[ Page 1589 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Environment estimates,

On vote 86.

Mr. Skelly –– 1589 Mr. Wallace –– 1595

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1590 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1596

On vote 87. Mrs. Wallace –– 1596

Mrs. Wallace –– 1590 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1596

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1591 On vote 89.

Mr. Nicolson –– 1591 Mr. Skelly –– 1597

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1592 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1597

Mr. King –– 1592 On vote 90.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1593 Mr. Skelly –– 1597

Mr. Skelly –– 1593 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1597

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1593 On vote 91.

Ms. Sanford –– 1594 Mr. King –– 1598

Mr. Lloyd –– 1594 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1598

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1594 Mr. Skelly –– 1598

Mr. Skelly –– 1594 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1598

Mr. Lloyd –– 1594 On vote 92.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1594 Mr. King –– 1598

On vote 88. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1598

Executive council estimates.

On vote 18. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1607

Mr. Gibson –– 1598 Mr. Barber –– 1607

Mr. Macdonald –– 1600 Mr. Skelly –– 1611

Mr. Wallace –– 1601 Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1613

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1602 Mr. Wallace –– 1613

Ms. Brown –– 1606 Mr. Lea –– 1614

Tabling reports

BCIT annual report, 1975-76. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1614

Public Bodies Financial Information Act return for Simon Fraser University.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1614

Community law offices and legal aid societies report. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1614

Appendix –– 1615

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that in the gallery from Saltspring Island in the beautiful constituency of Saanich and the Islands today are Mrs. Paul Minvielle; her children, Michelle, Aaron, Robert and Jason; and her mother, visiting from Winnipeg, Mrs. Gladys Pushka.

Hon. Mr. Gardom asks leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I know that all of the members will be very sorry to hear of the death of Mr. Ron Andrews, the former mayor of North Vancouver. He was a most public-spirited individual and, indeed, served his community and its citizens very well. I'm sure all members would like to express every sympathy to Mrs. Andrews and all members of the family.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad that the Attorney-General has taken this opportunity on behalf of the government, in which I very much join him. Mr. Andrews was at one time, perhaps, an opponent of mine, but I think he was also a friend of mine. He was a man very deeply respected in his area, which he served for 17 years. He was respected, I think, throughout British Columbia. This was never shown better than at a dinner at which he was honoured a month or so ago, at which many, many longtime friends gathered. I would take this opportunity to express to his memory and to his family the very high regard in which he was held by his community.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

Vote 85: general administration, $2,201, 513 -approved.

On vote 86: land and water management, $8,535, 823.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Just a few brief questions on vote 86, particularly in reference to the land management branch.

A number of people in my riding own lease lots on Sproat Lake - recreational lease lots - and the tendency on the part of the lands management branch has been to double the rent on those leased lots every five years. In 1976 the lease price was doubled again on those leased lots, even though the wages of most of the people who owned those lots were controlled by the Anti-Inflation Board. I realize that the doubling represents an increase over a five-year period, so when you consider it in terms of a year-by-year increase it's not that significant. But~ for people whose wages are controlled, Mr. Chairman, it is quite a jump in the lease price. In addition, in this area on Sproat Lake the people are restricted to using those homes for only a certain part of the year.

I sent to Mr. Redel of your department, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the regional district zoning bylaw which specifies that there are to be no water utility services, et cetera, to that area. Also the homes that are built in that area are not to be used on a year-round basis, and this is the case. Your department offered to take a look at the situation to consider possible roll-back revisions to the lease increases and I wonder if the minister and his department have taken a look at that situation.

The other thing was a question brought up by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) concerning lands that had been reserved in some cases for recreation centres. This was placed in map reserves, or other types of reserves, by the lands management branch. I'm thinking now of an area in the Queen Charlotte Islands between Old Masset and new Masset village where lands were set aside for a possible recreation centre and they were reserved through the lands management branch. I believe Municipal Affairs people went up there a few weeks ago and told the people in the Queen Charlottes that that land would now be available for housing. All they had to do was make application and that land would be made available for housing. I'm wondering if on those parcels between Old Masset and new Masset there's been some change in the policy of the government -that they're going to eliminate the possibility of a recreation centre in that area and, instead, turn it over to housing. I understand there's some objection in the Masset area to that change.

The third thing: I see that land and water management is combined as sinking-fund investments for improvement districts. A lot of those sinking-fund investments have been made over the years. A lot of them were at fairly low interest rates and a lot of improvement districts now find themselves in a very tight financial squeeze. I'm wondering if the minister and his department have taken a look into the sinking-fund investments that exist now and are willing to possibly sell off some of those investments,

[ Page 1590 ]

redeem some of them to improve the financial situation of water districts and improvement districts, or possibly supplement the finances of improvement districts so that returns on sinking-fund investments will be more in line with current interest rates.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): To the member for Alberni, through you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you making reference to the recreational lease lots, specifically around Sproat Lake. The system, as the member would be aware, Mr. Chairman, was that the rental would not be more than doubled in each period of five years, and it comes as a brutal shock to many, many people when suddenly that rent is doubled. It's quite correct that it actually is graduated over that period of time.

We have just recently compiled information from other jurisdictions across North America, including most of the provinces in Canada and many states in the United States, in an attempt to investigate their system of leasing recreational lots, and it varies. Every jurisdiction seems to have its own way of looking at this. What we are considering most seriously is the restrictive nature of these lots. Many of the recreational lots throughout the province are restricted severely by weather conditions. Some of them are accessible only by water and, of course, when the freeze-up occurs they simply can't get to them.

We are putting together a position paper. The tendency at the moment would be toward allowing a person, if you like, an allowance because of the restricted period of time in which they can make use of that recreation lot, keeping in mind, of course, that there must be reasonable competition for the use of such lots and that each person in the province should have the opportunity of bidding on those lots. We do not want to make it restrictive from a financial point of view. The Crown land remains in the ownership of the Crown, but use of the land would be beneficial to many, many people.

Our intent is to supply this type of land for recreational purposes at the most minimal cost, because even though the treasury may suffer some reversal in income, it's really found money in that nothing is being consumed. The land still remains within the Crown's jurisdiction. I think that our final position paper will tend to be toward making it extremely reasonable by way of the costs, even to the point that we may be criticized for making it too cheap. But I think that the recreational value is there. So we're certainly very close to coming up with a new, rational formula that I think will be acceptable to all, hopefully without punishing any person who has paid what they consider excessive rates in the past years.

Mr. Chairman, I will take the question of the map reserve on the recreation centre in the Queen Charlottes under advisement. My staff indicate that we have not made inquiries but we'll certainly check with housing to see if they have been making any inquiries into that area.

On the sinking funds issue raised by the member, likewise we'll contact our good Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to see if any opinions may be solicited there. We'll follow through, and I'll respond directly to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) on that specific question.

MR. SKELLY: I have a short supplementary on the recreation lots issue. We welcome the development of a new position on the part of the government. As you say, those prices have been doubling over the years, and they've doubled and redoubled.

Can I tell the people at Sproat Lake that they can look forward to some relief from the increase which has just been imposed on them - the doubling which has taken place over the last five years between 1971 and 1976? Will they be included in that policy?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would very much like to say yes, but it's a specific. I would like to have the opportunity of looking at it, and to further advise you. I wouldn't want you to have information that perhaps would be considered to be misleading them. I wouldn't want to promise them relief until we have an opportunity of looking at it. Possibly in the most general way I hope they can look toward relief in the future. But whether it can be retroactive would be something we would have to work out very specifically.

MR. SKELLY: You're not saying no.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can say that I'm not saying no.

Vote 86 approved.

On vote 87: environmental and engineering services, $25,676, 795.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have had some correspondence with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) regarding the Pemberton diking situation, but I suspect that if I leave it until the estimates for Agriculture, I may be told I should have brought it up here, because I think it does relate to this minister's jurisdiction.

This is a study that has been going on for many, many years. It has been a piecemeal approach to a job that needs some overall attention. Now the Minister of Agriculture has assured me that the water resources people are into this thing again, and I

[ Page 1591 ]

wonder if the Minister of the Environment can give us some assurance that this thing will proceed in the not-too-distant future. There's a great deal of agricultural land at stake in the Pemberton Valley as a result of a need of this particular diking and damming situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We are quite aware of the concern the member mentioned on the Pemberton. There were efforts made on behalf of the province to encourage the federal government to include that area in the overall management in the diking programme, but it was not considered to be appropriate.

The very simple problem is the very high expense for this particular programme. It has been looked at over the years, and the member's quite correct that it has been approached on a piecemeal basis. We are in communication with the people of that area attempting to rationalize an approach which is justifiable for many reasons, including the very high expense.

I can't really say that progress is being made to resolve the problem, but certainly the problem has not been forgotten, and we intend to continue on with negotiations to try and rationalize and resolve that problem. It is a problem we are very much aware of. We'd like to be able to rationalize and resolve it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, during his ministerial vote the minister said that we could bring up the matter under this vote 87 of problems created mostly by flash flooding of smaller rivers and creeks. This is a very large problem, and I brought to the minister's attention a letter which he sent to Mr. Bob Brisco, MP, in response to the Salmo River area.

It was my impression last year that there was some $800,000 allocated in his department for works such as rip rapping of banks, removal of gravel load deposits in various areas, and perhaps straightening and removal of logjams which have occurred. I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention once again, as I did last year, that if $800,000 was in fact the amount, I say that is a very inadequate amount to be spent in areas under this programme to do this type of work that I'm requesting for the Salmo River and, indeed, for other areas in Nelson-Creston and surrounding Nelson-Creston. Works were done in such areas as New Denver, and I believe some other work was done over toward Invermere or Golden and other parts of the Kootenay region. In fact, according to the minister's letter, some $6,200 worth of work was carried on in the Salmo River, but the report done by the water investigations branch, I guess through Mr. Brady, indicated that some $70,000 worth of river improvements were required.

The minister in his letter to Mr. Brisco sort of intimates - and I don't blame him, as he doesn't have first-hand knowledge of the area - that people somehow chose to build on a floodplain. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of the Salmo River these are largely Doukhobour people who moved into that valley many, many years ago as young men. These people are now typically in their 70s. When they moved there they were able to grow crops on the lower portions of their land, but those lands are now completely flooded almost 12 months of the year and there are watercourses running back and forth through them. In fact, their homes, which they built on the higher portions of their land up toward the highway, are now experiencing regular seasonal flooding. We might get by this year.

The Salmo River is one, and I suggest that that is a place to start, because there is a good study. and it's a manageable task. It is $70,000, probably with some overrun - it might be $100,000. It can also be broken down into stages. The whole $70,000 does not have to be spent in one year, Mr. Chairman. It could be phased in; certain amounts could be apportioned. I further understand that there was a departmental request for several thousands of dollars to be spent on the Salmo River this year. So my main request is for the Salmo River, but while I'm at it I might point out some of the other areas.

The Goat River over in Creston has many problems there which can be resolved. The local department is doing some....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Old Goat River?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, no. There is a black bridge and a white bridge over two forks of the Goat River. I would say that there is again a community down there, and there are problems which should be looked into. There has been interference, some of it by property owners, some of it by the Department of Highways, and various other influences over the year.

The Slocan River has several log jams on it and, Mr. Minister, I'd like you to get this: you know, in the case of the Slocan River the people would like financial assistance but, at the very least, they would like the permission to go in and remove some log jams. They would do it themselves. Their minimal request is just that they be permitted to go in and remove some log jams. This is a problem shared by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and myself, as our ridings more or less bisect the length of the Slocan River.

