[ Page 2865 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Ombudsman Act (Bill 63) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2865

Oral questions

Lease of equipment for B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Levi –– 2865

Assessment of Railwest plant. Mr. Wallace –– 2866

Involvement of elected officials in organized crime. Mr. Macdonald –– 2866

"Buy B.C." policy. Mr. Barrett –– 2866

Layoff of employees by Ocean Falls Corporation. Mr. Lockstead –– 2867

Strata Titles Act loophole. Mr. Barber –– 2867

Megavitamin research. Mr. Wallace –– 2867

Systems Corporation hirings. Mr. Levi –– 2868

Blanshard Street extension. Mr. Wallace –– 2868

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications estimates

On vote 103. Mr. Macdonald –– 2882

Mr. Lockstead –– 2869 Mr. Lea –– 2883

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2869 Mr. King –– 2883

Mr. Barrett –– 2869 Mr. Macdonald –– 2884

Mr. Skelly –– 2872 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2885

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2872 Mr. Lea –– 2885

On vote 107. Mr. Lockstead –– 2886

Mr. Barber –– 2872 Mr. King –– 2886

Hon. Mr. Davis 2872 Mr. Levi 2887

On vote 109. Mr. D'Arcy 2888

Mr. Lockstead –– 2874 On vote 113.

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2874 Mr. Stupich –– 2889

On vote I 11. Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2890

Ms. Sanford –– 2874 Ms. Sanford –– 2891

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2875 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2891

On vote 112. Mr. Lea –– 2892

Mr. King –– 2875 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2892

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2876 Mr. Lockstead –– 2893

Mr. Barrett –– 2876 Mr. D'Arcy –– 2893

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2877 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2893

Mr. Lea –– 2878 On vote 114.

Mr. Mussallem –– 2878 Mr. King –– 2894

Mr. Barrett –– 2879 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2894

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2880 On vote 115.

Mr. Lea –– 2880 Mr. King –– 2894

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2880 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2894

Mrs. Dailly –– 2881 Mr. Levi 2895

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2882 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2895

Ministry of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 57. Mr. Gibson –– 2898

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2895 MT. Macdonald –– 2899

Mr. Macdonald –– 2896 Mr. Barrett –– 2900

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery and in the precincts of the Legislature today is a group which has come to talk to the legislative members concerning their position on Bill 33. 1 was able to receive some of the delegation in my office and I was interested to hear their views. I would ask the members of the Legislature to join me in bidding all of them welcome to the Legislature today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Ray Vital of Wellington, New Zealand. Mr. Vital is a former B.C. government employee from Victoria who is back home on a visit to see his parents and the Legislature again. I wonder if we would bid them welcome also.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an outstanding British Columbia citizen who has participated in the political life of this province at a very great sacrifice on her part. I would like the House to welcome Edna Carter.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in the House today I'm very pleased to have four residents of the Fraser Canyon area of British Columbia: Mrs. Schudeleit, Mrs. Grey and Mr. and Mrs. McQueen. These concerned residents of that area of the province today presented me with a petition, containing over 350 names and urging that the Forest Service do something to protect the forests in that area. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, also in the House today is a very infrequent visitor to our galleries, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Fred Moonen.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure on Friday, in company with the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and representatives of the Richmond Visitors' Tourist Bureau, to officially welcome a couple from Berkeley, California, as the first official visitors to the Richmond Tourist Bureau this year. I'd like the House to welcome friends from Berkeley, California, who visited the Royal Hudson when the train was in San Francisco at Fishermen's Wharf and were encouraged to visit Vancouver and British Columbia. Mr. and Mrs. Ed Merciez are visiting Canada for the first time and I'm informed it's also Mrs. Merciez's birthday today. I'd like to welcome them.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there are four members of my constituency in the galleries today., Margaret and Arnold Ranneris, representing the Victoria Council of Churches; and Rhoda Kaellis and Gwen Owens from the Canadian-Vietnam Friendship Society. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Visiting Victoria today and in the legislative precincts are the president of the Sports Federation of Canada, Dr. Maureen O'Brien, and her colleague, the executive director of that body, Mrs. Joan Lawson. I would ask the members of the House to bid them welcome,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's my pleasure to inform the House that we have visitors from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in the gallery today. We are pleased to see in attendance and watching our House in session the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly , of Saskatchewan, Gordon Barnhart; the Clerk of Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta, Bohdan Stefaniuk; and the chief of Hansard, Betty Bishop, from the province of Alberta. They're here to watch the House in action and also to investigate our Hansard operation. I wish the House would bid them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ombudsman Act.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

LEASE OF EQUIPMENT

FOR B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Last Thursday the minister was saved by the bell from answering this question.

Can the minister confirm that no one has the legal authority to lease any computers or hardware for the B.C. Systems Corporation until that legislation is passed by the House?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): The question's out of order.

[ Page 2866 ]

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. LEVI: May I repeat the question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: You have permission to repeat the question. I didn't get the full content of it.

MR. LEVI: Thank you. Attention! (Laughter.) This is to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that no one has the legal authority to lease any computers or hardware for the B.C. Systems Corporation until that legislation is passed by the House?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the member is asking a very legal question. My response to that would be that any decision by the Systems Corporation would be made by the board of that corporation after such time as it was formed.

MR. LEVI: Has anyone leased any such equipment for the Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's not in existence.

MR. LEVI: I didn't ask you if the corporation has leased any equipment; I asked if anyone had leased for the corporation. Well, let me put it another way: has anybody leased any hardware or computer equipment for the government recently?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the regular government business continues from day to day. The member asked a question related to a new lease of an IBM 3033, 1 guess, the other day. The answer to that question is no.

MR. LEVI: I just want to be specific. Is the minister saying that the government has not leased a 3033 IBM computer? Is that what you're saying? This has not been leased by the government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That is correct.

ASSESSMENT OF RAILWEST PLANT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips): Has the Premier or anyone in cabinet undertaken any investigation to determine why a private assessment of the Railwest car plant was undertaken at the same time as a similar study was being carried out under the terms of the royal commission?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice for the minister. I'm not privy to the internal workings of management and the board of directors. The minister is a director of the B.C. Railway, and as such the directors have the full power to direct management to take such steps as are necessary for the good management of the company. I guess Railwest as part of the operation of that company made a decision. But I'll take it as notice for the minister and get him to bring in the answer.

INVOLVEMENT OF PUBLICLY ELECTED B.C. OFFICIALS IN ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Attorney-General. I understand that the Attorney-General has access to the tape-recorded conversations that were referred to on a CBC-TV telecast involving alleged leaders of organized crime. I'm asking the Attorney-General if he can confirm to the House that no publicly elected B.C. official other than John Reynolds, MP, is involved in the tapes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the question, Mr. Member, I've not heard the tapes, but my information is the same as yours.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney-General undertake to dispel his own ignorance on this subject and undertake to inform the House whether or not there's any other publicly elected official involved in those tapes?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll determine that, Mr. Member - not that I'm aware of.

MR. MACDONALD: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney-General also make available the tapes insofar as they affect John Reynolds, MP? Since he's in a civil lawsuit it would seem fair that those tapes should be made available to him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to that question, but not today, sir. I'll have to take that as notice today.

"BUY B.C." POLICY

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask this question of the Premier. Last week the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) announced the "Buy B.C." policy - that is, a preference for B.C. products at a 10 per cent leeway in the bids. Is that going to be a commitment from Treasury Board to all B.C. purchasing?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that is the new policy

[ Page 2867 ]

for purchasing in British Columbia. We'd hope that the Crown corporations as well would take that direction on the "Buy B.C." policy.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Now that the Premier says that is the direction of the government and that he hopes the Crown corporations will take that policy, will the Premier now order B.C. Rail to stop its layoffs with the 10 per cent leeway as an instruction of purchasing cars from B.C. Rail? That 10 per cent will more than cover up the difference from other purchases back east.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll take a look at any areas where there is a differential. Certainly that policy will be in effect.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, does the policy apply to Railwest? If so, the Premier must act to stop the layoffs immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the question was: "Does the policy apply to Railwest?" The rest was not a question, it was a statement.

MR. BARRETT: Does the policy apply to Railwest? That's the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The policy will apply to Crown corporations and government.

. LAYOFF OF EMPLOYEES BY

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. On March 31 of this year, in response to a question that I asked at that time, the Premier advised the House that the government was considering taking legal action against the Mitsubishi Corporation for breaking a contract to purchase newsprint from the Ocean Falls Corporation. As a result of that breach of contract, 300 workers at Ocean Falls were thrown out of work or put on a reduced work week. My question is: what legal action has the government taken now, almost three months 'later, against the Mitsubishi Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. The quotation at the time was that the management of Ocean Falls and the directors were looking into all of the ramifications of a legal contract and their action. One of the possibilities was taking legal action if they couldn't get the company to take the supply due under contract. I was assured that that action was being considered by the management. The government doesn't act as their solicitors. I'll get a report to see what further action the management and directors of Ocean Falls have taken.

STRATA TITLES ACT LOOPHOLE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in regard to the loophole in the Strata Titles Act which has permitted a certain famous Socred developer in Central Saanich, Dr. McDiarmid - I think you know him - to take advantage of that loophole very recently. I know the minister has received some correspondence on that matter. My question is: prior to this conflict presently going on in Central Saanich about the loophole in the Strata Titles Act, has the minister received notice and/or correspondence from any municipality or regional district in the province on the subject of that loophole, asking him to plug it?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): M r. Speaker, we've had correspondence from a number of municipalities and regional districts dealing with various aspects of the Strata Titles Act and indicating problems which have been encountered with the existing legislation.

MR. BARBER: As a supplementary, can the minister inform the House of the authors and the date of the writing of that particular body of correspondence which deals with the loophole to which I am referring?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is more appropriate on the order paper. I don't have the information at hand and I think the member knows that there is legislation to be presented with respect to difficulties that have been experienced with the Strata Titles Act.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that on February 10 of this year he received a complaint in writing on that particular matter from the Capital Regional District?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't confirm that we received a letter on February 10. 1 do recall that we received correspondence from the Capital Regional District with respect to the western sector of the capital region. Generally speaking, that is Colwood, Langford and Metchosin. But I'm afraid I can't recall offhand if it was February 10 or March 10. Yes, we've had correspondence.

MEGAVITAMIN RESEARCH

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. In light of experience by patients suffering from multiple sclerosis that megavitamins

[ Page 2868 ]

can be helpful in treating that condition, but since ongoing research is required, has the minister taken any initiative to discuss with the B.C. Medical Association or B.C. medical profession a research programme to try and determine precisely the role and value of megavitamins in treating this disease?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): No, we haven't specifically discussed that with the British Columbia Medical Association or the profession generally. However, I would expect that if that proposition came forward as an ongoing research project, we would be happy to take that into careful consideration, particularly since now British Columbia will be receiving a great deal more research funds in terms of the money coming from the Western Lottery which has been announced recently.

I would expect that we will be able to expand our research into a lot of new areas that haven't been touched before. We are in the process now of establishing a peer review committee which will report to the new agency which will be responsible for that research money coming from the lottery, which will be substantial. As soon as that is in place, we will be having the first meeting of the board of directors of the new agency. We would be pleased at that time to hear from all kinds of groups with good research project ideas that we'll be able to advance.

MR. WALLACE: As the minister probably knows, there are many patients with multiple sclerosis who have found benefit in the use of megavitamins. While there is a medical difference of opinion, I wonder if, on a temporary basis at least, the minister would consider consulting with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) with a view to considering the provision of megavitamins under Pharmacare, provided a physician expresses the opinion that they do have a medical value. Would the minister give a commitment to at least discuss this with the Minister of Human Resources because of the serious worry and concern that has been expressed on the steps of the Legislature today by those patients?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, MT. Speaker.

SYSTEMS CORPORATION HIRINGS

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker: is the government employing a M~. Bill McMinn, either directly or indirectly, in relation to the proposed B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. McMinn is a project director of the new Systems Corporation.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell the House how much he's being paid for his services?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I took such a question on notice from last week. I've proposed to bring details to the House by tomorrow, if that will be satisfactory.

MR. LEVI: Well, if the minister is coming back tomorrow, perhaps he might also inform us whether Mr. McMinn was formerly employed by IBM and if he has any financial interest in IBM, as well. Thank you.

BLANSHARD STREET EXTENSION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways, regarding the proposed Blanshard Street extension. I don't plan to try and make another humorous speech about it. I'm just concerned that there appears to have been work undertaken which is of considerable disadvantage to the handicapped residents of the Battin-Fielding Memorial Complex. I wonder if the minister could give a commitment that some effective temporary arrangements will be made to ensure that people in wheelchairs and other handicapped persons will have easy and consistent access to the highway during construction.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I'll be pleased to look into this; this is the first I've heard of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminated the question period, hon. members. While we're at this stage of the proceedings and while the question period is fresh in our minds, may I suggest to all of the members of the House that in question period, where you deal in technicalities and where you're asking hon. members and hon. ministers to reply in detail as to the specifics of a letter received and a date and what not, that you either consider putting that question on the order paper or, if they prefer to not do that, that you at least give the minister the courtesy of giving advance notice by circulating the question which will be asked of the minister in the question period.

If you're asking specifics, it is somewhat difficult for any member of this Legislature to have every answer in definitive detail at their fingertips. So, if you were to do that, it would at least make the minister aware of the question that was to be asked and give him an opportunity to research the answer if, indeed, you wish it immediately.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 2869 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 103: general administration, $745,512.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I might seek some advice from you on this matter. In regard to this minister's portfolio, I notice that nowhere in the votes does it suggest this minister who is responsible for B.C. Hydro to this Legislature ... is there a vote. I ask you now if I can raise topic matters in relation to B.C. Hydro under general administration or under the B.C. Energy Commission, vote 112?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can get some guidance from the minister in this regard.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro is not under the B.C. Energy Commission. While B.C. Hydro reports through myself as minister to the Legislature, I wouldn't expect that matters relating to B.C. Hydro would be debated under the heading B.C. Energy Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. I think that perhaps that would clarify the matter.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, then I would presume that the topic I'm about to raise would be in order under general administration, since it is the only other area provided for under the minister's votes to discuss B.C. Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the practice of the House to date has been that it is under the minister's office under which matters pertaining to other responsibilities other than direct ministerial responsibilities are discussed. That would have been under vote 102, but I'm at the House's pleasure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to waste the time of this House in discussing matters that were already discussed under the salary vote. However, there is one item that is of such importance, in my view, and that the minister did not respond to under the salary vote. This matter revolves around the matter of B.C. Hydro spraying on rights-of-way. Over the weekend I've had an opportunity to receive further information on this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Am I to understand that these are questions that were raised under vote 102?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's a new item, Mr. Chairman, under this. I have received new information over the weekend where there's actual physical danger to some people in my riding - at least the claim by some people in my riding, based on a newspaper report -where certain chemicals have seeped into the water supply. Yet this minister is not prepared to take any action to prevent that spraying by B.C. Hydro, or the use of chemicals by B.C. Hydro in my riding. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman.

I might point out to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Sechelt residents claim their water is poisoned, partially by B.C. Hydro. This article appearing in the Peninsula Times, dated Wednesday, June 15, a copy of which I just received over the weekend.

