[ Page 953 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Limitations Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Oral Questions

Indian cut-off lands claims. Mr. Bennett — 953

Relocation of government offices due to CUPE strike. Mr. Wallace — 954

Development of Langley land purchased by Land Commission. Mr. McClelland — 954

Renegotiation of RCMP contract. Mr. Phillips — 954

Action against school picketers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 955

DND land application. Mr. Schroeder — 955

Amendment to Securities Act. Mr. Chabot — 956

Steel mill locations in B.C. Mr. McGeer — 956

Raising of juvenile to adult court. Mr. Wallace — 956

Premier's meeting with UBCM. Mr. Gardom — 956

Approval of Mohawk oil refinery. Mr. McClelland — 957

Due date for B.C. Rail annual report. Mr. Fraser — 957

Investigation of Casa Loma construction practices. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 957

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2. Mr. Fraser — 957

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress. — 984

Department of Finance estimates.

On vote 53. Mr. Wallace — 985

On vote 54. Mr. Morrison — 986

On vote 55. Mr. Wallace — 988

On vote 56. Mr. Wallace — 989

On vote 57. Mr. Curtis — 991

On vote 58. Mr. Phillips — 992

On vote 59. Mr. Curtis — 994

On vote 60. Mr. Wallace — 995

Appendix — 996

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a number of members of the action committee on cut-off lands — in particular, on the co-ordinating committee, two members from my riding, Sy Baker and Phillip Joe, and two from other parts of the province, Adam Eneas and Harry Dick. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Rafe Mair, a newly nominated Social Credit candidate for the constituency of Kamloops. While he enjoys his present temporary status as a visitor, I would like the House to bid him welcome.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I've got a very special announcement to make today. It is a first for Victoria — we've got a group of students from as far east as Jaffray, Galloway, Grasmere and Elko. That is the area on the shores of the Koocanusa Lake. They have come a long way to visit the House to see what's going on. There are not very many chances for students from that distance to have that opportunity.

They are here today with their teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Dore, and they are sitting in the gallery along with my wife.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to join in the welcoming of Mr. Mair, who I believe is going to remain Mr. Mayor.

In the galleries today we have three aldermen visiting from the City of Kamloops — Alderman Mathews, Alderman Bianco and Alderman Chapman. They were accompanied to Victoria by their planner, Mr. Game, and the industrial co-ordinator, Mr. Kask. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery there are two citizens from Burnaby, Mayor Tom Constable and Ken Maddison.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): One of the more colourful mayors in B.C. is Betty Dube from Maple Ridge. She is in the gallery along with Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Walske. I believe Oscar Austring, the mayor of Pitt Meadows, Mr. Jerry Selina, the treasurer and Lyle Armstrong, the planner of Maple Ridge, are also in the gallery.

Introduction of bills.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 6, Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 9, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PATIENTS' ESTATES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 2, Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill — the Limitations Act — of which notice has not been given on the order paper, so that Members will have a chance over the Easter recess to peruse same.

Leave granted.

LIMITATIONS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 8, Limitations Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. King presented the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Oral questions.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS CLAIMS

Mr. Bennett: To the Minister of Human Resources: can the Minister inform the House if he is

[ Page 954 ]

holding discussions with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with respect to the cut-off claims?

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, we met — the Premier and seven or eight cabinet Ministers — on March 3 at their request for an informal, in-camera meeting. We had a meeting that ran, I think, the better part of two hours, at which there was an in-depth exchange of views. We said that we would take into consideration the issues that they had raised, and we left.

I might add that I did get a telegram last week asking for us to make a statement on the cut-off lands by April 1. I replied to Chief Eneas — I don't know whether I've got a copy of the telegram — in substance saying that it was my understanding at the meeting that we had on March 4 that we had an exchange of views, that discussions would continue, and that we were not prepared to deal in this way, where we were getting an ultimatum from one side or the other to make a decision by a set date. That is where the issue is at the moment.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary. Is the Minister prepared to arrange a formal cabinet meeting with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs concerning the cut-off claims? I believe the issue under question is whether they could have a formal meeting in advance of the April 1 date.

Hon. Mr. Levi: We indicated to them at the meeting that we would be discussing this matter with the full cabinet. We have not had an opportunity to do this at the moment. Then we'll get back to them.

Mr. Bennett: A further supplemental. The other part of that question was: will the Minister advise whether he will recommend to the cabinet that they hold a formal meeting prior to the April 1 date?

Hon. Mr. Levi: No, I'm not going to recommend that to cabinet.

Mr. Gibson: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister at least willing to say at this stage that there is great merit to the case of the bands affected in the cut-off lands?

Hon. Mr. Levi: Mr. Member, I'm not really prepared to discuss the merit. We had eight cabinet Ministers present; we had a discussion; we said we would take it back to the full cabinet. That's the next step in the question.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that Hon. Members can't ask what advice a Minister proposes to give the Crown in question period or opinions on matters of policy until they are declared.

RELOCATION OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICES DUE TO CUPE STRIKE

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same Minister on a different subject: is it correct that employees of the Department of Human Resources in Victoria, Saanich and Sidney have moved their usual offices to temporary locations during the strike of the municipal employees?

Hon. Mr. Levi: I'll take that question as notice.

DEVELOPMENT OF LANGLEY LAND
PURCHASED BY LAND COMMISSION

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): To the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister, in light of the answer he gave yesterday with regard to the 2,000 acres in Langley, would be prepared to either table with the House or tell the House the names of the consultants who are doing the studies into the land-use proposals for that area.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, while he's taking that as notice, I know that last year there was $100,000 in taxes paid on that land. Would the Minister be prepared to tell us whether this year's property taxes of approximately $120,000 will be paid by the government or the Land Commission?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The Land Commission pays taxes.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, the Land Commission Act says only that the Land Commission may pay a grant in lieu of taxes. The Land Commission doesn't pay taxes. All I'm seeking is an assurance that taxes will be paid on this land in the coming year.

Mr. Speaker: I really think the question is out of order. If the Minister wants to answer, he can do it with leave.

RENEGOTIATION OF RCMP CONTRACT

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General with regard to the RCMP contract between the province and the RCMP and the Government of Canada, which expires on March 31, 1976. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if any preliminary negotiations have taken place between the province and the Government of Canada with regard to renewing this

[ Page 955 ]

contract, or if any negotiations are planned in the immediate future.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we've received the proposal of the Solicitor-General of Canada (Hon. Mr. Allmand), which has retrenched from the federal contribution to the presence of RCMP constables in British Columbia, both at the provincial level and the municipal level.

We made our counter-proposal approximately 10 days ago, wherein we asked the federal government to provide 50 per cent of the cost throughout the province, because we want to maintain that incentive and choice for municipalities to choose either their municipal force or the RCMP on as favourable terms as we can possibly get, especially at a time when we're expanding the number of police officers in the community.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the cost of the policing by the RCMP in this year's budget is only up 25 per cent, and the increase in the cost of sheriffs' officers is up 438 per cent...

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: From nothing.

Mr. Phillips: ...is there reason to believe that even if the RCMP contract is renewed the sheriffs' officers will play a more important role in law enforcement in British Columbia in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no role in respect to law enforcement, but prisoner escort, court attendance, service of process, clerical work that formerly was done by police officers, yes. The sheriffs force will be doing that and releasing police officers into the community. The estimates are up because we have started from nothing, and they will be up further in the coming years because we now have on staff in the area of 100 sheriffs' officers, but the training schools are continuing.

Mr. Phillips: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received any expression of concern from citizens' groups about the possible replacement of the RCMP as the main police force in British Columbia by either sheriffs' officers or some other possible provincial police force under the control of the Attorney-General? Has there been any concern, any representation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, apart from Grace McCarthy, apart from her concern, there is nevertheless a general concern in the Province of British Columbia that we have improved police services. But don't mix up the sheriffs' officers with the police work. They're different. One's a civilian force, and the other is law enforcement.

ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL PICKETERS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. In view of section 127(1) of the Public Schools Act, which makes it an offence for any person to "disturb, interrupt or disquiet" any public school, has the Minister recommended to the Attorney-General that he initiate action under the Public Schools Act against the picketers presently disrupting classes in the greater Victoria area?

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): No, I have not. I will be meeting with some of the school board officials this afternoon.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether she has recommended, then, to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that he appoint a special officer or an industrial inquiry commission into this dispute in the greater Victoria area so the children can get back to school?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think the Hon. Member is aware that you had a report from the Minister of Labour, I believe, just a couple of days ago, to the effect that both of us were involved in offering those services. Actually, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. As you know, they were rejected.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The question was whether or not you had recommended to him that he do it. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: We work together.

DND LAND APPLICATION

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): The question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Minister received notice, either through his department or through the Land Commission, of application from the Department of National Defence for use of up to 700 acres of agricultural reserve land in the Chilliwack constituency for either rifle range or demolition purposes?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, no such notice has come to my attention yet. I do want to thank the Member for bringing this to my attention earlier, but so far I've found nothing about the Department of Defence making any approach to the Department of Agriculture or any of its agencies.

Mr. Schroeder: Supplementary. Since the

[ Page 956 ]

Land Commission has already been made aware of this application, can the Minister tell us what is the status of land held in agricultural reserve? Can the federal government purchase or expropriate or use land that's in reserve, or designate its use without any reference to the land reserve?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you ask my lawyer. I can't give a legal interpretation of something like that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: These matters are decided by both federal and provincial statute.

AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES ACT

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): To the Attorney-General. Does the government intend to proclaim the amendment to the Securities Act, passed a year ago, requiring the filing of a prospectus with the Securities Commission?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Real Estate Act?

Mr. Chabot: No, the Securities Act, dealing with the filing of a prospectus.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Well, under the Securities Act, of course, you do have to file either a prospectus or a statement of material facts if it's not a new issue. Under the Real Estate Act, with respect to subdivision lots....

Mr. Chabot: No, no.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's not what you're asking about?

Mr. Chabot: No, the filing of a prospectus to the Securities Commission.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Oh, it's required.

Mr. Chabot: With the Securities Commission it's required.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. Chabot: You've proclaimed the section in the Act that requires it.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. Chabot: When?

Mr. Speaker: There again, it's a matter of public record.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You know, subject to checking with a lawyer, this is a matter that for years you've had to file prospectuses with a new issue of shares, and they have to be approved by the superintendent of brokers.

STEEL MILL LOCATIONS IN B.C.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question for the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Speaker. Recently there was a rejection by the local community at Parksville of a steel mill in that area. I wonder if the Minister of Economic Development has given consideration to locations of steel mills in British Columbia.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of.... If the city council or the municipal council of Parksville has stated so, they haven't indicated to me. There is a Qualicum resolution. I have been talking to the mayor and council this morning and explained to them, to what was apparently their satisfaction, what the details of a feasibility study entailed and that there will be a full public dialogue before any decision is made.

RAISING OF JUVENILE
TO ADULT COURT

Mr. Wallace: The Attorney-General took as notice a question last week about a juvenile who had escaped many times from the correctional centre and caused a large amount of community damage. I asked whether an application to raise this young man to adult court had been blocked by the Attorney-General. I have since provided the Attorney-General with the person's name, which I don't want disclosed for obvious reasons. I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell the House what the facts of that situation are.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Hon. Member was good enough this morning to give me the name, which I shall keep in confidence. I am having the investigation as to what happened at the time the application to raise was made or not made. I'll advise the Hon. Member.

It has nothing to do, incidentally, with the Department of Human Resources. That's a decision made by prosecutor in consultation with probation officers as to whether or not they should advocate raising the juvenile or oppose the raising of the juvenile to adult court.

PREMIER'S MEETING WITH UBCM

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): To

[ Page 957 ]

the Minister of Finance: is the Minister prepared to inform the House of the results of his meeting yesterday with the members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities? Would the Minister inform the House whether or not he gave them a firm commitment for an absolute sum of money, irrespective of the outcome of his peregrination to Ottawa?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Question 1: no. Question 2: no.

APPROVAL OF MOHAWK OIL REFINERY

Mr. McClelland: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the Minister advise the House whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee has been asked for any approvals or has given any approvals to the proposed Mohawk oil refinery on Sumas mountain?

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): No, I don't believe the committee has made any decision. The committee has been informed at initial stages, but I think that's the situation at the moment.

Mr. McClelland: Would the Environment and Land Use Committee be required to give a final approval before that refinery could go ahead?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's a matter that should be reviewed, and I might advise the Member further. I would like to become fully up to date with respect to any activities between the Mohawk principals and the staff of the secretariat.

DUE DATE FOR B.C. RAIL
ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): A question to the Premier as president of the B.C. Railway: in view of the fact that the annual report of the B.C. Railway was tabled in this House on February 22, 1974, for the 1973 operations, when can we expect the 1974 report, as it's now a month or so late?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Member, for the question. The report is a little late this year.

Mr. Fraser: When can we expect the report?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Very soon, I hope, Mr. Member.

INVESTIGATION OF CASA LOMA
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On March 19 I asked the Attorney-General whether he was launching an investigation into the Casa Loma project on the strength of representations from N.B. Electric Ltd. of curious practices that took place in construction. He said he'd take the question as notice. I wonder if he would now inform us whether such an investigation has been launched.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Hon. Member asked me if I had received a letter. I had received the letter which did make some allegations that there was unfair preference as between lienholders. The letter from Neville Bernard also alleged that some of the funds that were supposed to go into the Casa Loma had been expended on the Mahal health resort, I think it was.

I don't order an investigation without some substantiation. On the other hand, this was somebody who was a contractor working on the project, and he had submitted this in letter form. He said very fairly that he didn't know whether or not it was substantiated. But on the strength of his representation some days ago I asked the commercial fraud section of the RCMP to check into it, making it clear to Mr. Bernard that his civil remedy — because a court case may go forward there — was something he had to attend to himself. A criminal investigation — maybe I shouldn't even use the word "criminal"; it's a very tentative investigation — should not inhibit him from taking what action he should take, if any, through his lawyer to protect his own interests.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $286,290.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I have raised this issue before, but I don't think we had an answer. I am referring to the estimates that we have before us, and I'd like to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say. It's my information that in the estimate books there is a $135 million figure in there for stumpage sales.

I understand from the industry that they are owed $90 million by the government for roads constructed last year. What I would like to know is: if the amount is owed, and I understand it is owed, does it come out of this $135 million estimate of revenue and reduce this revenue to $45 million?

There's a great deal of difference here, and I understand that all this money owing is owed to the interior forest operations for roads already built. I

[ Page 958 ]

also further understand that the Forest Service is still trying to figure out how much is owed and to whom. It seems to me that with this debt, and in view of the stumpage that will be available under the depressed lumber market, we could well end up having no revenue from this section at all during the new fiscal year that we're discussing now.

The other complication about it is the fact that these operators who have built these roads have not been paid, so now they haven't got the financial capability to go on and build roads this year. I think it's quite an important question for the industry. It certainly is for the government in relating it to the revenue of the government if they have miscalculated this.

I notice that the Premier has asked the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and possibly he will now be able to answer that.

I would just like to go back onto the Arab money deal for a minute. Did the Premier ever ask to have that clause taken out of the deal where they didn't want the source of their borrowing divulged? If he didn't, why didn't he?

The other thing was asked of the Minister in question period — about the discussions he had with the Union of B.C. Municipalities yesterday. Did you tell them they would get their share of $1.50 per hundred cubic feet, more or less? Exactly what did you really tell them? So I'll just lead off with that and see if we get some answers.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): On No. 3, Mr. Member. I told them that I felt very, very sure there would be an increase in the price of natural gas, and that the commitment made by the government in the budget speech would be carried through; that is, they would receive one-third of the net returns of any increase over $1. I do not believe the federal government will turn down our request for a price increase because, as you know, Mr. Member, the same gas is selling in Alberta for an ordered price by an Idaho court — for a minimum of $1.63. If the Idaho court says that the B.C. gas is worth at least $1.63, surely the federal government in Ottawa will say the same thing.

Number 2 question: the Arab money. We sent a wire as recently as February asking if they had changed their mind about that clause, and they had not. Every other detail of that loan is public and available to the Member, except the source.

Number 1 question, Mr. Member, on stumpage, is a detailed response. I've turned to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and he suggests that a more appropriate time for that question to be asked would be under his estimates. Since he recognizes my superior skills, he also acknowledges that I don't know everything. (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's nice to hear the Hon. Premier respond so quickly today, which is certainly a departure from the earlier days we spent on his estimates, but sitting from this corner there are still the better part of five or six....

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, he didn't say anything, but it was a quick response. Mr. Member. I agree with you on that.

But there are still five or six questions that remain unanswered in this corner of the room, and I would appreciate having the responses to those. Surely to goodness, I don't have to repeat them to the Premier. He's fully aware of what they are.

One thing that disturbs me a great deal in considering his financial responsibility is the amount of money that he has set aside — his contingency dollars, his hedge, his rainy-day money. It seems to be in the vicinity of about half a million dollars — about $500,000 in a budget of $3.25 billion. I think to set aside only that amount of money for a rainy day.... It's really a very measly, miserly and miserable sum. It's in a rainy-day ratio of about 1 to 6,500, and it's just plain and simply dangerous. It certainly is a complete reversal of any evidence of restraint. The government has been talking about restraint, but there hasn't been any evidence to the general public that they intend to bring that restraint into reality.

