[ Page 59 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

On the amendment:

Mr. Gibson –– 59

Mr. Loewen –– 71

Mr. Nicolson –– 73

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson –– 77

Presenting reports

Administration of Transit Services Act, 1976-1977 and T.S. Holdings financial statements.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 87

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, we- had a little fun before dinner. I want to be very serious now about this amendment, which relates to the usefulness of the throne speech in tackling the problems of unemployment and economic development in this province.

The proposals for job creation section of the opening speech suggested in its third line that the government "should not fall into the trap of becoming the provider of short-lived employment." I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why this particularly applies. What is wrong with the government providing short-lived employment, if in the circumstances of the day that is what is useful for the population of the country? People in our society, with our social programmes today, are supported in any case. In's not a question of an extra economic cost, it's a question of whether people who want to do productive work day by day can find productive work to do. The only time that short-lived employment becomes a trap is if it gives rise to effort which is wasted, or if, as a result of being locked into the short-term employment, the job-search procedure becomes frustrated, or if the work is merely displacement work, not new work - in other words, if it's merely a different level of government paying for work that would have been done in any case.

If you have these kinds of problems, then your short-term palliative can become a long-term crutch, and it's not good. But if, in fact, productive work can be found in the short term, then there's nothing wrong with it. The government, , in a contradictory way, seems to go on in the opening speech and recognize that, because then it gives us a bunch of proposals that it says will create incremental and special employment in this coming year. But the trouble is, Mr. Speaker, there are no dollars and there are no numbers. There are no job guarantees given by which route this House, in six months or a year, can assess whether or not the "proposals for job creation" of this opening speech truly were effective.

We can't assess the meaning without that kind of commitment, but I think we can be sure of one thing: the commitment towards the end of the opening speech that the budget is going to be balanced. "The budget will Emphasize again the importance of governments performing within the limits of their income." Those words, I think, indicate to me that there won't be any significant commitment in dollar terms for new job creation in this province, because if you look at it this way If a significant impact on unemployment of 109,000 is Twenty thousand would be a good place to start. Let's say realistically maybe only 10,000 is all you could do in one year, building up to it. But you can't hope to do that for under, at the least, $10,000 a job when you talk about paying people at a minimum wage, even, and then the kind of support services, material and equipment they need to do their work effectively. That' s 100 million, and we have had no indication from the government that any kind of substantial commitment of that kind is going to be done.

You know, if the government would do this kind of thing, they'd be saving Ottawa some money in terms of unemployment insurance, in terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. They should take up Manpower Minister Cullen's challenge that he threw out here last September. I want to quote from the Victoria Times of September 26: "'British Columbia should be spending more on direct job-creation programmes to alleviate the high unemployment that can be expected to continue for about three years, ' federal Manpower Minister Bud Cullen said today." That T"M s back in September. The government has certainly had adequate warning in this regard. That's a three-year forecast. It's not a short-terra forecast; it's a part of this continuing baby boom that's working its way through our population system through the various age levels.

So there's the minister throwing out a challenge to this government, and I see no indication in the opening speech that our government has said: "Yes, we accept the challenge of the federal minister. We're going to go back and get some dollars f ram him to set up our own British Columbia version of the Canada Works programme, which is already going on nationally, and elaborate that programme very considerably in this province to meet our own British Columbia problems."

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of solutions suggested to the unemployment difficulties we have in this province, and to analyse them we have to list some of the basics of British Columbia unemployment and unemployment.

The British Columbia Liberal Party held a

[ Page 60 ]

conference at the end of January. It was a very good conference; I'm very proud of it. It had people there like Ron Shearer - he was a keynote speaker - Art Kube, Peter Pearse, Ian Mahood and others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Simma Holt.

MR. GIBSON: No, Simma couldn't make that one.

It was a first-rate conference, and the people of British Columbia are entitled to have the government sponsor an economic conference in this province which would outline their directions as to where they want to go - the blueprint for the economy that the Premier has referred to a number of times in this House. I haven't seen the blueprint, and don't know who the draftsman is. Is it the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ?

MR. LEA: He can't read blueprints.

MR. GIBSON: Well, he shared his knowledge with us before dinner; I enjoyed it.

But at this particular Liberal conference.... I want to talk about that a bit because there was an absolutely brilliant keynote speech by Ron Shearer. I've been looking for the transcript, which I have somewhere, and if I can f find it, I'll circulate it to any member that's interested. I'll give you a bit of a summary from my own notes, because it should be required reading for anyone who's concerned about the economy of this province.

Shearer told us that some of the boom philosophy that British Columbians have cane to expect in their economy is maybe wearing out. We had, between 1953 and 1973, a compounded rate of growth of 5.7 per cent per annum in terms of the growth of real gross provincial product. That was overall; that was not per capita. Our per capital growth was much lower. Our overall rate was about equal to that of West Germany, but our per capita growth was much lower.

Shearer distinguished between two different kinds of growth: one that he called "extensive, " which results from a stock expansion, an increase in the factors of production in the province and the other "intensive, " which is to say more efficient use of those particular factors. What are the various factors of extensive growth in our economy?

First of all, there's technological change which has been relatively minimal in British Columbia. The ones that have been really important are a massive increase in capital employed in our economy, a tremendous increase in the labour force and a tremendous increase in the natural resources that we have exploited in our province. The capital stock used per dollar of output in Canada is very high. It's $3 worth of capital employed for $1 of output. That's $3.40 in British Columbia, the highest capital ratio in Canada, as far as I know. The United States is only about $1.50. We're much more intensive users of capital than is the United States of America. The capital expenditure per person in British Columbia has been about 45 per cent above the Canadian average.

The capital expenditure in British Columbia, unfortunately, has been much more volatile than in the rest of the country. The augmentation of our population is really what has fuelled our boom for the past generation; it's been growing at a rate of around 3 per cent per year, which is 85 per cent in a 20-year time span. Yet, incidentally, our natural rate of increase has been the lowest in the country, about two-thirds of our population growth in British Columbia being the result of immigration into our province -the only province, incidentally, where that figure is over 50 per cent. But it appears that now the law of diminishing returns is setting in, because while we have had greater growth than most provinces, our growth per capita over that period has been below the rest of the country. It's averaged 6.9 per cent per year per capita across Canada and only 6.3 in British Columbia, which is to say below every region of the country, and very few British Columbians appreciate that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no. This is a long-term trend, Mr. Member. The unfortunate thing is that W in British Columbia are steadily exploiting constantly more marginal natural resources. It costs more to dig out the lower grade copper. It costs more to cut the trees up on the slope instead of down in the valley and so on. So in a sense, the more people who come to British Columbia, the more marginal resources they exploit and therefore the less return on the average there is. These are just facts of life. I'm not citing them as a good thing or a bad thing. They are just something British Columbians have to recognize.

The economic structure of British Columbia, according to Shearer's studies, has not really changed for 60 years. It is essentially an extraction and a preliminary processing economy, with very little high technology,

[ Page 61 ]

very little research and development in British Columbia industry. Shearer asked: "Why has the underlying structure not changed in that time:

MR. LEA: Tariffs and freight rates.

MR GIBSON: Certainly tariffs and freight rates have a great deal to do with it. A couple of other things have to do with it -for example, location. We tend to be remote from many markets for our goods. Our high labour costs, which are set by our natural resource industries, make it very difficult to enter into more labour-intensive secondary and tertiary production. Our incomes have been high on an international scale and they could be higher if we had a more sensible tariff structure in this country. But the thing is that deliberately trying to go in the face of the underlying structure, which is this extractive and preliminary processing economy, unless we have very good reason for doing it, is just going to cost us money. That's Shearer's analysis. The prospects for further growth, as he sees it, are that extensive growth, which is to say growth in terms of greater employment of natural resources, capital or labour force, is limited. I have to agree with that.

1 see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there. I'll make a flat statement. Forestry is no longer a growth industry in this province. I don't know if the minister is going to nod yes or no to that or just look straight ahead. Maybe the wiser thing right now is just look straight ahead. But I say that's the fact. This industry, which has fuelled the growth of our economy in British Columbia for as long as anyone can remember, is now a no-growth industry, and the $450 million that M & B is putting in, and the $250 million that Crown is putting in and so on, and even the extra money that Cominco is putting in up at Trail, is leading to more efficient production, which is essential to preserve our place in the world, but also to no more jobs and in some cases fewer jobs. We have to understand that. That's a challenge to the British Columbia economy.

Shearer concluded that the basic contribution of a provincial government has to be stability, and that uncertainty is the most serious injury that a government can do to an economy. I agree with that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's the kind of framework that we can look at our economy in, and 1 think the greatest disservice that anyone can do in the continuing debate about unemployment in our province is to peddle ideological, simplistic solutions. I'm sorry that I have to include among that group the organizers of the B.C. Federation of Labour who sponsored the demonstration outside this Legislature the other day. (~quite apart f rom the sincerity of the group that didn't want dialogue after they had asked people to come out and talk to them, quite apart from that issue, the simplistic solution is that if you spend and spend, you will solve the problems of British Columbia, without a single word about productivity. I don't know how many members looked through the pieces of paper we were given on that occasion: page after page there were solutions for jobs, but not a word about production and productivity.

Mr. Speaker, in the end the only thing that the people of this province have to divide up at the end of the year and at the end of the day is what's been produced that day. Anyone who pretends otherwise is doing a disservice to the people that they claim they are serving.

It's essential, Mr. Speaker, that the responsible leaders of this province - and in that I include the government, I include the B.C. Federation of Labour, I include all political parties - should do their best to give an economic education to the people of this province and not to sponsor myths that give rise to unrealistic expectations. It is essential for the citizenry to be economically literate, or else they are at the prey of every demagogue who would come along and say, "You can have this, and you can have that, " when it's just not possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that include profits?

MR. GIBSON: Which kind of prophet? Ezekiel? We'll get to that later.

It includes everything. You can't take more out of the barrel than you put in, and that applies to capital and it applies to Labour and it applies to everyone. If I can get such unanimity in the next election, I'll win.

Mr. Speaker, this need for economic education is why I have challenged the government year after year in this House to set up an economic council of British Columbia that would do the kind of economic education that's necessary for the citizens of this province, the better to understand the issues that confront their government day by day. Governments are making inevitably political decisions about the economy, and if those political decisions have to respond to an ill-informed media context or public information context, then inevitably those decisions will be biased in ways that won't be

[ Page 62 ]

in the best interests of the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I wouldn't suggest that member for chairman of the economic council, no, Mr. Member. There are some people I would suggest, but if I mentioned them I don't know if the government might put them on a blacklist. Speaking of a blacklist, I see that [illegible] Black was appointed the other day to head a study. Did you see that? That was very good.

MR. NICOLSON: Half a year, $17,500.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to read you some of the titles that a group called the Economic Council of Ontario has been able to produce recently: "Resources, Tariffs and Trade as It Affects Ontario" - I wish we had that in British Columbia. "Transportation Rates and Economic Development in Northern Ontario" - I wish we had a study like. that for northern British Columbia. How about another one? "Government Support of Scientific Research and Development" - the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) would like to see that kind of a study come out.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more examples here: "Public and Private Pensions in Canada" - the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) well knows that pensions are one of the timebombs that are ticking under the economy of this country. "Speculation and Monopoly in Urban Development" - many members of this House would be interested in that topic. I have title after title that the Economic Council of Ontario is putting out. We should have an economic council of British Columbia which could do the same kind of things.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the economic committee of this Legislature should be given a term of reference by this government. Again, as I told the demonstrators on the steps the other day, what a ridiculous thing it is that to come and talk to the government you have to stand here on the steps of the Legislature. Why do we not have an economic committee of this Legislature that meets regularly so that %v can say to you: "Please come inside with a delegation and sit down and tell us your answers, and then we can say, 'Well, now, do these make sense or not?' and we can ask you questions about details." It is no way to solve these questions out on the steps of the Legislature. That's what committees of this House should be for.

