[ Page 1339 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Ministry of Forests Act (Bill 12) Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading –– 1339

Range Act (Bill 13) Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 1339

Forest Act (Bill 14) Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading –– 1339

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill PR 403) Mr. Strongman.

Introduction and first reading –– 1339

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates

On vote 5.

Mr. Gibson –– 1340

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1340

Mr. Lauk –– 1346

Mr. Lea –– 1348

Mrs. Wallace –– 1350

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1350

Mr. Cocke –– 1351

Mrs. Dailly –– 1352

Mr. Cocke –– 1352

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1352

On vote 73.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1353

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1353

Mr. Lockstead –– 1353

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1354

On vote 74.

Mr. Cocke –– 1355

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1355

Mr. Lockstead –– 1355

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1355

On vote 76.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1356

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1356

Mr. Lea –– 1356

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1356

Ms. Sanford –– 1358

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1358

Mr. Lockstead .. –– 1358

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1358

Mrs. Wallace –– 1359

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1359

On vote 77.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1359

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1360

Mrs. Wallace –– 1360

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1360

Mr. Lockstead –– 1361

On vote 78.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1361

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1361

Presenting reports.

Report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on the Incarceration of Female Offenders.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1361

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery later today will be the first contingent of a group of high school students who come annually from the Lake Cowichan Secondary School. This particular school, as I have mentioned to the House before, is the one school that has a model parliament and it is representatives of that group who are visiting us today, and who were kind enough to leave a very lovely corsage on my desk this morning. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

I have a further introduction. In the precincts - and I think in the gallery - are two representatives of Local 1-80 of the IWA, Roger Stanyer and Ken MacEwen. They are here because of the introduction of the forestry bill today, and I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join in welcoming the students from Lake Cowichan Secondary School, who sent me a flower also. And they say "best wishes" nonpartisanly, so I join in welcoming them to the Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My wife, Donnie, is in the House today, Mr. Speaker. And I see seated beside her the former Minister of Forests of British Columbia, Ray Williston. Also there, for some strange reason, are all the members of the forest policy advisory committee: Chairman Bob Wood, John Stokes, Ken Reid, Mike Opsey and Wes Cheston.

And for some strange reason there are also a couple of members of the Truck Loggers Association there: Don MacKenzie and Dave O'Connor. Would the House please welcome these people?

HON. MS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House my cousins and good friends, Roy and Kay Pryde of Winnipeg, Manitoba. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. BARNES: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a fellow who I knew a few years ago when I had a very young family, and he is now 18 years old: Mr. George Barnes from Kamloops, who is now living in Victoria, and his father Mr. Lawson Barnes. They are in the gallery and I would like the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act.

Bill 12 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.

RANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Act.

Bill 13 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.

FOREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Act.

Bill 14 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.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave that the rules be suspended to introduced a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Strongman, Bill PR 403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to call resolution 12, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, may I at least read the resolution so that they will know what they are voting on?

[ Page 1340 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Leave is not granted, hon. member. I regret that.

MR. BARNES: What are they rejecting? They don't know what the resolution is.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: Executive Council, $753,760 -continued.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to mention to the Social Credit backbenchers that I have a great deal of relevant material if it's necessary to use it.

I just want to ask the Premier some very simple questions this morning. I want to start out by asking him about his freedom-of information policy in his government. I assume there must be one because he advises the First Ministers of Canada very explicitly on page 41 of his presentation in February of this year that it would be a good thing if there were more provision for freedom of information in Canada.

We have seen during recent debates that there has been a directive go out in the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation relating to talking to the press. A directive went out by the Minister of Forests last year that his people shouldn't talk about Forest Act policy to the press. We had a Ministry of Human Resources memorandum tabled in this House the other day which was circulated among senior ministry officials but was not circulated among the people of this province or this Legislature, in spite of the tremendous importance of it to social policy in this province.

I want to ask the Premier what his policy on freedom of information in his government is in terms of taking the people and taking this House into his confidence during the development of policy, not after it is announced. Where is he going on this? When will the government give us some directions on this great theme of freedom of information which so far...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's the best accountability ever in the history of the province.

MR. GIBSON: I'd love to hear about it. That's the question I am asking. I would like to ask the Premier specifically his policy on freedom of information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize the Premier, perhaps we can tone down some of these private conversations that are taking place in the chamber. It's a little difficult to hear.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, in dealing with the first part, the document the member mentioned, that document was a series of proposals, as I have said previously when that member, I guess, was away from the House during estimates. Many of the recommendations there are to be taken as a comprehensive package and not taken individually, but some areas on freedom of information have been a direction in which this government is moving.

That member has participated in voting in a legislative way on some of the moves - the auditor-general and others - for financial information, and I'm sure that member also participates on a legislative committee called the Crown corporations reporting committee, which is part of getting more information for the public. And, of course, we have the quarterly financial reports which have never before been a part of the public information of this province and that member, I an sure, appreciates all of these moves and all of the opportunities.

A number of other areas are being looked at. What we do need is freedom of information between governments. Quite of ten we have a lot of trouble getting information, no matter how well they speak of it, from the government of Canada and even from ministers who are attempting to deal with policy. One of the problems we had in preparing the document that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is referring to is that in many instances information that was necessary for this government in order to work on the background papers we had difficulty, if not an impossible situation, in getting from the government of Canada. One of the first areas where I would like to see freedom of information is the exchange of information between governments. However the member must know that by example with the number of things we've done, this government has given greater accountability to the people of this province than they've ever had, through the measures I've mentioned, and we will continue to work in those directions. So the policy is by example and not just words which sometimes have no follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate things like the auditor-general and so on and I'm sorry to hear of the Premier's difficul

[ Page 1341 ]

ties in getting information out of other governments. But I had hoped to hear something a little more specific with respect to the relationship of British Columbians with their own government and the internal information of this government. The Premier will certainly remember such things as the Pemberton report and part two of the Coal Task Force report and so on. These studies were paid for by the taxpayers of this province and are extremely germane to the public debate in terms of proper consideration of new policies, and the information is simply not available to citizens. I would have hoped that the government would by this time have developed a policy which would say that anything which is not of certain specific, excluded categories, let's say....

AN HON. MEMBER: State secrets.

MR. GIBSON: State secrets is too broad a term, Mr. Member, but personnel questions, private personal medical records, national security things to the extent that those fall under provincial purview, and so on. But with the exception of those specified exclusions, everything else that's paid for by the taxpayer should be public.

So the Premier will perhaps take that as a representation and, I think, an expectation from the people of this province that he would be wise to heed, if he wants to survive politically.

I want to move on to another area. This one is predicated, first of all, on the Premier's guaranteed annual income statement to the Western Premiers' Conference on May 5,1977, and the Premier's statement on February 13,1978: "Notes and Remarks on the Public Sector by the Premier of British Columbia."

In the first paper at page 2, the Premier decried the equalization formula. He said:

"The present equalization formula therefore takes money from provinces that provide larger- than-average benefits for poor people and gives it to other provinces in order that they may provide an equivalent fraction of benefits for their poor. In other words, the only redistribution that takes place is a redistribution of benefits from poor people in high income provinces to poor people in lowincome provinces. The position of all poor people taken together is unaffected." Personally, I think that is a nonsensical statement, Mr. Chairman.

But I will leave that for a moment and quote the Premier in February of this year when he is talking about the alignment of provincial responsibility and returning more tax to the provinces: "We recognize, nevertheless, that transfers may be necessary as an equalizing factor for some provinces." I would ask the Premier to confirm it, but I hope that means that he and his government are finally prepared to recognize the concept of equalization between provinces, in addition to equalization between individuals. Because if he is not, to the extent that we cut off equalization from, let us say, the western provinces to the Maritimes provinces - to their governments, as opposed to the people - we cut off the possibility of reasonably equal rates of taxation and of reasonably equal provision of social services by government. We thereby encourage people to, first of all, be less well educated in those provinces and to be less healthy as they grow up. Then, finally, when they grow up, w encourage them to move to British Columbia where we have growth problem of our own.

There are all kinds of arguments for maintaining the system of equalization among provinces as well as among people, and I subscribe to the Premier's thoughts on guaranteed annual income, in a general way. But the provincial equalization is important as well. I'd ask the Premier if he has now come around to that point of view.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, not entirely. What I said is that we recognize the general principle of equalization. When we use the term "province, " we mean the people of the province, not necessarily the government. The member must know that this government is committed to equity among Canadians and equalization in that respect - to bring equity among Canadians in the basic standards of services they can get. Apparently what the member doesn't know, then, is that we have equalization built into all of the shared programmes in which a measure of equalization over and above the equalization formula is a part. What we are saying is that the equalization as it is today is just a transfer without direction to governments who may not use it in the best interests of their people.

Now on behalf of the people of British Columbia I want to commit myself again, to say that we're willing to pay that measure from the prosperity of British Columbia to bring equity to these people in other provinces. But we must have guarantees that the benefits get to the people and cannot be misused or misdirected by the governments of the day. I'm not attacking the governments in those provinces now, or governments that have been there. What I do say is that since we've had the equalization programme as it has applied,

[ Page 1342 ]

we have had unstated equalization into every shared-cost programme - and we've had unstated equalization in the DREE programme - which adds up to a number of forms of equalization. And yet the same provinces are still poor.

