[ Page 1691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Gibson –– 1691

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1692

Mr. King –– 1695

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1697

Mr. Barrett –– 1699

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1701

Mr. Gibson –– 1701

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1703

Mr. Lea –– 1703

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1705

Mr. Gibson –– 1706

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1706

Mr. Barnes –– 1706

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1707

Mr. Wallace –– 1708

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1711

Mr. Gibson –– 1712

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1712

Mr. Wallace –– 1712

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1713

Mrs. Dailly –– 1713

Ministry of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 23 1.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1713

Mr. Nicolson –– 1713

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Just before dinner I asked the Premier if he had any personal knowledge of secret talks between representatives of the mining industry and representatives of his government and he evaded the question very thoroughly.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got up and he said, "No."

MR. GIBSON: Well, no, he's not on the record as having said no, Mr. Member, that he had no personal knowledge. Or if he is, I would be glad to have him stand up and say so. Now that there has been a chance for the dinner hour to pass and perhaps for the Premier to update his knowledge, I'll just ask that question once again.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I think it would only be appropriate that the hon. Premier answer that one last question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: No, it hasn't been answered. Who called "Order"? I think that's not a very nice attack on the Premier to call the Premier to order and I bring that to the Chairman's attention. I think the member deserves an answer and I support his request for an answer.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier is afraid of the question, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't like it. Let me ask him. Just suppose that such meetings had taken place: would he approve of that? Would he approve of his ministers holding secret meetings with the mining industry to discuss coal royalties and coal tenures?

MR. BARRETT: Behind his back.

MR. GIBSON: I don't know if it was behind his back or not, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. That's what we aren't able to get out of him.

MR. BARRETT: Well, all he has to do is tell us whether

MR. GIBSON: He is not able to say whether of his personal knowledge. I suspect he is able to say. He just refuses.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can ask questions but he doesn't have to answer.

MR. GIBSON: So just let me ask this question.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be embarrassing to admit it was behind his back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The material covered in this particular question ought, perhaps, better to be directed to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) It seems to me that I remember ruling this line of debate out of order before the dinner hour except insomuch as it falls under the vote of the Premier, vote 18.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, what I am raising, of course, is the Premier's general superintendency of cabinet work and the work of cabinet committees. As you will appreciate, sir, when several ministers are involved, it inevitably comes back to the Premier. Also, of course, the general posture of the government with respect to the secrecy of its operations on matters of public import. So I ask the Premier again: suppose meetings of that kind had taken place - secret meetings where ministers and officials had met with the coal industry to discuss such things as tenure on coal properties and royalties on coal ...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ... would the Premier approve of those kinds of meetings?

Mr. Chairman, it's a simple question.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It's an iffy question.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, the Premier thinks it's an iffy question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hypothetical.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Argumentative and frivolous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the member have other material he wishes to cover?

[ Page 1692 ]

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting for you, to call the Minister of Education to order. He was yapping.

MR. BARRETT: Not the good doctor!

MR. GIBSON: Now let me ask this. Would the Premier answer a specific question? He doesn't seem to be answering any questions tonight. He says this is a hypothetical question. Would he answer a specific question?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, we dealt with the question of government-proposed plans on the northern transportation system. It's been well canvassed during this debate and, in fact, a lot of questions were asked and answered this afternoon but the member for North Vancouver-Capilano wasn't here this Afternoon. He wasn't here until just before 6 o'clock. Now it may be that many of those questions were answered while he was away from the House again.

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I gave an answer to his question. However, his speculative, iffy questions -it's impossible to answer that type of question. However, Mr. Chairman, it's no secret - the government is discussing the northern transportation system with the government of Canada and one of the commodities that would be carried on that system being investigated is coal.

All aspects of coal as a commodity are being studied. The cost of extraction, export price, potential government royalties, potential government revenue, potential government direct revenue, potential impact on the provincial economy - all of those are a matter of study. But in my capacity as Premier, the negotiations I have had and the specifics of them have dealt with the transportation system in relationship to the government of Canada meeting its responsibility to assist and that would benefit all of Canada and be of interest to Canada.

The study of the specific coal commodity has not specifically, other than in a general way, been part of those discussions, but I would advise the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that my ministers are discussing in a specific way with their counterparts in the federal government certain of the coal as a commodity and others. Certain studies are going on to find out whether such a commodity would be one of the items transported on such a proposed northern transportation system.

In regard to his speculative questions, of course, it's impossible to answer questions of that type, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure he has had full opportunity under the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and will under the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and even under the Minister of Energy and Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) to deal in some areas of this development.

MR. GIBSON: As the Premier points out, I was not here this afternoon. I had the sad duty of being pt the funeral of Mr. Ron Andrews. But I understand from some inquiries that the Premier didn't tell the House much this afternoon anyway.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

MR. GIBSON: Now the Premier has suggested that these are hypothetical questions, but I suggest to you, sir, that they are not. I would like to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier owes the duty to the people of this province of making public the information that is necessary for the decisions that ought to be made, particularly the decision of the greatest economic importance of 1977 and 1978, which is the development or not of northeast coal in this province with which the Premier is ultimately engaged and on which he is making the announcements.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read to you a letter....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the member if this material would perhaps better be covered under the Minister of Mines.

MR. GIBSON: I do think you are anticipating, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the question.

MR. GIBSON: Yes. It's a letter that has to do with the right of the public to information, which is what the Premier is responsible for overall in this province, as you will have seen if you read that funny little aside in the throne speech that said that this government is engaged in making information more accessible to the public. The Premier, as you know, writes the throne speech. It also has to do with the operation of cabinet committees which come under the superintendency of the Premier. The letter is as follows.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think you will recall my cautioning you on at least three occasions that the line of debate you have been involved in since before the supper hour is not in order because the material covered needs to be debated under the Minister of Mines. To insist that this debate could be considered under vote 18 is to beg the question that the Premier should be responsible for all estimates and all debate under every minister. This cannot be held to be true, because in that case there would be

[ Page 1693 ]

no debate under any of the other ministers. So I will listen to the beginning, of the material you are about to embark on and then we'll make a ruling.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even before reading that material, I would just mention that the Premier, of course, is responsible for the executive council. The executive council is directly responsible for matters relating to cabinet committees and high matters of government policy. When, under the authority of the executive council, gatherings of ministers and inter-depart mental public servants are made to deal with questions that relate to matters on which the Premier is negotiating with Ottawa and to deal with matters on which the Premier is making the public announcements, then, sir, it strikes me that these matters come within the responsibility of the Premier even if there were not this over-riding question of public interest, of the public's right to know, which must lay at the doorstep of the chief executive of this province.

This is a letter dated February 17,1977. The letter is addressed to Mr. Garnet T. Page, managing director of the Coal Association of Canada, Suite 593, Calgary Place, 355-4th Avenue Southwest, Calgary, Alberta, T2P OJ L

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What was that again?

MR. GIBSON: Postal codes, I take it, are in order since that's a federal thing and he's the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. So I took the liberty of reading that postal code.

MR. BARRETT: That's under review.

MR. GIBSON: "Dear Garnet:

"Thank you for your letter of February 9. 1, too, was pleased with the discussion which took place at the meeting with the coal cabinet committee."

MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. GIBSON: The coal cabinet committee, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is under the executive council.

"One result has been that the committee has directed us to establish an industry-government working group to discuss issues related to coal policy formulation. The objective is to bring together a group of people with a broad knowledge of the coal industry who will review the various policy issues which are now in the final stages of decision."

MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. GIBSON: We hadn't understood, Mr. Chairman, that these issues were so close. I carry on with the letter:

"It is hoped that this group will set aside vested interests and provide expert advice to the government which will be in the long-term best interest of British Columbia. It may be necessary for the advisory group to call on specialists. It is felt that the advisory group should have three or four representatives of the industry and a similar number of senior government officials. We are also contacting the Mining Association of British Columbia and would ask that they and your association jointly select the industry representatives.

"The first task of the group will be to study proposed revisions that the government is considering with respect to the tenure of Crown coal lands in the province."

MR. BARRETT: That would affect stock shares!

MR. GIBSON:

"Other issues will be considered later, and it may be that this group can develop into some sort of permanent advisory council."

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Phillips could be on that.

MR. GIBSON:

"We would appreciate your response by March 4,1977, so that meetings can be scheduled shortly thereafter."

Copies go to Mr. A.L. Peel, Mr. E.R. Macgregor, and it is signed by James T. Fyles, Deputy Minister of the Department of Mines.

MR. BARRETT: It must be important - it wasn't signed by Chabot.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, what we have here is the formation of a cabinet committee - a committee of the executive council - for which this Premier is responsible, to deal with coal policy issues which "are now in the final stages of decision." Matters relating to government policy we know are too important for this House. The Premier told us that on Friday. Apparently, however, they are suitable fodder for a secret cabinet-industry committee, the existence of which the public was not privy to, membership in which was not suggested to any kinds of outsiders, and the reports of which have not been available to the public.

You know, this is a different sort of thing than when the employers' council came along and made a submission to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1694 ]

Williams) , for example. There was a case where a a submission was made and there was some criticism about the brief not being released and they decided to release it, but it was known in advance that there was going to be this kind of meeting so views were presented - you can keep them private or not.

But this was a wholly secret operation. This was a situation where the policy of government with respect to coal tenures and with respect to coal royalties was going to be formulated by a group into which the public not only had no input, but also of which it had no knowledge. This, Mr. Chairman, is on a question with which the Premier had been dealing in his announcements. This is the one he said is going to be the big one for British Columbia. This is the one he's been spending half his time in Ottawa talking i about. This is the one that we in this House can get no information on.

MR. BARRETT: The figures would stagger the public. He doesn't want to scare the public - that's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Settle down.

MR. BARRETT: Those were his words.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you're exactly right. The Premier did come back from Ottawa and he was speaking at the Prince Rupert terminal, if I recall well. He said he didn't want to scare the public with the figures he had. He just kids the public, you know. The establishment is going to look after it. Your big government's going to look after it - not the Legislature; not even the backbenchers. The government's going to do it. The public is not going to have the information. Here's one more example of how the public is being denied information on how their business is being done day after day by this government.

Let me tell you what's happening in this coal business. Deals are going to be made with customers overseas, be they Japan or elsewhere. Deals are going to be made with the companies concerned. Deals are going to be made with the federal government. Then they're going to come in and they're either going to make a public announcement, if this Legislature's not sitting, or else they're going to dump it in our laps and say: "The ink's dry. It's too late to do anything about it. That's the deal we've made." The boys in the back bench are going to stand up and say, "God bless you, " and pass it. That, to me, is not what public information and the right of the people to know has to mean in this province.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You're against jobs.

MR. GIBSON: I quote again:

"The first task of that group will be to study proposed revisions that the government is considering with respect to the tenure of Crown coal lands in the province."

Don't you think it might be a good idea to have some of those proposed revisions studied by the Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Don't you think it might be a half-way decent idea to ventilate them in public instead of at a secret cabinet committee meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. BARRETT: "You haven't earned the right!"

MR. GIBSON: As you say, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has told us we haven't earned the right as MLAs to have direct input into that kind of policy decision.

Mr. Chairman, there's more.

MR. BARRETT: There will be a probe on that leak, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor, I believe.

