[ Page 341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 341

Oral questions.

Crown land sales by realtors. Mr. Lea –– 341

Constitutionality of Family Relations Act. Ms. Brown –– 342

Impaired driving. Mr. Leggatt  –– 342

Lake Cowichan activity centre. Mrs. Wallace –– 342

BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 343

Fraser Valley farm workers. Ms. Sanford –– 343

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 343

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates.

On vote 100.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 343

Mr. Hall –– 344

Mr. Stupich –– 344

Mr. Levi –– 345

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 345

Mr. Stupich –– 345

Mr. Levi –– 346

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 346

On vote 106.

Mrs. Wallace –– 347

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 347

Mr. Nicolson –– 348

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 348

On vote 108.

Mr. Stupich –– 348

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 348

On vote 111.

Mr. Stupich –– 349

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

On vote 116.

Mr. Stupich –– 349

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Deregulation estimates.

On vote 52.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

Mr. Hall –– 350

Mr. Barrett –– 351

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 352

On vote 54.

Mr. Barber –– 353

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 353

Mr. Barrett –– 356

Presenting Reports

"Details of Revenue for the Fiscal Year 1975-76."

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 370

Ministry of Finance report: "Reduction of Forms and Red Tape."

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 370

Travel Insurance Board report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 370

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege today to present to the House some first-time visitors to the province of British Columbia: my brother Howard, his wife Lois, their daughter Elizabeth, and their son Dennis. They think B.C. is pretty exciting, and if I keep talking to them they may stay here for some time to come. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have relatives here this afternoon too. They come from Winnipeg, Manitoba, and I would like the House to welcome Bob, Jose and Pam Sanford.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, there are five people whom I should like to introduce to the House today. The first of them is a fellow with whom I had the honour of serving in the old and fine days of the Alcohol and Drug Commission — his name is Ian Waddell. He has now gone on to better things; he is the member of parliament for Vancouver Kingsway. He and his associates, Sharon Olsen, Jim Duval, Richard Bauln and Jack Woodward, are in the House today, and I ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich), I would like the House to welcome His Worship Elmer Mercier, the mayor of Prince George; Mrs. Bunty Mercier, Miss Gaylene Mercier, and my wife Beverley.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are Jude Kornelsen and Ms. Tanis Saukins, both of Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver. They aspire to become political scientists and hope to enter political science at either UBC or UVic. I would like you to welcome them.

MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome my wife Linda who has arrived today and is wondering what I'm doing.

Introduction of Bills

MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed an orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CROWN LAND SALES BY REALTORS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. On April 6 the minister made a statement that no Crown land would be going to the realtors of the province of British Columbia — either for sale or for purchase. Does the minister still stick with that statement that he made on April 6? Is that still the policy of the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken that question as notice, and I will bring back an answer to the member very shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I do recall the question having been taken on notice.

MR. LEA: A different question: is the minister aware that on March 6 — that’s prior to April for the minister's knowledge — this policy was already in effect within his ministry? Is the minister aware that when he made that statement in April the policy that he denied was already in effect in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken that question as notice. The member knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon, members, the standing orders, or at least the rules and practice of the House, prevent members from rephrasing questions in such a way as to ask the same question again. I would like to caution hon. members.

MR. LEA: A different question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell me whether he has any knowledge of his ministry taking down payments from anyone for a piece of Crown land and then, without notifying the people who made that down payment, turning over through the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and selling land they've already had down payments on? Is the minister aware that that's happened in the ministry — that the ministry has taken down payments for land and then, without even notifying the people who paid those down payments, given that land to the realtors and they've sold it? Is the minister aware that that has gone on in his ministry?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that question has been taken as notice and an answer will be forthcoming fairly shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it seems to me I recall cautioning the House on Thursday of last week about phrasing questions in such a way as to bring information to the House. Those questions are not admissible, and I wish members would keep this in mind as they're phrasing their questions,

MR. LEA: Would the minister tell me if the Government has worked out any ratio, when dispersing the Crown land, as to what will go to the private sector and what will go to the public sector and a method of determining what that ratio will be? Has the government reached any decision on that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member's seeking clarification of a matter of government policy, and there's no such policy at this time.