MR. LAUK: Why?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the member for Vancouver Centre says "Why?". Because the economic policies of the country do not give those areas an opportunity to develop an expanded economy, or any chance for manufacturing. Those territories, particularly the Atlantic provinces, have suffered the most because of the high protective tariffs and the policies of protecting them as captive consumers for central Canada' s manufacturing. They'll never have any opportunity to get off equalization or equalized programmes; they'll always be in a position of having to ask for more and more - until they have equal opportunity.

Now our economic paper, which the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) talks about, covers a number of things. One of them is the high protective tariffs that, in kind, deny us markets. And, as such, Canada has not been able to seek out markets. If we had had that opportunity, the manufacturing would not have been stripped out of the Atlantic provinces and into Ontario and Quebec, and they wouldn't have just been held as captive markets. That has been a policy that has been followed by Canadian governments for years -governments in which he may have very close contact - and that has worked to the detriment of those people. We say that's where the problem lies.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) reminds me of another part of our paper and our policy. Freight rate policies have not worked for the benefit of all parts of Canada, particularly the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Prairies.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Prairies have a measure of protection that also affects British Columbia - if you want me to mention that now - and that is the Crowsnest rates, which favour prairie grain and subsidize the prairie grain-farmer. But what happens is that the railways then try and get their freight rates back from what they call the west. So in British Columbia our primary producers of coal pay, I think, three times the per-mile tug to get coal to water - as the railroads try to pick up the subsidy the prairie grain farmers are getting - that our competitors in Australia and other areas do. The rail policy, in fact, is much more severe on British Columbia than it is on the Prairies, because they try to get the revenue back from prosperous British Columbia, and what they have is an uneven transportation policy - if there is an understandable policy at all. That has hurt this province. It creates problems for our producers and our industry and affects the amount of money left for taxes and jobs and what-have-you in this province.

So those are the areas where we need to create the opportunity for the Atlantic provinces. I'm sure the member views other provinces and their people as he views people within our province. We do not want people that have to live on support payments. The first thing we'd like to do is give them an equal opportunity to have a job. In those cases the Atlantic provinces want policies that will allow them to have industry that will create those jobs, and that's where the failure has been.

MR. GIBSON: As the Premier well knows, I agree on the subject of tariffs. They have, over the years, been very disadvantageous to our province.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: And, I think, largely on the question of freight too, Mr. Member. Surely tariffs, to the extent they are to be continued in our country - and I suppose they have to be continued a number of years; they can't be got rid of all at once - should be put up front. There ought to be tariffs for various industries and various parts of the country, but they should be voted directly by parliament and not hidden under the table by taxes at the border, which in fact are taxes on consumers all over the country. Or else there could be compensatory grants to various regions of the country that lose because of the tariffs of central Canada. But that's another subject; that's not the one I want to talk about right now.

I want to get back to this question of equalization. I think the Premier has shown a tremendous lack of faith in the governments of other provinces when he suggests that equalization payments to those governments might not accrue to the benefits of their people. I think the Premier is suggesting that the governments of the poorer provinces are wastrels and are not fit to properly spend any largess that may come to then from other parts of the country. I don't think that's fair. I

[ Page 1343 ]

don't think that, of itself, is a reason for saying that equalization payments should not go to governments.

The Premier mentions what he calls "costsharing" equalization: the fact that costsharing programmes have a measure of equalization built into them. In fact those costsharing programmes - unless they become block funding, in which case you can build it in -tend to work more in favour of the larger provinces that happen to have more money to take advantage of them. They have more of the dollars to match with the Ottawa dollars to use for the benefit of their people. So I don't feel that is an argument.

The Premier said the same provinces are still poor. In fact all of the studies that the Economic Council has done in the last five years on this subject have shown that the regional disparities have been lessening by a very considerable degree.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in relative terms.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, in relative terms, Mr. Member. There's no question. Look at British Columbia. In British Columbia, the average income per capita in 1936 was 33 per cent above the Canadian average. By 1952 it had dropped to 25 per cent above the Canadian average. By 1976 it was down to 8 per cent above the Canadian average. There's been this bunching around the Canadian average in all parts of the country. It's coming up in the Maritimes, down in other provinces. So, in fact, disparities have been lessening. Moreover, the reason for disparities tends to be a difference in the participation rate in the poorer parts of the country. In British Columbia, as the Premier knows, the participation rate is on the order of 60 per cent. In the Maritime provinces it's on the order of 50 per cent. If you consider that a 20 per cent greater fraction of the population in British Columbia or Ontario is working than in the Maritime provinces, this accounts for a lot of that difference.

Now the Premier was talking about equal opportunity. I agree. An equal opportunity certainly means, if it means anything, an equal start in life, and that is in those large departments of Health and Education and social services. These departments are under the provinces, as the Premier knows, and have to be paid for in part by federal cost-sharing grants and in part by provincial taxation. Now to the extent that the poorer provinces have to take away a larger fraction of their citizens' income and a larger fraction of their private enterprise income in order to pay for these social services, they make those areas less viable in terms of the establishment and conduct of an efficient industry, whereas if the money comes in by equalization or DREE programmes for the creation of infrastructure directly to the governments concerned, it is possible to keep the level of taxation down and thereby increase the prospect of creating jobs in those areas. I hope that in the fullness of time the Premier will come to see the merits in that argument.

I did notice that in his presentation of February he suggested the elimination of the existing programmes of DREE. I believe that all of the other provinces disagreed, or did British Columbia have one or two allies on that? I'm not sure, but there was certainly overwhelming rejection of that concept of the elimination of DREE, because it has been a very great service to some parts of the country.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's not so.

MR. GIBSON: What's not so, Mr. Minister? How many provinces agreed with British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: In any event, certainly the proposal was rejected.

The next thing I want to go on to is the question of the Premier's coal announcement of June 2,1977. In due course in this House we are going to be considering a change in the policy that was announced as of that date, and in considering that I think it would be very helpful to know the Premier's reasons for supporting the particular policy that he announced. The policy has now been changed, but the policy that the Premier announced on June 2 was that the new coal disposition system would be via bidding. An element of bidding would be incorporated. As the Premier knows, having heard the representations that have come in over the past few months, this is a concept that is opposed by just about every industry group except the large oil companies. They've been the ones that have the cash to do the bidding. The smaller operator has very little chance in this kind of system, and if you do get into a bidding system, it implies, in order for it to work efficiently, the collection of a large amount of data and knowledge by the Grown, in terms of exploration in advance of the bidding, so that bidding can be done intelligently.

It's certainly one of the options to be considered. But what I'm interested in is that it -was-more than considered; it was approved and

[ Page 1344 ]

announced. I would be grateful, in order that this House might have this information for its future deliberations, if the Premier could explain to us his reasons for that particular announcement at the time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, just in responding on the equalization, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano speaks eloquently for accountability of government, and yet he's not asking for the same accountability on how the people of British Columbia's money is being used when it goes to bring equity amongst Canadians. He's saying: "You must trust them. Are you attacking other governments?" No, but I want the accountability for my taxpayers in this province. When they send their money as part of the prosperity they've developed in British Columbia to bring equity to Canadians, they must have the guarantees that it's doing just that. It's not a dog-in--the-manger attitude.

You can't be inconsistent with accountability, Mr. Chairman. You can't be asked for selective accountability. It's nice to stand up and plead for them and plead for what is a very high-sounding programme. We must be sure that the hundreds of millions of dollars that British Columbians have sent, or have had taken.... There has never been a subject that that member has often advocated - a referendum - for British Columbians to have that money taken away, but governments have agreed with the principle that we're part of Canada and we'll work to provide equity among Canadians, but we must have accountability.

I disagree with the member that the number of programmes that were supposed to work in that area have worked. There have been massive transfers of billions of dollars in this country that as yet have not created that prosperity and have not made those areas more self-sufficient. They have placed upon them a greater dependency.

I go back again to the economic policies of the country, which seem to be directed out of central Canada. The governments that have run this country have been controlled and directed from central Canada and have been detrimental to the interests of the people of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. These programmes that are hard to speak against but must have accountability have been their answer, not to bring equity to those people but to keep them quiet. It's convenient for the government of Canada, when they have First Ministers' Conferences, to have those provinces as captives, knowing they must fall in line to get the money to get the handout. They must fall in line with central Canada policy.

MR. GIBSON: Surely Maritimers can't be bought.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any suggestion that we've got to embark on an economic programme for the good of this country can always be thwarted. I have not, as the member suggested, attacked those provinces or their governments. I mentioned that clearly before the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) got up. But I say we must have accountability. Large amounts of money have been transferred from this province into a number of programmes of equalization, and I am in favour of money going to bring equity to Canadians. I want a little accountability because it hasn't appeared to work. It's about time the people of British Columbia were told just how their money has been used and has been directed not by the people of British Columbia we've had no say in how that money is used but at the whim of the government at Ottawa.Whenever they feel the necessity of an impending election, they find it very easy to spend the people of British Columbia's money in an attempt to try and get votes in the areas of Canada that have been most affected by disastrous policies.