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the Premier a question which is always in order to the head of the government. Is this way of approach government policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I already advised the House and the members that different ministries are discussing and researching various aspects of coal as a commodity. I can't take responsibility for letters that are written by public servants, but I do take responsibility for the executive decisions made by cabinet, once all the information is collected and cabinet has made a decision. We take responsibility for decisions we make, just as we take responsibility for affirmative votes we make in this House. But from the very provision for the collection of information by the professional staff of the public service and the areas in which they can consult, it's quite evident that the converse of what the member is talking about would be more shocking: that is, decisions are made with no research at all.

Research is done to provide information, Mr. Chairman, on which the cabinet, the government and the Legislature can make decisions. That's exactly

[ Page 1695 ]

what I advised the House before the dinner hour, and exactly what I advise the House now. Studies are going on in government, cabinet and this House. It'll be a long time before they'll be taking positive decisions on the research that's collected by the professional staff.

I heard what was said on advice that may be presented to government, but I'm talking about decisions that will be made and eventually brought to this House. The decision is never made until it's handled in this House or by the government of the day. The member seems to think that decisions by every staff report or every committee that's set up on a staff level.... The decisions they make are only decisions to pass their information along to the people who are elected to make decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's nothing sinister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, there's nothing sinister about information collected to make decisions. The only time it would be a scandal is when decisions are made without the proper preparatory work, discussion and research.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier suggested that he's responsible for the decisions his government makes, but doesn't he take some responsibility for the means by which those decisions are made? Doesn't he take some responsibility for the right of public input into them? If changes in coal royalties and coal tenures are to be made, don't you think you ought to perhaps be taking a little bit of other advice in your cabinet committee than from the industry representatives? You might come to the same conclusions; I don't know. But don't you think other voices ought to be heard?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Big business.

MR. GIBSON: It seems tome that they should.

The Premier can say that these issues will be presented to the House first, but he full well knows that under our system of government he has the right to commit the province of British Columbia by a simple signature. He can make a deal with Company X in Japan and with the government in Ottawa and with Company Z in British Columbia, and all of a sudden the deal is that there is going to be a 10-million ton development here or there, and we're committed. It's as simple as that. It's all very well to say that you're responsible for the decisions at that time, but it's too late; the province is committed at that time. The representatives of the province have a right to information in advance of that.

Look at the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) there. He started out with a royal commission. He didn't appoint it but he has received it and he's thinking about it carefully. Then he set up a group to hear representations about it. That group, to the best of my knowledge, first of all has been announced publicly; secondly, that group is happy enough to hear from anyone in this province, as far as I know. It seems to be a different situation on this particular question though, doesn't it? I wonder why that is. You know why it is, Mr. Chairman? It's because it's all the government's got in the bag and because they're determined to go through with it and they're determined to not have any of these questions see the light of day. So would the Premier, instead of just saying that he's going to be responsible for the decisions, stand up and tell this House how he's going to be a little bit responsible for the decision-making process as it evolves?

He might go on to say that "if the first task of the group will be to study proposed revisions the government is considering with respect to the tenure of Crown coal lands in the province, " what will the second task of the group be? At what stage does the public get admitted to this process? That's what I want to know.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Liberal leader has raised some very, very important questions, and introduced what I believe to be a very, very important document to the attention of the House. Quite frankly, I find it regrettable that it was the Liberal leader who had to notify the Legislature of the clandestine meeting of a cabinet committee and a group of industry representatives from the coal mining sector. I have no reason to believe, Mr. Chairman, that this information would have ever seen the light of day had it not been for the decision of the leader of the Liberal Party to reveal it to the House today. I hope that the Premier does not find it necessary to launch another investigation as to how a copy of that letter came into the hands of the Liberal leader. Rather I hope that he will at last devote his attention to the important issues which are raised.

Mr. Chairman, a minister who is responsible for the regulation of an industry, I think, has a duty and an obligation to consult with that industry in an open, public way. But when that minister who holds the authority and the jurisdiction to levy imposts and royalties, along with a certain number of his colleagues, determines to meet in secret, to meet in camera, with the people over whom he holds the regulatory authority, and to have them participate in the decision-making as to what is a fair price for the resource which the people of British Columbia own, then, Mr. Chairman, I conclude that that is an abuse of office; that is a dereliction of duty. It flies completely in the face of the undertaking which the Premier of this province has given to be open and to be frank with the people.

[ Page 1696 ]

We have seen an emerging pattern of events over the past number of months, Mr.., Chairman, that alarms me no end. We have seen a government that borders on contempt of the Legislature with respect to the announcement of inquiries which are made to the press gallery before they are revealed to this House, and announced after the government is in hot water, after they are forced by some revelation by an opposition member or some citizen of the province to come clean and confess to serious charges and allegations being levelled against senior public servants and against the departments of government under the jurisdiction of the Premier's cabinet members.

We've seen a pattern, Mr. Chairman, of cabinet appeals now being held in secret with the press gallery and presumably members of the opposition and the public excluded from participation, excluded from monitoring the structure, the conduct, the system for evidence-taking before that cabinet appeal committee. And now this.

Mr. Chairman, what about the coal miners? What about the people who are going to mine this coal? Has the cabinet committee called on the miners' union for consultation in terms of the development of a resource that belongs to the people of British Columbia? We find now that they are willing to consult with extraprovincial corporations, probably multinational corporations, but citizens of the province of British Columbia, through this Legislature - or those people who through their sweat and their brain and their brawn will be the ones who mine the coal - are not taken into the confidence of the government. Their consultation is not sought in terms of what is wise husbandry of the resources of this province.

We've had exposed to us over the last two months the most shocking arrogance, the most dangerous secrecy, the most contemptuous treatment for this Legislature that I have ever witnessed in the history of this province. And the Premier sits there, Mr. Chairman, and has the gall to suggest that he is open and frank with the people of British Columbia. A catalogue of events that would take all evening to recite, Mr. Chairman, can be recounted of the arrogance and the disdain of this government.

What are the proposals for the northeast coal development? I agree emphatically with the Liberal leader when he says that there is a desperation move on the part of this province to grasp at the northeast coal development as the sole economic activity that will salvage the sagging fortunes of this bankrupt Social Credit government, Mr. Chairman. I predicted in this House a matter of weeks ago that their desperation in terms of justifying the northeast coal development at any expense, at any return in the way of royalties on the resource, and their desperation to gain federal participation in the funding might even involve the sale of the British Columbia Railway as the plum to extract federal funding and federal participation in an economic thrust which has as its main motive the shoring up of sagging Social Credit political fortunes in this province.

The Premier, I believe, learned well from his father. It used to be that when political times got tough, the former Premier, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, used to come up with some grandiose scheme that he used to announce, promising thousands of jobs to the workers of British Columbia if they would only support Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would encourage the member to go back to vote 18.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I relate this to vote 18. The Premier has, through his negotiations with the federal government, indicated his authority over and his primacy in terms of negotiating and piloting any northeast coal development through the negotiating process to fruition. He has made public statements. I liken this situation today to that of the Wenner Gren scheme. Remember the Wenner-Gren scheme? The former Premier was going to give away 140,000 square miles of the Rocky Mountain Trench to one Axel Wenner-Gren, who was going to build a monorail to come down and connect with the standard-gauge railways in British Columbia. That was before someone explained to him that you couldn't transfer cars from a narrow-gauge monorail to a standard-gauge railway. He had a problem then, Mr. Chairman.

It's like the proposition that was put forward by the former Social Credit Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on vote 18, and it seems the member....

MR. KING: Yes, I know we are, Mr. Chairman, and I think that you've provided a great deal of latitude to the Premier and others in terms of relating arguments on a matter which is precisely under the jurisdiction of the Premier. We're discussing the executive council, a cabinet committee has met regarding the development of the northeast coal arrangement, and I think that I'm quite within the ambit of the rules of this House, Mr. Chairman, to discuss economic developments that have a similarity and have a relationship. That's what I propose to do with your permission, your tolerance and your goodwill, Mr. Chairman. I think that's reasonable.

I remember the proposal when Frank McMahon was going to develop 50,000, jobs in the province of British Columbia. It's a political ploy, Mr. Chairman. There was never any substance to either the Wenner-Gren deal, the Frank McMahon deal - or the Grizzly Valley deal, perhaps.

[ Page 1697 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on vote 18.

MR. KING: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that we as legislators and the public of British Columbia have absolutely no assurance, we have no information regarding the economics of the northeast coal development, we are concerned and we're afraid that the provincial government is so desperate to embrace some economic initiative that they are willing to subsidize out of public funds huge mining conglomerates that do not need social assistance, Mr. Chairman. That is the concern, and unless the government starts to open up and be frank and provide this House with the facts.... It only adds to our distress, to our apprehension and our cynicism, Mr. Chairman, when we find secret documents like this indicating a willingness by cabinet to participate with the industry - to take industry into their confidence and to give industry a voice and some control over the regulations which the government has the authority to impose upon them.

I think it's absolutely scandalous, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier allows his executive council to show more respect and more sensitivity to industry than he is prepared to do to members of this House, even his own backbenchers. I say this is contemptuous of the House, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I hear the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) chirping away. He should be concerned too, Mr. Chairman. I hate to see ministers of the Crown, over which the Premier has jurisdiction and authority, neutered in terms of their ability to carry their portfolio in any effective way. We have seen the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , and now the Minister of Mines succumb to the interference of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to the administrative responsibilities.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier has an obligation to stand up and tell this House what the economics are regarding the northeast coal development. What does he propose in terms of royalty payments? Is he going to give away the resources that belong to the people of the province again without the light of day and any public debate coming to bear on what the policy should be? Surely if the coal companies, those huge conglomerates that are pretty wealthy in their own right ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: ... like the Premier, are to influence public policy, the duly and democratically elected public representatives should have a chance for some participation also, Mr. Chairman. That's the issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Premier answers any questions, I must caution him that only that line of debate which is relevant to vote 18 is permissible at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, somehow the member for Revelstoke calls a letter written by the Deputy Minister of Mines "interference from the Premier." Now how he develops that tenuous argument I don't know.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But then his rationalization has been hard to deal with ever since he came to this House.

MR. KING: How would you know? You weren't here when I came to this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just recently I went to Ottawa on behalf of the government to deal in five or six major areas with the government of Canada on projects that are very important to British Columbia. The member for Revelstoke or the member for North Vancouver-Capilano would try to create the impression that we went to talk coal; we went to talk about ferries off the coast of British Columbia, ferries which have never received the type of attention from the federal government that they should have ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... a ferry system on the Pacific coast that's been neglected while the Atlantic coast has received over $100 million. Is that not important for the government of British Columbia to try to get some aid from the government of Canada into an important coastal transportation system, a system that denies the opportunity for people on the middle and upper coast as the member opposite has been talking about? Not at all. We want service for the people. We want the government of Canada to make a contribution that they withheld not only this year but last year and the year before and the year before that and the year before that, and the years that the member for north Vancouver-Capilano was the executive assistant to the Prime Minister of Canada. All during those years they withheld money

[ Page 1698 ]

to the west coast of Canada for the ferry system -right back to Confederation when under the terms under which we joined Confederation they guaranteed a ferry system to the people of British Columbia to join Vancouver Island to the lower mainland to guarantee transportation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was one of the negotiations I went to Ottawa and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Premier, may I ask if this would perhaps not better be debated under the estimates of the....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, not at all - not at all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you ruling that out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a caution, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then, Mr. Chairman, might I advise you that not only did we go and fight for the people of the Pacific coast for fair treatment from the government of Canada for the ferry system, but we also went to fight for a better deal for the people of British Columbia for economic incentives to get the economy going. We went and took proposals and supported proposals under DREE for incentives for all of the province - not just specific areas - to create employment for our people.