My question to the minister is: in view of this new information, and other information that the minister has at his disposal, is he prepared to order or discuss with the board of directors of B.C. Hydro the possibility of stopping the spraying of B.C. Hydro rights-of-way by these dangerous chemicals, 2, 4, 5-T and 2, 4-D? Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister will respond and will make every effort to stop the spraying and the use of these dangerous chemicals in British Columbia. I think that it's the minister's duty to do that.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and for clarification, could you advise us how the extent of the debate on these votes... ? I see nothing about spraying on this vote and I wonder how much latitude you allow for consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. We were considering the scope of debate under vote 102, and it was determined that the question being asked by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) had indeed already been canvassed under vote 102. Quite likely, that is the reason why there was not a response.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairperson, I understand that the minister was ready to respond before I go any further. Do you wish to respond?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, without prejudicing your ruling as to whether the question was in order or not, certainly I'm prepared to take the matter up with the director of B.C. Hydro.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I wish to draw to attention a matter of insubordination within the matter of minutes of our exchange over nuclear power where you clearly spelled out what the government policy was. You

[ Page 2870 ]

were overruled by Mr. Bonner, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bonner is embarrassing the minister by getting on the phone and talking to reporters and saying: "Poof, poof! What the minister says doesn't really count." He wants to go into nuclear power; British Columbia has to go into nuclear power - in direct contradiction to the statements made by the minister in this House where he clearly stated that British Columbia is not in any need of that alternative.

Now I want to know, Mr. Chairman: who's running B.C. Hydro?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: If we're going to spend this money for general administration ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask for order, please?

MR. BARRETT: ... should we send it over to Mr. Bonner, or are you running the show - through you, Mr. Chairman? And thank you for calling attention to this particular problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The vote 102 would have perhaps been the proper vote under which to discuss this matter. This is the general administration of the department itself.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps matters under B.C. Hydro would have better been debated under 102.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that's correct and I read the description from the book. The book says: "Provides central direction and support services for the ministry, including offices of the deputy ministers, personnel administration ... office support, and public information services." This is the general administration of his department which is being usurped by Mr. Bonner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, hon....

MR. BARRETT: Well, I know you have great respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, I must say that this is the general administration of the department itself and not of Crown corporations.

MR. BARRETT: that's right! It's the general a d ministration. How can he administer his department if his employees are contradicting him? We need to know who's boss. That's why we're asking right under this general administration. Who's giving the orders? Who's making the policy? After we have an intelligent, rational debate, some political appointee is attempting to usurp the minister's role. I want to know who's boss - you or Bonner.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): We're for you, Jack.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no! I want to know who's boss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was on his feet first.

MR. BARRETT: No, he wasn't. He's trying to get a ride home. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order again. We're not discussing the promotion or the consideration of what happens in those offices. We are considering the central direction in support services - not what happens in those services, but the services themselves; the actual people involved, not the details of those services or what they do. We could be here for the next year if we started on this road, sir. I ask for clarification and bring the House to order on this point.

MR. BARRETT: I think the member's absolutely correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has already ruled that this material should have been covered under vote 102. Indeed, a review of Hansard will reveal that it was covered under vote 102, and therefore it is out of order under 103.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the general administration and the implementation of policy. Now- we've discussed what the policy is. My question is under this vote: how can you implement the policy when there's insubordination in the ranks? I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister is boss. If he is boss, is he going to fire Bonner? I want to know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

M R. BARRETT: Because there's been insubordination under vote 103, general administration.

[ Page 2871 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The ruling has been made that this is not in order under vote 103. In trying to assist the hon. member, if a debate is sought on this subject, perhaps a notice of motion would be the best route.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your advice of a notice of motion, but that would only be on the basis of a substantive motion against the minister. I have no intention of showing no confidence in the minister. All I'm trying to interpret is under vote 103 where it says, "provides central direction and support services of the ministry." I want to ask the minister how in the world under this section he can give an order - he's the boss - when there are employees under this general administration who will not take his orders, who are contradicting his policy. I want him to clearly state before we go on to the rest of the votes whether or not he's the boss,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The vote 103 is clearly covering the administrative responsibilities of the staff of the department. It does not include the staff of Crown corporations.

Order, please. On a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, on your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm on your ruling. I think I have a right to express my opinion on your ruling.

If the minister is to give orders for his deputies that are covered under here - that's correct - to deal with the Crown corporations, as they must, because the government is responsible for establishing the policy.... Hydro is a Crown corporation that comes under the general administration of his deputies. If he's to give his deputies instruction as to whether or not they're going to examine nuclear power as an alternative, he has to have this money to hire secretaries to tell his deputies what to do. There is a clear link here, sir. I respectfully submit to you that unless we get an answer from the minister on this very important point, we don't know who's running his department in relation to energy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and, hon. member, I must remind you that answers, although they are desirable, must be obtained under the right vehicle under the standing orders of the House. It's not possible under vote 103.

MR. BARRETT: Would you assist me in telling me under what vote you think my present question would be appropriate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps vote 102, which has already been passed.

MR. BARRETT: No, no! No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. BARRETT: You're shutting off debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member who is now standing on his feet has not been recognized.

MR. BARRETT: I had the floor!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have orders that assist us in maintaining order in this House.

MR. BARRETT: I had the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East had not been recognized,

MR. BARRETT: Well, what were we discussing? Were we both out of order? I had the floor. I hadn't relinquished the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Leader of the Opposition please proceed?

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm asking your advice on a question related to energy development. In your opinion, would it be more appropriately discussed, then, under vote 112?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could gain some guidance on this from the minister under vote 112. Would the subject matter presently being considered be appropriate under that vote?

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think it may, as a matter of general policy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be discussed under vote 112.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite certain what your ruling is, but it's always been my understanding of procedure on debate of the estimates that the minister's office allowed a general discussion of the total realm of jurisdiction. Now once leaving that office vote, if your ruling indicates that we are precluded from

[ Page 2872 ]

discussing specific areas of that administrative jurisdiction, this is a completely new direction and a new precedent in this House. There must be a vehicle for continuing to discuss the specific detail of the minister's jurisdiction over B.C. Hydro. If it's not under the general administration vote than I want some specific guidance, because certainly I have matters of great interest to my own riding to explore.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member was present when the minister suggested that perhaps under vote 112 he would entertain these questions.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about the McGregor River diversion, if it's possible under this vote. I understand that some of the work on that diversion was done by the minister's staff and....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

MR. SKELLY: Was that a response from the minister? I understand that some of the work was done by the minister's staff. It was pointed out in the Fraser River report that the McGregor River Dam is necessary in order to prevent flooding on the Fraser River. I wonder if the minister's staff has done any analysis of the Fraser River Joint Board report regarding the McGregor River and the value as a flood-control device of the McGregor Dam.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. I believe that work has been done in the Ministry of the Environment.

MR. SKELLY: No critique has been done by engineers within your department as to the effect of that dam on flooding or energy?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, no critique has been done in respect to the flood control aspects of the McGregor proposal.

MR. SKELLY: Well, perhaps this is something, then, that should be drawn to the attention of the minister, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the construction of the dam will slow down the velocity of the river at Hope and result in an increased deposition of material at Hope which will then probably, or possibly, cause an increased danger of flooding in the Fraser Valley. I wonder if the minister has looked into that aspect or is considering looking into that aspect.

I think the minister is consulting with his department there, Mr. Chairman, and possibly wishes to respond.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, no work has been done in the office of the ministry in respect to the McGregor Dam or its effect on flood control, either at the site of the dam or downstream as far as Hope.

Vote 103 approved.

Vote 104: engineering branch, $600,906 - approved.

Vote 105: weigh scale branch, $2,668, 076 - approved.

Vote 106: motor-vehicle branch, $14,515, 844 -approved.

On vote 107: motor carrier branch, $878,840.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I rise in regard to a matter that a constituent of mine has brought forward. His name is John Westfall of Westfall's Courier Service. The minister may be familiar with the case; I know he has had some correspondence on it.

With what instruments does the department measure the extent to which competition shall be allowed within the courier industry? As the minister is well aware, I'm particularly concerned about the fact that in Victoria, his department has refused to permit this particular courier service to expand its own interest to serve what we in Greater Victoria call the western community.

As the minister is well aware, a number of older, larger - and, indeed, sometimes American -organizations have been granted partial monopolies. They have been permitted the liberty of exercising their franchise throughout - in this particular case -greater Victoria. The minister is also well aware that his department has forbidden some of the younger locally-owned and -operated companies - Westfall's Courier Service among them - to operate with the same freedom.

I wonder if the minister might tell us how the department determines who shall be the recipient of the licences which allow companies to move throughout the whole metropolitan area. If the minister could give us some general indication, Mr. Chairman, I would then like to bring forward some very specific questions on behalf of this particular small business which is struggling, not altogether successfully at the moment, to maintain its own place in a market that has been artificially curtailed by the decisions of that department.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, for many, many years there has been a Motor Carrier Commission - or the equivalent; it used to be a public utilities commission - with independence

[ Page 2873 ]

from the government. At the moment, the Motor Carrier Commission is headed by a judge. Cases like this, if contested, are referred to 'the commission hearings which are open to the public, are held and a decision is rendered.

There has been - again, for decades in this province - a limitation of entry into not all, but many of the aspects of the trucking business. In order to carry other people's goods for a fee, one has to get a licence. In order to protect small shippers, remote communities and so on, it is necessary to have reliable carriers in the business who will continue to call on a scheduled basis. Therefore there is a limitation to an appropriate number of carriers in each area and in each instance. I can only assume, in the case of Westfall's Courier Service, that they have applied for a licence to engage in trucking in this area and have been turned down. They have applied to the commission and have been through the course of a hearing.

I don't happen to know this particular case because there are many such cases, but I'll make inquiries as to the exact circumstances which Westfall's Courier Service has encountered.

In any case, this is not a matter for decision by a minister or, indeed, by departmental officials. It is decision by a commission which is independent of the government.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's answer but I have a few more questions.

I do respect that the particular decision regarding a particular company should not be the property of a political office holder. I respect that and I understand the reasons for it. What I'm concerned about are the reasons the minister has offered to justify the policies presently being used by the Motor Carrier Commission which, in turn, justify the discriminatory trade practices that I believe have grown up in this particular field. As the minister quite correctly pointed out, this is a field that for decades has been governed by tradition, by large interests and by the companies that were there from the beginning.

It is accordingly, Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own review of the problem, a field into which it is particularly difficult for a small businessman starting a new business to enter. The minister pointed out that one of the criteria that is examined by the Motor Carrier Commission is that of reliability. It's then reasonable to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not a company that has not been given a fair chance to prove its reliability has any real opportunity at all of entering the field.

So my broader questions, Mr. Chairman, are those of policy, for which he is most certainly responsible. If, by tradition over decades, a situation has grown up where two or three major companies have, for all practical purposes, a monopoly among themselves, does the minister think that is fair and reasonable?

I, for one, am the kind of free-enterpriser who believes that in this particular market a small business like Westfall's Courier Service and any other should have a reasonable and fair chance to prove themselves. They should have a chance to prove they can do a job for a cheaper price. They should have a chance to become the larger interests in that aspect of the economic sector which we are discussing, namely trucking.

Westfall's Courier Service, at the moment, has no such access because they have been unable to prove, like so many other small companies who have similarly been unable to obtain a licence, their reliability. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, they don't really have a fair chance, do they? It's not their fault that they haven't been able to demonstrate their reliability in the western community, because the Motor Carrier Commission has never given them a chance to enter the western community. It's not their fault that the kind of reputation which the larger and more established companies presently have is not available to them because they have never been given that chance, either.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister might not consider it valuable and necessary to initiate a policy review in his own office. Is it not possible that the terms and conditions under which the Motor Carrier Commission and its predecessor organizations have been operating have simply become obsolete - that a field that was satisfactorily served by two or three major interests 10 years ago, may better be served by 5 or 10 this year?

In view of that government's commitment, and I share it, to supporting small enterprise and small business, is it not reasonable to ask whether or not a company like Westfall's Courier Service might be given a better break? Let me point out, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that I have no interest whatever in Westfall's Courier Service; I'm not a shareholder in that or any other company, and I don't mean to use their example as anything more than illustration. Having met with the owner of that company on numerous occasions and having engaged in a great deal of correspondence, I am persuaded that his company and others like it have not been given a decent chance. That field at the moment is the property of the larger companies and the established companies. This is a young entrepreneur. He is, by the way, not a member of my party; I expect he is a member of your own. He is a young and vigorous entrepreneur who with his own capital and his own muscle and his own imagination has tried to make a go of it in an area where he is closed down because of your policies. I don't think that's fair.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would consider that a major policy review, with the object in mind of opening up the field more clearly

[ Page 2874 ]

and more freely to the smaller businessmen and the smaller competitors, might not properly be taken right now? If such a review could be taken, could the minister later on, as it is developed, tell us its terms of reference and tell us whether people like Mr. Westfall and his competitors might have a chance to participate in whatever hearings and discussions take place around it? Could the minister further tell us whether the results of such a review might be tabled in this House?

There are, I'm sure, dozens of small businessmen in this province who are in this position. I don't think it's fair that they should be denied the opportunity to get established, to prove themselves, to create a service, to support their own families and to add to the climate and the fabric of small business in this province in such a practical and reasonable way.

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why a guy like John Westfall has done wrong. I don't see why he should be punished; I don't see why he or his colleagues in the field should be singled out and denied the chance that the more established companies have had. I don't see what they've done wrong for which they should be held at fault. It just doesn't seem fair to me at all. If it similarly doesn't seem fair to the minister, perhaps he might be willing to take under consideration the establishment of a major review of policy so as to guide the Motor Carrier Commission in determining its proper role and functions in the '70s and '80s of this century. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it appears they're still operating in the '40s and '50s and that's just not fair to dozens and dozens of businessmen.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, a policy review of the general character which the hon. member for Victoria has referred to is underway. I expect that at the next session of the Legislature there will be some changes proposed in the law that governs the entry of truckers into the trucking industry and the setting of rates. Intensive reviews have been carried out in Ontario and Alberta recently, and in both cases those reviews have pointed towards more regulation rather than less regulation. I trust that our conclusions will point in the opposite direction. As a generalization, the trucking industry is probably most highly regulated in the province of Quebec; British Columbia is probably second or third in terms of the degree of protection to established trucking companies as opposed to new entrants; Alberta has the fewest regulations; indeed, there is almost complete freedom of entry.

I personally believe that the entry provisions should remain with some changes but that rate regulations . be substantially reduced. There are literally hundreds of small carriers who receive licences in British Columbia every year, so I don't want to leave the impression that no new entries are possible. But the motor carrier branch, on a first time around, and then the Motor Carrier Commission on appeal, do look very carefully at the needs of the community and at the particular applicant. If the particular applicant can prove some degree of financial responsibility and has shippers who say that they will use his or her service, then they've got a very good chance of getting a licence. So I don't want to leave the impression that it is not possible for small businessmen to get into the trucking industry. Indeed, many of them have entered even within the last 12 months.

Vote 107 approved.

Vote 108: telecommunications services branch, $11,864, 584 - approved.

On vote 109: communications system development and regulation branch, $616,780.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I notice that this particular vote has been reduced by almost approximately $400,000 this year and that the grant portion has been reduced by some $300,000. Perhaps the minister can explain to us why the grants portion has been reduced by almost $300,000 this fiscal year. The minister is consulting with his staff and I think he is about ready to reply.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there was an item, I believe, on the order of $400,000 budgeted for grants in the previous year. No moneys were spent under that heading last year and there is no provision this year, at least for a comparable amount. We expect that with the passage of legislation later this session there will be expenditures next year under that heading.

Vote 109 approved.

Vote 110: Motor Carrier Commission, $326,596 -approved.

On vote 111: transport research and planning branch, $548,692.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not going to speak here about transportation research and the halting of the BCR construction up to Dease Lake, but I would like to mention just briefly the possibility of getting some research done with respect to the railroad on Vancouver Island. It seems obvious that in the future we're going to rely increasingly on rail transportation as the price of gasoline continues to escalate.