MR. GIBSON: I'm glad your government wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I certainly wouldn't do that. But I'm glad the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has brought this up and I know he is concerned with the national scheme of things. I know that he will represent the British Columbia interests in whatever capacity he is called upon to carry out whatever draft may develop.

Mr. Chairman, policies of the government to develop this province are developed from time to time to encourage exploration or to raise taxation or to develop an economy. These programmes or these developments go through several phases. The first thing you must do to get the industry is get the exploration. As you develop a sophisticated industry, you make sure the people get their fair share through taxation and through other measures such as employment. There are a number of areas in which government must, in order to make certain things happen, have the flexibility to adjust from time to time and make those changes at the appropriate time.

If they leave an exploration policy in too long, then that is wrong. I have already pointed out figures yesterday which indicate that in proving up our energy reserves, we collect taxation in two ways. The more we encourage exploration in British Columbia it is

[ Page 1345 ]

still our policy that in oil and gas revenues we must have an aggressive drilling programme for two reasons. One is to build up and prove our energy reserves. Those reserves were tremendously affected when we had a major gas well failure two years ago. Part of our reserves were lost because the well was overdrawn and could no longer produce.

We have an aggressive policy when we increase wellhead price on the recommendation of the Energy Commission. You mu t know the amount of steps and regular yearly hearings that go into those proposals. Those proposals do not just deal in isolation with those areas. They also make the recommendation every year on how much we're going to ask for from the National Energy Board for our export price of gas, which has moved up steadily on a yearly basis, which brings money back to British Columbia on those export contracts. They do this.

Now I pointed out that we raise money for gas and oil in a couple of different ways be cause it's different from mining. We have treated mining differently in both exploration and taxation as a different resource. We treat forests differently, and in oil and gas we use the bidding system. We bring back immediate revenue just for the right to explore. We don't do that in mining. In mining we pick up the people's value in different ways besides the value of economic development and people working. At least since we've been government, the revenues we have picked up in bidding have far exceeded the two increases that have come into effect on wellhead prices since we've been government. I gave figures yesterday that indicated a dramatic increase in revenue from those wishing to just have the right to explore.

I pointed out figures which show that although there had been larger increases in the period 1973-75 in wellhead prices, the revenues did not go up at that time, for whatever reason, in correspondence with the bids -direct revenue to government in bidding for the right to explore. The public accounts and records will show the limited dollars that came in in those years against the higher revenues, and the public accounts will show the higher revenues which have come in recently for the rights to explore. So along with the taxation measures there has to be a measure of that intangible, which isn't in legislation and can't be shown, called confidence - confidence in the province and confidence in the government and optimism. That's the intangible in any taxation programme which means how it will work for the benefit of the province and the people.

We will always be making changes. If government could develop one policy and one policy only at any given time dealing with forestry, then we would have no need for the number of changes that have taken place, and the royal commissions and things connected with the forest industry, to help the industry as it becomes more sophisticated. Industries move through their primary stages, like anything else, into productive stages where we're dealing with a different stage of the development of that resource and that industry. That's why we mil t have constant change. Any member who would stand up and plead continually for the status quo and not allow the government the flexibility of encouraging different aspects of the economy to meet different situations would be foolish indeed, and I know nobody intends to do that.

Policies in legislation will be dealt with further in the Legislature and I won't be commenting on them now. Each ministry will be commenting on their own programmes. But in a philosophical way I've answered the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's very broad questions.1 appreciate the fact that he is bringing them up and it's nice to see him back today now that there is no longer a threat of a federal election.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll just be very brief. The Premier described the good success in the bidding system for oil and gas that we've had, and I appreciate that. But we have a chance for a real education here, I this ' because we have two distinct points of view which have been enunciated in this province within a space of about nine months as to how coal rights should be disposed of.

One was enunciated by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on February 10,1978, which we'll be debating in that minister's estimates, but the other one was enunciated by the Premier June 2,1977, and I don't think there has been that much change in that time that would completely stand the policy on its head. The Premier, I would assume, must have had brought to his attention some fairly substantial arguments in favour of the bidding system for the disposition of coal rights, since he announced it. He is a careful man. I know that he studies things with some care and wouldn't have approved a change of this nature without very careful studying and without very good reasons. Since those reasons are not immediately apparent to me - and it seems to me there are a lot of dangers in the bidding system in the coal industry - I'd just be grateful if the Premier could advise the House of his line of thinking and why he approved

[ Page 1346 ]

and announced this policy which, he said at the time, was probably the most important resource policy announcement that had been made for two or three years or within the term of the government's current mandate. I know that he will have had those background reasons and I'm simply asking him to give them to the committee in order for our future guidance in this very important debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, everything the Premier says becomes increasingly more important. Everything is important and things do change.

We've looked at the coal industry as falling into its own special category. It's not like oil and gas; it's not like some of the more traditional mining, although it is a mining venture. What we have seen is a change in the coal market, but although there has been change, we have not substantially changed our coal policy. The environmental guidelines and the other areas of the coal policy are there as part of a major thought on the importance of this as a B.C. resource.

What we have to be concerned with, then, is the identification and exploration of what policies will encourage that, and how the government will take coal through its various stages, recognizing the large amounts of dollars that are involved in development and exploration and in proving up reserves. All mining and all exploration seems to get involved more and more with larger dollar amounts. Exploration is very costly, but what we've done is taken a look at the situation as it is today and expanded on our original coal guidelines. The government will be able to give assurances later in this session and other sittings on measures that will be taken in many of our areas to ensure that the people's interest is protected.

We're also here as a government to encourage the people's interest in developing an economy. We're in a time when the major thrust is to build an economy that can create permanent jobs in the private sector, and that's what we're doing. By the next time we meet the people, I think they will be very pleased with all of the policies this government has brought about in many different areas.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Donot you want any more?

MR. LAUK: No. (Laughter.) The reason I wanted the Premier to resume his seat was that I know the answer to the hon. Liberal leader's question. Itos.partly philosophical.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you don't want the answers, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's going out to start his own forestry firm.

MR. LAUK: That's right. He's getting out while the getting's good.

The coal announcement in June was a fairly sensible approach, although not one that I think had all the answers. I think that the Premier is skirting the issue, Mr. Chairman, simply because it was a wholesale retreat on the part of the government. It was a knuckling under to those who are interested in coal licences. It's not sufficient, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said during the debate last week, that the oil companies and other large companies wanted a bidding system. That's not sufficient. There are other ways to deal in an expansionary and developmental way with the coal properties of this province, and one of them is contracting. That is legislation enabling the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, in particular, and the government, by order-in-council, to approve contracts for the development of coal properties with the terms of what quality of ore there will be, how long they can mine, what the costs are, what the taxation or profit situation would be, and so on.

Now that's a planned economy, and for this government to go that far, they would have to admit that they subscribe - as they do in other areas - to a planned-economy philosophy, which is espoused by this side of the House. Rather than do that, Mr. Chairman, the Premier completely reversed himself on bidding and everything else and said: "Give away these coal licences."

Now initially the Premier is right. There is a flurry of activity. People are picking up these coal licences and perhaps that may encourage the investment of some money. But from past experience, Mr. Chairman, the picking up of these coal licences does nothing more or less than create an inflationary spiral, a fanning of inflation within that industry, and eventually in the economy as a whole.

Witness Sukunka. Many years ago the various companies involved in that consortium picked up those licences for practically nothing. The sale mentioned by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) earlier this week eventually was $30 million. Who makes up that money? Nothing's changed. No work's been done. The licences are the same. It's still the same

[ Page 1347 ]

piece of paper, but rather than zero, they're worth $30 million.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there's a modest investment. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) says it's not true that there's no money being spent. All right. There is some work done, some exploration done, some investment that is required by law, and some others. But I think the Minister of Economic Development and the Premier well know that most of the economic activity with respect to those coal licences was on Howe Street, not on the property.

This is the major argument and the philosophical difference of this party with the government party: somebody has to make up that $30 million. Somebody has to cut down the trees, wash the windows, grow the wheat, provide the services and goods to make up $30 million worth of inflation that's taking place on the property. What happens that pushes prices up is not labour particularly, but speculation on licences. Eventual purchase of these licences forces our prices for metallurgical coal up high, to the extent that we do fail miserably to maintain our traditional markets because we are not competitive.

So of ten in this House the members on the opposite side, particularly on the treasury benches, stand up and start talking about the productivity of labour. The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , being a moderate, says labour and management. But it's only in this party that we talk about the productivity of labour and management and capital, and the productivity of land speculation. Who makes up those losses in the speculation that occurs with land, with capital?

You're talking about banking. Your national leader is attacking the bankers, and I think rightly so - 400 per cent and 500 per cent profit is being taken. Entrepreneur means "taking." That's what "preneur" means in French; it means "taking." Who makes up for that tremendous profit of the debt-service charges for capital in this country? This is the argument. This is why the Liberal leader and the first member for Vancouver East are arguing against this method of encouraging the development of coal properties in the province. It's a big mistake.

As the Premier mentioned in his budget speech, "pay now or pay later, " and we're going to be paying later because of allowing the tremendous speculation in coal licences. It's a fool's paradise to create the economic activity immediately, and somewhere down the line have the people, the labour and the resources of this province, pay that heavy mortgage when these mines start to go into development.