Mr. Chairman, that was one of the agreements we went to Ottawa to speak about. The other was an agreement on ARDA to deal with our agricultural industry. That was important to the people of British Columbia. We also went to talk about transportation, and we also went to talk about getting some support for the British Columbia railcar plant. Mr. Chairman, we also talked about the northern transportation system as it involved the northwest rail agreement. Yes, as we talked on the northern transportation system, we also talked in further discussion of one of the commodities that would make that system more immediate and more viable - British Columbia coal. We talked about potash that would come from Saskatchewan, and grain from Alberta, other commodities that would travel from another west coast port in Canada drawing us closer to the Pacific Rim, bringing us closer to our trading partners, taking one day off of the travel time to Japan for commodities from Canada. Mr. Chairman ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Was it the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or was it the member for Revelstoke?

AN HON. MEMBER: Revelstoke.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They sound alike when you're not looking.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): There's a little difference. One says "input" and the other says "input." (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, before they interrupted. . . .

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: These were all discussions that we held with the government of Canada.

MR. KING: You know what they say in Golden: "Vote for Chabot and watch the Kootenays rot." (Laughter.)

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. These discussions were all for the benefit of British Columbia. Coal is a commodity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coal is a commodity!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, some of these are studies....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Studies are going not only on the provincial level, but in concert with the government of Canada, concerning coal and concerning the transportation system. Because the studies are going on and because there are a series of questions that we must have answered before we can make any decision, studies are still going on at the staff level between the two levels of government and the two railways that would be an integral part of the

[ Page 1699 ]

transportation system that would feed the port of Prince Rupert. All of these levels are conducting studies upon which decisions may be made in the future. But I want to assure this House that decisions have not yet been made. The only decisions that have been made have been the decisions to do the studies to look into working towards developing the economy and to look for an additional source of developing the economy, now that traditional resources such as forestry can no longer feed the burgeoning population of British Columbia.

Certainly studies are going on. We've covered this before - four or five times during my estimates. I don't consider meetings that the Deputy Minister of Mines may be holding - discussions in responsibility with his job of conducting research - as highly secret and confidential and clandestine. Why, Mr. Chairman, I would be surprised if the deputy minister wasn't working and doing the type of research that he's been asked to do.

MR. KING: Research!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I look forward to the type of information that will be provided eventually -through the committee, to the cabinet, to the government, to the Legislature - so that we can make these important decisions should we be called upon to make them. We may be faced with making a decision of going ahead, or delaying, or not proceeding at this time. But right now, we're in a position of gathering the information in this area, We would be derelict in our duty if we weren't collecting information at this time to consider an important resource to British Columbia and Canada.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, I don't intend to talk about the ferries. I don't intend to talk about any other matters that are obviously matters to discuss under the Premier's estimates, even though the Premier won't take instruction from the Chair. I respect the Chair. I appreciate the fact that there are cabinet ministers charged, albeit nominally, with responsibility. Nonetheless we'll have the opportunity to discuss those things.

The member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) asked a specific question about coal. The Premier came back from Ottawa and, when asked about the question of shipping coal, said that "the costs would frighten the people of British Columbia." So it was the Premier who put into public focus the fact that some information was being gathered about the costs of shipping coal out of this province. And to follow it as a sequence of events, a very serious charge was later made, early in this session, by the member for North Vancouver. He said, by the information that he had, that the cost of coal in terms of the new development would be around $60 a ton, and its selling price would be $55 a ton. Those were figures brought to this House by that member. Now we're not dealing with....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong again.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they may be wrong, but the point I'm trying to make is that we're not dealing with forestry, we're not dealing with iron ore, we're not dealing with any other commodity in this instance except coal. For the Premier to say the information is not available is frankly incorrect. Either the Premier has been misinformed or he has forgotten that his government has already made a basic decision about coal royalties. To stand up in this House and say that they're gathering information about coal royalties and that they're seeking new advice about coal royalties begs the question of the propriety of gathering advice from the coal companies that have already benefited from a policy decision by this government on a specific area of coal royalties. This is the point, Mr. Chairman. In October of 1975, the government of the day, with the information it had available from the same departmental people to whom the Premier is now referring, made the decision that the coal companies could afford to pay another dollar a ton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is now wandering.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I'm making a point.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been wandering for years.

MR. BARRETT: No, you're talking about my ancestors. They got it together eventually. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the point that I'm making is this: for the Premier to stand in this House....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You bet your life we've got a long time awaitin'. But it was written in stone and those 10 rules are a lot better than anything these birds have come up with, I'll tell you. Far be it from me to take credit for that, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) There are people in august positions in this House who are more skilled and more versed in those quotes than I am, with all respect to you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now vote 18, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the point that I'm making is this: the Premier has said that this was an attempt, as he tried to explain this important

[ Page 1700 ]

document presented by the member, to gather information about coal. Well, the facts are these. In October, 1975, with the same departmental people, it was decided with all the information available at that time that the coal royalties could go up from $1.50 to $2.50 a ton. It was announced as government policy in October, 1975, and it was to go into effect in April, 1976. But a new government took place, a policy decision was made, and the coal companies have not paid this $1 a ton royalty.

They have received the favour, the succour and the comfort of policy by this government saving them $11 million - $11 million that should have gone into general revenue to provide services to the people of this province. And after the coal companies have been forgiven that $1 a ton that the former Minister of Mines said in this House they could afford to pay, the Premier gets up, related to this letter, and says they need more information. Goodness gracious, I hope the new information dealing with the coal companies doesn't reduce the royalty another dollar.

The whole point that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has validly made in terms of this specific area is that coal, as a subject of paying its fair share, has already been proven to receive company favour by this province. The immediate history of coal royalties, from a government decision with information they have and the suspicions raised by that member in this letter that he is going to table, I hope - I hope he will table it in this House and I thank him for doing that - raises the suspicion with me that this government is cozy with the coal companies. It is cozy with the coal companies. Is the Premier attempting to say that he knows nothing about it when he professes to know the intimate details of Confederation related to ferry rates but knows nothing about the fact that the coal companies have received an $11 million benefit by government policy? Then he feigns innocence and a lack of awareness of this very, very dangerous type of committee meeting with the coal companies. If it was an isolated incident we would think very little of it. We would be willing to take the Premier's explanation that on the eve of the dozenth probe, royal commission, investigation, we now have the revelation of the fact that they don't even want to do business out in the open. They'll do business with the coal companies in Alberta.

MR. KING: Maybe he'll announce a purge on this one rather than an inquiry.

MR. BARRETT: A purge?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I have no idea where in the world. . . I have a solution for that problem, Mr. Member. Good bottom-line administration would advise this government to set up a permanent public inquiry that they could dump anything into so they wouldn't have to go through these nasty orders-in-council every week.

MR. KING: A floating inquiry.

MR. BARRETT: A floating inquiry - like the old Ring Lardner crap game. You remember that one? We'll talk about that some other time. They're putting Ring Lardner to shame, Mr. Chairman, but of course that's literary.

The fact is you cannot help but feel the government is hiding something from the people on coal. The Premier came back from Ottawa and said the figures will frighten the public. Now the member has raised the fact in this House that there are secret meetings going on. We do know that the coal companies were forgiven a dollar a ton, and I cannot fault the member for North Vancouver-Capilano for being suspicious. He, above all, knows what the federal Liberals are like and, goodness gracious, with all their drawbacks that he knows, imagine them in concert with this government. He has every reason to be suspicious - every reason to be suspicious. That's a bad combination - that overpowering federal government that does everything by the current popularity poll. You know that.

MR. GIBSON: They're getting more popular.

MR. BARRETT: They're certainly getting more popular, and you're doing your best to help them. You are doing your best to help them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 18, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I think the member has raised a very important point here tonight, and the Premier really cannot skirt around it with a very silly speech about ferries and about these other things. You owe us an explanation why the coal companies were forgiven that extra dollar a ton while taxpayers in this province got hit with ICBC, income tax, corporation tax. Everything else went up but the coal companies were forgiven, and we find that after the coal companies were forgiven there have been secret meetings with the coal companies that may indeed be discussing royalties that they have already had an undue influence in having forgiven in this province. What's going on?

You may jest, but the member has made a serious point: $11 million they have skinned out of the people of this province, and that member has proven that they are meeting secretly now to get away with more. Shame!

[ Page 1701 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Premier. Can we please draw this back to vote 18?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I try to keep my pledge to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and not get back into what happened before 1975, but the former Premier keeps drawing us back and reviving all these old campaign pledges - not things that they did while they were in office, but: "Boy, we were sure going to do them if we hadn't called that snap sudden election. When we found out things were out of control we hid all our deficits." That's what he talks about now; that sums up his total contribution.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has just been kind enough to have sent me a copy of the letter, which appears fairly straightforward. I'm trying to find out where it says anything about royalties in it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very glad to answer that question. First of all, with respect to vote 18, it contains $282,825 for Intergovernmental Relations. The letter to which the Premier refers discusses a meeting of the coal cabinet committee. That meeting, as it happens, was held on February 7 and it discussed royalties, strangely enough. It discussed a number of things relating to Intergovernmental Relations. I had a little note here somewhere what they were, just so you will know in advance, sir, that had you been a fly on the wall at that meeting taking notes, you would have had no question in your mind that it touched closely on intergovernmental affairs. There were questions, for example, of northwest transportation, which deals with federal assistance, questions of federal-provincial assistance to infrastructure, questions of federal-provincial taxation agreements, questions of the Competition Act and the propriety of companies getting together in marketing agreements. The Competition Act, as you know, is a federal statute.

Now suppose you had been a fly on the wall at that meeting held on February 7,1977. Who would you have seen there? For the government you would have seen the Hon. J.R. Chabot, Minister of Mines. As far as I could see, he didn't say anything during the meeting, but he was there. You would have seen the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . You would have seen the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . You would have seen the Deputy minister of Mines, the Deputy Minister of the Environment, the Deputy Minister of Economic Development.

You would have seen Mr. J.D. Rae, ADM for Economic Development; Mr. R. Cowley, senior advisory minister of Energy, Transport and Communications; Mr. P. Jull, Intergovernmental Relations, who was there representing the Premier, I presume, I'm surprised he didn't tell the Premier about this meeting. He, presumably, is one of the officials who's down here getting a high salary. Which one is he? I guess he's not the executive director - I think that's Dan Campbell. Is he the senior officer at $31,000 or the administrative officer at $19,500? -I'm not sure which.

You would have seen Mr. E.R. Macgregor, director of projects, Minister of Economic Development. Then you would have seen a group of industry representatives, whom I will call Messrs. A, B, C, D, E, F and G, because they had not gone there on the understanding that they were going to be quoted.

Now let's imagine how this meeting that dealt a good deal with intergovernmental affairs opened. It would have naturally opened with the Minister of Economic Development ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I believe the member is quoting from a document. Would he table the document?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I will not table that document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: That is under the authority of May at page 421 where you will see a statement: "Members not connected with the government" -and so on - "citing documents." I decline to table this particular document, because I don't want the particular statements of the private persons who were at that meeting and had no reason to think they would be quoted necessarily identified with them. I don't wish to impute a single. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind hon. members that we cannot table documents in committee in any case.