I would suggest to the Hon. Premier that he could just as readily display in this House today some evidence of restraint. He could do that extremely simply by saying that he's going to cut down the enormous amount of money in the estimates for advertising. We find that advertising has increased in these estimates that are before the Legislature now. It's up from $4 million to $6.2 million in one year, and that only includes the estimates that are before the House. It has nothing to do with the Crown corporations, and it's extremely difficult to receive precise, if indeed any, cogent information about their operations.

But I think it wouldn't be going out of the ball park or out of line to estimate that we'll find an advertising expense item to the people of British Columbia of $12 million this year. And that will be for the sole purpose of pumping up failing cabinet Ministers and some unfortunate programmes.

What we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is not increasing but decreasing that pork barrel. I would commend the Hon. Premier to raise that miserable little half a million dollars in $3.25 billion — that miserable little half a million dollars of rainy-day money — up to $12 million by cancelling out these unnecessary and uncalled-for advertising programmes.

Earlier on the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was wagering with the integrity of the

[ Page 959 ]

stock exchange, and he was talking about the Monte Carlo operations. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this government's dealings with the municipalities — nay, indeed the Premier's dealings with the municipalities — are far worse and far less principled than any kind of Monte Carlo operation. The municipalities have been thrust into a game completely contrary to their wishes, a game that is so politically sleazy that it would make even Las Vegas blush.

The Minister of Finance knows full well that the municipalities in this province are financially crippled. He knows full well that they cannot exist and cannot make their way without provincial assistance, and he also knows that they cannot make any kind of a move, let alone a move onto the step, without an injection of public money. They cannot administer; they cannot plan; they cannot properly function, and for all practical purposes he has denuded them at the present time of the responsibilities which they have to take care of.

Is his response being an effective response or a responsible response, Mr. Chairman? I would say in no way, for his total response is: "Just stick around. I'm going to go high-rolling on to Ottawa." He's offering a gambling mechanism as an answer for a need, and that's just not right. He's offering them a share of the unknown, and what they need is a positive dollar commitment below which it should not, under any circumstances, drop. I asked the Hon. Premier today if he had given that kind of commitment to the Union of B.C. Municipalities yesterday, and his answer was in the negative.

So he's just going to go to Ottawa, and he's going to Ottawa without considering the provisions of the British North America Act; he's going to Ottawa without considering whether or not it would be appropriate to have a determination of a very serious, far-reaching, difficult and vexing condition by the Supreme Court of Canada. He's avoided that step. Are there conflicting provisions in the British North America Act, or are there not? Should not that be something that should be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada? The Hon. Premier, Mr. Chairman, is essentially going to Ottawa like Lester Maddox, but with all of the bargaining equipment of Casper Milquetoast, and that's exactly what it's going to be.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No!

Mr. Gardom: The Hon. Premier made the analogy to one of the Members on this side of the House — he said it was like going in to the basket for a lay-up and finding that somebody had covered the hoop. Well, okay. If that is the situation that he has arrived at today, surely to goodness the responsible step that should be taken by the Premier of this province is not to leave all of his bargaining authority at home but to make up his mind as to whether or not there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now the Premier ran, and this government ran, very, very much on the policy of open government. They were going to tell all, and let the sunshine in; there was going to be proper accountability and they were going to furnish safeguards. But then they got elected, and of course, what followed? Well, what followed was as little as possible. Mr. Chairman, they snapped down the blinds, they reduced accountability, and for all practical purposes eliminated safeguards.

I would say that now, with a most serious example of abuse since they've taken office, they've throttled the right of the public to ask questions about the responsibility of the office of the Minister of Finance, when he refused to answer questions as to what discretions he was exercising under the provisions of the Revenue Act of this province. I have to ask the Minister of Finance if he has exercised discretion afforded to him by law under the provisions of the Revenue Act. He he invested any moneys from the consolidated revenue fund in the capital stock of any corporations? If so, which companies, how much, when and in what manner?

You know, when the Premier introduced this bill the former Leader of the Opposition and former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) regarded this as perhaps the most single dangerous step undertaken by the present administration. I think he's been proven to be absolutely correct in that point.

When the Premier introduced this bill he said it was a very short bill. We all appreciate that. In Hansard on April 6, 1973, he said this:

I want to assure the Hon. Members that it is not the intention of the government by this amendment to start playing the market with the people's money, but rather it is the investment policy of this government only to commit the people's funds to the capital stock of those corporations where it is considered the investment is a most prudent one or it is considered highly in the public interest to do so.

But, Mr. Chairman, he refuses to furnish this Legislature with any specific evidence as to whether these investments were prudent, whether they were highly in the public interest to take place.

When he closed the debate on the bill on April 6, 1973, he said this:

This amendment is the first shift away from the balance-sheet mentality of governments that have not understood the wonderful potential of the British parliamentary system. The Queen has given to the people the right to decide for themselves...

"for themselves" — he's deciding unto himself, not for the people themselves.

...with scrutiny here in this chamber.

He's not providing the scrutiny here in this

[ Page 960 ]

chamber because he's refusing to answer the questions and they are being ruled out of order by the Chair, and you know it!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense!

Mr. Gardom: The Premier ended with: "And it is on that great delegation of authority by the Queen that I move second reading of this bill." You moved second reading of the bill on the basis that the people would have the right to decide for themselves and that the policies and procedures could be scrutinized in here. You have made that absolutely, totally impossible.

A couple of days ago I was ruled out of order for asking you, Mr. Minister of Finance, how much money you, in your discretion, had authorized to be ploughed out of the consolidated revenue fund into the Insurance Corp. of America. I was ruled out of order by the Chair, and you sat silent in your chair. You even said this in your budget address: "Legislation approved by the Legislature last year provides that the corporation will have access to the consolidated revenue funds of the province in order to assist in its operation."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm shocked!

Mr. Gardom: If you read section 9 of the Act, it says this: "The Minister of Finance may, in his discretion, invest any moneys of the consolidated revenue fund in the capital stock of any corporation." We were ruled out of order yesterday by the Chair, supported by this enormous socialistic mandate over there, on the ground that it was not possible to answer any questions along this line. It is supposed to be shuffled off onto some Minister who does not have the power and who does not have the discretion to make this allocation of public funds.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): You're against the voters.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not against the voters, Mr. Member. Not at all. I'm trying to protect their interests. You can't find the answer to these questions from your Premier. He won't tell you. He won't tell anyone. It's unto himself. It's only unto himself, and it is exceptionally wrong — and little wonder. I really commend the former Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) for having the foresight to see that this was the most dangerous amendment that was ever enacted by this administration since they took office in 1972. You have proven him to be absolutely right, 100 per cent.

How many companies have you put public money into? About 25? And you have not furnished this House....

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not quite finished. You have not furnished this House with the very safeguards that you promised yourself when you introduced the bill. You said there would be an opportunity for scrutiny here in this chamber, and there has been none.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down and I'll tell you. Don't you want to hear the answer?

Mr. Gardom: You were asked questions about the influx and transfusion of money into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. You were asked questions about that every day of your estimates, and you've never answered one. You have not answered one. That's being totally irresponsible. You are causing these estimates to get into a critical situation by delay, and you're totally responsible for that, and you seem to think that's funny. My friend, it is not funny. It's a deliberate plot on your part, and you know it, because you want to shore up some of those weak cabinet Ministers at the tail end of the estimates, and you know that very well, too. This is a very cunning and a very designed procedure on your part. That's what it is.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nothing to do with your filibuster, eh?

Mr. Gardom: No. If you can call a filibuster the right to ask a question and the non-right not to answer, then you can accuse that of being a filibuster, but it isn't that, and you know it.

What you've done is just not answered questions. You've just not answered questions. I can well remember when you used to sit in that lonely little seat up there in the corner of the room, and your voice used to go up octave after octave saying: "I want answers to my questions. I want answers to my questions!" Yes, you did.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never used to say that. I used to say: "Why don't they quit?"

Mr. Gardom: Yes, you did. I remember you doing that very well. You used to get into dreadful frustration. Dreadful! You didn't know whether you were Angus or Agnes at times. (Laughter.) That's right!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No!

Mr. Gardom: Yes! (Laughter.)

In all seriousness, you can have these estimates. They should come to an end, in my view, but you should answer the questions you've been asked, and you have not done it.

[ Page 961 ]

You have not answered the questions about the reserve Indians. You have not answered the questions raised to you about eliminating the 5 per cent tax on prescriptive drugs. You've not answered the questions about the amount of money.... I see the Chairman's not ruling me out of order today, and I wonder why. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: It was inappropriate yesterday. Have we had a change of thought?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When the Hon. Member finishes I will clarify a point with him, but would the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Gardom: You have not answered the questions about the amount of money you have committed to infuse into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, even though you earlier committed that they would never ever receive a subsidy.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: Are we going to turn another 180 degrees?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: And you have never yet informed....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It might be appropriate at this point to make a distinction, which I think the Hon. Member fails to appreciate, from the Chair. In discussing this area, that is to say government investments or financial assistance to Crown corporations, the test is: is the investment on the initiative of the Minister of Finance? Then, of course, properly the questioning should be to the Minister of Finance.

However, if the initiative...

Mr. Gardom: Who wrote that?

Mr. Chairman: ...to buy shares arises in any other department, or assistance to ICBC originates from that department or that area of responsibility of that Minister, then the question should properly be directed to the Minister who initiated that request.

I trust that the Hon. Member gets the distinction. Would he continue?

Mr. Gardom: I get the distinction all right; the most remarkable bit of soft-soap we've heard all session, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't matter who may initiate a request; the person responsible for paying the money is the Minister of Finance, and only he can exercise that discretion. A request may be initiated from the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In that case....

Mr. Gardom: It may be initiated from yourself, but he is the man who has the discretion to pay.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is correct in what he is saying, then we should have the Premier do all the estimates rather than the various Ministers.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, not at all. Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's what they want.

Mr. Gardom: I'm talking about....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the point is that the Minister of Finance provides the money for every department in whatever form it may be required; however, the important thing is the administrative policy or the policy of the department and who sets the policy. Clearly it is the Minister responsible in the department; therefore he should be the one to answer the question.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, no, no, no.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Author! Author!

Mr. Gardom: Oh, with every respect, Mr. Chairman, you are totally wrong. However, I suppose I am forced, by virtue of the fact of the number of seats sitting over there, to subscribe to your ruling — if it is a ruling again. Is it?

Mr. Chairman: It is a repetition of the ruling.

Mr. Gardom: It is a repetition of the ruling. Tedious and repetitious repetition of the ruling. But, Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Phillips: Who wrote it? Who wrote the ruling?

Mr. Gardom: ...it is the Premier who made the decision.

Mr. Phillips: Shocking!

Mr. Gardom: It is the Premier and Minister of Finance who made the decision that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was going to get help. It

[ Page 962 ]

wasn't the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan); you can bet your sweet bippy on that.

The Minister of Finance also decided, Mr. Chairman, if you will reflect, exactly from whence this money would come.

Mr. Phillips: Right!

Mr. Gardom: And he decided it would come from the gas tax.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: I'm wanting to find out how much money from the gas tax he is...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: ...laundering through the consolidated revenue fund and ploughing into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: He still hasn't answered the question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Hon. Member, before I recognize the Hon. Premier I think I will repeat the point again, that, clearly, if the standard which the Hon. Member is applying were the one that determined the Chair, then we would simply have the Premier deal with all the estimates, since he authorizes the money for every department.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you want to be....

Mr. Gardom: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I just gave you all the answers, and you weren't listening. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, you once again interrupted me. I sat down and recognized you, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't yield the floor. You were looking this way, I'm sure.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member has the floor. Please continue.

Mr. Gardom: Well, okay, then why did you suddenly recognize the Premier?

Mr. Chairman: I have not recognized....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because I was up.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Chair is recognizing the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Mr. Gardom: In view of that enthusiastic support, I'd like him to have a shot.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I must be responsible to make an observation on the attempts by the spokesmen for the Liberal Party to now justify their week's delay in these estimates by saying it's our fault.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ten days.

They have embarked upon a course of action unprecedented in this House in delaying these estimates to the point where the government is going to have to consider setting aside time in estimates for every department to be heard so that a schedule will be brought to this House, because we do not want the Liberals to waste all the time in the House and not give the opposition the opportunity of hearing every single Minister. So we will have to consider...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...bringing this schedule forward.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier confine his remarks to the vote, too?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, any vote can be called at any time. If they are going to be irresponsible, I want my Ministers to be up here to answer questions. If they don't want to ask them, that's up to them.

Mr. Chairman: Are you calling the vote?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, I'm not calling the vote, because I'm enjoying this opportunity to pummel the opposition. I have never had such a frequent, consistent opportunity to allow them to expose themselves, Mr. Chairman. Every time they get up and talk it's a vacuum of reason, a vacuum of,

[ Page 963 ]

not intelligence but perceptiveness, a vacuum of consistency and, on top of that, a vacuum of leadership.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What happens when a party begins to disintegrate is that all of them begin to act like leaders. The result is that there is no leadership whatsoever.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Not this party.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But when a party is entirely defeated, nobody speaks — and lets the rump group take all the lead. The official opposition hasn't said a word — the Liberals are doing all the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier confine his remarks to the vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. Mr. Barrett: Now just because of.... There's the man who should have been the leader, but he got vacuumed out of the convention. It was a shortage of money, not power.

The question....

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: The only vacuum is in your head.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, just because you state a premise....

Mr. Phillips: The vacuum is in your head. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just because you state a premise, you have the presumption to think that that's the only premise that is viable. I don't know how you fellows figure that out. You come up with the argument that if I don't take your advice to threaten the Americans by turning off the gas, I've thrown away the only threat that we've got. That's the kind of single-minded, unimaginative, dull, reactionary, threatening negativism that we expect from someone other than the Liberal Party. To have the Liberals stand up and threaten our American friends...

An Hon. Member: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...is enough to call the CIA on their head.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shocking!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Far be it from me, I hope, that Ottawa has heard what your limited threat is to them. You said we should consider in the weapons of our arsenal — even using war-sounding words — the weapon of the threat to cut off the gas.

Mr. Wallace: Peace.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Peace. Right, brother, I believe in peace. I don't want to attack the United States, but if the Liberals do, go ahead. Sign up your army and go at it, but don't try to leave the impression with this House that that's the only weapon because it's the one you thought of. You haven't been doing any thinking.

Just because we've rejected that doesn't mean that there are not other ways, period. Do you want me to stand up and give you all the details of the other things? That would be stupid. That would be giving away all of our plans so that you could get on the phone and call Ottawa...

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...because even though we know you have a difference of opinion with Ottawa, you still would call them and tell them what's going on.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): They've got a pipeline to Thumper.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A pipeline to Thumper. As a matter of fact, you talk about advertising — I'm glad you mentioned that, Mr. Member. You talk about government advertising — page after page after page in Canadian newspapers are full of full-page ads saying: "Conserve energy." How much is that costing the federal government and the taxpayers of this country?

Then, this morning, I hear on the air Thumper's voice — the other Macdonald — saying: "Don't use any more energy than you have to, folks." Do you know how many kilowatts he burned up sending that message out, let alone the taxpayers' money? The Liberals are in enough trouble without taking national advertising programmes to advertise: "Turn off the lights." If you turn off the light, you can't read the ad.

Then you've got all these radio programmes, and you've got the nerve to come in here and say that our advertising budget is too high.

An Hon. Member: Shocking!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It is disgraceful, and

[ Page 964 ]

I'm pleased that you've acknowledged that you're incorrect and you're hanging your head in shame. You're using your own words.

I want to tell you we will never spend $10 million a year, like the federal government is doing, on nonsense ads....

An Hon. Member: You're shedding.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: $10 million. I'm shredding, I'm shredding, I'm shredding.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm just thinking.... I'm shredding; that's true. It's like your multicolored, many-disciplined political career. (Laughter.) It has so many facets, it's impossible to put any sense of philosophy through in terms of your experience in politics. The only thing that stops you from jumping to another party is that there's nowhere else to go — you've hit bottom. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Chairman, the question of the purchase of shares. You unintentionally — because I know he wouldn't do it with any other reason in mind; I know that Member, he wouldn't — you have unintentionally left the impression in this House that we have bought shares in a company that you don't already know about. Now that's not true, Mr. Member.

Mr. Gardom: No, no, no, I wouldn't do that, not giving the full facts, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You wouldn't do that. That's good.

An Hon. Member: Don't try to fog the gears.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, how can you fog gears? (Laughter.) When you're that hard up and start quoting an ex-Socred, then I know you're in trouble.

Look, there is a question....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Political politics — those are the worst kind. (Laughter.)

Mr. Member, there is a question on the order paper, which will be answered, giving in exact detail how much money....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's a dangerous threat. (Laughter.)

From general revenue, I want the House to know, we have only purchased West Coast Transmission shares and some Can-Cel shares. The other shares that we've purchased have been through the pension funds. They're all well-known and publicly made available. That information will be put on the order paper in detail.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's shares — you asked about shares.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I took the note. It says here you want to know under that....