That heavy mortgage is the cost that is being built up now because a proper price and orderly development for this coal was not negotiated or planned by this government today. Oil and gas is the same way. You pay now or you pay later. When the Premier stands in the Legislature and argues that he's protecting the future generations, he's making a serious mistake because he is doing just the opposite. What frightens me is that I fear he is doing it inadvertently. He actually believes that this approach is the good one for the development of the economy. I think it is fatal, particularly 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

He did mention something else. I'd like to know from the Liberal leader whether he believes that the $500 million or $600 million a year which we transfer in terms of higher rates for our goods and services, freight rates and tariffs - that transfer payment from British Columbia of about one-half billion dollars a year to Ottawa.... Does he really believe that we get that back in goods or in services from the federal government - a fraction of the per cent? Although I don't agree with everything the Premier has said about equalization payments, it is clear that they haven't worked, and in relative terms, the Maritimes have not improved. The national average was increased by the Quebec industrialization and growth that has occurred in the last 10 or 15 years. That has created a better national average with which to compare British Columbia, but the Maritimes are still our poor cousins. Equalization payments haven't worked. Although I think they should be in place until a major economic plan is in place, the criticism of them is well founded, in my submission.

The Premier did go on to mention something about freight rates. He said: "What about the heavy cost of the coal-unit trains?" I think he was talking about the unit trains. It's $25 per ton to ship coal from Sparwood in the Kootenays to the coast. Even a maximum cost-per-car to manufacture is about $35 000 for those coal bins. It may be a little Less, but probably that's the figure. At $25 a ton per unit train - this is not a single car rate; single car rates are $30 or more - within five years we are paying off, for those railways, the total capital cost of those cars which have a 50-year life. At those rates the original capital cost of that car will be paid off 20 times. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a car

[ Page 1348 ]

manufacturing plant of our own supplying cars which would be owned by Kaiser Coal - sold to them - and they can control the rates for shipping and have leverage with the major railway lines?

None of this was included in the McKenzie royal commission. But I am glad that the Premier stood up and admitted that we are paying premium rates for shipping our resources along rail lines in this province. That's a national tragedy. Part of the leverage we could have used against the main rail lines were BCR and Railwest owning and building coal-carrying cars and building potash cars and selling them to the Saskatchewan government. We could expand that plant to 500 or 600 cars a year. Originally, of course, it's marginal economically because of the steel production. But think of the possibilities of leveraging the rates for transportation.

The major costs in this country are not labour, they are not the cost of the resource, and it is not the productivity of labour. Because of our vast area, the major productivity problem we have in this country is transportation. If you attack transportation costs in a sensible and planned manner, such as maintaining a manufacturing outlet like Railwest for leverage as well as for eventual profit taking, then you've got a sensible economic plan for the province of British Columbia.

Again, I fear this Premier has a narrow view of the economy of this country and the economy of this province. However much we on this side agree that still using Macdonald-Laurieros national economic policy in 1978 is a bit outdated, we are still waiting with anticipation the Premieres proposals for an alternative. Because so far in his own province, Mr. Chairman, the alternative seems to be: "Shut down, close down, tread water and wit." We are in a recession. Expansion during expansionary times is a mistake. The time for expansion is when things are slow, when costs are slowing up, and when we need to take up the slack in employment. The time is now for expansion.

1 say it is not too late. The machinery at Railwest is still there. There are still enough of the Employees around. Reopen it. Talk to Kaiser Coal. Talk to the Saskatchewan potash corporation. Great possibilities are just under the surface with respect to the development of railcar manufacturing in this province. If you are worried about the cost of steel, remember ISPCO in Saskatchewan was very interested in the NKK-British Columbia steel study. We don't have to go on a fossilized version of what a steel mill should be or where it should be, but a realistic look at the possibilities now could do a great deal for the provincial economy in the future.

MR. LEA: I would like to concur with the remarks just finished by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre but I think there are problems facing the relationship between the western provinces and the central government that override the political partisanship problems that may exist in the particular provinces.

We talk about the problems between British Columbia and central Canada in terms that I think sometimes are very difficult for people in the province who don't work with it every day to understand. I think that we have to start putting the problems between western Canada and central Canada in succinct terms such that everyone in this province will understand the gigantic ripoff that is being put into place by succeeding governments in Ottawa against western Canada and against British Columbia.

The Premier and other members have touched on the tariffs. That's one area where central Canada has a government that it thinks that it owns, and I think over the years has every reason to think that it owns, because those tariffs are there to protect Ontario and, to a lesser degree, Quebec.

Then we take a look at the freight rate structure. I think one example we can use that all people will understand is the difference between finished and unfinished products going to central Canada. If you were to take a raw material from western Canada and ship it to Ontario, there's one price for freight. If you take that to a second stage or a tertiary stage of manufacturing, and send a finished product down to Ontario, they charge you a higher rate. All you have to do is take a look at that, and you understand that every time that that freight rate structure is applied, you are shipping jobs out of western Canada into Ontario. Then you have to ask why a central Canada and a central government will go along with that kind of unfair treatment of western Canada in terms of the chance of getting secondary industry going in western Canada. All you have to do is take a look at where the number of seats are that make up the Commons in Canada. You'll see that the city of Toronto has almost as many seats in parliament as the whole province of British Columbia. And when you take a look at Ontario and Quebec and the total number of seats in the Commons from those two provinces, and take a look at the number of seats from all of western Canada, it's pretty easy to understand why the politicians at the federal level cater to those massive population areas and forget all about

[ Page 1349 ]

I'd like to ask the Premier and his government to take a look at one of the other areas that I think affects every small business in British Columbia, and probably every large business also, and that's warehousing in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia. If you are in small manufacturing, or you're a small retailer and you're buying your goods from central Canada, or you're buying machinery parts from central Canada, the first thing you understand is that there is absolutely no warehousing in British Columbia. You can't go to any of these manufacturing representatives and say you'd like so many of these light bulbs, so many of these nuts, so many of these screws, so many of these parts, because they don't stock them. They stock them in central Canada - you hope - and then you go to the representatives who maintain an office in western Canada, and you say: "I'd like to order 400 of these parts, 600 of these parts, and 1,000 of these parts." And they say: "Oh, before we'll allow you to order them, you've got to pay for them." So for the great part they demand that you give them a cheque before they'll even order the parts. They promise you delivery in 10 days or two weeks, and two and a half and three months later you're still waiting for the parts. You wire down there, you phone down there - the cost of communications in wires and phone calls and letters is almost the amount of the freight that you pay, just trying to get those parts out here, or any other manufactured item. There's no warehousing in British Columbia, and I think it's obvious by this time that the manufacturers in central Canada are not going to put the money in British Columbia to build that warehousing.

So it's an effect that accumulates as it goes along. You try to start a small manufacturing company in British Columbia, and you find out that you can't get parts readily because there's no [illegible] housing. You take a look at the freight rate structure, and you find that you're precluded from the central marketplace by the freight rate structure that saves jobs in central Canada. So you look to a different market. You say: "What's the natural economic trading block that maybe we can look at." You look at Seattle, you look at California, and then you find that you're precluded from selling your product down there by the border charges, and so you say:"Well, maybe at least we can go down to Seattle or go to California or Oregon and buy our parts." But you find you're precluded from doing that by the tariff system that protects the jobs in Ontario and in Quebec, and you find that no matter which way you turn it's almost impossible to start up any form of secondary industry or manufacturing in western Canada.

MR. STRONGMAN: Would you do away with tariffs?

MR. LEA: I do not know whether I can stand up here and say that I'd do away with the tariff s, but I think you have to take a look at a long-range doing away with the tariffs. I do not think you could just bring down the hammer and say that's it. I think that's too simplified, but it's a sure problem.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Look, I'm talking now about the problems that I have personally run into being in business in British Columbia. You know, as long as we have these kinds of voting blocks in this country, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, as long as federal parties say that we must get our strength to form governments from Ontario and Quebec, and they do not care about the votes in western Canada, we're going to be short-changed every time. Before we can have any economic justice for western Canada, there has to be electoral reform so that we have a fair say in what's going on in this country. That's what has to happen, because until we do, we are going to be second cousins to Ontario and Quebec.

We in British Columbia are hesitant to stand on our feet and talk about it, because every time we do, we're afraid that somebody's going to accuse us as a have province of not having a good heart towards other Canadians. That's not it at all. In that area, I agree with the Premier that the long-range solution has to be that every region of Canada is economically sound on its own feet so that we don't need equalization payments. It's the same as welfare. Nobody likes to be on welfare and nobody likes to pay it. But until you can take people off welfare, you have to supply employment and you have to supply the opportunity for people to work and to look after themselves.

It's the same for the Maritimes. They have to be given an economic opportunity to expand and to bring prosperity to their people. But we're not going to do it when we see a central government that is absolutely, in my opinion, controlling what happens in regions of Canada through what they call DREE, and what I call a welfare blackmail plan. That's all it is. It's the same with their transportation policies, the same with their subsidies to transportation, and the same thing with everything that that federal government puts their hands on.

