE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): This question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: have the transcripts of the Bawlf committee been completed, and if so, when will they be released to the House as the minister has promised?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, when the matter was raised in committee debate on the estimates of this ministry, I indicated that we were seeking releases from those individuals who had appeared before the committee. A number of releases have been received. We are in the process of sending a follow-up letter - it should be in the mail today or tomorrow - to those who have not responded.

MR. SKELLY: I wonder if the minister would advise us how many parties are involved who have not responded, how many of those are private groups and how many are local governments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question, which is in three parts, as notice. I cannot offer information offhand as to the precise numbers involved.

PREMIER'S CONFIDENCE IN

MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I have a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier inform this House whether he has full confidence in the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LEA: This is not a facetious question. I would like the Premier to answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is irregular, but if the Premier wishes to answer it, that's his prerogative.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find the question most inappropriate, but I want to tell the member for Prince Rupert that I have full confidence in every member of the cabinet, and confidence in the abilities they've shown. That includes the Minister of Economic Development, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) .

MR. LEA: Will the Premier tell the House whether he has spoken to the Minister of Economic Development about his resignation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, normally I wouldn't answer the question, particularly a question as frivolous as that. Although I consider the question out of order and impertinent, I would suggest that it would only leave the question hanging there if I did not respond to what I consider improper questioning in this House, that I had in fact spoken to the minister about resigning.

No, I have not talked to the Minister of Economic Development about resignation at all, just as I hope no members of the constituency of Prince Rupert have not talked to their member about resigning.

CONTINUATION OF THE BCR

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier as well. The Premier is no doubt aware that residents of Fort Nelson are quite upset, as evidenced by a statement by the mayor last week, about failure to disclose the government's firm intentions regarding the BCR from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson since the council for the royal commission appointed by the Premier indicated that continuation was in question. In view of the fact that this indecision is hampering industrial development in the region, will the Premier assure the residents of northeastern B.C. that that line will be kept open?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no question of mine has ever brought into question the continuation of any part of the British Columbia Railway. I think the members there are responding to

[ Page 4227 ]

testimony that concerned them given to the royal commission. I am not going to anticipate the decision of the royal commission in advance and what suggestions they will give the government, but if the member is asking me at the present time what the government considers, I consider that an operational part of the railway. I have had no recommendations from the new independent directors of the railway that such a line be abandoned, so I can only construe that the mayor of Fort Nelson, Mayor Andrew Schuck, whom I know has been a keen participant in provincial politics, having participated in the last provincial election on the losing side, (laughter) could only be responding in one of two ways to testimony at the royal commission: I think it is improper, or secondly, it is in a political way, which can be taken by members at its own value.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, just in response to some of the Premier's remarks. I think perhaps remarks of the commission counsel indicated that this question would have to be studied. I want to nail down the Premier's answer unequivocally and specifically. Is the Premier saying that as far as he is concerned that line will be continued - period?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've said, Mr. Speaker, that that is a decision by the directors of the B.C. Railway. At no time have they ever made recommendations to government. If they ever did at that time the government would consider what they said. I want to say that they have never recommended it, and I've never considered it. Such a decision would be based on evidence given at that time as to whether the government would support them in their recommendation. I say that this line of questioning only leads to creating the type of indecision that may be created for political reasons and others.

I say right now we have the royal commission investigating the B.C. Railway. The terms of reference are very broad. They are to look into the construction and operations of the past. They are to look at its association with other rail lines, both in the past and the present, but particularly to the future and they are to make recommendations as to how this railway can positively continue to serve British Columbia.

Now I, along with all other British Columbians, am awaiting the results of this royal commission. Certainly the independent board of directors who have been given the responsibility for directing the affairs of the railway, for its operation and for such decisions as it needs to make in those operations -and that includes expansion and use of existing railway facilities - will be the ones to make the first recommendation of government. We as a government are not politically making those decisions for them.

MR. GIBSON: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the Premier speaks of uncertainty, and I'm trying to ask questions to remove that uncertainty which is there whether he likes it or not.

I simply want to ask him if he supports the word of the member for that area who stated - I don't have the exact date - in the newspaper of June 3: "The government has no intention of abandoning or deserting rail services between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson." When asked, "Is that a commitment of the B.C. government?" by Simpson, the open-line host, "yes, " was the response.

I just want the Premier to say that he backs up that commitment on behalf of the government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak or comment upon the questions of MLAs or members. I do say this: I've just told you the government's position very clearly, and that's the government's position.

MR. D. BARRETT: (Leader of the Opposition): Would you build a sawmill on that basis?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wouldn't build a Railwest.

RELOCATION OF HIGHWAY

AROUND REVELSTOKE DAM

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) asked whether or not any highway contracts or any day-labour work was undertaken on the relocation highway incidental to construction of the Revelstoke Dam. I said I wasn't aware of it and that I would look into it.

I'd like to report, Mr. Speaker, to the House that a contract for the relocation of 3.5 miles of Highway 23 at the proposed Revelstoke Dam site was awarded by B.C. Hydro on April 15,1977, for the purpose of detouring the public highway above and around the work area of the dam. This contract involved road construction to agreed Ministry of Highways and Public Works standards and is administered and financed entirely by B.C. Hydro as part of the Revelstoke Dam project. No day-labour work has been undertaken in respect to the Revelstoke Dam.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a supplementary, I want to thank the minister for his response and ask this question: can the minister notify the House whether or not work is still proceeding under that contract or whether that contract was subsequently cancelled?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I understand the work is progressing on that contract.

[ Page 4228 ]

PRESENCE OF DIANNE HARTWICK

AT PREP CONFERENCE

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Twenty-one days ago, on July 12, 1 asked the minister if he would tell the House the duties in his ministry of Dianne Hartwick, who is the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) executive assistant. He took it as notice. I raised the question again and the minister once again took it as notice and said he wished to have more time to give an accurate answer.

Last week, the minister told us on an order paper question that Dianne Hartwick took part in a PREP conference on unemployment in Campbell River earlier this year. My question to the hon. minister is: as the Provincial Secretary has told the House that Dianne Hartwick is working primarily with Human Resources grants programmes, could the Minister of Human Resources explain to the House what this political appointee was doing at the PREP conference?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I was looking through all of this paper earlier thinking that I had the answer to the question ready to table. I'll table it either later today or tomorrow.

However, with respect to the specific question asked today, yes, Miss Dianne Hartwick is also fairly involved in finding employment opportunities for handicapped children - or young people, I should say. Therefore the PREP conference was very important because many of the referrals and the opportunities are brought to our attention by PREP.

MRS. DAILLY: I just hope that when the minister does file her actual duties we will have a complete detailed description, because each time we hear from one minister or the other it seems to be changed. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was a bit on the out of order side in that you didn't ask your supplemental question. You made a statement to the House.

Mr. Clerk?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, no one seemed to be on their feet. If there are further questions to ask, hon. members, I'll listen to them. But when there are no people on their feet, I assume the question period is over.

MLAs' PARTICIPATION IN

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM TRAIN VISITS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. To the Provincial Secretary. could the Provincial Secretary outline to the House the procedures for local MLAs' participation in the visits of the Provincial Museum train to communities in their ridings?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Earlier in the month, Mr. Speaker, the museum train started its tour. Each member in each constituency that the train passes through has been given the itinerary and asked if they would take part in the museum train's programme - to visit the train and give it some sort of a tour and involve themselves with the community. Each member whose riding the museum train passes through has had knowledge of that through a directive from my office.

MOVE TO REDUCE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CREWS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): To the Minister of Highways and Public Works, is there a move on behalf of your department to reduce or eliminate the highway maintenance crews?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there is no move to reduce the highway maintenance crews. As a matter of fact, at the moment it's the highest it's ever been in the history of the province.

DATE OF RELEASE OF

ABRIDGED PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, I wonder if he could just give us some idea when we might expect the abridged public accounts for March 31,1977.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): The latest advice I have is sometime in about the third week of August.

KOOTENAY LIBRARY REFERENDUM

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation relative to the Library Development Commission and their activities. I understand that way back in the latter part of 1975 there were plans for a referendum in the Kootenays to go into a branch of the library on a regional basis under the Library Development Commission. I'm wondering whether or not he has any plans to hold this referendum in the near future.

[ Page 4229 ]

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. Did she ask whether I plan to hold a referendum? I believe I would have to discuss this with the member or take the question as notice because her question isn't clear at all.

Hon. Mr. Williams tables the second annual report of the Human Rights Commission of British Columbia.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 -continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak for five minutes on the Labour estimates. I hope the minister doesn't give a 30-minute reply to my five-minute remarks. He did the other day, Mr. Chairman. It didn't seem like 30 minutes, though; his reply seemed like half an hour. (Laughter.)

I've never seen a minister looking so pleased with himself, sitting there today, empowered with his very capable officials of the Labour ministry. And I mean that - they are very capable officials.

I just want to put on record that I greatly approve of and appreciated the speech made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) on industrial democracy. I'm a little concerned that the Minister of Labour in his reply has sort of indicated "go slow." Well, that was the impression I had; the minister shakes his head. I think that's a shame because I agree for all the cogent reasons put forward that this is one of the major subjects for consideration by western society if we are to avoid the totalitarian routes that so many other societies are taking.

I would hope in adding to what was said by the hon. member and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that the labour committee of the Legislature could well be used in building up the consensus that would make such a programme a success in British Columbia. You know, we could hear from labour leaders, industrial leaders and experts in that field and begin to develop an understanding and appreciation of what is happening in other parts of the world so that in our own way we can move towards industrial democracy in British Columbia, but I just feel that the whole subject has been treated in too go-slow a way.

Mr. Chairman, the specific question I put to the minister involves the very drastic and arbitrary power that can be exercised by an international union in imposing trusteeship on unions within British Columbia. I say it is a drastic and arbitrary power because it means that the local officers can be displaced from their jobs, even though democratically elected, and funds can be seized. In a recent case the department was approached, I think, last June, according to the newspaper, the department had no answer to the situation in local 602 of the International Labourers Union. We have, of course, seen since that time that an order of trusteeship comes down from Washington, D.C. unlimited as to time -I think it's two to five years - and displacing the locally elected and democratically elected officers and presumably freezing and seizing funds. In terms of Canadian autonomy I don't think it's right, no matter how the constitution might be written, that that kind of power should be exercised from outside the borders of British Columbia. In the province of Ontario they have some protection of their Labour Relations Act in the case of trusteeship - I think it's found in section 73 of their Labour Relations Act -where at least the body imposing trusteeship must within 60 days make a report to the Labour Relations Board on what kind of supervision and control they intend to exercise. The trusteeship is limited to 12 months unless that's extended by consent of the Labour Relations Board.

We have no such powers in this province. The dissentients who came to the Department of Labour were turned away. What I ask the minister is: does he feel there is anything his department can do in this situation? If not, and this part of my remarks is out of order, I am going to say there ought to be a law. The Chairman will call me to order, but fortunately he is not listening. Isn't this, though, something we, in terms of Canadian autonomy and the protection of the rights of British Columbians, ought to consider?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I will try to be as brief as I possibly can. The member is absolutely right: there is nothing under legislation in this province which gives us the authority to interfere with the internal management of any trade union in this province. This is the problem that, as the member has so clearly outlined, can arise when, having no such authority, we find that by reason of international associations actions are taken by international unions which have their headquarters and therefore their authority and power outside the geographical limits of this province and of this country. I thought it was an unseemly attack by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on the international trade union movement, and I am sure that the member for Revelstoke -Slocan (Mr. King) will be very quick to put him in his place, if not in this chamber at least privately.

[ Page 4230 ]

1 welcome the suggestion of the member from Vancouver East that this matter be examined. Of growing concern to the workers in the province who are organized is the fact that they can be influenced, if not controlled, by people from other jurisdictions. There is a growing feeling among the trade union movement in British Columbia and in Canada that they are capable of managing their own affairs. I suppose the same thing might be said with respect to the CLC and some of the powers that it seems to be attempting to exercise over trade unions whose responsibility is within the provincial jurisdiction. As the months go by I think that further examination will have to be made of some of the attempts with the CLC to influence the affairs of trade unions within British Columbia.

Nonetheless, I would like to assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the representatives of the labourers' union were not turned away from my office at all. As a matter of fact I have met with them twice for the purposes of fully understanding the problem that confronted them, and subsequently a group of members of that union who are seriously concerned about its future have met with officials of the ministry. The fact that we are unable to give them the assistance they require, because it is a matter of internal union management, was made quite clear to them. Under no circumstances were they turned away.

As a matter of fact I advised them as best I could as to the course of action which they could take with respect to their complaints in the courts of this province. If there was improper interference in the constitutionality and the affairs of the trade union, or if there are improper procedures followed, then just as any other members of an association have rights, so do those members. The closest that we have come in the legislation with regard to interfering with the unions and the relationship of the members is the section of the Labour Code dealing with the ombudsman, as yet unproclaimed. The reason that it has not been proclaimed, as far as this government is concerned, is that we find some significant inadequacies in that part of the Code, and the Code is being examined to determine what improvements can be made.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I kind of regret that the minister described what I said as an "unseemly attack" on international unions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's exactly what it was.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the kind of political remark that I don't think we need from the minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You said I turned them away from my office.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's take them one at a time. First you said I made an unseemly attack on international trade unions. That's not so. Most of the international trade unions have full Canadian autonomy, and this kind of thing is not a problem in the slightest in the steelworkers' union and the IWA. Then, Mr. Chairman, let's be accurate about it. I didn't say they were turned away. I said they came and there was nothing the department could do for them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You said they were turned away from my office.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there was nothing they could do. I don't know why that minister gets so petulant and makes a political issue out of a problem I've raised here in the province of B.C. I think we should all get back to being in a better humour than that in this House. I said in opening I thought that the minister was very pleased with himself and I'm ready to repeat it, because the affair between the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound may go down as one of the great love stories of our time.