MR. GIBSON: That's right - you can't table in committee anyway. But I don't wish to impute a single instance of bad faith or anything like that to the industry representatives. As a matter of fact, they showed throughout this document a healthy concern for the public interest. My sole point is the fact that this Premier is engaged in intergovernmental relations on the subject of coal, committees are discussing it in this government in detailed ways, and we can't get hold of it. I'm going to tell the public a little bit about what I've got hold of.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): So table them!

MR. GIBSON: So it will not surprise you to know

[ Page 1702 ]

that the Minister of Economic Development welcomed these present. Then someone from the industry side - it was Mr. E, as a matter of fact -said that while the association could address itself to some matters with unanimity, there were other matters such as marketing which are clearly not the association's proper concern. I underline that because of a later question in the meeting from the Minister of Economic Development.

Now I'm not going to go into great detail on this, but there are just a few things that I think the committee should know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member relate this to vote 18?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I will. As you are aware, sir, there is a question as to the federal-provincial deducibility of coal royalties. You are aware of that and that relates to intergovernmental affairs. I just want to see what the Minister of Economic Development had to say about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with great respect, I cannot see how a representative from intergovernmental affairs would put this into the category of vote 18. It seems to be clearly a matter of mines and should perhaps be debated under vote 116.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, quite apart from the fact that it's an interdepartmental committee operating under the executive council, for which the Premier has responsibility.... This meeting was held, I presume, in the cabinet chamber right next to the Premier's office. This is the Premier's responsibility - the committees of the executive council, each and every one of them.

Now I'll just quote this report a little bit:

"Mr. Phillips remarked that justice must appear to be done with respect to a fair royalty, and asked whether the public accepts the present royalty. This poses a problem for both government and industry. During the ensuing discussion it was agreed that this problem seems to be lessening, but that both government and industry should continue their public education efforts in this regard to relate royalties properly to the total benefits of a healthy and viable coal industry to the people of the province."

Now if there was any question about taxation

"Mr. Peel then asked about taxation. Mr. A. replied that he doubted if the industry would be successful in getting an increase in current prices to cover taxation."

That's of interest because of the presumption, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that, of course, coal prices can go up to cover the added costs that the government's banking on.

Here's an interesting one too.

"Mr. Peel said that he did not argue with the general tone of the comments about the market to the early 1980s. Therefore if B.C. coal is to meet fairly large sales targets and get a larger share of the Japanese market, it will mean taking a head-on run at the coal producers of Australia and the U.S.A. He asked whether this is possible, and whether, in view of this fact, it would be possible for western Canada coal to increase its share of the Japanese market."

Mr. Peel is absolutely right.

Later on, Mr. A expressed some concern, the concern that "if there is a dramatic increase in coal production it will bring about a dramatic increase in labour costs."

And later on:

"Mr. A. stated that he thinks the industry has total consensus that the market will be soft in the near future, a general consensus that market growth will be slow, and no consensus about the size of the market in the 1980s. The present producers foresee a struggle to keep existing mines in business and with marginally economic expansion. This struggle can be won. The basic question is what would be the effect if governments started to subsidize the industry. Canada would come out on the short end of the stick.

"Mr. Phillips sees the coal market expanding in the long term. What will decide who sells to this market will be quality, cost and reliability of supply. He had no comment about Canada's share of Japan's demand. Mr. Phillips inquired whether the coal producers should get together on market surveys rather than each company doing its own. He asked whether there were any thoughts about industry forming a coal marketing board. The industry representatives declined to proceed with any discussion that might be construed as relating to limiting competition or establishing price."

Good for them, I say, and a funny thing for the minister to have raised in the first place!

Then the question arose as to what was infrastructure, and Mr. Phillips said that he considers infrastructure to mean basic services to people, in this case. Then Mr. B. said:

"He supported Mr. G.'s view that the provision of all infrastructure would overtax the capability of any one company moving into a barren area and cautioned against making easy comparisons with costs borne by present producers because of the tremendous increase in capital costs since the 1960s."

Finally Mr. Phillips adjourned the meeting, stating hat "the B.C. government wants to work with the coal industry and does not want to make unilateral

[ Page 1703 ]

decisions without input from the industry."

It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman - a very interesting document. It's one of stacks and stacks of information about the development of northeast coal in this province that has been withheld from the public of this province by that Premier. It is an example of his denial of the basic right of the most fundamental kind of information about this economic decision which should be available to the people of the province. I ask him: how does he justify a group of his executive council dealing in private with one group and not with others? I do not question for a moment the right of the cabinet to take advice where they can find it, but I do question their right to take advice only from one side, and I do question their right not to make available to the public the basic facts that are necessary for the public to give that kind of advice.

I say that the questions that are raised here are clear proof of the serious questions that must be asked about the major economic thrust of this government. Do they know where they're going? Is the way to develop British Columbia to go out and look for one big elephant to feed the province for the next 10 years or is it to look for a mixed bag of game that will allow people from all around British Columbia to share in the advancing general prosperity? I would be very glad, once again, to have the Premier stand up and make some kind of comment on this manner of approaching the public's business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I spoke again of the various [illegible] we've dealt with in trying to stimulate the economy, not relying on one single approach but a multi-faceted approach, how some of it was provincial planning, some joint federal-provincial, some of it dealing in other areas to encourage the private sector to develop and create the type of employment - all of them a many-pronged attack.

I still can't get the drift of the member's argument in the statements he made, attributed to various ministers, but what he appears to have is some record of one of, I guess, many meetings in the search for information. Because it was with one group, he has presumed to tell this House then that no meetings with anybody else or the future meetings I said would be taking place ever continued.

The information is incomplete. We do not have complete information. It's what I've been telling that member and this House over and over. We have not got complete information. The studies are ongoing. They're going on now and they're going on in many different areas and they will continue to go on. Hard-and-fast decisions have not been made. Decisions will be made when information is complete and available and the information adds up, gives enough evidence that decisions of a certain type should be made. I can't predict in what area or what way those decisions would be made.

The very fact is that all of the research, as I said before, is not completed and it is still going on. I'm certain that with the very active group we have and the wide-ranging research they'll be doing, they'll leave no lump of coal unturned in their search for all of the available facts that would go into making any decision. I'm sure that for their part, the government of Canada is conducting this same type of research and that meetings between them and an exchange of information will continue so that eventually, at some point in time in the future, we can make the type of decisions on this one particular aspect of our economic plan or strategy for British Columbia.

But I've talked before during the estimates of our plans to make the total province a DREE area, of our plans in many different areas, and of the incentives we've given to encourage people to invest in British Columbia and get it going. So I thank the member for the discussion and for the letter he read in the House and I was certainly very interested in what he had to say.

MR. GIBSON: A simple, final question at this point, Mr. Chairman. The Premier says he does not have complete information. I appreciate that. Will he table in the House the numerous completed studies he does have that were enumerated by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) during his estimates? He may not have complete information, but I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, he does have $3 million worth of information so far that we in this House don't have, and those studies have been completed. Will he table them? Of course he won't, because he wants to keep this whole business secret until the decisions are made.

MR. LEA: The one thing that amazes me is that the first announcement of this new government was that they had put shredders in their offices and I think that it was probably the burnmest investment they ever made because they don't seem to get a chance to use them. But another amazing thing is that the Premier is discriminatory about what he asks the Attorney-General to investigate and what he doesn't. Why doesn't he ask the A-G to investigate this new leak?

MR. GIBSON: He may.

MR. LEA: Well, he should. Or does he have that kind of mind? Just some and not others. But knowing the history of Social Credit in this province, and what the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has said that there are negotiations on royalties and tenure the thing that should really make British Columbians shake in

[ Page 1704 ]

their boots tonight is if this Social Credit government is negotiating tenure with the corporate giants, because they've had a history of negotiating tenure. They negotiated us right out of our heritage. They split the province up into five and gave it to their friends in the forest companies - that's called tenure - for 21 years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not under the administration of this Premier. Please stick to vote 18.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, he is the Premier. He is responsible for government. He's responsible for government policies and he's responsible for those ministers. He's also the minister in charge of inter-govern mental affairs. It runs out of his office. We're talking about vote 18, Intergovernmental Relations. What about the Crows Nest Industries -the big block, over 600,000 acres of Crown grant land? What about the E & N? People in this province are trying to get back land that previous governments have given away for nothing for quick-term economics and for quick-term political gain. Now we find out that this government is now negotiating the land away from us again. For how long? Maybe it is a good deal. But how do we know? As the Liberal leader says, they come in with the final document signed, the i's dotted and the t's crossed, and there go big blocks of land - for how many years in the future? - that even this Legislature won't have the right to revoke, as we have now in the Crowsnest Pass; in the E & N; the CPR and all the land that they hold through Marathon. We don't even have the legal right in this Legislature, as lawmakers, to even get that land back. Should people in this province sleep nights knowing that that government is negotiating tenure of land, when that government is desperate for economic development to try to stay alive politically?

What will they do to stay in power? Will they negotiate away our land heritage? I wouldn't put it past them. Even if they had the best of intentions and the best of negotiations, when we start talking about negotiating away our heritage in this province, everyone in this Legislature and everyone in this province should have some say, and know what those negotiations are all about, and not be met with the accomplished product of the contract. The members on the back bench know what I'm talking about.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: They know. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) knows what I'm talking about, because he knows there are great blocks of land in his riding that even the government has no say over because they were given away, free title, years ago.

What is this government going to do? Who knows?

They deal in secret. Put it on the table. Mr. Chairman, when you're talking about negotiating away the land of British Columbia, at least we should know what you're doing even if you say we shouldn't have any say. The Premier says we shouldn't have any say in it, but he should at least let us know and let the people know.

Tenure, indeed! If the history of the Social Credit is repeated, it is not tenure; it is giveaway forever. How much are the people of this province willing to negotiate away for the political plans of a political party, regardless of that political party?

The only thing that they've talked about since they've come to office, Mr. Chairman, is the northeastern coal. They desperately need it. They desperately need it in a political way. When the government needs that so badly in a political way, then I think that it is ludicrous to hide those negotiations from the people of this province. We know what they did with the forest plan. We know what previous governments, before the old Social Credit government, did with coal blocks, and blocks of land for other mineral resources. For the Premier to stand in this House, Mr. Chairman, and say that people should not be concerned about the government's actions, after what the Liberal leader has told us in this House tonight, is more than the people in this province should stomach - more than anybody should stomach. Their record so far in government is not one where we should trust them, but one where we should watch their every move.

The Premier, as much as possible, is trying to make sure that no one in this province - not even the legislators who are not in cabinet - knows what's going on. The member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , the man who hasn't spoken in this Legislature, hasn't even been in this country to see the rape and the plunder of the predecessor government to that - the other Social Credit government. He wasn't even here.

Interjections.

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

MR. LEA: Why don't you go back to your peanut car lot in Hawaii?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's move back to vote 18.

MR. LEA: Talk about a brilliant debate, Mr. Chairman - those ministers back there have been the most silent of all since this session opened. What's the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said? Has he taken part in the debate? The Premier didn't even allow them to take part in the throne debate or the budget debate. They were told to sit there and shut up, and they did!