I would like to inform the minister that the Crown Zellerbach mill in Campbell River has just decided that they're going to do away with their oil burner in

[ Page 2875 ]

the plant up there and put in a hog-fuel burner instead. Now because that's a large pulp mill in this province, they estimate that they'll be using something like the equivalent of 40 rail cars a day of hog fuel in order to feed this new burner that they will have in place at the end of two years. Now I'm wondering what the possibility is, Mr. Chairman, of having the E&N Railway extended from Courtenay to Campbell River to give the company an alternate in terms of moving the hog fuel in that they will need each and every day, and to provide other sources of freight service to the people in the Campbell River area.

Now the E&N Railway, I recognize, is currently under the jurisdiction of the federal government because it's part of the CPR operation, but I would like to request of the minister that some research be done under this vote to look into the possibility of convincing the CPR or working with the CPR or having the provincial government somehow get involved in extending that E&N Railway north to Campbell River.

I would also like to add, Mr. Chairman, that I was particularly pleased at the decision made by the federal government on this; they recognized that railways are going to become increasingly important because they denied the E&N Railway to close down the operation from Parksville north. It seems that now that the federal government has made that decision, the opportunity exists for extending that railway at least as far as Campbell River. I would like to have the minister's comments on that. Thank you.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate subject for further research by transport research and planning in the Department of Energy, Transport and Communications. This is an instance where transportation and energy come together. Indeed, there are a number of such instances.

It is certainly true that with rising oil prices and the prospect of oil prices going up, say, another 50 per cent in the next two or three years, the use of wood wastes as a source of heat energy and perhaps even of electricity is very important. The research people in my ministry did work, as the hon. member knows, closely with the office of the Attorney-General in the intervention which in effect prevented the CPR from stopping the running of the E&N Railway. They will continue to work with the Energy Commission, with the forest products companies and B.C. Hydro on the utilization of wood wastes. In instances such as she described at the upper end of Vancouver Island, the alternatives of rail transport, trucking or bringing in wood wastes by barge will certainly be examined.

MS. SANFORD: I noticed that the minister referred to transport by barge or by truck. The Island Highway north of Campbell River is a very narrow, windy highway and I don't anticipate that in two years all of the problems on the Island Highway will be resolved.

I would like to have the minister give a commitment to the House that he will in fact instruct his research people to look into the possibility of extending that railway from Courtenay to Campbell River, even though I recognize that there are jurisdictional problems here because it's currently under the federal government's jurisdiction. It seems to me that now is the time that we should be working with the federal people, working with the CPR, in order to extend that railway north. It's really the extension of the railway that I'm looking for at this stage. I hope that the minister will be able to commit to the House today that his research people will look at that problem specifically.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will look at this and other similar alternatives in the northern parts of the province.

Vote 111 approved.

On vote 112: British Columbia Energy Commission, $1,122, 870.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is tired today!

I couldn't help but notice that a few moments ago there was the cutest little girl up in the gallery with a big Mickey Mouse outfit on and huge ears. I considered it somewhat more than coincidental that she was seated directly above the government benches.

Mr. Chairman, I have just a short matter to deal with with the minister. I raised it in a general way under his office vote, but more specifically now. I would like to read to him a letter I received regarding the terrible dust storms that the towns and villages on the perimeter of the Columbia River are being subjected to these days. It's a real problem. I specifically request the minister to discuss this matter with B.C. Hydro to see if a remedy can be found. The remedy must be to simply maintain the reservoir level at a more realistic height.

I'm referring to a letter, Mr. Chairman, dated June 20 over the signature of one Janet Atkinson of the firm Karpes and Company, certified general accountants at Revelstoke. It says:

"Further to our telephone conversation of earlier today, may I once again protest most strongly against B.C. Hydro's creation of a dustbowl in what is left of the Columbia Valley?

"As a resident of Revelstoke and a member

[ Page 2876 ]

of the business community here, I resent most strongly B.C. Hydro's cavalier attitude toward the welfare of the community. The dust is unhealthy, a nuisance and an eyesore. It hovers above the Columbia like a shroud. I now avoid taking visitors up to Mt. Revelstoke since there is so rarely a view to show them. This pestilence has continued for more than a month. Surely there can be no technical reason for Hydro to restrict the flow of water from Mica so radically.

"A gesture of goodwill from Hydro would go a long way toward dispelling some of the cynicism felt by residents of the town toward Hydro's assurances concerning the canyon dam. However, since no such gesture seems forthcoming, perhaps a question in the House would help. I understand that you will also be receiving a copy of a letter sent by the chamber of commerce to Mr. Howard DeBeck, comptroller of water rights, on this subject."

The letter is signed by Janet Atkinson.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Labour on a point of order.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I waited with interest to see if the letter that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan was reading would relate to the B.C. Energy Commission. I don't find any connection whatsoever. As the correspondent quite properly pointed out, perhaps it would be best dealt with as a question to the minister at the appropriate time.

MR. KING: On the point of order, if I may, perhaps the Minister of Labour was absent from the House, Mr. Chairman, when this matter was discussed earlier and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications indicated that he would be prepared to answer general policy questions relating to B.C. Hydro under vote 112.

1 acknowledged that under his office vote the general area of his jurisdiction was discussed, but on specifics he agreed that with respect to B.C. Hydro he would answer under vote 112.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the same point of order, I recognize the position that was stated by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, but he was dealing with energy matters. What the member is raising is the question of the control of waters in that particular water system which is solely under B.C. Hydro's control and not the Energy Commission, regardless of what their energy policy may be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister indicated earlier that perhaps he would answer this kind of question. Maybe we could ask for further clarification. Is the minister still of the same mind?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any question that relates to energy generally. The British Columbia Energy Commission has no power over B.C. Hydro, especially in respect to matters such as levels of a reservoir or ensuring that the waterfront is kept in a satisfactory condition for recreation. But I would certainly be glad to answer any question of a general nature as it applies to energy, including a general policy statement with respect to nuclear energy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would certainly appreciate any assistance in trying to maintain order in this matter.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's not a point I'm going to belabour to any great extent. I would just like to point out to the minister that it's not only a matter of the nuisance that's created in the area. It is related, I think, to the Energy Commission and the energy policy. I do not believe that the proper storage of water for maximum energy output necessitates keeping the reservoir at such a low level that dust storms are created and recreational potential is lost to the towns and communities on that river system.

The other dimension, which I'm sure the total government is concerned about - I believe a cabinet committee indicated this concern when they met with residents of the Nakusp area - is that we have the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) out doing a vigorous job in terms of trying to attract tourism and tourist dollars to British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is certainly in conflict with that aspiration when we have tourists being channelled away from an area of the province that really had enjoyed a vigorous tourist trade over the previous four or five years.

So it's a matter of economics and it's a matter of reasonable comfort and enjoyment to the residents of that area in terms of their own resources. I ask the minister to please do all he can in persuading B.C. Hydro to try to stabilize reservoir levels in that area of our province. It's vitally important.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your kind direction in advising me to raise a matter that I raised earlier under vote 102. It facilitates debate in this House.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, as I don't want to ask him this question directly, on Friday there was an exchange that I thought was very illuminating between myself and the minister about nuclear power. I asked the minister to state what the

[ Page 2877 ]

government's policy was. He stated what the government's policy was. He said that the government's policy is opposed to nuclear power. I thanked him very much for that and we exchanged opinions about the disposal of waste, the problems of plutonium and the fast breeders.

While we were talking, while we were exchanging our responsibilities in this House, an enterprising reporter phoned Mr. Bonner and Mr. Bonner pooh-poohed the minister right behind the minister's back. The minister was doing his duty in this House and Mr. Bonner, the head of B.C. Hydro, said to the press: "Huh, don't pay any attention to old Jack. He's just a reformed Liberal. He's only there for a little while. I'm really the Socred boss around here. Don't pay any attention to those Liberals. They may run the cabinet but I run Hydro." He said: "We're going to have nuclear power in this province."

MR. KING: He offended the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) too.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't offend them. Now that's no way to talk, Mr. Member. They're all Liberals together.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Try to get along!

MR. BARRETT: That's right! Well, he's confused about political labels. I'm telling you, you have to stay up overnight to figure out what party these fellows are in. At least you were a Socred anyway, but you sell Chevy’s and today you were "dodging."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Very bad!

HON. MR. GARDOM: You'd better let Shirley write your speeches.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply concerned about the minister's role. Now are you just a figurehead or are you running the show? Somebody has got to be boss and when I ask questions I want to know if I'm talking to the boss or if I'm talking to the monkey. Now one of you is the organ grinder and one of you is the monkey, and I'm having difficulty determining, through you, Mr. Chairman - through your good offices - who's grinding the organ and who's the monkey. When that fellow over in Vancouver in a matter of hours says we're going to have nuclear power and pooh-poohs on the minister, then I'm disappointed and shocked. I expect the minister to repudiate Mr. Bonner and fire him or at least get on the phone and tell him to shut up.

I'd like to know how you stand on this. I know your sensitivities are offended by this thing. I know. You used to be at B.C. Hydro. He might have pulled out your old personnel file or something; I know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I know there are sensitivities involved here, but who's running the show? Are we going to have nuclear power or aren't we? I want to know, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the elected members of this Legislature run the show. The government of the day runs the show.

MR. BARRETT: Fire Bonner!

HON. MR. DAVIS: When it comes to major policy decisions - decisions of the character of whether to proceed with a nuclear power programme or not -they clearly are matters which the government of the day will have to decide upon. They will decide upon it in the light of many factors. Not only the production of power as such, but environmental considerations, social considerations, local and regional aspects will all have to be taken into account.

MR. BARRETT: Right on!

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't like the analogy that the members are all organ grinders, but certainly the organ grinders are the elected representatives and not other people.

Now I said in the House last Friday that I was opposed, and I believe the government was opposed, to a nuclear power programme at the present time because we didn't need nuclear. power. We had a number of other alternatives which were better, even from an economic point of view. It will be a decade, at least, before anyone - and it certainly is not going to be me or the present chairman of B.C. Hydro -makes that decision say in the late 1980s.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the remarks of the chief organ grinder when it comes to B.C. Hydro. Now what are you going to do about the insubordination? I think we should know about that publicly.

Here you are being chastised by an employee. The minister is being embarrassed by an employee who has a different political philosophy than the minister, which should not be a factor. That only counts on whether or not you get a job in British Columbia. He happened to be a Socred, Mr. Chairman. He got the top-paying job in B.C. Hydro; then he turns around and announces policy that's contrary. Now we know who the monkey is.

[ Page 2878 ]

Now I want to say that we've established an analogy. I want the bananas pulled out and I want the chain cut. Let him on his own. He said that he wanted to push Hydro right now to continue exploration on nuclear power, and you know what that's like when it gets into the hands of bureaucrats. That's a green light to go, empire on top of empire on top of empire.

You get to the point where the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says in this House: "We've got to get B.C. Hydro under control." He's the one that raised the alarm. He's admitting as a cabinet minister that B.C. Hydro is out of control. The present minister claims he's the organ grinder. Let's get some music out of them, Mr. Chairman, and let's have the first music as we're firing Robert Bonner for talking too much.

Now what does the minister think about that? Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has been embarrassed by Robert Bonner? I do. A whole weekend of having that acid dripping in the minister's stomach waiting for him to get up and repudiate Mr. Bonner is not healthy for the minister. It's not healthy for the people of this province. I ask the minister to get up and fire Bonner right now. Fire him! If you don't fire him, Mr. Minister, you're telling this House that you're the boss but Bonner can make the decisions. That's right; he's the boss but Bonner can make the decisions.

Now there are other serious contenders for Mr. Bonner's J . job sitting right behind the minister - loyal, dedicated civil servants who participate in this debate and who are ready to assume their responsibility in implementing government policy. I don't know what their political persuasion is.

Oh, you've got a cough? I thought it was a nervous twitch.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't mind me coughing.

MR. BARRETT: No, you go right ahead and cough. Cough up everything you can, partner -you've got a lot to cough up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to see the minister embarrassed this way. He claims he's the boss. His No. I employee is talking behind his back on the telephone to reporters, contradicting the minister. The minister reaffirms his position today. Now I want the minister to get up and say: "I'm the boss and Bonner is fired." Or, Mr. Minister, put it in writing and tell Mr. Bonner to shut up about nuclear power.

Mr. Bonner, in my opinion, is deliberately attempting to assuage public fears on nuclear power in contradiction to the government's announced policy and the general public feeling in this province opposed to nuclear power. I think it is absolutely irresponsible on Mr. Bonner's part. The present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) had a lot of things to say about Mr. Bonner in the past when he was a Liberal MLA. The present House Leader had a lot to say about Mr. Bonner when he was an MLA. They know Mr. Bonner from their own speeches. I know they don't like to have those old speeches quoted back to them....

HON. MR. GARDOM: However....

MR. BARRETT: However, if I have to, I will. They said terrible things about Mr. Bonner. Seven hundred and seven days. Strange bedfellows political expediency makes. A little nervous giggle, Garde?

So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to get up and say Bonner is canned, or at least he's been told to shut up. Don't be afraid of him. Don't be afraid; we'll back you up. Don't be afraid of Bonner. Tell us who the boss really is and that you're going to tell him to shut up about nuclear power.

If not, we'll get the idea that the minister is timid and that Bonner can run all over him, say anything he wants and do anything he wants. The poor minister is left here holding the fort. I don't think it's fair. Mr. Minister, if you're the boss, send him a message. Tell this House and tell the people of this province that you've sent him a message to shut up on nuclear power. If not, then we get the idea that you're frightened of Mr. Bonner ' that he's really tweaking your nose, yes, and repudiating you in policy. So, Mr. Member, do it now. Tell us that you'll repudiate Mr. Bonner for making those statements.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): One short question to the minister. Earlier in this parliament, the minister said that it didn't concern him that Mr. Bonner was on the board of directors of many other companies. It was completely all right.

Can the minister assure this House that there isn't one board that Mr. Bonner sits on that wouldn't benefit from having nuclear power in this province? Can he assure this House that Mr. Bonner does not sit on one board that wouldn't benefit either directly or indirectly from having nuclear power in this province to generate power?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've heard many statements in this House from time to time, but never have I heard anyone that appeared so positive and knew so little about what went on as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . How does he know what Mr. Bonner said? He hasn't got a clue nor an idea. For 10 minutes he regaled us with statements of what Mr. Bonner said when he does not know nor understand.

[ Page 2879 ]

I tell you this much: Mr. Bonner knows his position. He knows he's the chairman of Hydro and knows he doesn't make policy. I know Mr. Bonner well enough that he would not say such a thing.

I've just telephoned Mr. Bonner and I'll add this to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He told me that he made no such statement or implication. He's not here 'to defend himself. Now I know Mr. Bonner well enough because I sat in this House with him, and so did he. He's an able and competent man. We're fortunate to have a man of such ability as chairman of Hydro. No one has ever said that Hydro is running away with money. No one has ever said they're out of control.

MR. BARRETT: He did!

MR. LEA: So did the Premier.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, that's all right. (Laughter.) We say many things in the heat of debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Thank you. Sit down!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Hon. members are having great fun, but when the day ever came.... If you people had had your way with Hydro, we would not have power in this province today. We wouldn't have had the two-river policy; we wouldn't have had the Columbia; we wouldn't have had the Peace; and we wouldn't have had power. We would be buying it from somewhere else. This year, when power is short in the northwest, we would have a brownout if not a blackout. You're the fellows who said we did not need hydro power; we did not need the two-river policy until 1984. Read the papers. See what you said. I think that if there is one thing you should be quiet on, it's Hydro.