I don't know why he has introduced a political attack on me in this. I have raised a serious point that in Ontario and other jurisdictions you don't have to say to people in this kind of a situation that there's nothing that can be done through the Labour Relations Board. I've asked the minister to consider that, and that's all.

MR. KING: I feel I should comment just momentarily, Mr. Chairman. I can say that the problem that the labourers international union is facing never occurred while I occupied the office that the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound occupies now, but it came very very close to it. I think what the first member for Vancouver East raises is a question that the minister should give some thought to and perhaps share with the House his feelings on.

I can conceive of a situation where an international constitution of a trade union conflicts with the laws of the province of B.C. I can conceive of that situation. I think the minister should make a clear statement that in circumstances such as that he will act as the defender of the integrity of the laws in the province of British Columbia and will act to defend any trade union member in the province from being victimized or discriminated against or penalized in any way through an international constitution, resulting from his adherence to the laws of the province of British Columbia. That's inherent in the problem before us, although it may not be the

[ Page 4231 ]

identical situation.

I certainly agree with my colleague from Vancouver East that the Labour Relations Board would be a very appropriate agency to vent the question of whether or not the international is taking a fair and responsible position in terms of putting into almost perpetual trusteeship the local of a Canadian subordinate union when there has been no public hearing and there's been no agency to determine whether or not there's any transgression of the laws of the province of British Columbia involved in the constitutional matter or not. These are questions that should be looked at.

Now the minister may respond with the absence of laws, and that's something we should have dealt with. I would point out that we did produce a completely new Labour Code in the three years we were in office and I'm sure it will be amended as time goes by, in various ways. It's not a statute that covered each and every area that perhaps should have been covered, but it's an area that is very important, and I think will grow in importance.

I would rather hear the minister make some thoughtful comment on it than get into debate on what the preferences of the working people in the province of British Columbia are - whether they're for international unions, strictly Canadian ones, the degree of autonomy which they require and develop within their own unions. Certainly that should remain the preference of the individual worker in this province and it should not be statutorily interfered with. But the question of the integrity of our laws and the question of protection from discrimination through international constitutions should be taken seriously by the minister.

I want to tell the House, Mr. Chairman - and this is the first time I have shared this experience with the House - that here's one little trade unionist who was expelled from an international union for taking political action in the province of British Columbia many years ago. I held that to be a denial of my right, as a Canadian citizen, to participate in the democratic process in this province when I was opposing, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, the re-election of a reactionary Social Credit government at that time. Subsequently I managed to appeal that expulsion from the union.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where did you appeal it?

MR. KING: To the international, through my union, and I brought about a constitutional change. But there was no vehicle then, and there is none now, where the legal rights of B.C. workers can be protected in that kind of circumstance. I think the member for Vancouver East's recommendation regarding the Labour Relations Board as a venting vehicle is an excellent one.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan should well know, the Labour Relations Board has already dealt with the subject and they have decided that if there is a conflict between the constitution of a union or international union and the laws of this province, then the laws of this province prevail. In such cases as the one which the n~ember for Vancouver East raised with regard to the riots of workers within this province, the forum for the resolution of that is in the courts.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the Labour Relations Board decision. That is really not the issue, There's a precedent established where the Labour Relations Board protects the integrity of the B.C. law. What I am asking the minister to consider, recommend and take under advisement, is the obligation to protect a B.C. trade unionist from any penalty that may flow from his violation of an international constitution when he is held to be obeying the law in the province of British Columbia. It's one thing to say that the law will abide in this province but it's not good enough to throw one of our workers to the wolves through leaving him open to penalty under an international constitution in most circumstances. The law is, at the moment, absent in that regard, I submit.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I am going to change the subject slightly. I have on my desk a clipping from the Province some little time ago and it's entitled: "Half-Witted Way to Run our Country." Now I don't want to suggest, and I certainly do not want the Minister of Labour to think, that I am inferring that he is acting in a half-witted manner. 'I would like to point out that this article written by Don McGillivray of the Southam News Service does indicate that perhaps in the field of labour relations we are moving in a half-witted direction.

If we were to allow half of the water behind our dams to run through the sluice gates rather than using it to generate power, that would certainly be considered uneconomic. If we were to let half our farmland grow up to weeds rather than cultivate it, that would certainly be considered uneconomic. But apparently, Mr. Chairman, that is how we approach the labour market, because we do let half of our potential labour resource slip through our fingers, as it were. We are only using half of our brain power. I'm sure the minister realizes by this point in time that what I'm talking about is the women in the labour force.

It's harder somehow to be really aware that there is an enormous economic waste involved in the women in the labour force than it is to recognize things like water through a sluice gate or weeds

[ Page 4232 ]

growing on arable land. But it can be assumed, since there is no evidence to the contrary, that intelligence and potential skills are given as much to women as they are to men. Yet we seem to ignore this female half of the population.

I agree there has been some move to put women in jobs more related to their abilities, but it's a very, very slow process, Mr. Chairman. We keep putting them into women's jobs. We think of things like stenographers, sales clerks, bookkeepers, elementary school teachers, waitresses and those sort of things. That's where the women wind up in the work force. We are using those potential captains of industry as file clerks, and we are using potential scientists as typists and we're letting potential surgeons carry bedpans.

This relates, and it has always related, to the cost of putting women into the work force. I suggest it's time we took a new tack, Mr. Chairman, and that we started thinking about the loss in not putting women into those potential positions. It's a half-witted way to run a country. I would urge the minister, under his administrative responsibilities, to do some work in relation to motivating employees from the point of view of the thing that they understand best - making full use of the potential; not wasting a facility at hand; using that other half of the labour force to its full potential.

There are many specific problems that have to be considered, particularly in the more northerly and outlying parts of the province. It has to do with things like, simply, babysitting. That's a very important thing if women are going to have an equal opportunity. There must be babysitting facilities available. Always, Mr. Chairman, in times of unemployment women find themselves in the most difficult position. The higher the unemployment, the more difficult for women to involve themselves in the labour force.

Unfortunately, I had hoped to gain the floor yesterday before the minister filed his bill. I had some pertinent data which I wished to relate to this, but I rather than have you call me out of order, Mr. Chairman, I shall retain that for the time when we are discussing the apprenticeship bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would never do that.

MRS. WALLACE: He has been known to do that, Mr. Member for North Vancouver.

I want to move on to another suggestion for the minister to consider when he is doing his research, and that is relative to the merit increase system. This is a system that relates specifically in most cases to the clerical worker and the office worker, where we have steps from I to 5, or 1 to 6, or whatever. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's very unlikely that the top step represents higher than the amount due to that employee.

What is happening, in effect, in my estimation, is that barring a short probationary period when, granted, the employee is learning a job, as you move through those one to five steps over a period of five years or so, you are really being underpaid until you reach that top step. This is a form of exploitation of those employees, Mr. Chairman.

I would urge the minister to give some thought to investigating that matter and doing some research on that particular point with a view to correcting that kind of contractual arrangements with those merit steps. I still contend that there is no company that is going to pay more than an employee is worth because they have been there for X number of years. In reality what they are doing is getting cheap help in those five years preceding that top step.

Another point that should be of great interest to the minister in these days of high unemployment is the question of retirement. I would comment to his consideration what's going on in Sweden. This particular clipping is datelined Stockholm. Mr. Chairman, they're pioneering a pension scheme that allows employees to retire gradually. Workers age 60 and over are able to cut back their working week to as little as 17 hours and they still retain about 85 per cent of their regular pay. Now this meets some obstruction from employers because it means they have to hire part-time workers or other workers to fill in, but I suggest that that is not a bad thing because it is making more employment and certainly it's filling a social need too. I'm sure the minister is aware that it's a bit of a traumatic experience to some people when suddenly after working eight hours a day all their working life they find themselves not doing anything. The transition can be traumatic.

I think this system as undertaken in Sweden is worth looking into. I know at the time I left B.C. Hydro, in my particular instance I would have been very happy to work for two or three days a week and have some time off. But there was no way that that could be accomplished. I suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this could be a very worthwhile subject for his consideration, guidance and leadership in introducing this kind of gradual retirement scheme into British Columbia.

The next item I wish to discuss with the minister is a specific one relative to a case in point in my own constituency where according to my records, this constituent had written twice to the minister and has had no response. This particular person came into Duncan and inquired from the ministry's offices as to the qualifications necessary for a person to practise the trade of radio and TV servicing. He was told that he would have to work for 'a given period of time -8,000 hours, I think; four years. He would have to work for four years before he could get a licence to form his own business.

[ Page 4233 ]

So he did this. He put in this time and then went into business for himself. But he has since been informed that this restriction only applies to southern Vancouver Island and he has visited shops in the interior and has found that no such requirement exists. He has also found that some radio and TV shops and service departments right in the city of Duncan do not have certified technicians on their staff. He's naturally concerned. He put in this four years and followed all the rules and regulations, and then he is finding that that is not the case as far as others are concerned.

A month later he wrote another letter to the minister and this was under date of March 17 of this year. It reads in part that he learned that the trade of radio and TV servicing is in this part of the province an apprentice trade, but only, it seems, in this part of the province. "Does this mean that one must possess a journeyman's qualification to practise this trade, as is the case with other apprenticeable trades?" Unfortunately there has been no answer to these letters and I have no choice, really, except to raise this on the floor. I hope the minister can give me some answer. If he requires this correspondence I can arrange for him to have copies.

I want to talk just a wee bit about the safety aspect that this minister is charged to administer. It's interesting to note that absenteeism from various causes - illness, compensable accidents and so on - is eight times as much in most productions as strikes and walkouts. I think that's a figure that we really have to put some credence in. We have to look at what is causing this absenteeism.

It's been said that working is bad for you. This particular article points out that Canada's factories, mines and smelters are death traps. The grisly statistics are: 1,400 dead in accidents on the job every year; 25,000 injured permanently by losing fingers in machinery, having eyes gouged out or their limbs slashed off; and another I million injured badly enough to be forced to stay home. So compared with strikes, accidents certainly are a very high runner.

The rate of disabling injuries was 3.9 per 100 workers in 1964. But a decade later, in 1974, it was 4.6 per 100 workers. So we're getting worse, not better, Mr. Chairman.

In British Columbia, of course, we have the Workers' Compensation Board, but I understand the huge mining field is not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Chairman. This is from this article and I would like the minister's comments on that. Is that correct? He made some comments earlier when he spoke about the overlap of responsibility. I'd like to know just where the mining industry fits into this particular thing.

Last year, at some time during the debate on one of the pieces of legislation, I raised the point of the poisonous gas escaping at the Harmac mill and a so-called secret report relative to this. I don't know whether the minister has had an opportunity to look into that or not, but I have today some figures from the Crofton mill, which is in my own constituency. This is a report of readings taken by the mill.

Now one of the gases involved is hydrogen sulphide and the allowable level is 10 parts per million for hydrogen sulphide. The readings taken on the No. I recovery boiler: at the ash hopper door, they were 20 to 40 parts per million - 10 allowable, 20 to 40 at the ash hopper floor; the fourth floor, 20 to 40; fifth and sixth floor, 20 to 40; and the penthouse of No. I recovery building, 30 to 40 parts per million. Yet the allowable is 10 parts per million.

When we come to sulphur dioxide, the allowable limit is five parts per million. In the No. 3 power boiler at Crofton, at the ceiling, 18 parts per million; at the stop-check valve it was down to 5 parts per million and that's the only one that was within the realm of allowable. At the upper front of the soot blower, 30 parts per million, 10 parts per million at the rear. It goes as high as 100 parts per million, Mr. Chairman, when the allowable amount is 5 part per million.

Now this came to my attention as the result of a compensation case, where an employee has been struggling for years to gain some recognition of the fact that his lung condition is related to the escaping gas in that mill. He has now won his case. But over those years, Mr. Chairman, he has been told that this was a result of smoking, but the man has never smoked. He has been told that it was the result of a psychological problem and as far as anyone can be aware, the man is a very well-balanced individual. But this man will never work again because of a very bad lung condition. With tests like this being shown up by the company's own reading, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has a grave degree of responsibility in ensuring that some action is taken to protect workers against those kind of gases being there and having employees exposed to them.

For the minister's information, I am going to send him across a copy of these readings at the Crofton mill.

I would like to point out to the minister, and I'm sure he's aware, and again relative to workers' compensation.... This was something that came out of the seminar that WCB officials held here in Victoria and for which I would like to compliment that group and the minister for arranging. I found it very helpful; other members have said the same. But the thing that concerned me was relative to the fishing fleets, where the figure came out that there were some 7,000 vessels. But of those 7,000, only 700 were over 1,500 tons, making them inspectable under the present rather strange arrangement -which we went into at some length during that seminar - for inspection by the federal and provincial

[ Page 4234 ]

authorities. That's a bit shocking. If it means, as it seems to mean, that there are 6,300 vessels out there that are not subject to inspection, I would think that the minister should be putting some time and thought into that.