[ Page 1350 ]

It's designed for the Liberal Party to stay in power by drawing their power base from Central Canada, and that's what it's all about. Regardless of what political party you belong to in western Canada, I think we should have a common theme on what we're going to do and say when we go to Ottawa and demand that we get our equal and fair share of social and economic future security for our people in western Canada.

Mr. Trudeau runs around talking about Mr. Levesque in Quebec. I'm telling you, if we don't get treated fairly in western Canada, the governments of western Canada and the politicians of western Canada are going to have demands put on us by the people of western Canada to either get fair treatment out of Ottawa or go it on our own. That's what's going to happen, because you just cannot have Confederation unless there's fairness - fairness in fact and fairness in opportunity for the future. We don't have it now and unless we get it soon, Canada is indeed in danger of breaking up - not just Quebec, but western Canada. In my travels throughout western Canada it's not only politicians who are fed up, but it's the people of western Canada who are fed up. The main reason that Trudeau and his government are in trouble in western Canada is because of those policies that they have that do nothing more than cater to the population areas of Ontario and Quebec.

Any government, regardless of political faith, that goes to Ottawa and tells them that's what we're fed up.... Unless they do something about it, we're going to do something about it. I'll back any party on issues that are dealt with in that way because as a western Canadian, I'm completely fed up with what's been happening to us under that Liberal government in Ottawa. For the small amount of time the Conservatives were in, I'm fed up with what they did down there too. We're getting the short end of the stick in western Canada, and it's about time that we stood up as a unit in western Canada and told central Canada and the government that does things on their behalf that we are fed up, and unless something happens, we are going to take our future into our own hands.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to change the subject slightly. If the Premier wishes to reply to this more general tone of debate, I would be happy to yield.

I want to go specifically to vote 5 and a question which I had asked yesterday - a very simple question, not a complicated, philosophical discussion at all, as we've been involved in this morning. I'm sure it's simply an oversight on the part of the Premier that he hasn't answered.

It has to do with the staffing as outlined in vote 5 where last year there was provision for 22 people, and this year this has increased by seven bodies to 29. Now that's more than a 30 per cent increase in staff, Mr. Chairman. I'm somewhat surprised that the Premier, who has been advocating restraint, holding the line, keeping within the growth of the provincial product, would at this point in time add seven people to his staff. There must be some explanation.

I would like to know what increased duties in his office are requiring this additional number of bodies to be taken on at this time of restraint. What are the additional duties, who are these people and just what exactly is involved in requiring a 32 per cent increase in staff in his ministry for this year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I covered that primarily in questions on opening day. I will say that the buildup is in the intergovernmental ministry, which started off very, very small in developing our relationships with other governments, in handling the co-ordination not only of our relationship with the governments of Canada and other provinces, but also the co-ordination of ministries within this government, where they are working on common problems. It provides a permanent secretariat for the cabinet committee and the ongoing cabinet committee structure that we've set up. One of the difficulties that developed in the past without this co-ordination was that the government of Canada - and all members will be interested in this; some of the complaints about it have been expressed this morning -traditionally used the method of dealing in isolation with the different ministries in the provincial government. And if you didn't have this co-ordination, you could have what developed in the past - different ministries being asked to proceed in different directions. Unless you have a means of bringing them together, you could have major trouble in co-ordinating your policies with those of Ottawa. It early became very clear to us, in setting up this cabinet committee structure, that this was necessary. We do not now have the problems that we encountered initially of ministries being pulled in different directions by programmes or initiatives that were offered by Ottawa.

That's why you will see the complement increased. It's mostly in the area of intergovernmental and secretarial staff. In my own area, some of the higher-priced staff positions have not been filled, such as admini

[ Page 1351 ]

strative officer 5 and research officer. It is in the secretarial end of the ministries that you see the increased jobs. That's just the increased job of co-ordinating our government with other governments - in the ministries.

I gave figures, though, which show that even with these increases of secretarial service -and these functions are combined into one office in this province, where previously some of the functions were in the Provincial Secretary's office; some of the functions were not there and to the detriment of the programme s -we still operate by far the lowest-cost office in all of the country.

I'm glad the member for Cowichan-Malahat brought this up because in times of cost cutting I think the other provinces should be looking at British Columbia and the cost effectiveness with which we run our intergovernmental relations and our executive council - that's the secretariat for the executive council and the Premier's office. It works out in this province that the cost of these functions is only 29 cents per capita as compared to $2.16 in Saskatchewan or up as high as $3.49 in Prince Edward Island.

It's one of the areas in which there is cost efficiency. But these are mostly areas in which we needed the extra secretarial help.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I heard with some interest yesterday a debate that went on and didn't come to a satisfactory conclusion. I would just like, for a moment, to remind the House that some four years ago a resolution was raised by the then member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, who has since become the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) . A commitment was made to disabled children in Vietnam. Last year the First Minister took it upon himself to tell the House that a commitment had been made and that that commitment would be honoured. Yesterday the First Minister was asked whether or not he was going to renew his commitment. He replied by saying that there had been no report from the committee.

I would like to just remind the House that that committee was dominated by government members. Government members and those who were not government people on that committee agreed that we had to move very slowly, agreed that we had to make sure that the funds would be actually spent for the needs of those disabled children in Vietnam. Certainly there is ample evidence that there are many badly disabled children in Vietnam. Originally that commitment was that for every person in the province $1 would be paid for medical assistance to those disabled children. That meant $2.25 million was promised. We delivered $300,000 of the $2.25 million. The remainder, whether or not the Provincial Secretary says it is not there, is still a commitment. Mr. Chairman, it seem that that's the least we can do - once having made a promise, to keep that promise.

Yesterday the Premier used that ruse, saying that there had been no report. He knew perfectly well, if he has any kind of communication at all with his committee members - that is, those who are associated with him on that committee - that that committee was being responsible, that that committee was looking at every aspect of this problem, to see to it that the money would be wisely spent. At the very beginning we could have made a commitment to some of the agencies in Vietnam and it might have been unwise for us to do so, and that's the way we felt. So being responsible, that committee, along with the children of Vietnam ' have to suffer just because of the fact that "there has been no report from the committee." Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the Premier today make a further commitment that he will provide that committee with an opportunity, by a resolution put before this House, to proceed with their work.

It really has become a joke. It's been an unfortunate set of circumstances. At the very end of the committee's work, when we were still government, the war broke out again and there was no way we could keep our commitment because there was no way you could channel the funds. Then last year and the year before, we've been working to put together agencies -that is, working on finding agencies that will put our money to good use. Mr. Chairman, for anybody to joke around about this kind of a commitment is far too important, not from the standpoint of magnificence of the sum or the munificence of the action, but it's important by virtue of the fact that we are responsible people. Having made a promise, we should keep that promise.

I don't think vote 5 should proceed without the First Minister getting up and at least indicating that he knows the problems and that he is prepared to endorse the principle of a further resolution being put before this House to see to it that the work is completed. I suspect - as a matter of fact I'd be almost able to guarantee - that that work could be completed this year. There should be no reason why it can't. We were getting to the final stages. We had people out from the east, from UNICEF, from the Save the Children Fund, and from the Red Cross and others.

Mr. Chairman, it seems very clear to me now that an early decision can be made as to the implementation of the original programme that was set up, the original idea that was produ

[ Page 1352 ]

ced by the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the then member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound. Despite the fact that the Premier seems to be preoccupied with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , I would hope that the Premier can make some kind of a definitive statement today that will be meaningful to the people that we're talking about.

We're not antagonists in that problem. We're talking about innocent little children who were disabled by virtue of wrongs that were committed by both sides in that confrontation - wrongs that they could not avert, and wrongs that they could not avoid. I think it is just sad when the First Minister of our province takes such a supercilious, callous approach to this whole question.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to quickly follow up on the points made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and put to the Premier a very specific question. Yesterday in the House, I believe when he was asked about the money for the committee for Vietnam, he did state that he had received no instructions. Well, I think we are all aware that the com-mittee cannot perform their full functions in getting this money to the children who need it so desperately in Vietnam unless he, as First Minister, endorses, with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , approval for the funding.

So my question is: will the Premier use his influence as the First Minister to see that the funding is made available for this committee?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Minister of Human Resources was very busy capturing the Premier's ear when I was discussing this whole question, and just to make sure that the Premier understands.... You know, this is not any kind of a facetious request on my part. I have been deeply involved in that committee, having been chairman of the original committee that was set up. I've seen all the problems and potential problems that are faced in this question and heard evidence from people who are very, very closely connected with this kind of activity.

I know that it's not an easy one to deal with, but I know that there are people out there that are depending on this province, depending on a promise that we made to pay on behalf of each person in this province one measly dollar to help those children in Vietnam that were so brutally disabled by a war that they had nothing to do with and no control of, and by accidents of war that they could not avoid. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a dark hour in this province if we can't make a positive suggestion, a positive statement right now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I want it on the record that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says it's a lot of crap. I think that that's one of the saddest things I've ever heard in this House. I'm very saddened. As a matter of fact I don't think that I can speak any more on this issue. I think that the Premier may like to answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I covered this yesterday. I can't anticipate a committee of the House. It was struck and it has not brought a report or recommendation to government. I leave it at that.