[ Page 342 ]

MR. LEA: One final question: would the minister have any objection if, after the question period, I were to table absolute proof that he either doesn't know what's going on in his ministry or that he knows and he's afraid to tell us what's going on? Would he have any objection to me filing documents in this House to prove that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a valid question.

MR. LEA: At the end of the question period, when I go to file these documents in the House, will the minister object?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's clearly a question of future action, hon. member. If the member wishes to table documents, he may do so by simply requesting leave at a time which is suitable to the hon. member.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to welcome the Attorney-General, because I've been trying to ask him this question for a couple of weeks now. So welcome, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's been somebody sitting in this seat who must look a lot like me.

MS. BROWN: But not during question period.

Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the Family Relations Act in the community at large because of Judge Govan's decision that it went beyond the purview of the provincial government. Is the Attorney-General doing anything to clear this matter up?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to give the hon. member a precise answer, and so I'll have to take the question as notice today.

MS. BROWN: Would the Attorney-General be interested in a plan for a reference under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll take that as notice too.

IMPAIRED DRIVING

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General also. It concerns the recent changes to the Automobile Insurance Act in the Attorney-General's drive against impaired driving in British Columbia.

At the present time the law is that ICBC is only legally obligated to cover minimum limits in the event of there being third-party victims as a result of impaired driving. The minimum limit at the present time, I understand, is $75,000. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if he intends to bring forward a change in that law so that people in the position of being quadriplegics or paraplegics have some assurance that there is protection under the law if they are victims of impaired driving?

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is actually a topic that is not within my portfolio, but it's a very valid question. I would like to take it as notice. It is a question of policy, but I'll have to take it as notice today.

The responsible ministers would be my colleagues, Hon. Mr. Mair and Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

MR. LEGGATT: While the minister is taking that as notice, would he also have a look at the impact upon the impaired driver himself? At the present time the change in the law will result in the bankruptcy of a person who, say, has insured himself for $1 million or so. Under the law he denies himself that insurance as a result of his impairment, and will wind up as a bankrupt because of the subrogation provisions. Is the minister also considering some change in the rules of subrogation against the insured?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Once again it is a question of policy, and once again it is not my portfolio; but I'm happy to look into it, sir.

LAKE COWICHAN ACTIVITY CENTRE

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, and it relates to the Lake Cowichan activity centre. This centre has been proclaimed by the Canadian Mental Health Association as a model of what voluntary action can do for mental health in a small community. The Human Resources grant to this centre has been cut by 60 percent and the centre is facing closure. In spite of pleas from myself and local individuals and groups, no increase has been forthcoming except an interim grant delivered by the Social Credit candidate to prevent closure during the election campaign.

Will the Premier assure this House that funds will be forthcoming, through the interministerial committee or other source, to keep this centre in operation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this matter is one which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could resolve during her estimates. As valid as the question might be, the budget has been set up for the estimates of the minister. It might be possible for them to change priorities within the ministry, but we are all dealing with areas — my own included — where many organizations can't receive the amount of funding they would wish, so I can't give you a yes or a no, but the matter will be discussed.

The member has written two letters to me on this subject. I noticed that a copy of the second letter went to the Minister of Human Resources. The first letter did not, and, as such, there has been some difficulty now in me meeting the Minister of Human Resources, who wasn't included in earlier correspondence. That's now been passed along.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sure that the Minister of Human Resources, if she were in the House, would be able to advise the Premier that she has refused the grant because the services that are being provided are not in the purview of Human Resources. For that reason I am asking the Premier, as the chief officer of the cabinet, to intervene with the interministerial committee to ensure that this area, which falls between several different ministries, does have attention before the end of the summer.