The Trail situation has been mentioned by other speakers. I don't intend to go into that at this point in time, but I simply want to record my concern that we are still getting somewhat hazardous conditions there and I am doubtful whether the fines being levied are sufficiently high to really encourage the complete, or as nearly complete as possible, eradication of the kind of gases that are being emitted from that smelter.

I think if the minister is prepared to answer some of those comments, that would be all I have to say.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Cowichan-Malahat for posing these questions. I'll deal with them in reverse order.

With respect to the fishing fleet, it was proposed that there would be regulations on the WCB to inspect fishing vessels, which would be a duplication of regulations which are in place under the federal j jurisdiction. In the spring of 1976, 1 had correspondence with the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) and it was obvious that the national government was taking the position that it was solely within their jurisdiction and the province had no position to be in that field. Without agreeing with the Minister of Transport of Canada, the position was taken that so long as there were inspections of the vessels and so long as there were regulations that were enforced, we were not anxious to have duplicate regulations and duplicate inspectors, which would only hamper the fishermen of this province.

It was our understanding that this would take place. I appreciate that only the vessels over 15 tons were normally inspected by the federal service, but there was a clear indication that they were prepared to inspect all vessels. This was significant to us because most of our fishing fleet, as the member has pointed out, is under the 15-ton limit. When the federal regulations were put into place, a monitoring agency was established in the WCB to determine the effectiveness of it. I have received reports which leave grave doubts in my mind as to whether or not the federal regulations and the federal service are fulfilling their responsibility, which we believe is owed to the fishermen on this coast.

As a consequence, in discussions recently with the chairman and members of the Workers' Compensation Board, I indicated my view that the board should consider going back into the regulatory field to take such steps as are necessary. If we have to have a confrontation with the federal minister in respect to this area of responsibility, then I am prepared to do so. While I am in favour of only one set of inspections, I certainly want to have at least one. I would hope that the regulations for vessels over 15 tons and those below 15 tons could be the same, but if there have to be some differences, then the WCB will move in that direction.

As for Harmac and the poisonous gases, that matter was raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) several months ago in correspondence with me. I was concerned at the apparent actions on the part of that mill in ignoring poisonous gas levels. As a result, I had correspondence with WCB and the inspectors have been back in. Between the company, the union safety committee and WCB, the matter now appears to be under control and is under current monitoring processes. If that is not the case at Crofton - and I'll certainly send these statistics forward to WCB - then I would expect the WCB will respond with similar action there.

The mining industry is covered by WCB but the inspections are done by the Ministry of Mines. It is deemed that mine safety is a specialty and, as a consequence, the Ministry of Mines makes its inspectors available for that purpose.

There's no question that absenteeism from injuries and illness is of greater consequence, so far as man- or woman-days lost are concerned, than are strikes and lockouts. It is seen, however, that strikes and lockouts are self-inflicted wounds, to use that analogy. One of the other concerns we have about the statistics, however, is the growing popularity of sick leave provided by contract, and the tendency on the part of people to take their sick-leave days, whether in fact they are ill or not, seems to raise some question as to the validity of the statistics. But that doesn't ignore the problem which the member really raises - that is the increasing concern we must have about workplace safety. I dealt with this at some length the other day.

With regard to the radio and TV service and the certification, I don't have the information present. I'm startled to hear you say that your constituents' letters are unanswered. I worked until midnight last night and I have no letters unanswered on my desk. They may be in the department someplace. Would you be good enough to give me the details and I'll look into it?

MR. GIBSON: Do you want to tackle my desk tomorrow?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll check into this apprenticeable trade. I ' don't understand why there would be a distinction between southern Vancouver Island and any'other part of the province unless your radios or TVs have more problems here than elsewhere, but I'll look into that matter.

Women in the work force - the statistics show

[ Page 4235 ]

that currently the ratio between men and women in the work force is three men and two women, and I suppose that actually is only fair. It makes it even. But we also find from statistics acquired by the research branch of this ministry that the increase in women in the trade union movement is far, far greater than it is for the case of men. The trade union movement is rising at about 6 per cent a year but the female part of trade unionism is rising at something like 16 per cent - much greater activity.

With regard to affirmative action programmes in this ministry I mentioned the other day the steps that are being taken to encourage women to enter apprenticeable trades which heretofore were considered to be the sole preserve of the male work force. This is an ongoing programme and we hope that more women will be encouraged to examine trades which have heretofore traditionally seemed to be limited to men, because there is no reason that they can't be as well trained. Obviously radio and TV service is one perfect example. I would suspect that women are probably far better suited to doing that kind of work than many men.

MRS. WALLACE: Just in response to the minister's last remarks, he mentioned the fact that they were trying to encourage women to take some of the apprenticeship trades. I think that gives me an "in" to give him some of the figures that I have here for some of the higher-priced apprenticeship trades within the province. Autobody repair - male, 387; female, 0; bricklaying - male, 207; female, 0; carpentry - male, 1,748; female 0; industrial electrical - male, 481; female, 0; ironworkers - male, 119; female, 0; joiners - male, 148; female, 0; linemen -male, 163; female, 0; fishermen - male, 307; female, 0; millwright - male, 678; female, 0; plumbing -male, 507; female, 0; refrigeration - male, 130; female, 0; sheet metal - male, 119; female, 0; steel fabrication - male, 203; female, 0.

Well, Mr. Chairman, they're still carrying the bedpans, pounding the typewriters and waiting on you behind the counter.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the estimates I guess a person should be brief but there are a few things of a general nature I want to say. I want to start out by paying the minister a compliment. Very few ministers of this government have given the impression of being more on top of their department than his this minister. For that reason I have at this point more comment than criticism.

During this particular debate there has been a good deal said in this committee about unemployment. I think that probably some blame and some kudos attach to this government in respect to the unemployment situation in British Columbia, but I

would rather handle that under the Ministries of Finance and Economic Development. I'd like to say to the Minister of Labour something about the use of manpower in the province because part of his duty really relates to manpower utilization and he can be a powerful force for good within the executive council in that regard.

He has recently introduced measures which hopefully do a great deal for apprenticeship training. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) during his estimates spoke of government initiative in vocational training in this province. But all of that training is of limited usefulness unless the people with the training have some place to go and exercise their skills. One of the saddest wastes in our society is the case every day of people who want to work and have no place to go to do that. It's an irretrievable loss for them and it's shared by us all. As I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was saying the other day, it's a social time bomb in our society, too, when we consider the extraordinarily high percentage of unemployment among our young people.

Mr. Chairman, no western government that we know of has solved this problem, so certainly I don't castigate the minister for this problem in British Columbia. There are various theories as to why this situation should be. In British Columbia it has obviously nothing to do with our abundant natural resources. They are there; they are profitable. It probably has something to do with the relatively high degree of immigration to this province, though in the last couple of years that hasn't been the case either.

It almost certainly has something to do with the fact that our increasingly mixed economic system between the private sector and the public sector isn't working as well as it used to. The friction at the interface has given rise to a larger number of unemployed.

It probably has something to do as well with the way we measure unemployment in our society. It has something to do, perhaps, with the fact that society as a whole bears less guilt about unemployment today than we used to because the means that we have found to cushion the cost of unemployment to individuals gives less cause for guilt now. Unemployment insurance is a reasonably good buffer for those who are still able to rely on its provisions.

Unfortunately the fact that we have been able to cushion our guilt and cushion the cost on individuals has not in any way cushioned the cost on society. The cost on society of an individual not doing a day's work is still there and remains as large as it has always been. It's exactly equal to the production that that individual could have put forth during that day.

You have to ask why the private sector isn't doing this job, and I know that this current government has put a great deal of faith in the revitalized private sector being able to do that. I think that that's a

[ Page 4236 ]

long-term solution, but in the short term - and the short term could be a number of years - it may be that the government is going to have to come to view itself as an employer of last resort when we have unemployment percentages continuing in the 8 and 9 per cent range and 100,000-plus persons in the province of British Columbia.

I full well realize that in making this suggestion, it is perhaps one that would be considered radical by the current government. Let me define what I mean by "employer of last resort." I do not mean digging postholes and filling them in. I mean doing useful work, and there is much useful work to be done in this province whether for the municipalities, whether for the school boards, whether for the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, whether for the amelioration of tourist facilities. Once the imagination of local communities gets to work on what might be done in their area to improve capital and even current amenities, one will find that useful work is there to be done.

So let the government, I say, in the short run adopt what you may almost call a PREP programme at large. I hesitate to apply that word "PREP" to it because that has come to have some unfortunate public relations connotations to it. But the theory would be this: to anyone in the province of British Columbia who wants a job, I would even perhaps include the hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , who is engaged in saying "aye" right now....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you read Allan Fotheringham's comment last night on unusual names. He concluded it with a delightful name that I think one might apply to the hon. member for Esquimalt. It was Phrodo Q. McDuck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 203, please.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to explain that Mr. Fotheringham asked what the Q was for and the answer was "quack." That's why it applies to the interjections from that hon. member from time to time.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I was waiting for someone. That's right!

So, Mr. Chairman, that is a suggestion that the government has to consider becoming an employer of last resort and while it may perhaps sound radical when one talks about it in a large way, the government has adopted it in the minister's department in a small way with summer student employment where it has found useful things for people to do when they are faced with a short-term unemployment problem. This is no alternative to an industrial strategy which this province has to increasingly define, recognizing that by and large we are not a secondary industrial province and have to build on the primary and tertiary sectors. A coherent industrial strategy is the proper long-range approach, but in the short range, I say that every day that goes by when a significant number of people in our society who want to work cannot work is a complete waste of their time and a complete waste to our society.

Let me make it clear. I'm not blaming the minister for this. I'm just saying ways have to be found, and some of those ways may overthrow the traditional restraints that we've seen fit to put on government. I suggest to him that the kind of strategy being followed by the government of Canada in the Canada Works programme could give us some leverage from the province of British Columbia in getting funding for this kind of programme.

As the minister is aware, the unemployment insurance bill in British Columbia runs around $400 million a year unemployment insurance plus the Canada Assistance portion of welfare. If some way can be found to put people to useful work, the federal government ought to be persuaded that they will use the money that's saved in that direction to assist the provincial government in productive employment.

I want to move on, Mr. Chairman, to an associated issue, which is that of productivity in manpower efficiency. I know that is one of the concerns of the minister as well. I would ask that he give consideration for his department, perhaps in conjunction with the Ministry of Economic Development, to undertake a study of productivity in our major industries as they compare with those of our main competitors around the world - this would particularly relate to our export industries - and how these relations have changed over time.

One of the things that is often in the bargaining table or in the background of the bargaining table when the time comes to talk about compensation that ought to be paid or can be paid is this question of productivity. Are we pricing ourselves out of world markets? Are British Columbia people more or less productive than elsewhere and, if so, why? To what extent do productivity restraints arise out of artificial rules coming from jurisdictional disputes or otherwise? And to the extent that such artificial constraints on productivity do exist, are there ways that they can be resolved with cash rather than by continued inefficiency?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the only way to maintain our very high real wages here in British Columbia, of which we should be immensely proud, in a time of a declining Canadian dollar, when we

[ Page 4237 ]

have so much of an import bill to pay, is by a strong focus by the government on productivity. I would suggest that the department of the Minister of Labour is a logical place to start that.

I haven't been in the chamber for all of these debates, and if this subject has been raised before perhaps he could so indicate, but I would like him to indicate what assistance, if any, he is prepared to give to the Industrial Relations Institute at the University of British Columbia. This institute, while very small, for the past few years, particularly under the direction of Mark Thompson, who came from the commerce faculty, has been something of a small but dynamic force in academic studies of the labour and bargaining situation in the province of British Columbia. They have had journal articles on manpower planning and grievance arbitration and the like. It's been a small but positive contribution.

In this most recent year, due to the departure of the director and due to the lack of funding - this at the instance of the university, in my understanding -the future of that institute has been put in question. I'd like to ask the minister if he considers it a useful one and what steps he might be prepared to take in that area. Similarly, I would ask the minister of his plans with respect to the Labour College Act. Again I would ask him if this has been raised previously. If it has not, I would very much ask what his intentions are with respect to proclamation of this legislation.

Nothing is better for a bargaining climate, in my view, than an agreed body of knowledge and approach to the economic questions and to the bargaining situation. That was one of the things that the labour college was supposed to do when it was passed by this House two or three years ago. I thought it was a good idea at the time. I don't know how the minister voted on the particular legislation, but I still do believe it to be a good idea and I would encourage him to proclaim the legislation in the interests of more agreed statistical approaches in the labour relations field, more useful bargaining approaches and more useful dispute resolution approaches shared over the number of people in the fullness of time that would pass through that kind of an institution.

I'd like to say something briefly about what I conceive to be the public accountability of labour and business. I am talking here about big labour and big business. When third parties become involved in industrial disputes or in the management of capital, then the positions of major institutions in the private sector are no longer strictly private and they move into questions of a public trust. This to me is far more a trust that lies upon the business community, because the business community not only has a responsibility for one side of labour management relations but it also has the whole responsibility for the management of capital and entrepreneurship and productivity and all of those things which hopefully pay the wages here in British Columbia.