I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that such a public servant as Mr. Bonner should be respected and appreciated. I say that on my behalf, and on behalf of many members with me. He's a great public servant doing a great job in a great corporation.

MR. BARRETT: I never thought I'd see the day when the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is applauding Robert Bonner, but that's all right.

Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Bonner has been misquoted in The Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Victoria Times and the Colonist, then that's up to Mr. Bonner to say he has been misquoted. But if that member is coming in this House saying that Mr. Bonner does not favour nuclear power in the future, I have never seen a retraction on that position from Mr. Bonner. I have not heard on the news that Mr.

Bonner said he was misquoted. The quotes from B.C. Hydro running amok, Mr. Chairman, came from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and from the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) . For the Whip of that coalition group to attack the Premier and attack the Minister of Highways is a bit much.

MR. LEA: And the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , too.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Housing, too. Mr. Chairman, the Whip of that party is getting up and trying to misinform the House this way because he was obviously misinformed.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Minister. Shame! Shame!

Now that we've dismissed that member, we'll deal with the basic problem. Mr. Chairman, the minister says he's boss. The Premier says Hydro is out of control. The Minister of Highways says Hydro is out of control. I'm willing to take their word for it. If the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) figures they're fibbing, you'd better speak to them. I don't believe the Minister of Highways is a fibber. If you do, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Dewdney believes the Minister of Highways is a fibber, that's his problem. Not old Alex. He said Hydro's out of control. Bonner said he wants nuclear power. This present minister says he's opposed to nuclear power. This minister says that the elected officials run the corporations, and I agree with him.

Then I'm saying to this minister: show your mettle! Stand up and be counted! Tell Mr. Bonner to retract and shut up about nuclear power! Otherwise, we're going to be left with the impression that the minister does not have the backing in cabinet to discipline Mr. Bonner, that he does not have the backing in cabinet to agree with the Premier's position and the Minister of Highways' position, but that he's bound by the blind discipline of the member for Dewdney who has some strange control over the truth in this House.

Cut it out, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman! Cut it out to have someone underneath you saying that they want nuclear power by the 1980s and you stood in this House Friday, saying: "No way. It's not necessary. It's not economic."

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister has authorized the expenditure of any of that Crown corporation's funds to explore the feasibility of nuclear power in British Columbia. I want to know whether or not such feasibility studies are going on under the authorization of Mr. Bonner. I want to know if this minister has authorized any nuclear power studies. Have you, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 2880 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, not to my knowledge but I'll make inquiries and get a precise answer.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to make inquiries and he doesn't know whether or not there are nuclear studies, will he assure this House that if he finds out such studies are going on he will order them cancelled?

Mr. Chairman, that's a very important point. It really boils down to what we're debating: who's the boss? Now I can understand that Hydro's a big operation and you might not know if they're checking into nuclear power, but if you find out they are, will you order it cancelled.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to define what we're talking about here. As for studies, I know there are several people on the staff of B.C. Hydro who are knowledgeable about nuclear power. I believe there should be some knowledge in Hydro as to nuclear power costs and so on. But if the hon. member is talking about studies which pertain to large installations, particular sites in the province and so on, I have no knowledge of any study in depth of that character; however, I'll make inquiries and make sure that what I'm saying here is absolutely correct.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for that assurance. In light of the minister's stated policy in opposition to nuclear power, I would ask the minister to inform this House that if he finds out that Hydro is indeed, and has been, conducting studies on nuclear power development, including location, he will order them to cease.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for....

MR. BARRETT: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. The minister was going to answer that question. Will you order them to cease?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make inquiries. Depending on what I find, decisions will be made at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you're against nuclear power at this time in British Columbia, and I agree with you. I think the decision is a wise one. Just because it happens to coincide with my opinion is not coincidental over the fact that I think it's wise. I'm too modest to say that. But President Carter happens to agree with me and that's not bad for a peanut farmer.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is opposed to nuclear power. He cannot inform this House, and I understand that, whether or not there are current studies going on at B.C. Hydro as to whether or not we should go to nuclear power in looking for sites and everything else.

The minister has informed me that he will look into that and I thank him for that. After all, he's got to keep his eye on that monster.

All I'm asking is this: if you get a phone call back that says, "yes, indeed, we are studying the feasibility of nuclear power; we have staff on the project; we're looking at potential sites; we're reviewing the potential cost-benefit analysis, " will you order that to cease?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm trying to be as definite as possible, Mr. Chairman. If there are intensive studies going on aimed at projects which could start in the next five or 10 years, I think the money would be wasted. Therefore I would be concerned and want them to cease and desist. But if it's a matter of Hydro being informed and having a few people on staff who are knowledgeable about nuclear energy, I am in favour of that as well.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister. As I understand it clearly before I take my seat , the minister has reiterated that he's opposed to nuclear power; the minister has stated that it is not an option for British Columbia for economic and other reasons; thirdly, if he finds out there are major studies going on in B.C. Hydro - if he seeks that knowledge and finds out -he will order them to cease and desist. I thank the minister.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister whether he could assure this House and therefore the people of British Columbia that Mr. Bonner does not sit on any board in his private life that would benefit either directly or indirectly from putting nuclear power in place in this province. I ask that question because isn't it obvious - and I ask this as a second question to the minister... ? Can he not now see the danger of having people in high places of power in the province - especially in such positions as Mr. Bonner is in as the chairman of B.C. Hydro - in allowing people in those positions to be on the boards of private companies... ? Can he not see now where there could be possible conflicts of interest? Therefore does the minister still agree that it doesn't matter that people such as Mr. Bonner or people in his position should not be on any other board except that one that they serve for the people of this province?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know of any conflict of interest in instances such as the hon. member described. I personally think it's valuable to have directors and even chairmen of Crown

[ Page 2881 ]

corporations who hold directorships in other organizations. This makes them more knowledgeable generally as to what's happening around them.

Again, I would also like to say in Mr. Bonner's case that he's conscientious and he would be very aware of any such conflicts. I would expect that if one were to exist he would be the first to recognize it.

MR. LEA: It's great that the minister has that kind of faith in Mr. Bonner. I realize he was out of this province a few years serving in the federal government and may not have kept himself abreast of Mr. Bonner's history in this province. There's a possibility of that.

But, Mr. Chairman, can't he see that possibly Mr. Bonner could sit on a board and vote and make decisions for a company that would receive cheaper power because of a decision he may have made or may make on the B.C. Hydro board? Can he not see that? He cannot see that. He cannot see that there's a conflict of interest between having a citizen of this province as chairman of the board of Hydro and who also sits on boards of other companies, who could benefit from decisions made in B.C. Hydro. He can't see that?

Can the minister concede then that there could be an occasion arise because of these circumstances that could lead to a conflict of interest? Would he concede that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 112 pass?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like an answer to that question. Would the minister concede that it's possible because of the positions Mr. Bonner holds that there could be a conflict of interest arise?

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

I think that it hardly needs repeating, but we can ask questions and we can insist on answers if we wish. However there's no way that it is incumbent upon a minister to answer any or all questions. So therefore, I ....

MR. LEA: I realize that, but the minister was taking a moment possibly to think, and before he could even think, you were asking if the vote was going to pass. I know he understood the question. He didn't say he wasn't going to answer it and all I'm asking is that he answer that question before we go on to another vote.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't conceive of an instance such as the hon. member is suggesting - that it would be possible to strike a special rate for a corporation that would benefit. Rates are a matter of general application. They're set for all customers of certain categories. It's just inconceivable to me - it's impossible, in fact - for such things to happen,

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll accept that answer as the minister's opinion. It's not mine, but I ponder the naiveté.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'd like to follow along with a question to the minister that concerns me relative to B.C. Hydro and its energy policies. I'd like to find out where the minister stands on their present. . . . I understand that they've stated they're intending to move into the usage of high sulphur fuels at the Burrard Thermal Plant. Their reason is that it's apparently too expensive to use natural gas in the Burrard Thermal Plant, but here again I think we're back to the same basic discussion that has just taken place with the other members. This happens to be B.C. Hydro's policy and Mr. Bonner's policy, but I would like the minister's opinion on this.

To give a bit of background to the minister, although he may already have it, I want to reiterate my concern for the thousands of citizens who live in the Burrard Inlet area. I think the minister is well aware that about 80 per cent of the lower mainland's hot-combustion processes - that is, of course, industrial pollution sources - are in the Burrard Inlet basin, Because of the winds and the inversion problems there, sometimes the pollution hazard is exceptionally high for the people in the area.

Yet here we have B.C. Hydro coming along and suggesting that they want to change to the high-sulphur fuel oils instead of natural gas. Yet the Americans themselves have decided that they will not use the high-sulphur fuel oils in their own thermal plants because of the effect it can have on citizens.

Apparently at this present time the Americans are supposedly working a deal with the Japanese, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to trade their own high sulphur oils for Japan's low-sulphur crude. Now the Japanese can use the high-sulphur crude in their refining processes and the Americans then can use the low-sulphur crude, or the bunker C, in their thermal plants because they will not tolerate the sulphur content of the Alaskan crudes in their thermal plants.

Therefore my question is: why should we tolerate this in our province and in an area such as Burrard Inlet which already - it was established from the Standard Oil hearings on pollution - has about 80 per cent of the lower mainland's hot-combustion processes?

The point I'm making, Mr. Minister, is that I don't think there is any case whatsoever that can be made to allow an increase in emissions in that area.

I think the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who's not here today, should be equally concerned because many of his constituents are going to be

[ Page 2882 ]

caught in this increased emission from the sulphur fuel oils. So I'm questioning the minister on behalf of the thousands of people who will be affected if Hydro pursues this policy because of their claim that it's cheaper. I think I have some facts here for the minister which could show that actually they're not going to save that much money, and yet the people's health will be at stake. Could the minister give his opinion on Hydro's policy and their stated intention?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, what I'm going to say now is not only Hydro's policy, but I think even more important, it is the provincial government's policy - that is, to develop hydro as much as possible, certainly to develop the Revelstoke project, for example. If, however, the Revelstoke project does not go ahead, we're going to have to get our increased power production from some other source, and the only other source that's readily available is the Burrard Thermal Plant.

Now to fuel that plant requires either natural gas or oil and we're already short of natural gas in this province. We've cut back on our export commitments because we're short of gas and we will have difficulty in the next two or three years, unless exploration continues to pick up, in meeting our own mounting requirements for uses other than the generation of power.

It is Hydro's policy to continue hydro; it is not Hydro's policy to run the Burrard Thermal Plant if they can possibly avoid it. But the B.C. Energy Commission is telling them and the provincial government is telling them: "Don't use gas." That's generally a policy throughout this continent - to save natural gas wherever possible; certainly not to burn it under large boilers where other and lower-grade fuels can be used. So general policy says: "Hydro first, and don't run the thermal plant at all. If it has to be done, use fuels other than natural gas."

Now the Burrard Thermal Plant has been run using gas and it's been operating since 1962. It's a relatively old plant. It's run on natural gas but in recent years it has also run on oil for considerable periods of time. By and large the sulphur content in that oil has been relatively low. Hydro has asked the Pollution Control Board for permission to use higher sulphur fuels and the Pollution Control Board has turned Hydro down. I believe that there are sources of oil which are relatively low on sulphur and can do the job at the Burrard Thermal Plant. But I trust that Hydro will be given authority to build sufficient hydro-electric projects so that the Burrard Thermal Plant has to run rarely, if ever, and that it will then be easy to find fuels which are low in sulphur and don't cause any sulphur pollution. Generally speaking, I'd say that running the Burrard Thermal Plant is bad news because it's only run if we're short of water. It has run intermittently in the past and the only occasion on which it would run continuously would be if we failed to provide other and cleaner sources of supply for our load growth in the future.

MRS. DAILLY: Just to follow up very quickly, I want to get the minister's answer quite clearly: are you stating then that no high-sulphur fuels will be used at Burrard Thermal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Hydro will have to obey the dictates of the Pollution Control Board, and the Pollution Control Board has set 1.5 per cent sulphur as a maximum in fuel for fuels used by large industry in the province. Hydro has observed that standard and, as far as I know, will have to adhere to that limit. It has applied for as high as 2.2 per cent sulphur. It could conceivably shop around and find fuels with as much sulphur in the fuel and those fuels would be cheaper. The main reason Hydro has applied is basically in the interest of economy because they're keeping fuel costs down. But the Pollution Control Board is the authority in this connection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you and I were listening to the minister - I was in my office, I must admit - and Mr. Bonner, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, has many corporate directorships that affect the industry in British Columbia. Now surely there is an obvious conflict of interest there. You take the question as to how much the discount should be for bulk users of electrical energy as opposed to what you charge to the homeowner, the residential or the commercial. Now on which side of the argument will Mr. Bonner come down? You know, - almost instinctively, that he will come down on the side of larger discounts to big corporate users which, we're told by conservationists, does not lead to the conservation of power but rather the opposite. But surely there is an obvious conflict of interest. Now nobody can say in this House and the Legislature that we're being unfair to Mr. Bonner in the salary he receives or in the pension he has received as a result of being a member of the Legislature and the cabinet or in the pension he is receiving from MacMillan Bloedel. Why, then, should he be permitted by the minister to have outside interests while he undertakes a very important job for the province of British Columbia - interests which inevitably lead to a conflict of interest? I just don't think that should happen. Cabinet ministers, when they take office -because the position is sensitive, particularly in the industrial area - divest themselves of corporate directorships. I've got some support on that side of the House.

Mr. Bonner, and I think there is a bit of arrogance in this kind of an attitude, chooses not to do so. He is in Montreal Trust, he has some relationship with

[ Page 2883 ]

Cominco, International Nickel, a number of other important corporate directorships.

MR. LEA: International Cominco?

MR. MACDONALD: Now if the minister is the master in this kind of a situation and not subject to the czar of Hydro, who is now Mr. Bonner, then he should make it very clear to that public servant that he should immediately divest himself of corporate directorships that affect the industry in the province of British Columbia. It not only seems to be, Mr. Chairman, a conflict of interest; it is a conflict of interest, and those many Hydro customers who pay their bills faithfully are entitled to better treatment than that. They're entitled to somebody heading that corporation who is not only fair in respect to their electric rate bills but seems to be fair. That's not the case we have. And a simple letter from the minister.... I'm asking him this: will he send a letter to Mr. Bonner saying that, in view of concern expressed in this chamber, he will divest himself of corporate directorships involved with industry in the province of British Columbia? Will the minister send that letter? We want to know who's in charge.

MR. LEA: The minister says that he doesn't really see a conflict of interest. Let's take a look - just try and make a case - at some other ministers. Let's assume that they were on the board of directors of other organizations. Let's take the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams): would it be a conflict of interest for the Minister of Labour to also be... ? No, let's not use that one; let's not use a minister. Let's say the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board: would it be a conflict of interest for the chairman of that board to also be on the board of Cominco? Would it be a conflict of interest for the chairman of the Labour Relations Board to be an officer of the B.C. Federation of Labour? Now those are obvious, aren't they? I mean they're so obvious that the minister would have to say yes, he sees some conflict of interest.