[ Page 343 ]

BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier inform this House whether he, or any of his representatives, have met with the board of governors, or any of their staff, of the Toronto Stock Exchange to discuss the listing on that exchange of the share offering in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, neither myself nor anyone specifically authorized by me has met, but it may be possible that someone from the Finance ministry or someone other.... I know of no such meeting right now, but I will certainly be glad to look into the situation for you and find out if anyone has met, but they haven't done so on my instruction.

MR. BARBER: Could you make the same inquiry regarding the Montreal Stock Exchange and, as well, might you ask Mr. Helliwell or any of his representatives if they have been in contact with the boards of governors or the senior staff of either the Toronto or the Montreal stock exchanges?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not to be a Crown corporation. It now has a large number of shareholders awaiting their shares, and Mr. Helliwell may respond to his shareholders. You might ask him that publicly, whether they have or haven't. It's up to them, not the government of British Columbia, to arrange an orderly market for their shares with exchanges. I will certainly pass along the information.

FRASER VALLEY FARM WORKERS

MS. SANFORD: We're getting our wires crossed here this afternoon. I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Labour. There is a problem surrounding the contracting out of farm labour in the Fraser Valley. The minister indicated to this House there was an ongoing study with respect to that particular problem. I'm wondering how long the study has been underway, and I will ask that question first.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is my recollection the study has been underway in excess of two months.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise the House when that study will be completed so that an end to the exploitation of those farm workers can take place through the efforts of this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The end of the study will not determine when any exploitation will stop. The study is designed to ascertain if there is any exploitation, and the extent of it,

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING: A question to the Minister of Forests: could the minister tell us if any timber has been removed from current quota and licence holders under the small business program to date?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is no such thing as "quota in the small-business program." As the member is probably aware, the regulations for the small-business program were passed perhaps three weeks ago. Also. before the regulations can be fully implemented, a minor amendment to the Forest Act is required. The regional managers of the Forest Service have been advised to prepare and start getting the program moving. I cannot tell the member at this point whether or not actual sales have gone ahead. Certainly no quota or allocations to people in the small-business program have been removed.

Mr. Lea tabled documents.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)

On vote 100: minister's office. $109,825,

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to answer two or three questions raised during the debate on estimates on Friday, before their members ask questions.

First of all, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) wanted a breakdown on the statement that an additional direct debt of some $1 billion would have resulted if the tax, increases in the early 1976 period had not in fact been instituted. The member was concerned over the accuracy of this figure and wanted an opportunity to examine the figures. I just want to explain to him that I am putting these together; I have a breakdown of the figure that we're talking about, but I want to have it updated and will be supplying it to him within the next day or two, The breakdown I now have relates to the impact on individuals. I think we should appreciate and agree on the fact that it is through the total revenues which would have been forgone had those increases not been put in place that we have to examine what the impact of the resulting direct debt would have been on provincial revenues.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, there were statements made by this member and others taking exception to the inference that the former government had overestimated the revenues in the year 1975. By way of reminder I'd like to supply the House with a breakdown of all the revenue items for that year, showing the original estimate of those revenues and the resulting actual figure for revenues. I think the picture will become very clear, in that the original budgeted revenue was some $3.2 billion and the actual final revenue for that period was $2.972 billion. In other words, there was an overestimate of some 7.8 percent for that period, and it is, generally speaking, right across the board.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wanted me to look into the matter of requested government agencies at the villages of Fraser Lake and Granisle. I now have reports on these two matters, and I can say, with regard to the village of Fraser Lake, that there is a field report on this particular area, and I will have the report in my hands in the very near future and will report to him at that time. Secondly, he was asking about the village of

[ Page 344 ]

Granisle. There has been an ongoing discussion, I believe, between the motor-vehicles branch and my ministry — through the government agency system — and the village, which originally requested back in 1973 to be allowed to handle motor-vehicle matters. They wanted to alter the situation early in 1978, at which time a review of various numbers indicated that there was no justification at that time for a separate agency at the village. I just want to indicate to the member that we will again review that situation at Granisle.

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked questions of a detailed nature regarding the Systems Corporation. He wanted to know the numbers of excluded employees and the number of employees in the bargaining unit, and, I believe, he also wanted to have the salary totals for those two categories. I don't have those figures — I was just not able to get them this morning — but I will be able to supply those to him on a subsequent day.