I want to say a little bit about the basic economy of this province. The major fact, Mr. Speaker, is that we all live off exports. We never need to worry about local services except insofar as the question of efficiency goes, but the demand will always be there -the demand for teachers and barbers and lawyers and all the other services that make up our economy. But the thing we make our living off is selling to the rest of the world so that we may buy from the rest of the world. Canada is a trading nation and British Columbia is the trading province of Canada, selling something like 55 per cent of the goods we produce. To do that we must meet markets, we must meet the competition and we must be adaptable.

I had occasion in December to go to the country of Switzerland, which is one of the countries that has adapted in this world as time has gone by.

MR. LAUK: Did you check your bank account?

MR. GIBSON: Visiting my money? No, Mr. Member, I don't have any money in Switzerland.

But you know, I had a very interesting lunch with two MPs. One was the head of the postal and telegraph union in Switzerland, 28,000 members, and he was a social democrat, as I remember. The other one was a Christian democrat and was a small businessman. The social democrat said to me, almost somewhat ruefully....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Did you have the same two? They were good men, weren't they.

They said to me: "In Switzerland the government is poor and the people are rich." I never forgot that. My gosh, wouldn't people in Canada like to hear that story. It's the opposite of what they are used to hearing.

And then I spoke to another deputy minister and I asked him about protection and industries that were going downhill. He said: "We have no such thing as that. If there's a dying industry, it dies, and we move on to other things."

He gave as an example their textile industry, which has almost died over the years, having left only the very high value content, the rich tapestries and so on that historically they are good at. But basically, they buy their shirts from somewhere else. I thought to myself: what a different approach to the world this is from Canada. Can we learn something from the fact that this nation despite their very valuable currency is prospering in foreign trade and we are not? We have an $11 billion dollar per year deficit on

[ Page 63 ]

finished goods. It's only our raw materials out of British Columbia and other parts of the country that keep us afloat in this world at all.

We in Canada have been far too protective. You should protect people; you should protect employment; but you cannot afford in the long run to protect individual industries. You've got to protect instead your competitive position in the world.

I'll tell you another major fact. Our exports out of British Columbia are raw materials and we are very often marginal suppliers. We are major exporters of energy in the form of natural gas and electricity. We are major exporters of minerals, particularly metal concentrates and coking coal, and we are major exporters of wood in the form of logs, chips, lumber and market pulp and paper, which is mostly newsprint - a relatively low upgrading input in that - and some plywood and wafer board and so on. The characteristic of these exports tends to be that there are major swings in price and [illegible] there's nothing like the growth of the past and in many of these we are becoming suppliers of last resort in this world. In many of these, when the market is good they buy from British Columbia and when the market is bad they buy from somewhere else.

Another major fact - there is very little of what is called "secondary industry" in British Columbia, and there is only moderate potential for it too. Any politician who wanders around this province waving his arms saying we are going to become a secondary industry province is just misleading people.

AN HON. MEMBER: It can happen!

MR. GIBSON: Well, FT. Member, depending on what you call secondary industry. If you are talking about research and that kind of thing, that's different. But if you are talking about making electric frypans, if you are talking about making tires or any of these other things, you are going to find that the local market won't support it. What we can make in this province and what we should make - and it's such a shame to see a company like Madill moving their operation down into Washington -is a secondary industry based on the purchasing requirements of our great government corporations like B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, and the government itself, based on the purchasing requirements of our natural resource industries - the forest industry, the mining industry. These are the kinds of things in which we have a natural built-in market.

AN HON. MEMBER: Imposed.

MR. GIBSON: No, not imposed, Mr. Member, but encouraged.

But the fact is that if you can encourage some of these things in which we have a built-in market, then you have a springboard to move off into the rest of the world. In some of these things you perhaps have a comparative advantage in technology. We do in undersea engineering because of the companies around the periphery of Burrard Inlet; because of the ocean engineering institute at the University of British Columbia; because of some other almost, but not entire, accidents; because we are based on the ocean and we are near deep water trenches in an inland water which will permit the testing of these particular, devices. And you can have secondary industry in what's called the "footloose industries" - things like electronics and so on, where it doesn't really matter from a transportation point of view where they are located. So there are real possibilities. But it is not the overall solution; that' s the point I'm trying to make. Anyone who pretends it is, I'm afraid, is misleading people.

Here's another major fact. I think that the export potential of the service sector - the tertiary sector as opposed to the secondary -is very good. Tourism is something that the government is giving a lot of attention to, and I credit them for that.

Engineering and design and consulting work is one of the finest, cleanest industries that any part of the world could want. We in British Columbia are fortunate to have that in the mining area and in the design of forest-products processing mills. But I think we can expand that. It's going to take some encouragement to bring many of those eastern firms out to British Columbia to work in this part of the world where it's a better climate, where it's all in all a more salubrious location.

As I said before, we can look to some of the specialized consulting services like undersea technology.

We can look to the export of the service which is called the retirement industry, which is one of the enormous possibilities for British Columbia. When Canadians want to retire, where do they go? Should we, as a deliberate provincial policy, encourage them to come to British Columbia? What are the costs and benefits of that? That is one of the things that the Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) should instruct his officials to undertake a study of, because one can encourage it or discourage

[ Page 64 ]

it. You can encourage it by various subsidy and building programmes, zoning of land and so on, or you can discourage it in other ~says. Is it good or bad for British Columbia? 1 suggest it is good and I suggest it be studied. 1 think that we can make a lot of money in this country in terms of export of service by the fact that we are a land bridge between Alaska and the United States.

Another major fact: no matter what anyone says about unemployment in this province, unemployment in this province will not be beaten until it is beaten in Canada, because as long as there are jobs in British Columbia, people will come here from outside of British Columbia, and that's just a fact of life. That will be governed by such things as our unemployment rate, our living costs, and competition from other parts of the country. For example, right now Alberta is more attractive than British Columbia in job terms, and so migration into British Columbia has tapered off to almost nothing. It will be governed as well by the flow of immigration into Canada. But fortunately for the time being and our current job climate, the federal government seems to have cut that back pretty much. Overall, this flow of people into British Columbia is the reason that our per capita income as British Columbians has been declining in relation to the average Canadian per capita income over the years. Looking at it in 20-year jumps or so, in 1936 our per capita income average in British Columbia ins 33 per cent, a full third above the Canadian average. By 1952 it had come down to 25 per cent above the Canadian average. By 1976 it had come all the way down to 7 per cent over the Canadian average. So there has been something happening over the time and it has been caused by the inflow of people into our province. So growth of itself is not good. it's not necessarily bad either; I don't say that. But the Ministry of Economic Development has, among other things, to analyse these growth costs. We as British Columbians have asked the federal government over the years for some compensation for the number of Canadians who are absorbing, in building Infrastructure in terms of roads, highways and schools and so on. We haven't achieved that and therefore growth has very definite costs to our province.

Mr. Speaker, what is the proper role of the provincial government in all of these economic questions and in the creation of jobs? You've got the traditional roles, the kind of thing Ron Shearer called for - stability. You've got the provision of collective services and infrastructure and you've got income redistribution. These are the traditional roles of government. Beyond that, I say that our provincial government has to develop and have an economic plan for this province that is clear and understood by its people and its industries. It' s got to do what I call de-mything the economy, dealing with some of the myths that are there and guiding our citizen expectations that are not true, like the myth that we are resource-rich and a bunch of blue-eyed Arabs; like the myth that our historic growth rates can be continued; like the myth that there's something wrong per se with being hewers of wood and drawers of water. There is nothing wrong with that per se, if that's the best way to make a living in this world and educate your children and have a decent standard of living for your people. The myth that regional development per se is a good thing.... It's good only in terms of people or culture or maintaining sovereignty in the far north - that kind of thing. But by itself, just developing a region because it is there, is in my view not a useful role of government. There are a lot of myths of this kind that a proper economic plan of this government would help clarify.

The industry ground rules have to be built up. We talk about an industrial strategy country-wide. How much more difficult is that than an industrial strategy in a reasonably well-defined economy like British Columbia? The minister should, in consultation with the industry and in consultation with the working people in each industry, set up, sector by sector, working committees that will identify development and job creation opportunities in each of those industries of our province, working in co-operation - government and management and labour. Let the world know what the plan is and don't be bashful about announcing it and don't be bashful about changing it; don't be bashful about being wrong. It's better to be wrong than have no plan at all.

The government has got to set other ground rules with respect to what economists call .. externalities." Social accounting - what's the social accounting you use in these new projects? The environmental account - what are the costs? What are the secondary economic advantages? You've got to tell the people how this is done in a project, say, like northeast coal and what are costs that should properly be absorbed by the government and what should be properly absorbed by the companies going in there. These are ground rules that must be made known because the essence of government and economic development is predictability.

I want to suggest that there's a proper role

[ Page 65 ]

for the government of this province in promoting and analysing and, in some cases, even participating in what I call big deals. Big deals are items which are so large that they may be beyond the capacity of any given firm or consortium of firms to get underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Banking facilities.

MR. GIBSON: Banking facilities are a good idea, Mr. Member.

The case of northeast coal, Mr. Speaker, to me, is a big deal and it's a classic case of a big deal handled in the wrong way. The reasoning process, as far as I can see, went something like this: we need a big employment thing for political reasons. There's lots of coal in northeastern British Columbia, there's even lots of Social Crediters in northeast British Columbia. Southeast coal is making a lot of money. Therefore, let's go. It was something like that, and the minister came out and said. "Two or three thousand jobs by 1981." Down they go to Ottawa wanting an agreement signed within one month. A certain number of facts were not available at that point, like: is there any market? It wasn't known. Is there any market in terms of volume? Is there any market in terms of price? Would it break the price of our current coal exports out of this province? Nobody seemed to know the answer to that. What would be the mining costs? What would be the transportation costs? How much would the infrastructure cost? What would be the effect on employment in the southeast, that area that is represented by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Yr. Chabot) , the minister of mine closures, who sits next to the minister of foreclosures who sits next to the minister of road closures.

They didn't have any of these facts, Mr. Speaker, so it was a classic case of the wrong way of doing it. Aid you know what I read in the Canada-Japan Trade Council Newsletter? They have a new proposal for a proposed nuclear steel plant, and they speak about benefits. One of the benefits is seen as that it would obviate the need to import increasingly expensive coking coal." This is exactly the kind of technological difficulty that hasn't been foreseen by this government.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Member, it is fair. The coal task force review spoke of the formed coke process and the impact that would have on coking coal by the early 1990s, and that's pretty soon in terms of these kind of products.

What are some of the other big deals that are available in this province? How about the use of alumina that's contained in the Hat Creek coal? I hope and believe the minister's department is studying that. Hydro may be studying it, Mr. Member.

How about a copper smelter, more than the small copper smelter at Afton, to make use of all of the concentrate in the highland Valley, and hopefully to get Valley Copper on stream one of these days? You know, doing the melting in British Columbia lessens a lot of the risk because, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows, when there are swings in the world copper market it's not the smelters that take the swing; it's the producers, it's the people that do the mining, and the concentrators that take the swing. The smelters continue to take their smelting toll charge just as though there wasn't any change in the price. It adds a great deal of stability, and it adds a great deal of what you might call higher functions in the mining business, as the minister will know from looking at the jobs around Trail and the jobs at the Cominco head office in Vancouver - literally hundreds of them that without a smelting facility would not be there if we just dug the ore out of the ground and sent it out. That's another big deal.

A third big deal is a possibility of a smelter put in place for Yukon zinc around the area of Kitimat, based on northern hydro power, with the sulphuric acid being used to treat phosphate rock brought by ocean en route to Japan for fertilizer purposes.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Member. It's a very good possibility; I hope that the minister's department will study it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Will you table the report?

MR. LAUK: I'll give it to you.

MR. GIBSON: In-house document.

There is the possibility of expansion of Alcan aluminium. They made a major expansion in the province of Quebec, and no good Canadian should object to that; but when are they going to expand in British Columbia? Is the minister behind that?