What the Employers Council or MacMillan Bloedel or the CLRA do is consequential to all of us, just as are the actions of the IWA or the pulp unions or steel or the building trades or BCGEU or whoever. They set the general climate that says how well we all make our living here in British Columbia. So the suggestion I want. to make is that there is a genuine accountability of those groups - big business and big labour. There's an accountability in the political system. It's exercised through this Legislature, it's exercised at elections from time to time, it's exercised at public meetings and in town hall meetings and in municipal councils and so on.

How much less accountability there is in the activity of, say, MacMillan Bloedel, which has far more impact on the economy of British Columbia than, say, to pick a town out of the air, the Chilliwack town council - or the North Vancouver district council, as far as that goes. Yet those council meetings are in public, and the far greater trust in our society that is exercised by our enormous corporations is in private. That's why I argued yesterday for greater disclosure of the inside documentation of those kinds of corporations, and that's why I argue today equally that the labour side of this situation is part of a public trust when it substantially relates to third parties and the public sector.

, I'm not really suggesting any kind of legislation, Mr. Chairman; all I'm really suggesting is that this concept of public trust in the labour relation sector from time to time be reflected by the minister and accountability forums of one kind or another developed, where from time to time the citizens of the province who are interested in labour-management relations can, if you like, get at the principle actors in labour-management relations and ask them some of the kinds of questions that the ordinary man on the street asks. I don't know how many letters I get every year saying: "Why doesn't the Legislature outlaw strikes?" It's a stupid idea, but there are all kinds of people who think it ought to be done. It would be a good thing'if there was a direct forum where the citizens who thought that way could go before that forum and say: "Listen, you guys -why don't you do this?" They could get back an informed answer with which they could agree or disagree. Some kind of forum would be useful.

I'll speak very briefly about the Labour Relations Board. I've studied their half dozen most important decisions over the last year. I think they've been wise and judicious, and I have nothing but compliments for the way that board is going about its work.

I will raise briefly the question of the administration of section 67 of the Labour Code, which says that each of the parties to a collective

[ Page 4238 ]

agreement shall forthwith, upon execution, file a copy with the Minister of Labour. This specific case was brought up by George Dobie of The Vancouver Sun in October 20,1976 and it related to some settlements between Safeway and the re tail-whole sale and department store union. But that just happens to be the case in point. The principle is there that if it were possible to enforce this section so that knowledge of the contents of agreements became public in a more timely fashion, it would be a useful contribution to the public interest.

The minister yesterday spoke in some detail about cutoff lands. I want to commend in general the settlement principles that he suggested with respect to the cutoff land claims. He did not speak yesterday on the general Indian land claim question. I'm not certain if I may have missed that at some other time in the estimates, but if that is not the case, I'd be glad if he could take the House into his confidence to the extent he feels possible as to the development of negotiations in this area. I know that there have been meetings with some of the bands concerned and some of the organizations in the federal government. I have heard some suggestions that the Nishga land case is being considered as something of a pattern-setting case, and that other discussions are being held in abeyance until that more fully crystallizes. If that is the case I'd be interested to know that and to hear from the minister how that particular test case is going forward.

Mr. Chairman, I think I will conclude my remarks at this point.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in reverse order - general land claims. There is only one land claim falling in within that category which is currently under examination by this government, and that is the Nishga claim. That commenced with a meeting in the Nass Valley on January 12,1976. There have been successive meetings between representatives of the Nishga people and of the two levels of government for the purposes of identifying the elements of the Nishga claim.

Both the federal minister, then Mr. Buchanan, and I were hopeful that out of those discussions would come some of the guidelines which might be adopted in the application of settlement considerations to other general land claims which other Indian bands wish to raise. Those land claims have been placed before the office of native claims of the federal department, but they are not the subject of ongoing discussions at this time.

Regarding the Niskga claim, the two levels of government are preparing their responses to the Nishga claim. Drafts have been exchanged of an attempt at a joint position and it seems more likely now that what will happen is that each of the governments will make their separate responses, even though they will be the same to some extent. How soon those meetings will resume, I can't at the moment predict.

I expect to be discussing the matter with the executive council in the next few weeks for the purpose of developing a final statement of position insofar as British Columbia is concerned. At that time, such statement will be presented to the Nishgas and to the national government and it will be made public. Heretofore, the discussions have been carried on in camera at the request of the Nishgas and with our agreement because of the highly sensitive and sometimes highly emotional areas which are being covered. A lot of misunderstanding has been swept out of the way as a result of these discussions.

I am anxious to be able to inform the House about the government's position because I sincerely believe that throughout the community there is a large measure of misunderstanding, misapprehension and, in some cases, fear concerning the subject of "general land claims." In many instances I think those concerns are justified because the Indians themselves are not quite sure what general land claims mean.

In discussion with some of the bands, it is quite obvious that it is a convenient tag to give to what are grievances that have gone back over a century or even more. In many cases, the resolution of many grievances which aren't associated with land at all might result in less attention to the so-called land claims.

It has become popular and I think it is unfortunate that it has, because some people, quite obviously, are using the popularity of the land claims issue for purposes which are not associated with either the resolution of those land claims or the betterment of the Indian people and the resolution of grievances that they properly have with respect to the rest of us in society.

So I hope to be able to make a statement, Mr. Member, on this subject some time in the next month.

I thank the member for his kind comments about the Labour Relations Board. The chairman, vice-chairman and members work very hard in a difficult area, and I think that in a large measure the success that we are enjoying this year with regard to industrial relations can be credited to them. I just happened to note that in the first six months of this year we lost a total of 70,700 days from industrial disputes. A year ago it was 444,000 days. The year before that it was 466,000 days. In 1974, it was 815,000 days in the first six months. The measure of industrial relations dispute activity, I think, can be measured in some way with reference to those figures.

Regarding the labour college, yes, that statute remains unproclaimed. I voted for it. I thought that there were some inadequacies in the legislation and

[ Page 4239 ]

the officials of the ministry are currently considering some revisions and some changes in the programme approach to the labour college. I'm expecting a cabinet submission to be placed on my desk any day now to deal with this subject. I think that the legislation should be proclaimed.

In the area of industrial relations techniques and education, 1, think that nothing could be more fundamental and more necessary, at least as much on the side of management as on the side of the trade unions. In my experience, and I think the former minister would agree, in dealing with serious disputes, you often find that the trade union representatives are far better qualified than the management representatives to deal with some of the issues that come before us. So if education is required, it certainly is not just on any one side.

You mentioned the Industrial Relations Institute. As a matter of fact, in conjunction with labour education and the use of the labour college, we are looking to see whether or not there isn't a proper role for the institute. I have had discussions with the president of the University of British Columbia concerning the present status of the institute. I was distressed when it was first indicated to me that the institute was disappearing. I'm advised by president Kenney that it is not the intention of UBC, but what they are doing is re-examining its role and its relationship with the several faculties at UBC. One of the problems is that it is not attached to any faculty. It doesn't have a teaching function and it has therefore been overlooked like the orphan child.

One of the techniques that is being developed with regard to the Industrial Relations Institute is to consider whether or not it can be supported, administered and staffed on a tri-university basis so that the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser and UBC will contribute to the administration and the personnel who should be at that institute. It was at this level that we got into the discussions with the possibility of joining that in some way with the labour college because it seems to me that the institute, while it should function independently of the college, need not necessarily have a teaching role. Nonetheless, it is a place where people should be able to think, to theorize, and to publish with regard to some of our serious industrial relations problems. It is one area, for example, which could readily be used in this whole subject of industrial democracy and the examination of it.

One of the problems in examining industrial democracy is that from the trade union point of view there is a tendency, on the part of some trade unionists, to believe that that's only a way of co-opting them into the system. Therefore there is a reluctance to seem to be supportive of some of the ideas - if management suggests it, it's got to be a bad idea; if government suggests it, then maybe it should be suspect. Maybe through the Industrial Relations Institute these things can be examined, groups can be brought together, and some really positive work can be done, including some specific examinations, that I mentioned yesterday, of jurisdictions of the world where they could go and examine exactly what is happening.

As for unemployment and the government's role, I would point out to the member that government is not the employer with the youth employment programme. This is one of the significant distinctions which must be remembered. In fact, the private sector is the employer. It is in that way, I think, that the government can best ensure continuing decreases in unemployment, or at least continuing increases in the number of people who are employed. I would point out to the member that while we talk about high percentage levels of unemployment, in fact, in this province, in the month of June, there were 45,000 more people employed than there were a year ago. I think that's a more positive and realistic statistic to use.

Now government's role, in my view, should be to stimulate that segment of the economy which can produce the jobs. Government doesn't do a very good job in producing jobs. Government, quite frankly, is a lousy manager in this respect. You take our youth employment programme. We're spending $22.5 million and we're providing 19,000 jobs. I think the average cost per job is about $1,200, and that's really tight. The Canada Works programme, which the federal government is putting on, is costing $4,300 per job with a large administrative factor in it as well.

MR. GIBSON: It's a somewhat longer job period, though.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's 26 weeks whereas ours is about 8 to 10 weeks. With the announcement of Phase 2 of the Canada Works programme we are preparing a presentation to the federal minister on this subject, saying: "Isn't it time that the two levels of government stopped playing their own game with regard to this particular problem of employment stimulation and began to focus both our financial and our people resources on the problems in the various regions of the country - and, in the case of British Columbia, the various industrial areas which need assistance - and bring to bear the financial capability in insuring that existing operations which already have administration in place, capital invested, and so on, can be encouraged to increase their work forces?" Now this can apply to municipalities - in one sense, the kind of technique that was used during the old winter works programme. I don't think it should be done in the wintertime, because examination has shown that quite often in winter works programmes moneys were

[ Page 4240 ]

not effectively used. I think it should be done over a longer period of time. I'm not sure that schools are the right place because with dwindling school populations we don't want to build more school buildings.

I think that we should be going into our communities and getting the jobs done that need to be done within the existing structure so that we aren't creating something new which, at the end of a programme, has got to be sustained or collapse with rising expectations dashed to the ground. I will be presenting to the government, inside the next 10 days, a proposal to be addressed to the national government in this area.

MR. GIBSON: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his comments. There is one proposal he overlooked in replying and that is the possibility of a productivity study which his ministry might get into.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to refer that to the research branch of the ministry to examine.

Actually, productivity is not the sort of neutral thing that the ministry gets itself involved with, because you get arguments when you deal with productivity. Employers take one position and, of course, their employees quite often take a different one. Some studies have been done in industrial groups. I know the member has seen the pulp industry study. I think it would be worthwhile if the research branch of the ministry went out to the various industrial groups and began to pull together all the studies that we know have been done with regard to industrial productivity throughout the whole province. That might provide us with some very interesting comparisons.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the minister for that response. It is for the very reason that productivity figures have not in the past been considered neutral, that if there is any way they can be neutralized, in a sense, if there is any way that the minister's department can bring about some harmony of view between the employer and the organized labour groups in this area, it would be a very great contribution, I think, to the dialogue.

Vote 203 approved.

Vote 204: ministerial administration and support service, $1,632, 508 - approved.

Vote 205: job training and employment opportunity programme, $28,036, 112 - approved.

Vote 206: occupational environment and compensation advisory services, $1,179, 094 -approved.

Vote 207: collective bargaining and employment standards programme, $2,583, 042 - approved.

Vote 208: human rights programmes, $402,488 -approved.

Vote 209: Labour Relations Board, $1,147, 204 -approved.

Vote 210: building occupancy charges, $905,205 - approved.

Vote 211: computer and consulting charges, $181,000 - approved.

On vote 1: legislation, $3,580, 426.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's one of the questions, Mr. Member. The member says: "Who is going to reply to vote IT'. It has never been entirely clear in the past. Under this vote, I suppose we're talking to ourselves in this House. I see no particular problem in that.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware this legislation vote is not frequently debated. I was looking through the estimates book and I asked myself: "Why? Is it because we are all satisfied with the way this operation works?" I thought: "No, that can't be the answer; it has to be something else."

I just want to devote a little time to describing some of the difficulties I see. I don't want to talk entirely about difficulties. I want to start out by saying that the people who make the nuts and bolts of this place work - the clerks, the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the Hansard, the people who keep the building clean and in good order - are all doing a perfect job.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Wouldn't you know George would rush in for the compliments.

MR. GIBSON: I want to speak about Mr. McMinn, the distinguished former Law Clerk and, I gather, Law Clerk pro tem today. I compliment the Speaker in his commissioning of Mr. McMinn to put together what I guess one would call a British Columbia Beauchesne.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Traditionally, we refer to the advisers at the table by their title only, and then only scarcely, but certainly

[ Page 4241 ]

never by name.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I wanted to give credit where it was due. That's the point. As I say, I am giving credit to the Speaker for commissioning this particular study. I think it will be a very important one. It will be a compendium that, from the time it is completed, will enable members in looking up precedent to come quickly to the proper Speaker's decisions that need to be referred to, instead of going through the labyrinthine voyages through the Journals that have been required in the past - and all too frequently not undertaken, I might add. But that said, if the machinery of this assembly is working well, how about the rest of it?

Are the basic functions that people expect this chamber to perform being achieved in the eyes of the public or even in the eyes of ourselves? I expect any members who are entirely satisfied with this Legislature to remain in their seats during this debate. If there are perhaps a few difficulties perceived, I think it would be worthwhile having a little discussion of them.