These are but a few. There are other studies which have been done. Some very good studies have been done on creeks such as Duhamel Creek. There are ongoing problems with Crawford Creek, which would more appropriately almost gain river status - it's quite a large volume of water. What I would like to see - and what I requested last year when the minister had just taken on this new portfolio - is a

[ Page 1592 ]

start somewhere. In fact a start has taken place, and there was work being done two and three years ago. Unfortunately some of that work had to be done without studies in place. Now that the studies are there, they suggest that some of the works can be done without being totally wasted if they're done in isolation. They will not be done in an ad hoc manner that might prove to be inefficient.

I also see in the minister's last paragraph that there is no legislation under which the province is responsible for the flooding and erosion of private land. Very limited funds have been available in recent years for assistance throughout the province but these have normally not been allocated to stream clearing. Well, some of them certainly have been and I believe that even last year considerable funds were spent in the Kootenay area in general, although to my knowledge none in my riding in terms of specific works of riprapping and so on.

Would the minister also consider that there was an announcement made last February 18: "Dam Proposed to Ward Off Fraser Flooding"? When people in the riding read that they're willing to divert the McGregor to prevent Fraser River flooding and no mention is made of the extra power that is generated, it seems as if all considerations and all concerns over flooding take place only in the lower Fraser Valley. People certainly did know by the time they started building housing out in Richmond in the minister's own riding. They certainly knew after 1948 that they were on a floodplain. But there are people such as I mentioned coming back to the Salmo River, where we have a study which has been done where the recommendations are there and the cost estimates are in. I would like some commitment from the minister in terms of some funding. I would like to know if the $800,000 fund - which I understand to be the figure - from which funds were drawn in the past is still intact this year, in what amount, and if some funds are to be allocated to the Salmo River, as I understand it was one of the departmental requests generated in the local area.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Nelson-Creston on the very specifics he mentioned, we would be most pleased to look into the Salmo, the Goat River, the Slocan River and others. With reference to the letter to Mr. Brisco, the last paragraph is a fairly standard paragraph that we include in such letters to avoid setting a precedent that others may call upon regularly for provincial moneys to be used for, if you like, all private property that may be eroded.

We in the ministry are certainly very aware of the concerns as the member outlined. The floodplain mapping is underway; floodplain planning is underway. Then works would follow. Of course, in the short term we must recognize that there are certain situations that demand immediate action in an ad hoc way. The concerns you mention are known to the ministry and the people involved in that have certainly taken this information under consideration. We are preparing a preliminary list of works for this year and we will certainly give every consideration to those specific rivers and problems he mentioned. I'll be able to respond to those directly when that list is prepared and offer you what information we have at our disposal at that time.

I recognize, and the member is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, that the Fraser River and the Fraser Valley do get publicity when it comes to flooding. Perhaps in the minds of many people in the province, when you speak of flooding, you speak of the Fraser, because, I suppose, of its size and the potential damage. Yes, the ministry certainly recognizes that there are many, many other areas in the province other than the Fraser Valley where flooding is a very serious problem and a particular hardship to individuals. I respect the reference to long-term residents who have settled in areas that appear to be fertile and capable of producing the foods required. At that time, perhaps, floodplains and floodplain management and mapping and the rest of it would be just some technical argument of which they were never aware. We do recognize these problems. I'll certainly respond to those specific rivers mentioned and we'll advise the member as to what the plans are for this year.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response. I should also just say in passing that some work was done in Pass Creek in my riding. I think I said that nothing was done, but there was a little bit done and that was certainly appreciated by the property owners along Pass Creek.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Just to add a little further to the points raised by my colleague from Nelson-Creston, Mr. Chairman, I point out to the minister that his predecessor had given a commitment regarding the Slocan River that provincial funds would be made available in matching amounts with federal moneys to stabilize the Slocan River where annually it does erode many, many acres of good, arable farmland.

I would like to have some indication from the minister as to whether or not he is prepared to continue that commitment which, Mr. Chairman, I don't think would be a great amount of money if the approach is taken that the member for

Nelson-Creston recommended - that is, mainly to let the local people do some of the work. I think it could be done on e make-work project over the winter months when the river is low. There are people there who are qualified and know the river very well and, with supervision from the

[ Page 1593 ]

appropriate branches, I think it would be the cheapest way to do it. It certainly would protect a lot of land. I would appreciate it if the minister would give an indication whether he will continue the commitment previously given in that regard.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member, my understanding is that the federal government really has not responded that positively to that specific project, but we'll certainly pursue that. We're quite prepared to continue with that arrangement if we can get the federal government to come along.

Reference to the local contractors or local people involved is a good idea. The diking in the Squamish area is perhaps an excellent example of where not only did they make use of local expertise and knowledge, but they also made use of people who were available in the off-season. Our engineering people, including my deputy minister, were responsible for the design of the dikes. I know the people in Squamish are very, very pleased with the results and it's an excellent example of co-operation between jurisdictions. There's no question that that is a very responsible and most rewarding method of trying to resolve some of these problems.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, just a very short question concerning the preliminary report on the Eurasian milfoil problem in the Okanagan basin. One of the criticisms I've received from government biologists in both governments is that although it's a good preliminary report - and a report is anticipated this month, I believe, on the 2-4-D problem and how it can be applied - no baseline studies have been done on the present chemical quality of the water, the fish and the vegetation in the lake. Before we should consider 2-4-D as an alternative to manage the Eurasian milfoil problem, we should have those baseline studies done so that we know what the background levels are, what the existing chemical levels are in the plants, animals and the water of Okanagan Lake. Also, it's been suggested by some biologists that there have been no transplant studies done. Is it possible to have a study done where Eurasian milfoil is transplanted to some kind of a closed system - say, a small lake somewhere - where experimentation can take place in that closed system and management alternatives can be practised in that closed system?

I know there's some pressure on the government and on the Okanagan Basin Water Board to have the problem solved as soon as possible because it does constitute a threat to the recreation in the Okanagan basin - in Wood Lake, Skaha Lake and Okanagan Lake. Is the report on 2-4-D in the minister's hands now? When does he anticipate it? Have these baseline studies been done, or transplant studies been done, and will the minister consider those before any decision is made to engage in a 2-4-D management programme?

Also, I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is aware of a recent report that came out of the Kennedy sub-committee on administration in the United States where an examination of the Environment Protection Agency files discovered material on 2-4-D which had been closed in the files, sealed in brown envelopes, that indicated 2-4-D was carcinogenic in rats and dogs. This material was supplied by the companies who manufacture the chemical in the first place. It was originally submitted to the food and drug authority in the United States. The EPA took excerpts from those reports when the EPA was set up, and yet the information wasn't made public and wasn't considered when the government established the maximum safe tolerances of 2-4-D. I'm wondering if the minister has access to those reports and that information.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not familiar with the Kennedy sub-committee report, although perhaps someone within the ministry has received the information. I'll make some inquiries.

Specifically on the Okanagan, I'm very pleased that we had a meeting today with representatives of the Okanagan Basin Water Board, as we have had previously. The second report, or the next interim report, has not yet been made available to me. It's expected in the early part of March. We expect it almost momentarily. In fact, I think it's probably a matter of having it printed or something. We do expect to have that report on the chemical side of the Eurasian milfoil problem.

We are developing a programme in conjunction with the Okanagan Basin Water Board as to how to specifically approach the problem from an organizational point of view, a jurisdictional point of view, and we are at this moment concentrating on some of the mechanical alternatives offered in the report. The chemical approach will be considered quite separately when that report is received. Certainly when that report is received it will be offered to members of this House.

I am advised that B.C. Research has conducted studies in Wood Lake on transplants and such. I'm not quite sure if it would follow the criteria that the member was discussing. There has been a great deal of information gathered by the biologists. Now whether that information would be adequate to satisfy all biologists or scientists is very, very difficult to say. There is a great deal of information that has been gathered. Perhaps in the minds of some it's adequate, and perhaps in the minds of some, no matter how much information you gather, it would be inadequate. The problem to the lakes is very, very serious and also very complex. We expect that the answer will be complex rather than simple. We take

[ Page 1594 ]

the comments from the member and other persons who have offered us criticism, information and commentary.

The three persons who were appointed to investigate this matter and to offer information to the residents and interested persons in the Okanagan have also accepted that information. We will have the opportunity of seeing that report, I hope, within the next week.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I just wanted to mention that yesterday, when we were discussing the Oyster River and the Pacific Playgrounds' proposal, the minister did indicate that he would file an engineering report. I just wanted to remind the minister of that.

I would also like to state that when I was speaking on this issue yesterday, I talked about a channel 100 feet deep when I should have said 100 feet wide. I apologize for that.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd just like to ask the minister for a little clarification on the route that will be followed now that the Canada-British Columbia Fraser River Joint Advisory Board has finished their comprehensive study of all the reports that went previously outlining the flood-control benefits of the McGregor diversion. I understand B.C. Hydro is still conducting their environmental studies and socio-economic studies. Probably these will be completed in the spring of the year, I understand. If B.C. Hydro still considers the project to be a priority for power with them, they will probably apply at that time for a water licence, I understand.

I'm wondering, since it is top priority as flood control in the lower Fraser Valley, if the minister would expect there would be any federal assistance on the construction. Or would all the costs of the construction of the diversion project be charged back strictly through B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry that I can't give you a definite answer. In fact, the wording of the question was just: "Would it be?" We don't know. There's a possibility that perhaps the federal government could be involved in that the proposal is for flood control. The federal Minister of the Environment and myself, when we released that report, expressed concern about the environmental aspects of the programme, and certainly those environmental aspects, particularly dealing with fisheries, are of great concern.

If B.C. Hydro were to apply for a water licence, we would follow the normal process, which would involve the comptroller of water rights with hearings and such. But it's very, very difficult to answer specifically on hypothetical situations that may or may not develop. The major concern that the Minister of the Environment for Canada offered was the possible negative effect on the fisheries. It was suggested that perhaps not enough specific information is known. The people who were responsible for compiling the report, based on many other reports, used consistent methods of measurement. The information received in that report is consistent with the information supplied from the federal government. The report itself is under review.

It would appear that the desire of the federal Minister of Fisheries is to investigate somewhat more thoroughly the possible negative effect on the fisheries. There's concern about the transfer of parasites from the other water system. That is being looked at specifically to see if there is a danger -what the effect may be - and, secondly, to see how this could be prevented in the event of the McGregor diversion going ahead. Certainly no decision has been made. It's in the most preliminary stages relative to the possibility of the McGregor diversion.

MR. SKELLY: I have one short question on the McGregor diversion, Mr. Chairman. In a letter to the Prince George Citizen some time before the Fraser River upstream report was tabled in the House, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) quoted figures that were extremely similar - they were similar - to the information that came out in the report once it was tabled in the House. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if any of his backbenchers had access to the Fraser River Upstream Storage Report before it was tabled in the House and before it was released in a joint press meeting with him and the Minister of the Environment for Canada. Did anyone have access to that information?

MR. LLOYD: Actually, we certainly have no access to any part of the report and I don't appreciate the innuendo that there was. However, the McGregor Action Group did have part of the report previously and they had published some of those particular figures that I quoted for the member's benefit, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got the report there?

MR. SKELLY: We thank the potential minister for his answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Alberni: to the best of my knowledge, no, the report was not released prematurely. There were sections, I believe, that had received some scrutiny by people, and how they got the report we don't know. In fact, when we had a cabinet meeting in Prince George, the McGregor Action Group suggested they had access to certain

[ Page 1595 ]

sections of the reports. But no, to the best of my knowledge the reports were released simultaneously.

Vote 87 approved.