There is the enormous opportunity, in my view, of a Prudhoe Bay oil pipeline paralleling the Alcan pipeline, a great opportunity for the province of British

[ Page 66 ]

Columbia. I hope that the province will actively study this one and do the lobbying that is necessary with the government of Canada and other governments to turn this into a reality sometime within the next generation, assuming that the oil deposits in Prudhoe Bay are such that they can handle it. The Americans have made a mistake in their taps line. They made a mistake for reasons that might have seemed good to them at that time, but the proper thing now is to at some point in the future within the next 10 years bring that oil down beside the Alcan natural gas pipeline to the great advantage of British Columbia.

I spoke earlier of the retirement industry. Another big deal is wood waste used as energy. I'll give the Energy Commission credit for looking at that one currently.

Petrochemicals based on coal and natural gas is another one, but especially coal because we have so much coal. I'd like to see a report tabled on that subject by the minister in this Legislature.

of course, as I've spoken of so many times before, there could be a B.C.-based undersea mining consortium, Mr. Minister. The pilot projects are underway now. Somebody has to get out there and bring together the mining companies, the universities, the small high-technology industry people and say: "Now Canada has got the technical people, it has got the multinational corporations and mining based here, and we're on the ocean. Go get it., .

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I've been trying to sell it here in British Columbia for four years, and now there's a consortium whose ship is based in Washington going out there exploring instead of being based here in British Columbia. It's a terrible shame, but it's not too late if you get off your statistics and go do something about that.

These aren't all winners, Mr. Speaker, obviously. Some of these things are economic and some aren't, but the point is that careful analysis will identify the winners and the minister should be doing that analysis, and he should be informing this House of what it is.

Now those are the big deals in which the government should possibly even participate and should definitely promote. There are a lot of other things that have to be done around this province to create jobs. What I call little deals - they're little only in individual project size; in totality they may be much more than the others - are things like tourist opportunities and natural resource machinery manufacturing and so on.

The analytical focus should naturally be on export goods and services and on import substitution, and the analytical focus, as 1 said earlier, should be industry by industry with sector committees. When opportunities are found, these committees should then identify the barriers standing in the way of these particular jobs. Is it a lack of skilled manpower? Is it the procurement practices of either government or the private sector? Is it the availability of infrastructure? Is it the availability of market information?

There should be a small business assistance plan, including what's being done by BCDC, of course, and the additional loans announced in the opening speech. But there should be a small business Art, a formal small business Act in this province with the kind of small business set-asides in terms of government procurement that one finds in the small business administration in the United States. And, Mr. Speaker, I say to you we- should have a British Columbia trading corporation, whether totally private or joint public-private, that will assist the exporters of our province to sell their goods around the world and assume some of the market risk in doing that and take sane of the profit in doing that too.

In all of this, in looking at the little-deal sector, the minister should not overlook services. Consulting and research, as I said before, are some of the finest available. Why isn't some of the coal-consulting work being done in this country done in British Columbia? Why is most of it done in Alberta? We have more coal resources than does Alberta, and yet the work is done in that province. Maybe it is the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) that hasn't moved yet.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke of competitiveness in the world. I suggest that the government has to take a very direct and positive concern about productivity in the British Columbia economy. Many people will say: "Why government?" Surely if there's any institution in our society that is unproductive itself, it's government. How can government possibly tell anybody else about productivity? Well, maybe the first thing is government should start within its own house, but I hope that is what Treasury Board is doing. But I'm talking about outside of that.

The private sector in British Columbia is by no means perfect when it comes to productivity. It may be because management is hidebound and conservative. It may be because

[ Page 67 ]

the trade unions are hidebound and conservative in terms of work rules. It may be oligopolistic. The industry concerned may be too impoverished to modernize, as our forest industry seemed to be until a couple of years ago. They may be too small in scale; there may be too little research and development and technology being put into it. And, as I said before, they may be hampered by inefficient labour and management rules.

Don Duguid, the head of the B.C. Development Corporation, reporting to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , made a speech a while ago in which he made the astonishing charge that construction workers in British Columbia do two hours of work a day compared to what he said was the average worker who does three hours work a day. Now I don't know where he got those figures, but if it is true, I'd like the minister to investigate.

MR. LAUK: Is that the same speech he quoted Adam Smith in?

MR. GIBSON: I don't know where he got those figures, Mr. Tlember.

MR. LAUK: He quoted Adam Smith.

MR. GIBSON: But the point is that the man responsible to the minister made that speech. It should be obvious to the minister that productivity is something that they should be concerned with and this should be one of the jobs of the economic council of British Columbia - to again, industry by industry, on a sector-committee basis, investigate productivity in each of those industries.

Mr. Speaker, in fostering jobs in British Columbia the government has the job of removing some of the barriers that stand in the way of doing business in this province, and many, many of them are with the national government. In fact the most intractable of the barriers lie with the national government and not with the provincial governments or municipal governments, who tend to be more responsive to the local needs.

We have this resource-taxation conflict which has been going on for too many years now. We have the regulatory and information duplication which in some countries is solved by a unified public service where if you need to get a pollution control permit, for example, you go to one office and if there are federal laws and if there are provincial laws and if there are municipal laws, they're all administered out of that office by one public service.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Switzerland. No, Switzerland does that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: How does he know?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we have a little lower level of noise in the room, please? Hon. members, may I interrupt whatever you are doing and please request a lower level of noise in the room? Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: We need something done in this country about the tariff disaster that year by year and day by day is visited on the province of British Columbia. I talk of it in terms of general costs. The tariff in Canada costs each British Columbian about $500 per man, woman and child per year, and that's a lot. And more than that, Mr. Minister, perhaps. That's all I can prove. Those general costs go into the wages that have to be paid which make our world exports less competitive and our standard of living no higher. We have to look at tariffs in the sense of this steel-dumping business where the action taken so far is still very vague and still very uncertain as to what is going to happen to those 1,000 jobs in steel fabrication in British Columbia after June, when the current federal guarantee runs out.

We have to go after Ottawa on those tariffs. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we in this province have to be pure when it comes to tariff negotiations. We cannot go to Ottawa and say: "Now we want you to cut all the other tariffs but, really, there are some categories, especially plywood and agriculture, that we have to keep protecting." You can't say to them: "You go one way, but just do this for us, would you please?"

MR. LAUK: Don't you see a special argument for agriculture?

MR. GIBSON: There is some special argument for agriculture, Mr. Member, but that would go through the boards.

MR. LAUK: You mean you'd let that go?

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no. I don't say it will go by the board - through the boards, the marketing boards.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see.

[ Page 68 ]

MR. GIBSON: Go back to sleep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody else is listening.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Speaker, if we do not maintain a consistency in our argument with respect to tariff reductions, the federal government will naturally not pay a great deal of attention to us.

We need greater provincial control - I've said this before - over the national government generally in terms of their research and development allocations, which are far too low here in British Columbia; their procurement in British Columbia, which is something like only 5 per cent of the total federal procurement against 11 per cent of the population; more input into the policies of the Bank of Canada, and so on. I'll get back to that in the main throne speech. But we do need a detailed compendium put together by the department of the Minister of Economic Development, saying %hat the constraints are that are imposed on our province in terms of economic development and industrial production by policies of the national government. What are the dollar figures and what are the job figures?

There are other constraints to jobs in British Columbia which are absolutely critical, but there is little the government can do directly. I'm thinking in particular of labour-management constraints. I think we can experiment with industrial democracy in some areas. I think we can encourage employee ownership through tax incentives. I would suggest as a general rule that all mature firms in the profit sector of the economy should have a very substantial proportion of employee ownership. Infant firms are normally started by entrepreneurs. As they mature and as their innovative life ends and they carry on as more or less standard product producers, there should be a major transition of the ownership to the employees who work there.

The provincial government should help identify and publicize inefficiencies due to self-serving labour or management practices in various industries of this province; these pick everybody's pockets. Whether the ripoff is a featherbedding ripoff or an expense account ripoff, it picks everybody else's pockets - that's terribly important.

The Ministry of Economic Development has to build an industrial strategy for this province. The approach to all tax and incentive structures, in my opinion, must be to promote production, to promote investment over consumption for the time being where there's a conflict there. For the time being, production in British Columbia must be our focus, and promotion of efficiency in the use of resources.

In the short term, the tremendous windfall we have in this province as a result of the drop in the exchange rate must not be wasted.

MR. LAUK: It's a fool's paradise.

MR. GIBSON: It is a fool's paradise, Mr. Member, if we seek to see the higher incomes that arise out of this exchange rate - the higher incomes in Canadian dollar terms -frittered away in dividend payments, and if too much of it goes into wage payments. The predominant direction of those windfall profits should be into upgraded plant and equipment.

In moving into new areas of industry and expanding the old, I would suggest that certain principles should be followed. The first is specialization and building on strength. What are our strengths? They're quite simple: energy, minerals, coal, the forests, ocean access, our climate, a good technical base at UBC and other institutions, our location between two U.S. states and between the large markets of the U.S. and Japan.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON- Between four U.S. states.

MR. GIBSON: Between four - right, Mr. Member.

And above all, we have a skilled and productive work force.

The high-technology industrial and institutional markets, I respectfully submit, are the ones that are better served out of

British Columbia and Canada as a whole, rather than the mass consumer markets which are better served by the low-cost producers in this world, which we are not. We've got to specialize and do what we can do well.

We've got to use our local purchasing power, especially - and I've said this before - the B.C. government, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Telephone, Foothills Pipeline, the forest and mining industries, and British Columbia Railway, who among themselves purchase an enormous quantity of goods and services each year. If these were focused towards the deliberate development and encouragement of specific British Columbia industries, it could make all the difference to get them going.

We've got to have research and development that is devoted intensively to British Columbia problems and British Columbia

[ Page 69 ]

opportunities. In Canada I per cent of our gross national product goes into research. In the United States, Germany and Japan it's in excess of 2 per cent in those much larger economies.

There's got to be co-operation with industry and labour and the public in developing specific elements of these strategies, and a readiness to devote some seed money from the government side to make these things happen. Then hopefully we will get to the point where a person won't see any more headlines like I saw in the Toronto Star, which somebody sent me a couple of months ago: "Britains Use B.C. Cedar to Make Garden Trellises For Export to Canada." That kind of thing is not quite acceptable.

MR. LAUK: Is that for real?

MR. GIBSON: That's for real.

There's a special problem in terms of employment of young people. The characteristics of that problem are that first of all it is temporary. Minister Cullen, in the quote I mentioned earlier on, stated that there was about a three-year problem, as he saw it, in the need for direct government.

That relates mostly to the period of absorption required to accept the young people as a result of the baby boom into the work force of this country. But for the time being it is an extraordinarily severe problem.

Young people between 15 and 24 constitute 25 per cent of the labour force and 45 per cent and more of the employment. The unemployment rate in young people is over 16 per cent in British Columbia right now. The reason for this in part is because we have a far higher proportion of youth in Canada than in other countries: it's about 42 per cent in our country, as opposed to 28 per cent in Germany, 26.5 per cent in the United Kingdom, and 37 per cent in the United States. We're changing gradually but we still have that very, very high proportion, and that's what's difficult to get absorbed and get working and get productive.

The statistics show that young people are trying very hard to get work. As a matter of fact, 37 per cent of Canadian students work during the academic year - not during the summer, but during the academic year - to earn their fees. A study of a man named Horace Beech at the University of Victoria described what he called some myths about students and youth. Here's some of the myths:

"Youths today are not motivated to get jobs. Wrong. They have shorter unemployment periods than any other group.

"Students are looking for handouts. Wrong. They are hustlers and workers with about 800,000 of them in the work force.

"Youth are getting paid too much. Unfair. Over 50 per cent of single working youth earn less than $5,000 a year.