[ Page 1705 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's the kind of power.... I read Hansard and I was here, and they are not saying anything, Mr. Chairman, because they also fear that man. They fear him, and they have every right to fear him, because if they so much as lift one eyebrow they'll be out of that cabinet and back in the back bench.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LEA: That's what they're used to, Mr. Chairman. Look at them! They won't even get up and talk. The Minister of Mines didn't even get up in this debate and talk about what's going on in this province - not once!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The line of debate that the member is taking now is hardly related to vote 18. Please return to some form of relevance here.

MR. LEA: I'll conform, Mr. Chairman. What we're pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a very dangerous precedent that we're hearing about tonight. The government is negotiating the land of British Columbia away for God knows how long -maybe forever. For the Premier to withhold information now is nothing more than utter arrogance, not only towards this Legislature but the whole province of British Columbia and every individual in it.

Mr. Chairman, the back bench has to trust him because they want to get in the cabinet. They have to, but we don't, and the people of this province don't. It's time that that Premier laid the cards on the table, told us what's going on and told the people of this province what's going on.

While he's at it maybe we can go right back to the start and he can tell us why he pushed Arthur Weeks onto the Minister of Economic Development. Maybe he can start back there and start to tell the truth of what's been happening with that government in the last 16 months. But he won't. He'll sit there, because that's what he's used to - not answering the people. He's not accustomed to it and he doesn't intend to get into the habit.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was a very unusual speech by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who somehow suggested that the former Social Credit government gave the Crown grants to Crows Nest Industries. I used them in the same line in his usual manner of trying to blame it on the previous government.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, the Premier is not telling the truth. I did not say that and he knows very well I did not say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I'm sure you know that if a statement is attributed to you which you feel to be incorrect, the time to make that correction is at the conclusion of his speech and not to raise a point of order which is not in fact a point of order. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: For the record, Mr. Chairman, Crown grants haven't been made available in this province since the turn of the century. All members of this House and most members of the previous Houses weren't even born when Crown grants were stopped in the province of British Columbia. The fact that Crown grants were stopped at that time while we were still largely an unpopulated province is why British Columbia today, in the name of the Crown, has 95 per cent of all the land and the resources, forests and minerals in the name of the Crown. Now that can't be given away if they're in the name of the Crown.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify the record in regard to Crown grants. It's been many years in this province since Crown grants were allowed. In fact I think it was in the late 1800s that they stopped Crown grants in regard to land and the original pre-emption. None of it has taken place since the turn of the century.

Coal, the northern transportation system, and those commodities have been well discussed in this Legislature in the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') estimates. In my own, I've tried to bring the House up to date on information that's available on the type of studies that are taking place. But information is not yet complete or in a position where we can even begin to make any type of decision. What is going on is what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said: studies are proceeding, and that's exactly what we've said all along. Studies are proceeding in the various ministries in government, by the transportation systems and by the government of Canada. When the information is complete, we'll be able to make some rational decisions not only on the northern transportation but on the commodities on the British Columbia side of the border. There's coal in Alberta as well and it's one of the commodities that will be carried on that transportation system.

The government of Canada is interested in that transportation system because it needs additional west-coast port facilities of major import, not only for the commodities under discussion in this province but commodities from the rest of Canada as well. This is why we are actively discussing with them the prospects for this transportation system.

[ Page 1706 ]

The members are wrong when they put the word "negotiation" on what's going on. What is going on is research and discussion, not negotiation. It has been well canvassed in this House.

Members also are wrong when they say that we are putting all British Columbia's eggs into a single basket or we're searching to shoot one big elephant. We've outlined various economic proposals before, both by the minister and myself, to try to cover all of the province of British Columbia, to try and expand the economy and build the employment base. We say that we've got some difficult times ahead. Part of out ability to make things happen or allow things to happen will be that we get the co-operation of all aspects of society, not only government but out there in the private sector where a lot of the costs, the productivity and production take place. I'm hopeful that British Columbia, in our traditional economic base, will be able to expand and recapture markets we have lost. I hope we'll be able to develop the additional commodities in markets that we are looking for. But those decisions are yet to be made because the information is not yet complete.

British Columbia still is one of the fastest-growing provinces in Canada. It's predicted to be, in this year of very uncertain economic times in this country, one of the two - Alberta and B.C. - best-growth provinces not only in population but in an economic way. While we can take some heart that things are starting to happen and our economic growth is returning, it still is insufficient for the numbers we have unemployed and the type of economy we must have in this province to support the level of services we wish to provide to our people.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that when we get to those areas to where a lot of economic activity will take place, the debate will continue: in tourism and travel, in forestry, in mines and petroleum resources, in energy and transportation. These portfolios and ministries have yet to be debated. They can get into the specifics of the vote. I certainly think it is timely that all members make their contribution in a positive way in how we can best build this economy and our province, and ultimately provide the type of benefits to our people that only a buoyant economy can provide. You can't get milk from a sick cow and you can't get the type of dollars from a sick economy that we need in this province to maintain and provide the level of services that our people need.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier, of course, is responsible for the general concept of conflict-of-interest legislation in this province. I would ask the Premier if Mr. Robert Bonner consulted with the Premier before accepting a position on the board of directors of Montreal Trust.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman, but I'm sure conflict-of-interest legislation would come either under the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the minister to which he would report, who is the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

MR. GIBSON: Of course, Mr. Chairman, conflict-of-interest legislation having been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, which is written by the Premier.... No minister having been designated as yet, it's difficult for this committee to know who is responsible for it. I just asked the Premier, since he didn't get that consultation from Mr. Bonner, if he doesn't think that inasmuch as Hydro borrows extensively through trust companies and as Montreal Trust is at present responsible for over $0.25 billion of their bonds, this is at least a potential conflict of interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. GIBSON: A quarter of a billion dollars.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that member knows who's responsible for conflict-of-interest legislation. He can query the Attorney-General. But I'll accept the information he has provided and I'll look into it.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question. I'd like to ask the Premier if he intends to answer the question I asked earlier this afternoon when I told him about the problem university students are having.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. Well, in the budget there is a student employment fund programme that's under the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . An amount is in the Minister of Labour's estimates. Without dealing with a very positive programme which the Minister of Labour wishes to speak extensively about when his estimates are up, I would just advise the member that that programme is in the minister's estimates and has been mentioned in the budget - a very major student employment programme of the government.

MR. BARNES: I'm aware of that, Mr. Premier. It's $15 million, I believe, and it would create about 7,000 jobs. The year before, I think, you had $9 million, which was about 4,000 jobs. Now those two figures together represent about 5,500 jobs on the average over 1976 and the upcoming year, 1977-78, against an average for the previous three years of about 10,000 jobs. So it's approximately 50 per cent less. I would like to hear the Minister of Labour explain it.

[ Page 1707 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: This question perhaps comes under the vote when the Minister of Labour has his estimates on the floor.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate that, but the main point of my question this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, was that these programmes - as well intentioned, I'm sure, that they are - don't seem to be in line with the projected needs and requirements of the students involved, because from indications that I have seen, the student fees will be increased anywhere from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member raise that at the appropriate time?

MR. BARNES: I think that the appropriate time is now and I would like to explain why, if you'll give me a moment. I'll relate it to the minister very specifically, because in about two days the Premier will have an opportunity to speak to the students directly at a rally that they will be holding in the city of Vancouver to express their grave concern about the government having put them in a position where they're going to have to exceed the AIB regulations by something like 300 per cent on an increase. I think that, in view, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that we are a member of the AIB ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: . . . and that we don't want to.... Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is a valid one but it does not make this debate relevant under this vote. I would suggest that you bring it up at the appropriate time.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, may I indulge just for a moment, please. I believe the Premier wants to attempt to answer my question. If he does, I'll be pleased to sit down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll just say that the amount to post-secondary education is covered under one of the votes in the Ministry of Education. A significant budget for the Universities Council which apportions the money.... The various universities are responsible for their costs and if they can contain their costs, then of course I would assume they wouldn't have to pass any of the costs along to the students. They were responsible for containing their costs. They have a significant vote from the minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , which you can question him on in detail when he gets to his vote. But quite frankly, I would expect you to deal with the Minister of Education. I see, though, in his vote for post-secondary education, universities have $191 million and for post-secondary education community colleges there is another $118 million.

MR. BARNES: I'm familiar with those figures. I know, for instance, that at the University of B.C. they're going to be something like $15 million short of their anticipated share from the Universities Council. I also know that SFU is something like $4 million short.

But that isn't the point that I'm trying to make. I'm trying to ask you if you would give the students an opportunity to have an audience with you in the same way that you have given an audience to a judge recently to try to deal with a grave situation. That's what I'm really asking - if you're prepared to open your office to hear their complaints.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From time to time, Mr. Chairman - in fact, every day - I meet with groups or individuals that request meetings. Usually if they request it of me there is no problem with them getting into my office. I'm sure if they wanted they could talk to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . That's no problem. With all respect to the great influence you have on me, they don't need you as an advocate to make an appointment. I'd be very pleased to meet with them.

I do say, though, that when you're talking about university budgets, they do control their own costs. They're responsible for all costs that go on in the university - salaries and other costs. If they can contain them, then the large amounts that the taxpayers send through the government would mean that no increases probably would have to be assessed for the amount that some universities are talking about on student fees. There again, you are dealing with the Minister of Education's vote.

Quite frankly, I'm not competent to give you the type of intimate discussion that he is, but I do say that the cost of running those facilities is the responsibility of the boards of governors. They are the ones who can deal effectively with the costs. We in the Legislature must make decisions on dividing up the money - how much can go to various areas. They've had a substantial increase this year over last year. I would hope that those institutions can control their costs so they wouldn't pass on costs to the students. But if the students wish to meet wit h me, which is the second part of your question, I'd be very pleased to meet with them.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to prolong the matter. I just wanted to advise the Premier that despite all of your explanation, which I appreciate, you haven't indicated that the government or the government's representative will attempt to meet these students. I read to you some of their concerns

[ Page 1708 ]

this afternoon, and there is a very long resolution dealing with a series of very serious questions that have been passed. I would like to feel that you're prepared to get some input, to hear their real concerns.

As you know, they have no means of dealing with their unemployment situation. They're not going to be able to get jobs this summer. I pointed out to you this afternoon that the 112,000 people unemployed is an estimation. It's more like 150,000. You have a lot of students who are faced with a 30 per cent increase on tuition fees, which is going to be quite damaging. I think that instead of having a meagre 20 per cent of the young people attending university, it will be something like 10. There is a very serious problem and I think you should listen.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If they want to meet with me, I'll meet with them. I can't act as an appointment secretary for the Minister of Education, should they want to meet with him. I'm sure that if they request it he'll probably be prepared to meet them. If they want this type of appointment with me, I'm quite pleased. But as the member must know, commitments I've made to other people to meet them here and the business of the Legislature demand that I honour these commitments too, but I'd be glad to squeeze them in any time. I'll do without supper or lunch if they want to meet with me.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I I just feel that it's important that an issue of the significance of the issue raised by the Liberal leader should not pass without some comment from each opposition party in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only inasmuch as it relates to i vote 18, please.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I t wouldn't dream of doing anything else but talk t about vote 18. 1 would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that since my intended comments will be no different from those that you've accepted from the other opposition parties, you would not suggest that my treatment should be any different from the others.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Watch your blood pressure.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Mines asks me to watch my blood pressure. I notice he's watching his very carefully tonight - as well as his tongue. He's the silent Minister of Mines.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it's called a sphygmomanometer, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I knew that. I just wanted to see if you did.