But if you say yes to that, Mr. Chairman, how can you not say yes to a man sitting as the chairman of B.C. Hydro and being on the board of directors of International Nickel? Maybe International Nickel could make a decision in their boardroom that they'd like to open up some industrial development in British Columbia - everyone wishes they would! They could make that decision in their boardroom, but only if they get a certain deal on electrical energy. Mr. Bonner sits in that boardroom and helps make that decision, saying: "Yes. I vote yes for International Nickel to make some overtures to the province of British Columbia and B.C. Hydro for a special deal so that we'll bring industry in there." He then jumps on the plane, comes back to British

Columbia, and at the next directors meeting of B.C. Hydro the question comes up: "Should we give International Nickel some sort of deal to get industry in British Columbia?" And he sits on that board and makes the decision on what kind of deal they're going to offer International Nickel. They make the offer, he jumps on the plane, rushes back to the next directors meeting of International Nickel and says: "We accept." It could happen, but the minister, Mr. Chairman, doesn't see that as a conflict of interest. The government apparently doesn't see that as a conflict of interest.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) apparently doesn't see that as a conflict of interest now - at one time he would have, but not now. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) would obviously have seen that as a conflict of interest three short years ago - but not now. As a matter of fact, they would have seen Robert Bonner's appointment as a conflict of interest, regardless, three years ago -but not now. Can the ministers not tell this House that they have some small bit of concern about conflict of interest with the chairman of B.C. Hydro sitting on the board of Montreal Trust, International Nickel and Canadian Cable Systems? Can the minister not see? Surely he can, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General could, I'm sure, if he were free. The Minister of Labour could see a conflict of interest if he were free of political ties.

Would there be a conflict of interest if the Attorney-General also sat on the Police Commission? It's funny - since they crossed the floor to that side, there's no such thing as a conflict of interest within the Social Credit regime or their appointees. It's very strange indeed.

International Nickel, Canada Cable Systems, Montreal Trust - what does Montreal Trust own? Who knows? They probably have an interest in a great many endeavours, not only in this province, but throughout Canada. It is not wrong for Montreal Trust to have those interests but it's wrong to have the chairman of B.C. Hydro on that board, making decisions, when they could be dealing with B.C. Hydro for endeavours within this province in the private domain. It is wrong to have Robert Bonner on the board of International Nickel when that company could be wheeling and dealing with B.C. Hydro. It is wrong, Mr. Chairman - absolutely wrong! What is this minister's real position? Is he a Liberal or a Socred, or are they one and the same thing?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I raised this matter earlier in the year with the Minister of Transport and Communications regarding the possible conflict of interest of Mr. Bonner. I feel the minister should reconsider his position. He started clearly and unequivocally that he felt Mr. Bonner was not in a conflict of interest situation, being chairman of

[ Page 2884 ]

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, being a director of the J. Henry Schroder Company and Montreal Trust which, I understand, has an interest in some B.C. corporations such as MacMillan Bloedel. Those firms are major customers of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the conflict to me seems very obvious.

I talked earlier about the preferential rates enjoyed by some of the large bulk users of energy in this province. I suggested to the minister - and the minister acknowledged - that there is the need for a review in terms of the rate structure for power sales in this province. Certainly what is an apparent conflict of interest in terms of Mr. Bonner's position adds impetus to that policy review in rate structure. I think the minister is certainly compromised in his ability to persuade the people of the province that all domestic consumers are receiving fair treatment until he addresses himself to this inherent conflict surrounding the positions - the tugs and pulls - of Mr Bonner's allegiance.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, when I was Minister of Labour and acting as a director of the British Columbia Railway. I recall, and it's a matter of public record in this House, that members of cabinet now, who then were in opposition, challenged my right to sit on the board of directors of British Columbia Railway and asserted that there was a conflict of interest in serving as Minister of Labour and director of the British Columbia Railway.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) made it a personal campaign to have me remove myself from the British Columbia Railway as a director. I would point out that in no way was I dealing with financial matters within my cabinet jurisdiction, so the potential for any conflict was much, much less in those circumstances than it is with respect to Mr. Bonner presiding over a preferential rate structure for some companies in which he may have a vested interest. That is a very serious and fundamental conflict, in my view, and one that should be recognized and redressed by the minister responsible.

Mr. Chairman, I did remove myself from the board room of British Columbia Railway, not because I was convinced there was a conflict but because I wanted it not only to be a matter of appropriate responsibilities for myself, but also to be beyond any shadow of doubt that I in my duties as a minister of the Crown was in a conflict-of-interest position. I divested myself of that responsibility. I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the potential for any conflict under those circumstances pales to insignificance when we look at the position in which Mr. Bonner, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, resides at the moment.

It is incumbent on the minister to not only ascertain that the proprieties of law and justice apply in this province, but to make absolutely certain that justice is seen to be done by the public as well. That, I suggest, is a physical impossibility under the present circumstances.

I have some sympathy for the minister, Mr. Chairman. I know that he is one member of cabinet; I know that he hasn't got long-term traditional ties with that party, and after all, this is a matter of government policy. I know that perhaps Mr. Bonner, a former Social Credit cabinet minister, has more political clout within the executive benches of this government than the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communication.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, he is the minister of the Crown. He must accept that responsibility and he must be strong enough to say to his colleagues: "Look, if you want to pay off political debts and bring patronage and reward to those who were party faithful once long ago, you shall not be allowed to do it at the expense of my integrity." That's what the minister must do. He must stand up and protect the jurisdiction and the authority over which he holds the responsibility.

I want to suggest to the minister that as much as I sympathize with him, the appropriate opportunity for bringing about an honest and above-board approach to public administration in this province, whether it's from government departments or Crown corporations, is to level with this House and to remove any conflict which exists now.

So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon the minister to give a clear commitment to this House that he will immediately insist that a review of the position held by Mr. Robert Bonner will be undertaken within cabinet with a view to once and for all eliminating any conflict of interest that obtains with respect to the administration and the setting of electrical energy rates in this province - not only with the setting of rates, but in terms of contract for the provision of hardware to British Columbia Hydro that could be influenced by interlocking directorships. Lord knows, Mr. Chairman, that some of the directorships which Mr. Bonner holds are far-flung and interlocking.

I think that if this government is serious and sincere, as they have stated on many occasions, about being an open government, about letting the sunshine in, about removing political control and political influence from the public affairs of this province, they've got a clear decision to make on this issue. Otherwise it becomes a sham and a mockery to suggest that there is a desire to remove the taint of any political influence from public administration in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister's going to make a statement. It would certainly save time. I think the statement should be a simple one, namely that heads of public bodies of that kind should not hold corporate directorships.

[ Page 2885 ]

Make it plain once and for all.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take the invitation of the hon. member for Vancouver East seriously. I'm going to make a very short statement. I certainly believe that justice must not only be done but seem to be done.

In the case of power rates, there is no such thing as preferential rates. There are a few rates only, and every customer pays the same rate. It's not possible, given the rate structure of B.C. Hydro, to give preferential rates to particular customers. Reference has been made to certain large industrial corporations. Were they to come to British Columbia and operate here, using energy, they'd have to pay the same price as other large corporations. The category in question, bulk use of power, as it is called, is the transmission line rate. It's a single rate. It's paid by everyone in the province. It's a so-called postage-stamp rate. There is no way in which a director or even the chairman of B.C. Hydro could direct preferential treatment in matters of this kind. So I would have to say that there's no question of any preferential treatment in instances of that kind.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, apart from any individual contracts with bulk users, the fact of the matter is that there has to be some relationship between the charges to bulk users of power and residential consumers and small businesses. And they are different. Now shall the bulk industrial users get a large break at the expense of residential or commercial or a small break or no break at all? Who decides that? Who is the primary decision-maker in that? Mr. Bonner. If he, through Montreal Trust, for example - which holds shares in many of the corporate enterprises of this province - is necessarily prejudiced in favour of the corporate interests, then that is unfair to the residential consumer. It's as simple as that, even if there's nothing more in terms of any special deals.

So on that question there is a conflict-of-interest. The government should state clearly and unequivocally what I stated in conversation with Jimmy Rhodes, I remember, at the time he was going to become chairman of Hydro. I know he had divested himself of anything that had any relationship to the economy of British Columbia. He had been with BCPC; he had been with the Energy Commission. He agreed that it would be wrong, and I agreed with him, that he should have anything that might affect his judgment in the decisions he would make as chairman of Hydro. Now I think that what was good for Jimmy Rhodes was good for the province and should be the same for Mr. Bonner.

The minister is ducking the fundamental issue here, which is whether or not the heads of large public bodies and agencies in the province of British

Columbia should hold other corporate interests at the same time. I say that is totally wrong. Just as it is wrong for a cabinet minister to hold those interests it is equally wrong, and even more wrong, for someone in the position of Mr Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro, to hold those corporate interests. He should have divested himself of them a long time ago.

The House is asking the minister right now not to make a statement of no possibility of a problem arising, because it does. The House is asking the minister to issue a directive on behalf of the people of the province that the chairman of B.C. Hydro should not have outside corporate interests.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there are many ways that decisions can be made that would bring favour. There's a possibility that it could be a rate structure, but it doesn't have to be a rate structure. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you have shown wise discretion in the latitude this debate has gone to, but we're dealing with the B.C. Energy Commission. Under it the minister has been prepared to accept general questions with regard to energy policy. However, it seems to me the debate has drifted far away from that into the activities of an individual in the way in which he may discharge a particular responsibility not connected with the B.C. Energy Commission or any of its responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'd better make a ruling on the point of order. Earlier in the day the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) suggested that he would accept general questions on policy regarding B.C. Hydro under vote 112. The Chair has been very lenient and, I think, allowed a very broad scope in this debate. At times it's been on the verge of calling the debate to order. Since this was established not be precedent but only by the agreement of the minister, we would need to have some kind of guidance from the minister as to when the debate has reached beyond the broad scope allowed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that that duty is yours, not the minister's and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. sir, if I were to adhere to the strictest rules of the House, then this debate would be out of order. It's only by permission of the minister that we are even able to discuss what we are discussing.

MR. LEA: But what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it isn't up to the minister, but it's up to yourself

[ Page 2886 ]

as Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish me to obtain to the strictest orders?

MR. LEA: I don't have anything more to say. As a matter of fact, the position the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) took on this point of order is, to me, just absolutely ridiculous. If he'd been on this side of the House three years ago, you wouldn't have shut him up. As he changed sides, he seems to have changed principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, let's move to vote 112.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Under this vote, we can discuss self-service stations which were discussed at some length under vote 102, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to be repetitive, but I want to underscore a certain fact in terms of this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The greatest latitude that I'm empowered to allow in this particular debate happens to be on the general policies of B.C. Hydro; I cannot see how self-service stations would fall under this.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Because, Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Energy Commission - which has, by the way, done an excellent job since it was set up under the direction of the former Attorney-General of this province (Mr. Macdonald) , your first member for Vancouver East - has tabled some reports and I think they are excellent reports. One of those reports deals with self-service stations in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of canvassing this whole subject again. I raise it only because I have one final and minor point to underscore the position I have taken earlier in this Legislature, and that is to point out to the minister a headline in the Powell River News, dated June 15,1977. That headline reads: "Self-serve Gas Here Because Powell River Can't Stop It." I just want to underscore to the minister the need to bring in legislation to control these multinational giants who are consuming the independent gas station operators around this province. They're gobbling them up by the dozen and I think that we should have legislation on this matter as soon as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May I remind hon. members that those questions which require or have , the need for future legislation are clearly out of order in the debate on estimates?

MR. KING: I just wanted to make one additional point to the minister and that is with respect to general energy policy in this province. Now the B.C.

Energy Commission, if it is to be a meaningful organization at all, must have some ability to influence the direction and the policy of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. It's been pointed out on numerous occasions by many qualified people, both inside this House and outside, that when you put an agency such as B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in complete charge of the development of power, they tend to become an agency with a self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome; they set goals and expectations for energy growth that serve to increase their own bureaucracy. Then they set out to meet and to ensure that their projections become true. It's called empire building within the public service, and it's no less empire building within a Crown agency. So if the B.C. Energy Commission is to become an important and useful tool at all, in terms of monitoring and venting energy needs in the public interest in this province, then there must be ant ability to affect the long-term planning of Hydro in this province. Now having said that, there must also be the willingness of B.C. Hydro to recognize public need and to recognize policy input from the Energy Commission and, indeed, from the political arm of government.

If the chairman of B.C. Hydro is affected by other considerations such as directorships, his ability to react and respond properly to the Energy Commission overtures and to the policy directives of government is completely compromised. For the minister to glibly suggest to this House that there is one flat rate for energy in this province is completely not factual and completely unacceptable. It is a matter of record that the large domestic consumers in this province do receive a preferential rate of energy. I believe that in comparison to the bulk power consumed, about 40 per cent of the total energy output of B.C. Hydro, they provide in return only about 25 per cent of the revenue to B.C. Hydro. Contrast that with the position of the household consumers in the province, who do not use nearly as much power as the large industrial plants, and yet provide a higher percentage of the revenue and try to argue credibly in this House, Mr. Minister, that there is equality of power rates. Nonsense!

What I am suggesting to you is that if that inequity is to be remedied - if there is to be redress - that redress must come from someone who is obligated to the public interest of the province, not obligated to or influenced by or affected by directorships which he may hold or which in fact he does hold in some firms which certainly have interlocking relationships with large corporate B.C. users. That is the situation, and the minister can't shrug it away and ignore it by saying that the rates are set and the rates are equitable. That's nonsense and the minister knows it.

The minister has already given a commitment to this House that a review of the inequitable power

[ Page 2887 ]

rates in this province will be undertaken. I ask him if he can seriously suggest to this House that Mr. Bonner is the man to do that, to bring about equity of rates for householders and industrial users when in fact he is, through his corporate directorships, involved in some of those firms in British Columbia which are now enjoying preferential rates.

It's a fundamental conflict of interests. It's certainly fundamental enough that any politician in this province should understand it and perceive it. I believe it's so fundamental that it's understood by the public. I think that the honourable thing for the minister to do would be to recognize it and come to grips with it now, not to wait until he is forced into the position of having to do something about it by the weight of public opinion, because that certainly will happen if he is not prepared to act of his own initiative sooner.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate you on the very judicious ruling that you made before. It's interesting that we have the agreement of the minister to pursue the debate; then when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) feels he's getting out of his depth, he gets up to stop the debate. But very much to your credit, sir, you kept it going.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, there was no intention here to stop the debate within the limits laid down by the Chair or by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your observation is well taken.

MR. LEVI: I think the minister should know that although members are sometimes not in the House, they have the electronic equipment to listen to, and I listened very carefully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 112, please.

MR. LEVI: Yes, thank you.

In respect to energy matters, which is very much the area of the B.C. Energy Board, I'd like to draw the minister’s attention to a statement that was made some two weeks ago by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs - the federal one (Hon. Mr. Abbott) - in commenting on the federal food policy in which he said at that time that one of the very serious contributors towards food costs is the cost of energy. I'm relating it, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, he stated that some 15 per cent of the cost of food is because of energy cost. In fact, the food industry takes up about 15 per cent of all the energy produced in this country in respect to manufacturing and that kind of thing.

We've heard some discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, regarding the involvement of the chairman of the British Columbia Hydro Corporation and his interlocking relationships. It occurs to me that quite recently the cabinet made a decision to sell a company that was owned by the government that was in the food industry. Yet when we view very closely the people who bought this company - I'm now connecting up the inter-corporate relationships of the chairman of the B.C. Hydro Board, Mr. Chairman, if you're having some trouble following it - part of the ownership of that company was bought by a subsidiary of a company of which the chairman of the B.C. Hydro Board is a director.

I have in mind Canadian Cable Systems, which is part of what is known as Jonlab Holding Company. They, through one of their companies, own 10 per cent of what is now known as Creston Valley Foods. I presume that if this matter came up in cabinet, the minister, if he was there, presumably would have participated in a decision. I think that when one examines the issues of energy which we're dealing with under this vote, and the role of the chair-man of the B.C. Hydro and his involvement in various boards of directors, we do find very specifically - and my colleagues have alluded to the fact - that there's a conflict of interest. I think there are very clear conflicts of interest.