"Youth take advantage of Unemployment Insurance. Wrong. They are under- represented among the beneficiaries by about 13 per cent." These are interesting facts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that there are some solutions that will not work. The most prominent suggestion to relieve unemployment in this province that will not work is the suggestion that we should cut taxes. That's just throwing money outside of our borders, because the money just bleeds outside of British Columbia to imports, whether imports from the rest of the world or from the rest of Canada. If the whole world would cut taxes and cut tariffs, yes, it would work as a solution, but British Columbia by itself is not a solution, and in fact it deprives the government of the revenue it needs to directly target that money towards the creation of jobs. The cutting of taxes is not the solution.

Another normally proposed solution is more vocational education in general. Yes, it is true in some fields that there is a lack of trained technicians of one kind or another, but overall, you can only usefully train as many people as there are jobs in any given area, and if you want to go beyond that, you have to expand the number of jobs. For example, you can only handle so many dental technicians in British Columbia. Now if you want to go beyond that and expand the dental care programme - for example, put denticare in for school-age children, which the Spark report said would cost about $30 million a couple of years ago.... Well, Dennis, you can shake your head. I'm just giving that as an example.

MR. COCKE: Not denticare - a dental programme.

MR. GIBSON: Okay, a dental programme. If you want to do that kind of job expansion, then you can train more technicians, but without that, there's no point in it. There's no point in training more than the existing job market can absorb.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are two kinds of solutions. There's the long term, with the economic development kind of thinking that I outlined, coupled with manpower forecasting which is published every year.

[ Page 70 ]

This is the job outlook for this kind of skill five years down the line, coupled with appropriate training to go along with that manpower forecast. That's the long-term solution. Hopefully, by the time this job-seeking bulge, this baby boom, has worked into the economy, that will be the complete solution.

But in the short term, I say, perhaps contrary to the thinking of the government in the opening speech, when they talk about the trap of being the provider of short-lived employment, there has to be more government job creation in the short run. I say this should be the characteristic of those jobs: they should be useful, but they should be neither essential nor urgent, so that it is okay if they're not done, and so that they're not taking away jobs which would otherwise be done by full-time participants in the economy.

They should be as much as possible low-skill, so that anyone can fill them, and where that's not possible, training programmes should be available. The rates should be such as to preserve the incentive to return to tile ordinary market economy and preference should be given to use the private sector or local governments for creation of and supervision of these jobs, with the funding to come from the province, and, as much as possible, from the federal government, because the federal government is saving dollars for every job that's created in this province through UI and through the Canada Assistance Plan.

The principles are simple, Mr. Speaker. Everybody who is on UI and most people that are on social assistance who can work say they want to work. It's a terrible thing. Any person who wants a job any day, who genuinely wants a job and can't find one - that's a waste. It's not just a waste to them - it's a waste to every single one of us. We are all poorer. When you consider the unemployment rate is nudging 10 per cent, if you were in a family of 10 and one person wasn't working, you'd feel it. It wouldn't break you, but you'd be poorer than if everybody was working.

The principle is just that simple. I don't pretend it's easy to implement, but governments everywhere have been groping in that direction, such as the Canada Works programme. The money, the activity and the work experience that goes to the recipients is good for them and good for society. Where we can find or create productive work, it should be offered. I want to give some examples of useful work: services to seniors, civic projects of all kinds. You have only to speak to mayors and councils around this province to know that they have useful ideas that they would like to do, that are not essential but are valuable. I think of child-minding and teachers' assistants, I think of conservation and recreation projects. To be very concrete, I want to take one department of the government, which is the Forest Service ...

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I'm on the amendment, Mr. Member. I'm just giving a precis.

Take one department, which is the Forest Service. What could the minister do there in terms of useful things - as I say, not essential things, not urgent things, but useful things that he would like to do? I suggest that assistants could be used, helpers could be used in inventorying and surveying the timber crop of this province because inventories are not adequate. And I would suggest that he could use a lot of assistance in road building in advance of actual need. Cutting of hiking trails and fire trails is always useful. Campsites and launching ramps are valuable and fit in with the tourist programme of the province of British Columbia. Reforestation, when you think of the eight million acres of admittedly not sufficiently restocked land, can take an enormous amount of manpower if there's advance planning. You've got to have a couple of years advance planning to grow the seedlings, but if you do that you've got a major source of employment right there. Silviculture does not require advance planning. You can do it right now. Thinning, spacing, pruning of trees - good payback, as demonstrated in the intensively managed forests of Europe year after year. You come in after a few years and you cut, space and allow the trees that are there to grow more than they otherwise would. I appreciate that government supervisory staff in that department is limited, but most of this could be done through private contractors, and I think you would be talking, in a case like this, of some multiple of thousands of jobs. That's the kind of thing that can actually make an impact, and an impact now, on the effort that is being wasted in this province. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it won't break us if we don't but we will all be poorer, and in particular those people who would like to work and do this kind of work, even if only for a time, will be much poorer.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this House has a right to have from the government two things. It has a right to have from the government evidence, and detailed evidence, of economic planning and it has a right to have from this government concrete, short-term action in

[ Page 71 ]

terms of jobs.

MR. LOEWEN: 1 would like to join other members of this House in congratulating the member for Chilliwack in his appointment as the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're on the amendment and as such...

MR. LOEWEN: With your indulgence, as other members, 1 would like to also congratulate you on your appointment as the Deputy Speaker of this House. Seeing this is the first time on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) on his appointment. I'm sure the member for Oak Bay and 1 will get along as well as the former member for Oak Bay and myself. 1 know the former member for Oak Bay did his best to assist me, being the novice in this House, and I promise to do my best to return the favour and assist the member for Oak Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat humoured ...

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver South is suggesting I'm threatening. I would like to ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat humoured by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I'm sorry that he has left but I'm sure that he will read it in Hansard. No, he's with us.

As 1 was saying, 1 am somewhat humoured by his suggestion that we export our hard-learned technology in the forest industry, his suggestion that we export consulting and research services. If he had done his homework he would have realized that that's exactly what this province has been doing over the past number of years. Because we have been exporting our hard-learned technology, because we have been exporting our knowledge, this same industry in other countries -particularly in the country to the south of ourselves - today is more modern and more sophisticated than what we have in our own country, because what he was suggesting is exactly what we have been doing.

I'm also somewhat humoured by his comment, his slogan, in regards to social accounting. I'm really not quite sure what he means. There is also someone on the national scene who said something about a managed economy, and I'm just wondering whether they have something in common. 1 can't help but think that because of the managed economy that we have had on the federal level, and because of some of the social accounting that we've had in former years in this province, we're struggling with the mismanaged situation and the social stress that we' re experiencing today in this province.

Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Leader of the Opposition on several points. 1 agree with him in that Mahatma Gandhi is and ~, as one of the greatest leaders - one of the greatest people - that this world has seen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 find no reference to Mr. Gandhi in the amendment to the motion. 1 must remind you that we are on an amendment at this time. Reference to remarks made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition will be in order at a later time, but we now must be relevant to the amendment.

MR. LOEWEN:. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

1 also agree with the Leader of the Opposition in respect to his reference that unemployment is too high in British Columbia, but 1 suggest today that it's a tragedy when the Leader of the Opposition uses the very high and noble principles of Mahatma Gandhi for his own petty, political, selfish purposes. Today, when we in our province are in a serious situation because we have high unemployment, we need to work together, both government and opposition, to solve the problems of this province.

Let me speak to some of the statistics instead of the frivolous debate of the opposition in this frivolous amendment to the motion. What are some of the true facts? Had they cared to understand and think about the true facts, the true facts are that the provincial gross product is 4.3 per cent. Now why not think of the positive side of what's happening in this province? Why not join the government in telling the world about what's happening in British Columbia? Maybe if they would help us tell the world, more people would be interested in doing things in British Columbia, instead of tearing down every good thing that's happening in this good province of ours. It is true that we have an opposition principle in our political system, but there does come a time when must work together in the interests of the other people of British Columbia.

The facts also are that on a federal level, the gross national product is only 2.6 per cent. Those are the facts. Why not tell the public, tell the people, tell all the people those facts.

Tell the people that the provincial growth

[ Page 72 ]

is 65 per cent above the national level. Tell the people that we have 30,000 more new jobs in British Columbia. Tell the people that investment in manufacturing in '77 rose by 21 per cent.

It is time that the opposition joined the government in showing the good side of what is happening in British Columbia. It is easy for an opposition to row in the opposite direction. Interestingly enough, when you are going downstream, the boat might go in circles, but you still get downstream, even though you might get dizzy doing so. But when you're going upstream it is impossible, and a difficult situation, if only the right side is rowing and the left side is leaning on their oars. It is time that the doom- and- gloomers take a back seat and realize what they're really doing to our province.

I'd like to quote a few statements made by Murray Weidenbauer in Time magazine. He said this somewhat tongue- in-cheek, but some of us here can identify with some of these statements.

He says: "How not to create jobs. First they raise the minimum wage again. Secondly, increase the employers' share of social security taxes. Thirdly, close all those tax loopholes." Some of us here realize what happened to the tax reform of '72, and what in fact it has done to our country - the tragedy that has resulted.

"Tighten the government regulations of business." Finally, the federal government, at least, has awakened to the fact of what they're doing in over-regulation.

Lastly, and some of us here can identify with this: "If all else fails, flail away at the multinational corporations." Who , as it that not too long ago ... ? How much damage did he actually do when he went from one end of the country to the other end of the country and spoke about the multinational corporation welfare buns? We all know who we're talking about.

MS. BROWN: Name names.

MR. LOEWEN: In my riding, we are most pleased with some of the things that are happening that we have waited for for many, many years, particularly those that relate to job creation situations.

Firstly, we're happy. We're happy that there is a definite programme, of course with the co-operation of the municipality of Burnaby, that the Marine Way and the Stormont interchange are going to be built. We're also very happy in my adopted riding of New Westminster that the scheduled sod-turning....

MR. MACDONALD: You go in there and you will be lynched.

MR. LOEWEN: We're really excited about that. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his satellite courthouse system philosophy almost created a situation where New Westminster would not have the courthouse. Little wonder there was the intense competition for the leadership between the former member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . Had the members of the opposition listened at all to the opening speech, they would have heard the things that this government is planning to do directly related to job-generating action, such as funds for the construction of new community mental health centres. And what is that other than a determination to create jobs? Secondly, there are major new construction programmes for the provision of health units and court facilities throughout the province, and a continuing highway maintenance and construction programme.

I suppose the opposition would say that we're interested in asphalt and not in people. It's interesting how the opposition is able to appeal to the emotions of the general public, thinking that they can con the public into following their ideology. However, it isn't the first party in power that has underestimated the intelligence of the average man on the street; he caught on in a very short period of time.

The seeking of an increase in the federal government contribution to northern road construction, a new programme of assistance for exploration and development of new mines, the emphasis on its apprenticeship programme, the Ministry of Labour's youth employment programme will provide many thousands of new jobs this summer, with the inclusion of a training component in the programme.

The construction of airport facilities similar to those in Ontario, which have been most successful: I can speak to that firsthand, because I was involved in attempting to raise funds for construction of an airport in a small community in northwestern Ontario. New construction of educational facilities and hospitals - we look forward to the construction of the Douglas College site in New Westminster. Increased financial assistance for first-time home buyers will result in more demand for housing construction.

Mr. Speaker, even though we recognize that we live with the political realities of an opposition system, it is time today where,

[ Page 73 ]

instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, we attempt to work positively together to improve the lot of all the people of British Columbia. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I must emphatically say that I will vote against this amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I hope you won't rule me out of order if I take the liberty of congratulating you officially upon your appointment and also the election of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) who I had the honor of meeting when he was campaigning.

I rise in support of this amendment. I was almost ready to agree with the previous speaker. He called for an end to disagreement and I thought that he was going to take the f first step and vote in favour of this amendment. When faced with the facts I think that what we're trying to say is that positive action should be taken. Before moving the amendment, the leader of the Opposition outlined some very solid and positive steps which could be taken and which have already stood the test of time, things such as shipbuilding and taking a more positive, optimistic attitude toward the capabilities of the people of British Columbia.