MR. WALLACE: Some cynics might say that you now as much about a sphygmomanometer as I know about coal, but we'll....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Vote 18.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the factors that led to the defeat of the former Social credit government was the relationship between that government and big business. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you’ve been around long enough that you know that

s well as the rest of us. Rightly or wrongly, or to what degree, is probably debatable. But the former premier of the Social Credit Party and his cabinet created the impression that the government of that ay was in bed with big business. The debate I've listened to tonight, which emanated from the letter f February 17 to the managing director of the Coal Association of Canada, leaves exactly the same impression.

Now the Premier has responded to the comments the Liberal leader and members of the official position that the economic development of British Columbia, and particularly the development of coal resources, requires a great deal of research and information. No one would dispute that for a moment, provided the research information is being provided by at least a relatively objective source. I would suggest that although we don't know from the Liberal leader's statement who A, B, C, D, E and F were, we can assume with reasonable basis that the Coal Association of Canada is formed by representatives of the private sector of the coal industry.

Mr. Chairman, another point that I think should be stressed, because it has been mentioned before, is hat when the Premier went to Ottawa to discuss these very vital elements in the economic development of British Columbia, he went alone. He didn't take the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and he didn't take the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Transport Hon. Mr. Davis) .

MR. WALLACE: He took the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, who is a former minister of the federal Liberal government. With the greatest respect to the Premier, I would suggest that The whole aura of that meeting was one of cozying up o the federal Liberal government. And with the greatest of respect to the Liberal leader who spoke in The House tonight, I don't suppose he's doing his

[ Page 1709 ]

federal chances any harm, should there be a federal election, if he chooses to make a pitch such as he did tonight, and that's politics.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I don't dispute the Liberal leader's right to do that. We all know the game we're in. We're not here just to exercise our vocal chords. We're all here to make political miles of one kind or another.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not standing here either just to exercise my vocal chords, Mr. Chairman, even though there's a look of doubt on your face.

MR. KING: That's doubt?

MR. WALLACE: What I am saying is that the people of British Columbia are not interested in seeing another government in this province which seeks to enhance its political fortunes by getting into bed with big business. We've heard many statements from this government prior to the 1975 election that they're interested in aligning themselves with neither big business nor big unions, and I would have hoped that was a genuine belief that they held. But tonight we have had a fair amount of evidence uncovered which suggests that although the Premier did not know of the specific meeting that took place or who was involved in that meeting, he does not regard the significance of that meeting with any degree of concern. He believes that it was simply a meeting designed to provide information to the government as to some of the many complex and far-reaching implications of the economics of coal.

While I am the first one to admit that I am not well versed in such complex economic matters, I can read. I happened to read an interesting article in the February, 1977, edition of Fortune magazine, which I believe is highly respected. That article happens to be entitled: "Here Comes Another Kaiser." This article relates the fact that Kaiser Resources Ltd., which was founded quite a few years ago by the Kaiser Steel Corporation, is mainly concerned with mining metallurgical coal in British Columbia.

One of the factors that I think must be considered when we discuss the degree to which this government is involving itself with the private sector in the development of any resource, but in this particular instance we are discussing coal.... This article, Mr. Chairman, points out that Kaiser Resources Ltd. in 1976 earned in excess of $50 million on sales of $260 million, which is a return of about 20 per cent. As a simple layman looking at the economic factors of British Columbia, I have to ask how many companies or individuals were making 20 per cent on their money in 1976. So while I'm far from being a socialist, I think I can, just as a layman, say to myself that I'm not about to weep any kind of tears for the coal industry if this is a reflection of the profits that the coal industry was making in 1976 when the economy generally was stagnant.

Now perhaps someone can stand up and tell me that these figures are not accurate, but I'm quoting from what I think is a good, reliable source. After quoting the profit of $50 million on sales of $260 million, it points out that KRL is now the second-largest coal producer in Canada, and its shipments account for half the country's coal exports.

Later on in the same article, Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to note that, in 1975, Kaiser Steel -which, as we all know, is a large American corporation - was persuaded to reduce its percentage ownership in KRL. It did so by selling two million shares to the Canadian public, reducing its ownership in KRL from 55 to 46 per cent.

Then, later on, Kaiser Jr., the man we're talking about, persuaded Kaiser Steel to sell even more of the shares that it owned in KRL. Another 3.5 million shares were offered to the Canadian public, which reduced Kaiser Steel's ownership of KRL to 32 per cent. It's the next part of the argument that really scares me in light of what we've heard tonight. According to Fortune magazine, now that only 32 per cent of KRL is owned by the American corporation, Kaiser Steel, KRL is now asking the federal government to declare it a Canadian-owned company. If KRL achieves this status, it will be able to dicker with Ottawa for 1,000 acres of prized coal lands that sit next door to the company's Sparwood mine.

The point I wish to make is that we have clear evidence that this company, KRL - Kaiser Resources - has already made an excellent profit in 1976, when the economy was generally reputed to be stagnant. It made a return of 20 per cent on its money. It isn't suffering. I acknowledge that governments must get all the information they possibly can in something as vital as the development of its natural resources - the costs involved, all the ramifications of infrastructure and transportation and ports, and all the things. I accept all that.

But I think I'm even being a friend to this Premier tonight when I say to him that if in the process of trying to reach decisions there is this aura of the government sitting down behind closed doors and possibly leaving the image of their making any kind of deals with the representatives of the private sector - when these very private sector companies are doing very well, thank you, as witnessed by KRL in 1976 -when the Premier and that government is running the very same risk that the former Social Credit government ran: namely, that as long as you're

[ Page 1710 ]

making dollars and you're making good deals with private industry, all's well with British Columbia....

I know the Premier has refuted that tonight and he's said that his ministers, through this coal committee of cabinet, are simply trying to get the most accurate and up-to-date information, and that's a very sensible goal. But I would like to know one very simple fact, and it would help me either to agree with the Premier's position or not. From Mr. A, B, C, D and E, I would like to know if there was anybody at that meeting from KRL.

"Coal Association of Canada." I don't know what that means, and I must say I was, while I have great respect for the Liberal leader's interpretation of Erskine May and all the other authorities, disappointed that I did not learn in the debate tonight who A, B, C, D and E were. But I think it's a reasonable assumption that if we're talking about the Coal Association of Canada, we're not talking about some altruistic bunch of people who are interested in just the welfare of Canada. They're interested in the welfare of the Coal Association of Canada, and I'd like to know who these Coal Association representatives are. I would like to know if one of them was the executive assistant, or some close associate, of Edgar Kaiser Jr. If that did happen to be the case, Mr. Chairman - and I've just recited how well they're doing already, at 20 per cent on their money in 1976 - I would have to say to myself these gentlemen are sitting talking with the coal committee of cabinet with a very definite motive of getting all that they can in a strictly dollar economic sense. Whether that might be in the best interests of British Columbians is something else I'd have to wonder about, based again on the fact that the previous Social Credit government was very friendly towards big business.

This government, perhaps, can't learn from history. I keep using this quotation: "Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to relive history." I don't happen to think that we want to relive another episode with the NDP, but I think that if this government goes this route.... We've got this old pendulum in British Columbia. When will politicians learn? I'm jammed in the middle. I recognize that I'm just a voice in the wilderness, but I'm even trying to help that government tonight because in this kind of situation they're going the same route as the former Socreds.

For a person who has seen both of them in action, I'm saying to myself, Mr. Chairman, that I've every right to ask who met with the cabinet ministers on behalf of the Coal Association of Canada. In particular, I would like to know how close the association is with Edgar Kaiser Jr. or representatives of Kaiser Resources Ltd., who, as I said, are the second largest coal producers in the whole of Canada. If this suggestion has any kind of 'validity at all, that they've purposely been reducing the ownership by Kaiser Steel to try to get a Canadian designation as a Canadian-owned company so that they can perhaps bargain with the federal government for 1,000 acres of rich coal land next door to the company's Sparwood Mine.... These are some of the questions that I think have to be answered.

The Premier shrugged a minute ago when I said: was Kaiser Resources Ltd. represented at this meeting with the coal committee of cabinet? I presume from the minister's shrug that he doesn't know, but it must indeed have the people of British Columbia wondering when they read about this debate tomorrow in the press just exactly what is happening and to what degree the supposedly titled new Social Credit government really differs from the old gang who entered into private discussions and agreements with big business and who perhaps made deals which, financially, were an advantage to the government of the day at the time, but which perhaps in the long run were not the most judicious or the most financially desirable arrangements for the people of British Columbia.

Again, I can well sympathize with the Premier's goal of creating jobs. Coal has over the last few years again become a resource which is attractive as a source of revenue, as an export commodity, or whatever. We know that the debate is ranging far and wide about the best sources of the energy we can use and the dangers of nuclear energy, and the pollution from coal and all these arguments that we've heard discussed many times in the last several sessions of this House. So I don't dispute the attractiveness of finding a resource which might create jobs and help British Columbia.

The question is: at what price? The question is: at what sacrifice, perhaps, of the self-interest of British Columbia towards some enormous corporation such as KRL? Presumably there may be others. I don't expect the Premier to know about every meeting that goes on, and I did not expect him to run the risk that he's running tonight of defending this kind of meeting which took place. I'm trying to suggest that it was a very objective kind of meeting where the government is simply asking for information about the economics of the coal industry.

I think the most damaging part of the letter that the Liberal leader read was the paragraph which says:

"The first task of the group will be to study proposed revisions that the government is considering with respect to the tenure of prime coal lands in the province. Other issues will be considered later, and it may be that this group can develop into some sort of permanent advisory council."

A permanent advisory council again, Mr. Chairman, compels the question: if there's to be a permanent advisory council between the cabinet and interested

[ Page 1711 ]

parties in the Coal Association of Canada, so called, we should be told who the individuals are who are representing the Coal Association of Canada and which particular corporations they in turn represent. What is their vested private interest in this issue? Really, until we get some of these answers, we can't really interpret the Premier's estimates tonight. We can assume that the Premier may not at this moment know who these Messrs. A, B, C, D and E were that the Liberal leader referred to.

But I would suggest that regardless of political considerations, if the Premier and this government expect to have any kind of confidence by the public from this day onwards as to the objective nature of the considerations brought to bear upon the development of coal and the economics of coal development, I would suggest with the greatest deference that the Premier had better hasten in the next day or two to let the public know who these gentlemen were who sat down and apparently had such a close affinity and understanding with the committee of cabinet charged with the responsibility of looking into the economics of coal development. In particular, I would certainly want to know to what degree the government appears to be getting into bed with some of the giants of the private sector like Edgar Kaiser Jr.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this points up the very fact that a little incomplete information put out in a particular way can be very, very dangerous indeed and lead to some improper conclusions. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) read a letter unrelated to the second document he read. By relating the two, you could get an entirely different picture.

One was dated February 17 and was from the deputy minister, Mr. Fyles. It dealt with discussions of a staff level. Then he read what he purported to be - but didn't table in the House - records of a meeting. There is a cabinet coal committee. That was one of the many meetings I guess it schedules with many different groups. By reading one meeting, you could create the impression that only that group were consulted.