Further, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) wanted a detailed breakdown of the salary vote for the Ministry of Finance. I have that breakdown here, which totals $87,149 and accounts by classification for five different staff members.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the minister has now got those figures, but he hasn't given them to us. If the question is on the record, should not the answer be on the record?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Fair enough. Mr. Chairman, I was going to hand the member the breakdown of the salary vote for the minister's office. It is as follows — for the year 1979-80: the Minister of Finance — $24,000; minister's executive assistant — $19,500; secretary to the minister — $16,836; clerk-steno 4 — $14,573; office assistant 2 — $12,240. Total: five employees — $87,149.

MR. HALL: I asked the minister two other questions on Friday. The answer to one was that I should take the matter up when the Provincial Secretary's estimates come up in the alphabetical way in which I understand we are still proceeding with estimates, although the committee obviously has no real knowledge of that. I am not prepared to wait until the end of the estimates to get some sort of answer. My question was what, as the minister who collects the information to put this budget together, he can tell the House about the criteria used and whether he and his Deputy Minister of Finance are satisfied the correct criteria are used in establishing the rents paid to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for each of the ministerial occupancies.

As this is a figure common to all estimates, I would like to know whether it is the going rate, the commercial rate, the local municipal rate, or if it is a standard provincial rate — a number of things like that would occur to me to ask. I wonder if the minister could advise on that.

My other question — again the common denominator throughout the estimates — is that of recruitment savings. The minister said there was something about that in the budget. There may well be there's something about everything in the budget. What I would like the minister to tell me is how recruitment savings work. That line in the budget is a deductible item from all expenses, which total some millions of dollars. I would like the minister to tell me how it's going to work, and what level of achievement is anticipating being seized.

The last question I asked him was: in view of the auditor-general's report on page 43, in which the auditor-general says, referring to the liquor distribution branch, that in general the accounting systems and procedures were found to be inadequate for today's business environment, was he as swift in seeing that department as he announced he was in seeing the Minister of Forests? And if he has seen the Liquor Board people, what success has been achieved there? Indeed, have all the inquiries announced during the past three years by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and by the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) when he was the Minister of Consumer Affairs now been finished? Can this House be satisfied that the accounting and control systems in the liquor distribution branch are okay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As explained in the budget, the recruitment saving question is a deduction from each ministry's salary vote. It was based on an estimate of 10 percent, represented in the type of saving which we are referring to — that is, vacant positions, not filled as yet, where there is a search for employees. There is an ongoing saving previously unexpressed.

The total salaries in all these estimates are some $600 million, so 10 percent of that is $60 million spread across the ministries. If you took at any one ministry, I believe, you will find the deduction from the ministry's vote is roughly 10 percent.

Second, on the question about space occupancy — the basis of arriving at it, and so on — the minister responsible, the Provincial Secretary who has to do with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, will have a complete breakdown on that. Any minister who sees this vote in his estimates has the liberty to examine and question and ask questions as to whether the charge is excessive or not.

But it might be more appropriate to direct that question to the Provincial Secretary. Similarly, with the liquor distribution branch, the minister associated consumer services would have answers to the questions regarding studies and to the financial concerns over the liquor distribution branch; they should be addressed to him.

MR. STUPICH: I'm interested at the minister's offering to table in the House, I gather, a photocopy out of public accounts of two pages, because all the information is there. He's not offering to table at the same time — and I'm not asking him to — similar pages out of public accounts for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The point of my presentation last week on this matter was that, in some instances, the revenue estimate he presented exceeded the actual revenue by as much, or more, as some single instances in our case. His tabling of those documents isn't going to solve that argument, or change my presentation or change his presentation. Neither is it going to add very much to our information since it's simply a couple of pages out of public accounts.