Mr. Gardom: The validity of the reasoning.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, the validity of the reasoning — I'm coming to that. I've got a note about that.

The reason....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No matter what I said, you wouldn't be happy, because you have a different philosophy than I have. You believe that private enterprise knows best and that the people should only be supplicants in their own house. They should be thankful, somehow, that the big outside investors came in and developed our resources, and not ever ask for a share. We don't agree with that, Mr. Member.

When El Paso was told by the American court to divest themselves of Westcoast Transmission shares, which amounted to 13.5 per cent of those shares, we bought them. And what money did we use to buy them? Why, irony of ironies, for the first time in Canadian history, instead of Americans using Canadian funds to buy out a Canadian company, we Canadians used American funds to buy out a share of an American company to bring it home to Canada. If you don't like that philosophy, you go tell the people of the province. But for the first time in Canadian history, we're using our resources to gain control of our own industrial development system. What's wrong with that?

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Filibustering.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Filibuster? Now I'm being attacked for answering questions after being attacked for not answering questions. He asked me the philosophical reasons. I'm giving them.

[ Page 965 ]

Mr. Gardom: How much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You know, when you open your mouth like that, Mr. Member, I keep on feeling like getting an apple and putting it in there.

How much for the Westcoast Transmission shares? A little over $25 million.

Mr. Gardom: No, no. ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How much for B.C. Telephone? Nine to $10 million on B.C. Telephone.

Mr. Gardom: ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ICBC? I have told you, Mr. Member, that no payment has been made from ICBC. Our policy is this — and you want a policy statement: we believe that there should be a shared approach to paying those premiums. When we got an increase....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just a minute. Of course, there's been a change. We got an increase....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Member, you're a cynic when you say a thing like that. You want people to pay twice as much for their car insurance under private companies rather than letting people share in their own revenues.

We got an increase in petroleum prices after hard bargaining with the federal government. The Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Alberta reduced their gasoline tax by 5 cents, thereby allowing tourists not to pay their fair share of the highways and other costs. We said we're not going to reduce the gasoline tax, but the more money we got on gas we would help to pay the drivers' premium here in British Columbia. What's wrong with that?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I want you, Mr. Member, to go out and tell every voter that if they vote for you, you will raise the price of car insurance to them. I ask you to do that in all fairness. I ask you not to play politics. Go out and tell them your exact position. You believe the premiums should be higher.

Mr. Fraser: Go buy a gallon of collision.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Gallon of collision. Mr. Member, that's an inappropriate comment. You have struck me dumb with that vicious attack. I listened to a Socred argument once, and the same thing happened.

I want to tell you, those purchases are public information. ICBC will be spoken about by the Minister. But you have gone on a course here, for heaven knows what reason, of stalling and delaying and stopping the estimates from being passed. I think what you're trying to do is to say: "We'll waste all the time on the Premier's estimates, and when the time is up, we'll say we didn't have enough time to question the other Ministers." Because I'm concerned that that's the suicidal course you're going on, I think we should seriously consider a schedule to make sure that every Minister speaks in this House and is available for questioning so that the opposition must do their duty. They must do their duty, and the government must not impede them from doing their duty and must make available these estimates for everybody: the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Minister of Recreation and Conversation and the Minister and the Minister and the Minister. I want democracy done, even if the opposition wants to thwart it, even if they go out of their way to kill it in British Columbia.

Time's up? No time limit? Did you say aye? Oh, I'm sorry.

Therefore I've answered all the questions. I've gone through it all.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ten days.

Westcoast was bought with Petroleum Corp.? Oh, that's right — revenue from the Petroleum Corp.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): New questions, Dave?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: New questions? New questions, because I've answered the old ones. So you're really revealing that you're going to ask....

Look, I don't mind answering all the questions. I enjoy having the opportunity of sharing with all the people of this province the wonderful job this government has done. I want to thank you humbly for giving me that opportunity. The more the people understand what we have done in car insurance, in repatriating our economy, in sharing the benefits of the good fiscal policies of this government, of having the opportunity to say that we are masters in our own home.... These things, I say to you humbly, are most welcome in this province, considering a 100-year history of buccaneering by the free enterprisers, the giveaway gang over there...

Mr. Chabot: You're emptying the galleries.

[ Page 966 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...the doom-and-gloom boys over there who have never looked forward or had faith in the great potential of our own people. All of them said to give it away to the outside doers. I say that's wrong. That's the difference of philosophy. That's why we're here; that's why you're there. My heart goes out to you. My reason goes out to you, and you won't accept either.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But that doesn't stop me from sharing my concern for you. I want to say I've done my best to educate them, but some people, no matter how hard you try, just can't learn. But I still have great concern for you, Mr. Member, and I'm still taking notes.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, that was another little play by the No. 1 actor in the House. While he stands in this House and filibusters his own estimates, after one solid week, Mr. Chairman — one solid week of seven sessions — of not giving an answer of a particular question, yesterday he invites the leaders of the opposition parties to share in his conspiracy of silence into where he borrowed the money for B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the people of British Columbia have lost faith in this government. It isn't that the previous administration didn't have faith in the future of this government. That's why it was such a great province. That's why the keys were so full. That's why the economy was so strong that even their break-and-take, even their destructive policies have not been able to cease the great economic machine that was filling the coffers to give this Minister of Finance the money to go out and play with on the stock market. I notice he plays with the tax money, but he doesn't play with the stock market with his own money.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people and taxpayers of this province have lost faith in this government. They told the Premier that in the federal election last year. They told the Premier that again in the civic elections last fall, and they told him again on Saturday in the election in Esquimalt. The people are telling the Premier that they have lost faith in his policies and that they are tired and sick of having welfare and no wages — that they want work and wages. But the Premier doesn't seem to listen. He goes on. He seems to enjoy getting up here and going on with his clown act, but really it's time the Premier took a serious look. He's going to spend $3.2 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money this year, and it's time that he started taking on a little seriousness and recognized the heavy responsibility that he holds in that office as Minister of Finance.

Yesterday afternoon the Premier promised to tell us how much the options were sold for when he let the options go to purchase shares in the Bank of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, you talked about him shedding just a moment ago, but he was shedding policies, and he sheds policies from day to day. He's not like a eucalyptus tree or any ordinary animal that maybe sheds their fur, their feathers or their horns or leaves once a year. Our Premier sheds policies every day of life — it just depends on which way the wind is blowing.

He was shedding another policy because last year, in March, 1974, the Premier said that he wanted the people of British Columbia to own a share in this bank and he was generally concerned about it. He said, and I quote from Hansard on March 4, 1974:

We have moved to go up to our federal limit in the bank because we believe in a publicly owned bank or, at the very least, the presence of the public in a bank, and we are on record as supporting that concept right from the very beginning — as a matter of fact, since 1933, the founding of the CCF and the NDP.

That was last year. But this year the Premier's policy has changed again. In answer to a question he again tries to muddy up the water because he says: "When we buy shares you attack us for buying them; when we don't pick them up you attack us for not picking up the options. Fellows, you've changed your position so much in six months it's unbelievable." But it is the Premier who has changed his position; flip-flop, doubletalk — is he really sincere when he says that he wants the public to have a share in a banking institution of British Columbians? Heaven knows that this Premier has attacked the eastern banking system practically ever since he has been in this Legislature, and yet he lets the options to pick up these shares slip through his fingers to an eastern financial institution.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, financial wizard. I'll tell you, I think it's a financial lizard — he changes colour or changes his skin.

The Premier hasn't told us what he sold these options for, and he hasn't given this House a reasonable explanation as to why he did not pick up those options of the shares in the Bank of British Columbia. There's some wishy-washy, airy-fairy scheme that he has going to come in, and we are going to have the opportunity to vote on a financial institution in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Would you call these gentlemen to order, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: Wanna step outside?

[ Page 967 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it's astonishing to me that the Premier has changed his position from a year ago, when he stated clearly that it's a backward move. You had the opportunity to move up....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Listen, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my embarrassments and I'll take my lumps and burnps from the Premier, because he thinks he can get up and twist the thing. He said it clearly in Hansard that it was a policy of the government....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to embarrass you, but you're wrong.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I just read it out of Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, sit down, and I'll explain.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Phillips: The Premier can try and try and twist his position around if he wants to.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you buy non-voting shares?

Mr. Phillips: He can try and twist his position around if he wants to, Mr. Chairman, but by having over 10 per cent of the shares, you can get involved in the voting shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You can't vote more than 10 per cent — you know that — by federal law.

Mr. Phillips: By holding the 10 per cent you exercise more influence in the operation of that bank. The Premier has stated very clearly that he would go on and bring his options up to 10 per cent. But the Premier is trying to twist the situation around now.

The State of California, Mr. Chairman, suffered until the financial institutions in California put the say of those financial institutions in the State of California and got away from the shoestrings that were being tied around them by the New York banking system. A movement on behalf of the government would lead the people of British Columbia to know that he has faith in the Bank of British Columbia. There would be more shares purchased in British Columbia by the Bank of British Columbia.

The Premier is going to get up and try and try and twist this around and say that 10 per cent isn't a voting share. I can hear him now. But he doesn't seem to realize, Mr. Chairman, that he as Minister of Finance influences a lot of purchasing in British Columbia and influences what people will do with their investments. He has shown his ignorance in this several times. I want to tell you, it's just another example of the Premier's ignorance of the power and the influence that he has in this province.

It's a complete turnabout from what he said last year, and I won't read it again, where he says he believed in it and he would go ahead and purchase more shares. In one place he even said that he would bring it up to the maximum. "Nonetheless, we agreed with that and we agree that we should be in the bank." I read it in here this morning. Anyway, he said last year that the Minister of Finance of the province would move to bring their total holdings in the Bank of British Columbia up to the maximum allowed — 10 per cent — by federal law.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I did that.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, you did that, and now we have a complete flip around on behalf of that flip-flop Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. Chabot: The Flip Wilson of the Legislature. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: Now, Mr. Chairman, there's just one other subject that I'd like to ask the Premier about. Last year, when he realized what a grave error had been made in estimates by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), when he finally came to realize this and he realized that his budget was going to be overspent in one department alone by over $100 million, what action did the Minister of Finance take to curtail spending in the other departments? Were there any highway contracts or work-day labour going on...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, come on!

Mr. Phillips: ...in the Department of Highways?

Was there any work curtailed by the Department of Highways because of this overrun? Were there any orders, official or unofficial, issued to any of the other departments to curtail their spending for the remainder of the year?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member would be more proper to direct this type of questioning to the Hon. Minister of Highways,

[ Page 968 ]

inasmuch as....

Mr. Chabot: That's a directive.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, no. I'm talking about not only highways; I'm asking the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Treasury Board, when he realized that there was going to be this tremendous overrun in the Department of Human Resources, whether he issued verbally, officially, or otherwise, any instructions to any of the comptrollers in any of the other departments or to the Ministers involved any request to curb or curtail their spending.

Last year we had several of the departments overrun their estimates by over 50 per cent — others about 70 per cent. Was there any priority given by the Minister of Finance to any particular department, allowing them to overspend their budget more than any other particular department?

Mr. Chairman, as you know and I know, the entire budget was overspent last year by some 25 per cent. Had the projections, as laid out in his budget by the Minister of Finance a year ago now, been adhered to — with the exception of the Minister of Human Resources, which was a very gross error — we still could have had a surplus last year in the vicinity of $300 million. It would not have been necessary for this Minister of Finance to go and borrow the $200 million that he borrowed from one of the secret — blank — OPEC countries, and future generations would not be faced with paying back the interest.

So I would like to know if the Minister in any way tried to curtail the overspending in other departments after learning of this very, very gross error in the Department of Human Resources. I hope that the Minister will give me a very candid and a very honest answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I thought that was your last question.

Mr. Phillips: Well, you'll have your opportunity. Just take it as notice; take the question as notice. You know, it always amazes me, Mr. Chairman, that when the Premier does have an answer or when he's all ready to get up with his showmanship or maybe he's got a clown act all ready, he's really anxious to get up and get at it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: But when you ask him a detailed question on something, and he hasn't given us any statement of policy in the sittings that we have been debating his estimates....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You shouldn't say those things.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, I'm merely stating the fact that the people of this province, as witnessed in the federal election, as witnessed in civic elections and as witnessed in Esquimalt, are sick and tired and fed up to the teeth with this showmanship and these half-answers that that Minister of Finance is giving us. Sick and tired and fed up to the teeth. He can get up and clown about all he wants. He really doesn't impress me, because if I want to see a movie I'll go to a movie with the heading "comedian." But I came in here to do the taxpayers' business, to be sincere and to get answers because I represent and work for the taxpayers of this province. I am concerned about the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Chabot: Selective amnesia.

Mr. Phillips: Now I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, one other question. I would like to know from the Premier and Minister of Finance how much of the interest on the $5 million, which has been set up for the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia, has been paid out on behalf of that particular Act. How much of it has been paid out?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll have to look that up.

Mr. Phillips: You'll have to look it up. Well, maybe while you're looking that up, in just a minute you'll give us the answer that you said you'd give us yesterday on how much you sold those options in the Bank of British Columbia for.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I can give you that right now.

Mr. Phillips: Well, you haven't given it to us yet, but I'd like to know. And I'd also like to know how much of this $5 million...? Can you find that out for me this afternoon, Mr. Premier?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay.

Mr. Phillips: I'd also like to know where the cultural funds are invested. What interest is being derived for that fund from their investments? I'd like to know where the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund is invested and what interest that fund is deriving from those investments.

I'd also like the Premier, while he's on his feet in just a few moments, to tell us the true profit of Can-Cel because he loves to say in this Legislature that Can-Cel made a profit of $60 million. He likes to

[ Page 969 ]

say: "Oh, this little socialist group here.... They said we couldn't run a business, and look at this $60 million profit we made in Can-Cel." I want the Premier to be candid and honest with this Legislature; I want him to tell us how much of that $60 million paper profit — because it's not real profit, it's paper profit — is real, honest-to-goodness profit made by that corporation last year. How much is recaptured depreciation? How much is recaptured income tax?

It always amazes me when the government goes into something because I remember that when the government was in opposition all we could hear about was pollution, pollution, pollution. Everything was pollution; everything had to close down. But the government takes over the mill up in Prince Rupert and all of a sudden we never hear anything more about pollution. It's a word of the past.

An Hon. Member: Right.

Mr. Phillips: We never hear a word. We don't hear any of these groups saying: "Close down the business because they're polluting our province." We never hear a word about it.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, we don't hear any of these groups marching for peace in Vietnam today when South Vietnam is being overrun by North Vietnam. Where are all the peace people?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Where are all the peace people? Where are all the love people?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is straying away from vote 2. I would ask him to return to the vote.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I realize on Can-Cel that there will be very little depreciation because the building and the equipment have probably all been written off. That's why the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) said that it would take an additional $200 million to $300 million of the taxpayers' money to bring it up to a properly functioning plant. We realize that, and we realize that as the building has probably been written off in the past, and all the equipment, there won't be any depreciation. So that would certainly have a great bearing on that amount of profit that that mill would make in comparison to other newer buildings where they are still writing off their equipment or they are still writing off their plant.

I would like the Premier to be candid and honest and not try and mislead the House with this $60 million....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm sure the Hon. Member didn't mean to say that the Premier would mislead the House, but I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that Can-Cel, strictly speaking, is not under the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, well, I want to tell you, if it is not under the administrative responsibilities of this Legislature, why does the Premier spend so much time in this Legislature talking in such glowing terms about how this little socialist group was able to run Can-Cel and make such a great profit? If it isn't under his responsibility, or the responsibility of the cabinet, how come the Premier takes such great joy in telling us of all the great profits? Now answer me that, Mr. Chairman. Answer me that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the Premier. However, any Member may rise on a point of order at any time if they feel like it.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, if he isn't responsible for running it, why does he take all the credit? Why does he take all the credit? Or is that just more of his clown act? That's just more of his act — to try and partially mislead the people of British Columbia into thinking he was running it himself. You'd think he was running it himself, wouldn't you?

Now, I would like to ask the Premier one other question, which directly falls under his responsibility. I would like to ask the Premier one question with regard to the operation of the British Columbia Railway, which I have asked him before in this House, and still no answer. I would like to know when the British Columbia Railway has to return the $15 million grant or loan — whichever it is; the Premier changes every day — when he has to return it, and what interest the Treasury Board is charging the British Columbia Railway. The reason I am asking this, Mr. Chairman, is because the British Columbia Railway may have to come to the Premier and to the Treasury Board again very shortly for some additional operating funds if we don't pass this Act, because the railway needs money now. It can't pay its bills.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Who isn't paid?

Mr. Phillips: I'll tell you who isn't paid. You know who isn't paid. If you're the president of the railway, you know who isn't paid, and you know there are bills unpaid in the BCR...

Mr. Chabot: For several months.

Mr. Phillips: ...for several months.

[ Page 970 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, no. Don't say that.

Mr. Phillips: Are you calling North Peace Wood Products liars?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: For several months?

Mr. Phillips: Are you calling North Peace Wood Products liars?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I haven't heard from them.

Mr. Phillips: You haven't heard from them. Well, if you were as fine a financier as you are trying to lead the people to believe, and as president of the railway, you would know.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're picking.