On vote 8 8: environmental protection, $7,022, 355.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond for a few moments under this vote to the comments that the minister made last night. They didn't exactly help me to sleep any better last night. The minister said last night: "To speak of prevention is altruistic and idealistic." He says it isn't necessarily that practical to try and deal with prevention.

I thought that was the most . . .

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Careful now. Don't be unparliamentary!

MR. WALLACE: ... defeatist, negative kind of attitude and philosophy to be articulated by the minister of this particular ministry at a time when, frankly, if we can't do more in the area of prevention, then indeed we've got a very dismal future in the environmental problems that face British Columbia. I don't wish to be unfair, because it was late in the evening and the minister had been under fire all day. I think we have to recognize that we sometimes say things when we're tired that are exaggerated. But he drew the most incredible analogy with tuberculosis.

[Mr. Macdonald in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: He was talking about prevention of oil spills in the same kind of analogous way that we try to prevent tuberculosis. The point of the argument is that we've practically wiped out tuberculosis by preventive measures. But if you start off with the mental attitude that you can't, prevent oil spills because it's American oil and American tankers and you just take a sort of a hands-off attitude that so much of what is involved cannot be controlled by us - don't bother about prevention.... That was the note that came across in the minister's comments last night.

He said that if people wish to play politics with the environment, fine. We're not trying to play politics. We're trying to get a much more fundamental concept about the problems which face British Columbia, regardless of which government we have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: "An hon. member." (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think you're being unparliamentary.

At any rate, to be more specific about prevention, the minister remembers I raised the issue of off-shore loading by use of monobuoys. Since we discussed that earlier in the debate I've received a letter from marine consultants who would like me to raise one or two questions as a response to the minister's comments.

The minister had said that monobuoys are not very effective, or it's difficult for them to be effective in adverse weather conditions. These consultants make the point that really, if it's that difficult for ships to approach monobuoys, how much more dangerous is it for them to try and negotiate Juan de Fuca Strait in the same kind of rough weather?

AN HON. MEMBER: Approaching monobuoys in rough weather - is that parliamentary?

MR. WALLACE: The difficulties and the dangers are technically the same, and by unloading the oil some distance from shore at a monobuoy you're at least reducing part of the danger of having the ships coming right in and running the risk of going aground.

The other point that the marine consultants make in their letter to me is that ships of the size we're talking about are very difficult to maneuver at reduced speeds. I understand it's a lot easier under these circumstances to maneuver to monobuoys off shore than it is to maneuver right into a docking facility at the shoreline.

The marine consultants also make the point that there are no drydocking facilities that will be able to accommodate tankers of that size. If we have a tanker damaged and leaking oil, there are only two options: the ship will continue to leak all the way to the nearest drydock, which is Japan, according to my advisers, or there has to be some facility whereby you could unload the oil and have the empty tanker proceed to drydock.

It seems, Mr. Chairman, that there are some measures that should be considered, particularly if we are to have an oil terminal at Kitimat. I don't propose to go through all that argument again today, but I would like one or two specific answers. First of all, is the minister having any ongoing discussions with consultants of this type who apparently have had experience in numerous parts of the world where monobuoys have been very successfully introduced and where they do reduce some of the dangers? Secondly, what discussions or plans does the minister have to try and promote this concept in discussions with the Americans, particularly in the state of Washington? As the minister himself quoted in the debate, the Governor of Washington seems reasonably confident that large tankers in Puget Sound can be

[ Page 1596 ]

managed efficiently without much danger of spills.

Once again, it's quite obvious that the use of monobuoys, in many cases at least, can reduce still further the danger. In that way this is the kind of prevention that I'm trying to emphasize in the discussions we've had in the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope that in the earlier discussions in the House regarding the monobuoys, the thought I got across was that I very much favour monobuoys. I think perhaps what I said was that we are advised by our federal counterparts that this may not be the best system for our coast.

I happen to personally disagree. I think the monobuoy system would work. I believe that the technical arguments offered by some persons are not as well founded as they could be. I mentioned specifically that these buoys are used in the North Sea where they have very, very difficult ocean situations. The company you refer to.... I am not sure if I'm familiar, unless it's Captain Dick Roberts. If it is, I know the man very well, and have been in contact with him over the years. He's perhaps one of the more qualified persons in this area.

Captain Roberts has supplied me with brochures and with information which we have forwarded to other interested parties. I can only agree that the monobuoy system to me, until proven otherwise, is perhaps the most superior system for the unloading of oil. I would very, very much encourage the federal government, Washington state, our own province and any other jurisdiction to give the greatest emphasis to the monobuoy system.

There is a cost factor involved that has been brought to out attention - the necessary pipeline from the monobuoy to onshore. I think in the total context that that cost would be relatively minor to the entire overall costs, particularly when you consider what damage could occur. So I can only say to the member that I completely support the concept of monobuoys. I think it would go a great way to relieving many of the fears and problems we have.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to a different subject under this vote. I really could not let it go through without commenting on the sum of $193,704 included in this vote, and sent over, apparently, from the Ministry of Agriculture. I feel that I have to speak out on behalf of the farmers of this province who are very concerned that this is another area where the items directly affecting their very livelihood are being transferred out of their department and into another department.

I would like to ask the minister what his intention is on this particular matter. Has he to date made any overtures to representatives of the farm community to discuss this particular area of his new responsibility? What direction is he planning to take in this particular area? I know I would be out of order, Mr. Chairman, if I were to speak of an estimate of another minister, but I'm a bit surprised to find that in the Ministry of Agriculture estimates covering this, there seems to be no reduction or change. That responsibility still also remains with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , according to the description of his particular votes. I'm wondering if there is some division of labour here between the two ministers, or just what degree of responsibility has been set over. I would like to hear this minister's comments on what he's planning to do with this particular money.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Ministry of the Environment will be taking over the regulatory functions of pesticides relative to permits, applications and the necessary certificates. The Ministry of Agriculture will still very much be dealing with the farm community. Certainly there is no desire or thought to injure the farming community by way of this transfer. It's a matter of permitting the Ministry of the Environment to operate in a regulatory function relative to pesticides and others associated with that. But certainly it is not our intent to exclude the farmer. The farmer will retain his traditional contact with the Ministry of Agriculture relating to these problems. The Ministry of the Environment will deal basically with the regulations, certificates, permits and so on, as well as the necessary appeal procedures.

MRS. WALLACE: A question, Mr. Chairman. I've been concerned for some time regarding the regulatory aspect of these pesticides. It seems to me that when the quantities used are left to suppliers, as is the case when you buy a can of pesticide and there is specified on there, by the supplier, the strength of dilution necessary for killing under certain weather conditions or certain pests, it's something like the soap ads that tell you to, use a cup of soap in the washing machine when really all you need is half a cup. I am wondering whether or not this minister would be prepared to move into some kind of a regulatory release that would indicate the kind of quantities of pesticides that would be quite appropriate and effective.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate the comments of the member. There are various jurisdictions involved. The federal government does approve certain instructions on that type of pesticide. We're concerned and we'll be investigating that very specifically.

Vote 88 approved.

On vote 89: Environment and Land Use

[ Page 1597 ]

Committee secretariat, $1,114, 830.

MR. SKELLY: Again, I have just a short question on the coal guidelines that are managed by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat through their coal committee. It's often difficult to get the phase 1 reports - and the reports for every phase. I believe there are now phase 2 reports for Hosmer-Whegler. It's often difficult to get copies of these reports. I know that the coal committee should not be responsible for being a clearing house for public information for the coal companies. What we need, really, is some instruction from the minister to the coal companies who file these phase 1, 2 and 3 reports to make enough copies available so that public groups can have access to these phase I reports - or the reports for the various phases. I've talked to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for example, and they find it extremely difficult to get the reports on the various phases of the coal guidelines from the companies. It took me five or six letters plus numerous phone calls to get the phase I report on the Sage Creek coal development, and I understand that Moira Farrow couldn't get copies from the company so she had to go to the United States to get them through their freedom-of-information system.

I believe all it takes is an instruction from the minister to the coal companies to make enough copies of those phase 1, 2 and 3 reports available so that the public can have them and can assess them, particularly those interest groups that require them to do an analysis of the coal developments. I wonder if the minister is going to instruct the coal companies to make enough copies available.

While the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in the House for a change, I would also like to say that it seems inconsistent that the mines reclamation Acts that provide for a cleanup after mining takes place are in the same department as the minister who manages the developments. It would seem more appropriate that mines reclamation would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment. I am wondering if the minister and the Minister of Mines have had any discussion or if the Premier is willing to consider the placing of mines reclamation, which is essentially a cleanup process after a mine has been developed and worked, under the authority of the Ministry of the Environment rather than under the authority of the developer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That concept is certainly being investigated and has been discussed. I see very little difficulty, if there is any difficulty at all - and I don't understand why there would be - in not being able to get enough copies of those reports. I must say that I have not received any direct correspondence from a person making that complaint but certainly I see no problem why they can't be released and available to all.

Vote 89 approved.

On vote 90: provincial Land Commission, $667,830.

MR. SKELLY: I asked the minister yesterday, I believe, if any changes were anticipated for the legislation which establishes the provincial Land Commission. He mentioned, I believe, to a reporter from the Victoria Times that something like 35 to 41 amendments were on his desk and under consideration. But only one was a distinct possibility and that was to turn more jurisdiction in appeals over to regional districts. I'm wondering if the minister has that proposal in mind this year.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think that when the member for Alberni made reference to that, he made reference to the statement that regional districts and municipalities should have more input. When I was speaking with Miss Hughes about some of the difficulties involving that, I mentioned that municipalities and regional districts, in my opinion, should have more input. We very, very often find it most difficult to receive an opinion at all from some regional districts when an application is before the Land Commission. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual to get no supportive information from a regional district. Consideration is given, and this is to what I was referring. Perhaps it should be mandatory in some way that regional districts and/or municipalities submit a report to the Land Commission, that they be compelled in some way to give an opinion, to provide some advice and consideration.

Unfortunately, the regional districts throughout the province are very inconsistent in their responses. As an example, there could be a regional district which will automatically pass along an application. Others refuse steadfastly, and still others try to do a very straightforward, legitimate job of providing very much needed information. That was the reference to which I spoke with Miss Hughes.

Many, many, many thoughts have been considered. At that time, perhaps 35 to 40 amendments were being considered, many of them minor. The appeal procedure, perhaps, needs to be investigated in that the Land Commission is very often bogged down with a tremendous number of appeals. We're looking to see if we can't perhaps streamline the process somewhat.

MR. SKELLY: But the minister is not considering, at this point, turning over the appeal procedure to the

[ Page 1598 ]

regional districts, rather than leaving it with the Land Commission.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly that could be part of any legislation that could come before the House, but it was not my intent at that time when I spoke with Miss Hughes, nor have I made a statement that the decision should be with the regional districts or municipalities. That has not been my intent from the beginning, though.

Vote 90 approved.

On vote 91: building occupancy charges, $2,294, 118.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to give the House an indication of how much rental accommodation his department occupies is rented directly from the private sector. How much is occupied in government-owned buildings, and what is the rental rate payable on both that rented from the private sector and that occupied in Crown-owned buildings? I would like an indication of the cost per square foot of both, if the minister could give it to me. Perhaps he could just indicate how this figure was arrived at.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I do not have those specific details with me at this time. I would be more than pleased to have my comptroller r e search that and provide the information to you very specifically. I just don't have those tables or figures.