One other part of this amendment really reflects upon the tendency of this government to go outside of British Columbia and indeed , outside of Canada to find what they see as the required expertise to head up some of our Crown corporations. I find this a totally unacceptable thing to do and I think that if we want to project a positive image for British Columbia, we have to start thinking positively about the people of British Columbia, because that's where the solutions are going to come from.

The Minister for Economic Development, when he got up in his good standard, defence-type speech, drew attention to the Minister of Highways and all the work the Minister of Highways was going to do. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know the capabilities of this Minister of Highways, you need to go no further than the front of this building. For nu years he's been building about one city block of highway and he hasn't been able to get it completed yet. He hasn't got it paved. As a matter of fact, he had paving out there and they tore that up and it's gone out. Two years to build about one block of highway right out here in front of the parliament buildings. So just imagine what's going on out in the rest of the country. Absolute and total chaos. Or perhaps the further they are away from the minister, the more they can get on with their job. But I thought that rather amusing and rather ironic.

Such a defence.

Mr. Speaker, we're disappointed in this throne speech when it talks of job opportunities. The title was "Proposals for Job Creation." What this government is saying essentially in the document is that government is going to continue to do the things that government does. Yes, we're not going to discontinue the youth summer employment programme; we're going to have it again. Again this summer there will be a few thousand jobs. Yes, we're going to build hospitals, we're going to build highways, we're going to do all of these things. But there was no signal to the people of this province in these most serious economic times.

I think sometimes that we are lulled and we get into a false sense of security by listening to the figures which emanate from Statistics Canada concerning unemployment rates. If you look at seasonally adjusted unemployment rates and you look at the real rates of the unemployed in this province -that is, the number of people registered with Canada Manpower and seeking work, seeking employment - you find that there is a tremendous discrepancy. If you look back in the month of September, Stats Canada claimed there vp-re 88,000 unemployed. But there ~ere 131,589 people looking for work registered with Canada Manpower, only a few of whom had jobs and were trying to improve them and were not statistically significant. In October the official unemployment rate actually unadjusted by Stats Canada was 91,000. Actually registered and looking for work were 141,000 people. In November of the year 99,000 listed by Statistics Canada, whereas there were in actuality 142,000.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In some of the ridings in this province, in some areas such as mine, while the percentage rate for unemployment in the Kootenay area jumps around 8.5 to 9 per cent, Mr. Speaker, there were actually about 20 per cent in the Nelson Manpower division of the manpower force registered for and seeking Employment. That is the state of unemployment. I an sure that the member for Skeena knows and would be familiar with what the actual rate would be in a place like Terrace and in other parts of the north. I an sure that other members in this House -as bravely as they pounded their desks through the throne speech and through the mover and seconder of the throne speech - are aware. They have taken the trouble in their own ridings and they are concerned and they know that in many of those areas unemployment rates

[ Page 74 ]

are in fact over 20 per cent.

If I have any criticism of our present federal leader it is that he started what I thought was a very worthwhile campaign. He started his own kIB, the anti-illusion board. One of his first thrusts was to shed some light on the discrepancy between some of these figures. He didn't pursue that - for what reason I am not aware - but I think that it should have been pursued and taken a step further.

Today the various rates of the people registered for and seeking Employment in the lower mainland were pointed out - the Okanagan region, the Kootenays, central interior, the north, and Island and mid-coast. That adds up to now 152,372 British Columbians, according to the latest statistics, registered with Manpower seeking employment. So it isn't just over 100,000 people unemployed. You can pretty safely say that it is over 150,000 people unemployed. A few of those people are under-employed people, perhaps seeking better employment. They might be cab drivers who are registered looking for a teaching - job for which they're trained or something, but by and large, that accounts for a very small proportion of those people and most of them are truly unemployed.

One can well ask: "What is the difference between Statistics Canada and the number of people registered with Manpower?" Well, one of the things, Mr. Speaker, is that Statistics Canada does a telephone survey. I find that when the unemployed come to me with unemployment insurance problems, I say: "Well, where can I get in touch with you and get back to you after I've been to UlC about this?" They say: "Well, can you phone my mother? We don't have a phone." So that probably accounts for some of the reasons %by these figures are so far out. And of course there other groups who are excluded.

It leads, Mr. Speaker, to tremendous problems. If we hide our heads in the sand and we don't face up to the problem that some of the most productive people are unemployed, then I think that we'll be into more problems as we go along.

The unemployment rate with young people was mentioned earlier and the figure of 16 per cent was mentioned. Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the cost down the road if we do not act immediately to bring in full employment for the young? To what age are some people possibly going to reach without ever having the experience of employment? That, to my thinking, is a very good experience.

One of the items on the questionnaire that was handed out by the B.C. Federation of Labour in conjunction with the demonstration and the lobbying for jobs on the opening day of the Legislature was: "Have you ever been unemployed?" I'm sure that a great number of us could have answered yes to that question on both sides of this House at one time or another. I know that I certainly could. I notice one of the ministers for whom I have a great deal of respect nodding yes to that question. The companion question was: "What effect did this have on you?" I think most of us would have had to have said it was a rather depressing or a degrading experience. Certainly I know that there was never much greater pleasure than the day that you sort of walked back onto the job and got that sense of relief at least for a few days until the routine of a job came back to you.

So the creation of jobs this year, with these types of indicators of high unemployment, I think, should have been put more forcefully than to say that we're basically going to just continue to do what governments have done in the past. We're going to build highways and do various other things.

There is one ray of hope and that is the section dealing with the forest industry, where it says: "My government considers that handing over to future generations a healthy forest resource is one of the most sacred trusts." If from that w- can take it that there are going to be substantially more jobs in reforestation than there have been in the past, then there might be one ray of hope coming out of what is a very meagre throne speech for job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the expressions that were made, or the opinions that were offered, that this would be a worthwhile area for this type of a government to get involved in and to take some ac tion. Certainly reforestation could be looked upon as serving a two-fold purpose. It would be creating jobs instantly out of government funds. But it would be a capital investment, and in fact a dollar value could be put on that capital investment. It could almost be entered into the Minister of Finance's books, if not as an official figure then as something that we could see as a tangible investment in the future, just as tangible as putting aside so many million dollars for a third crossing, or many of the other special funds of the past.

In the area of silviculture I find it rather interesting, though, and it was also mentioned by the member for North Vancouver- Capilano , that our staff might not be equipped or be numerous enough to handle such a project - the forestry staff. I find that in discussing

[ Page 75 ]

questions like this I get rather confused. Talking with the professional people in the Ministry of Forests, I have suggested that perhaps we could stimulate early growth and regeneration and that by getting into some types of intensive management, which again would create jobs, we could ensure that w get a very quick re-growth and therefore restore the watershed capabilities, which limit the rate at which one can harvest at a quicker rate. And 1 am told that such techniques as fertilizing by the B.C. government forestry officials are normally done only to stimulate growth in the last 10 years. Yet when 1 hear experts from Washington speaking they talk about doing this on a regular basis about every five years right from the very beginning of replanting, so that there would be a need within the ministry. If we're going to make use of some of these long-term investments and short-term, job-creation initiatives in this area, 1 think that we should be sending some of our people abroad; we should be having in-service workshops. It's for the Minister of Forests that 1 am saying this largely, and he's just left. But, Mr. Speaker, if these types of initiatives are to have any impact and if there is any genuine intention being signalled here, then in-service training should be undertaken immediately in order that it can happen this summer.

But again, it seems to be that the government continues to brag about producing 27,000 new jobs in 1977. This is one of the worst job-creation performances probably in the last two decades. In January, 1975, there were 968,000 people employed; by December of that year there were 1.013 million employed, 45,000 new jobs in the year 1975.

They've also talked about investment of private capital in British Columbia. As has been pointed out, while there might have been a large increase in 1977, or some increase in 1977 over 1976, and while the prospects for 1978 are predicted to be much greater than for 1977, the fact is, if you compare it to the base year of 1975, there has only been a 9 per cent increase projected for 1978 over 1975; that is, for a three-year period, an average increase of about 3 per cent. So that certainly isn't something to be too enthused about when one considers that that is more than eaten up by inflation and in real dollar terms is a negative growth.

I think that probably the greatest hope for this government, and another thing they might want to consider, would be some scientific research. Perhaps the Minister of Education could look into this, into the technology, the present state of the art for technology for a time machine. Is a time machine possible, because it might be their best hope? If they could turn back the clock to 1975 when they took office, then they might learn, and they might not increase ferry fares. Certainly revenues on the ferries and traffic on the ferries continued to increase in the first few months of 1976 until the ferry fare increase. There should be a cost-benefit analysis done as to whether money being spent in a sort of a remedial , By to try and fix up the tourist traffic might not be better spent in, admittedly, a long-shot sort of a deal that might, in the long run, prove to be their best option.

Quite seriously though, under this government the population growth of British Columbia has not, I think, been lower in two decades and probably since the Second World War. In 1976 and 1977 population growth rates according to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing were below 1.5 per cent, about 1.4 and 1.3 per cent respectively. I think that that is quite directly attributable to the policies of this government, and they certainly took dramatic action that first year when they took office.

You know, it took guts to double ferry fares and create the massive unemployment in the service industry of Vancouver Island and the record bankruptcies on Vancouver Island. It took boldness to do that, and if they really thought that was the medicine that was needed at that time, let's just allow that they saw it in that way. If, in spite of studies they had at their disposal which said that anything beyond 50 per cent would be counterproductive, they felt 100 per cent was required, they did it.

If they were to show the same boldness and the same imagination today, only in a more positive direction, and were to announce some major thrusts, then I think we might be able to support the throne speech. But what w- see here is that government is going to continue to do the things that government is expected to do. It almost says: "We're not going to close the hospitals; we won't close all the schools." That's really what is said in terms of job creation - a very negative, very faltering step.

I'd also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of the type of technology that British Columbia can produce, we should look around here. It's rather interesting that here in British Columbia a Norwegian parent company created a company called AANDERAA Instruments, right here in Victoria. It's a little electronics specialty manufacturing plant. It designs and manufactures an oceanographic

[ Page 76 ]

measuring device which is used to measure tidal changes. Their order board has orders from all over the world. In any given day it might have orders from Italy, Norway, India, Australia or Brazil, and it is located right here. This company has the most up-to-date technology and it was located here partly because of the expertise we had and the lead time we had about 10 years ago in certain aspects of oceanography.

I think that if a task force was sent out to search they could find that type of expertise for some of the smaller scale things. I'd call for bolder things - and we as an alternative to government have called for some bolder measures. But if we were to search among our strengths we would find that there could be more AANDERAA Instrument companies created. Today the most current revolution in electronics is in the microcomputer industry, and it is growing at a fantastic rate. The price of a computer has come down to a point where at Radio Shack today in Victoria you can order an $800 computer, and many of the small businesses in Victoria, Vancouver and throughout the province are investing in small computer systems which cost only $3,000. The parts for computers are presently being bought in the United States and I don't propose that we try to necessarily create a company which would go into competition, but what we could do is seek out some of the better companies in the United States and try to seek a good deal for them so that if they would assemble here in British Columbia, we could become distributors for the rest of Canada.

The most imaginative people in this industry are located on the west coast, and it is only natural that on the west coast we could also serve as the spearhead of this industry in Canada. We have, I think, three or four computer stores in Vancouver. We have two in Victoria, that I know of, serving this market, and throughout Canada w have right now some of the leading people, some of the authors of the most informative articles in the journals, so we do have the people here in Canada. I think we should make the decision as to whether or not we could cause the assembly of some of these units to take place here as one concrete example, so that not all of the business opportunities are to be found by taking trips to Japan or, indeed, to Europe. We do find that some of our people in this province, however, by taking it upon themselves to go to trade fairs, have found international markets for products which are produced not just in Vancouver, but right here in Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the most current revolution in electronics is in the very affordable microcomputer. We could play a larger role; we could grab a few of the jobs instead of just paying tariffs and federal excise tax and things like this to the federal government for something which you can't even buy from a Canadian manufacturer. We would make sure that there were Canadian manufacturers, perhaps operating as subsidiaries of some of the larger ones. These are very small companies, but still subsidiaries of some of the American companies which are distributing in this field.