Mr. Phillips: I'm not picking at all. What I'm trying to say is that I want to know. What I am trying to ask you — and I want a candid answer — is when does this $15 million have to be repaid? What interest? Is there any possibility that the BCR will be coming to you again very shortly for more money to keep it operating and so it can pay its bills, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, Mr. president of the railway?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I've got to go to the men's room.

Mr. Phillips: I'd like some candid answers from the Premier. Now I will sit down, Mr. Chairman, while the Premier stands up and does his act again....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, now there you go.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, you are going to change. All right, I'll withdraw that statement, Mr. Chairman, and I'll sit down and I'll sincerely wait for the Premier to give me some honest, candid answers, straightforward answers — never mind the showmanship, never mind the clowning around. Just give us straight, simple answers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Member, I know it's not your intention to dwell on personal insult. You shouldn't do that, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now I've got the floor. There you go, you see; you're interrupting.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member for South Peace River on a point of order.

Mr. Phillips: I'm talking about the Premier's policy — no personal insults — his policies, his politics, and the way he acts.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, that's better. I'm now asking you, since he's corrected himself, to please strike out the last 15 minutes from Hansard (laughter) because he didn't really mean it when he said those things.

Mr. Chabot: Division. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Division? You lose. (Laughter.)

Now, I appreciate the Member's sincere interest in getting this information, but it becomes embarrassing to have to point out again that he has done no research. Now I ask the press gallery, if they are taking notes on this accusation: please don't note again that the opposition has not done their research again. If that should happen to go into the papers, don't blame me. I tried to protect you. Halfway through I warned you. I said: "Sit down. I'll give you the answer on the options."

Your seatmate said: "I bet you didn't get 8 cents for them." He got quieted by the businessman in the back row who knows better.

Mr. Chabot: What did you get for them?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I'm coming to that. How much do you think?

Mr. Chabot: A buck and a quarter.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's a long way from 8 cents.

Since we are all MLAs I feel embarrassed for some of my colleagues and specially for some who are a little more inadequate than others...

Mr. Chabot: Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...so I feel a tremendous sense of embarrassment for the former speaker.

Now, on page 11.... I know that you feel put out that you didn't get an autographed copy. That's why you raised that question. That's what it really is.

Mr. Chabot: You offered me one, and I turned it down.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you asked a question about how much the department spends. Even the Liberals will tell you this, because they read books. I know how difficult it is for Social Credit to get into that habit. Nonetheless, here it is on page 11 of the budget speech presented by the Hon. Minister

[ Page 971 ]

of Finance, whose picture is in the front of this book.

Mr. Phillips: You weren't as pale then as you are today. How come?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's my wife's painting in the background. She's very good.

An Hon. Member: It's a halo.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right. She knows who to put a halo around.

Mr. Phillips: I feel sorry for your wife.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You feel sorry for my wife? So do I, but there are some people in this world who continually sacrifice — she, by living with me.

Nonetheless, page 11, and it's embarrassing. You asked about Highways. If you had really been interested....

Mr. Phillips: That isn't what I asked at all.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, you asked if Highways had been cut back. Those were the words.

Mr. Phillips: I asked if you had sent out a memo....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh. I'm giving you the answer. I didn't interrupt you.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't want the answers.

Mr. Phillips: I've read the budget. I know what's in there.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier has the floor.

Mr. Phillips: I asked you if you put out any memos. That's what I asked.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Don't try to twist it around.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I haven't even answered yet, and you are accusing me of twisting!

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to wait....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I gave him the answer, and he doesn't want it.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Premier continue?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The estimated expenditures in the budget for the Department of Highways, 1974-1975: $194,936,468; spent, $195 million. Right on, practically.

Mr. Phillips: Why did you tell them to cease and desist their operations?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I didn't tell them to cease and desist — they spent their budget. Now he's attacking the Highways department for spending their budget! First of all he attacks one department for overrunning, now he's attacking another for spending its budget. What kind of sense are you making?

Mr. Phillips: You're hopeless.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm hopeless? The reason I'm hopeless is because I am trying to be logical with you, and that is a mental impossibility. How can I be logical with people who are illogical to begin with?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There you go — if, if, if. "If you hadn't done this, if this had happened, then that would have been wrong." But that didn't happen. There weren't any ifs. It's right on, Mr. Member, and your whole theory is shot to blazes.

Mr. Phillips: What about the other departments?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh. I'm on the floor.

An Hon. Member: Yes, what about the other departments?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're going to get bad marks for interrupting.

Mr. Phillips: You sent out a memo where you asked them to curtail spending.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

[ Page 972 ]

Mr. Phillips: That's my question. Answer my question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to wait for his turn to speak again, and I would ask the Hon. Premier to continue.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, there it is. You've raised a hypothetical question, and you didn't check, and you're wrong again.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you please be quiet? Please? It's very rude to interrupt.

Mr. Phillips: You're changing your terminology now. The other day it was "shut up."

An Hon. Member: You're a Pooh-Bah!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do you want the answers? Well, will you be quiet?

Mr. Phillips: I asked a straightforward question, and I want a straightforward answer. You haven't given a straightforward answer in this Legislature in nine days.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We can't proceed with two people speaking at once. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to observe the standing order and allow the Premier to continue.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Whether he's up or down, he's still talking.

Now on the question of the sale of B.C. Rail....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You can't turn it off, can you?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's in absolute defiance of the zipper industry. They could do nothing to cure that problem.

An Hon. Member: Old Jell-O Mouth.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We are limited by law in the bank purchases to have only 10 per cent voting shares. Above that, we can't vote the shares. What's the point of having shares you can't vote? Even a politician understands that.

We said, and I repeat it, that we would move up to the 10 per cent position, but I want the House to remember who bought the first shares in the Bank of British Columbia. Was it the NDP who went into the marketplace in this new venture of government-buying shares? Wasn't this dangerous practice initiated by this government? No.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): Gunderson.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it wasn't Gunderson. It was W.A.C. Bennett who was on the phone publicly flogging the shares. I don't like to do this because I don't like to embarrass anybody, but his own son came in here yesterday and said: "What is the ethics of the government buying shares?" That's what he said.

An Hon. Member: Did he say it like that?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, he did, and I've heard it a hundred times. I didn't want to raise it, but his own father was on the phone flogging shares throughout this province. He called a press conference — one of those breakfast conferences in the morning — and he said: "Buy these shares."

Who interfered in the marketplace? Who set a standard for people flogging shares? The former Premier. Then his own son came in and condemned him yesterday. Shocking! What a destruction of a father-son relationship. (Laughter.) And then we find that no letter is sent to the father saying: "Repent for what you've done in setting this pattern." Ethics, morality — that's what the son said yesterday. The old man was flogging the shares on the phone. That's what he did.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! We did have option to purchase more shares, but because the federal government has limited a province and because we do not wish to go into the marketplace and disrupt the market by the Premier and Minister of Finance flogging shares — that would not be a nice thing to do — we decided to sell our options.

Mr. Gibson: You could have just maintained your position.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, we could maintain our position and go through the same old game again. They split shares and split shares. What's the point, when we've already announced that the Province of British Columbia is going to go in its own financial-institution direction anyway?

[ Page 973 ]

Now I find a curious situation that is embarrassing for me to have to explain when I speak to the people of this province. A year ago the official opposition and the Liberals attacked us for buying shares, and now they're attacking us for not buying shares. You don't have a responsibility to be consistent, but I have a responsibility to tell the people that you're inconsistent. You can't say one year, "Don't buy the shares," and then come back a year later and say, "You should have bought the shares; buy more." It doesn't matter what you do; all you want to do is criticize. That doesn't behoove the official opposition. They have no policy; it's just politics. I don't like to expose politics when I see it, but it's my duty. You say a year ago: "Don't buy any shares," and we take your advice, and don't buy them. Then you come back a year later and say: "Why didn't you buy them?" We're confused by your position. Well, we sold the options.

Mr. Phillips: For how much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! Well, I've been interrupted — not by logic, but I've been interrupted.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! We have sold those options for a total of $18,479 at a range price of a low of 37 and a high of 60, which isn't bad. It's pretty good.

The Member also wanted to know where we have invested the cultural fund, the sports fund. Do you remember that question you asked? What other fund did you want to know about?

Mr. Phillips: The Economic Policy Analysis....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, that answer we had, but all the other funds — you want to know where they are invested. Just those two? Okay. All the funds are invested in schools and hospital bonds at the prevailing rates.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we don't change them on a day-to-day basis. Okay? Okay.

The question of Can-Cel. You can certainly ask the Minister responsible. We've already got a ruling that I can't answer all the questions for all the Ministers.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The other question is the war in Vietnam. I can't do anything about it, but I took notice of your question, and I'll try and contact the jurisdictions responsible for that war. I will convey to those jurisdictions your concern, and hopefully they can bring a peaceful conclusion to that holocaust.

I think I've lost the thread of your reason but still answered your questions. I welcome them, and I hope I have the opportunity of serving you again.

Mr. Phillips: Questions answered. Put a mark on the wall.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I think the first thing that's worthwhile saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier was saying earlier on today that there had been some filibustering in this estimate. I think the last performance indicates quite clearly where, if there is any filibustering, it has come from. It has come from the Premier. He has been stringing out his replies to a considerable degree. He's not answering questions adequately and taking a great deal of time doing it. Very amusing, but he's taking up the very limited time of this House on estimates, a limit which he imposed. Now he is suggesting closure within closure, and arbitrarily moving from estimate to estimate. I say that that's a disgraceful thing to do.

Now there are a number of things I want to cover here. In response to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) earlier on today, the Premier suggested that the 2-cent rise in the gasoline tax which he imposed, would, in effect, be a tax on tourists coming into the province and that British Columbians would receive this back in an abatement of their ICBC premiums.

I hope the Hon. Attorney-General is taking notes because here's the question I have.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I just made a note of that.

Mr. Gibson: How much revenue is that 2 cents a gallon going to generate?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's in the budget.

Mr. Gibson: No, not precisely, Mr. Attorney-General — not precisely. My own calculation is about $20 million, but I'd like to check that.

An Hon. Member: You're low.

Mr. Gibson: That's low? Good. We'd like to know if it's enough to cover the ICBC loss. I won't even ask again what the loss is. I'll just ask if it is enough to cover.

[ Page 974 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to ask questions in this manner, but rather to state his questions and then wait for an answer after he has completed his speech.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm attempting to state my questions. Could you...?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is putting a question and expecting an immediate answer while he is on his feet. Just for order, I would ask the Hon. Member to state his questions and then get the answers at the end.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps I'm directing my ruling to the wrong party. I would direct it to the Hon. Attorney-General to not interrupt the Member. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: Shame on you, Alex.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, to be quite frank, I have a lot of skepticism as to whether I'm going to get any answers at all, let alone immediately. I just wanted to make sure that the Hon. Attorney-General was writing them down on behalf of the Premier.

That was the first question. The second question is just a simple question: why can't the Province of British Columbia have monthly financial statements? A simple question. Other governments are able to do it; large corporations are able to do it. Why can't the Province of British Columbia? That was question No. 2.

Question No. 3. The Premier just informed us that the Bank of B.C. writes.... I'd like to check the number. According to the press there were 25,000 or so sold at a range of between 30 cents and 60 cents. The Premier is always telling us how good he is at stock transactions and how the province is making money. I'd ask him if he's aware that the trading range over the period December 18 to January 31, I'm told, was 30 cents to $1.10. You might note that down, Mr. Attorney-General, because the Premier said that they were sold between 30 and 60 cents. It sounds like almost no shares were sold at over half the price of the trading range, which doesn't sound very good to me.

I do hope the Attorney-General is getting these questions down, or I'll just have to ask them all over again when the Premier comes back.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You've got lots of time in your game plan.

Mr. Gibson: Goodness gracious! The Attorney-General just said we have lots of time in our game plan. We just want to get answers to these questions quickly, Mr. Chairman.

Would the Premier like to be briefed now by the Attorney-General, or should I re-ask the questions?

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: There are just the first few, Mr. Premier. I'm just trying to ask concise questions here and get short answers.

My next question is on the organization of his cabinet. It has to do with the assignment he has made on the question of Indian affairs. I'm not going to discuss questions falling under Indian affairs right now because we're on the Premier's vote. I'm simply making a representation to him that something is obviously wrong with the structure he has set up to handle the grievances of the Indian people, when we have demonstrations, when we have demands for meetings by April 1, and when we have talk of blockades if that kind of meeting doesn't arise. Something is wrong with the way it's being handled. I must very gently and non-politically ask the Premier if he would sensitize himself to that subject and see what can be done to give a feeling to the Indian people quickly that there's a serious intention by the government to redress these grievances, particularly the cut-off lands.

My next question relates to the federal/provincial First Ministers' conference coming up next month. It's in two parts — I gather that economic affairs, generally, are going to be discussed. I would ask the Premier if he is prepared to support the proposal of the Canadian Labour Congress as advanced in their brief to the federal cabinet, that all wages and salary payments in this nation should be indexed as a positive contribution to taking some of the sting out of inflation and taking out some of the psychology of a dog chasing its tail in order to keep up, because this would automatically do it. I would ask him if he'll support that at the First Ministers' conference.

Next question for the First Ministers' conference. There was a good article in The Province this morning with respect to how the various provinces are lining up on the rise in the price of oil. This is one of the main things that the conference has been called for. I ask the Premier what position he is going to be advancing on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Is he going to be supporting a rise in the price of oil or not?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Certainly Premiers across this country are making their position clear.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

[ Page 975 ]

Mr. Gibson: I think British Columbians would like to know what our government is going to do in that regard.

I would make a representation to the Premier — I don't really want him to answer it; I just hope he will think about it — that we need in this province our own corporation tax structure. I would suggest to him that Quebec and Ontario already have it, that Alberta is moving in that direction, that the reason for it is to give ways and means of giving industrial and manufacturing incentives of various kinds in this province that we can't give unless we have control of our own tax structure. It does take more bureaucrats, I freely admit, but hopefully not too many because there are currently bureaucrats enforcing at the federal level and some of those could be dropped — so not too many on a net basis. I think that that could be valuable to British Columbia.

My next question harks back to some things that weren't brought out at the time we were discussing the Columbia River study which is to be done. Three very short questions there: Will that commission report publicly? Will it hold public hearings? Will it allow cross-examination of witnesses? I think that that's essential for a proper airing of that....

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: On the Columbia River hearings. Will the commission hold public hearings? Will it report publicly? Will it allow cross-examination of witnesses? I think on this $800 million question, as the Premier puts it, this sort of thing is essential.

I'd next like to ask the Premier a question about the provincial income tax schedule, which bears particularly on persons of low income — under the 1974 tax schedule until the level of $1,000 taxable income is reached. Provincial tax payable, which in many cases applies to people on quite a low level of income, starts right at a zero level of taxable income and, by the time that $1,000 level is reached, $45 in tax has already been paid. I'd ask why we can't establish the same level of abatement for low-income people in British Columbia as has been done at the federal level.

My next question is to ask the Premier if he has or if he will designate within his cabinet group a Minister responsible for the problems of population growth in British Columbia, making representations to Ottawa on immigration and for the general problem of encouraging people to live in different parts of British Columbia rather than in the present high-growth centres, and, again, that question of making representations to Ottawa on immigration policy for the Government of British Columbia.

I'd ask the Premier briefly, as I asked him the other day — and I think he wanted to reply but forgot at the time — his general attitude towards foreign investment in an equity sense coming into British Columbia.

I would finally ask him to discuss his concept of equity between oil and gas furnace users. I think the Premier has told the House that the oil price equivalent for gas would be $1.93. In fact, the wholesale price of gas is, I think, more in the order of 55 cents, give or take a cent. In other words, the person heating their home with oil is paying considerable premium over the person heating their home with gas. I've been getting phone calls and letters from oil users asking why this should be. "Why should I suffer because I installed the more expensive oil equipment?"

It's a fuel that's better used in this way. Natural gas is a very high-value fuel in the ecological sense, a very high-value fuel for petrochemical feedstocks. But, in fact, we are subsidizing the person who uses natural gas. So I ask the Premier if he thinks that's fair and if he has a plan either to subsidize oil users or to raise the price of domestic natural gas. I suggest to him that unless we are to waste exceedingly valuable and limited natural gas resources in this province, it would be prudent to gradually raise the price to an economic level.

There, Mr. Chairman, is, I hope, a series of short, cogent questions within the Minister's responsibility that I hope he will now reply to.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the first question, of course, we've already thrashed out. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to respond to.

(2) Monthly financial reports are an internal matter. We are up to date perhaps more than any other government in terms of knowing where we are on a month-to-month basis.

(3) The sale of the British Columbia rights was done through a British Columbia firm. I don't think it's necessary to give their name. There was a time limit on the sale. The sale ranged from January 2 to January 14. The high was 60 and the low was 37. If you want the firm's name, I can give it to you across the floor or privately, whichever you want. It was a British Columbia firm.

(4) Policy. In native Indian affairs it's true that we have one Minister responsible for co-ordinating, but more than one Minister is involved in meeting with them. We've had cabinet meetings with native Indian groups. That's the first time in the history of this province that anything like that ever took place.