I asked myself what kinds of things the public expects from this chamber. I jotted down a few points. One is expression of opinion about current issues of the day. Mr. Chairman, as you know, that sometimes takes place, and yet at other times it's frustrated by the absence of an ability to bring a particular subject on to the floor of the House. We do not have in our Legislature, as is available in other legislatures, a device called an "opposition day." It enables the opposition, which does not in general control the business of the House, on a certain number of days during the session to bring forward a particular subject matter for debate. The government, of course, does control the business on any given day through its ability to call any given bill or resolution. There is by no means a good facility in this House for expression of opinion,

What's a second function that one would expect this Legislature to perform? I would say elicitation of information from the government of the day, from the executive branch. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there is no way in this House we can force the government to give information, either in the Committee of the Whole or in the House itself. Questions may be asked, if the subject happens to be in order at the time, but answers may not be required.

What about the committee structure, then? First of all, government can prevent committees, even if they are standing committees, from doing their work by failing to give any reference or, if they are given a reference, by failing to give them any staff which may be required to do it. Secondly, even when there are committees and those committees are sitting, the government majority can, as we have seen at times this session, use the majority to prevent debate, to even prevent entire sittings, to prevent witnesses being heard and so on. Under the heading of elicitation of information I think you have to say that the way our system works is not perfect.

What's another subject that many people, perhaps naively, think that the Legislature has something to do with? Let's look at the question of formulation of policy.

Mr. Chairman, I have observed in the four years I've been here - others with a greater perspective may say I'm wrong on this, and I'd be glad to hear them - that this chamber, as such, has very little voice in the formulation of policy in the province of British Columbia. The real work in policy formulation is done in secret. It's done in cabinet; it's done in the government caucus. That's where the real decisions are made in terms of formulation of policy. We have here, by the accident of history, what you might call the Big Top - the Big Tent - but in terms of policy formulation we're a side show. I think the public should know that.

Let's look at another suggestion that the Legislature might be expected to achieve, and that is the making of law. If that function is construed in any sense as showing initiative in the making of law -any independent initiative of the government - then that function is not performed in this House. The only bills which pass, in general, with one or two very rare exceptions, are bills proposed by the government. With very rare exceptions they are passed exactly the way they are introduced. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, private members of this House are not even allowed to propose any measure costing any kind of money. Even if there were no chance of getting it passed, we're not even allowed to propose it - to set it down as an abstract motion or resolution.

Another function that this Legislature might be expected to perform by the public would be the sounding out of community groups and citizens generally on subjects of interest.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, there was some previous activity in that regard, Mr. Member, but there is very little any more - very little during this parliament. There's almost no committee work, and much of such committee work as is being done was done by a committee that contained only government backbenchers. The major committee activity of this parliament has been a committee that was appointed by the government of officials and municipal people, which is good, and government backbenchers and no opposition. They completely went around the committee structure of this House. The public should know that, because a lot of people in the province of

[ Page 4242 ]

British Columbia look towards this Legislature to do something for them, even to be their salvation. I think it's important that people should know just what our powers are and what they are not, as long as this institution is so thoroughly under the thumb of the government as is the present case.

Another object that most citizens expect of this Legislature is oversight of expenditure - checking into how the money was spent. We have, it is true, a public accounts committee which does some minimal work in this area. Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I criticize not that committee or any member on it when I say that it does so in very, very little depth. It is concerned mostly with questions which are calculated to best embarrass one group or another. It is concerned almost not at all with the efficiency of the expenditure of money or the legal propriety of the expenditure of any particular money.

Our Legislature should be expected by citizens of this province to exercise careful oversight of the administration of the government, of the actions of the executive branch in carrying out policy. The executive branch, as you know, has an enormous amount of discretion in carrying out policy.

Mr. Chairman, we've just been through an estimates procedure. Some ministers have performed better than others, but in very few cases did we get into any depth of the guts of the administration of the department and the nuts and the bolts. I'll tell you why: because very few members in any part of the House are experts on any particular department. Therefore in Committee of the Whole, where it is not possible to call outside experts, it's almost impossible to get into an indepth discussion.

I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) listening. There's a minister that I know would welcome a full and deep debate on the way he administers his department, because he's pretty good at it and he pays attention to it and I think his officials are all concerned and so on. Why can't his estimates be referred, as they are in other chambers, to a committee? A committee of members who gradually come to concentrate in that particular area can not only ask reasonably well-informed questions themselves, but can call the deputy minister, can call the head of the IWA, can call the head of the Council of Forest Industries and so on to give their own expert advice and interpretations as to how the forestry branch is doing its job. Surely that would be some kind of progress towards what the people think we ought to be doing in this House. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, under this legislation vote, that in my opinion we're not. I say that not to reflect on any hon. member but to say that the system, as it's maintained, is not one that permits the easy doing of that kind of job.

It's not because better systems don't exist, let me say. Let's take the example of what are called statutory instruments. This is delegated legislation. As members are aware, almost every Act that we put through this House has a provision for passage of regulations by the government, which regulations have the force of law. They are executive orders; they're signed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They're published in The British Columbia Gazette. They come out in their hundreds every couple of weeks. The Queen's Printer does a very good job of putting them together. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that those regulations come out without any let or hindrance. It's possible, under the regulatory power that the government is given in almost every bill, to pass regulations which may not be consonant with the powers granted in that bill.

Lest anyone think that this is a theoretical danger only, I would refer them to the second report of the standing joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada on regulations and other statutory instruments which was tabled recently in that capital. We find here pages and pages of examples of regulations that were passed by the government without proper authority - regulations that infringed in various ways as follows: regulations that were not authorized by the terms of the enabling statute; regulations that do not state the precise authority for the making of the instrument; regulations that make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute or by the prerogative; regulations that tend directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorization of the enabling statute; regulations that make the rights and liberties of the subject dependent on administrative discretion rather than on the judicial process; regulations that purport to have retroactive effect where the enabling statute confers no express authority so to provide or where when such authority is so provided the retroactive effect appears to be oppressive, harsh or unnecessary; regulations that appear for any reason to infringe the rule of law or the rules of natural justice; regulations that are not in conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights; regulations that are unclear in their meaning or otherwise defective in drafting.

Mr. Chairman, examples of every one of these kinds of defective regulations are provided in this report of a committee that has only been working for a couple of years and has a great deal more work to do, but has so far considered only a total of 1,348 regulatory instruments and yet has come up with this litany of objectionable exercise of regulatory power. Well, that happens to be in another jurisdiction, but I think we would compliment ourselves unnecessarily in the province of British Columbia if we suggested that our draughtsmen were that much more virtuous. It's in the nature of the executive authority to seek to solve problems by executive means - to seek, where possible, to avoid the necessity to refer to the

[ Page 4243 ]

Legislature because the Legislature is a place that is vexatious and time-consuming from the perspective of governments and may even give rise to embarrassment. Mr. Chairman, I say that we should have in our assembly some such committee on regulatory instruments.

Let's look at some of the other procedures under which we do our business and whether they are necessarily the way that they must be. The Legislature of the province of Ontario recently -December 16,1976 - passed some additions to their standing orders. They are quite enlightening and I want to advise the committee of some of them. It could be that the relative liberality of these standing orders was conditioned by the fact that there was a minority government in Ontario at the time, but that does not make them any the less useful.

Here's an example: "Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to party leaders or their representatives at or before the time the statement is made in the House." A reasonable, courteous rule.

Listen to this order of the Ontario assembly: "The question period shall be extended to one hour." Ontario is a larger province than British Columbia and they have a larger chamber than British Columbia, but 15 minutes is not long enough.

Provisions later on are made for an adjournment debate which occurs each Tuesday and Thursday at 10:30 p.m., adjournment debate being a time when members with grievances on behalf of their constituents or other causes may raise any subject and the government is expected to answer. They may raise a subject that is not possible in question period, when questions must be brief and specific.

Listen to this new order of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, Mr. Chairman: "After any policy statement or introduction of a government bill, the government shall table a compendium of background information of the type proposed on page 50 of the second report of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature." That commission quotes with approval:

, "in the British House of Commons, we have noted, each item of new legislation is accompanied by at least some relevant reports and studies undertaken by or available to the minister. This compendium of background is proposed by the ministry and placed in the library at the time of first reading for use of members who may then use the material as background, and to familiarize themselves with the nature of the legislation. This is a simple and sensible process we would recommend for the consideration of the present ministry in Ontario."

Listen to this order: "The government House Leader shall announce the following week's business before adjournment of the House each Thursday." What a simple, elementary, courteous measure which would provide for better operation of a chamber:

scheduling of business; the prediction of how business is going to flow rather than the "catch as catch can" sometimes arrangement among the Whips that breaks down if there happen to be bad feelings in the House that particular day,

Here's another order of that Legislature: "The estimates of approximately half the ministry shall be referred to standing committees." Mr. Chairman, how much more complete and thorough a debate we would have had if, let's say in the controversial question of PREP, we could have summoned before a committee the people administering that programme and asked them detailed questions. How much better a discussion we could have had of the question of a university hospital and the expansion of a need therefore during the estimates of the Minister of Health if we could have summoned before that relevant committee officers of the B.C. Medical Association and the B.C. Health Association and so on.

It just makes sense, Mr. Chairman, and yet we are stopped in this Legislature of making use of these sensible procedures that have been developed in other places. It's not reinventing the wheel. It's obvious how to improve this place, and the government is not moving fast enough to do it.

Just as an item of interest, this same set of orders of Ontario Legislature provides: "The order in which the estimates are to be considered shall be chosen in rounds through the House Leaders with the official opposition first, then the third party, then the government, until all the estimates are allocated." In other words the opposition has some distinct role in the scheduling of House business.

There's another very lengthy section, which I won't read, which provides a procedure for the extensive consideration of private members' bills for periods of up to 90 minutes, at the end of which period there shall be a vote, unless at least 20 members rise to block such a vote. Then it becomes very apparent exactly where the blame lies. A couple of very interesting Ontario private members' Acts have been passed under that procedure already.

So, Mr. Chairman, there are other places that are doing something about modernizing and reforming their procedures to make the legislative branch, which is the people's representative branch, more able to carry out that job of representation.

Here's a report of the Library of Parliament entitled "Current Procedural Developments in the House of Commons." I'll just read the first paragraph:

"Parliamentary reform is a continuing process, and the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has the task of

[ Page 4244 ]

reviewing periodically the practices and procedures of the House and making recommendations for change. From October, 1974, to June, 1976, the committee held 14 meetings, 10 of which dealt with standing orders and procedures in both the House and its committees."

Mr. Chairman, we don't have a committee anything like that in this House, unless the committee on standing orders and private bills might be considered to be such, and it never refers to standing orders. It never considers them; it never looks at proposals for reform in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, we do have a procedure in our Legislature enshrined in law under which initiatives could be taken. I would commend to the Speaker, who has the responsibility for this law, the urgency of making some investigations and some initiatives to reform the procedure of this House, even if it should not be agreeable to the government of the day. The procedures and integrity of this House and its ability to do its job stretch beyond the importance of any government at any given day.

Under the vehicle I referred to as the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, the Speaker has broad powers to initiate investigations and bring forth recommendations. Mr. Chairman, I say the Speaker should do so. There are many, many areas in our standing orders and in our practice where this would be of great assistance.

Look at, for example, the concept of an emergency debate - standing order 35. Emergency debates are virtually never granted in this Legislature because of our precedent and because of the wording of that standing order. Yet surely from time to time, Mr. Chairman, there is cause for emergency debate. I won't go over particular Speakers' rulings of this session or the last couple of sessions but there have been items there which most assuredly would have been allowed under the precedent and law of Westminster, from which we take our basic law, or the House of Commons in Ottawa. I have even seen cases in Ottawa where something as nebulous as "the housing crisis" has been debated on an emergency debate. And it was a good thing. It was a good safety valve. It gave members a chance to express their feelings to the government of the day on what they saw as the critical situation at that time. That safety valve doesn't exist in our chamber, or rather the safety valve is welded shut.

Well, Mr. Chairman, those are just a few ideas. A lot of people say this system could generally be fashioned into a much better kind of scheme for the benefit of the public. The parliamentary process, as distinct from the constitutional process, is a larger debate than I want to get into at this time, but it's a debate that I think we ought to address ourselves to in this country and it's one of the reasons why I propose that our British North America Act should really be amended by a constitutional convention elected directly rather than by governments working in concert, because the governments have too many axes to grind. But that is another and far larger subject.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to put these remarks on the record. I want very briefly as well to make a plea for the expenses available to members in northern and remote constituencies who are often put to extraordinary travel costs. In my view there ought to be some recognition of this. I will not go farther than that in this debate but I think the government should have a look at this.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I didn't know that you considered your constituency to be remote, Mr. Member, but perhaps they're remote from you.

In the interest of public information I'd like to suggest to the Speaker under this estimate that it would be a good thing if members had an availability of more than 20 complimentary copies of Hansard to make available to their constituents. I find there are a surprising number of people in this province who wish to read that document, and I find that they generally do read it, because they keep coming back and saying, "You said so and so, and I read it in Hansard.- So I make that representation to the Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I see the two-minute light is on and I shall sum up. I just want to come back to this basic fact. This Legislature under its current rules is not constituted to do the job in terms of checks and balances on the government and in terms of the eliciting of information and the formulation of policy and the hearing of community sentiment that the people of this province believe that it ought to do.

We are not held in high repute in this province, and I cast the blame for that on no member of this House. But I do say that we could much better serve the people of the province of British Columbia if our procedures and our practices were opened up so as to provide greater access and so as to provide, in particular, some degree of constitutional power to the Legislature, as distinct from the executive, so that we would be able to end this pernicious situation where we have a virtual elected dictatorship where the executive exercises complete control over the Legislature as long as its majority does its bidding, which it virtually always does. I know of no case to the contrary.