I just wanted to emphasize a couple of points. The minister has so far refrained from accepting my challenge to tell us how much the province was in debt on December 22, so I take it we actually weren't. I have been saying that all along, and he hasn't denied that. I think it's safe to assume

[ Page 345 ]

the province was not in debt when the government changed hands on December 22. I did ask him to give examples of government waste under the NDP administration, and he has not accepted that challenge either.

I have a couple of questions about the proposed regulations under the bill to amend the Income Tax Act. The regulations were circulated among the leaders of the various opposition parties, and the specific questions are with respect to those regulations. This is something the minister can answer later if he prefers, but I'm wondering whether or not it was his intention that the regulations would actually contain a pro forma receipt or whether we are to be guided simply by the description within the regulations. Federally, for example, not only is there a pro forma receipt, but I believe the blank receipts are made available and are circulated.

The second question is with respect to a report that's called "The Prescribed Return." Does the minister intend to make blank copies of these available? I'm just wondering about the administration of this.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, we certainly don't want those answers today. There is some concern, I suppose, and that is that the regulations also said that some of these forms had to be returned within 140 days of polling day. So I think the questions have to be answered sometime, but, not necessarily today.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to find out whether the minister was able to get any further information on the Honeywell project. He did mention on Friday that at this stage he couldn't give us any detail. That was probably because he didn't know. Has he had an opportunity to find out about the Honeywell project, and whether in fact it is now defunct and the machine is just sitting over there with no work being done on it?

The second question that I'd like to ask the minister is about the work done by the Systems Corporation in respect to the issuing of the BCRIC shares. Presumably the corporation now has in its possession extensive tapes regarding the identification of people who've been given shares. Can the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the Systems Corporation...? Has it been discussed as to whether these tapes and information will be turned over to the BCRIC to assist them in doing the kind of monitoring which they obviously will have to do with so many shareholders, in terms of the free shares and the other information that has been gathered?

Also, can the minister tell us whether the Systems Corporation will now be billing the BCRIC for all of the work done for them in respect to the issuing of the shares? Considering the amount of money that the corporation has collected, it would seem to me that it would be in the interests of the taxpayer to receive a refund now from the Systems Corporation for all the money laid out by the taxpayers for the issuing of these shares. So perhaps the minister would comment on those matters that I've raised.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If I could start from the back to the front, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) asked me if the Honeywell situation was defunct. The answer is no. The plan which was developed to make maximum use out of it — having to do with the Ministry of Education — has been changed. Originally it was planned, through the Renfrew site, to provide partial service to some educational institutions. I'm told that this is now being revised, but in no way will it become defunct or lack use. It has caused a delay in the maximizing of the applications attributed to the Honeywell. It's used by the Ministry of Forests on a time-sharing and a scientific computer, and also has other projects being developed. So it's primarily a change which has taken place in the plan developed by the Ministry of Education.

You asked about the tapes held through the BCRIC issue which are in the hands, I presume, of the Systems Corporation. I haven't got the precise answer to that question. It's presumed that the only list which the resources corporation would receive would be a list of their registered shareholders, which they would, of course, be obliged to have. I could give you a more detailed response to that when I find out, but that would be my judgment — that the only list which the BCRIC will receive is a list of the registered shareholders on which they would have to institute their records.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked whether we were in debt on December 1975. The answer is yes, in the amount of $261 million — or by the time we got to the end of March, which is the figure which was certified as being a....

MR. STUPICH: That's three and a half months later, though.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, who knows what the exact figure was? I would say that the estimate at mid-December 1975, judging by the Clarkson Gordon report, was in excess of that. The member nods: I think he agrees with this. There is just no record in public accounts where you could answer the question as to the exact debt at that point in time.

He asked other questions about the proposed regulations on political contributions. The only one I can answer at this time is that the receipt form on the material you have is simply described as being requirements for it. At this stage there is not a pro forma or an official type of receipt planned. The ingredients for what has to be in the receipt are being set out so that they can use their own receipt form.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, further on that receipt form. Just to remind the minister, those were proposed regulations and I expect that the final ones will be coming out in due course.