As a direct result of our first meeting with native Indian groups, we changed the legislation related to home acquisition and made that retroactive because we felt that it had been discriminatory against native Indians.

The cabinet committee has met with native Indian groups and, although we have not resolved all their

[ Page 976 ]

problems, there is a recognition by a number of Indian leaders that this is the first time cabinet Ministers have been so available to them, both individually and as groups to discuss their problems. That is good. That is the way it should have been years ago. You ask us to move faster — then the accusation comes that we are moving too fast.

(5) I'm not familiar with the CLC's whole brief, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

(6) I'll announce my position on the oil price when I get there. That is a decision I've made because I've been under what I consider to be irrational political criticism. The last time I announced my position before I got to Ottawa, I was attacked for announcing it ahead of time. As a matter of fact, I will even dig up the Hansard and quote a Member of your own party who attacked me for announcing my position ahead of time. I was dismayed by that attack. Now I've decided not to announce it, and you are saying I should announce it. It is either a confusion in the Liberal party or just politics. I am not sure what it was. I prefer to believe it was just confusion. I don't think you would sink to that kind of politics.

(7) I've got an open mind on that proposal in terms of corporation taxation of the provinces. We are certainly thinking about it.

(8) The method of Columbian inquiry will be announced when the people are available. I will certainly take into consideration the suggestions you have made.

(9) We are looking into the problem you have raised.

(10) Population growth is a matter that concerns us deeply. The heavy urbanization, the sociological pattern in Canada is something that is a phenomena that is absurd. But only voluntary guidelines can be made to discourage that.

Our programmes as instituted by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), in securing farmland and making it available through the Land Commission is one way that the government can voluntarily redirect people back to land use. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture's programmes of making more land available and giving minimum income guarantees to farm activities make us one of the few jurisdictions where, in some specific areas of agriculture, there is a growth of production — for instance in dairying, in contrast to other jurisdictions, where there is a decrease.

I don't believe that, short of government decree, one can take away the freedom of choice for people to decide whether or not they wish to be urban or rural developers. You can encourage, and the programmes instituted by the Minister of Agriculture in an essentially non-agricultural province have been beneficial in that regard.

Alternate lifestyles will either be adopted voluntarily or will be forced upon us. I don't think it will be in our lifetime, but surely, if we reach the point of excessive population concentration as they have in some areas of the world, governments of that day will have to say that for the community's sake we must restrict this, this and this. That will be a change in our basic western ethic about "go where you can, shoot your guns wherever you want, do whatever you...." It is going to be a real cultural shock, if I may borrow someone else's terms.

I don't think there is much serious consideration being given to that by any politician, certainly not the public. I believe that the public is prepared to discuss in an intellectual way the need to be concerned about demographic development, to be concerned about the patterns of urban life versus rural life. We have scads of research in Canada on this. We are a very liberal nation — I say small "l" liberal nation — when we discuss these problems among intellectuals, in educational circles and even in trade union circles.

But when there is a practical application to resolve the problem, you run into a skin-deep emotional barrier. My first reaction, my first realization, of this particular problem was around the land bill. Mr. Member, fortunately you weren't in the House, but we saw the raw edge of hysteria come from the official opposition on this bill. Yet most people at the intellectual level had accepted the responsibility of any jurisdiction to preserve farmland.

You can go and talk to people throughout this province. If you talk to them on the street, on the ferries, or anywhere else, and say, "what do you think of the idea of preserving farmland?" 85 per cent of them are very much in favour of it. But once you make the move, that is, once the government makes that decision, you find the skin-deep reaction to old traditions, old beliefs. It even led to pamphlets about me being distributed, calling me every name. One pamphlet, I recall, called me "Hitler" and "Mussolini" on the same pamphlet. I don't have the moustache, but I have the other physical abilities, I suppose. Other than that, in a democratic process, when you start dealing with these kinds of problems, you touch the raw edge of emotion.

Even some of your colleagues.... For instance, your colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) appeared on an irrational platform in Langley with one of the hotlines who is one of the wildest hotliners there are. So when you try to get a consensus of responsibility about making these moves, you will find that people are either politically motivated in opposing it or there is an emotional reaction against change.

I know for a fact that once it is done it is like socialized medicine. Once it is done, it is here to stay. The Land Commission, once here, is here to stay, and other jurisdictions will be copying the same thing.

[ Page 977 ]

I find it very interesting that once the Land Commission was established, opposition voices that were strident in Hansard against the concept are now completely reversing themselves, saying that the Land Commission isn't tough enough. I find this kind of lack, I think, of some sense of leadership, some sense of responsibility in dealing with issues that are tender, with raw emotion....

There comes a time when politicians, aside from all political, philosophical differences, aside from all particular bias, have to take a stand and give some leadership. We did it with the land bill. I'm telling you, when the time comes for people to do it on a demographic basis, for saving the nation and making the best use of what's available, there will be political and social upheaval around it. Once a politician places an Act in our kind of system, you can't guarantee that there won't be any irresponsibility against that particular Act.

I learned it all in the land bill. As long as I've been in politics, as long as I stay in politics, and when I'm out, one of the proudest moments of my participation in this whole parliamentary process was around passing that land Act. Yet I took no more violent abuse in my whole political career than I did during that period of time.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was the subject of intense, vicious name-calling, irrational screaming, jostling in front of this Legislature. No support at all from the official opposition; irresponsible statements from opposition Members on radio, in the press, on the hotlines. He weathered that whole storm, and his name will go down in the history of this province a generation from now as being a courageous politician who had the foresight to bring that legislation in. But I will venture to say that when youngsters of that day read about what happened, there will be little discussion of the personal abuse that he took or the kind of name-calling or screaming that went on against this government in that massive demonstration outside.

So when you raise the question of governments being concerned with demographic patterns, with population integrations, with changing sociological structures within a rapidly urbanizing society, and you say government is being concerned, all governments in a small "l" liberal country like Canada are concerned. But when a government places an Act, when it moves, then you see the raw nerve of that limited understanding that exists. Then you see the vacuum of political leadership or political responsibility in response. I saw it all in that land bill.

I've taken it all with humour, but it's a lesson that I've learned much to my sorrow in seeing otherwise rational people standing and screaming and calling us names, whipped up by other politicians — other politicians actually whipping them up — when the idea and the concept was one that was good. We should have had the kind of rational debate saying: "Look, this is a social objective that we all value and treasure for this beautiful province." But we never had that responsibility in this House. I hope that we can mature over the years to that kind of responsibility. Hopefully we will.

Mr. Gibson: Who is going to be the lead Minister?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, in terms of the lead, I think that this government has demonstrated that it is very courageous in leading. Can you name any other jurisdiction that faced the problem of the land bill and made the decision?

An Hon. Member: Which Minister?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, in this case it was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who brought in a land freeze.

Mr. Gibson: I know it was.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It was a policy decision of the cabinet, duly elected. He came to us with the problem; he came to us with the remedy that he recommended. He took the lead, and that's only right; he's the Minister of Agriculture.

I say with no small degree of modesty — I say it with a great sense of pride — that that Minister had the nerve to do what he did and took all the abuse, all the criticism, all the vacuous statements. No responsible opposition support, much to their embarrassment and shame — and I don't want to rub that all over again. But no one at this stage — just a matter of 24 months since that Minister took his courageous action — would go around this province and say: "Vote for me and we'll destroy the Land Commission." People have understood after the fact that it was necessary for government to act.

Some day it will be necessary.... Everyone has to justify their own action, and I'm not passing judgment on you; you look in the mirror and you decide for yourself in reviewing your own role at that time and in that hysteria. I do not recall one Member of the opposition standing up and in a responsible voice saying: "I ask you all the people of this province to remain calm. I ask all the people of this province not to become hysterical." Instead they went on hotlines, they went to the newspapers, they abandoned any concept of liberal democratic discussion of a government's right.

It's all there in Hansard. I will never forget, as long as I live, listening to abuse hurled at me and my Minister on hotline shows, in newspaper reports of opposition MLAs making wild and irresponsible statements throughout this province. Yet we put the

[ Page 978 ]

bill through, and it's there.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): And they amended it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Certainly we amended it. And we were most anxious to receive positive criticism from the opposition. Only halfway through the debate did the Liberals being to move away from Social Credit and offer alternatives. They realized that most of the people in this province were rational and began to recognize what their political tactics were.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Reread the debate.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "Reread the debate," says the Member. I've reread it, and it's in my mind. I will never forget, never forget as long as I live, looking in the face of hate day after day in this House when we came here. The faces of hate, bitterness, reflected by those words that are in Hansard, and the kind of whipping up that went on with cries as demonstrated out here. It's all a memory. But if we don't learn from history, we're condemned to relive it.

You raised the question, not me. You raised the question about governments making these difficult decisions. I'm saying to you, with a population of 22.5 million, that we're not faced with that absolute yet.

I'm saying again that voluntarily, with government incentives, we can change demographic patterns. But sooner or later, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, a government in this country is going to be faced with the responsibility of determining where people settle — not in this generation, perhaps not in the generation after that, but it will come. It will come. Some government will be faced with that very, very difficult position.

You talked about foreign equity. I have no objection to foreign equity in competitive enterprises. I believe that foreign equity in the competitive enterprise is welcome. I don't believe that any foreign equity should be in a dominant position in any particular area of the industry. It's a matter of concern to us — and we've altered that balance — that of the five majors in the forest industry, four of them are foreign and one of them is Canadian. That's almost an incestuous Canadian relationship, too, because M and B, which is No. 1, is also eaten by CPR, which has a hunk of that.

I'd like to see a range of foreign equity, and another thing that I would favour seeing, Mr. Member, is multinational equity in joint venturing. I think one of the greatest things for world peace would be multinational joint venturing, where the community at large has a piece, the province has a piece and outside capital looking for a fair return has a piece.

Where we get into trouble, and what led, as I saw it, to the Pacific war in World War II was essentially an economic struggle between corporations that had no multinational facet and no understanding of joint venturing. People forget that when we fought the Japanese what preceded it was a very strict energy embargo by the United States. If we read the history dispassionately, and go back over that period of time, we find that, had it not been for this embargo, there were a group of Japanese politicians who were intensely involved in changing the conflict with China and hopefully avoiding World War II breaking out in the Pacific. But again we find in history the influence of single national corporations, so large that they influence national policy, making the decision in the United States and putting the embargo on Japanese oil.

Now it wasn't a morality question. There was no embargo on scrap iron that was being used to manufacture weapons against the Chinese.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, there were demonstrations against the Canadian ports, but there was no official government policy against the shipment of scrap iron which was being re-used in armaments.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, what I'm saying is that there was no conscious.... We must learn from history. I'm not passing judgment. I'm making observations, and in making the observations I'm saying that you asked me a question about equity, and I say to you that one of the approaches to the use of equity in Canadian soil that I favour is a multi-nation approach, whether it is that nation's private capital or public capital, to a joint venture within Canadian boundaries, under Canadian limitations and Canadian direction.

Now that's what the federal government set out to do in their legislation. Unfortunately we've never seen a demonstration project to prove what can be done. But in theory I agree with the intent of the federal legislation. I've disagreed with my own party nationally, which at times has taken an absolute position against foreign equity. I think that's a very dreamy position to take. I belong to that party, but I don't believe that that's a sensible policy. It can't function.

But if we were to have had the position before the Second World War where there were multinational interest in joint venturing, I am convinced that the Second World War in the Pacific would not have broken out. We would have been in a position, I

[ Page 979 ]

think, to lever attitudes. I think we would have been in a position to say to the Japanese: "Get out of China." Japan's economic imperialism was an extension of a threat, as they saw it, to their own economic security from the United States.

Reason hasn't overcome the world; the nuclear weapon has. It's a balance of terror, and as a result of a balance of terror we are forcing ourselves to look into multinational ventures, even in space (as a dramatic illustration), where the Soviet Union and the United States are now experimenting in joint space venturing: good, demonstrative projects of cooperation, the kind of thing we've been forced to learn as human beings because of bitter experiences such as the Second World War.

As a small province in a small nation, I believe that our people in this province are understanding. They don't want to lose the attitude of maîtres chez nous. They do believe that we should have a right to be masters in our own house, certainly on the basic resources, which your party is now turning round and supporting us on. But that does not lead to the exclusion of outside capital on a competitive basis in either secondary manufacturing or in raw products production.

I hope, within my time in office, that we are able to pioneer the kind of dream multinational participation with local levels and provincial levels involved as well. I would like to see that. As a matter of fact, I talked to the Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Gillespie) in those very terms about our steel mill. I would dearly love to see, if and when we made a decision to go ahead with a steel mill, Japanese capital, British capital, American capital and British Columbian and Canadian capital in a joint venture on a sound economic basis. It makes sense sociologically; it makes sense politically; it makes sense economically.

If we can demonstrate in a small province this kind of brotherhood-of-man concept, which I have not lost sight of, that would go a long way to show people what can be done if we cooperate.

So that's what I feel. You asked me how I felt, and I told you.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There was no steel embargo.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The scrap iron.... It was not overt; it was a picky thing. If we review the history, there were demonstrations in the Port of Vancouver, the Port of Seattle and the Port of San Francisco by the International Longshoremen's Union and by citizens' groups against the shipment of scrap iron to Japan. They were pro-China, those demonstrations. But there was no national policy against that. The only national policy that evidenced itself, as far as I know, from what I read of history, was the threat around oil. It was the Americans who, I think, were misled to take the position....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the Dutch, too, but the Dutch were certainly more vulnerable than the Americans.

The decision was made, nonetheless, to put the embargo on. And don't think that that didn't lead. That precipitated the forces around General Tojo, who were right-wing people, in their return to power. Those who came to Washington on a genuine peace move were overruled, the military decision was made in Tokyo, and Bang! We were faced with it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because it's the United Nations' decision. I'm glad you asked that question.

The question was asked: why do I support the embargo on South Africa? There is a difference. I don't want to spend a whole afternoon on history, but I find it fascinating that you asked this question without understanding the purpose behind this government's move against South Africa.

It is a nation that has been condemned by the house of nations, Mr. Member. Every nation, in its fragile attempt to come together in some sense of brotherhood or sisterhood, has brought the nations together in the United Nations. There was a resolution passed in the United Nations saying that this nation should not be traded with. John Diefenbaker was the first Canadian to speak out. We took the same position. We look upon the United Nations as tentatively giving some leadership to a world family. It's a small gesture, but a gesture nonetheless. It's on that basis with the United Nations.

We're not faced with the United Nations restrictions in other areas, but we were faced with this one. That's why we made the decision.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I know that you're being facetious. I'm only answering the question that the Member asked. If you don't want to listen to it, leave. But the Member did ask. Am I not correct in answering your question?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay. If it disinterests a

[ Page 980 ]

Member of the opposition, he can always leave.

An Hon. Member: He doesn't understand what you're talking about.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't believe that he doesn't understand it. I believe he understands it — he's just bored by it.

The question on equity between gas and oil users in the Province of British Columbia is a matter that concerns us.

Being in the position we are, through the petroleum corporation we must seriously consider the obligation to provide equal opportunity for both fuels for all British Columbia.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

Electricity is available on Vancouver Island, but natural gas is not available. I'm trying to lead you to do some thinking without announcing a decision, okay? I'll just leave it at that.

I think, Mr. Member, I've answered 14 of your questions. I appreciate the sincerity with which they were put forward. The questions, I hope, have been answered, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but answered nonetheless. That's all that I can add to it.

Mr. Gibson: My thanks to the Premier for his forthcoming answers to many of these questions.

Getting back to the demographic objectives question, he did say, and I hope I have the quote written down here, that "voluntarily and with incentives we can change demographic patterns."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Try.

Mr. Gibson: We can try to change demographic patterns. I believe that to be the case, and I believe it to be important. That's why I asked the Premier what Minister will be charged with this problem — just in a kind of intellectual and conceptual sense. That's point No. 1.

Point No. 2: will the Province of British Columbia be making representations to Ottawa on the Immigration Act and, if so, what Minister will be responsible for that?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: On the second question, I have not assigned a single cabinet Minister. I have asked them for all their views because obviously it affects housing, trade and industry, agriculture, highways — all of them. We will try to get a cumulative group position....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, hopefully. I've asked, but I'm not on a daily contact with it.

The Ministers who are seriously looking at the problem consciously with every decision they make right now are the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), of course, as we pattern the land-use programmes, and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who has been requested, and has followed the request, to ensure that every economic decision we make that filters through his department takes into consideration the maximum amount of information, not only on environment, not only on economic factors, but on demographic factors as well. Those two Ministers, along with the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) are the three who are primarily charged with recognizing that particular problem in terms of voluntary inducements and hopefully making it more attractive for people to make that choice.

Mr. Gibson: Will there be representations to Ottawa on the Immigration Act?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Hopefully. I've no absolute commitment on that at this point.

Mr. Phillips: I would just like to ask the Premier if there will be representations with regard to discussions on foreign ownership of land while you are going back to Ottawa. Is it on your agenda? While we are discussing land, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the Premier, just a few moments ago, said that the opposition was on the raw edge of hysteria — I believe those were his words — with regard to the land bill. But the Premier, as usual, failed to tell the whole story. He failed to tell that the original land freeze had a complete disregard for the rights of landowners in the Province of British Columbia.