MR. KING: Fine. I'd appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is quite a large sum of money within the departmental budget and I would like to have that information. I wonder, though, if the minister could tell me whether or not this figure was developed by his department or if this was a figure submitted to him by the Department of Public Works.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The figure was provided us by Public Works, and our comptroller discussed it with them and developed it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm wondering if the figure included under vote 91 includes rental on the minister's office in the legislative buildings. Is that part of the figure?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, yes.

MR. SKELLY: I wonder how much it costs us? Will there be under vote 1, Mr. Chairman, a figure to rent the Legislative Assembly from the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not under the administration of this minister.

Vote 91 approved.

On vote 92: computer and consulting charges, $726,000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like an indication from the minister on the breakdown of this figure also. I understand that his ministry will be renting computer services from the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications, I believe. If that is the case, how was this figure arrived at? Was it a requisition for a precise number of hours submitted by the Ministry of the Environment, or is this a general breakdown by the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications of the total cost of administering the computers and an assessment arbitrarily extended to each and every ministry of the government?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It's a sham!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, my comptroller advises me that the persons responsible for the computer services and our department each conducted an investigation into the relative costs for services and the figures achieved by both were very, very similar. But as far as specific detail, I could respond as I did with the previous question. Certainly I would be able to have this researched and provide the information for you very specifically. We just don't have that breakdown before us right now.

MR. KING: Would the minister undertake to provide that information to me, please?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

Vote 92 approved.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. First of all I want to get back, very briefly, to the suggestion I made to the Premier the other day with respect to interprovincial negotiations, or whatever they might be called, on Pacific Western Airlines. I suggested at that time that should the eventuality arise that the Canadian Transportation Commission does not see fit to prohibit the move of the head office from Vancouver, British Columbia should apply to have the British Columbia routes of PWA

[ Page 1599 ]

severed from that company and taken up by British Columbia-headquartered operating companies.

I just want to draw to the Premier's attention an article in the newspaper earlier on this week quoting the president of PWA. He said: "We have an application in for a service between Prince George and Vancouver and on to Victoria, and we are looking at other possible new services in B.C., Alberta and the NWT, although we have yet to make applications on them to the CTC." Mr. Chairman, those are precise examples of the kinds of areas where British Columbia might well intervene if, by any chance, that head office is successfully stolen by the action of another province from our jurisdiction.

I want to make one other brief point to the Premier before we complete his estimates, and that is in his capacity as the senior custodian of our democratic institutions, which he is by virtue of having the highest office in this Legislature and in this province. Every Premier should leave his mark, in one way or another, on our structure of democratic' institutions. I think the former government certainly did that. I'll congratulate them on their introduction of a question period in the Legislature; on their expansion of Hansard to being a full service, complete and immediate; and in the build-up of staff to the various parties of the House. All of these things were important for our democratic institutions.

I want, Mr. Chairman, to suggest to the Premier a way in which he might leave his mark in this area, a way that would be equally, if perhaps not more, effective, and that is a deliberate attempt to expand and vitalize the committee procedures of this House ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: ... not simply while the Legislature is sitting, but throughout the year. We are paid as full-time MLAs and I think we would wish to contribute all year even if, for reasons of its own, the government only chooses to have the Legislature sit for a portion thereof.

I just want to outline some of the sorts of things that could be examined by committee work, I think to the benefit of the government as well as the opposition, and, above all, to the benefit of the people of this province. I'll go through a few of the portfolios.

In Economic Development - and the minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is sitting here today - a committee could look at the opportunity for British Columbia in the whole field of undersea mining, which I think is the next frontier for mining in this province.

In the Ministry of Forests, a committee could be commissioned to look at the vexatious question of the quota system, which I fear the recommendations of the Pearse report have far from resolved.

In the Energy portfolio, we could and should have a committee investigate British Columbia Hydro, just as the Ontario Legislature has investigated their Hydro corporation by a Legislative committee very recently.

In Agriculture, we don't seem to be having a royal commission on the price of food coming along but we could at least have a legislative committee looking into marketing boards, the legitimate concerns of the farmer and the legitimate grievances of the consumer in that regard.

With respect to Labour, how useful it would be to have a committee as a sounding board on many of the positive ideas now going around for improvements in labour relations and industrial democracy in this province.

In terms of the department of the Provincial Secretary, we should have in British Columbia the kind of committee that there is in other jurisdictions - a committee on statutory instruments, a standing committee of the House that examines every order made pursuant to regulatory authority granted by this House. It is to make certain that it is consonant with the law and the spirit of the legislation, because from time to time regulations that are not so constraint do slip through and they can sometimes impinge improperly on individual rights.

In terms of Health, we should have a committee to look at the question of the UBC hospital.

In terms of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we should have a committee into how we improve the status, for example, of liquor education in this province.

In the Department of Municipal Affairs, how useful it would be to have an examination of municipal finance, particularly in view of the avowed wish of the government to extend decentralization in the administration of British Columbia's affairs.

In the Department of Education, the whole question of the role of universities in our community, which has been rather sensationalized in the newspapers of recent days but is of abiding and underlying concern as well, could very productively be examined by a committee of this House.

In terms of the Department of Finance, how useful it would be to have a committee looking at the question of performance-auditing criteria as they're being developed by the Treasury Board, so that we can genuinely see how efficiently the public funds are being applied.

In the department of the Attorney-General, there should be a committee to hear ideas on the problems of juveniles in our society, which has been a problem that has escaped the solution of many of the best minds and expenditures of money for many years. There are things to be heard there, grievances from citizens around this province. Of course, I believe we

[ Page 1600 ]

need a committee charged with the oversight of Crown corporations. They are too little known and investigated and, in the case of B.C. Hydro, completely out of control.

So, Mr. Chairman, I make this plea because I think the citizens deserve to get all that they can out of this Legislature, to see it work as effectively on their behalf as it can and to see it, when possible, work in a co-operative rather than confrontation mode. This is not possible in many of the things on which there are serious differences but on many of the questions of public interest in this province members of this House can agree and can work together to try and find solutions.

I can tell the Premier that the committee to select an auditor-general is working exactly that way. I can recall to his attention the education committee that looked into collective bargaining in the public school system during the term of the last Legislature. It was another such, committee that was able to work in co-operation, bring forward constructive solutions and, in some cases, take the heat out of a pretty vexing question and find that there was common ground that the government and all of the House could stand on.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not expecting the Premier to stand up now and say he's going to revolutionize the Legislature overnight and call 10 committees tomorrow, but I ask him, as the highest single custodian of our democratic institutions in this province, to put that in his mind - I'm sure it's there already - and give it the most sympathetic consideration.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to just say that I agree with the last speaker in terms of the committee system. I've long felt that members of the Legislature should be put to work at solving in a constructive way some of the very hard problems out there in society and that we should be full-time MLAs. There is a vast reservoir of talent - it's hard to recognize it sometimes - sitting in this Legislative Assembly that should be working through the year. You know, they should be looking at our provincial institutions like the jails. I'm not going to make a full-blown speech about the committee system, but I've long believed that it does eliminate the partisan aspect to a very great extent. Instead of that we come back into the confrontation and the partisan debate in this House, and that's about the sum total at the present time of an MLA's duties. That's a mistake.

The Premier's estimates have been here a very long time and they're getting a little tiresome, I must say, Mr. Chairman. The Premier said: "Well, where have we been? This is the third or fourth day." I think that the Premier could quickly wind up his estimates. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: By resigning.

MR. MACDONALD: No. He could do it not by resigning, but by answering two nagging questions that are not very big in scope or size. But the Premier won't answer. One is the question of the Dan Campbell thing in his office, and the other is the Weeks thing in his office. And if a minister of the Crown -, particularly the First Minister - doesn't come before a Legislative Assembly prepared to fully explain the workings and the operations of his own office, he could expect his estimates to go on for weeks.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No. But I'm serious. I think the estimates would be quickly over. I think everybody in the House would agree that the full candid explanation of questions of that kind which are so obviously in order would certainly shorten the estimates.

I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, very briefly that the Premier presents himself as a populist, a man who is looking to continue the services to the people of the former NDP government. I want to ask him about what he will do in terms of some of those services which are being supported by words in the throne speech, the budget and so forth but which are being denied the funds that enable them to live.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: The one I'm thinking about, of course, at the moment is legal-aid services, which are pretty close to my heart and which are going to take a dive in September, even though it has the supposed support of the government, simply because they have been budgeted with funds that are going to last only until September of this year - after that, nothing. They've pared it to the bone.

We have wives going into family court to fight with a husband before the judge over, say, the custody of a child, and the husband comes in with a Philadelphia lawyer. It isn't fair that one should be represented and one shouldn't. We have native Indian people in this province going to jail in greater numbers than in proportion to their ethnic numbers because they have not got adequate legal aid.

Some people in the back benches there think the Premier is some kind of a raving socialist radical, and he presents himself as a populist. But how can he present programmes, and say, "we're for them, " and see them undercut? I ask the Premier, because this is a crisis situation, whether he'll consider bringing in supplemental estimates to the legal-aid vote.

I'm getting a little bit out of order when I talk in detail, but in terms of these programmes which you support vocally but which are subject to fiscal attrition, what do you do when you're the Premier of

[ Page 1601 ]

the province? Surely you must step in, if your words mean anything, and give the necessary support to these programmes that are dying on the vine right now - particularly legal services. That's a great tragedy. We've gone back to the days of one law for the rich, one for the poor. That's not good enough.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on one or two matters that the Premier touched on earlier, particularly expropriation. He gave the very good news the other day that he accepts the fact that expropriation powers have been too readily placed in legislation and that he plans to delete them. I just want to recall for the Premier that the Law Reform Commission in 1970, under the chairmanship of that very excellent Conservative, Davie Fulton, who is now a judge in this province, brought out an excellent report on expropriation which was rather lightly studied by a committee of this House.

I remember being somewhat stunned at the discussion because several members around the table felt that the report made recommendations which went too far in trying to protect the rights of the individual. It seemed to me that the main reason that we had a Law Reform Commission studying expropriation was because the weight of big government seemed to be very much a danger to the individual. That was the whole reason to have the study, and it was interesting that several members of the Legislature felt that the recommendations went too far.

At any rate, be that as it may, there was nothing done about it. That was "1971 that the all-party committee of the House studied this excellent report.

There has been a lot of discussion in this House about expropriation, and a lot of criticism. We're always hearing about the ruthless way in which B.C. Hydro appears to use its expropriation powers. I don't want to get into a long debate on that per se, but the

Premier did acknowledge the other day that he did want to have a different approach on this whole subject of expropriation. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked if B.C. Hydro might lose some of its powers. The Premier responded that at least the whole situation was to be reviewed. Are we going to do it through an all-party committee of the House based on the 1971 report, or does the Premier feel that the information in the report can adequately be studied perhaps by a committee of cabinet which will come back with recommendations to this government?

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) a moment ago talked about a greater need to utilize committee function. Much as I respect the judgment of the Liberal leader, I feel that the committee system we already have is such a farce that to talk about having more committees leaves me completely unimpressed, f not opposed to the idea. I can remember that with [illegible] in this House I travelled in the province in the summer of 1973 and the material we were discussing was absolutely relevant. We were studying the ways and means by which elderly people could receive the are they needed in their own homes, or at least the ways in which we could provide the best kind of care, hot of abusing acute-care facilities. That committee id an excellent job, and came up with what I think was an excellent report. The government of that day must sat on the report and did nothing.

So before this House tries to persuade the Premier hat he should implement a profusion of committees, would like to think that we could, first of all, try to make the committees that are in existence effective. f a committee does a job and comes up with recommendations, it completely neutralizes the purpose of such a committee if nothing is done about he recommendations. So while I'm suggesting that maybe an all-party committee on the subject of expropriation would be a good idea, it would have to be on the condition that the government give some clear commitment at the outset that it will act on the ultimate recommendations of such a committee.