I told the House that the cabinet committee and the staff and the cabinet portfolios of responsible ministries would be holding discussions and be doing research and, yes, even arranging for research outside of government. They'll hire different experts to make different evaluations; they'll be doing economic forecasts and others. Some of them will have to be done by individuals that are commissioned by government.

Now the member for North Vancouver-Capilano brought up this in relationship to what he said was northeast coal. Then again, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talks about Kaiser Resources, who have no interest in the northeast of British Columbia. The Liberal member talked about northeast coal; the member for Oak Bay discussed Kaiser Resources, which are developing in the southeast and have no holdings in the northeast of British Columbia. They're in the southeast of British Columbia; they're not part of any discussion.

When the member for Oak Bay talks about Kaiser attempting to become a Canadian company to deal with the government of Canada, they would be dealing, I presume, on one of the controversial dominion coal blocks of which there's a dispute between the provincial and federal government as to the ownership. The federal government does not own resources in British Columbia. It's my position that the only area that they could lay claim is the controversial dominion coal blocks which are in the southeast, and I presume that's what they're dealing with.

MR. WALLACE: That's at Sparwood.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, and I presume that's what they're dealing with. Except it might end up in a dispute between the province and the federal government.

I would say this just quickly, without any particular knowledge of Kaiser. The member, I'm sure, would do his own research. The right to profits against the years they had major losses would get a proper relationship of return to equity - not on sales but, equity as a company. What may have been a difficult year in some areas in Canada was a good year for coal at international prices, because the price has been rising for coal. It's one of the bright spots in commodity prices. It's very difficult to deal with that.

But I do want the member not to leave the impression from statements that are made that only meetings with certain groups are being held. This government is dealing with all areas in trying to assemble the type of research for reports and information on which to make decisions.

Now the member's premise about any government going to bed with big government or big business or big what-have-you is his own opinion. This government is trying to assess the development of our resources. He was making judgments on past governments. I don't agree with him. That's fine. He gave me a lecture today about not fighting the last bunch, and I don't want to get back into that. But I do want to say that this government is assessing any commodity we deal with in the best interests of the bulk of the people, and rationalizing the use for today against future needs. These are the types of decisions we'll all be involved in when we have all the information.

[ Page 1712 ]

Mr. Chairman, I can only advise the members that studies continue. Meetings will continue with various groups that have information to offer. No decisions will be made until all the information is gathered. The only decisions that have been made so far have been to continue the studies.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, you know, you have to listen to the Premier pretty carefully because of the way that he might misinterpret some of your words. I just want to make something very clear. He suggested that there was no relationship between the two documents which I quoted from the House. I would like to repeat to him that the letter of the deputy minister of February 17 - of which he has a copy, Mr. Chairman, because I sent him one - speaks of a letter from Mr. Page of February 9. It speaks of a meeting with the coal cabinet committee. Mr. Chairman, the other document which I quoted from is a record of a meeting between the cabinet committee on coal and the ad hoc committee representing members of the Coal Association of Canada in British Columbia, February 7. One follows upon the other.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I won't divulge them to anyone, just so I can relate the documents. All I've got is the letter.

MR. LEA: Don't you have a copy of the minutes?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The letter suggests advisory groups between the staff and others and it makes no mention of ministerial involvement. I haven't had a lot of time to study the letter because I've been in the House, but I was trying to relate the fact from your earlier remarks that you talked about a letter from the deputy minister who talked about possible future discussion on a staff level. I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding that the other document which you purport to be reading from - which none of us are allowed to see -purports to involve cabinet ministers. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to assure the Premier that that meeting of February 7 did, indeed, involve cabinet ministers. I read a list of the ministers and officials out to the House, as he should have heard.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just don't want to prolong this, save to say that the Premier seems to be assuming a degree of naivety on this side of the House when he says that KRL is interested in southeast coal development, whereas the Liberal leader had referred to northeast coal development. That really seems to me to be rather irrelevant when we're talking about the Coal Association of Canada.

Presumably that's a national body with representation from all the big wheels in the coal business in Canada, of which KRL happens to be the second-largest exporter of coal. Whether it's southeast or northeast or northwest or upside-down, it doesn't seem to me that that's the point. The point I'm trying to make is that the letter to the Coal Association of Canada - a national body with representation, I would assume, from 'all the big wheels in the industry right across the country, including KRL - said: "It is hoped that this group" - the proposed group between industry and government - "will set aside vested interests." That's the point that I'm trying to get to. Maybe there's all the good will in the world by the Premier, and maybe these companies will set aside their vested interests. But I'm just suggesting that for the great community of British Columbians who look at the....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is the letter by a staff member?

MR. WALLACE: The Premier interjects: "Is the letter by a staff member?" It happens to be the deputy minister to one of the cabinet ministers. The Premier started off his remarks by saying: "I can't take responsibility for letters written to public servants." I don't suppose he can take responsibility for Dan Campbell passing on Mr. Ohlemann's letter either? Where does the responsibility of the Premier really lie, then? It seems to me that you're spending, Mr. Premier, a fair amount of your time ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll send the letter back to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. He needs a copy.

MR. WALLACE: ... denying responsibility for what we, on this side of the House, indeed consider to be your very responsibilities. If the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who is a key man on the cabinet committee on coal, isn't informing you of some of these events and the implications of this.... Even if they're totally innocent, the interpretation that can be placed on this kind of letter has enormous ramifications, as I tried to mention a moment ago. I don't think that this kind of letter, even if we go that extra mile and agree with the Premier about reading it in isolation.... I'm just suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is shunning responsibility for a letter written by a deputy minister to one of the most important ministers on this issue, namely the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . He's saying that he doesn't feel any responsibility to accept a letter which says to the coal association: "It is hoped that this group will set aside vested interests."

The very mention of that theme in the letter

[ Page 1713 ]

reveals that the Deputy Minister of Mines fully comprehends the risks that this kind of group could be looked upon in that way - pandering to the vested interests of the coal industry. Why mention it if there were not even a thought in the deputy minister's mind that they're running the risk of being accused of having secret meetings with representatives of the coal industry, which can be interpreted as pandering to the vested interests of the coal industry?

The letter later on suggests it might be necessary to call on outside specialists. I would suggest to the Premier that were that done, there could be little question of whether or not the government appears to be making secret arrangements with the major producers of coal, who must obviously have a very substantial vested interest on coal policy as developed by the government. I think the Premier is either well aware of it or he is choosing on this occasion to excuse himself on semantics, the words used in the letter, or the fact that he claims this letter is being read in isolation. I just submit that even if you read it in isolation, it has some very serious possible interpretations. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, the Premier didn't answer my question: does he know whether representatives of KRL were some of the people who attended the meeting that's referred to?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said no, I don't know.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll just close my involvement in this particular debate, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I think that the point I've tried to make may prove to be wrong, but I think it's a valid one in the light of the information we have and in the light of the documentation that's been quoted in this House tonight. I'm just suggesting as my last comment that the Premier should take the trouble to let the public of British Columbia know who those individuals representing the Coal Association of Canada were who were given access to the coal committee of cabinet and regarding whose comments we have heard some discussion tonight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I accept the advice of the member. If such a document exists I'm surely going to try and find it and read it because I'd be interested in the parts that were deleted from the document and not dealt with by the member. I accept his concern that the governments don't want to be associated with one group or another and quite rightly will take a look into the concern you expressed.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I have just a very quick question to the Premier. On February 11 1 asked the Minister of Economic Development a specific question with reference to northeast coal. I asked him if there were to be any plans to make any change in the coal royalties. At that time he gave no answer at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MRS. DAILLY: I'll refer that now to the Premier. It is now March, almost a month later. Is your government planning a change in coal royalties?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of policy, and taxation policies are not announced in advance in the budget. Governments are continually assessing the amount of revenue that they get in various areas and when they make their decisions, they are usually presented in the framework of the budget.

MR. LEA: The coal companies will tell what to do.

Vote 18 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

On vote 231: minister's office, $102,752.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, just before we begin this review of my estimates, I had hoped to have the opportunity of introducing a couple of my very valued people in the ministry. They will be alongside in a few minutes or certainly tomorrow. I'd like at this time to express my very sincere thanks to the senior people and indeed all of the people in my ministry for the assistance they have given to me in the very short time I've been in this job. They've been absolutely terrific.

I might say that it's not simply a case, Mr. Chairman, of a new minister learning a new ministry but a case of people coming together for the first time in this ministry by reason of reorganization of groups and programmes. People who have been dispersed in various departments of government are coming together for the first time and meeting this challenge and doing so with a terrific spirit. I'd just like that to be a matter of record in this House and express my sincere thanks to those people in my ministry.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that one could expect that this minister could use the opportunity to express some philosophy about a number of areas in which I know he is interested, and maybe some others in his department - duties with which he is charged.

I know that the minister is perhaps not as well versed in some of the areas of outdoor recreation, fish

[ Page 1714 ]

and game conservation and so on, but I would have hoped that we would have heard a rather full explanation of his philosophy as ' to cultural matters. One could have hoped, Mr. Chairman, that we would have heard about his reaction to the apparent change in policy which has taken place very quietly whereby all, to my knowledge - or certainly many - of the rented paintings and such which were chosen to decorate government offices as a result of a competition which took place a couple of years ago are suddenly being returned. I've noticed, in visiting government offices, at least in the Nelson-Creston area, that some of these walls are now bare of this art much of which was local art produced by local artists: -and all of it, to my knowledge, produced by British Columbia artists. What is the minister's philosophy? Is there any future for B.C. artists? Is he going to revitalize this programme which was started by the previous Minister of Public Works whereby I per cent of capital costs of building was to be set aside for works of art? One would have hoped to have hoped to have heard some of the minister's expressions in that regard.

I do know that the minister is very interested in heritage buildings. I must thank the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, for being quite helpful and encouraging in terms of areas outside of Vancouver and Victoria. I think a recognition that communities such as Nelson, which happens to be in my riding, other communities such as Greenwood and Grand Forks, and many other parts of the province also have a heritage in that there are many fine buildings still existent today which could be and should be preserved, as they have great historical significance and many things have occurred. I know that the minister has displayed a knowledge, for instance, of Nelson and some of the early pioneers of Nelson that quite impressed me. I would think that in this area of his forte he would be making some mention of this.

I would also like to hear some comments from the minister in terms of his philosophy towards the appreciative use of our game resource. I think that, as minister, a lot of people would like to hear what his feelings are in this area. I certainly have some very specific concerns, particularly ones in my riding, which I think are of utmost importance. But if I were just speaking as the opposition critic, there's an area that would be of great concern to me no matter what part of the province I was representing, and that is the Creston wildlife management area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that might better be discussed under vote 238 or 236.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I know that there's a specific vote for the Creston wildlife management area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 238.

MR. NICOLSON: Is there a specific vote? I don't think that we have ever....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Under the minister's estimates and under his office I think it is actually expedient that such things be considered in a rather wide-ranging manner, and I believe that's been the custom in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Is this a personal vendetta against this member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member ...