That is my plea, Mr. Chairman: that hon. members might consider that and the people of the province might consider that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to

[ Page 4245 ]

say that I agree with many of the general comments of the Liberal leader in trying to bring the manner in which our chamber functions up to a more efficient and more realistic style. I suppose I couldn't find this vote coming up on a worse day than the one on which expenses are under discussion, but I do feel that the MLAs who live in distant ridings and who have far greater expense, for example, than MLAs such as myself and those in and around Victoria, should be given some recognition of that fact. I don't want to belabour the point, but it is obviously very difficult for those MLAs to stand up and ask for that kind of policy for themselves, but I feel it is quite in order for someone such as myself who has minimal traveling expenses to ask for this, and certainly I don't have to live away from my home while the House is in session. The present policy makes it very unfair on the members living in distant ridings.

If we are to suggest that the procedures of the House and some of the style with which the House functions are to be reconsidered, perhaps I could suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government look very carefully at the idea of putting this whole subject to a committee of the House, possibly even a special committee of the House, with wide-ranging terms dealing not just with the specific of expenses for MLAs in distant ridings - although that should surely be a part of the study - but with a review of many of the areas of difficulty that the Liberal leader mentioned concerning how the system functions at the moment, or perhaps we should say dysfunctions at the moment.

The fact is that governments, including this government, inevitably seem to have an ever-widening range of responsibilities. There are going to be more and more issues within the provincial political arena which will inevitably, as I see it, mean more and more involvement of the time of members, both in sessions of the Legislature and outside of the Legislature. It would seem, therefore, very reasonable that at this stage the government could use an all-party committee to review in some depth some of the difficulties that the House is encountering because we are following a system which might have been appropriate some years ago, but which is certainly not effectively dealing with the responsibilities of government today. Better than the goal of trying to become more efficient would, I think, be the happy consequence of giving the voters of British Columbia a feeling that all members of the House are more productive, not only in the course of debates but also in the widest sense of the word in meeting the range of responsibilities that fall upon each of us as an MLA.

It may sound, Mr. Chairman, like a very tall order to suggest that a committee try to solve the many problems that we face as a Legislature in trying to become more effective, but I've heard this debate many times in the years I've been in the House. This is not meant as a criticism of any one government; it is all three governments that I have been associated with. We frequently all recognize that somehow the system could be improved, and there are many positive proposals to improve it. Unfortunately, the House never seems to get around either to setting up a special committee or to starting any kind of inquiry, or even to looking at some of the examples in other provinces where the system functions differently and, apparently, in some of these provinces, with more success. I know that is a rather sweeping and general statement that I have been making, and I know that some of the difficulties probably cannot be overcome because of the essentially partisan nature of politics as such.

I'm not suggesting that that should be neutered or that it could be changed to a great degree. But I sense that there are many members on both sides of the House who have some very useful, positive ideas as to how we might simplify and make more effective many of the functions that we are now doing in a rather old-fashioned and ineffective way. I would hope that the government would take a serious look at the needs for a study of the functioning of the Legislature, and in fact in the not-too-distant future take the necessary steps to embark on such an inquiry by a special committee of the House representing all parties in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to briefly just bring up another matter which perhaps touches upon some of the matters raised by the member for Oak Bay. I recall that when I was first elected I was sent by the then Clerk of the House a copy of the standing orders. I was also referred to a couple of statutes - I think the legislative members' privileges Act and the Constitution Act - at that time, It's all very difficult to absorb standing orders out of context when you haven't taken part in the debate, but as time goes by, these things start to become more understandable, have some meaning and some context.

I would urge through the Chair to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who perhaps usually unofficially has some responsibility under this vote, that consideration be given to having a supply of reference texts such as Sir Erskine May, 19th edition, and Beauchesne, in order that members could have these more readily available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Campion.

MR. NICOLSON: And Campion also, Mr. Chairman.

But I do feel that while maybe not every member of the House would want to avail themselves of such an opportunity, a store should be stocked in the

[ Page 4246 ]

office of the Speaker and that members who do from time to time refer to these might be able to have a copy of this during the period in which they hold office.

The practice right now is to borrow such a book from the library and to be constantly reminded that your library book is now overdue because you've had it out for over two weeks or 90 days or whatever. It's just a little bit silly, really. We expect to be here until the next election and to need these references until then. So I would like to see some consideration given to that.

The amount of this vote is fairly considerable, and if we're going to get some of the best mileage and if we're going to hope for some order and reasonable debates to go on in this House I think that it would be a worthwhile investment not necessarily to buy 55 copies of each - because I know they are very expensive as they are rare texts not in great demand, not exactly known as best-sellers.... But I think perhaps one could experiment and then see what the demand was, and then supply commensurate with the demand.

MR. C. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to say too much on this particular vote, but I think I should say a few words on behalf of the rural members in this province.

To start with I must say I agreed with quite a few of the remarks of the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) . One thing I would like to point out, and that quite a few people don't realize, is that there's no question that the rural member in fact is paid approximately $6,000 less than anyone living here in the capital city of Victoria for the simple reason that the outside members have to pay for their apartment. It seems to be a habit nowadays of five- or six-month sessions, which becomes quite an item, plus all other expenses. On top of this the local member can run across his riding on a 25-cent bus ticket, where the outside member, especially in places like Atlin, Omineca, and a few others.... I think the average member, no matter what party they belong to - and I brought this up to the commission when they were studying redistribution and they showed a great deal of interest - will put at least 20,000 miles on his car, all at his own expense. This is on top of the expense of staying here in Victoria and maintaining two homes, and of course being away from one's family about six months of the year.

Now Ontario takes a far more realistic look at rural MLAs than British Columbia. Again, the leader of the Liberal Party presented, I believe, all members in this House with some information on Ontario where they pay accommodations while the members are in the capital city. The way this session is going, that would be all year round. On top of this they even take note of the fact that many members can't afford to bring their wives to the capital city very often and they supply four round-trips for the wives to be able to come to the capital city and at least get acquainted with their husband or wife again.

I must say I agree with the leader of the Liberal Party that I'm certainly not satisfied with the way this House is functioning at the present time. I would say without any chance of being contradicted, which is a brave statement to make in this House, that the people out in the country think we're a bunch of idiots at best. I would suggest that all members of this House should be taking a hard look at themselves, because if we don't, we'll be destroying the institution which we are in.

Because people certainly don't agree with the way the House is functioning. They say we're wasting an awful lot of time in Victoria nitpicking at each other where we should be around our constituencies looking at the problems. I would say that there should be a small committee of four members - one from each party - just to draw up approximate terms of reference which a proper House committee could review. There are many things that should be changed to streamline this Legislature to get the business of the people done more quickly, because I would say at the present time we're 50 years out of date.

One thing we need to do - and the people deserve this type of treatment - is to try and get the ministers out around the province so they can see what's happening in the mines, in agriculture, in forests or other places. They can't possibly do their duty while they're sitting here in the Legislature with their heads down. As we always used to say in the army, it's hard to advance when you've got your head down below the trench.

I think it's also necessary for the MLAs, whether they be opposition or government, to get around the province and see what the government is doing right or wrong, and that goes for all members of this House. So I would hope that before we come back to Victoria again, a committee will be allowed to study this problem of getting the people's business done and to report back at the first day of the next session. I'm convinced that an awful lot of the conversation and discussion that goes on during the estimates could very well be better done in front of a committee, because you can have the deputy minister and other people in the ministry to answer questions. Only the major policy decisions should be discussed here in this Legislature.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would only like to mention one more thing, and that is the need of a secretary for each member. Last winter the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) and I were sharing one secretary. I must say that with the load of letters coming in from some of these rural areas - and certainly she did an excellent job; I'm not criticizing her work at all - from the time I dictated the letters

[ Page 4247 ]

until the time they were mailed, sometimes it was over 10 days. I think the people of this province deserve something better than that. They expect answers quickly to their requests and I don't think it's asking too much, when government is as big as it is today, to have one secretary for each member.

I know if it hadn't been for the fact that the hon. member for Fort George had brought his secretary down here at his own expense to take care of some of the workload, which shouldn't be necessary, I would be likely to be two to 18 days in getting my letters answered. Again, I must urge the government to consider this for the next session, because it's simply not good enough to have letters laying around that long just because we should be hiring two or three extra staff members.

MR. KING: I just wanted to make a few comments under this vote. I certainly associate myself with some of the remarks presented by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and also the Conservative leader, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , as well, I might say, as with some of the remarks of the member for Skeena.

As a rural MLA also, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the services and the expectations from the people in rural ridings are quite different, I suspect, from those in city ridings where a vast range of services are more closely available. Rural MLAs are used in a fashion which requires them to be everything from a father confessor and marriage counsellor to a lawyer. Mr. Chairman, the volume of work, I suspect, is much heavier because rural people do not have the range of other services to call on. They use their MLAs and consequently their flow of correspondence is much heavier.

It is a problem getting around the riding. It is a problem when one has to travel some 400 miles to reach the riding and then look at a riding that is 250,300 or 400 miles long, with a whole variety of small municipalities contained therein. They are all experiencing the same kinds of problems; duplicate problems for different municipalities all requiring attention. It is a problem in terms of your ability to travel to that riding very often because in some cases, such as my own, there is no plane service available. The closest one can fly to the riding is 125 miles away, and then you are confronted with the problem of some alternate means of travel. In those circumstances, there is no assistance made available from the government. It is a bit of an anachronism that some members are provided with full air flight travel for perhaps a 600-mile flight and others who have to fly only 300 miles are then stuck and isolated because the travel system does not provide a service into their home constituency. That is a problem and a bit discriminatory, quite frankly. I think there might be some consideration given to recognizing travel to one's riding, whether it be by aircraft or other mode of travel which is, in many cases, required.

I know the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is confronted with much the same problem as I am, only I don't think his riding is quite as large in terms of servicing once he arrives there. I want to suggest that consideration should be given to that problem.

I think some of the other remarks that the member for Skeena made are very valid in terms of the expenses; no question about that. The proposition that greater numbers of Hansard should be made available is an excellent one, I think. We live in a very large, diverse province, where many of the citizens simply do not have the opportunity to visit Victoria, to sit in this institution as spectators and get some feel for the flavour of the institution and some knowledge of the proceedings. Hansard provides that and I suspect that if we are interested in providing some greater understanding to all the people of the province, the provision of greater numbers of Hansard is a way of doing it, without imposing a cost on the people to avail themselves of that information.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I too feel that in an enterprise as large as this and with the full-time attendance that is required by all members, either to the institution of parliament itself or certainly to one's duties and obligations in the riding, a full-time stenographer is an absolutely essential requirement. One should not be placed in the position of having to defer dealing with correspondence. The citizens of the province are entitled to prompt, expeditious responses from all members of the House and I think it is perhaps false economy to try to save money at the expense of that service.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to add too much more to the debate, but perhaps as one who has had the honour of being here for a number of years and had the pleasure of sitting on both sides of the House and experiencing both sets of responsibilities, I might be able to add a little bit.

I really can't think of anything that has been said before that I would want to dissociate myself with, but I would like to address myself just for a moment to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party's comments, which I listened to very carefully. I don't disagree with everything, but I would like to suggest, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is always very easy to attach the system and look for new systems and newer systems and newer systems when, perhaps, one should be looking at the cause for the failure of the system. I would suggest that the one point that hasn't been addressed in this debate is: what is, in fact, the responsibility of the individual member of this House? I certainly don't presume to

[ Page 4248 ]

put on a halo myself. I'm sure I've contributed as much as any to constructive business in this House.

But I do feel that the system itself that we have is not all bad. It is a time-honoured system. It's not one that can't have some alteration. But when you compare it with systems in other parts of the world, you recognize a number of facts. One is that the democratic British parliamentary system does allow for direction of a country which we don't see in other areas.

If you look at Italy, for example, or if you look at parts of France's history, where you have almost a melting pot of ideas - and that's certainly something many of us have thought about - you don't really get the leadership necessary in a country. I think we have to recognize today, whether we like it or not, leadership is an essential ingredient.

It's a good thing that many of the public have become very much involved and very much aware of government and even the maze of government. The public today and the western hemisphere have more opportunity to speak their mind, to take action and frequently to be financed by government to take action, to point out to government what alternate proposals might be. This is a very good thing. But it has also made the ability of government to govern extremely difficult. The danger here is, in fact, legislation or changes or development in the country can be held up by a system which is striving to be all democratic but which, in fact, bogs down and sinks in the mire of its own democracy or in the confusion of it's own democracy.

I think the committee system, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, has much merit in it, providing there is an opportunity for those members who don't sit on all those committees to know or have a summarized recording of what happens in those committees. Rural members particularly find themselves in a position where they have to give detailed answers to almost the broadest scope of government function at an instant notice. Their opportunity to be involved and know what's going on must be protected. I think that whatever system we look at .....

If you look at the American system - and I'm sorry I don't have a very good article here, because I think it would have interested members - they have their own problems with their committee system. They find that they are in conflict with their own philosophies, and where this should, in fact, bring about a very progressive type of government, I suggest to you that at times it's bringing about a very non-responsive type of government.