It may be, as I recall, that the NDP government of he day gave a commitment to bring in an expropriation Act. Perhaps the former Attorney-General, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , could help us out in this little discussion by telling us to what degree that government had gone down the road of bringing in such legislation. All parties on the election platform talked about protecting individual rights, and I think it’s an absolutely valid and very important issue. But again, it's just words if the government gets into power and then doesn't do something about the issues such as expropriation.

I wonder, on the same general area, if the Premier s satisfied that the individual really can get access to government on matters that truly and sincerely affect he individual. I just received a letter a few days ago from a resident in my riding, and I'll quote the example. He went into the liquor store and he wanted o find out the value of the sales of liquor for a certain period of time - not broken down by brand or brand name or anything. He just wanted to know how much the gross value of the sales was in that particular store in that month, I guess. He was told that there was no way he could get that information and that it was contrary to Liquor Board orders to give out that kind of information to an inquiring member of the public.

That's just a quick, simple example of this question of whether we don't have too much government and too many rules and regulations which, when you look at them logically on their own, have really not that much purpose in them, particularly when we're dealing with something which

[ Page 1602 ]

is public business and where the information isn't going to change the world, or change the government, or really change very much. It does give the individual some reassurance if he can have ready access to public information, particularly about money, where that individual is contributing, usually, through taxes or otherwise, to the provision of revenue for the government.

These are some of the areas in relation to individual rights that I'd like to hear the Premier comment about, particularly expropriation and the ready availability of information to individuals.

I could just quickly say also that while I'm not impressed by the idea of having more committees, I think the whole degree to which the Premier and his government could have consultant advice should not be confused or distorted because of the current controversy at out universities. I have no intent of getting into a debate on that, but I do feel from talking particularly to two of the university presidents that there is a tremendous pool of expertise and talent in our universities which perhaps is underused rather than overused. The mechanism by which the remuneration should be provided is another issue altogether.

I agree entirely that there have to be some checks and balances in that regard. But the fact that our university teachers do spend a substantial amount of their time on research, and that's a fundamental and essential function of universities.... It would seem that surely the government - any government, not just this one - needs all the help it can get in the kind of rapidly changing world that we talked about last night where technology and social forces and all other kinds of influences are changing not only the very role of government but the demands that are placed on government. We're getting such big governments because so many people seem to turn to the government for all their solutions. I don't believe that that is the best way to go, but nevertheless the government is frequently faced with problems, whether it be changes in the ferry system.... I notice the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) is listening very carefully.

The government chose to abolish the Institute for Economic Policy Analysis by repealing legislation. I think it could have gone on to fill a very useful role in providing objective, skilled information and ideas about some of these areas that cause the government so much difficulty. If that is now no longer in existence, I still think that the government and the Premier could show great leadership in realizing by their example that there is a tremendous fund of expertise and information and knowledge in our university faculties. Just because at the present time there appears to be a laxity as to how the remuneration is decided, I think it would by tragic if for some reason these university teachers who could help the government so much by providing objective analysis were to be blackballed or ignored, or if there was some kind of unofficial government policy that we had better not use university staff as consultants.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , I gather, has already circulated the memo which suggests that at the very least there shouldn't be double funding. As I say, that issue has merit in itself. But I hope that this conscientious attempt by the government in regard to the financing of work done by university staffs doesn't spill over into some kind of anti-university campaign and that government feels that when they want to study a certain problem, whether it be resource development or transportation or whatever, right off the bat they must be very careful and defensive about using university staff.

The last question I would like to ask the Premier is a specific in relation to his vote. I notice that the press secretary has been moved to a different slot in his vote and it isn't numbered, so I can't define exactly where it is. But about halfway down the Premier's office vote, the press secretary is not shown to have any salary and then, lower down, the press secretary is reported in the coming fiscal year as receiving $28,860. Higher up, the previous press secretary is listed at $19,500. From $19,500 to $28,860 is quite a jump. I'd just like to ask the Premier: is that the same press secretary? Why does it show up in this changed way in the vote? If he's been given all of this extra money, has he been given extra duties?

The other question relates somewhat similarly to the title of communications planning adviser, who is to be paid $36,432. Now apparently there was no such position at this time last year and the same questions apply. I would like to know just exactly what the communications planning adviser should be doing to earn $36,000. Has that person been appointed? If he or she has been appointed, who is it?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'd just like to have the Premier tell us what the job involves. It's a new job. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) interjects that it's public knowledge as to who this person is. It just must be one of the few details, Mr. Minister, that I'm not acquainted with about the government. I'm not trying to be facetious, but I'd like to know just what this person is doing to earn $36,000 a year.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Dealing with the last topics first, there never was a press secretary hired under the vote last year. There had been a press secretary in the previous administration under that category. For estimate purposes, positions 'Were put in as closely as they related to the previous

[ Page 1603 ]

administration when we came to provide a correlation of the press services of government. There's more than the Premier's office; it's of the executive council.

The new press theatre also takes some additional management over and above the press releases from government and the correlation of press releases from government. What we did do was transfer within the service an already-employed public servant who was working in the Education ministry. We took the present salary that was already being paid by Education and upgraded it one step within the steps, of the public service. That's how that salary was arrived at. That person was hired by the last government to work in Education. The activities go far beyond the role as it was interpreted by the former press secretary in the last government. There's additional responsibility and it's done on an entirely different basis.

The job of communications and planning adviser was a recommendation that came out of a report to government to consolidate advertising and government information. It goes beyond just that facility. It's also trying to bring some efficiency to government services. I am ' pleased to say that this office has already brought some consolidation to the Queen's Printer where there has been upgrading and use of modern printing techniques and more efficient machinery. The negotiation has been on with the unions because of the recommendations of this office. I understand they are substantially completed now and it will mean cash savings for the government. It will also give us a more efficient Queen's Printer public printing service. Over and above that, all of the departments under various governments have carried out for years advertising programmes to do with services to people, whether it's....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

Whether it's an obvious one such as the one agriculture has carried on for some years about "Buy B.C.", or whether it's Human Resources advertising a new programme or a new set of rates for people.... You can't just look at advertising in its most basically understood way, which is print, newspaper, television and radio, but also the type of information brochures that the government turns out to make government programmes more readily understood by people. From the Brown report which set up this position, some of the ways other governments in Canada were carrying out the presentation of their information services, even by a proper directory that is available to people.... How they could contact departments of government was identified and these works are now in the process of being completed. All of it is geared to make government services - not government itself, not the political side - more accessible and understandable to the people of the province.

I go home to my constituency as many weekends as I can and slate appointments with constituents all day so they can have access to their MLA. A large number of those appointments deal with services that we take for granted that the public knows about -how to get the certain pension cheque, how to apply or to receive service. It's unfortunate, but a large number of people are confused by bureaucracy. They have trouble dealing with government; they don't know where to go. As an MLA, I find - I guess all members of this House do - that a large part of my time is spent in steering them through the maze of bureaucracy and helping to make it easier. It's not the big issues that my constituents or the people come to you on. It's the issues that affect them in a very personal way. If we can make that easier through some of the ways in which this department works, it's money well spent. The obvious savings will be a lesser budget on advertising.

Earlier in my estimates, I did mention that we are putting all advertising out for competition. Now that is not just for price but also for style and content. Many of the agencies and government departments that use outside agencies where a lot of the creative people are - because we're not going to build up a big bureaucracy in government - now have an opportunity to bring their skills to making government more understandable and available to people.

Some of the other moves that have been implemented by this communication planning adviser have been the rationalization and purchase and use of copying machines, audiovisual equipment and other phases of government communication process. I think the Brown report indicated that a large number of copy machines, duplicating machines and various leases were costing the government large sums of money. I don't have the figures in front of me but that report is available. It showed an obvious need to consolidate and correlate these figures so that we could provide better service at less cost to the taxpayer.

I'm well pleased with the progress made to date by this position working in the executive council. It also correlates announcements between departments and it's amazing how many announcements there are. Various ministers from any government will realize the need to correlate announcements, sometimes between Health and Human Resources or Labour, where they touch on a similar programme. That is done also.

They're also working on the little things - a new phone directory with names of individuals, not just titles. This could make professional public servants, whose names are quite often available, more available

[ Page 1604 ]

to the public so they know who they're talking to and who they can call. These aren't the political names; these are the people who will be continuing in what is a professional public service. There are a million ways of trying to make government a little more accessible to the people.

Now the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned PWA. We've discussed that extensively in this Legislature during my estimates and the moves that this government has carried out on behalf of the people of B.C. to protect their interests when a major regional air carrier can be purchased and manipulated to the detriment of our people. That's not taking into account the fact that direct jobs may be lost in this province. But the biggest loss would be the jobs that would be there in the future as the economic thrust of this airline goes north to the Yukon and into the territories and in competition with our northern cities - Prince George vs. Edmonton. One of the sole reasons being advanced by the government of Alberta in taking over this airline was to effect this type of economic planning. Their minister has said it in the House.

At all times, in making our complaints known through the legal process, we first tried to get the co-operation of the government of Alberta. Both governments represent our people and we're all Canadians. But as in all things, there's competition, I suppose, between governments. There always will be some competition between areas in some way. In this way we feel it's not in the Canadian interest and it's not the Canadian way. We've opposed it.

I disagree with the Liberal leader, who suggests that where PWA, as a regional carrier, has application for routes to bring service to certain areas in this province, we should oppose them. The whole purpose of PWA and our wanting PWA to continue in an unbiased way is to provide service to our people and bring air service to these communities of British Columbia. To go out and injure our people and prevent a service being given to them is the very thing that the whole PWA fight is about. I can't see making the people of B.C. the further victims of a PWA takeover by making them victims of what we fear -and that is helping to prevent service being offered to them. What we want is a fair allocation and provision of service on economic and people needs in various communities. That's what we fear when a regional airline can be controlled by one government for its own benefit, never taking into consideration the greater good and the logical expansion.

We have a number of third-level carriers in British Columbia now that need support. This government is already working with them to help them provide additional service and to move into areas and provide service. Some of the discussions I've had with the federal minister were on that very line.

When we were talking about ferry service along the British Columbia coast, we also made a plea for a better air service. Passenger service to a greater degree - especially from remote communities, when we're dealing in very long distances - will be done more and more by air. This is a precious commodity and people want to move quickly. If British Columbia is underserviced in one very major area, it's in airports in remote communities. All of us who have had the opportunity to travel the province, as politicians will, have come to know the very poor facilities and transportation access that many of our people are forced to live with.

If the federal government doesn't meet its commitment in the future and if we can develop the economy and the dollars are made to help build that economy, the province itself may consider taking a look at doing something in the area of air transportation or in airport facilities. That's going to be a growing way of transporting our people.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano made a strong plea for multiple-use of a lot of legislative committees. I can only say that the government has standing committees. Committees have been used with varying success in the past. Committees will be challenged in the future.

However, I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they've conducted themselves so far. I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy. I think it's something that's going to have to be earned.

The member made a strong plea for giving the Legislature a stronger role, making it more relevant and a better place. But that responsibility certainly has to start with the members. Without chastising the House, because we all must be guilty as members of the House, the House has not shown itself to the people of B.C. to be a very worthy place in these last few years in British Columbia.