MR. NICOLSON: This is the second time today

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, please. Take your seat, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am asking you to take your seat.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am ordering you to take your seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat. Thank you. I'm merely suggesting to you that the Creston wildlife management would be better covered under that specific vote, which is vote 238. Vote 231 is the general responsibility of the office of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

[ Page 1715 ]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the long precedent that's been set in this House, probably at the turn of the century, has always been that you can speak about anything to do with the minister under the minister's vote - including specifics with respect to certain areas. If, for instance, this member happens to be away when vote 2 or whatever it is comes up, then that member is denied opportunity or access.

Mr. Chairman, under the minister's vote you're always allowed to speak pretty generally on any subject, and particularly with respect to anything that's within his vote. Now if he was talking on the Premier's estimates I would suggest that maybe you would be in line.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster brings to my attention that I perhaps should discuss one matter under that particular vote which is really more general. Any Act which is charged to a minister I think should be discussed under this vote, and certainly the administration of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Act. Without getting into discussions on expenditures and various other things, I might just go into some of the things specified in the Act.

I would hope that the minister would make some expression on whether or not he intends to elect or appoint a third member - a citizen member, not a member of the civil service of the provincial or federal government - to the Creston Wildlife Management Authority, which he is allowed to do under the Act, which I believe was passed in 1968.

I have had discussions with the minister. I have expressed my opinions on it. I have also discussed this matter with some members of the advisory board in Creston. I would say that with members of the advisory board in Creston there is still a reluctance to see this happen, but I think that there is a very wide responsibility. There has been a recommendation made by the B.C. Wildlife Federation and also the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen. In fact they have put forward a specific name, one Mr. Frank Shannon.

Mr. Shannon has been the winner of the Julian Krandal Award. In fact he was one of the original people to propose and to fight for the setting aside of the Creston wildlife management area, along with other people such as Mr. Mickey McEwen, now deceased. I understand that Mr. Shannon would be willing to take on this job. I feel that it is very important for other reasons, which I have discussed with the minister, that at least this step be taken. I don't know that that would cease any criticisms that I might have, but certainly the Creston wildlife management area could stand improvement. I think it could be improved by the addition of a third member to that board - a lay member.

Mr. Chairman, I have not heard a report from this minister as to whatever progress is taking place with respect to the humane trapping of animals, and toward the eventual banning of the leg-hold trap. Now the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) made statements and brought in a private member's bill in 1975, if not in other years, and I believe he said that if the job was given to General Motors the problem could be solved in three months.

Now the Attorney-General is on the government side, and we have seen no progress report on the leg-hold trap from this minister. I understand that there has been some field testing with a certain number of traps which has to have taken place this winter. Now that we're getting into the spring there should be some preliminary information coming forth from that.

I do know that many, many people are concerned about this issue. I've had letters from the constituents. I've also had correspondence from the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals under the signature of Mr. George Clements and also from Mrs. Bunty Clements. I note a letter to the minister, dated December 7,1976, in which they urgently requested that the minister reconsider his decision regarding support for Mr. Bill Gabry. Mr. Bill Gabry is a person who developed, I believe, what is called the Challenger trap - one of the traps which I believe to have been field tested this winter by the federal-provincial committee. Mr. Gabry, I understand, is on pension but still has a great deal to contribute. He lacks material. He was given one grant, and I think the worthiness of that grant has been proven because his trap is one of the ones being tested.

The latest report, to my knowledge, was that Mr. Gabry had not been given any further financial assistance for the development of a newer trap, perhaps intended for the trapping of a different type of animal - because there are various types of traps used for various animals. His second request, to the best of my knowledge, has been turned down. I think that one might say that the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals and Mrs. Bunty Clements, to whom the Attorney-General very often used to refer in his comments in this House and of whom he spoke very highly.... He spoke with great respect for Mrs. Bunty Clements. The Attorney-General held her in very high regard.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I still do.

MR. NICOLSON: I see he pounds his desk and says he still does. Well, she is not satisfied with progress. There seems to be secrecy. We were government when the committee was set up and there was concern, and also, I suppose, optimism, that progress would be made. Now the present Minister of Recreation and Conservation is the minister

[ Page 1716 ]

responsible - and has been for some time - and we have not heard, to my knowledge, a progress report from the minister as to what the federal-provincial committee is doing.

In the recent newsletter No. 14, called The Furbearers, which is put out by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, they are saying there's been an about-face in midstream. They say that five years is a long time for animals in traps. They say that the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping has half a million but investors must depend on junkyards. They point out that Mr. Gabry, 69 years old, who lives in a small cabin working diligently on humane traps, has to go searching through second-hand stores and junkyards for bits and pieces of old beds and buggy springs in order to work on his traps.

Because the minister has not responded to the letter - a second letter, I believe - from Mrs. Bunty Clements, which was sent on December 7,1976, addressed to the Hon. Sam Bawlf, Minister of Recreation and Conservation, I might read parts of this into the record.

"We urgently request you to reconsider your decision regarding support for Mr. Bill Gabry at this time. Some of the information on which you based your decision is not, I am afraid, correct. When you have proper information, I am sure that you will wish to reconsider the whole situation.

"It is not correct, for instance, that Mr. Gabry has a satisfactory model for his new bionic trap invention and he has not sent it in to the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping. Mr. Gabry is still awaiting a shipment of metal from this committee so that he can proceed with the building of the trap model. He's been waiting for this metal since September. He's worked out some preliminary models but each has broken after being set off. The metal obtained from garbage dumps was simply not right for the requirement.

"Once he does build the model he then needs to do the preliminary testing, et cetera, on it. He will send the working model to the committee. However, even after such a model has been sent, Mr. Gabry will need to continue refining and field testing more samples of his design. This is the way with inventions. He did, for instance, make many changes and refinements on the Challenger trap after the first model was sent to the committee."

I won't read the whole letter into the record, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to bring to the minister's attention some of the rather strong words of the Attorney-General when he sat in opposition, and one of the rather appropriate quotations that he made was a quotation of Albert Schweitzer, who said: "We need a boundless ethic which will include the animals." It would have been poetic justice had the Attorney-General been made the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. But the minister - I should say the Attorney-General - expressed at times that the problem could be solved in three months. So I would like to hear how, because I am getting letters from constituents and from correspondents from the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. I am getting fairly voluminous correspondence on this matter. I've heard some claims made by the department on what progress has been made. But I would hope that the minister would be able to report to this House what progress is being made in terms of the protection of fur-bearing animals and towards the banning of the leg-hold trap.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, just starting at the top of a short list of points raised by the member for Nelson-Creston, the arts policy that he refers to is, I presume, the one which was inaugurated under the former government as a combined programme of the provincial collection and the 1 per cent for art in public buildings. This programme is presently under review because, although some 600 works of art were purchased at a cost of something in excess of $250,000, no further amount was budgeted for this programme after July 1,1975. Further to that, no specific system of loans to government offices was ever established - by that I mean a disciplined management programme for keeping track of these works. The collection was never properly catalogued. No guidelines for use, movement or rotation were ever established, which is creating great difficulty at the present with any exchanges or rotation. As well, no future plans for continuance of the purchase or selection of additional works were ever developed, nor was there any contingency plan for the donation of works from the public.

As it stands at the moment, the collection will continue to be circulated and rotated throughout government offices on an annual basis and we hope to discipline this process somewhat so 'there will be a meaningful rotation programme. A catalogue is being prepared which will, in addition to listing the works that are available in the collection, perhaps provide some procedural details and logistics as to how this system will work.

Turning to heritage buildings, I thank the member for his kind comments and assure him that I am indeed very interested in improving the commitment and so forth of the government to assisting communities with the preservation of local heritage, that being a problem which perhaps exceeds available resources in many of the smaller communities in the province where that heritage is of particular value. The commitment here is one that has already been articulated previously in this session - that is, for the

[ Page 1717 ]

establishment of a heritage conservation branch under which all programmes related to the preservation of heritage archaeological sites and historic sites will be integrated and thereby do away with a problem which has endured for a number of years where concerned communities and individuals and groups from around the province seeking some assistance to augment their own limited resources have been shunted from one ministry to another with very little satisfaction.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, as a matter which will be discussed at a later date, there is proposed legislation to establish a British Columbia heritage foundation or trust which will help to expedite some policy in this area.

The Creston Valley Management Authority, as the member knows - I've discussed it with him on several occasions - is certainly of concern to us. We are committed to a third member on that body. We would expect that that member would be drawn from the Creston Valley Management Authority advisory committee, which is a fairly large group of people concerned, not only from the immediate vicinity but from other points in British Columbia. To the best of my knowledge communications have been started to achieve that objective.

As to the matter of progress on humane trapping, the leg-hold trap is, of course, a problem which succeeding governments have agonized over. Certainly I would love to be the person who could stand here today ... and probably would have told you long before now if I had an immediate and major breakthrough in the resolution of this problem. However, I can say by way of an update or status report that to date the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping has received some 132 ideas, traps, inventions, et cetera, of which 32 per cent have come from British Columbia. This province is leading in supplying these ideas and inventions for consideration.

On the field testing of traps, B.C.- itself is presently, through selected trappers, testing four traps, two of which were invented in B.C. by a B.C. trapper. Other traps will be tested in addition to these four next fall.

But alongside of this, the people in my fish and wildlife branch who have been concerned with this matter feel strongly that trapper education is a very important consideration, that indeed more humane trapping can be attained through trapper education. As of the end of this month, some 18 courses will have been held throughout the province drawing on members of the B.C. Trappers' Association for assistance in the staging of these courses. A total of some 500 trappers will have participated and have been exposed to and hopefully learned a number of more humane trapping methods. The cost of this is being shared, I might say, 50-50 between fish and wildlife and ARDA.

The fundamental problem is, of course, that we have some 5,000 to 5,500 trappers in B.C., of which some 3,000 are Indian people who are obviously dependent upon this source of income to a great extent. This certainly compounds the problem which is before us. I am assured by people concerned in my ministry that we can make a substantial advance in the short run in terms of humane trapping, both through trapper education and the prospect that one or more devices presently under study will provide more humane trapping than is presently available or presently prevails through the use of the leg-hold trap.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just concentrate a little bit on the leg-hold trap for now. I have here a press release from the former minister -that is, the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - of May 21,1976. It was announced then that humane trapping was to be given top priority. Under the new regulations which were promulgated at that time, the province was to be the first to require all registered trap line holders to check their holding for non-killing traps at least every 72 hours. All private land trappers were to be required to check their trap sets at least every 24 hours.

I'd like to have some idea of what enforcement has taken place this year. Were there any extra staff required? Were they taken from other duties in order to enforce this? What has been the experience in this area?

The minister quite rightly points out that there are a number of registered trappers. Certainly some of the native trappers are not even registered. The number might well be 10,000, as it's my understanding that sometimes on a reserve several will operate off of the one license so that it can be a livelihood to many, many people, and possibly even greater than the conservative figures that the minister put forward. But I'd like to know what they see in terms of enforcement problems and how this new regulation has worked out in practice.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, vote 232.... Oh, I said aye. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Good try, Allan!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hour is late. It used to work in the old days. I don't know when.

MR. WALLACE: We've heard that before.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't know why, but the minister also has not responded to the specific matter of Mr. William Gabry of Vavenby, British Columbia. I

[ Page 1718 ]

understand that the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals assisted him with the aid of a $4,000.... No, he was assisted with an aid of a $4,000 grant when we were government. I would also like to hear some comment on that. The minister did miss that one point, and I'm sure he would like to comment on it. But, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the hour being late, he'd like to reflect upon it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.