Earlier in the debate the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) suggested that the method of the federal government transfers has started to end the disparity in the Atlantic provinces. I say not only has it not ended the disparity, but even with these transfers their own provinces now have had to have the highest rates of taxation in the country. I'd just like this House to take a look at Newfoundland. In this province our personal income federal and provincial tax is 46; in Newfoundland it's 58. In corporate tax it's similar. In tax rates like gasoline tax ours is 17 cents; there it's 27 cents. In diesel it's 19 cents in British Columbia, and 27 cents in Newfoundland. Retail sales tax in British Columbia is 5 per cent; it's 11 per cent in Newfoundland. Cigarette tax, even with the dramatic increase in British Columbia to 24 cents, is 33 cents in Newfoundland. Even things like private passenger vehicle licence plates are $22 in British Columbia, $30 in Newfoundland.

Now I'd like to say that our tax rates are -with the exception of Alberta - the most favourable in the country, but I pointed out earlier that Alberta with its oil revenue could practically finance provincial expenditures without taxation levels. That would be a short-sighted policy. I make this point to point out that it has not worked out well for the Atlantic provinces. We could go through Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and point out the tremendous tax rates they pay in those areas. They even have things like amusement taxes which we do not have in British Columbia. They have a number of taxation levels that we do not have, plus higher taxation when we get to comparable categories. Surely the member for North Vancouver-Capilano said that things were

[ Page 1353 ]

getting better there, but things are getting worse in the Atlantic provinces. They've got tremendous tax disparity, but what they're worried about is the income that's left in their hands. That programme hasn't worked to the extent of the cost. I'm suggesting it's time we get some accountability and we bring some equity to those who need it.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, we all heard the reply - no report. There was nothing to report. I'm sure that every member on that committee, including the chairman, felt that there was no need for a report until such time as definitive action could be taken. We felt it would have been irresponsible to take definitive action at that time. However, we have talked. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has talked to the former chairman of that committee. The former chairman has indicated that he has gone to government members -as I understand it, to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - and said: "What's the future of the committee?" No money. Mr. Chairman, that is a positive denial of a commitment by a government that's supposed to be a responsible government, having made a promise, to keep a promise. It would be different if they had turned their back in the first place on an original commitment made by a former government. That might be understood, but this is their own commitment I'm talking about. This is a commitment that was made in this House last year by the First Minister - a commitment to keep a promise to children in Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca said in reply to my statement across the floor: "It's a lot of crap." It strikes me that that must be the Premier's attitude in this situation by virtue of his behaviour on this problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate your remarks, but they're unparliamentary, and I would ask members not to use unparliamentary language when addressing the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) not to try and put words into my mouth. I live with my own statements and, Mr. Chairman, I stay with the statements I've made in this House.

Vote 5 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENERGY, TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

Vote 67: minister's office, $152,472 -approved.

Vote 68:, general administration, $698,130 -approved.

Vote 69: engineering branch, 674,198 - approved.

Vote 70: weigh scale branch, $3,200, 246 - approved.

Vote 71: motor vehicle branch, $15,160, 033 -approved.

Vote 72: motor carrier branch, $947,209 -approved.

On vote 73: telecommunication services branch, $12,202, 674.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier could give the House an explanation of just where you're moving as a government in the area of communications. I don't think we've heard too much about this. I know the Premier has just recently taken this over, but I was wondering if you would have a chance to explain to us just what your government's mentions are in the whole area of expanding communication, television networks, et cetera, throughout the province. As a government are you planning to move in that area? That's what I'm asking.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're negotiating with the government of Canada along with the other provinces on cable system and for some provincial jurisdictional control, and those negotiations are taking a more favourable turn than they had in recent years. The government is moving in that area. As far as communications are concerned, the policy and planning part of the ministry has been looking into a number of areas to do with earth and ground stations relating to satellites. We're in discussion with the government of Canada on that. We're in consultation also on those communications; there has been some consultation with other areas that have responsibility in that area like the CBC, which has some area of establishing communications, and we're using their information as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought it would be more appropriate under the next vote, but apparently we're discussing it under this vote, so this is fine. The government last year, Mr. Chairman, made the statement that they would be getting into the field of looking into the possibility of installing small dishes which are capable of receiving television signals from satellites to small communities in the

[ Page 1354 ]

north and remote and isolated areas of British Columbia. I want to know if the government has made any move at all to providing decent television and/or radio reception in these isolated and remote areas. Have you done anything at all since the government announced the policy that they were going to provide this type of service?

I might add that in many of the very small communities located in my riding there is absolutely no television reception at all. I would like to know if the government is doing anything at all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, last year we did start and grants were made during the year to enable TV to be brought to Atlin; that was in co-operation with the government of Canada.

This year, if you will notice in the votes, we have increased the grants for these small communities from $100,000 to $300,000, which will enable us in the same sort of way we brought television to Atlin to bring facilities to many remote communities. I know the member for Mackenzie, as would a number of the members from the central and northern regions of the province, would be specifically interested in knowing this will be accelerated this year with the increase in the grants. Again we have started to make some moves in that area, and we are hopeful that as we get experience in bringing these communications and in working with the federal government, more and more of these facilities will be brought to these areas.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am pleased to hear the Premier indicate that there will be an upgrading of the services.

At a conference which took place this year in Charlottetown on March 29 and 30, at which the government of British Columbia was not represented....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes they were.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not by the minister, by the deputy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, but we were represented.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We were the only government, Mr. Premier, that didn't send the minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That happens from time to time. It happens to other governments too.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But we did not send the minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT. A very strong man was there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I understand that British Columbia's position is, and hopefully should be, that we should have jurisdiction over the use of the cable and carriers. I wonder if the Premier could tell us at this time what progress was made at that conference and if negotiations are continuing to bring under provincial regulation and control the use of this form of communication in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we deal with quite a few hundred conferences a year which ministers are asked to attend. At times those schedules conflict with the minister. British Columbia is blessed with a very, very strong group of deputies. The Deputy Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Illing, was there. I must say that I have full confidence in his ability to represent the province.

A number of discussions took place and the province made some representation there. The member will be interested that it was agreed that the federal government would enter into bilateral negotiations with each province that wished to on the cable communication systems. The province will be taking up those negotiations in this coming year. This is the breakthrough I mentioned in the discussions that have been taking place. Our representation at that conference can then be termed one of the successful conferences - not all conferences are. They have agreed now to negotiate on a bilateral way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should remind you that this would perhaps be better covered under vote 74, but we will allow you to go through it on vote 73.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was prepared to deal with it under vote 74, Mr. Chairman.

I have one further question on this particular topic. Does the Premier think we will be able to reach agreement with Ottawa whereby the province will be able to appoint a member to sit on the CRTC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we always enter every negotiation with the government of Canada with a lot of anticipation that we will be successful. I can't suggest what stance their final position in negotiation will be or how quickly we will achieve that agreement.

I point out to the member that a complicating factor - although the possibility of it

[ Page 1355 ]

has been removed for the moment - is that of a federal election, and perhaps not having an elected government to deal with. The negotiations will start on the staff level, and I anticipate that in the spirit of agreeing to these negotiations, we will come to an early conclusion. That is my optimistic viewpoint. The realities of government to government sometimes don't meet my optimism.

Vote 73 approved.

On vote 74: communications system development and regulation branch, $868,182.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you win some; you lose some. But when you are the Whip you can win out once and a while. I'm not going to take up very much time. I'm going to leave plenty of time for my colleague.

I would like to know how much consultation has gone on between the Ministry of Education and this branch around the whole distance learning institution that is being set up by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . We note, for example, that the minister didn't consult with educators during the process. He went over to England and brought back his idea to set up a grand television network so that he could produce distance-learning for those in the outback. That's fine. We don't argue with that. We do argue with his way of doing it, as usual - unilaterally and without consultation.

But I'm just wondering whether or not the Minister of Education had any consultation with this particular.... Oh, the Premier is in a real hurry to get up, Mr. Chairman. I'll let you get up. I just want to know how much consultation there was to get any advice, and just about where you are now in terms of implementation of the Minister of Education's programme.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Extensive discussion took place between the ministry and the systems development branch. My deputy said that such discussion was going on in a very intensive way when he came to his position over a year ago. So that indicates not only that there has been intensive discussion between the two ministries, but that it has been going on for some time.

MR. COCKE: But where are you now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I am advised they are now discussing which cable channels will be allocated and which communities will get them. So all of the groundwork up until that point and now the actual channels themselves are under discussion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier, as the minister responsible, could tell the House at this time - in view of the fact that the party of which the Premier is the leader has said publicly on numerous occasions that the British Columbia Telephone Company should be under provincial regulation - how the negotiations are proceeding and when we can expect that huge corporate giant to come under provincial regulations rather than federal jurisdiction.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that hasn't progressed very far from the statement. What we are concerned in now are the hearings on Okanagan Telephone, which is under our jurisdiction. But I cannot report great progress on that. I will take your question as a reminder and proceed with more dispatch.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said: "Take it aver." I say no. I want to state emphatically that I don't want to take over the telephone company. That's yours.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have one final point on this, Mr. Chairman. I understand from press reports that the British Columbia Telephone Company may again be applying for a rate in-crease in the near future. I would hope and expect that this government will intervene in the hearings and oppose such rate increases. That company has been bleeding the people and providing not very good service in this province, and particularly in these buildings. The telephone service in here is absolutely terrible. In any event, I would hope that the Premier and the government will intervene when B.C. Telephone applies for a further rate increase so they can increase their profits which they send out of the country to General Telephone in New York, of which they are a subsidiary. Those funds should stay in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say to the member that I agree with him that the telephone service out of the buildings is terrible. Unfortunately, that's not in the private sector. That's run by the government, which indicates how bad it would be if the government ums running the telephones. Our own service is .... No, this is the same system we took over.