One thing did disturb me about the member because there was another alternative that he didn't suggest. He said that the members of the Legislature are paid as full-time members but they're not earning their pay; they're not used. He suggested that in fact we should be looking for work for members of the Legislature. The other alternative is that if they're not prepared to work perhaps this Legislature should be looking at the other suggestion - that is, cutting our salaries. If we're not working a full year, perhaps we should only be paid for half a year and go back to the single-session pay that most legislatures work on. We're one of the unique legislatures that are paid in a very unique way. I'll certainly accept his suggestion that many members don't feel they're working full time. One of the options may be for the Legislature to consider that perhaps MLAs are

[ Page 1605 ]

overpaid.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think it was the member for Vancouver East who talked about the government having an obligation of services to people and some programmes that he felt were threatened. The time to bring those programmes up, which are really detailed parts of ministers' estimates, is with other ministers. But in a very broad way he suggested we may bring in supplemental estimates. For that we would have to have supplemental income.

The budget at the beginning of the year is allocated as best we can to estimate the needs of the year within the framework of the dollars that can be made available by the taxpayers. The budget we're dealing with in the year we're in has been shown to be calculated very closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very closely.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It has been calculated to be, and will be, within I or 2 per cent in both estimates and expenditures. As such, you're running very close to the line ...

MR. MACDONALD: Close to the bottom line, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What we've done as government is attempt to improve the way services are provided, and the cost of those services, so that most of the money can get to the people where services are needed. Probably we will disagree with members opposite, but I believe we have a dual responsibility to the people of B.C., both as recipients of services and as the people who also pay for those services.

We have a responsibility to use their money wisely. As efficiencies are effected, as they are being done, and as the economy improves, then we will have more dollars to expend on certain services. This government will continually expand on services to people, whether they're in the area of income support, or whether they're in health, or whether they're in direct services or the rights of the individual, or whether they're in education services.

I must say that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked about the rights of individuals, and we have moved in a significant way to guarantee those rights. He mentioned as one of the shining examples of a committee that's working the committee on the selection of the auditor-general. Last year we had a bill for an ombudsman. This will be reintroduced with improvements. I must say that one of the wisest things that was done was to wait until the ombudsmen's convention in Alberta, which was held, late last year, could be attended because some improvements and some technical improvements will be made to the bill that's forthcoming in this Legislature.

There again, that will use an all-party committee to select a person for what is a very sensitive area, such as the auditor-general. It's one area that must be not only above politics but also they must have the unanimous confidence of all parties and members of the House and the people of B.C. Their ability to chastise government for not performing, or on the manner in which they perform, must be without question. We have moved, and are moving, in guaranteeing the rights of people to know through an auditor-general, and the rights of individuals to an ombudsman. We have already, in assessing expropriation, withdrawn, or will be withdrawing, through legislation that will be presented, the right of expropriation in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Expropriation, for all government and government agencies, is being re-examined in a general way.

It's possible, in an area such as this, for all of us to realize - and all of us may some day have the opportunity to be on both sides of the floor - that government needs the power to make things happen. It has to have the power to be able to govern and administer for the common good. It's that fine line where the individual rights are threatened and the common good is served that needs to be dealt with. The people that work in expropriation for B.C. Hydro are citizens like the rest of us. They're only dealing with money that is, in effect, public money. The more they pay, the higher the cost will be for Hydro, and they'll affect themselves in higher rates.

I don't think any one of them is hired because he has a whip and a chair. They're hired as people who have taken courses in appraisal and I think they attempt to deal fairly, within the law, like all of us. I have been in the position of being on the wrong end of threatened expropriation, and I know how injured you feel and how valuable things become when expropriation is by a public body or government is there.

One of the most extreme powers of expropriation is under the Water Act, and many things can be done under the Water Act to expropriate for irrigation systems, or water supply, or even to power affecting that supply. I can remember being in an expropriation proceeding dealing with the provision of power to a water supply. The way they would place the poles would have affected a farming operation. But they won and you had no power. It was very disheartening in what was already a marginal operation in agriculture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Member, I can't give you the solution while it's being studied, but the first

[ Page 1606 ]

step was the obvious lack of need for expropriation in the B.C. Buildings' Corporation. There may be exclusions, and then a redefinition developed, or information on how it should be done, brought to this House some time. I can only say that it's under consideration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member made a suggestion. I'll accept the suggestion as a suggestion -as I listen to all suggestions in the House - and consider his suggestion.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made some reference to information available and the public's right to know. He mentioned a problem with someone wanting to know some information on the number of liquors in the liquor store. There comes a point in government as to how much information is necessary, and how much cost of gathering and making available of information puts an undue cost on the taxpayer. Now I think the right to know should be there on very important things, but there is information available that's provided in year-end reviews and statistical data that's provided later. To keep the type of staff and the number of people to provide all of the things you ever wanted to know -and more - about government.... That could go into all sorts of funny little areas and would defeat what most governments and most legislators are trying to do, and that's to try to provide some efficient government without undue cost. We could fill the rolls, I'm sure. We've found lots of people who want to count and keep all sorts of data, but it's amazing that a lot of the information we collect now isn't asked for and isn't used. It's striking a balance there.

The member also mentioned the use of technical advice or expertise that's available to government, whether they work in the university or in the private sector in technical jobs. Governments today must use outside facilities and outside information. We couldn't afford to hire, on a continuing basis, all of the experts that government or Crown corporations must use in the development of the day-to-day business of the people. It allows us to use or make available greater competency at less cost, although rates for a particular short time sometimes seem high to the people. You're buying the knowledge of years of experience and training that are necessary for government. Government today isn't as easy or as simplistic as it was. We're dealing in a highly technical age. In many areas of government, the politicians and the continuing managers in government must have this type of advice to be able to make rational decisions.

However, I've got to say that I agree with what's going on now. It's a good public discussion. Shall people be paid two salaries when they're on the public purse? I know that when we hired a new chairman of Hydro who had a pension, he had to forego the pension while he's the Hydro chairman in British Columbia. He doesn't collect a double salary. This was understood when he was hired, even though that pension is from the private sector. It was understood that he wouldn't collect two salaries.

I would hope that this discussion will lead to a better setting of rules and recommendations on how government and Crown corporations should use people from all sectors, private or academic. I think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) defined it, and I think it was defined by the president i of UBC, Dr. Kenny: governments are partly to blame by going directly to the individual rather than going through the university to ask for the help and the expertise of an individual. So this could be controlled or some policy developed.

Those are most of the questions, Mr. Chairman.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I raised a couple of questions earlier on in the Premier's estimates, and I'm wondering whether he'd be now willing to give a response to them at this time.

One had to do with our increased trade with the government of Chile at a time when all of the world is censuring that country for its clear violation of human rights.

The second question had to do with our replacing of South African wines on the government liquor store shelves, thus withdrawing the statement we were making to the world about our disapproval of the way in which that government certainly was treating its black majority.

A third point which I'd like to raise and ask the Premier if he would give me some guidance on has to do with our constituency secretaries. Would the Premier state whether he has any plans at all for increasing the very poor salaries which those constituency secretaries receive? In speaking on the budget debate I pointed out to him that a number of those secretaries are sole-support parents and that they have not received any increase in over two years. I would appreciate it if the Premier would indicate whether he's aware of this and, now that it has been brought to his attention, whether he would have any intention of increasing their salaries either within this budget or certainly within the very near future.

My final point, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the decision to terminate the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries Fund as well as the world food fund, and whether these funds are going to be reinstated in the budget or whether this is now a decision of the government not to use any of its resources to aid those parts of the world that are less endowed than we are, certainly in terms of the matter

[ Page 1607 ]

of food.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, agriculture should really be brought up in the minister's estimates, but I just would like to assure you, in a policy way, that the government isn't about to disregard an obligation I'm sure British Columbians feel for parts of the world which feel disaster and/or need aid from time to time.

This province has tried to build up a viable agricultural industry, and when we're dealing with aid to areas we have surpluses in our own farmers' hands that should be designated. I'm thinking of designating things we have - not dollar bills, but things we have that our people produce that in fact are in surplus from time to time. You only have to see the problem of the marketing boards and the quotas we have on our own people in agriculture to see. that we should be shipping some of these products when we're going to provide aid.

A policy of the government is that we will make these decisions from time to time as they come up by need and by case, and the policy will be then to use products of British Columbia. In most cases we're sending food - which is why it's been under Agriculture - to areas in which food is needed. We have those products many times in surplus. It helps us to deal in two areas at once - that is, to solve a problem of our own people with surplus and to meet the needs of people around the world. What we're doing is that we're not going through that medium of exchange called money; we're sending the commodity directly that we have in surplus and can provide aid in that way.

Secondly, the member mentions constituency secretaries' salaries - she must have been talking to my constituency secretary. It's not in the budget this year. Treasury Board hasn't authorized any change for this year so I presume there will be no change this year. The member has made a suggestion, and I know that it was brought up to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , who is chairman of Treasury Board. I'm sure he has it for discussion for provision in next year's estimates. That's all I can say. I can't give the member any other assurance. I know the Minister of Finance is a fair man and probably listened to her eloquent plea and will include it in discussions in the preparation of next year's estimates.

One area on which I'm going to disagree with the member is on the provincial government involving itself in the diplomatic area. There's a debate going on about the role of the country and the federal government. One of the things the country does well is in diplomatic relations and its relationship with other countries and other people. It's never been conducted on a provincial basis; it's been conducted on a federal basis. As such, in areas where we're unhappy individually or collectively with a style of government, if it's a dictatorship - no matter if it's popularly called the left or the right - that is unfavourable, I count on representations and the good judgment of the Canadian government and the diplomatic corps to make the necessary sanctions if they're needed.

What we do have available to our people, because the province is involved in trade under trade agreements and opportunities that are available and are arranged or allowed by the government of Canada, is the greatest right of sanction in terms of an individual choice every day as to whether they use products from countries in which they oppose the actions of the government of the day - not the people, but the government of the day. They can make that choice.

In the case of the Liquor Board, as you know, they are having a sale today - is that why everybody is leaving early? - of products that don't have the demand. The quickest way for an economic sanction to be shown is in that way. If enough individuals are not buying the product then it will not be carried. That's exactly what is taking place today in the Liquor Board. It's selling products which our people will not buy either through taste or preference or because they're in a very real way showing that they don't want to buy the product of a particular country because of its government. To me that is the highest possible opportunity and that's the freedom of individuals to make that choice and to show their feelings in this regard. Government can't take over all the opportunities for people - that's a matter of choice. It's a matter in which strong emotions and strong views can be expressed. I feel that within the framework of a country and within the framework of opportunities for the people, this is the way to go.

MS. BROWN: Actually, as far as South Africa is concerned, I was just calling on the government for some more leadership - that was all.

But in clarification on the agricultural aid to developing countries, Mr. Premier, I certainly agree with you that we should send surplus food. But what the agricultural aid did was to assist those countries to develop their own agricultural base so that they could feed themselves and not be so dependent on other countries for handouts. That was the basic difference between the two.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'm impressed that the Premier is choosing today to answer all of the technical questions that we're putting to him and disappointed that he refuses to answer the ethical questions. The man who hired Arthur Weeks is also the man who hired Dan Campbell. The ethical questions that he has declined to answer were put to him by the member for Vancouver East who asked

[ Page 1608 ]

what the Premier's position was, as a matter of public morality, on the sending by Mr. Campbell to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) a very curious list prepared by Mr. Klaus Ohlemann of that department. The Premier has refused consistently to answer those ethical questions.

To our considerable surprise, during the estimates of the Minister of the Environment, that learned and esteemed minister agreed that it was in fact unethical for Mr. Ohlemann to send this curious blacklist to Mr. Campbell, who works in the Premier's office, whose estimate vote we are debating at this moment.