I must confess that even my expectations were up a little bit when I saw members of the lobbying committee the day before the budget speech being told out in the hall: "Just wait for the throne speech tomorrow. You'll get your answers tomorrow; they'll be there. You'll be happy with it." It raised my expectations a little bit. I thought that we could look for some solutions to the very high rates of unemployment. I'd like to Emphasize once again that our unemployment rates are not really 100,000 or 110,000; if we are thinking of the number of people who are looking for employment, there are really over 150,000 people here in the province of British Columbia. That is the number that are currently registered with Manpower and seeking employment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 19

NAYS - 33

Division ordered to be recorded in the

[ Page 77 ]

Journals of the House.

On the motion.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not on my feet because I want to be, I'm on my feet because I am on the list. I've talked enough tonight. 1 remind myself of the famous Chinese statesman "On Too Long."

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed?

MR. GIBSON: Yes. Particularly now that we 're not restricted by the rule of relevance, and since it's 10 o'clock, I just want to tell one or two stories. I'll tell another story which is about all of our profession. Our profession doesn't always have the highest stature in the community. I'm always unhappy about that but here is a story that illustrates that.

Moving right along, Mr. Speaker, this story reflects the situation when a legislator was approached by an awe-struck constituent who said: "Tell me, sir, what you consider is your duty as a legislator." The legislator said: "To do the greatest good for the greatest number." The constituent said: "How do you determine the greatest number?" And the legislator said: "That's simple; it's No 1." (Laughter.) I hasten to say that does not apply to any member of this assembly, Mr. Speaker, before you jump to the microphone. I was too short for the speech and too long for the joke.

Mr. Speaker, last year I tabled what I called the "Liberal throne speech." Had I been asked to write the prorogation address I would have mentioned that many things had not been covered that I had suggested in that speech. But some things were done. The inquiry into food prices T~, us appointed - regrettably not an all-party committee, but it was appointed -and I want to tell the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and others that I have missed the sessions that it otherwise might have been my opportunity to attend. But in any event, the committee was appointed.

The B.C. Energy Commission was instructed to draft an overall plan for the British Columbia energy picture for the next few years.

The Alcan pipeline, which I asked the government to lobby for, was approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: You're welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Jumping on the bandwagon halfway down the road.

MR. GIBSON. Listen, you fellows wrote your prorogation speech; let me write mine! Just you wit until I unveil my legislative programme for this year.

Alcohol enforcement - the government really moved on that one; that's good.

Young offenders' legislation, revenue sharing and a Crown corporations committee. That Crown corporations review committee, I might say, Mr. Speaker, is shaping up to be one of the better moves of this government. It is an instrument that I think has great potential.

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple of problems.

MR. GIBSON: A couple of problems, yes; it's tremendously important that these problems not throw this potential instrument off the track, because it is being studied by other governments in this country and I hope in due course by other parliamentary democracies in this world as one of the ~, ways that the Legislature can regain its ascendancy and regain some control over the apparatus of the state.

What we next have to do is make arrangements for the regaining of the ascendancy of the Legislature over the executive branch, over the government itself.

Interjections .

MR. GIBSON: I am surprised to hear any member of the official opposition applaud that.

MR. LEA: he's the only guy that can say it safely.

MR. GIBSON: As Sam Rayburn said: "Where you stand depends on where you sit."

interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Rafe, you forget them all from year to year. I keep reminding you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to review a number of the departments and make some suggestions for each of them. I would like to start with the Attorney-General, who is in the House, and commend to him again the idea that has been put to him often before - that of a commission on crime in the province of British Columbia. There is no greater exponent of this cause, as the Attorney-General knows, than Mr. Gary Bannerman, the open-line broadcaster. I think

[ Page 78 ]

he has made a very good case, particularly in respect of commercial fraud in our society, very often visited upon small and ordinary citizens in our economy and not necessarily corporations.

I would ask the Attorney-General again to take this idea under advisement and consider how a commission into crime can exercise powers and tools of publicity that are not available to the ordinary law enforcement agencies. I ask him to once again consider this and hopefully during the course of this throne speech unveil the intentions of the government in this regard.

The next thing I would like the Attorney-General to do is to put to us a resolution to establish a committee on statutory instruments. Every week we see on our desks new announcements of orders-in-council that have been passed by the government pursuant to legislation. As ordinary members, we have no way of knowing whether these orders-in-council are legal, whether they are properly done, properly drawn, or whether they exceed the powers conferred under the statute. I am prepared to concede that any given government will do their very best to follow the statutory law that they are working under. But as is obvious in other jurisdictions where committees on statutory instruments exist - in Ottawa, for example - literally hundreds of regulations have been found that in some way or another exceed the powers granted to the government of the day by the statute law concerned. I would quote Senator Dan Lang in his description of the duties of the committee on statutory instruments, which is a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Liberal?

MR. GIBSON: Well, most of them are, Mr. Member, at the moment.

The duty of the committee is first of all to check the exercise of bureaucratic authority over and beyond the powers granted by parliament under a particular piece of legislation." That's duty No. 1.

Duty No. 2 is that the committee is concerned with "the exercise of bureaucratic authority by persons other than those to whom power was delegated by parliament" - in other words if an order were signed by a deputy or a director instead of the minister, if that's where the authority was supposed to lie.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you mind identifying the quotation?

MR. GIBSON: This is Senator Dan Lang, Senate debates, March 16,1977, page 509:

"Thirdly, the committee is concerned with the exercise of bureaucratic authority under a pretended power of dispensation, that power neither being granted by statute nor having any constitutional basis in the exercise of the royal prerogative.

"Fourthly, the committee is concerned with the exercise of bureaucratic authority pursuant to votes in Appropriation Act. These votes define and redefine the power to spend in ambiguous and confusing terms. They are carried forward, altering the original purpose, in fact legislating through distortion of the votes and justifying that exercise or abuse as having been condoned or authorized by parliament. In a very real sense, parliament is losing its control over the spending power through misuse of these procedures and appropriation Acts."

Senator Lang says that a committee on statutory instruments is necessary because of what he refers to as the "creed of the bureaucrat." He sees the essential difficulty coming from the bureaucracy, and the creed of the bureaucrat goes like this:

1. " The business of the executive is to govern.
2. " The only persons fit to govern are experts.
3. " The experts in the art of government are the permanent officials, who, exhibiting an ancient and too-neglected virtue, think themselves worthy of great things being worthy.
4. " But the expert must deal with things as they are. The four-square man makes the best of circumstances in which he finds himself.
5. ' Two main obstacles hamper the beneficent work of the expert. One is the sovereignty of parliament and the other is the rule of law.
6. " A kind of fetish-worship prevalent among the ignorant public prevents the destruction of these obstacles. The expert, therefore, must make use of the first in order to frustrate the second.
7. " To this end, let him, under parliamentary forms, clothe himself with despotic power, and then because the forms are parliamentary, defy the law courts.
8. " This course will prove tolerably simple if he can:

" (a) get legislation passed in skeletal form, of which we have seen far too 'much;

[ Page 79 ]

" (b) fill up the gaps with his own rules, orders and regulations;
" (c) make it difficult or impossible for parliament to cheek the said rules, orders and regulations;
" (d) secure for them the force of statute;
" (e) make his own decision final;
" (f) arrange that the fact of his decision shall be conclusive proof of its legality;
" (g) take power to modify the provision of statutes;
" (h) prevent and avoid any sort of appeal to a court of law."

That creed that the senator describes - one sees far more in the bureaucracy in Ottawa than in the bureaucracy of the provinces, at least a province as relatively small as British Columbia. But it is the kind of thing that one can see coming with the growth of our public service and with the proliferation of orders-in-council that, as 1 say, cross our desks every day.

An instrument should be set up by which this House can check the lawmaking authority that we delegate to the executive branch, and that is to be done by a committee on statutory instruments; 1 suggest that is under the responsibility of the Attorney-General.

I would ask the Attorney-General in his capacity as House Leader to arrange this year for an experiment in broadcasting of this legislature on a regular basis. 1 would prefer to see the House televised, but the government in its caution might say that it would be better to start with mere radio broadcasting. Broadcasting of any kind on a consistent basis would be an advance. 1 think that most members of this house would be about ready for that procedure at this time. 1 hope the government will not block it for its own reasons. I would ask the Attorney-General in due course to respond to that representation.

Next 1 would like the Attorney-General to explain at some course during this session the very disturbing report on the editorial page of The Vancouver Sun of some weeks ago which indicated that appended to a survey on the perception of the law that was being taken by his department was a question which asked people what their voting intentions were going to be.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was not in the survey.

MR. GIBSON: It was not in the survey, Mr. Attorney-General? You can assure the house of that right now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I asked for it to be deleted.

MR GIBSON: But was it in the survey in the first instance?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, if it was a draft and if as soon as it was drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General he saw it deleted, I say good for him. I say who was fired for being so stupid as to put it in there in the first place, because that is a complete contradiction of our democratic system. I would hope that somebody was brought to task on that particular case. We can explore that further during the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. LAUK: Nobody said the job would be easy.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to move now to the Department of Human Resources, and I will be brief.

The Minister of Human Resources (Ron. Mr. Vander Zalm) should carry out - and there should have been provision in the opening speech to carry out - the promise of this government in the election campaign of 1975 to index Mincome and handicap benefits. That was a promise, Mr. Speaker. It was a promise of elementary social justice, and it has not been carried out unto this day.

Just the other day the minister in his grace and favour passed on an extra $20 a month to handicapped persons - not quite the full increment of $22.50 that he received from the Government of Canada in that regard 18 months ago. He finally passed it on, but he didn't pass on the increment from the government and passed on no indexation. Mr. Speaker, I say that a province that has a budget of the size we have and that has natural resources of the size that w have and the tremendous growth in the economy that the Premier asked the Lieutenant-Governor to tell us about in the throne speech can undertake and can afford to keep the promises of Social Credit at least in that respect. I think that is something that must be done in this session. That was a promise and a commitment; the things you say in an election should be that. There are times when you have to say~ "Well, we're sorry, once we got into it we found that what ~, e said was impractical." But that does not apply in this case. Indexation of Mincome is an elementary promise to be kept in social justice.

I would say again to the Minister of Human Resources that he should reconsider his stand

[ Page 90 ]

on community resource boards, but I think we may have to wait for a new minister to get that done.

To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , I just have one simple thing to ask him. I asked him last year and he said: "We'll get that done right away, " and he didn't. That is more disclosure in the companies law of British Columbia - more disclosure required of corporations that are traded on our stock exchange and public companies of all kinds in order that shareholders might have more and more timely information available to them.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) made a promise last session -at least I understood it to be a promise, and it was not in the opening speech - that he would finally introduce legislation to ban the leg-hold trap; legislation that has been sponsored in this House for many years by the now Attorney-General. Since his ascension into the government. it has been sponsored by myself. Last year the Minister of Recreation and Conservation indicated to us that this would be remedied in the next session. I very much hope that that will be done. If the plan is to do it, why was it not included in the opening speech? It is one of the most popular things this government could do. 1 well remember the day when, as he then was, the hon. second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) brought into this house rusty spring-traps and put them on his desk and sprung them. I helped him spring some of those traps: dangerous-looking things and vicious-looking things. He had researched the problem and he understood it. Now let it be done finally. Let that law be brought in this session.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: With regard to the department of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , the Lieutenant-Governor promised us that something would be done in respect of transit. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that something be done in respect of transit, not simply in organizational terms but in cost terms.