I think it's interesting to note, too, Mr. Chairman, the recent announcement by the government through the aegis of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that there would be a capital market study. The first part of this capital market study, costing $125,000, is going to be completed by J. Henry Schroder. Mr. Bonner is a director of that company. While I don't want to get into that now because it's in another minister's jurisdiction, nevertheless it's all part of the feeling that somehow this particular individual has an incredible influence. Whether it's direct or indirect, it's there. It's there, as my colleague from Revelstoke pointed out, in terms of the rates that are provided to people in large corporations. Yet their contribution, in terms of the cost, is only 25 per cent.

We are entitled, I think, in this debate to draw some conclusions about what can happen as a result of the various influences that are brought to bear on an individual because of his other responsibilities. I have raised in another debate in this House my concerns about that gentleman's involvement in all these corporations, wondering whether he has sufficient time to devote to the job that he's paid some $50,000 a year for.

Particularly as an economic policy maker in this province Mr. Bonner has a great deal of influence. We are entitled, as we have done this afternoon, to examine very closely what other interests could possibly be brought to bear in terms of Mr. Bonner's functions. It would take an unusually strong

[ Page 2888 ]

individual not to be influenced in some way by the various commitments and allegiances that he has in terms of his other responsibilities. I think that's why we've made it very specific. Here in this province, where the energy question is constantly before us, we now find that what is constantly before us is a continuing wonderment on our part whether this gentleman can in fact carry out specifically the job that he has to do.

What we are looking for is some kind of clear statement about this, but we evidently are not going to get it. It's not a statement, I presume, that the minister could make; it's something that the Premier has to make. The Premier isn't here so we have to go after the minister about it.

One examines the background of the chairman of B.C. Hydro and his involvements with multinational corporations and his previous involvement in the forest industry. All of these experiences in some way have to have some influence on the decisions that he has made.

We were particularly concerned in another debate in relation to rates. After all, three times in some two and a half years the rates to the ordinary people have been increased. We wonder about these things. We are entitled to wonder whether the minister who is responsible for those operations can in fact continue to go along endorsing the actions of this individual. I think by his silence we must presumably say that he is endorsing them, although he did give a commitment this afternoon that he is going to see that statements relating to nuclear energy will not be made any more by the chairman of the board but rather perhaps by the government. That, in itself, is good.

We are here, Mr. Chairman, after being government. It's a new role for us, in terms of opposition, to examine, to make sure that we can make the kind of proposals, particularly in relation to this subject. We are entitled to examine very closely the motivations of individuals that have extremely important positions in this province. It is our job to point them out in such a way that that individual will be able, if he can, to assure his minister, and his minister to assure us, that there are, no conflicts of interest. We have not been assured that there are no conflicts of interest. What is left in my mind and in the minds of my colleagues is that there are very clear, serious conflicts of interest with that man, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, continuing in his present position. It's a matter that cannot be brushed off simply because the ministry is not prepared to come to grips with it.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I was intrigued half an hour ago by the remarks of the minister in response to the questions of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) regarding the Burrard thermal operations. The minister stated that the Burrard thermal plant was only used in the event of a shortage of power generated by the usual hydro-electric facilities in some other part of the province. In the past we know that to be true. I believe the ice storm in 1968 required a major use of Burrard thermal; the need for an early filling of Mica reservoir in 1976 and our commitments to Bonneville Power were met by extra generation by Burrard thermal. It has been used for peaking power; I don't believe it has been used to satisfy the base load, although it may have been.

We are in a situation now, though, Mr. Chairman, where the forecast for the Mica Reservoir for 1977 is that it will fall some two million acre-feet short of being full by the end of July. That's expected to be its greatest amount of storage - some two million acre-feet short. We also know the Authority has advised , the public that the Arrow reservoir downstream will fall some four million acre-feet short of being full this year due to low runoff. We all know there is a very low runoff this year. There has been extremely low precipitation for the last eight months.

However, Mr. Chairman, in January of this year the Authority sold nearly two million acre-feet of water to Bonneville Power. This means that a deficiency which would have been four million acre-feet is now found to be six million acre-feet - a deliberate 50 per cent increase in the shortage of water in the two storage reservoirs on the Columbia River.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a direct relationship between this extra 50 per cent storage shortage and the amount of firm power which is going to have to be generated from Burrard Thermal. This is power which naturally, since it's going to be generated from either bunker sea or natural gas, is going to cost a great deal more than hydro-electric power would cost. I would point out, Mr. Chairman - as I'm sure the minister is aware -that when you have less water than you would like to have, you not only lose in terms of the amount of water you can pass through the turbines but you also lose horsepower because you have a reduced head. In other words, for a given amount of water you get less power than you otherwise would.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, what the minister can tell us about that decision. Was he party to it? Was it discussed in the directorate? Can the minister, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, justify to this House why that decision was made when surely, as long ago as January, it could be foreseen that we were going to have a major water shortage through the summer and fall of 1977?

1 suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is a direct relationship between the costs which will be incurred from generating power through Burrard Thermal and the amount of sulphurous pollution and acidic pollution which will be dumped on the lower

[ Page 2889 ]

mainland. This was a rather brash, hasty and ill-conceived decision made last January to sell water - not power, Mr. Chairman, but to sell water -prematurely when there was already plenty of evidence that there was going to be a water shortage throughout the spring, summer and fall of 1977.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 112 pass?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking on vote 112?

MR. D’ARCY: Yes, this is on vote 112. It involves the B.C. Energy Commission. I gather this has been discussed before in this committee under this vote. The minister has discussed it; other members of this House have discussed it. I would like a response from the minister as to whether or not, to his knowledge, he was party to discussions over the sale of this water, and whether permission was obtained. As I understand it, it's required by law from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . Also, were there discussions in cabinet?

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat tired of hearing the Premier and ministers of the House - going back to 1964 even - disclaiming responsibility for the actions of British Columbia Hydro. I believe B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation. Its major decisions are to carry out government policy. Surely the minister who reports to this House on behalf of British Columbia Hydro has something to do with government policy, and the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority carries out government policy. If they don't carry out government policy, I think there are a whole new group of questions which should be asked as to who is running what and does the tail wag the dog.

I think that minister is responsible. I think he is concerned about the Authority. He was a long-time employee of its predecessor, British Columbia Electric. I am frankly very curious, because I represent a riding which has been grievously affected by the low water levels on the Arrow reservoir, as to how this decision was made. Could we perhaps have some direction and some assurance that this sort of thing will not happen again in the future?

Vote 112 approved.

On vote 113: British Columbia Ferries, $29,819, 800.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions and a comment. Some of these may have been covered. I haven't been in the House continually since we started this minister's estimates some three months ago. I might have missed some of the comments or questions.

The first one, very simply, is: on what date did the B.C. Ferry Corporation become activated?

AN HON. MEMBER: January 1.

MR. STUPICH: January I? My next question then is about the third quarterly report and the comparison with the estimates. Comparing revenue and expenditures as reported in the third quarterly report - the revenue for the nine months of $48.4 million and the expenditures of $61.3 million -would indicate a shortfall of $12.9 million in the nine months.

Now I know we can't simply project that forward and say that it will be about $16 million within the year, but I'm looking at the estimates for B.C. Ferries as we discussed them in the House last year sometime. The net expenditures then were $46 million. I'm wondering whether the $25 million subsidy would have been paid to B.C. Ferry Corporation after it started up - that is in the last quarter of fiscal 1977 - or exactly what would be happening by way of subsidizing B.C. Ferry Corporation. I know it was intended to get operating, I believe, on July I rather than January 1. So I'm wondering what financial transactions occurred between public accounts and B.C. Ferry Corporation in the fiscal period ended March 31,1977.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I have another question I wanted to ask. I'm not sure that this is the right minister, but if I don't ask it now I won't have a chance to come back.

I think this was the minister who said that a decision would be made on the Gabriola crossing late in the summer - of 1976, that is. I noticed more recently in a meeting in Nanaimo when they were doing some planning committee meetings that there was a response, I believe, from the Ministry of Highways to the effect that there would be nothing done with respect to a bypass until a decision had been made on the relocation of the ferry terminal to Gabriola. I wonder whether this minister knows of any studies that are going on or that have been concluded since he said that the decision would be made late in the summer of 1976, or if he can tell me anything at all about that situation or whether I should refer it to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) .

A point that 1 would like to make is one that I started making in this Legislature when I first entered it in 1964, and that was with respect to later sailings on routes 1 and 2. At the time I entered the House, the latest sailings were 10 p.m. on the route between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay and down at this end it was 9 p.m. I know that not too long after that

[ Page 2890 ]

there were some later sailings put into effect to I I p.m.; then as time went on, the hours of sailing were extended even further. The most recent schedule I've seen, I believe, shows the latest sailing from Nanaimo at 10 p.m. and the latest sailing from Horseshoe Bay at 10:30 p.m.

I'd like to make a plea for a later sailing. I'm not suggesting that it has to be an extra sailing necessarily. I did discuss this some time ago with some of the crew members who said that invariably the second boat is less loaded than is the first boat. The suggestion I got from some crew members in order to achieve a later sailing was simply to have boat No. 2 leave later on and that it not sail any more hours but that there be later sailings.

I know the later sailings are not the most crowded, but from the point of view of providing service to people, the availability of a later crossing, I think, would certainly assist the Ferry Corporation in serving the needs of the traveling public. So I'm just asking the minister to give some consideration to the idea of somehow or other - not necessarily with added costs - providing for later sailings, particularly on the route between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay. I'll let someone down here speak for this end.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't speak to the exact details of the subsidies given to B.C. Ferries last year. The $25 million subsidy began on an annual basis on January 1,1977. Prior to that the expenses of the, Ferry Corporation as and when they were incurred.... So I would have to look at the month-by-month statistics to provide the details.

The $25 million subsidy - allowing for inflation of I think it's $25.8 million - reflects the mileage of all the routes operated by B.C. Ferries. It will be increased in this quarter of the year because of the extension of route obligations - the Tsawwassen run and so on. But that figure will change only if routes are added or subtracted, or according to the inflation index. It is a fixed amount within those confines. It is not an amount of money available to the B.C. Ferry Corporation that varies with the whim of the government or with the volume of traffic carried on the ferries. It is a set amount and related to a formula which appears in the Act and in an order passed under the Act.

The hon. member asks about a Gabriola crossing. I assume he means the Iona-Gabriola crossing over the Strait of Georgia itself. I have said on several occasions that that was a matter for consideration at some future date and I have said at least twice in Nanaimo to my knowledge that it wasn't something that the government was prepared to deal with immediately. There were other matters such as the establishment of the corporation, setting up a level of rates that was realistic and looking after the middle and upper coast that came first.

There is a study which is underway which will endeavour to help us determine whether a new crossing is preferable to adding. new vessels on existing routes. Those two are clear alternatives: building a new and shorter crossing - in other words, putting a lot of money into a new crossing - or as an alternative, putting additional moneys into new vessels, perhaps of the character of the Queen of Coquitlam and the Queen of Cowichan.

As to later sailings, I'll ask the management to look into the feasibility of later sailings. I know that the added cost of overtime pay is one consideration, but certainly serving the public is even more important.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up a little bit: I tried to make a point of saying that I wasn't necessarily asking for additional cost with respect to later sailings. It seems to me that the added overtime pay would only come in if there were to be extra trips, but just that the sailings be rescheduled. For example, boat No. 2, instead of leaving at whatever time it leaves in the morning now - it used to be 6:15 for No. 1, and No. 2 left at 7:15. The suggestion from crew members was that if No. 2 left at 9:15 rather than 7:15, it could then be two hours later in the evening. It could be that kind of thing or perhaps a break in the middle of the day, but that might involve overtime. But I wonder if boat No. 2 could leave later and have later sailings that way. That is something I would like to have looked into.

You mentioned a study that is now going on with respect to Gabriola. I wonder who is doing that and when we might know the results of that study.

I'm not clear on the finances. You said the $25 million annual subsidy. I take it from that that they would have received a quarter of that, since they're operating for only a quarter - $6.25 million. I would take it from that that the net cost under this vote 173 for the fiscal period 1976-77, instead of being the $46 million we budgeted, will actually be roughly $25 million. The net cost for the nine months was $13 million. The difference between revenue and expenditures, according to the third quarterly statement, was about $13 million. If we add to that the cost of the subsidy for one period - $6.5 million - we're getting up into the neighbourhood of $20 million as the net cost of vote 173, rather than the net budgeted cost of $46 million.

I just want confirmation of that as approximately the situation.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that is approximately correct.

MR. STUPICH: And the study on Gabriola - who, when?

[ Page 2891 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The study at this date is in-house, but there is an intention to go out and have someone do it on a full-scale basis so it can be published and made available to everyone.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the government has never admitted that it made a mistake when it increased the fares by 100 per cent. This minister certainly never has; the Premier never has; and I don't think any member of the government has said that it was a gross error that they made at the time, despite the fact that we on this side of the House spoke at length about the disastrous effect that 100 per cent increase would have on the economy of Vancouver Island.

I'm pleased to note that the board of directors for the new Ferry Corporation has, in fact, apologized on behalf of the government and said that it was a mistake, in that the board of directors is now saying that it hopes to reduce some of the losses on B.C. Ferries by reducing the ferry rates at this time.

In other words, what we were saying at the time that you were increasing the rates by 100 per cent is what the board of directors is now saying. We said that you would drive people away in droves and that you would incur losses as a result of the empty ferries running back and forth across the strait.

Happily, the board of directors is now agreeing with us and they say that they are going to cut their losses by reducing the rates.

Unfortunately I think that the rate reduction is not sufficient and rates should be reduced even more so that they can cut their losses even more. That's what the board of directors is saying, Mr. Chairman. They have stated that they hope to cut their losses on B.C. Ferries because they have reduced the rates. In other words, that 100 per cent increase was an error and I just hope that someone in that government is willing to admit at this stage that it was a gross error.

I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, which relate specifically to my own constituency as a result of the press release which came out last week announcing that in the future the Queen of Prince Rupert would be berthed at Tsawwassen rather than at Kelsey Bay.

I have some concern about the present employees at Kelsey Bay and I'm wondering what is going to happen to the people who are now employed at the terminal - those people who are selling tickets, working in secretarial positions and operating that terminal at Kelsey Bay. Will you ensure that all of those employees are going to be absorbed within the B.C. Ferries system? What about the people who are now resident at Kelsey Bay? Will they have to be shipped somewhere else or will they be able to continue working in some capacity for the B.C. Ferry authority at Kelsey Bay?

What's going to happen to the terminal itself? Are you planning to leave the building as is, or are you going to find some other use for it? It's my understanding that ticket sales for people who are boarding the vessel at Kelsey Bay in the future will be made on board. So I assume there will be some loss of employment there, and I would like to know specifics with respect to employees at Kelsey Bay.

The other question I have is very specific and I don't know if the minister might have the answer. This relates to the docking of the Queen of Prince Rupert at Port Hardy, which is proposed to happen in about two years' time. I'm wondering if the land which was purchased a number of years ago for the possible relocation of the terminal at Port Hardy is the site that's going to be used or whether or not the industrial park area at Bear Cove which was purchased by the previous government will be the terminal for the Queen of Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll try and answer those three questions in a reverse order in this case.

The board of directors of the B.C. Ferries will be meeting late in July in the Port Hardy area.