The man who hired Arthur Weeks is also the man who hired Dan Campbell. Dan Campbell is the man who passed the list from Mr. Ohlemann to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment said that it was unethical for Mr. Ohlemann to pass the list to Mr. Campbell. Surely, then, it is also reasonable to presume that it is unethical for Mr. Campbell to have passed the list to the Minister of the Environment.

The esteemed and learned Minister of the Environment took the correct moral position when he said that it was improper for Mr. Ohlemann to have sent the blacklist to Mr. Campbell. Is it any less improper for Mr. Campbell to have sent it to the Minister of the Environment? The Premier, the man who hired Arthur Weeks, also refuses to take any kind of position whatever regarding the ethics of Mr. Campbell doing what he did. It's very disappointing that the man who hired Arthur Weeks refuses to comment on the gross lack of ethics demonstrated by Mr. Campbell, the man who passed the list.

It was this Premier, Mr. Chairman, who told us the confidence was coming back to the province of British Columbia. He said it was coming back to the mining industry; it was coming back to the forest industry; it was coming back to the tourism industry; it was coming back in person; it was coming back in spirit. Throughout the province we were seeing the return of confidence. In fact, it's not confidence that's come back; it's the confidence men. It's the confidence men who've come back to this province, Mr. Chairman. So we see scandal after scandal, land deal after land deal, speculation after speculation, ripoff after ripoff throughout the whole province of British Columbia under the spiritual leadership of the man who hired Arthur Weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must caution you to select more moderate language in your speech.

MR. BARBER: Spiritual leadership, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I could refer you to the words that you have used, but I think your conscience dictates them to you. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You guys are incredible.

Anyway, I have some sympathy for the man who hired Arthur Weeks, Mr. Chairman, because he tells us that his ministry is the cheapest per capita in the province. He also tells us that one of the problems that his government has is its failure to raise adequate revenues to produce the programmes that he'd like to produce. He also tells us that he thinks the unemployment figures in British Columbia are unacceptably high. We have sympathy with him because he doesn't have enough money in his vote in order to do the job he wants to do. We have concern for the unemployed, just as he does.

There is one particular area, however, of governmental activity that concerns me expressly, and it most certainly falls under the jurisdiction of the man who hired Arthur Weeks. I'm referring of course to the secret police. I'm referring to the secret police which, we are told by the man who hired Arthur Weeks, were created by the previous administration. I know that the Premier of this province is a truthful man; I know he is an ethical man; I know he would not for a moment even dream of making up stories to mislead the people of British Columbia. I know that when the man who hired Arthur Weeks went right around the province and told the people of British Columbia that the previous administration has created a secret police force, he was telling the truth. He's not a liar; he is not a dishonourable fellow. He was telling the truth, and we know that, in fact, because we believe he's an honourable man. The secret police were indeed put into place by the previous administration.

Now you know and I know, Mr. Chairman, that I raised this point last year under the estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . He declined to tell us where in his budget we could find the money for the secret police which the Premier, who is an honourable man, told the people of British Columbia had been created. Now there is a certain logical analysis that can be taken of the position that the man who hired Arthur Weeks has taken. First of all....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we refer to hon. members of this House either by their designation as far as constituency is concerned or their appointment in cabinet is concerned. Therefore if you are referring to an individual, you refer to him as the Premier, or if you're referring to the member for Prince Rupert, you refer to him as the member for Prince Rupert, not the man who did something or hired somebody.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Premier and the man who hired Arthur Weeks ran about the province of British Columbia....

[ Page 1609 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Pay some attention to the rules of the House at least!

MR. BARBER: I most certainly have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've drawn to this member's attention twice that he needs to select more moderate language which is characteristic of this House. I'll remind you this one more time.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure the Premier gets the message, and I'm sure you do too.

The Premier ran around this province telling the people that a secret police force had been created by the previous administration. The logic of his argument is very simple, and the reason he doesn't have enough money in his vote is because the secret police are siphoning off all the funds. It's a very simple and straightforward position.

The previous administration had in fact created a secret police force. That's the first position taken by the Premier. It's therefore reasonable enough to presume, Mr. Chairman, that when they came to power they would discover where the money was that was actually being spent by the secret police force. They would have discovered, upon entering office, how many guns had been bought and how many rifles had been bought. They would have found the warehouses and the storehouses where those were being kept. They would have told the people of British Columbia the address of those warehouses and storehouses and they would have told us how many guns and rifles were actually bought and how much money was mis-spent on them. They would have told us how many secret police were actually hired and how many secretaries they had and where their offices were. They would have told us everything about the operations of the secret police force, because they told us in the first place that the force had been created.

Therefore, having come to government, it is only reasonable to presume - because they said it so often - that they would uncover the existence of the secret police force and they would display it to the whole province for the whole province to see. Is that not a logical assumption, Mr. Chairman? Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, the Premier would have done this? Of course he would. He told us they were there. We know that he is now the Premier. We know that a responsible man who told the truth about the secret police would uncover and display and expose that truth to the people of British Columbia. We know he would do that because he's responsible and because he's truthful.

MR. WALLACE: Who said politics was logical?

MR. BARBER: This politician will try to be logical for a moment.

The third logical deduction one must make, Mr. Chairman, is this, and let me review it. The Premier, having told the people that there was a secret police force, was telling the truth because the Premier is not a liar. He's a truthful man. Secondly, having come to office he would uncover the existence of the secret police force. Because he was opposed to its existence in the first place, he would close it down and, in the process of doing so, he would expose its dastardly existence to the people of British Columbia for once and for all. Precisely because he has not done that, one can only presume that the secret police still exist. Precisely because he has not been able to demonstrate where the money was in the budget for them, one can only presume that the police force still exists and is still secretly siphoning funds on behalf of the Social Credit government to maintain its black order in the province of British Columbia.

Precisely because he has not disclosed the names and the numbers of the employees of the secret police force, we can only presume that they still exist, that the secret police are still doing their dark deeds. Is that not reasonable to assume, Mr. Chairman? He told us they were there and we knew that he was telling the truth because he wouldn't make up stories like that. This Premier wouldn't make up stories. Gosh, no! We know that because he was opposed to the secret police in the beginning he would uncover their fact once he took office, but because he hasn't done that I can only presume, innocently enough, that they're still there. Now the reason the Premier doesn't have enough money in his budget is....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Oh, it's not our embarrassment you should be worried about, Mr. Premier.

Let me continue, Mr. Chairman. Now one of the reasons that the Premier doesn't have enough money in his budget, and indeed that the revenues are not adequate to the job, is because somewhere, secretly hidden in the budget, lie the funds for the secret police force which the Premier told us was there all along and which must still be there because he hasn't told us that he's shut it down. So I have some questions for the Premier.

Would the Premier please tell us to what extent the 112,000 unemployed figure would be increased when he does today, as I know he will, stand up and say that he's finally decided he has to shut down the secret police force? To what extent will that unemployment figure be increased? Could he therefore tell us the systems of management and

[ Page 1610 ]

decision-making employed by the Premier's secret police? Whom do they report to? How do they make their decisions? What actions do they take?

We know that he wouldn't mislead the people when he told us the police were there. We know that he hasn't told us that he's uncovered them since he came to office. Therefore they must still be there. Will he tell us how many there are? How do they make their decisions? What's their system of management? To whom do they report and by what figure will the unemployment figure in British Columbia be increased when he stands in a few moments and discloses the fact that he's decided, finally, to close down the secret police?

I have some more questions, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier. Where, precisely, have the secret police been all along in the budget? What were the salaries - one by one, classification by classification - of the secret police? Where did he discover that the previous government had hidden the salaries and the expenses, the office and the overhead of the secret police force the Premier told us had been created by that administration?

Now I myself, Mr. Chairman, have done some calculations. By examining the statements on record of the Premier, examining the statements made by the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , I've discovered that this government has a budget of $1.279 million for the secret police force in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, hidden in the budget, for which this Premier is responsible, is the figure $1.279 million for the administration of the secret police force in the province of British Columbia.

That includes the guns which we were told had been purchased and which have since been replaced as well. That includes the rifles which we were also told had been purchased and which since have been replaced. It includes transportation and mileage; it includes office space and rentals. That includes xeroxes; that includes the kickback to the Department of Public Works for the rental of government office space; that includes the salaries; that includes the pensions; that includes the grant from the CIA.

Mr. Chairman, the figure I propose, actually provided by this Premier, shortly to be announced and confirmed by him, is $1.279 million. If, Mr. Chairman, the Premier should ask how this figure came to our attention, how indeed it was devised, I should reply that it was devised in the very same manner that the Premier devised the fact that we had created a secret police force. The very same way that this figure was developed is the way that the Premier used in order to uncover the existence of the secret police force. The methods are identical.

I hope the Premier will not stand up and disillusion the people of British Columbia. I hope that the Premier, who has made so many interesting appointments in his own office and in the offices of other ministers will not stand up and admit that all along it wasn't true. I hope that the Premier will not stand up and once more contradict the Provincial Secretary.

You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that he has contradicted her on numerous public occasion. The Provincial Secretary has contradicted the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) ; the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has contradicted the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . The coalition is falling apart, but I do hope that the Premier does not stand up and contradict the Deputy Premier and Provincial Secretary who, as aggressively as he, toured the province and told the people that the previous administration had created a secret force.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Surely he won't do that. I suppose we can anticipate that instead he will try and find a logical flaw in the arguments presented by this opposition.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I'm even more afraid to contradict the Provincial Secretary, judging from what we hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: So, Mr. Chairman, in order that the people not be disillusioned even further about the honour and integrity of this Premier and in order that the Premier maintain, as best he can, the image he presently has in the eyes of the people of British Columbia, I really urge him not to contradict everything that was said by himself and by the Provincial Secretary when they were in opposition. Let me repeat the very clear, the very simple, the very straightforward logic of this position. There is a budget of $1.279 million for the secret police. That figure was arrived at by the very same process that the Premier used to arrive at his conclusion that the secret police were created in the first place.

Secondly, the Premier and the Deputy Premier toured the province and said repeatedly that the force had been created. Precisely because they had not announced, once they took office, where the funds were, where the guns and the rifles were, where the staff was and where the offices were, we can only conclude that they're still there. They have not announced any of those things, Mr. Chairman. It is only reasonable to presume that they continue to use the secret police for the dark purposes of the coalition government. I hope that the Premier will

[ Page 1611 ]

not contradict the Deputy Premier, that the Premier will not embarrass himself and disillusion the people by admitting that all along it simply wasn't true, I hope he will not stand up and say there were no guns, there were no rifles, there were no secret police, the handcuffs weren't purchased and the billy clubs weren't purchased.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I hope the Premier doesn't disillusion us in that way. It would be a very sad day for the people of British Columbia to find out that all along someone over there wasn't telling the truth. It would be very sad to find out that all along the stories about the secret police were a hoax and a lie and a fiction to serve disgusting political purposes. It would be very sad to find out that all along there were no secret police. I desperately urge the Premier not to reveal the possibility that all along it was a fraud and a lie and a hoax. I hope he won't do that. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to his most interesting reply.

MR. SKELLY: In a response to a previous question, the Premier mentioned that it's not an obligation of the government but of individual departments to provide services, and that ordinarily we should direct our questions concerning services to individual departments. But I have a kind of a general question concerning the government response to a request for services that I'd like to direct to the Premier because it does involve intergovernmental relations, and it does involve a number of different departments.

I've mentioned this a few times in the House during question period, and that's the situation that exists at Good Hope Lake in the constituency of Atlin -just south of the Yukon border.