If you look at Canada, where it does have the parliamentary process, you see great social advances which are yet to come in the American system - I would speak of medical care just as one - where it has been impossible, because of the looseness of the structures and the ability to form committee after committee, to really get together and get a consensus and to have the leadership to bring about some of these necessary developments and progress. I think the NDP, with the greatest of respect, tried to streamline the system, to make it more effective by bringing in limited hours for debate of estimates. I think rule 45, section 3, outlines that 35 hours is the maximum, Yet this year, with the same party in opposition, assuming the same type of responsibility, I'm sure they looked for in the then opposition, have well exceeded that limit and are well over 200 hours at this time. So was it the system that was wrong or was it, in fact, the personal responsibility. I leave this to the House to judge. As far as MLAs themselves are concerned, I probably sit in one of the best positions to speak. I'm fortunate enough....

MR. LEA: The back bench.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not ashamed of being a private member; are you, Mr. Member?

MR. LEA: No, but I didn't expect to go to cabinet and you did.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm very proud of it, as a matter of fact. I find that if it weren't for the fact that my family and husband were willing to support me in politics and I'm not an extravagant-living politician ... when I examine our situation, I don't see how any young family person who's responsible for a family could today serve in the Legislature of British Columbia unless they happened to live in Victoria. I feel that the public would want to know the tremendous financial burden there is. There is certainly a responsibility to limit one's own business activities, to limit their own investments. It's very difficult to have any investments in British Columbia if you are a member of the Legislature and perhaps that's the way it should be. But if so, there should be compensation sufficient so that if a young person enters politics, the years they lose - in terms of seniority in their positions or the command they would hold in their profession, their pension benefits, their advancement benefits, their fringe benefits -shouldn't be a penalty, and they are today. I would suggest our pension system should be reviewed so that young people - and I say this because I am fortunate to have a husband who will support me when I retire, which isn't an announcement - should be able to look forward to serving in the Legislature, to being able to support their family in a reasonable style and to companionship with that family during long sessions, as was said by my colleague. They should be able to look forward to an opportunity to re-enter private life, not at the bottom of the scale, but either where they left off or with a degree of

[ Page 4249 ]

security so that they can take the upgrading that is necessary for them to re-enter their former profession or business opportunity. I would completely agree that the rural members - although I have to be mindful that I've never been a metropolitan member and I'm not really conversant with the burdens that are put on them; I'm sure they're great - have 24-hour day, 365-days-a-year jobs. It is simply impossible to hide when you live in a small area. I'm sure there is not a non-metropolitan member here who won't admit that it's been a long time since they've had a day off, free from service to their constituents. I don't think they regret it but I do feel that they could do a better job if they had more secretarial service, as has been mentioned.

I think that members should have more research staff. It's a highly technical world. Our legislation is highly technical and it's very detailed. I would like to suggest that we should have a ratio of one research member for every four private members. There is simply no way, even when you hear the best of presentations by outside groups, that you can do all the research necessary in order to be at confidence with yourself that the decision you're making has examined all aspects.

I don't know how people get along with half-time secretaries. I have three nearly full-time secretaries, one of which I finance myself, and I still can't keep up with the correspondence. I think that the people of British Columbia need to know through a sound information system exactly what their MLAs do and what is expected of them and that they would respond very positively to the opportunity for them to have the assistance they need to do a better job.

We are the ombudsmen of the people and even if we set up an ombudsman of the province, which we will be doing, it is the MLA who will, in fact, be the ombudsman of the people, and that's as it should be.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I could not allow this vote to pass without a remark. I'm impelled to do it with regard to remarks made in this House by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) .

I heard his impassioned remarks - almost emotional at a point - when a cheque of $182 or some such amount was returned because it was deemed that it was taken improperly in exercising a duty for this Legislature. No one could ever impugn the honour and integrity of this honourable man. I make it clear that I wish this to be on record. We all know that's not for me to say. You can say what you like about his political enterprises, but there's one thing - his honour and integrity can never be challenged.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: This House has spent far too much time on this triviality. We have the same situation occurring on our side of the House - days of debate on total triviality. The public is not happy, and no one should be happy that the time of this Legislature can be taken in this regard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for Oak Bay suggested that he has called his lawyer to consider whether or not it should be a judicial decision. Well, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is beyond a judicial law. It is entirely within the limits of this House that this situation must be resolved, not in the judicial law.

I come before you, Mr. Chairman, and say....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is debating an issue that's before a House committee and all sorts of other committees at the present time. I really think it's quite out of character for the member and certainly off vote 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. COCKE: If it's been dealt with, Mr. Premier, it's responding to a vote that's already been taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I thank you for your remarks. I would ask the hon. member for Dewdney to keep his remarks relevant to vote 1.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. Chairman must recognize that this is vote I we're on and we're dealing with matters interpreting vote 1. There's no way you can call this out of order in this respect. However, I've said what I've said and that is sufficient.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think this House should assemble itself in some form or other between the parties concerned to solve these trivialities and not fool around with them for the next two or three months in committee. We must solve them ourselves. I suggest that we get together as parties and as members and solve these little housekeeping matters within ourselves.

What about the dining room? Hon. members, we go to this dining room, and it's traditional throughout parliaments of Canada and the United States that each parliament has a dining room. Each one almost without question - in fact, I can say without question - runs at a horrendous loss. How many members have used that dining room? Should they be charged under the same system? I say to you that perhaps they should, but such trivialities must be thrown overboard. Such trivialities must be considered

[ Page 4250 ]

here and finished.

I would not have said this except for the remarks the hon. member for Oak Bay made, and I want to make it clear how displeased I am with the entire tenor of the movement that has gone on in respect to members taking small amounts of consideration for honourable duties they did in the service of the public.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to refer to the remarks from the hon. members and to say that I have appreciated some of the constructive suggestions that have been made and the time that has been spent by some members of the House to bring forward suggestions.

I want to say that I note that the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) leans heavily on the committee system. I hope the hon. member will permit me to express some surprise for his admiration of the committee system in view of the events of this past week.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the responsibilities which he has outlined and some of the comments and interesting suggestions which the hon. Liberal leader has made have been taken, along with those suggestions made from all members of the House who have spoken. Some of the suggestions that have been made can be put into practice almost immediately, and other suggestions would have to be all-party deliberations. I would hope that in the months to come and in the time this Legislature has, we will be able to refer some of those suggestions and would be able to come up with some kind of resolution.

I would like to really stress what I think the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) has said well. I believe the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has also stated probably what every member in the House feels. Reference was made by every speaker on this vote that there is a low opinion somewhere out there in the citizenry of the legislative process and our parliamentary system in this House. I refer again to the hon. Liberal leader, who went to great pains to tell us how that could be changed and how the structure could be changed.

I would like to align myself with the opinions of all members who have spoken today who have in effect said that any structure is only as good as the individuals who operate within it. Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this vote, may I say that the responsibility that lies on the 55 members as individuals is far greater than the collective membership of this House. As individuals we carry a very great responsibility to act responsibly and see that the time of this House, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, is not wasted in this House.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that in the quietness of this debate today and in the seriousness of this debate, all members of the House will take this very seriously for the future debates in this parliament.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister said that every member who spoke in this debate reflected on the opinion in which this House is held by the public, and I in no way alluded to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your correction is well taken.

Vote 1 approved.

Schedule A: $9,481, 384 - approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on February 15 and 17; March 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 2 1, 22, 24; June 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30; July 7, 12, 14, 18, 27; August 3,1977, be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: I have one correction. The minister neglected August 2.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There were no resolutions yesterday.

MR. COCKE: Were there no resolutions yesterday?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the motion would then be correct as presented.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolutions from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4251 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her

Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $9,481, 384 to make good certain sum ' s expended for the fiscal year ended

March 31,1976; (2) $3,866, 328,564 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, such sum to be included that authorized to be paid under section I of the Supply Act, No. 1,1977.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is: that towards the making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $9,481, 384 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31,1976; (2) $3,866, 328,564 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1,1977.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2,1977

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 79, intituled Supply Act, No. 2,1977.

Leave granted,

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 79; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report to the House recommending the introduction of Bill 79.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution of Bill 79 and delivers the same to the Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2,1977

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 4252 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Supply Act, No. 2,1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 44.

SYSTEMS ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I've almost forgotten the name of this bill, but I believe it's the Systems Act, Bill 44.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish, through merger, a new Crown corporation - the British Columbia Systems Corporation. The corporation intends to consolidate and serve the computing and data-processing functions of each ministry of the government. Its board of directors, appointed largely from cabinet, will provide top-level authority for provincial policy planning and control of government computing resources. This legislation clarifies the many diverse government computing organizations, policies and informal mandates.

In the long term the corporation's main value is in the provision of improved systems and methods to provide better information at realistic costs. Better information, especially across many inter-related ministries, will allow positive advances in the management and planning of all provincial resources.

Mr. Speaker, the short-term goal is to improve the utilization of computers and technical expertise and to reduce the recent acceleration of computing costs. This is to be achieved by economies of scale in the consolidation of separate smaller computers and technical groups, by better studies of cost and benefit and by user accountability through full charge-back of all costs incurred.

Over the last eight years the rapid growth in the use of data processing and computer equipment has caused serious problems within government ministries and agencies. First, there is a great deal of wastage in the $22 million cost for staff and equipment, due primarily to lack of clear-cut policy, a shortage of qualified staff and lack of specific hardware and software. The situation was made worse by a minimum of co-ordination of data processing activities between ministries, resulting in many incompatible systems.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the information produced in many ministries is inadequate for management and planning, as the systems were never designed for modern needs of management. The scope and depth of the problems and the long-term impact emphasizes the gravity of the situation. Most of the information systems will require two or three years of redevelopment. A bold attempt to create a new data processing environment to encourage an entire programme of co-ordinated upgrading sets a basis for the concept within this Act.

Mr. Speaker, the board members are the Minister of Finance and two to seven others appointed by cabinet. Since this board sets provincial policy with respect to computing and systems, and serves only government agencies and ministries, most board members will be members of cabinet. The board has powers to establish such policies as it considers appropriate for the consolidation and rationalization of data processing services provided to government entities. The board will ensure that government entities achieve economies by the use of such data processing services that are provided or recommended by the co-operation and are appropriate for the needs of the government entities. The board has a policy purview over all ministries of the government and their departments, branches, divisions and sections, as well as other designated boards, commissions, associations, colleges, hospitals and boards of school trustees. Crown corporations and universities can be included by invitation and agreement.

The board will also be responsible for the supervision of the management of the corporation. The board will review and approve all operating and capital budgets and will establish policies for the corporation to provide data processing services on an economic basis.

Mr. Speaker, the formation of the corporation is essentially a merger of four major computer installations: the medical plan, Finance and two in Energy, Transport and Communications, as well as several smaller centres and 300 management and technical staff from most ministries. The corporation plans to consolidate the Victoria computer installations within 12 months. The plan is to recruit or promote approximately 30 senior management and technical specialists with appropriate experience. Victoria will remain the head office and major centre with other staff and shared facilities in Vancouver, as well as remote terminals throughout the province.

This corporation will operate as a normal Crown corporation on a business basis of charges for services rendered at rates competitive with outside alternatives and under generally accepted accounting principles recommended by the Canadian Institute of

[ Page 4253 ]

Chartered Accountants. Government business will also be contracted to the private sector, where economical and reliable on a continuing basis. The corporation will not extend its services to the industrial or commercial component of the private sector.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the outside contractors and vendors in this business have been told that the volume of business which they would receive in total would substantially increase, provided they can meet competition with other vendors in an open tendering situation. The tendering situation would be professionally handled through a contracts and procurements division within the corporation. The B.C. Systems Corporation plan anticipates that certain data processing functions of government business will be subcontracted and carried out by the public sector. Examples would be contracted data entry, plotting, programming, systems design, many configurations, digitizing, processing and so on. Many of these skill areas can be subcontracted on a peak load basis and a continuous basis. The B.C. Systems Corporation plan is based on a policy that a small team of four or five contract administrators can evaluate tenders and oversee contracts for private sector involvement. In this way, a small contract and procurement staff within the corporation can mobilize outside skills.

Mr. Speaker, there is no desire to build every skill and facility within the Systems Corporation. Also, there has never been any doubt about the corporation's intent to conduct the quest for proposals or tenders on a competitive basis. Most large-scale requirements of equipment, software or expertise will be acquired by evaluation of bids. I might say we have a major tender out now for replacement of all peripheral tapes and discs of all installations.

Mr. Speaker, the corporation will undertake an immediate consolidation of authority to guarantee the development of integrated plans and technical compatibilities across all government entities. Later, controls will be relaxed and selectively distributed back to the user ministries. Specific user prerogatives of involvement and approval give the user considerable authority to identify their needs and priorities and to influence corporate policies and procedures. New policies and procedures will also ensure better feasibility studies to identify hidden costs and better control of development projects to stay on budget on time. The corporation will recommend and implement new data processing standards, practices, controls and technical guidelines and will establish continuous training for both service staff and user staff as required for a progressive improvement of information systems.

Mr. Speaker, through this bill, the corporation provides an opportunity to participate in the overdue development of federal and provincial legislation and procedures, to protect individual privacy and to establish uniform and reliable policies for the security of records. I would direct the members of this House to sections 3 (2) and 19 in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, this Act establishes a user review committee of senior staff selected by the ministries and agencies. Established as an advisory unit to the corporation, the committee will monitor and review the performance of the corporation. The users will provide planning information forecast to resolve priority problems and contradictory objectives in their joint projects.