While they're there they will hopefully make a decision as to the exact location of the port facilities which will be used in that area. I realize that there's a dock downtown and there's a possibility of a terminal at Bear Cove. Discussions are proceeding currently with both the Ministry of Highways and the Ministry of Economic Development as well as to the desirability of one location as opposed to the other. But I would say that subject to assistance which B.C. Ferries hopes to obtain both from Highways and Economic Development, and subject to the decision of the directors themselves, there will be a precise location determined by the end of July in the Port Hardy area.

The terminal at Kelsey Bay will continue to operate. Loadings this fall, for example, from Vancouver will all occur at Kelsey Bay, of course; they won't occur at Tsawwassen. All employees, if any of them are in fact redundant in that location, will be employed elsewhere in the B.C. Ferry Corporation's operations.

The great majority of employees sailing from Kelsey Bay in the past have lived in the lower mainland area or in the lower part of the Island. Typically, those who work on board the Prince Rupert go for two weeks on the Rupert; they stay on the Rupert for two weeks and then are bused back home again to their various homes. There are very few employees who in fact live in the Kelsey Bay area and operate there. So I would imagine the dislocation would be minimal, and in any case the Ferry Corporation will be very conscious of the need to look after their employees there.

The hon. member referred to cutting rates and

[ Page 2892 ]

cutting losses. The latest announcement relating to fares amounting to overall - and I'm generalizing - a cut of 20 per cent will cost the provincial taxpayer approximately $10 million. So a cut in rates incurs costs. It doesn't cut expenses; it cuts into the income of the corporation.

The 100 per cent increase in fares, of course, was partially offset by roughly a 20 per cent decline in volume. The net effect was an increase in revenue to the corporation of between 40 and 50 per cent. So the rule of thumb used in the transit industry across this continent - the rule of thumb used by most ferry operations - to the effect that a 10 per cent increase in fares results in between a 2 and 3 per cent decline in volume holds even in our case. Obviously an increase in fares generates more income and a cut in fares reduces income, and that has been borne out by experience in the last 12 mouths.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's good to see the minister using averaging instead of marginal, but then this is Monday and last week was last week. It must have been a wonderful school of economics.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know.... I'm not quite sure whether I completely understood the minister and his position last week.

I asked whether or not the service that the residents of the small communities along the coast would be receiving would be a service commensurate with the service as it was just previous to the cancellation of the Northland subsidy, whether they would receive a commensurate freight and passenger service by marine transport before any money would be spent to upgrade or to bring in docking facilities and ferry service into Kitimat.

The people in those other communities were the losers when that subsidy was cut off. It would seem to me only fair that they at least come back to where they were before the subsidy cut-off, before money is spent to improve the transportation system into a community that already has not a bad transportation system, when others can face practically no transportation system, or a very high one in terms of costs.

I think the minister agreed with me that the measures that are being put in now with ferries and feeder services is an interim system. The long range will call for self-propelled vessels. During the debate it was hard to nail down whether that was really what the minister also meant: that the system being put in now is interim, that there will be a system of self-propelled vessels serving the small vessels on the coast with lift-on, lift-off facilities and passengers. If that is the case, how long will the residents of the coast have to face the costs of ferry service and trans-shipments before they get their own system in place - the only one that's workable - of self-propelled vessels serving those communities?

Has the minister any time frame in mind? How long will it be before they get back to a service that is liveable, so that they don't pay $1 more for a pound of coffee in Stewart than we do down here? How long is it going to be before they can get back to a reasonable freight rate so they can purchase goods and commodities at a reasonable rate?

A ferry system with a feeder system won't do it, because every time you make a trans-shipment, the cost goes up. I believe the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) would agree with me on that. I think we'd also both agree that the federal government is the real culprit in this matter. The real culprit in this matter is the federal government. The provincial government was left along with other British Columbians holding the short end of the stick because of bad decisions at the federal level.

But now we've had agreements signed between Canada and the province. The province has said that they will accept that responsibility in that jurisdiction for coastal transportation. How long do the people have to wait along the coast before they can get back a service that is at least commensurate with the service that was supplied by Northland?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is asking many of the same questions that the board of directors of B.C. Ferries is asking itself. He has forecast in a general way the objectives of the corporation: self-propelled vessels; drive-on, drive-off; in small communities, lift-on, lift-off; that kind of thing. To try to anticipate in terms of months, weeks even, when some of these services will be put in place would be to anticipate the next two meetings of the board of directors - one early in July and one towards the end of July. So I'd rather not attempt to do that.

I would, however, say this. We're not setting Northland Navigation's performance in recent years as any criterion for the operation of B.C. Ferries. I personally believe that communities up the coast should receive at least as good service as those in this general area - for example, the Gulf Islands. We'll have to provide services not only to a few larger communities without discrimination - and I'm referring to Kitimat - but also to many smaller communities as well, setting our own much higher standards for the future.

MR. LEA: I'm pleased by what I hear from the minister. I agree with the minister. If the Ferry Corporation is going to go ahead and put in place those kinds of services, you get no argument from me, and I don't think you will. The people along the coast are reasonable. I thank the minister for that because that isn't what we got from the Premier. Now the minister has gone along with the people of the coast and said that they have accepted the

[ Page 2893 ]

responsibilities that the federal government had before by that agreement and that those services will be put in place. I take the minister at his word.,

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We are rapidly approaching the termination of these debates under this minister's estimates. I have no intention of canvassing material and matters that were canvassed under vote 102, the salary vote. I am a bit disappointed that we did not hear from the minister any long-term or short-term solutions to the central and north coast transportation problem, particularly in terms of self-propelled vessels. There are many small communities where it is simply not feasible to build ramps, and we won't have the vessels.

I'm a bit disappointed that residents of the Powell River-Sunshine Coast area and the Gulf Islands could not participate in a recently marginal fare decrease which went into effect in this province on June I of this year.

But in concluding this minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, I will say this. That minister, even though he didn't give us the answers that we possibly would like to have heard, did respond to questions. That's much more than I can say for some other ministers in this House and I do appreciate that.

MR. D'ARCY: I have two or three short questions on ferries to the minister. I've listened to his answers in the House on them. Perhaps I missed it, but I'm still unaware, when he talks about a $90 million operating cost of the B.C. ferry fleet for 1977, as to whether that's all what is unusual in normal company accounting - company methods - operating costs, or whether that's operating plus capital costs, or whether there are capital costs in addition to that $90 million. Just a quick clarification on that point would be appreciated.

Two other points, Mr. Chairman: it may seem minor, but I've had numerous complaints from constituents who have used the ferry service to Prince Rupert. While they say the service is excellent and they're very happy they took the trip, they were a little bit nonplussed to arrive at Kelsey Bay, which is a very small community with few amenities, and to find that while they were prepared to pay a fare per vehicle and passage and staterooms well in excess of $100 - perhaps up to $200 in many cases - the only tender that the B.C. ferry booth at Kelsey Bay would accept was cash on the barrelhead. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is fine when you're dealing with passages to and from Vancouver Island and the mainland, of perhaps $10, $15 or $20. But when we start asking people to carry cash in remote communities to that extent.... To my knowledge, I'm not even sure traveler's cheques are accepted. I think that this being 1977, simple, ordinary charge cards such as Chargex and Master Charge should be accepted. When we are talking about these kinds of money, we instruct our children and we are told not to carry large sums of money. Here we find a very small community with very limited banking and financial services, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, having advertised internationally and across Canada -and the same kind of advertisements in tours in B.C. - puts this kind of a roadblock and poor public relations obstacle in the face of people wanting to use the service.

Some of the complaints have been that passengers who were prepared to go to a credit union or bank in Kelsey Bay found out that they were closed during noon hour. Of course, it was during noon hour -around 1 o'clock or something - when the ferry left. Possibly the directorate has already considered this; if they haven't, I would hope they would.

The final point, Mr. Chairman, is I can't help but think of the terrible inefficiency in manpower and equipment to see $80,000 and $100,000 and $120,000 buses being loaded on the ferries to sit there for a one-hour-and-40-minute crossing to Departure Bay or to Tsawwassen, as the case may be. It would seem to me that in an eight-hour shift, one bus probably only travels 70 or 80 miles in some cases. On a per passenger mile, this surely has to be one of the highest costs incurred by any bus company in North America, and possibly in the world. Considering the massive amounts of modifications which took place in the Tsawwassen terminal to handle the Queen of Alberni, I don't see why that consideration could not have been given to direct loading and unloading of buses right on to the passenger decks of the ferries at each end. I believe that this is done in many places in Europe; I've been told it has, although I haven't seen it. It would 'allow an individual bus and driver to shuttle back and forth between downtown and the ferry terminals several times in an eight-hour shift instead of making only one return trip. As I say, there is a tremendous capital cost and a very high cost in labour to carry a busload of passengers between either Nanaimo and Vancouver or Vancouver and Victoria. I'm wondering if the directorate has considered trying to cut down on what I consider to be a gross misuse of capital equipment and of manpower.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as to the 1977 budget of B.C. Ferries, the total budget will be approximately $100 million, of which $90 million is operating costs and $10 million is capital costs. The operating cost won't include major maintenance, such as substantial damage to a terminal which has to be repaired immediately. It may cost a lot, but still it's in the operating budget. It's not capital. New capital in the form of new vessels and new docks is in the $10 million figure.

Looking ahead, I think a figure like $30 million

[ Page 2894 ]

would be better because in vessels and terminals we have at least $300 million - perhaps $400 million -and budgeting a few years from now would certainly see the setting aside of something like $30 million over and above the $90 million. So to that extent we have something less than a longer-term budget in the $100 million figure this year.

Chargex and traveler's cheques should certainly be accepted on the Queen of Prince Rupert. Chargex-type cards so far have not been admitted at our busier terminals, simply because it would delay traffic very substantially. That's the main reason they're not used.

Shuttle buses are certainly being looked into, but the buses that go through are popular, basically because people don't have to carry anything on or off the vessel. They feel secure. They know where their ride is. The passenger much prefers to know that the bus is down there than to have to carry something onto the ferry and then worry about whether they'll catch a bus at the other end and so on. It's a matter of acceptance. Also, two or 'three buses per ferry carry a large amount of high-value freight through. It may not be that obvious, but it's certainly a substantial service and a good source of revenue. But the position of shuttle buses is certainly being looked into actively right now.

Vote 113 approved.

On vote 114: building occupancy charges, $1,470, 619.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could advise the House on the average cost per square foot paid by his department to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. How much space is so rented? Also, what is the total space rented in the private sector and what is the cost per square foot for that rental?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that we don't have those details, but I'll certainly get them as soon as they are available and make them available to the hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there's one other thing I would like to ask the minister but I'll let it go until the next vote.

Vote 114 approved.

On vote 115: computer and consulting charges $789,000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the minister could provide the House with a breakdown of the average hours purchased in computer use by his department and what the cost is per hour, or per unit, or whatever the mechanism is for costing.

I would also appreciate it if the minister could tell the House how many consultants are retained by his total department at this time.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As in the case of the previous vote, the information supplied to us would come from another department. In the case of occupancy, it would come now from the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. In the case of computer and consulting services, it would come from Finance. The computer branch was transferred from the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications to the Ministry of Finance last fall. We buy certain services from the Ministry of Finance and, of course, we'll be buying them from the new computer corporation in the future.

I don't have the kind of figures the hon. member is requesting at my fingertips but, again, I will endeavour to get them from those other two departments. We don't have any consultants retained at the moment under the heading of computer services. We do have several consultants hired on a short-term basis whom I could identify, but I'd need notice to do that. When I say several, I mean two or three.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the minister would be kind enough to provide that information at his convenience. I'm a bit perplexed by the indication that the minister has to obtain this information from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and from the Ministry of Finance - the agencies selling the services. After all, when a department is purchasing services worth $1,740, 619 and $789,000, 1 would think that that agency would know what the cost is. I think it is irresponsible to validate and authorize the outlay of that kind of capital without knowing whether or not you are receiving value for that expenditure. To say that you have to go to the person providing the service to get the information seems to me to be.... If the responsibility for assessing this cost to the minister's department comes from some other agency, then how does the minister know whether he is receiving value for this expenditure? I find that rather appalling.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a government policy that each ministry has to purchase these services regardless of cost. If it is, that's hardly consistent with the bottom-line economics proffered by that government as good business. I wonder what the minister's reaction is to that.

In terms of the consultants who may be retained by that total ministry, I thank the minister and would appreciate having that information specifically at a later date.

[ Page 2895 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the figures that the hon. members see before them, both under vote 114 and under vote 115, are estimates, in the first instance. They are based on last year's square footage, for example, with an inflation factor and some reduction in staff in mind. These are estimates. These are amounts we have budgeted. We'll certainly endeavour to do our best to get value for our money. The computer corporation, for example, is a new corporation, We'll have to be dealing with them as we would with other government agencies, in a businesslike way in the future in order to minimize our expenses.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's response, but I would draw to his attention that with respect to space there is a mechanism for monitoring whether or not he is receiving value. Some space rental comes from the private sector and some from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. So there is at least the opportunity to weigh the cost per square foot as between two entities.

With respect to the computer and consulting charges, I guess the minister is saying that he's locked in to patronizing what will become the new entity that's before the House in a bill. But I wonder, if he's a captive customer, how he can assure this House that he is receiving value for the expenditure of these public dollars. I thought they were great free enterprisers on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman. Tell me they're not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the Chair cannot advise you of such.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, presumably last year the department had computer and consulting charges and somewhere in the estimates of the department there was a budget. Has the minister any idea what that was? What expenditures were made last year for those two computer and consulting charges just approximately?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the practice under the previous government and for the first few months of operation under Transport and Communications while I was minister.... There was no allocation by department.

One of the reasons for setting up a separate computer corporation is to ensure that departments are properly billed and have a better idea of the expenses they're incurring.

MR. LEVI: I understand what he's saying, but you're not suggesting that there were no charges, that there were no computer and consulting services in your department. You're not saying that. You're just saying that you don't know what they cost.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Do you want the total?

MR. LEVI: No, in your department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 115 pass?

MR. LEVI: No, I'm still on my feet and he's looking in his book.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of getting the business moving perhaps the minister might let us know at some time. Presumably there was an amount. That's the thing I want to get clear.

Vote 115 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 57: minister's office, $104,720.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I just wonder, hon. members, if the House would like to agree that we maybe go to 6:15 tonight, so we could finish all of these votes and get along with the rest of the estimates. But if the House is....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not very likely! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not what Eliza Doolittle said.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He said he doubts it!

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all I would like to express, Mr. Chairman, a vote of thanks to all of the people within the ministry for their services over the year in a variety of areas and dealing with a variety of concerns. I do wish to mention the department heads and express the appreciation of all members to them: John Ekstedt, the commissioner of corrections; Dennis Sheppard, court administration; Mr. Alex Pearson, the associate deputy minister responsible for legal services for government; Gerry Cross in civil law; Mr. Mel Smith, who heads the constitutional team; Allan Higenbottam, the chief of legislative council; Dr. Gilbert Kennedy, statute revisions; Mr. Mark Krasnick, policy and planning; and Neil McDiarmid in the criminal wing.

I would, Mr. Chairman, like to make short reference specifically to three individuals. Firstly....

AN HON. MEMBER: Alex Macdonald!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is he an individual?

First of all, Ralph Baker has retired after 37 years of service to the people of the province. He moved from courthouse clerk to deputy registrar of the supreme court in Victoria. In 1973 he became

[ Page 2896 ]

departmental comptroller and director of personnel. That was followed by his appointment as the executive director of finance administration. Now he will be a senior golfer of par excellence.