[ Page 1356 ]

Mr. Chairman, in any hearing the government is always an intervener, and will be in any subsequent applications.

Vote 74 approved.

Vote 75: Motor Carrier Commission, $367,191 - approved.

on vote 76: transport research and planning branch, $1,402, 187.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just very briefly, I believe this is the vote that provides for funding for types of studies in terms of transportation for the province. Is that correct? The so-called Ruppenthal report, which cost the people of this province untold thousands of dollars, is a terrible report. I would just remind the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that to spend the people's money on this type of a report is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the minister will, in the future, when we commission a study, at least have half-decent studies commissioned.

I might add that everybody on the coast who has been over this study is very unhappy with this study, I can tell you, up and down the whole coast of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If governments knew the results of a study before they commissioned it, they wouldn't need the study. Governments, from time to time, ask for information and studies. That information is there as part of the advice and information on which government makes up its mind. They may reject it, they may accept part of it, they may accept all of it - which I have never seen done, that I know of. It's just that. It's part of the advice to government. Government sometimes pays for bad advice as well as good advice. I'm not commenting on any particular report, I'm just saying that reports are there. That particular report is just part of the advice to government. It has not been accepted in part or in total, or become part of the policy of government.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what the government has done in terms of a subsidy on freight for marine transport.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That might be covered better under vote 78, hon. member. This is the transport research and planning branch.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but vote 78 deals with actual subsidies going to the Ferry Corporation from the province. What I'm talking about is how this government views subsidy of freight and what they've done.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the only subsidy we have goes to the Ferry Corporation and, in turn, they may use it as a subsidy for their own vessels or within their operations may subsidize other vessels or other services from their corporation. That comes under the direction of the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, as such, although the allocation is under another vote. How they use that subsidy would be best explained by the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there's a conflict. When community groups from the coast met with the Premier almost two years ago, the Premier told them that the government would not subsidize freight. But at the same time, the Premier had signed an agreement with the government of Canada calling for subsidy of freight. I wonder how the minister reconciles those two points.

You can't, on the one hand, say, "We don't do it, " and then do it a little bit. You know, it's a confusing issue that the people on the coast can't come to grips with because of the Premier's statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the government has no intention of moving into areas where the responsibility for the movement of a lot of freight is that of a company that is a single entity in an area and has that as part of their traditional existing costs. The government does subsidize freight to some extent because freight is carried on many of the routes of the British Columbia Ferries where we have roll-on, roll-off freight traffic. As such, it does then receive a subsidy as part of the transportation services.

That agreement signed with the government of Canada did not obligate us to continue any subsidies that they had had in the past, subsidies which were not committed to in this agreement. Many of those subsidies had already been removed and were not the basis of any negotiation with the government of Canada.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refresh the Premier's memory on that agreement. In section 4 (1) it says:

"The province shall resume sole responsibility for the subsidization, as may be required, of ferry and coastal freight and passenger services in the waters of British Columbia, including those services formerly and currently subsidized by

[ Page 1357 ]

Canada, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall assume sole financial responsibility for all residual subsidies resulting from (a) the cancellation of the subsidies to Northland Shipping.

That's the one I am particularly interested in at this point. That lays it out pretty clearly. For the life of me, I can't see why the province got into this fiasco in the first place. It wasn't of their making. It was the sole stupidity of the federal government. I know that the province saw it as a chance to get some subsidy dollars that hadn't been there before for coastal transportation. That's fine, except that the stupid blunder of the federal government in cancelling the subsidy to Northland Shipping leaves the central and north coast of the province without freight service. So it isn't going in and subsidizing a private carrier. There is not private carrier there to do the job. It just seem to me that there is only one solution to this problem: self-propelled vessels that have lift-on, lift-off, roll-on, roll-off facilities.

The people there don't know who to go to. They don't know whether to go to the federal government, which says: "It's no longer our responsibility. We signed that away when the provincial government took over the responsibility." In some ways, I think the provincial government was had by the federal government. The federal government had a political hot potato on their hands and they were in trouble all up and down the coast. They dumped it onto the provincial government for $8 million a year, with a bit of inflationary cost added in from year to year.

Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications, under the former minister (Mr. Davis) , got us a bad deal. No matter how you slice it, people on the coast are paying an average of 50 per cent and over for their goods. It's ridiculous that in this great coup that the provincial government pulled off, we got a subsidy out of the federal government at last....

AN HON. MEMBER: They said nice things about the Premier.

MR. LEA: That's true.

It wasn't a good deal for the people living there. Part of that subsidy money has been used to help keep the prices down on the southern run.

I'd like to use an analogy that I used earlier in which I accused the federal government of catering to central Canada because that's where the population is, and in their freight rate structure and in their tariff structure they cater to that voting bloc. The Premier said that they wouldn't do that. But it looks awfully close when you see the major population bloc in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island receiving most of the subsidy dollars; but where the sparse population is and where the freight service is needed, they are not getting a fair shake. It looks suspiciously like the provincial government is doing to the north coast and central coast regions exactly the same thing that the government agrees with me that Canada is doing to British Columbia. It looks suspiciously analogous, and that is what's going on. As Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, I don't know how the Premier can rationalize that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The agreement does leave any subsidy that he mentioned to the discretion of the province. The member didn't read far enough to where it says: "Being further agreed that future provision of subsidies shall be entirely within the discretion of the province." And in a further vote you will come to where we subsidize marine transport by some $45 million in this province.

The Ferry Corporation is working and looking at a number of areas. In the situation we faced, what we have done is that for the first time the government of Canada has recognized that they owe a provincial subsidy, and government, no matter whose government, has at least now overcome that philosophical barrier that they owed no obligation to the coast at all. Negotiations in the future start at least from the premise that they owe something, which is a position they always rejected in the past.

Secondly, what we have done is try to rationalize ferry service, and I'm sure that in the future the Ferry Corporation will be able to look after the coast.

We had a situation where the federal government not only denied its responsibility, but had moved away from providing some subsidy agreements that it had with private corporations. They were long gone and were not part of any negotiation; they were just long gone. We have done a number of things in a provincial way. As the members know, we have tried to rationalize and move into areas where the federal government has not met its responsibility in air transport as well. But we are moving in because we are worried about service to people, and as the Ferry Corporation develops, I am sure it will be able to carry out

[ Page 1358 ]

its mandate.

MS. SANFORD: You know, we may have overcome a philosophical barrier here, but it's very, very costly to the people who are living up and down the coast. It's very costly to them, these increases of 50 per cent and more. In some cases it's up over 100 per cent in freight rates as a result of the agreement that was made.

Now I don't know what sort of points we gain on overcoming a philosophic barrier when people are asked to pay these kinds of increases. But once that $8 million deal was arranged with the federal government, the provincial government went into the construction or the compilation of a report which is now known as the Ruppenthal report on transportation needs up and down the coast. One of the recommendations in that report is that the provincial government should actually subsidize various individual families in isolated communities. That money should be sent to those people to help overcome the fact that they do not have adequate freight service into their communities. I'm wondering if the minister has had a look at that particular recommendation and if the government intends at this time to actually hand out money to people who are not being adequately served at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps the member for Comox wasn't here. I just explained the Ruppenthal report has not been accepted by government. It's still in the ministry. None of it has become part of the policy of government. I'm interested in the members views, but that's exactly where that report stands. It's advice to government in which some or all of it may be rejected, but it's being studied as part of the information on which government will make up its mind on transportation. That's exactly where it stands.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, since the topics been opened up under this particular vote, I think I would just like to proceed a bit. I have no intention of discussing all of the problems which Iove discussed on past occasions during this session, water transportation problems up and down the coast of British Columbia because of this governments policies or lack of policies. We're all very familiar with the economic development that has not been taking place, and jobs that have been lost because of this governments lack of policies in terms of transportation on the coast of British Columbia.

But I do, Mr. Chairman, want to bring to the Premier's attention one particular problem which he can probably give me an answer on today. The isolated community of Ocean Falls which is a Crown corporation is without any form of water transportation at the moment, and will be until October. The vessel, Queen of Prince Rupert, which was calling in there, was removed from that route for the summer months and won't be calling back into Ocean Falls until October, a four-and-a-half month period.