Mr. Speaker, a general manager has now been selected and his responsibilities will be similar to the chief executive officer of other Crown corporations. The board and/or general manager will appoint any senior officers. As a matter of information, to refresh the members' memories, this gentleman's name is Mr. D.A. Alexander. He has been appointed as chief executive officer of the British Columbia Systems Corporation. Mr. Alexander has been selected by a cabinet committee from many excellent candidates in a national competition. He is planning to commence his new responsibilities on September 1,1977. Mr. Alexander is eminently qualified for this position, through 10 years of executive responsibilities in other versions of larger-scale data processing in both government and commercial sectors. For the last four years, Mr. Alexander has been the chief executive of the government of Ontario data processing authority. As assistant deputy minister of government services, he heads a unit which is similar to the B.C. Systems Corporation in function, scope and size but different in many fundamental concepts. Prior to joining the ministry of Ontario, he was vice-president of operations for Canada Systems Group, a major commercial data centre. Earlier, he received his basic computer training with Canadair, General Dynamics Corp., and Xerox Corp.

Mr. Speaker, this plan calls for all appropriate data processing positions to be converted to the corporation and for staff to be appointed to these positions at various dates shortly after the intended date of proclamation. The present agreements with the B.C. Government Employees Union will be carried over, with negotiated amendments relative to the changing environment. Staff will not suffer a reduction in salary through conversion from the public service to the corporation. Other rights and benefits, such as service seniority, medical plan, superannuation, et cetera, will continue through the conversion. Staff joining the corporation will be eligible to return to the public service within one year. The corporation is to receive no development grants or subsidies. All start-up funds are to be amortized and recovered from future user charges. The corporation is empowered to borrow from the

[ Page 4254 ]

provincial government, on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, to a maximum of $25 million.

This Crown corporation will be unique, Mr. Speaker, with respect to government control, in that the board of directors is essentially Treasury Board and cabinet. Also, the financial administration sections of this Act are the strongest financial controls and reporting requirements of all British Columbia Crown corporations.

I might say, in opening the debate on this bill, that I have a series of technical amendments which will be placed on the table after second reading has been concluded.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 44.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I got the impression, Mr. Speaker, when the minister was reading his speech that he was living in the era of Flash Gordon. We're both the same age and we used to watch Flash Gordon, I'm sure, when we were kids, with all those computers. He was attempting to explain to us what is going on. I might ask him at the end of this to table his notes so that we can recap what he said. I'm sure he would do that.

I get the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that he was reading in part from a report by Mr. McMinn. Unfortunately, the minister has in the past refused to table that report. It would be essential, I think, for any rational discussion on this legislation for us to have access to that report. There are two reasons for that. One is that we would like to know what Mr. McMinn's thinking was and we'd also like to know, before the bill passes, what might be the reaction on this from the private sector, particularly, because the private sector has not been consulted.

I think that one of the things that we have to bear in mind with this government is that in the beginning almost its very first act was to introduce into the cabinet chamber a shredder to shred all the documents. Now I began to wonder whether that was because they didn't trust one another or what. Then we have to bear in mind that this is the same government that a year ago was involved to some extent in the perusing of blacklists.

We have to ask ourselves that in relation of this Systems Act, which has got far more power than the minister has outlined in his speech.... This is a massive power bill because it will affect the lives of every citizen in this province. We have two things. We have a government that uses a shredder and we have a government that is interested in blacklists. Then we have a minister - again, it's a question of trust -who, when he presented his first budget into this House, Mr. Speaker, allowed access to that budget by an unsworn consultant, There was no relationship at all to the parliamentary system; it was very informal. That is what we have to deal with.

Again, we have the question of trust. This is the minister who is bringing it in. He told us at the end of his speech that the board of this corporation will actually be the Treasury Board and some cabinet ministers. This is a long way from the kind of discussion we have had in this House about Crown corporations being at arm's length and there being no political involvement in the decision making. Yet the minister turns around and tells us that that is what the board is really going to be all about.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is, in effect, the abolition of privacy in this province. This corporation will literally have multifaceted files on everybody in this province. We have to be concerned about that, because this is a cabinet that believes in secrecy. It is as though the scenario were written for us some years ago by George Orwell when he talked in his book about 1984. I'm surprised that we have not had a greater frank discussion in public initiated by the minister on many of the implications that are going to take place in this legislation, particularly related to the issues of privacy.

In 1972 the federal government produced a report called "Privacy and Computers, " On page 12 they have: "The Concept of Privacy." Mr. Speaker, I want to quote one section which I think is relevant to the kind of discussion that I want to get into afterward with relation to the issue of privacy.

"Privacy claims appear to fall roughly into three major categories: relating to property, person and information. What runs through all three and is indeed the force attracting them into one constellation is the fundamental principle that there are realms in the physical and psychological sense, in which an individual may, as an attribute of his personality, demand to be left alone and do as he sees fit.

"This notion of right to be left alone perhaps could be justified in terms of the uses an individual may make of his privacy: to enjoy other liberties, to fulfil other human needs and to achieve desirable social goals. But that is not the point. What is essential is that these zones or realms of privacy are important, if not essential, for the well-being of the individual and ultimately for the good order of society irrespective of what he may do within it."

"The very essence of a totalitarian society is that it penetrates and it intrudes into these three realms with nearly perfect totality in Orwell's 1984. "

They go on to say, Mr. Speaker:

"The Third Realm - The Privacy and Information Context:

"The third category of claims to privacy was of primary relevance to the task force. It is based essentially on the notion of the dignity and integrity of the individual and on their

[ Page 4255 ]

relationship to the information about him. The notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is, in a fundamental way, his own - for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit. And this is so whether or not the information is subsequently communicated accurately or whether or not it is potentially damaging to his reputation, to his pocketbook or to his prospects. The context is, of course, the controlling factor in determining whether or not particular information will be damaging."

Mr. Speaker, what we would have expected with this kind of legislation is an opportunity for the general public to be able to discuss this. There are ways of doing this. There are ways for a minister to be able to communicate with the public. I'm not referring to the legislation in terms of Bill 65, bat in 1973 the previous government spent the best part of 16 months going around this province talking about community resource boards, discussing the concept and getting input about what people understood them to be and what they thought they should be. At the end of it legislation was drafted. What we have here, from the minister's own information which has not always been easy to get, is that the government hired a consultant in April, 1976. He produced a report sometime in October, 1976, and since then the government has been setting about, regardless of legislation, to set up this corporation. We even heard last week from the minister during the question period that if the legislation doesn't go through, they're going to do it anyway. But what we have not had is an opportunity to have discussion in the community. There has been no communication with the private sector. No communication in terms of people who have a long-standing interest in the issues of civil liberties - and there are issues of civil liberties in this legislation.

What we've had is a corporation that has been created in haste. What amazes me is that we have no explanation as to what really this great hurry is. The minister tells us that what he is attempting to do is to save money. But it's my impression in talking to people both in the public service and in the private sector that the consultants that have been hired by the minister are spending money like a lot of drunken sailors.

Now we've seen this kind of thing happen before when you involve a programme which is done in haste, when you bring in consultants at incredible fees and you try to get something going, and the reason you give that it's got to get going is that you are going to save the public money. We have situations today where public servants who are technicians, who have expertise in the field, are working alongside people who are making something like $30 an hour and they themselves are making $12 an hour. This is not peculiar just to this government; other governments have had the same problem, and it's always been in the question of: "What's the rush?" What do we have to rush it for? If it's going to be done well, it's going to take time.

This is not one of the outstanding political promises of the government's campaign in 1975, Mr. Speaker. They didn't campaign on the basis that we would bring in a corporation that will co-ordinate all of the Systems Corporation and that if they hadn't brought it in they wouldn't have won the election. One can wonder why it is that they even got into this thing. Who put them up to it? Who came to the Minister of Finance or to the Premier and said: "You know what we should do? Take all the computers in the government, put them together and have one big centre. We'll have all those tapes, and we'll be able to know what's going on, bottom-line-wise, and we'll save money."?

Now the minister has told us that the present expenditures are $22 million a year. I would like him to tell us when he winds up the debate what makes up this $22 million a year, and what it is going to cost once you've put it together and you've got the operation going. Now there are a number of figures that' are being mooted: $22 million for present-day expenditures, and some people are saying that you will not be able to operate this corporation for less than $40 million or $50 million once you've got the thing set up.

The minister has an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to tell us where he gets the $20 million figure and what he is anticipating that it's going to cost. That's important for us to know here.

I know that when we first raised the issue that they were rushing madly ahead regardless of the legislation and setting the thing up, the minister said: "Well, we had $3.5 million approved in the estimates."

Well, you, know, Mr. Minister, that technically was not correct. The only thing we approved in this House was one-third of that $3.5 million, and I'll lay odds, Mr. Speaker, they spent one heck of a lot more money than that without authority. Don't tell me that you took the money.... Mr. Speaker, they took it from the Ministry of Finance. After all, the Ministry of Finance last year spent $1.6 million. What did you spend this year, or have you stopped that operation?

You've been spending a great deal of money. It was all done in haste because you have a report that was put together in under six months and we haven't seen it. All we know is that this is the advice the minister has received. The minister, frankly, Mr. Speaker, has been less than candid with us about information. We need that kind of information in order to be able to debate this bill.

I want now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the private

[ Page 4256 ]

sector. There is in British Columbia, in the computer and data-processing industry, a private sector. What is remarkable is that that side of the House - the freedom fighters, the free-enterprisers, the millionaires who, for hours on end when they were in opposition, stood up and said, "there's too much government involvement" - is taking up the room that the private sector should have. So what do we have? We have from the minister, who tells us there's going to be a corporation, that they're going to handle all of the processing within the government, and they're even going to go into the private sector. They're even going to make it possible to do work for the federal government.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it's in the bill that you can contract services to the federal government. I'll give you the reference, if you like. The thing is, Mr. Speaker, they can't have it both ways. They can't argue that they're the freedom fighters for the free-enterprise system, and then they're going to dump the free-enterprise system down the drain by bringing in this kind of legislation.

You know, we had a telegram from the private sector. We had a telegram from them on June 2 1,1977:

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS IS GREATLY CONCERNED OVER THE WORDING OF BILL 44, THE SYSTEMS ACT, IN THE FORM THAT IS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE. SHOULD THE BILL BE PASSED INTO LAW AS IT NOW EXISTS, THE B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION WILL HAVE THE POWER TO FREELY COMPETE AT A PRICE AS THEY MAY DETERMINE IN AREAS BOTH WITHIN AND OUTSIDE B.C. PRESENTLY SERVICED BY THE PRIVATE-ENTERPRISE COMPUTER-SERVICE COMPANIES. THE ASSOCIATION IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH SECTION 3. AND, IN THIS RESPECT, WE CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SUBSECTION (2)

.... and they relate a number of concerns.

IF BCSC OPERATES IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IT COULD SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF VARIOUS DATA PROCESSING FIRMS OPERATING IN B.C. BY ELIMINATING SUBSTANTIAL EXISTING AREAS OF WORK.

Now that is going to be the first major impact on the industry. The industry in British Columbia is worth about $15 million. They've got about 750 employees. They get about $5 million. Thirty per cent of their money comes from the government, but it's been very clearly stated by the minister that that won't be available. That's got to be done by the government.

What the minister hasn't told us, although he talked in his opening remarks, is that they have to be competitive. What kind of an analysis has gone into the question of how you can be competitive in terms of the private system, when you're talking about the government? When we look at what has happened in terms of competitiveness in this kind of structure we simply have to look at what took place in the federal government. The federal government also set up a system that it was going to operate. The principle was that if it operated it had to be competitive. Mr. Speaker, after it had operated for three or four years, they found they couldn't compete and they went out of business.

So I'd like the minister to tell us just what the principles are that he's talking about when he talks about being competitive, because this is what the industry is concerned about. The industry is very concerned about it. The minister received a brief from a group of the people in the industry back in November, 1976. They say:

"The enclosed brief represents the collective thinking of a number of private data processing firms regarding the proposed new Crown corporation, British Columbia Systems Corporation, which is apparently being organized to provide data processing services to all provincially funded institutions."

What's interesting is that they say in the first paragraph: "which is apparently being organized to provide data processing services." I asked the minister previously in question period, Mr. Speaker: did they consult the private sector? He wiffle-waffled around, but the bottom line was that they didn't consult the private sector. The private sector did not know what was going on.

We're talking about the government's invasion of the private sector, the thing that they swore up and down this province that they would never do. We had the ads last year about freeing enterprise and letting the pigeon out of the cave and there's the Minister of Finance standing behind a tree and shooting it down. "Let's free free enterprise!", they say in their brief. They continue:

"The brief is intended to provide you with information from a source which could be seriously affected by this legislation, the private sector."

Obviously there has been no contact at all with this group because they say:

"The brief is intended to provide you with information from a source which could be seriously affected by this legislation.... As far as we can ascertain, this information was not sought by the consultant who did the study." They say it in the brief. The consultant, Mr. McMinn, did not go and ask the private sector.

"It seems unlikely, in view of the Social

[ Page 4257 ]

Credit government's well-known position on free enterprise, that you knowingly enact the legislation of establishing policies to the detriment of the private sector."

That's what they campaigned on, Mr. Speaker. They conned everybody because here they are, Mr. Speaker - they've brought in the bill.

Mr. Levi moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.