I want to say right here and now, to set the record straight, that I am certainly proud of the stand I took against the original Bill 42. The young, blundering government came forward and made a bad mistake in bringing in this legislation, which was completely dictatorial in its original form — completely dictatorial — had no rights whatsoever, had no regard for the rights of individuals, of landowners, of people who had fought and died for freedom. In their usual manner, they blundered in.

When the opposition, as is their job, stopped this blundering government dead in its tracks, it realized the error that it had made in bringing in this legislation in its original state which gave the Land Commission — and I don't want to go back to all the tenets, but since the Premier brought it up — supreme power to confiscate land, to designate land without any recourse to the courts. This is what the original bill was all about. Then, in their usual way, they tripped over themselves backing up, watered down the bill, and the bill that we have before us today is

[ Page 981 ]

nowhere comparable with the original land bill at all.

Mr. Chabot: Right on.

Mr. Phillips: The bill was brought in under the guise of preserving farmland, whereas the original bill took control of all land in British Columbia, gave the Land Commission the right to take control of all land in British Columbia without regard whatsoever for the rights of individuals in this province. I know the Premier is going to go around in the next election and he is going to talk about the bill. It is now what I call the "water bill," because it is so watered down from the original bill that there is no comparison whatsoever.

The Premier has a habit of bringing in legislation that is wrong. Without giving any thought, they blunder in with this legislation. Then when the opposition — and it's their job — put up opposition and tell the people of British Columbia what their legislation is all about, then, thank heavens, sometimes they are smart enough, when the people start telling them about their reaction to this bill, to back up and change the legislation. Then they go around and say, "Well, see, it wasn't so bad after all," after they have changed the original bill.

For land preservation in itself the government has the bill. When they want to do something themselves, Mr. Chairman, they just set Bill 42 aside and they take land on Tilbury Island, the best farmland in British Columbia, and they are going to put an industrial park there. They are talking about taking 426 acres of land in your riding, Mr. Chairman, some of the best agricultural land in the interior of British Columbia: "Oh, let's set Bill 42 aside, because this is for our purpose and we are almighty and omnipotent. If we want to take farmland out of farm production and put it into industrial park, that is fine because we are dictators. What we do is good for the people of British Columbia."

Then we have land recently purchased in Surrey — 1,800 acres — 25 per cent of which is agricultural land, but it is maybe for an oil refinery. But this is the almighty kingdom talking. This is the dictator talking. So, we just shove this little Bill 42 aside for awhile until we do with this farmland what we want. This is the double standard that has been established by this government. The people of British Columbia recognize exactly what is going on. The Premier can talk about the raw edge of hysteria, but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there were many people in British Columbia who were directly affected by the original Bill 42 who certainly were in hysteria....

An Hon. Member: Absolutely!

Mr. Phillips: Absolutely. Absolute control. Absolute dictatorship. That is enough to make anybody — if the Premier wants to call it hysteria — hysterical because of the complete, utter disregard...

Mr. Chabot: For the rights of individuals.

Mr. Phillips: ...for the rights of individuals.

I asked the Premier just a moment ago about a little sum of $15 million. In his mind, it is just a little sum he loaned to the railway. I asked when it was going to be paid back, if there was any chance of the railway coming back for more money and what interest the railway was paying on it. He failed to answer that. Maybe the Premier would answer that question for me.

There is one other point, before I sit down, that I would just like to ask the Premier about. Since we are so sincere about preserving farmland and preserving one-family farms, has the Minister any intention of making changes to legislation which would allow family farms to pass from father to son while the father is still living?

In many instances this hampers the good management of many family farms in British Columbia. It would cost the Premier very little money. It probably wouldn't cost him more in lost revenue in a year than one of his trips to China or to Japan, or one of these other jaunts that he takes around the country. But it would greatly assist many small farms in this province.

What is happening now? The son knows that after his father's death it can pass to him. But if you understand human nature, father is always there, and if son doesn't run that farm exactly the way father deems that it shall be run, father is always there and can take it back and sell it to somebody else.

Now as I say, it would cost the province a very little money. Maybe the Premier could find out how much money last year was.... Well, there wouldn't be any because the legislation is changed so that family farms, on death, can pass.... So you're not gaining any revenue.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have an answer for you.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I'd be most pleased to hear from you, because there are many family farms out there that are waiting for a change in this. As you say, you want to preserve the small family farm, and this is one change that would be of great benefit to many small family farms, and would be of great assistance to agriculture in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The family-farm policy, as the Member suggested, is under active review by the Minister of Agriculture, and as soon as we receive a report we will make a policy decision. I thank you for bringing it up.

[ Page 982 ]

The earlier question on the B.C. Railway: it was a repayable grant. That is the only way we could do it. There will be an interim supply bill tomorrow. I think your leader has been notified of that.

Question on the B.C. Railway: I won't know until tomorrow, until I've had a call. I've had a call in to them to see if they need interim supply as well. If they do, of course, I'll tell the House and we'll handle that that way.

The $5 million fund set up as a B.C. economic research fund, and renamed the Economic Policy Analysis Institute: funds spent so far, on March 31, 1974 — $59,628. Totals for this year, April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975, are being computed by the institute at UVic. There is available $45,000 in the bank account and an unexpended interest invested of $602,000. I could send that over to you if you like.

Mr. Chabot: I'll be very brief. I have a few questions.

I have been attempting to say a few words, but the Premier has talked so much in the last 10 days that this has been my first opportunity to rise and express my concern and concerns that have been expressed to me by some of the people of this province.

Before I go into that I'd like a little clarification on some of the figures the Premier has given me regarding the rights and the sale of the rights to purchase Bank of B.C. shares. We know that the low was 25 cents on these rights — the high was 85 cents. I was informed that the rights were sold between 37 cents and 60 cents and that they realized $18,479 for the sale of their rights.

Now the latest information I have is that the province owns, on behalf of superannuation funds, 51,055 shares. Now with the rights offering for every two shares — you're entitled to buy one share of the Bank of B.C. for $15 — that would give you approximately 25,500 shares. Maybe my arithmetic is a little wrong, but I find that $18,479 appears to be excessive if the rights were sold between 37 cents and 60 cents.

I wonder whether the government intends to divest itself, or the superannuation funds, of the Bank of B.C. shares if it can because of the fact that it's going into another banking institution. If it's going to get rid of the shares it presently holds in Bank of B.C., when, and what kind of a loss are they prepared to take on behalf of the superannuation funds?

I've examined the budget. I've had several days to look at the budget while the Premier has been talking, I've seen several references in the budget dealing with the question of job security. You know, I have not found too much that would satisfy those 107,000 people who are presently unemployed in the province — those 107,000 who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits. I'm not talking about those people who have gone off the unemployment benefits and are on welfare now in the province, because that must be considerable as well. Those who are receiving UIC benefits at this time, the 107,000 — there's really nothing in the budget that indicates to me that these people will receive much assistance.

The budget is a large, lavish $3.2 billion budget, and there is a passing reference to $15 million that will be allocated to the establishment of employment in the province — $15 million in the forestry department. Those 107,000 people certainly won't be assisted by this because if you take 107,000 people and you put them all in the forestry department, after they've each received approximately $145 your allocation for jobs is all gone. So I wonder what kind of genuine programmes they propose to take that aren't clearly spelled out in the budget. Certainly the allocation you have made in the budget doesn't face up to the economic facts of life in this province.

Now there's a lot of concern out in the province. I'm going to relate to the president of the executive council some of the concerns that were expressed to me regarding the waste and extravagance of the government. The waste and extravagance appears to have all started with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) when he first bought the Glenshiel Hotel. We've gone on from there.

This government that has attacked developers over the years now appears to be in bed with the developers of British Columbia. The developers have found a new friend in the government because all they have to do is have some land or some kind of housing project for sale and the government is ready with the taxpayers' money to purchase either this land or the housing development at a tremendous profit to the developer. There's no doubt in my mind vis-à-vis the action of this government since it's been in office that the developers have found a friend in this government. There's no doubt in my mind that socialism has promoted the establishment of many millionaires in British Columbia because of the sale of land and the sale of housing complexes at inflated prices. This government has made more millionaires, Mr. Chairman, in this short period of time that it has been in office...

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You were going to say: "... than the previous government."

Mr. Chabot: ...than has ever been made by any government in the history of this province. The taxpayers have been ripped off by every developer in this province. Anyone who has anything to sell at inflated prices: all he has to do is speak to the government or the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who knows very little about land values and housing values as well. In all their tremendous anxiety to control land and housing in this province, a number of millionaires have been created in this

[ Page 983 ]

province. You know full well that it has happened in your riding as well in Kamloops...

Mr. Chairman: Could we stay with vote 2, please? The Minister's office. The Premier's office.

Mr. Chabot: ...in Vanderhoof, in Prince Rupert, in Vancouver. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

But one of the areas that has been touched on in this debate is the question of integrity in government, truthfulness in statements, and the tremendous number of mis-statements that have been given in this Legislature, not only by the Premier but by many of the Ministers as well. I'm not going to recite all the Ministers that have made mis-statements in this House — misleading statements. We know that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) tabled a secret document — a so-called secret document — with a specially-typed cover. Did he apologize after he realized that the document which he professed to be secret was established not to be secret at all? Certainly not; there were no apologies from that Minister, Mr. Chairman.

I remember very well that we had a select standing committee inquiring on mis-statements given in the Legislature by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). A motion was put in that committee that the Minister had lied in the Legislature. Certainly it was defeated because that committee happened to have a government plurality.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, you can't reflect on a vote in committee in this chamber. Would you stick to the Premier's office, please — vote 2?

Mr. Chabot: Yes, I'm speaking about integrity in government, for which I believe the Premier has a responsibility. I'm talking about mis-statements and dishonesty, as far as statements are concerned by that government.

Mr. Lewis: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Chabot: We know that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has made mis-statements in this Legislature for which he hasn't apologized and which he hasn't corrected.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the time to discuss that is under the Minister of Housing's estimates. Stick to the Premier's office, please.

Mr. Chabot: I'm talking about a code of ethics which I think the Premier as head of the government, as the president of the executive council, for which he has taken an oath of office, has a responsibility to institute to ensure that we don't have these mis-statements from Ministers of the Crown.

We've listened to a variety of mis-statements from Ministers.

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): You should have been leader, James.

Mr. Chabot: I think they have a responsibility to be more honest in what they say in this House.

I have a fine example of mis-statement, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to call it a deliberate lie, but it's a mis-statement, a misuse of facts. It was given in this assembly not too long ago by the Premier on March 17, and the Premier had this to say:

Well, Mr. Member, I want you to know that your party saddled this province with close to $840 million worth of additional expenditure on the Columbia River because the former Minister of Finance (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) did not include inflation as a fact in the Columbia River treaty.

That isn't the same statement that the Premier made in the budget speech.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's the revised figure with new interest.

Mr. Chabot: The figures that he gave in the budget speech were twisted figures. But the figures that he gave on March 17 in this assembly were absolute mistruths. He knows full well that it's not the truth that there is an overrun of $800 million because of inflation on the Columbia River treaty. That's a deliberate mis-statement by the Premier.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! I will have to ask you to withdraw that "deliberate mis-statement." You cannot impugn the motives of a Member of this chamber.

Mr. Chabot: I'll withdraw the word "deliberate, " Mr. Chairman, as you have asked me to do. But we know full well that it's an inaccurate statement. It's inaccurate as far as the cost in the agreement on the Columbia River treaty. I think the Premier has the responsibility to start telling the truth regarding the costs, and the overruns on the Columbia River treaty. He knows full well that those statements he made in this assembly on March 17 are inaccurate, and he should withdraw those mis-statements.

I wonder whether the Premier intends, in view of the fact that his budget speech fails to take into consideration the economic situation in this province, to change some of the legislation which denies workers in this province the opportunity to be gainfully employed in any particular industry in this province. We know full well that unemployment is rampant in one industry of this province. We know full well that there are 5,000 people unemployed in that industry today. We know full well that if the

[ Page 984 ]

government over there was prepared or was concerned about the working people of this province, they'd make changes. They would not only give those people who are unemployed an opportunity to be re-employed but generate additional jobs as well in this province in that particular industry. You know which industry I am talking about. I think this government has a responsibility to say what it intends to do regarding the economy, which they virtually destroyed in British Columbia.

I think they have a responsibility to establish a code of ethics which will be adhered to, first of all, by the Premier. I believe he has a responsibility to set an example. He certainly didn't set an example on March 17 when he made those mis-statements about the Columbia River treaty. I think he has a responsibility to correct those statements. I think he would correct them if he was back in the chamber. I'll give him a chance to correct them. I have more to say in view of the fact that the Premier isn't here.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Oh, you're making notes. I am sure the Premier will tell us this afternoon that a code of ethics will be instituted. It will eliminate these kind of mis-statements that we get constantly in this assembly by various Ministers. I am not accusing the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) because I firmly believe that he's given straightforward and honest answers on all the questions that have been put to him.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You haven't asked him a question. That's why you say that.

Mr. Chabot: The Attorney-General says I haven't asked him a question and that's why I say that. Well, that's possible; that's possible. But he hasn't misled the House, has he, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) certainly has. We know that. The Premier has. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has. The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has. How many more who we haven't detected have misled this House?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Not the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I await with anticipation the reply of the Premier regarding the code of ethics.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2 pass?

Mr. Chabot: I would like some answers, and I think it's most unfair on the part of the Chair to attempt to ask the vote when the Premier is not in the assembly.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Common practice. If no one wishes to speak, I have no other choice but to call the vote. Shall vote 2 pass?

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Maybe you can tell us whether we are operating in this House under Robert's Rules of Order.

Mr. Chairman: The answer is no. Shall vote 2 pass?

Mr. Chabot: No. Mr. Chairman, I would like some short answers from the Premier.

Mr. Lewis: First time I have seen them at a loss for words.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier should be here to answer some questions. Unless he is prepared to come, I am going to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 33

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker would you inform him that a division took place in committee, caused by the Premier's

[ Page 985 ]

absence, and ask for a recording?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Vote 2 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Vote 52: Minister's office, $34,710 — approved.

On vote 53: general administration, $645,580.

Mr. Chairman: I saw no Member on his feet. Which vote are you on?

Mr. Wallace: Oh, come on. Here I've been behaving myself all week, and the minute I get up on my feet you try to shut me up.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay on vote 53.

Mr. Wallace: Right! The points I raised in my general comments on the Minister's salary vote: he promised to answer some of the comments in votes 53 and 54. The salary increase is 41 per cent, the equipment increase is 210 per cent, and the increase of the total vote for general administration is 41 per cent. I wonder if the Premier could explain some of these specific items that seem to be substantially increased.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you will note in vote 53 there is an increase in staff from 31 to 37, plus the annual increases that are incremental. I do not believe that in 53 there are any major additional equipment expenditures. Oh, there is a machine, a $14,000 expenditure on other equipment, a cheque-inserting machine, to assist the department. We were behind in cheque processing last year. It's a cheque-inserting machine, and the estimated cost is $14,000. We don't know the final cost because it has to go through the purchasing commission.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): The Premier and Minister of Finance has already referred to the problem last fall, and it is under this vote. I wondered if it came here or under 54.

Can the Minister assure us that, with the acquisition of new equipment and with the additional staff, this problem has been overcome and is not likely to recur? It was a serious problem last fall. I think the Minister acknowledges that. He has acknowledged that in the past. A number of MLAs were receiving requests from individuals with respect to late payment of accounts — individuals and small companies, small businessmen as well as larger. I would just like the Minister to offer reassurance that this problem is past.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, we are doing all we can to correct this problem. The additional staff and the machine, I have been advised, will assist. However, there is one factor that precludes me from giving you an absolute guarantee — that is the problem of getting the bills in from the field. Part of the catch-up last year was through the route as discussed and suggested by yourself and other Members, but it is a problem in the field itself. We are taking a very serious look, I'm told, and ensuring that those are speeded.

We are doing everything we possibly can. It was most difficult last year when this problem came. I welcome the fact that you brought it to the House. We acted on it immediately. I can't guarantee we are going to resolve it, but we are closer to getting it resolved.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver-How Sound): Mr. Chairman, in vote 53 could the Minister indicate what has happened to the director of finance research and the director of the securities branch? Have they been transferred to some other vote?

On the same subject, would the Minister of Finance advise the committee of the nature of the $55,000 expenditure for cheque reconciliation — that's under expenses, code 030?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last question.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The last expense item in that vote, Mr. Minister, cheque reconciliation expense: $55,000. Could you indicate the nature of that expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It is computer service from the banks to reconcile all our cheques — item 030.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Are they done through the banks?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm sorry?

Mr. L.A. Williams: They are done in the banks?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, they're done in the banks. The finance research head, Mr. Hugh Ferguson, has been appointed to an Associate Deputy position after many years of service. He will continue, along with new duties, to do the financial research along with two people now in two sections of the securities division.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): I notice that

[ Page 986 ]

travelling expense had a 33 per cent increase. What goes into that particular travelling?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We have, Mr. Member, been successful in recovering more funds from Ottawa, in joint shared programmes. I can't from my fingertips, give the exact amount, but there was a lack of appreciation of a large number of federal projects under which funds could be shared. We found that we had to have a greater presence in Ottawa, as you recall, and I cast no aspersions on this.