My question to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is very simply this: I would like the Premier as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications to assure the people of Ocean Falls that they will immediately supply a feeder service to Bella Bella, a water transportation service to where the ferry does call at Bella Bella. In a phone call this morning to that community, I found that the only access in and out of that community at the moment is by air, and some people just simply can't afford those very, very high air fares. For a family of four, a return trip is over $600.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like the assurance of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications this morning that there will be at least a feeder service supplied into that community from Ocean Falls to Bella Bella for this four-and-a-half month period until the ferry service is resumed into Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't give that assurance. I can give the assurance that I'll talk to the minister responsible for the ferries. But I know that discussion has gone on between them and representatives from the Ocean Falls management group and it was an anticipated problem which they all knew. I think the four and-a-half month problem is awaiting the establishment of the Port Hardy service. That's the new service and the new scheduling from there. I think they were prepared for some disruption, but I'll take your statement and take it to them as a concern. I cannot give you an answer right now and I do not have the officials here to advise me. I'll just take your statement of concern and express it to them today when I can get in touch with them and find out what has been done and what alternatives there were or are, because I know this was anticipated. I think we mentioned it earlier in the House. I heard this concern earlier and I can find out, but I cannot give you an assurance.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is simply that it has been known for some time by senior management people and the minister responsible that this situation would occur, and the fact is I did receive assume

[ Page 1359 ]

rances that a feeder service would be provided. Service was not provided and those people now are stuck in that community for the summer months when they want to leave for holidays, health reasons, and all the things that people want to do.

What I'm asking now, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier tell the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , who is responsible for the B.C. Ferries - or he can initiate the service on his own as Minister of Transport - that service must be provided for this sir. I kid you not. It is a serious situation. I know it is hard for members of this House to understand, when we are sitting down here in Victoria where we have ferries and highways and aircraft, but when you are stuck in an isolated community working hard all year, you want to go on a bit of a holiday with your family, and that's a different situation altogether.

I want to ask the Premier to at least give me a stronger commitment than he has in his previous answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't. But I can assure him that I will proceed forthwith to get in touch with the minister who is on the ferry board. The ferry board themselves have had this under consideration. They make the decisions on ferry service, and they've been in negotiation. So I cannot advise you of the status. I'll get in touch with the minister through whom the board reports, to find out what they've done, and Loll do that today. I'll get it to the minister today to get to the board to find out what's happening.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a slightly different subject, and that is bus transportation in rural areas. Now this is an area that involves different ministries.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Does that come under vote 76?

MRS. WALLACE: 1 would suggest that as the minister responsible for transportation generally and in this area of research, I would ask that this minister have a look at the situation in the rural areas where there is a crying need for some form of transportation. Why I am suggesting it under this vote, Mr. Premier - and I see you look a bit disconcerted - is that I feel a need for coordination here. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is involved, but I think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) could also be involved, because we have school buses sitting idle a great deal of the time. If there were some co-ordination and some direction from the provincial level, I think those buses could be put to use to provide transportation for the elderly, the disabled and so on. I would ask the Premier to take some initiative in introducing such a programme.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the initiative has been taken by this ministry. We've a new man on staff who is now doing such a study on passenger service for the total province. We'll be in touch. There is some co-ordination with the other ministries responsible, and this will look into the areas that the member suggests, where you have unused capacity of vehicles that may be idle for certain periods and where services are required. That study is being co-ordinated by the efforts of one person who has been added to the ministry.

Vote 76 approved.

On vote 77: British Columbia Energy Commission, $2,091, 671.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take a great deal of time with this, but some time ago last year in this Legislature I went into great detail on the problems the independent gas stations were having in this province because of the imposition of self-serve stations, which are gas stations where the huge, multinational gas companies regulate the gas and petroleum products from the wellhead to the consumer.

Now I know that some time ago the government issued guidelines in terms of how the large gasoline companies should regulate and conduct their business in terms of self-serves in British Columbia. But the fact is, and I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the guidelines, in my view, are not working.

love talked to many groups and many independent dealers throughout the province, particularly the coastal area of the province, and there are all kinds of problems. I don't have to remind you that every time a self-serve station is put in by Shell or Imperial Oil or Esso or whoever, they drive out from four to six independent service stations, with a loss of anywhere between 20 and 40 jobs in the community. That has happened in several of my own communities and has happened throughout the province.

So what I am asking the Premier now, through you, Mr. Chairman, is if he has any comment on how the guidelines that the province issued to the large oil companies in British Columbia are working, and if we are contemplating

[ Page 1360 ]

legislation to regulate the installation of these self-serve stations throughout the province to preserve some of the independents of this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member would know, for the first time we did take initiative last year to preserve the small businessman in the distribution of gasoline and services by restricting, through guidelines, the intrusion of company-owned stations.

We've put the monitoring and the opportunity for members on both sides to complain, if the guidelines weren't being adhered to, to the Energy Commission. Now I have not had any complaints directly to me, but I have had in discussion with the past president - or he may still be the president - of the automotive retailers, Dave Bruce, whom I have had to spend extensive time with concerning the small businessman and the small retailer of gasoline. One of the things I have coming up.... I can find out then if this is not working well in a discussion with him. Since taking over this portfolio, I attempted to get hold of Mr. Bruce but he was out of town on a vacation. However, I will be talking to him. I've also called for a meeting with type of detailed meeting required to talk over a number of areas. This was on the agenda to find out how they're monitoring it and whether they are able to maintain the guidelines and if there are a number of problems arising.

The former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications indicated at the time we put in these guidelines, Mr. Chairman, that if they were not adhered to, we would follow up with legislation. I would be most interested to find out if the guidelines are not being adhered to by both parties. We've set up the mechanism and the authority to direct that, but it was mentioned to all of them by the former minister that if they wouldn't do it voluntarily through these guidelines, legislation would be forthcoming. I don't anticipate the need for that at this moment, but I will be talking to both parties in this area.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to point out to the Premier and Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications that under this vote there is a responsibility for resource management, and I would like to talk a little bit about alternate sources of energy. We've had a great many studies. I think, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the time for studies has come to an end and the time for some experimentation is at hand. We have had studies and there is a lot of documentation on solar energy, wind energy, even tidal energy. The technologies have been well reviewed, and before we are completely swamped with studies, I think it's time to embark on some actual projects. I would urge the Premier in his role as the minister responsible for energy to take some positive action in ensuring that we are involved in those experimental kind of things.

I would point out to the Premier that just recently in my own constituency we have a location there - the Nitinat Indian village -which installed a couple of diesel units. With the increasing costs of fuel, though they were charging $50 per household and $30 to senior citizens, and the only power supply was for lighting and television - they were cooking and heating with propane gas or other means -they were running a deficit on their fuel bills. Now some of us who were very concerned about this involved Hydro in an estimate for a rural extension and that estimate has just come down for the sum of $800,000, which is a prohibitive kind of price for putting in power there.

What we're doing now, Mr. Premier, is through Indian Affairs, Hydro and the federal department of alternate energy. We are involved now in looking at providing the power for that village through perhaps windpower, because there is a steady, lasting and continuous wind in that area.

Another possible alternate source should be wood waste, and while there are no chips in that area, there is a great deal of waste wood in the forest which could be recycled to provide energy. I think that's just one example, Mr. Chairman, of a way that we could get positively and actively involved in providing experimental alternate energy programmes. What I am saying is that I think we have the technology. The studies have been completed, and let's get on with this job of doing something about alternate energy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, we are. I mentioned earlier in debate - perhaps under my salary vote - about the $2.2 million and the Energy Commission putting on demonstration projects. In fact we do have a manufacturer in British Columbia of solar heat that has a number of installations. I believe the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications held some discussions with that concern. I don't know the extent to which they went, but in all areas, particularly wood waste, pilot projects are taking place with the industry in the central part of this province, so that we're into the application of the programme now as an alternate energy source. The Energy Commission has had $2.2 million - not in this

[ Page 1361 ]

vote but in another vote - allocated to undertake this.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have one brief note on this matter, and I think this is the proper vote to discuss this. I would urge the Premier, when he is appointing a new Minister of Energy, that he be just that - a Minister of Energy, someone who would be responsible for Hydro, for the B.C. Energy Commission, for petroleum and coal; in other words, for all sources of energy in British Columbia. I think that this is one of the most important areas in govern!-ment today - our problems with energy and energy sources. Certainly we should have someone who could go to Ottawa and negotiate in a rational way - and with other countries as well. I would hope that instead of having this very important portfolio - energy - all over the ballpark, divided amongst ministers all over the treasury benches, it would be rationalized under one portfolio.

Vote 77 approved.

On vote 78: British Columbia Ferries subsidy, $50,558, 500.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have one very quick note on this as well. Once again we have in this province, in the field of transportation, the responsibilities all over the ballpark. I don't see how it makes sense and can be rationalized that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , for example, should have one aspect of transportation while we have another large area of transportation in terms of saltwater ferry operations and freshwater ferry operations under Highways. We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) responsible for other forms of transportation. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the.... What I'm really saying - and I don't expect a reply - is that portfolio should be rationalized and there should be a more comprehensive type of opera-

tion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're looking at it.

Vote 78 approved.

Vote 79: local airport assistance programme, $107,723 - approved.

Vote 80: air services, $2,079, 282 - approved.

Vote 81: building occupancy charges, $3,498, 546 - approved.

Vote 82: computer and consulting charges: $2,276, 055 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to just thank the students from Lake Cowichan Secondary School for this lovely flower they gave me today with an appropriate colour.

Presenting reports.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on the Incarceration of Female Offenders, which was dated by the Royal Commissioner, the Hon. Madam Justice Patricia M. Proudfoot, on April 28,1978, but which was received in the office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary on May 3,1978.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.