The metropolitan transit operations of the British Columbia Hydro Authority are losing in excess of $60 million per year. That amount of money lost on the Dease Lake line caused the appointment of a royal commission, as was right and proper. The transit thing is bleeding the province just as badly. The cost per passenger mile of carrying people on the Hydro transit system is 80 cents per passenger mile. That is the cost of taking a taxi in this province. We could literally send people who currently ride the B.C. Hydro system in taxis over the same route for no extra cost. There is something wrong with a system that is being operated in that way, and the new transit authority, or whatever it is to be, must get a grip on that.

Mr. Speaker, in the Forests department, the Minister of Forests is aware that we face very serious competition from all parts of the world and in particular from some of the developing countries as plantations cane on stream in Brazil and other parts of the world and as they are better developed in the southern United States. The exact extent of this competition, particularly now that our dollar has declined, is al~, ways a matter of debate when the time comes for negotiations in the forest industry between labour and management, and the two sides make different claims as to what is the true state of affairs and how much money the companies can afford to pay.

1 would like to see the Minister of Forests tell us during this session that he will be instituting an economic inquiry which will canvas the competitive status of the British Columbia forest industry in the world forest picture, and give us some impartial data which will allow the public and the parties to management-labour negotiations to better understand the economic consequences of what w are doing in this province in dividing up the pie in terms of, on the one hand, profits and, on the other hand, wages, and, on the third hand, stumpage. 1 think that it is essential that we get some such impartial appraisal of the economic competitiveness of our most important industry.

I would go on and say to the Minister of Forests - and hope to say in greater detail to him later - that we have rotting on the stump in the province of British Columbia a tremendous amount of overmature timber, timber that would be better cut right away and timber that in many cases is tied up in long-term tenures with large companies, or long-term tenures with small companies as far as that goes. He could open them up for short-run cutting by the very small operators, tremendously relaxing his close-utilization standards because it is better to have those trees cut than to have them continue rotting. You can't have your reforestation and regeneration until that first cover is cut off. If the minister would open up that kind of possibility to the small operator in this province during the time when the lumber prices are good, as they are now, he would

[ Page 81 ]

have every opportunity of a happy marriage between a British Columbia resource base that is not being properly treated - because it does have to be cleared off before reforestation, natural or artificial, can begin - and the current unemployment problem. I suggest to the minister there's a tremendous possibility there in his department if he will take an imaginative look at it.

I have some words for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) of two kinds. The first is a school-age dental programme. The SPARC report a couple of years ago found that a dental programme for school-age children, delivered through the schools, could be had in British Columbia for something like $30 million at that time. Let us suppose the cost has since escalated to $40 million. I do not say that $40 million is not a great deal of money. I do say that it's not in the opening speech. Again, I think that it's about time that this province could afford that kind of investment.

Equally important, perhaps more important philosophically in the minister's department, I note that the opening speech said that the House was going to be presented this year with legislation which would work to control the problem of heroin addiction in our province. Mr. Speaker, a detailed debate can await the detailed programme, but I want to make a representation in principle to the minister of which I hope he will take some account. The draft plan as produced by the Alcohol and Drug Commission made provision for the involuntary intake of persons into the narcotic compulsory treatment system by an administrative process where a committee of doctors and administrators would consider the lifestyle of any given person thought to be an addict. If that committee decided that this person ~, us an addict, he or she would be subject to involuntary incarceration and treatment up to a period of three years. There was, and I want to be fair, provision in the original draft by the Alcohol and Drug Commission for a review by a county court judge if the person concerned thought that their liberties had been infringed.

But remember, Mr. Speaker, the county court judge would essentially be reviewing the administrative process and not whether or not there were proper judicial reason to deprive a person of his liberties. One of the fundamental principles of our law has always been that the deprivation of liberties for any consequential time - I know that it is said that there are exceptions with the control of venereal disease and so on, but w're talking about lengthy periods of time, containment of up to three years - the deprivation of a person's liberty in this regard must go through the court system. To pass a law counter to that, it seems to me, would be wrong and it might possibly be unconstitutional too. The constitutionality, of course, of the youth containment programme is being questioned now, so we can't simply assume that, because the government introduces a law and the Legislature passes it, it's going to be enforceable. The minister is proposing a relatively small programme – I think it's 180 beds, isn't it? It's a relatively small programme. Surely he can fill that programme, fill those beds with a voluntary intake out of what he says are the 10,000 drug addicts in British Columbia. Surely he can arrange for voluntary intake to fill that programme because it's been found, in other parts of North America in any case, that compulsory treatment just doesn't ~, work.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where? When?

MR. GIBSON: In California, where the centres are being closed down right now. I can send you chapter and verse. It's been found.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I can't believe that your agents haven't been down there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You don't know?

MR. GIBSON: I have talked to people who have and if you Aunt to give me a budget, I'll go down there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You'd be in violation of the Constitution Act if you did that.

MR. GIBSON: You can al~, ways pass a resolution through the Legislature, Mr. Minister. I have been doing enough traveling at my own expense for this government in the last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's return to the order of the debate. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I say it is wrong if the minister is still considering following the original plan of the Alcohol and Drug Commission to put people in confinement for up to a three-year period without going through the court system, if it's to be involuntary. As I say, I'm just giving him this well-wishing counselling in advance of the time that that law is brought in, because I

[ Page 82 ]

say to him that he will be making a big mistake if he tries to incarcerate people through an administrative process rather than a court process. Number one, I say he can f ill those beds voluntarily; number two, for anything he can't fill voluntarily, I an assured he will find any number of judges with bona fide heroin abuse cases before them who will be glad to send the persons in front of them to those centres instead of going through a non-court route. I think that this is a terribly important question in terms not only of civil liberties but also of effectiveness of drug treatment in this province.

I want to say a word about education. The first thing I have in this regard relates to education of British Columbians in the French language. [illegible] members of this house, I think, will have been following the debate that has raged between the other Premiers of this country and the Premier of Quebec as to the possibility of reciprocal priority language education in the various provinces whichever it happens to be in any particular province -English in Quebec, French in the others. Many anglophones across the country have been very concerned with the restrictive provisions of Bill 101 in Quebec which would make it impossible for persons coming to Quebec from other parts of the country, after a temporary exception period of three years, to be educated in the English language within the province of Quebec. Other provinces and people within Quebec very properly have expressed concern. One of the , ways out of this, and one of the ways to develop sentiment within the province of Quebec, and also one of the T~says to do the right thing for the unity of this country is for other provinces to offer a proper minority language education programme.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted last summer when the Minister of Education in a press release, I think it %us August 15,1977, advised us that education in the French language would be available to classes of at least 10 school children in any given grade in various parts of this province who wanted to learn exclusively in the French language. I was very happy to see that. I thought this is one of the most progressive things that could be done. British Columbia is leading Canada, with this announcement. I have since learned, I have since seen directives of the ministry which indicate that this is not in fact the case, French language training according to the present thinking of the ministry is not to be available to any - I should say training in the French language, not French language training - but instruction in the French language is not to be available to any group of 10 children who wish it within a specific grade. It is to be available only to a group of 10 francophone children, children of francophone families. That's what the directive of the ministry says, Mr. Minister. In the meantime, the minister is causing there to be taken a survey - by Canadian Facts Ltd., I think it is - among the people of the province to see how many anglophones ~, want access to education in the French language.

If the minister is prepared to say here and now that if any group of 10 children in this province, in respect of their language or parentage, gets together in a particular class and wants instruction in the French language throughout the year in their entire curriculum, he will provide the resources required above and beyond the ordinary cost of educating those children to make that possible, I will be perfectly content. But my information is that the Ministry of Education for the next fiscal year has set aside $150,000 for the total purpose, including the development of a core curriculum. Somehow I don't think you're going to run many incremental classes for $150,000. So to me, Mr. Speaker, there has been, at least in spirit, a going back on this marvellous opening announcement. If a group of parents and children in, let's say, Cleveland School in my riding, in grade 6 would like to have their education for all day in mathematics and social studies and all those other courses in the French language and they ask the minister to make this available, make the incremental money available, I would like to know if he would do that, because that's the ~, ay I read the initial announcement and that's the way other parts of Canada read that initial announcement. Now will the minister say that will be done?

HON. MR. McGEER: If people ~want their education in French, they can have it in French.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't %un to put words in the minister's mouth. I think he just said if people want their education in French, they can have it in French. I will take that as an indication of good faith for now and we will get into the details later. I'm very happy to hear that. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Speaker, the opening speech said nothing about control of hydro rates, which has been a case in this Legislature in this province year after year. B.C. Hydro, , as every consumer in this province knows, sets its own rates. The .executive council has no authority over it, the B.C. Energy Commission has no authority

[ Page 83 ]

over it; only the board of directors, Mr. Robert Bonner and company, that very small, three-man or four-man board, sets its own hydro rates. That's not good enough in this day and age when energy considerations are so important and when consumerism is so important and when 1 received a letter from an old-age pensioner the other day that gave the chapter and verse and the mathematics of how about 60 per cent of his pension increases in the last five years has been taken up by increases in hydro rates, which had gone up about 90 per cent in his particular use during that period. I say to myself, there has to be some better control on this. There has to be some better control on the whole pricing format of B.C. Hydro. The Premier himself in his submission to the First Ministers' Conference, if 1 can find the exact reference, said at page 36, speaking of the regulation activities of government: "When regulation is the only alternative, it should be based on sound economic criteria such as, for example, the use of marginal cost pricing for public utilities."

Well now, that's a very interesting quote, Mr. Speaker. I presume it's the policy of the government of British Columbia. It should be; it's the right policy. Is the Premier aware that the management of B.C. Hydro has been staunchly resisting marginal cost pricing? Most notably in the case of the Revelstoke Dam, but in all of the hearings that have been held in this regard, they are against it. They are against it because they say they're nervous about it. That's basically what they are saying. Now surely we have to have a structure put in place finally that will take control of the rate structure of B.C. Hydro. The Crown corporations reporting committee is a good thing, but it has no power to control Hydro, and properly so; it just has power to investigate. Someone must be given the power to control and 1 say it should be the B.C. Energy Commission.

Jurisdiction over British Columbia Telephone is in the same portfolio, at the moment without a minister. Some members may have noted, during the recent strike at B.C. Telephone, a Province editorial that suggested that for labour reasons it would be very useful if the labour situation at British Columbia Hydro ~, us brought under the British Columbia Labour Code control and the control of the Minister of Labour of the British Columbia government. They suggested that the situation might have been better handled. That is one powerful argument. Another argument, equally powerful, is that the British Columbia Telephone Company is basically a company that operates within the province of British Columbia, and yet it is regulated from Ottawa by a quirk of history. I want to suggest to the government that they make this year one of their priorities - it %us a priority of the past government, the NDP government - and aggressively seek from Ottawa a return of jurisdiction over the British Columbia Telephone Company to this government.

I would also like to ask the government to give an early report to the House on exactly what is the deal on the Alcan pipeline. What is the deal that is shaping up between British Columbia and Canada? What is the state of the negotiations? Are w going to be able to achieve for northern British Columbia treatment as good as the treatment accorded the Yukon Territory in the deal that was made there? We know, Mr. Speaker, that most of the benefits of this pipeline will accrue to the provincial government and yet many of the costs will accrue to the local communities, the northern communities.

They have not had sufficient communication. As a matter of fact, at the time ~, ben this pipeline deal was signed I don't think they'd been communicated with at all by the committee that was supposed to be looking at it, headed, I think, by Mr. Green. I wrote for terms of reference to Mr. Green months ago. I still haven't got a reply.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: My goodness! The Premier's a bit touchy tonight. I want to know how it's coming from our point of view, Mr. Premier. How is it coming from our point of view in this Legislature? What's going on there? Well, tell US. I don't know. What is the federal position? I don't know what it is. What's our position? That's what I want to know. The province of British Columbia - what's our position?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed with the speech.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER; Hon. members, I bring to your attention standing order 17 (2) . Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things about my own community of North Vancouver. These things are mainly laudatory

[ Page 84 ]

of the government, and particularly the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . The Minister of highways has arranged for the great improvement of the interchanges at Lonsdale and Upper Levels and Westview and Upper Levels during the past year. I want him to know that the people of North Vancouver, of both ridings, are very appreciative of these constructions.