The opportunity of travel was very severely restricted, and we've changed that. We're allowing people to go back to Ottawa to handle tax matters and other aspects of our relationships in financing. There has been a significant increase in a number of departments and funds because of this direct, aggressive approach to Ottawa; so this accounts for most of it, along with normal inflation.

Mr. Morrison: Could I ask, too, Mr. Chairman, whether we have any outside consultants that you're using? It may not come under this vote, but I'm not quite sure where to look for that amount.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Outside consultants? Finance consultants?

Mr. Morrison: For tax consultants' advice.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Mr. Member, although, as I said, on occasion we use an outside appraiser and a surveyor of taxes. Those are the only consultants.

Vote 53 approved.

On vote 54: controlling and audit branch, $1,901,232.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I see on vote 54 that we have an increase in staff from 76 to 121 persons. That's nearly a 60 per cent increase, but the wages have gone up from $806,000 to double: $1,698,000. Could we have an explanation of that large increase in staff?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I am advised that the comptroller-general reported to the Department of Finance that he did not have enough staff to supervise the increased financial burdens of the government. He had not required a staff increase for some time. Therefore, through Treasury Board we allocated a major staff increase on accounts. The second part...?

Mr. Morrison: Well, the wage increase, along with it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, the wage increases along with it are also to assist, as well to supervise in getting the payments out much more quickly.

Mr. Morrison: Could I assume, then, that that 525 per cent increase in office furniture is because of the move to new quarters and the additional staff requirements?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: New staff requirements and other contingencies.

Mr. Morrison: Was there a major move of that department, or parts of it?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I did want some more detail than the Premier gave in regard to the tremendous increase in staff. As he knows, much of the general criticism from this side of the House comes in relation to our fears that more and more money is being spent on purely administrative functions. Now this vote is controlling and audit branch, and if this means that the efficiency of the department is greatly enhanced and, in fact, more money is being recovered, perhaps, by various means, then we would like to think the extra 45 public service employees are justified.

Could the Premier perhaps give us a little more detail than saying that there had been a lack for many years? This tends to become a rather constant reason that's given for a lot of the things the government's doing. If it's justified, we'll go along with it. But I would like a little more detail in explaining why we should go from 76 in this department to 121.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Two answers. One, there was a chronic shortage; secondly, a vast increase in the work in terms of audits, For example, the Can-Cel, other government operations, plus new departments: we have asked that they be audited as accurately as possible. We had thrashed up this request from Finance department and Treasury. We were shown that there was, indeed, a staff shortage in terms of just maintaining audits, let alone new responsibilities. So that's what we've allocated in terms of the essential duties.

Now it can be said that every time we add someone we're saving money, because revenues that perhaps were not gathered by proper audits certainly will be supervised far more closely. But you will look at the reflection of the budget alone. The fiscal responsibilities of the government have gone up dramatically along with the shortages that we inherited. I must say that, of all the departments, without naming any names, the most conservative department in the whole structure is Finance —

[ Page 987 ]

reflecting the views of the Minister, not the Deputy.

Mr. Morrison: I would still like, if I may, to have a comment on the fact that we did have a 60 per cent increase in staff, but we had a 111 per cent increase in wages — which seems to me to be a pretty high wage structure. Is there some special reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, it's a catch-up in there, plus the increase in staff itself.

Mr. Wallace: I just really still wanted to follow up on the Minister's reply. Am I to take it, then, that at least a substantial part of the increase in the staff in this vote is related to the increasing involvement of the government in the private sector by becoming involved in such enterprises as Plateau Mills and Can-Cel and other government involvement?

I just wonder why it is that the government has to take on more staff in this way. Were these private companies under private ownership not audited by outside staff? I wonder if it's necessary to take people into government employment to do the auditing when perhaps, on a consultative basis, or some other financial basis, outside consultants might quite well be able to do the necessary work.

It seemed the Minister clearly connected, in his answer to my first question, the fact that the need for increased staff is directly related to the increasing involvement of government in various businesses and formerly private businesses now controlled or partly owned by the government.

Maybe he could give us more specific examples. He talked Can-Cel, and I am thinking of Plateau Mills and Panco Poultry and a whole range of other endeavours that the government's become associated with. Is this then a very strong reason for the very abrupt increase in staff?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not a very strong reason, Mr. Member. It's a contributing factor. There's the Workers' Compensation Board, junior colleges, the whole development of post-secondary education, Hydro, the B.C. Railway. Along with that, Mr. Member, due to the demand in this Legislature for an auditor-general, we are now much more stringent in pre-auditing every voucher before it is paid. That is the added duty of Mr. Minty and his staff, and that is a practice that has been functioning for the last year. We tend to pre-audit as much as possible, and we've dramatically increased their responsibilities in pre-auditing.

The question of consultants: the work is ongoing. It is permanent. To hire consultants on a temporary/permanent basis is exactly the situation we got ourselves into with staff in the past. There were close to 8,000 people who were on a permanent/temporary basis when we came to office. Some of them had been on permanent/temporary for 15 years. It was a method of keeping the global figure of civil service down. In active fact, these people were full-time employees — as I say, up to 15 years. So rather than go that route, we have been cautious in expansion and have recognized increased duties. That's why we've added the staff on that basis.

Mr. Wallace: A very brief, final follow-up on that.

The Minister has mentioned a more stringent scrutiny of vouchers before they're paid, yet I've mentioned in the House earlier this memo which was issued by the Treasury Board and subsequent letter that was made public by a Deputy Minister to his department.

Am I to understand that if this has been going on for a year — the more stringent scrutiny of vouchers — that further message to the departments in February exhibits still the need for a more stringent approval of travelling expenses and applications for various financial expenditures within the offices of government?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, there have been increased duties and increased responsibilities along with the existing programmes. For example, the number of cheques handled in 1972-73 was 752,000. In 1973-74 it jumped to 894,000.

There is the whole income-assistance programme that involves 1,293,000 additional cheques per year. These must be pre-audited as well. With this volume there are bound to be mistakes — but mistakes, I think, are going to be at a minimum with the increased staff and the increased system of pre-auditing.

It's our hope, within the department, that we have enough staff this year to handle what we're faced with in terms of increases on the job. We'll know after the end of the year, but we think, with the pattern that's developing, that we've been able to correct significantly the problem of cheques that were not paid promptly, and we're also doing far more pre-auditing than we have been doing normally in the past.

Also, Mr. Member, you recall we had a debate in this House on inventory, and I've got to have a report and a completion of a far better inventory. The decision was made by the previous administration not to have inventory at all because they felt the cost would outweigh losses. That, to us, is not a very valid decision, and we have asked for a report on what direction to go in that particular vacuum.

These figures we're presented with have all been justified to the Public Service Commission in terms of

[ Page 988 ]

job descriptions, and this department can prove the tremendous increase in volume of work justifying the additional costs for staff.

Mr. Morrison: Could I ask the Premier, then, if we're going to audit such firms as Can-Cel — and I'm not saying we shouldn't — wouldn't it be more practical to charge back to them the cost of audit so that it shows on their books as a proper charge and so we can have some comparisons?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They have their own auditors, but you'll recall, shortly after the 1973 session started, that questions were raised by a Member of the opposition concerning our own audit of those Crown corporations.

At that time, when the question was raised about B.C. Rail by the Member for Point Grey, I made a request as the Minister of Finance for an audit by our own audit department through Mr. Minty. That is the additional work that is being carried. It's ongoing.

I feel far more secure, since they are creatures of the Crown and they do hire their own auditors, that we should have a presence.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's actually our responsibility, I feel. They present us with an audited statement, but I like to check. If it's the decision of the Minister of Finance to check, then he should be responsible for that cost.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate if the control and audit branch, showing 76 employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, is up to strength now? What time does he expect will be involved in the recruitment of the additional employees to bring that staff to 121? I notice in the Treasury Board announcement, to which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has referred: "The Treasury Board would not entertain requests for additional staff until after April 1, 1975." I assume, therefore, that your employment programme won't start until at least the 1st of next month. I think it's important for us to know just how soon these additional audit accountants and other staff members will be on the job.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's on additional staff, Mr. Member. These are staff that have already been allocated, but we are not up to strength. I am advised that the comptroller-general is having difficulty in finding fully qualified auditors, so there are always openings. But he is recruiting now, and the recruiting process includes keeping — if we ever reach the point of filling the positions — on file those who are available when a vacancy exists. We're having difficulties, quite frankly, in finding qualified auditors.

It's a dilemma in terms of increased earnings by people. All of us are concerned about rapidly rising wages. Yet when you go out to recruit skilled people, there is a shortage of skilled labour. The paradox that exists in our society is that with high unemployment there's still a shortage of trained people in many of these areas. It's difficult to reconcile. When people can command more money elsewhere, then we're constantly in search to keep up with that competition.

But the comptroller-general, I am advised, is not going above the estimate. He hasn't filled to the estimate at this point.

Mr. Morrison: On the same point. It's one thing to be trying to keep up, but it seems to me that many of your salary ranges are in the 30-plus percentage range. We're not keeping up; we're getting away ahead of industry at this moment, and they're having the problem keeping up. It's enough that you're getting the 30-plus percentage increase, but you've also got contingency funds there which are obviously allowing for future increases of sizeable amounts. Not in this particular vote — I realize that — but....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When you say 30, you're talking about percentages?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, percentages. I'm talking about 30-plus.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: purchasing commission, $970,716.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, once again, it's repetitive in a sense, but it's going to be repetitive right through these estimates, I guess, when we hit on certain administrative items: I wonder why, under the purchasing commission vote, the travelling expenses are up by 52 per cent. Are they also going back to Ottawa to buy things?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: This is related to the question of inventory. This will be internal provincial travelling on an inventory. This is a commitment, after it was raised by a Member of the opposition. This would be new travelling responsibilities on inventory assessing.

Mr. Fraser: Does the purchasing commission always buy from the lowest bidder?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes. If they don't, they're to report it to Treasury Board.

[ Page 989 ]

Mr. Morrison: That item also, 032, shop material and equipment, has had a sizable increase. What goes into that particular amount?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Repairs on office furniture, Mr. Member. Old desks, chairs — some that get too small.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, in a local part of the area, in Langford here, I notice there's a single item of expenditure for $5,000. There's no corresponding figure shown for last year. I wonder what this unique $5,000 expenditure is for in Langford?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's a truck, a machine truck, a lift truck....

An Hon. Member: Forklift.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Forklift — that's it.

Mr. Phillips: Didn't they have one before?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, they didn't have one. They had an oldie. Sorry to interrupt — they had an old one.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): The Premier, in answering a question just a moment ago regarding the purchasing commission and the fact that they do ordinarily buy through the lowest tender except when they take it to Treasury Board, I believe, gave the answer: on the odd occasion they go to Treasury Board where they don't accept the low tender. What is the criteria involved that would precipitate such a situation?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where they feel that the low bidder is not qualified on equipment or any purchase, they make that decision and report it to Treasury Board.

Mr. Smith: The qualification has nothing to do with respect to whether the suppliers who have tendered are union or non-union, does it?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, that is related to construction rather than to purchase. I am not absolute on that; I will double-check on that. There is also a 5 per cent variation that they are allowed on their own.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: taxation administration $3,555,324.

Mr. Wallace: Once again, Mr. Chairman, the matter of expenses. Motor vehicles and accessories are up by 50 per cent under taxation administration. I wonder if the Premier could define why that particular item should be up. I notice travelling isn't up much at all and the office expense is 14.5 per cent — in other words, a very moderate range of expenses. Yet motor vehicles are up by 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: New employees, Mr. Member. They are asked to move. The auditors have to move.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I take the Finance Minister's guidance on whether I am on the right vote. I would like to ask a question about coloured gasoline.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right vote.

Mr. McClelland: Some time ago I asked the Premier if there was a study being done regarding the problem that many dealers are encountering with coloured gasoline — having to colour the gasoline in the oil company yards rather than in the purchaser's yard. They find in many instances that a truckload of gasoline will go out and there is no one there to accept it, or it is the wrong order, or something happens and the dealer is stuck with a truckload of coloured gasoline and nothing he can do with it or no place to store it. Quite often a very expensive waste takes place.

I am wondering if the Minister has had that study done yet and whether or not there is a possibility that dealers will be allowed to colour gasoline and have the dye on the trucks and colour it at the purchaser's property rather than in the yards.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the policy was changed because of abuses when they carried the dye with them. The tax department is aware of the current problem, but there is resistance to go back to the old system of carrying dye.

Mr. McClelland: Is there any other solution being looked into?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They are working, trying to find another solution. They don't want to go back to the old system; they recognize the problems of the new one. At this point they don't have a resolution to the existing problem. They are trying to figure one out.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the other side of the coin this time. Under the real property taxation branch of vote 56, could the Premier explain some of the deletions to us — deletion of staff and

[ Page 990 ]

the $60,000 previously budgeted for last year? Could you tell us where they are appearing in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, Mr. Member, these were taken over by the new Assessment Authority.

Mr. Smith: I believe I am in the right vote. It has to do with the colouring of gasoline and the fact that some vehicles are exempt from taxation — at least they are exempt from part of the tax that vehicles ordinarily using the roads have to pay. An example is farm vehicles and logging trucks operating on private roads.

The people who have consistently asked the government for relief, over and above the farm vehicles and the logging trucks, are the people with all-terrain vehicles — these snowmobiles, as they are commonly called — operating for the most part in areas other than on provincial roads. The law prohibits them from being used on a highway in the Province of British Columbia, yet they have to pay the same tax as any other road vehicle when they purchase gasoline. I know the problem has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I wonder if he has given it consideration and if they will be granted the same type of relief from that form of tax that other vehicles operating off the provincial road system are now allowed.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not been raised before the attention of the department. We will give it consideration.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to differ with the Premier, but I am sure that it has been brought to the attention of the Department of Finance through letters and correspondence from the associations in past years. I have seen copies of letters and correspondence that came across my desk.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I certainly wouldn't want to fault the department. I will take any responsibility in that regard. I don't recall it being brought to my attention. I appreciate your doing that now. We will take a look at it through the department.

Mr. Smith: Just one further point, Mr. Chairman. It is not a large amount of money that is involved. The amount of fuel that they consume is not great. But where we do prohibit them from using our provincial roads — with good cause, because they are not equipped and there's quite a bit of danger involved — surely to goodness we could grant them that small exception.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain why there's still sales tax on poultry vaccines, veterinary supplies, poultry feeders. You usually get a tax number for most agricultural implements and such, but there seems to be still poultry vaccines and other items where you're paying taxes. While we're on this vote I, too, like other MLAs, would say I'd sure like to see the tax off of all clothing — not just children's clothing but all clothing.

Also, while we're on the second part of this vote, would the Minister of Finance say something about the tax study? There is a tax study. Economists and other people in the field are, in the light of the new assessment authority, of course, going to look at the various indices of taxation. Maybe you could comment on some of the real problem areas. You might also say something — it's been a year now, we've had a full taxation year with the new exemption now on golf courses. You remember that a year and a half ago some of us applauded your gesture, or your compassion, with the publicly owned and accessible golf courses. How well has that worked?

Finally, would you make a comment as Minister of Finance on the fact that, in the light of the taxation study, in many of the constituencies people still pay 10 mills? You remember the mayor of Prince George, Mayor Moffat, made quite a lot of print in the press decrying the fact that some people get really remarkably good services — especially people in electoral areas that are very close to municipal areas, areas like Mission where they're paying 45 mills — yet in the electoral areas they are paying 10 mills. The House knows that this is one of the things to be studied by this tax committee. But it might be helpful to just give some idea....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I can't prejudice the study.

Mr. Rolston: Oh no, I don't want you to prejudice this, not at all, but you might give us some idea what kind of direction has been given. Also, has the study formally started?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I think that those questions would be more appropriate for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). I don't want to prejudice the study. He's in consultation with the people in the municipal field, and I'd rather leave it at that. Your request for further exemptions for farm materials is certainly under consideration, but I can't give you a definite answer at this point.

The golf course exemption regulations were announced in February of this year. The applications will be handled through the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford's) department with recommendations to the Department of Finance. About 60 have been received.

[ Page 991 ]

Mr. Fraser: Is it vote 56 where the logging tax is administered from?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Fraser: Has any consideration been given to giving longer terms to pay the logging tax? I understand that some pretty harsh directives have gone out and taken people to court. With the lumber industry the way it is, it's a real hardship on the operations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The practice has been, Mr. Member, that anybody who's having a problem with this is to write to the Department of Finance. We consult then with the Department of Lands and Forests, and if concessions or arrangements can be made to assist them to stay in business, we will do that.