Last weekend, at the request of the United Native Nations, I went to visit Good Hope Lake to look at some of the conditions there. I also asked questions of the Attorney-General in the House previously about the Newton-Carlick case in that area, and about the housing situation in general in Good Hope Lake. I believe this is an appropriate question to be directed to the Premier because it covers a number of areas of government service, plus interrelationships between governments on the responsibility to provide services to status and non-status Indians.

First I'd like to give some background to the situation at Good Hope Lake. Back in 1973 the attention of the government was drawn to housing conditions and conditions of servicing for the Indians who had settled around a Highways department settlement at Good Hope Lake just south of the Yukon border.

I hope you're listening to this, Mr. Premier, because I think it's an important subject.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've heard it.

MR. SKELLY: In 1973, the attention of government was drawn to the fact that many people were living in that area in tents, that there were tremendous problems with lack of clothing, lack of services, alcoholism, hygiene problems, and this type of thing. At that time the government reacted quickly when the news media brought this to our attention, providing housing in the form of government trailers, mobile homes, and this type of thing.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, this is a part of it. I'm not referring to that case specifically, but it's part of a whole social question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't got a report.

M R. SKELLY: I understand that the Attorney-General has received the information and is looking into that case. I would rather leave that section of it up to the Attorney-General.

This is in terms of general services provided to the Indians in that area. Some are status Indians and therefore can be considered to come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But most of them are off-reserve and therefore entitled to services from the province.

As I said, the government of the day, in 1973, reacted to that situation by providing emergency supplies, emergency housing, and also took steps to establish some kind of long-term solution to the problems at Good Hope Lake by setting up funding for a transportation system which would be able to transport Indians living in that area between Good Hope Lake and Cassiar in order to buy groceries, in order to cash pension cheques, welfare cheques, this type of thing, in order to get access to-government services which were available in Cassiar or in Watson Lake - because, as I said, it's an intergovernmental jurisdiction. They also provided funds to the BCANSI local up there for a social worker aide, who would counsel the Indians and provide assistance to them in that area on welfare cheques, on which government to approach for services - this type of thing.

They also established an Indian community centre and a bath-house and a wash-house because none of the homes in that area had laundry facilities or washing facilities. Teachers had been complaining about the hygiene of children in that area. As a result, the BCANSI non-status Indian local was financed to provide those services. They got a van which would provide transportation for people into Cassiar. They purchased a house for $2,000 and began to develop a

[ Page 1612 ]

bath-house and laundry facilities for hygiene and clothing, and also they paid the expenses of a social worker aide in that area.

Possibly you could draw the Premier's attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that a debate is taking place in the House on his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Suddenly, in September, 1976, the funding for this organization was cut off. For a period of almost six months since then, no funding has been received. The problems have been exacerbated in that area. There has been no funding for a social worker aide. As a result there is none in that area, even though one is desperately required. The van has been taken out of service and, as a result, the Indians in that area have to rely on someone in the white community who charges them $25 a trip for the 20-mile trip into Cassiar. Also the same person provides liquor to the Indians and drives them into Cassiar at a cost of $25 or $30 a trip. Because of the absence of that van which was provided by the previous Minister of Human Resources, the transportation service is no longer available. As a result, they have to rely on a bootlegger to get trips into Cassiar to get needed government services.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name names.

MR. SKELLY: I believe it's in the report that the Attorney-General has in his possession, and he's looking into that matter as well, I hope.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure you've read the report.

But as a result they're forced to rely on someone other than themselves. These people were provided with financing to make them independent and to strengthen their community. Since December, 1976, that financing has been withdrawn. As a result these people have to rely on bootleggers. The hall that was set up to provide a bath-house and laundry facilities ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ... for the Indian children and Indian families....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I assist you? Hon. members of the House, the noise level is too high.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: The bath-house and laundry facilities that were set up and were under construction to provide laundry facilities and personal hygiene facilities for people in that area because their houses didn't have running water, has been closed down and boarded up again by the white community. I am asking the Premier - making an appeal to the Premier on behalf of the people who live in that area - to approach the various members of his cabinet to have funding restored to that non-status Indians' local - United Native Nations' local - in Good Hope Lake as quickly as possible. An assurance that the funding will be re-established as quickly as possible is needed so that they can proceed with the community development programmes that were underway and won't be forced to rely on people who have exploited them over the years in exchange for Family Allowance cheques, Welfare cheques and Old Age Pension cheques.

I'd like to describe some of the housing situations that I observed when I was up in Good Hope Lake last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. People are living in tents just south of the Yukon border - a family of seven people living in a tent, other families living in tents or trailers without windows or doors. This is about 60 miles south of the Yukon border. A family of five people - one woman with four children. The woman had pneumonia and I believe she was removed from the trailer that evening. She had to sleep in bed with a child in order to keep warm because there was no stove, no furnace, or no heating facilities in this trailer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, these specifics of this particular debate might perhaps be better discussed when the appropriate minister's vote comes. Generalities are acceptable.

MR. SKELLY: What I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the deplorable conditions that have persisted in that community since September, 1976, as a result of the fact that this government has cut off funding to a community, funding that was designed to improve the housing conditions for that community, the personal hygiene and laundry facilities for that community, and to give that Indian community some element of independence by providing them with a social worker aide and transportation facilities so that they could rely on themselves to provide....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member knows that it is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who has responsibility for Indian Affairs.

[ Page 1613 ]

MR. SKELLY: Now this is a difficult question. The Minister of Labour has no responsibility for Indian Affairs. It's divided between the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who in actual fact cut off the funding on the excuse that there was no accountability. Yet the people in that area say that books have been kept and the books were seized by the Department of Human Resources.

It's also possibly a responsibility of the Minister of Labour on general policy matters. Also there's an area where the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) becomes involved in questions of discrimination which have been alleged by the Indians against the police and the court system in that area.

Here's an example, Mr. Chairman, in the Newton-Carlick case. When he was taken to hospital in Cassiar he was injured, and pictures were taken of Mr. Carlick and the condition he was in. They went down to the RCMP....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're exercising a judgment here.

MR. SKELLY: No, not in this part of it. They went down to talk to the RCMP to ask them to take a statement from Mr. Carlick, and they refused. He was in the hospital for days in Cassiar and they refused to take a statement. The Indian court worker then took Mr. Carlick to the Yukon Territory where the RCMP did take a statement from him while he was in hospital. But they refused to do it while he was in the hospital at Cassiar.

So this is one example of another jurisdiction. This situation in Good Hope Lake, Mr. Chairman, crosses jurisdictions, so it is an area where the Premier should be involved and, as president of the executive council, should step in, call those ministers to attention, and say: "Here is a situation where there is a problem. It crosses jurisdictional lines; let's get a solution to that problem right away."

I asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for a report on the legal questions last week, and I'm sure he's working on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't got it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must encourage you to carry that debate on under the appropriate ministers, and I'm sure that the opportunity will come.

MR. SKELLY: I'll certainly do that.

Earlier this week I asked the Minister of Human Resources to look into his jurisdiction at Good Hope Lake where funding has been cut off since September of 1976. I'm sure the minister who's responsible now for the liquor administration branch should also be looking into certain allegations that have been made by the United Native Nations' local in that area.

But it is the Premier, as president of the executive council, who should be snapping these ministers to attention. An emergency situation exists in that community at Good Hope Lake and the Premier should make sure that those ministers responsible for providing those services do so as quickly as possible for the benefit of those people at Good Hope Lake. I hope that the Premier would give us some response to that request.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, without getting into the areas of ministerial responsibility, I accept the information the member for Alberni has provided the House. I appreciate the information that appears to be aimed at the ministers of Labour, Human Resources, and the Attorney-General, and I understand these areas are under review or under discussion. I'll certainly accept the suggestions he made and discuss it with the appropriate ministers.

MR. SKELLY: It's urgent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is gone. I wished to compliment him. He's able to do something that we in this party have never been able to do and that's to make the NDP benches blush. I congratulate him on his ability to do that.

Interjection.

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wish to say that he attributed statements to me which I have never made and I wish to correct them in this House. I have never gone around this province saying that there was a secret police. We identified most of the abuses of the last government as being right out in the open. Abuses to the rights of individuals were well documented and the voters recognized that. Also I would just like to remind him again that each minister is responsible for hiring their own staff, as I am, and ...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... I wish to correct him on that also.

MR. WALLACE: Regarding the activities and the efficiency of the Queen's Printer: I have had a person enquire already as to whether this will diminish the amount of work that would normally be available to private enterprises - printing and publishing firms. I was asked to inquire into that. The other point the Premier made was that he said all advertising is going

[ Page 1614 ]

to competition. Now does that mean that the government no longer has one agency who does the whole lot?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Two quick answers. No, the efficiency of the Queen's Printer were technological efficiencies to make the work they normally do for government more efficient. The opportunity for the private sector to bid on government work and provide services - all those opportunities are still there. The second question: Yes, there are a number of agencies - I believe at least 10 - that are now involved in doing work for various government departments. That will probably expand. But each particular job is put open to submission by various agencies, such as the advertising to which you responded so readily - that very efficient advertising campaign that caught your eye. It had to do with the transportation service across to the North Shore and you were one of the first to respond with a suggestion. It has caught the fancy of a lot of people of British Columbia.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'm a little surprised by the Premier trying to throw off the remarks of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) quite so readily. What is being said is that the Social Credit Party went throughout this province and lied to the people of British Columbia. They went out and deliberately lied. That's what happened. And now that, the politicians of the Social Credit party are in government they have an opportunity to tell British Columbia the truth.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): They're not taking the opportunity.

MR. LEA: The Social Credit Party went around this province and lied to the people of British Columbia. That's what they did. They can't shrug it off by trying to throw it back over this way. They -the Social Credit Party - went out and lied to the people of British Columbia. There's no two ways about it - they lied! Now stand up and tell us that we're not telling the truth. Just do that, because I'll tell you, we know that the~ Social Credit Party went throughout this province and lied, lied, lied, lied.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Behave yourself!

MR. LEA: That's what they did - they lied.

It's not good enough to sit back and say: "Now we're in government we won't even take a look and see whether there was some truth to what the Social Credit Party said." Everybody in this House knows that the Social Credit Party went out and lied -everybody knows it.

All we're asking for is a report to this House as to whether or not the Social Credit politicians found a secret police force and an arsenal full of guns and ammunition when they came to power. Did they find it or didn't they find it? Let's have a report on it, because the Social Credit Party went out and lied and lied and lied.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McGeer files answers to questions 63 and 64.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables the 1975-1976 annual report of the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables the Public Bodies Financial Information Act return from Simon Fraser University.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tables the report of the community law offices and legal aid societies in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at I p.m.

[ Page 1615 ]

APPENDIX

63 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. Have any commissions or committees been set up to provide input on the subject of post-secondary education and training?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, (a) what are the commissions or committees, (b) which ones have completed their reports, (c) will the reports be made public, and (d) what was the cost of each report?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"I. Yes.

"2. (a) A committee for Continuing and Community Education (Faris Committee) ; a commission on University Programs in Non-metropolitan Areas (Winegard Commission) ; a commission on Vocational, Technical and Trades training in British Columbia (Goard Commission) ; and a special consultant to the Government on the State of Research and Research Funding in British Columbia (Gaudry Report) .

(b) All committees have completed their reports, (c) yes, and (d) cost of each report as at January 31,1977 was as follows: Faris Report, $15,550.46; Winegard Report, $30,095.96; Goard Report was a public inquiry and not the responsibility of the Ministry of Education; and Gaudry Report, $22,747.96."

64 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following question:

How many foreign students with university student visas are enrolled at each of British Columbia's universities and other institutions of higher learning?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"The Ministry of Education does not maintain records of foreign students with university student visas enrolled in British Columbia universities or other institutions of higher learning."