I note as well that the minister has seen fit to retain the land owned by his department in those areas for the future construction of interchanges - great separated interchanges which one day will be required - and I commend him for his wisdom in that regard, because there was some pressure to sell that land, and it's a good thing he's hanging on to it.

Next I want to congratulate the same minister for the work that he has done on the Lower Levels Road. The study that was put through on that, largely as a result of the pressure from his own department, and with a good contribution from his own department, has led to a statement that the provincial government will pay 50 per cent of the cost of the road as an arterial road and, I think, 100 per cent of the bridges that are required across that area. This is a great step forward, Mr. . Speaker. It' s up to the municipalities now and the Squamish Indian band to get their own act together; but no one can say that the provincial government has not acted and done its duty in this regard. 1 congratulate the minister on that.

I have a good word for the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his responsibility for the SeaBus operation. I remain of the opinion that the Seabus operation is going to be one of the great things for the North Shore and for Vancouver in the years to come. Even now it is running well above forecast. It was in the opening days. Some people thought that was a flash in the pan but it is continuing to run well over forecast. I commend the minister for the perseverance he had to have to finish that project off because there were those who thought that it should be cancelled. It was initiated by the former government and I give them credit too. The SeaBus has been a very good thing.

There are, as the minister knows, unresolved problems having to do with the SeaBus, or more properly, having to do with the land at the northern terminal. I can do no more than make the representations that I have before, representations on behalf of the North Vancouver city council and of citizen groups in the area. There should be a substantial portion of those lands devoted to public parks. I know the minister likes that idea and

I know that there is consultation going on, so we will keep watching. We will keep our fingers crossed and hope that wa do see a significant park established there or dedicated there sometime during this year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a little bit to the Minister of Economic Development about research and development in the province of British Columbia. I had a quote earlier on from the newsletter of the Canada-Japan Trade Council, which had to do in this particular case with coal exports. But there were a couple of really far more shocking; quotes at the beginning of the particular article. Here is a quote on page 2: "As only one example, our standard of living" - that's Canada's -"which was second in the world in 1968, has now sunk to 10th position, immediately behind Luxembourg." Well, I don't think we- should be very proud of that.

Another quote on the next page: "A recent OECD study ranked Canada last among 10 nations in regards to technological innovation."

Mr. Speaker, in connection with my earlier remarks, I have no question that British Columbia is the right part of Canada to expand scientific research and technological development, not just because of our climate and not just because of our academic institutions here, but also, I hope, because of a welcoming posture on the part of the government. I note that the Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) has set up a committee being chaired by, I think, Dr. Armstrong, with the job of co-ordinating this kind of welcome. I think that's a very good thing. I think that that's the kind of thing which is going to properly secure the future of our province. As has been pointed out, these kinds of scientific industries and research industries have multipliers far in excess of ordinary industrial employment.

I had occasion recently to look at the research institution which was put in place by the Swedish government about 10 years ago. It's called the Swedish Board for Technical Development, and it has as its objects the following things: to follow technical development by keeping in touch with scientists, institutions and companies; to organize and support co-operation and technical research and industrial development, and also to encourage contacts between authorities, industry, commerce and research institutions; to take the initiative on technical research of importance to industry, commerce and society, and also to further such research and its utilization; to plan and allocate governmental support in terms of loans and grants for technical research,

[ Page 85 ]

industrial development work and inventions; to follow and monitor the activities of industrial research associations and other collective research institutions at which the research work is conducted with government support; to give advice to inventors - and this is important because inventors, and I have seen many in British Columbia, without patent advice and other things often lose their inventions or move south; to give advice to inventors and act as an intermediary when it comes to the commercial utilization of research results; and to further technical international co-operation with foreign institutions, international organizations.

Mr. Speaker, Sweden is a small country. It has about eight million people. It is just a little more than three times the size of British Columbia, and yet it is renowned throughout the world for its design, builds its own airplanes, has two different kinds of automobiles that are manufactured there. They have, through research and development, been able to be in the forefront of the world in a number of selected areas. This particular research and development institute, in a country, as I say, a little more than three times the size of British Columbia, has a budget for 1977-78 of $309 million Swedish kroners, which, according to the exchange rate tonight, should be about $75 million. If we could do a third as well in the province of British Columbia for the minister's new scientific research encouragement branch, that gives him a target to shoot at as he makes his arguments to Treasury Board. I wish him very well in making those arguments. Naturally this kind of council has to work with the Science Council of Canada and other areas and cooperate and specialize in certain things in British Columbia. But there are things that are unique to British Columbia and problems that are unique to British Columbia and that kind of research money can help solve them.

Particularly, in this province we have to fight to get more central Canada research money sent out to British Columbia. I speak both of the federal government and of the major Canadian companies. A phenomenon that we saw in the United States was the massive shift of research effort from the eastern United States to California. It never happened in Canada and one of the reasons, I am absolutely persuaded, is the attitude of the federal government which likes to see these kinds of institutions located in central Canada rather than here in the west or in the Maritimes, for that matter. I think that continuing pressure on the federal government in this regard is a useful thing for the minister to undertake.

With respect to economic development, I would like to ask the minister to undertake an inquiry and report to this Legislature the cost of the quotas on shoes and textiles which have recently been put in place by the federal government. Quotas of one kind or another and tariffs in these areas have existed for many years, but the recent quotas are of such extreme severity that a great deal of harm is being done to the consumers of British Columbia. I appreciate that these quotas were put in place to save jobs back in eastern Canada, but we have very little indication that the kind of structural re-organization that is necessary to save these jobs in the long term is in fact being undertaken with the kind of structural re-organization that is necessary to save these jobs in the long term is in fact being undertaken. What we need, to put the argument properly from the viewpoint of British Columbia and to insist that that restructuring be done and also to insist that the quotas be slackened somewhat where they are really hurting consumers, is some kind of an objective measure by the minister and his department as to what that quota is costing British Columbia consumers. I suspect it is many millions of dollars when you look at the increased price of children's clothes and footwear of all kinds. It's a big number. I'd like the minister to get it for this Legislature.

I'd like to comment briefly on the Premier's submission to the First Ministers' conference, which he titled "Towards An Economic Strategy For Canada." First of all, in general terms I'd like to congratulate him for it. It' s a good document and it was well received at least by the press of eastern Canada. I don't know how it was received by government, but certainly the press received it very well. I would say to the Legislature that it had so much good advice in it that if the Premier were to follow it all in British Columbia we would have a different kind of administration here.

I'd just like to point out some of the areas that I would commend to the Premier his own advice. Reading through that document we come to page 14. The Premier is talking about regulatory intervention. "Steps should be taken to stress efficiency in the operation of Crown corporations. Where such corporations are asked to deviate from efficiency norms to pursue social objectives it would be preferable for governments to provide open and direct subsidies to offset costs." I think that's very good advice from the Premier to the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker. I would ask him to take it himself here.

[ Page 86 ]

In the case of British Columbia Hydro, as I mentioned, the transit operation could have a loss of $60 million. How does the government propose it should be covered? Out of windfall profits that Hydro got from the sale of electric power to the state of Washington over this past War. He does not propose to bring the subsidy, which it is - a social subsidy -into the budget of the province where it should be.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Stick around for the whole session.

MR. GIBSON: No, no. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has made this very clear, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance says that Hydro is to absorb that. Why hasn't that been brought into the budget? That was your advice right in your own paper.

The thing is, of course, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is trying to sustain this idea that his government is cutting down the percentage of gross provincial product that he spends in budget. So shuffle things out to BCBC, shuffle things out to B.C. Hydro; put it anywhere you can so you bring that magic, percentage of GNP down. I just wish he'd take his own advice in this particular piece of paper.

We carry on through the brief here. The statement on page 25, speaking of lower potential for productivity increase, when the Premier speaks of causes of growth in government, he states, and I quote again: "As is -the case in most service industries, the potential for productivity growth is lower in government than in industry."

Mr. Speaker, I don't accept that. I think that's a counsel of despair. I think that in fact the potential for productivity increase in government is greater just because there have been such difficulties in the past, and I don't think the Premier should write if off quite that quickly. I think he should take it as a challenge for his government to face and say: "How can we do better in the efficient management of the public service?"

on page 28 the Premier enunciates a very fine principle. He says, and I quote again: "By separating the need to raise taxes from the power to spend, transfer programmes effectively undermine the accountability of governments to their electorate. Furthermore, conditional grants, especially those in the form of shared-cost programmes, undermine provincial spending priorities as the province attempts to get the most out of the 50-cent dollars."

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. Now the question I have for this government is: is it prepared - naturally it would be - to extend this proposition to municipalities? Is it prepared to ensure that municipalities have sufficient tax resources to do the things that they need to do? In particular, is it prepared to ensure that the Greater Vancouver Regional District has the kind of money that is required to build a transit system? I think the Premier has enunciated an excellent principle here, but time after time we see provincial governments in this country saying we must have more power from Ottawa, we must have more resources in Ottawa, and they don't seem to be able to make the natural) mental connection that would then require them to say, "and we are going to pass this on to the municipalities; we not only believe in power being delegated to us, we believe in passing it on." So I support that quote, but I hope it will be consistently applied.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Would you accept an adjournment motion? I think it would be fairer if he were to start tomorrow, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . I have a few things yet to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps this is an arrangement that can be made through the Whips. Let's proceed.

MR. GIBSON: At page 381 have underlined the words: "In considering regional development policies it is important to be constantly aware that regions should not be developed for the sake of the region itself. It is the unemployed and low-income persons often concentrated in specific areas that are the subject of concern." I ask the Premier to consider that in his own consideration of regional development around this province.

Now at page 41 we have an extraordinary statement. The Premier says: "Moreover, there are few provisions for freedom of information in Canadian legislation." The Premier said that to the First Ministers' conference. He seemed to be chiding them for lack of freedom of information legislation, and yet I have minutely scrutinized the opening speech; I have looked for a statement that a freedom of information law would be brought before this House this session, and I can't see it. Mr. Speaker, I want to know why the advice that our Premier gives to the other First Ministers of this country is not given to us here in this province of British Columbia. Obviously, a freedom of information bill is something we need. And obviously it's a thing of such importance that if the Premier planned it he

[ Page 87 ]

would have told His Honour about it, and His Honour would have told us. So....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You mean there are things that you've kept back from the House in the opening speech?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused. I thought they put all the good stuff in the opening speech, and the Premier's saying more things might be coming along. He really confuses this House; he's trying to keep us off balance. I want to entertain members with a very interesting little thing that recently happened down in California. A man by the name of Jarvis ....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, this isn't the phone book, Mr. Minister. I know that's where you get your budget, but that's not where I get my speeches. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, this reference is to a 75-year-old Howard Jarvis, an irascible old coot, usually dismissed as a conservative gadfly. And what did he do? He went out and got 1.2 million Californians to sign a petition that puts a proposition on the June primary election ballot to reduce property taxes to one per cent of assessed valuation. He gets 1.2 million signatures for this purpose.

Listen to the effect. "That would slash the average property tax bill by two-thirds; it average property tax bill by two-thirds; it would give the state budget a $7 billion kick in the head." That shows the power of the initiative process in the state of California.

Listen to this assessment of it by one of the experts: " 'But the damn thing could pass, ' says one prominent politician who, like most others, is afraid to oppose in public the modest proposal of the aroused property owners." And if the tax revolt succeeds here in a fairly liberal state, there's no telling where it could lead."

I gather there's a disposition to accept a motion to adjourn?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, which is it? Will it be accepted or not?

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented the report on the administration of the Transit Services Act for the fiscal year 1976-1977, and financial statements for T.S. Holdings Ltd. and subsidiary companies for the year ending March 31,1977.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.