Mr. Fraser: This would apply, Mr. Chairman, after people have got their summonses to pay forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, it should have been done before that. They should have written us. You know, the bureaucratic machinery doesn't stop until someone says: "Hey, I've got a problem." And the time to yell "Hey, I've got a problem" is before the summons appears. But on the other hand, if it reaches that point, I would appreciate your taking the information back to your constituents that this is not a hard-hearted government. We have made special allowances in stumpage fees for regional areas. We saved a major industry in North Peace River that would not be functioning today.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I apologize. If government policy sounds like a political speech, then I apologize. Would you please tell anybody who's under this problem that we do have a method of listening to the problems and working out some compromise with them. Don't you make a political speech in return.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on the Premier's comment on the golf course legislation, I've seen copies of correspondence to the Minister of Finance — from certain golf courses, that is — wondering if the legislation was not intended in 1974 to involve the taxation paid by the golf courses in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1975, and stating that they had budgeted accordingly, thinking that last year's legislation would have some impact on the 1974-75 fiscal year. Is the Minister now saying that in fact there will be no taxation rebates or consideration given to golf courses for the year ending March 31, 1975?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I think an appropriate thing would be for that Minister to give a full report under his estimates.

Mr. McClelland: To follow up on an earlier question: with regard to equipment for poultry operations and egg producers, has the Finance department been in consultation with the Agriculture department to draw up a new list of exemptions? Many of the modern operations have equipment which the Finance department seems never to have heard of, and, as a consequence, it is not exempt. It isn't in use any longer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I do not initiate any conversation with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) on the egg industry. (Laughter.)

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: data processing branch, $1,539,314.

Mr. Curtis: I imagine here we also encounter additional staff with respect to payment of overdue accounts. That is not the reason I rise in this discussion but, rather, under code 015, rental of data processing equipment, I have no specialized knowledge of this field, but I notice a significant increase. The rental is estimated at $493,000 this year, whereas last year the estimated expenditure was $320,000.

Now the Minister of Finance was helpful in his estimates last year when we discussed data processing and the equipment necessary for that activity. We still have, owned by the province, equipment of our own, I believe. In addition it would appear that we are renting more time on service bureaus. Is that the case? Perhaps after the Minister has commented on that, I may have one or two supplementary questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We went outside for the additional help to catch up with the cheques, Mr. Member. We don't do it normally. The additional amount is for updating the payroll system. We don't own any of our own date equipment. We rent it all.

Mr. Curtis: The equipment is leased or time is rented when required. Is that it?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Curtis: The Minister says "yes." Thank you. Now with respect to motor vehicle data processing, the Motor Vehicle Branch and other

[ Page 992 ]

agencies, including ICBC, would that activity be in there? Motor Vehicle is not in here?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Industrial Development. What's in this one is Treasury, registrar of securities, controlling and audit branch, payroll, public accounts, trust accounts, et cetera, consumer taxation branch, real property taxation branch, assessment equalization branch, Department of Housing, home acquisition, mortgage branch, renters' grants, et cetera, Department of Human Resources, social allowances, Mincome, Pharmacare, et cetera.

Mr. Curtis: Does Pharmacare come in this?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Mincome.

Mr. Curtis: Mincome?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Health does Pharmacare.

Mr. Curtis: Is the Department of Finance examining the purchase of any major equipment for electronic data processing, or is it satisfied that it's on the right course in terms of leasing and going to service bureaus, renting time as and when required?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There have been a number of inquiries by the Department of Finance to see whether or not it would be valid to purchase. The decision by the Department of Finance is not to purchase because the equipment becomes out of date so quickly. I am advised that if the equipment use ever gets stabilized, then it would be more advantageous. But that has not been the point that we have arrived at at this stage.

Mr. Curtis: I am pleased to hear the Minister indicate that purchase of very expensive equipment is not being considered. There is a very fast obsolescence factor.

Perhaps at some point during these estimates — and I wonder if we will ever get to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — one has to ask about ICBC. It would appear that they have purchased equipment, or are locked in in that regard. The Minister responsible is not present and we are not dealing with his estimates at present. It seems that the Department of Finance, with its expertise, has said: "No, we will not get into purchase and get stuck with equipment which will be obsolete in one, two or three years." But other agencies of government have not shown that prudence.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, it's a different application.

Mr. Morrison: On that same item about equipment, is that equipment located in our own premises or do we use service?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: It's located in our own premises and leased from them on a long-term lease?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Smith: Do I understand it correctly that in the data processing branch we have to vote for $1.5 million? Now that is the cost of operating the branch, which does work for many different departments of government. You named them off. You do not prorate any of the costs of operating the equipment or the rental or anything that you have to pay back to those individual departments. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not in Finance, but in the other departments.

Mr. Smith: Part of the expense is prorated back against the department, is it?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier if that amount would be in addition to this $1.5 million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No.

Mr. Morrison: It's included in here, but some of it would be prorated back to other departments.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right. It's the total cost.

Vote 57 approved.

On vote 58: government agencies, $4,032,778.

Mr. Phillips: I'd like the Minister of Finance to explain to me what an isolation allowance is. Does that mean that the government agents are isolated from Vancouver Island and Victoria? Are they isolated from the government, or isolated from the Premier's office? Is that to cover the cost of the government agents travelling into Victoria? I notice that in several of the areas — Prince George, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Williams Lake — there is a special living allowance. In some of the agencies there was a special living allowance last year, and this year....

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the expenses of northern and rural MLAs certainly are far higher than some living on the lower mainland. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) recognizes that maintaining residences while the session is on....

[ Page 993 ]

But I was just wondering what the isolation allowance is, how it is distributed, on what basis it is distributed, and why in some instances where there was a special living allowance last year it has been dropped this year, and in some instances this year it has been carried on from last year.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the pattern in remote areas is to give special living allowances for additional costs. The agents are not in the collective bargaining agreement, but there is a pattern for those outside the agreement to receive additional costs.

As you correctly point out, if you're from the remote areas that you represent, the costs are higher and these reflect in additional expenses. This is an attempt to ameliorate these expenses for these people.

Mr. Phillips: How come, for instance, I think in Terrace or Smithers there is no special living allowance this year? Is the isolation allowance to be distributed for a special living allowance, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I don't have that precise information. I'll take it as notice and try and find out the specific reasons. We don't have that with us.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, the average increase for agents is around $3,000, but I notice in Ucluelet the agent goes from $10,000 to $15,000. Is there some special reason for the agent in Ucluelet to get a 50 per cent increase?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He was reclassified because the number of duties has increased for that particular agency. They are classified by agencies.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue just a little further with the Premier this matter of special living allowances for some agencies and not for others. If it is there as a special isolation allowance or an isolation bonus for those agents residing in remote areas, then the vote doesn't properly reflect that.

For instance, in the vote, where we show special living allowances, there is one included last year and again this year for Dawson Creek. There was one last year for Fort Nelson and none this year. There was one last year for Fort St. James and none this year. Certainly those last two communities that I mentioned are far more isolated in terms of services and costs of living than some that presently apparently receive it. It just doesn't seem to me to properly reflect the location of these particular agencies. Why are the people that are there being penalized?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, as I said, we don't have the information with us. If you care to give us the question, I can take that as notice and get the information to you.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, we've taken it as notice. We'll get the information to you. We don't have it here.

Mr. Fraser: A question to the Premier regarding the government agencies. Generally I think they all do a very good job, but I've had the odd bit of difficulty with the local offices not knowing what legislation has gone on, not having copies of bills, and telling the citizens who go in and ask that they don't know anything about it. They must have read about it, and it is political baloney that they are asking for. In fact, I have sent people there to the odd office, and they say they don't know anything about a certain piece of legislation.

My question to you is: what kind of information is sent to these agencies to in turn send out to the public, and internally what are the agents doing about informing their staff? I think this is what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It was a serious problem, Mr. Member. There had not been a provincial conference for the agents for some 15 years — or more than that, 20 years. We have had — I've been Minister of Finance for two years — two annual conferences on a request from the agents themselves. We recognize that problem. I said: "All right" — in part of the conference we had — "you help us resolve this problem. What have you got to suggest?" It came to our attention that some of them had never even been to the Legislature — some with 15 and 20 years service in the department — and really didn't understand or appreciate the intricacies of how a bill is introduced, how it is debated, how it is passed, how the information is made available. We started this year in asking the agents to come down. Part of the time is spent here, seeing our wisdom and how we handle the public's business, both opposition and government.

An Hon. Member: That's not conventional wisdom.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's not conventional wisdom? I am sure that the government agents, as good civil servants, will keep their opinions to themselves as to what they have seen here.

An Hon. Member: Good thing. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not a threat, a surmise. At

[ Page 994 ]

the same time, they have the opportunity of going through a process of orienting themselves in a better method of obtaining information. It is true, Mr. Member, that after the first session when all that legislation was passed, they were not up to date. It wasn't their fault. It was essentially our fault in not working out a system of making hard information available, not political decisions or anything else.

That is what we are in the process of doing now.

As a matter of fact, the staff member who has been assigned to this specific duty is none other than that quiet order-in-council appointee, Mr. Peter McNelly, who is working very closely with the chief of the government agents and his staff in assisting the development of this programme. I must say that Mr. McNelly has done a very good job.

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: assessment appeal board, $100,000.

Mr. Curtis: Vote 59 is just a shadow of its former self because of the transfer of the main assessment function to the Assessment Authority of British Columbia by statute last year. I recognize that. I was going to wait until vote 63, but I might be ruled out of order at that point and I would rather....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Take a chance on it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Curtis: No, thank you, I won't take a chance on it.

A year ago I raised a matter with the Minister which, I believe, he would have endorsed in opposition: that is, some kind of — it's an overworked word — "ombudsman," someone to assist individuals in the assessment appeal process. It really won't work to say, "Well, that is within the jurisdiction of the Assessment Authority," because there is still a provincial involvement here with the assessment appeal board.

The individual who goes through the assessment route concerning his or her real property must first of all go to a court of revision, and eventually ends up before an assessment appeal board. These individuals, in many instances, are elderly. This may be the first time they have had to approach government with respect to something they feel is unjust or unnecessarily complex, or is going to be extremely expensive. I notice there is an increase here under 005 for members' fees and expenses. The staff figures seem to be quite low. I would hope that the Minister can reassure us that (a) some action has been taken to establish a position to assist individuals to try and get away from this adversary system which exists when a property owner approaches a court of revision or the appeal board and (b) if it is not underway, that rather than just another assurance we will have some indication from the Minister that the matter is under active consideration.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, since you raised that, you'll recall we actually wrote into the bill for the new assessment commission that part of their duties, by law now, is that they must provide information, and access to information, to all citizens. They are obliged now by law to do that. Along with that, the Minister has assured me that the tax study will include a continuation of the philosophy of that section that we have enshrined in legislation to ensure that citizens have full access and assistance. Also, I am advised that all of us should tell every citizen that the court of revision is not to be viewed as a quasi-legal structure, but as a court of revision to assist them with their taxation problems. Any encouragement we can give to the assessment commission or the Finance department with that interpretation is welcome. But remember: we enshrined in the Act itself the obligation of the assessment commission to disseminate information.

Mr. Curtis: I appreciate the Premier's response. Nonetheless, the terms "court of revision" and "assessment appeal board" are rather horrendous terms. They have an intimidating effect, I suggest, on a number of people.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay. Valid point.

Mr. Curtis: While it is enshrined in the Act establishing the Assessment Authority, it remains to be seen if it will work that well. There has to be an individual who can go to an appellant at the earliest possible time and say: "Okay, you are probably upset about all this. Now, how can I help you?" How can I help you? — that really must be the approach.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, it is an excellent suggestion. The Minister has noted it, and we'll pass it on to the committee.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They have to come back with a report now. But even their words "court of revision," as you suggest, should be considered to be altered.

An Hon. Member: How about assessment drop-in centre?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Assessment drop-in centre? (Laughter.) That's a very good suggestion.

[ Page 995 ]

Mr. Curtis: Since it is the point I raised, I would like to see something in between, if I could suggest.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Something in between? Okay.

Mr. Curtis: Something in between a drop-in centre and that word "court." (Laughter.)

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the section of the vote dealing with the assessment appeal board. The assessment appeal board, which is still operated under his department, is the board with some specific responsibilities of very great value to the people who get beyond the court of revision and who have a serious problem involving the assessment, which also involves municipalities and sometimes the provincial government as well.

As the risk of being inconsistent, a risk that I've never hesitated to take before, I wonder why we don't have in this vote certain expenses dealing with the operation of an office. It's my understanding that the assessment appeal board office....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Office?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Office, yes. The assessment appeal board doesn't have an office; it's maintained at the home of the chairman of the assessment appeal board — some place out in Langley or Surrey.

Mr. Rolston: Maple Ridge.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Maple Ridge. That is, in my view, most inconvenient to people throughout the length and breadth of this province who have a problem with the assessment appeal board. There should be an office; there should be a staff where you can phone and find out what the assessment appeal board is doing. There should be a place where you can seek reasons for the decision of the assessment appeal board. Unfortunately, over the past year or so it's been run sort of like a homemaker service. Really, the assessment appeal board is much too important a function to be handled in such a way.

I know that the previous board had an office in the City of Vancouver, a place where people with business with the board could go....

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: They did — on Hornby Street. It was maintained by the chairman — just a little office.

I just think that it's inappropriate to have it at somebody's home in Maple Ridge. I'm not criticizing the chairman in that regard, but there should be a place, even if it's here in Victoria, where there's a secretary who can answer the phone and give the information dealing with the business of that board.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Deputy Minister has made note. We'll check it out and discuss the matter.

Mr. Fraser: I imagine that under this vote is where you can talk about assessment notices. I'd like the Minister to send a note back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Being on the Legislative committee last year, we asked them to simplify the assessment notices. I think you would have a lot fewer appeals if you had a more simplified assessment notice. Of course, the administration didn't do a thing about it for 1975. We asked that that happen from the committee.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're working on it now.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: incidentals, $4,119,076.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be inconsistency with the statement the Premier made a moment ago — that there's an ongoing need for more staff and more responsibilities in auditing and this, that and the other. He did say that these would be permanent staff and that people who had been 15 years on temporary staff would now be permanent. Yet here we have in vote 60 the allowances that are proposed for temporary assistance going from $300,000 to $450,000, an increase of 50 per cent. Does this mean that in addition to the increased permanent staff and all the expenses we've referred to in various votes, we will also, in fact, be increasing temporary staff by a very substantial amount and increasing the cost by $150,000?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, as temporary staff for sickness and holiday leave we're budgeting more realistically in that regard. Hopefully it won't all be used.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that we'd like to cover in this particular vote, and a few things that we would like to ask the Premier. Would you accept the motion to rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again?

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee

[ Page 996 ]

reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presented the 1974 annual report of the health branch.

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

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

APPENDIX

54       Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. What was the total number of social workers employed in the Public Service as of December 31, 1973?

2. What was the total number of social workers employed in the Public Service as of December 31, 1974?

The Hon. Norman Levi replied as follows:

"1. Four hundred and sixty-three (Department of Human Resources only).

"2. Five hundred and two (Department of Human Resources only)."

93       Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With respect to instances of child abuse in the Province during the most recent 12-month period for which information is available —

1. How many children have been reported victims of abuse?

2. In how many instances has child abuse resulted in (a) death, (b) serious physical injury, or (c) serious psychological injury?

3. In how many instances has the Department of Human Resources (a) recommended the laying of criminal charges or (b) taken other remedial measures to prevent recurrence of child abuse?

4. How many instances of child abuse have been discovered and reported to the Department of Human Resources by (a) Departmental employees, (b) employees of other Provincial Government departments, (c) members of the medical profession, and (d) the general public?

The Hon. Norman Levi replied as follows:

"1. During the calendar year 1974, 141 reports received involved abuse of children.

"2. (a) Four, (b) 21 children were admitted to hospital, and (c) unknown.

"3. (a) It is not the policy of the Department to recommend the laying of criminal charges; however, police investigation of the suspect occurred in 24 cases; and (b) in 11 cases the Department of Human Resources did not open a case but allowed another professional (psychiatrist, doctor, or school counsellor) to assume major responsibility for assisting the child and family; in the remaining cases the Department has assumed directly the responsibility for assisting the family to prevent further incidents.

"4. (a) All; (b) 14; (c) 26 by doctors, 18 by nurses, 7 by medical social workers; and (d) 23 by school personnel, 53 by other members of the community."

[ Page 997 ]

94       Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With respect to Departmental financial assistance for students in post-secondary institutions —

1. Is the Department of Human Resources providing financial assistance to persons who attend universities, vocational schools, or colleges in the Province?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) how many students are attending universities, vocational schools, or colleges with financial assistance provided by the Department of Human Resources, (b) what criteria are used when authorizing such students to receive financial assistance from the Department of Human Resources, and (c) what costs are paid by the Department for such students, e.g., books, tuition, living expenses, etc.?

The Hon. Norman Levi replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Approximately 500; (b) help with educational expenses is available only to a social assistance recipient and then only if it is not available through another source such as the Canada Manpower Commission or Department of Labour; for employable recipients, educational assistance is conditional on the plan being a practical one that will lead to employment; for a nonemployable person, such as a single mother with small children, aid may be provided as a preparation for future employment or as a help in coping with problems of a personal or family nature; help is not provided with university costs because these are available through the Student Assistance Programme, Department of Education; social assistance may be continued for a mother with children or a handicapped person attending university if the plan is a practical one that will lead to employment; and (c) costs of books and fees, a training allowance of $15 per month for a single person and $25 per month for a family head to help with travel costs when necessary and regular social assistance entitlement."