Secondly, I'd like to make reference to Mr. Vic DiCastri, who started as a clerk in the land registry office on June 14,1927, at the astounding salary of $45 a month. He rose through the ranks to chief clerk. He took his articles under an individual whom many of the lawyers and senior members of the House would recall, Mr. Harry Crane. He was called to the bar in 1955. He later became the registrar of titles in Kamloops and Victoria, and then inspector of legal offices, the responsibility formerly held by Mr. Crane. He performed a variety of tasks for the government under a large number of Attorney’s-General.

Mr. DiCastri is an author of renown. He has completed two texts, Tom's Canadian Torrens System and also The Law of Vendor and Purchaser. In many situations I think his text has been referred to in court as an eminent quotation indeed from an eminent authority.

He's had 50 full years in harness and I think great dedication and great service on the part of each of these two gentlemen who have just retired from public service.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pay special tribute to the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. David Vickers. I think we'll all agree that he's a little too young to receive a gold watch and he's got far, far too much snap in his garters to be too long on the shelf.

I've decided to give him something as a memento, and that is one of the original bricks from the Bird Cages, suitably inscribed. He has performed his job -I'm sure all members will agree - with fairness to all and favour to none. Notwithstanding that system is a behemoth, he's fully appreciated the fact that it can be altered, it can be changed and it can be improved. He was certainly prepared to try very, very hard. He has come forward with a number of remarkable accomplishments.

On behalf of the government, and I'm sure all sides of the House, I would like to pay tribute to David as an outstanding British Columbian and wish himself, his wife Pat and his family good health, good times and good fortune. Once this planned sabbatical is over, I think we all know that it will not be too long before people will again be looking to David Vickers to perform some very interesting and specific tasks in which he's now so well trained.

Dealing with the general priorities of the ministry at this time, not in any specific order, I think they would be about five in number: the impaired driving programme is something that we are putting a great deal of work and effort and energy into; the provision of programmes and facilities to deal with young people who are in conflict with the law; the consolidation of family legal services; improving our corrections facilities and programmes; plus maintaining good capacity to be innovative and trying to do that which we are doing as well as possible.

It is a very challenging and diverse ministry, as everyone knows. I look forward to questions from the opposition and from all members of the House and will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.

As the former Attorney-General said, "It's a modest little budget." I too, sir, fought like a tiger with Treasury Board and appreciate, sir, some of the interest and difficulties and challenges that you and your colleagues who formerly held this office have experienced. Rather than take the time of the debate, I'd be most interested to hear from other members at this point.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much we're going to miss Ralph Baker. I think this is the first estimate of the Attorney-General's department he's missed sitting in the House for, in my case, long days while we went into chicken-and-egg and everything else. But he's a great public servant.

Vic DiCastri The Attorney-General says he's an author. Well, he is. He's partly the author of the Land Commission Act. I can still remember, with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and five or six other people, going through about five or six drafts of the second edition of the Land Commission Act, with Vic DiCastri making some of the most valuable suggestions. There's a real creative intelligence there. It's an Act which this government has not dared to alter as to one jot or title as yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet.

MR. MACDONALD: It stood the test of time. Two years of the most reactionary government we've ever had in B.C. and they haven't changed a word of the Act.

I don't think we should say anything good about David Vickers until these estimates are over. Who knows what kind of answers he's going to be providing to the Attorney-General? I think we should save anything that we say about Mr. Vickers at the present time and then give him a proper farewell when the occasion is a little More appropriate.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

I'm going to mention just two or three subjects since the hour is late.

A very unfortunate thing took place in Victoria and I think the A-G should, Mr. Chairman, move in on this situation. There was a trial that was aborted today in the city of Victoria under Mr. Justice

[ Page 2897 ]

Samuel Toy. A very unfortunate thing happened. It was a rape charge, so it's a serious charge. The accused was out under bail with surveillance, and I take it that the person who was to undertake the surveillance was part of our Native Court Worker Association. He is described in the newspaper as "court worker Wayne Paul, " but apparently the accused didn't report to the court worker who had surveillance of the accused since early in April. This is what Mr. Wayne Paul told Mr. Justice Toy. Notwithstanding that, Wayne Paul did nothing. The trial was then slated for today and, as the judge points out, you have court reporters, court registrar, deputy sheriffs, defence and Crown counsel, the judge and a panel of 53 jurors present to hear the case, and the case did not proceed.

Now if what the newspaper report says is true, then there's got to be better training and supervision within the justice system because this court worker is reported to have said that no one had told him what would happen if a person on bail fails to report as required by the court order. Now if that's true, it's something that the Attorney-General should take immediate cognizance of because that's a very serious situation. I've always felt, of course, that we should proceed with a full justice education centre in one location in this province as quickly as possible and I think the Attorney-General agrees with that. But in addition, there has to be very close supervision throughout all aspects of the justice system so this kind of thing does not happen.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who didn't appear?

MR. MACDONALD: The accused who did not appear was a Robert Williams, age 30, and there is a bench warrant out for him.

Anyway, there is a great waste of public money involved in that kind of thing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At least we know you write your own speeches.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm serious in saying that there really should be close supervision. The Attorney-General should investigate that and take appropriate action because if it's true that nobody told him that he must report - if somebody is not following the provisions of the remand order - then there is something very seriously wrong in terms of mismanagement within the Court Workers Association and it should be looked at. A lot of public money went down the drain, as well as time of important, busy people.

The other thing just referred to as my second point this evening. . . . I wonder if the Attorney-General will say whether the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) consulted him before the proposal was made that Pinkerton's would be employed to guard the access roads in the areas where the bud spraying was going to take place, because Pinkerton's should not be employed, particularly in that kind of an assignment. Forest access and other access roads into a recreational and forestry area should be open to the public. We should not have in British Columbia privately hired Pinkerton's people -however good they may be. I'm not running them down; I'm saying that the citizens of B.C., in going up an access road, should not be stopped in their tracks by a Pinkerton's private guard. This is public land, subject to forest licences, forest sales, transfers, leases and forest management licence, sure, but it's wrong.

I'm asking the Attorney-General: was he consulted about that and why have we not had a report on the private police, private security, in B.C.? This probably would not have happened if that had been the case. It didn't happen, but it was stopped just in time.

Now in terms of your private police, John Hogarth, in preparing his final recommendations to government, said that he did not wish to rush the matter and he wanted to hold consultations with interested persons during the month of September - that would include Gavin Ferguson - and then there would be proposals by the end of October. Here we are in the summer and we have heard nothing as to that report. It's a very important matter that British Columbia take control of private policing and have proper legislation. But my question to the Attorney-General remains: was he consulted by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) before this proposal of the Pinkerton's was made? If he wasn't, why wasn't he? Did he take this up with the minister and say that that kind of decision should not be taken outside of the advice and consent of the Attorney-General?

Now the last thing I want to bring up today is a simple request that the Attorney-General admit, Mr. Chairman, that he made a boo-boo - but a very serious one - and retract the offending words. I'm talking of the remarks the Attorney-General is reported to have made - and I don't think it's been denied - speaking to a Social Credit meeting in Point Grey. I don't know what he was doing at a Social Credit meeting, Mr. Chairman, but that's what the paper says. Gardom said: "Pending the decision of the electorate, any Quebec equalization payments from Ontario, Alberta and B.C. should be placed in an interest-bearing trust fund. I suggest it should be called the Save Quebec From Separation Fund." Now that was a decision which was clarified, but the clarification doesn't help particularly, Mr. Chairman. He said in a later clarification, on May 21: "Equalization payments to Quebec should be used as a bargaining lever to force Quebec Premier Rene Levesque to hold an independence referendum."

[ Page 2898 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's even worse.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I don't think that makes it better. That is the bludgeon. That is, in effect, a kind of political blackmail telling the people of Quebec and the government of Quebec that the lawfully owing payments under the equalization treaties within Canada should not be made until they take a political decision. You know, this was a most ill-advised statement. It's not sufficient merely to bring it up here and not have it retracted by the Attorney-General. This is one of the statements that will be part of the continuing debate within Quebec, particularly when the referendum debate comes on.

They're going to quote, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General of B.C. saying that equalization payments should be held up even though they can't be according to law, and that's grist for Rene Levesque's separation mill. What the Attorney-General is doing by that kind of statement is hastening the exit of Quebec from Confederation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, certainly that's gasoline on the fires of separation and dissent in this country. I don't want to make a big point of it if the Attorney-General would say: "I should not have said those things and I retract them." But unless he does that, it's on the record. Even though the Premier has suggested that it was an inflammatory statement, the Attorney-General is going to be quoted within Canada. He should retract those words and say that he made them in an unguarded moment, he doesn't believe them and he retracts those words.

We've had enough problems, Mr. Chairman, in this province with the dismantling of Confederation through ministers of this Crown, starting with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and his cornflakes remarks. I agree. I've reread the words of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , which have been raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) several times. This again is a very dangerous kind of thing to say about Confederation. What the Minister of Education has said to Canada is that Ottawa should have only those powers that the provinces unanimously allow to leave to Ottawa. The answer to that is from Rene Levesque: "We'll leave them no powers." So Canada ceases to exist. Yet here's the word of a minister of the Crown of the British Columbia government.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these ministers including the Attorney-General, have made very, very unwise statements which are helping the cause of separation and separatists in the province of Quebec and they should be retracted. They're not only reckless, but as I say they're an invitation to break the law because Quebec is vouchsafed those equalization payments under law.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask through you to the minister that he retract those words and let the record be clear. The clarification does not help in the slightest. If he'd admit that he should not have said those things and that they do not express his opinion at this time....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I would gladly yield to the Attorney-General if he would like to comment particularly on the last point raised by the hon. former Attorney-General.

The current Attorney-General states that he does not wish to proceed at this time. I'll just take a moment before entering into that topic to echo the appreciation that was voiced with respect to senior retiring public servants today. I want to particularly mention the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vickers. B.C. has been very well served by men such as this and is being served on a continuing basis.

Just speaking as an opposition MLA, Mr. Vickers was always available to listen to the problems of ordinary people who somehow or other had got caught up in our legal process, a process that mostly they do not understand. Very few of us understand it well unless we happen to be learned in the law. Yet they feel there is some injustice in the system and that they are not being treated rightly. Above all, they too often fear that they cannot get the ear of whoever is in charge of the system. ,

Mr. Vickers was always willing to give a hearing to people in that kind of situation. I want to put that on the record and I want to thank him for all the work he did while he had that position. As well, I want to compliment the Attorney-General on the appointment of his successor, Mr. Vogel, who I have every confidence will continue the excellent traditions of that office.

Passing from that to the remarks raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver East with respect to a tax on Confederation - that's what it boils down to - by several members of that Social Credit government, most recently and perhaps most notably, the incredibly stupid suggestion by the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia that equalization payments in this country that are legally destined and bound for the province of Quebec should be put into some kind of fund until the people and the government of the province of Quebec start behaving the way the Attorney-General thinks they ought to behave.

This is a suggestion that is subversive of any kind of attempt to develop bonds of friendship between the people of Quebec and the rest of the country. I wonder if the Attorney-General has any idea of the kind of damage this kind of statement does, of how it is reproduced in the papers in the province of Quebec.

[ Page 2899 ]

in French and English. The people of Quebec wake up one morning and they hear that a responsible minister of the Crown of the western most province of this country in effect says this: "You Quebeckers behave yourselves or you’re not going to get the money that you're legally entitled to."

That amounts to political blackmail! That is no way, as I say, to try and make friends. We're not going to hold this country together by force and violence, Mr. Chairman, whether it's legal violence or whether it's illegal violence. You can't force people to be your friends. You have to show them that there's some common advantage and there's some commonality of good feeling there. If you say to somebody, "Listen, buddy, you better do what I say or you're not going to get what's coming to you, even if it's legally coming to you, " that person is not going to look upon you with affection from that day forward.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to be an isolated phenomenon. I think the Attorney-General spoke that way in the warmth and the comfort of a Point Grey Social Credit meeting, in the feeling that he was enunciating a philosophy that is widespread among his cabinet colleagues.

MR. BARRETT: Vander Zalmism.

MR. GIBSON: "Vander Zalmism" may be the word for it, Mr. Former Premier. Is the hon. Minister of Human Resources now the intellectual leader of the Social Credit caucus?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It could be that the Attorney-General is following this lead. But you will all recall the day of the Quebec election when the hon. Minister of Human Resources told the people of British Columbia and Canada and Quebec: "Thank God all those Quebeckers won't be coming here for their welfare cheques anymore." Then, you will recall the statement of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the constituency colleague of the Attorney-General, as was pointed out by the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . It was a suggestion which would utterly have led to the dismemberment and dissolution of Canada, a suggestion which has never been repudiated by the Premier of our province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The only statements which are relevant in the debate under this vote are statements made by the minister whose vote we are discussing.

MR. GIBSON: Then we get to the statements of the Attorney-General, who spoke about this subject of equalization. That gave rise to an editorial in The Vancouver Sun that puts things very well. I'm selectively quoting:

"Entertaining Social Credit Party members earlier this week with a figurative lampshade on his head, the silly Mr. Gardom suggested that equalization payments for Quebec, which he says the taxpayers of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are shouldering, should be withheld from the province in a 'Save Quebec From Separation Fund' until Quebec voters have their referendum on independence and decide which way they will go."

Skipping a paragraph to another one:

"Mr. Gardom's words, apart from ignoring all taxpayers in all provinces - including Quebec - who contribute to the funds Ottawa uses for equalization, degrade what is worthwhile in this country, wither its spirit, blacken its heart, paint as mean little shopkeepers with all the feeling and sensitivity of cabbages.

"Canada is not yet the domain of blackmailers. It is not yet in the power of people who have so little respect for a large portion of the country's citizens and so little caring of their national participation that they can deliver such an insult to them."

That is the end of the quote from The Vancouver Sun and it says it very well, Mr. Chairman.

The people of Quebec were offended in this way by a senior and official representative of the people and the government of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the people of British Columbia wish such offence to be given to their friends in the province of Quebec. I say that it is a slur on British Columbians and it is a challenge to national unity. I ask the Attorney-General to stand up in this House now and do the proper thing and apologize for it.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the Attorney-General wishes to answer what's been said to date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair can only recognize those members who are standing.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there are two minor subjects brought up, in a sense" but the one on Confederation is not minor. Let it not be said that the words remain on the record when the Attorney-General has this opportunity to reply.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Speak up, Garde!

MR. MACDONALD: Because if they remain on

[ Page 2900 ]

the record it indicates that the Attorney-General agrees with what he said. They can have a devastating effect upon the future of this country. I suggest that the reply take place now. We have a few minutes before 6 o'clock and I hope the Attorney-General will say that he made a mistake in making those remarks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the Attorney-General to understand that he did create some negative reaction with those statements. People have come to expect it from certain of his colleagues and we understand that. But some of us still had you in the category of a Liberal. We didn't know that you had gone this far and it concerns us.

I mean, we knew it was just a game politically to go over there, but to follow the Social Credit line entirely and say things that were anti-Quebec was a surprise to us. Picking a platform of a Social Credit meeting came as a real shock even to The Vancouver Sun, which normally endorses Liberals under any cloak.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Even lowering yourself to go to a Social Credit meeting was a bit of a shock to us, but then to say what you said - to pander to that group and insult a major significant part of the population of this country - was a bit much.

My colleague in the House has asked for your apology; the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) has asked for your apology; I expect your apology. I expect you to stand up in this House and say you made a mistake. You didn't mean to play childish, political games just to pander some poujadist attitude in West Point Grey.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What?

MR. BARRETT: Don't you know what poujads are? Oh, oh, oh! There you are; there it is. It's not on the back of a cornflakes box, my friend.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.