The minister says that we were in debt at the end of March by $261 million; therefore we must have been in debt $261 million or more in December of '75, some three and a half months earlier. Now I just can't follow that kind of logic, Mr. Chairman, that you're exactly the same amount in debt, or more, simply because he says so without producing any figures to back it up. He says it's impossible to come up with any interim figure. I find it very difficult to believe that the government could not tell us how much the province was in debt, say, at the month end, December 31, 1975. I don't disagree that the minister might not be able to tell us at this point in time, but to say that that kind of information just is not available anywhere is something that I find a little difficult to believe.

To come back for a moment to his statement that if we were $261 million in debt March 31, then we were also at the end of December. Could I simply remind him of a number of expenditures that were made? There's nothing

[ Page 346 ]

wrong with any of these, nothing right or wrong, as the Clarkson Gordon report so clearly pointed out. It's entirely at the discretion of government whether transfers into or out of special purpose funds may be made, whether transfers to Crown corporations or transfers back from Crown corporations may be made. That is entirely at the discretion of government, and any one of those transfers in or out has an effect on surplus or debt, as it may be.

But may I remind him then, as I say, without questioning why these expenditures were made, that an appropriation to the Provincial Transit Fund dated January 13, 1976, a month after the election, in excess of $25 million was made by this administration? Then an amount of $32.6 million was transferred to B.C. Hydro on March 16, 1976, again by this administration. An amount in excess of $181.5 million was transferred to ICBC on March 31, 1976. The others are small — $2.5 million on March 4, 1976.

Now all of those transfers totalling almost $250 million were made in the last month of that fiscal year, in excess of three months after the election. So for the minister to say that if we were in debt the day after all these transfers were made it must mean that we were in debt the same three and a half months earlier is applying logic that I find very difficult to follow.

MR. LEVI: The minister glosses over the Honeywell mess. That thing did not operate for well over a year. For him to tell us now that the Education ministry has finally let them know that they're not being able to use it.... When I checked with various educational institutions around this province, I only found one that was actually using that project in a whole year. The decision to do what was done with it, to split it in half and take it to Vancouver, was a disastrous decision in terms of not being able to get the work. It was recommended against by a committee, but they went ahead with it anyway.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The decision to buy it was disastrous.

MR. LEVI: Don't sound knowledgeable now, because you're certainly not knowledgeable about what goes on in that Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Who bought it?

MR. LEVI: Never mind about who bought it. We're talking about who's dealing with it now. We're not talking about history. We're talking about the mess you've made in terms of the Honeywell mess. You didn't know what was going on for well over a year, and the Education ministry was supposed to do something about it.

I asked you a third question, which was in respect to the BCRIC shares. Is it the intention of the government or the Systems Corporation to now recover from BCRIC the expenses that were incurred by the government and by the Systems Corporation? You have an item in your budget of $12 million. Is it the intention of the government to recover that from BCRIC? Don't tell me it's a matter of policy. Have you made a decision about it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I believe the prospectus indicates that the cost for the BCRIC, the cost of their side of distributing the free shares, was some $2.5 million. That's fully set out in the prospectus. They are also incurring the cost of additional share purchases, which are substantial. That's entirely their responsibility. So there's no plan for the government to charge them any additional over what has already been negotiated with them.

MR. LEVI: All of the free share issue that was sent out that's all very well, and I understand what the minister's saying. But in order to be able to buy the additional shares, the first step had to be that those people that bought them had to have the free shares. So the free shares were the basis of what went on in terms of the acquisition of the purchased shares. Now it seems to me that it's reasonable, from the point of view of the taxpayer, that if the basis of the purchased shares was the free share issue, why shouldn't some of the cost, or all of the cost, considering the large amount of money that's been taken into the treasury, be borne by BCRIC? After all, without the issuing of the free shares, that particular operation, in terms of the sale of shares, could not have got off the ground. It's not possible to buy shares unless you have possession of the free shares.

Now it seems to me that it's reasonable from the taxpayers' point of view that the government can now go to the Systems Corporation and say to them: "We were the basis on which your large share offering was launched so successfully, and you should now consider refunding this money to the government on behalf of the taxpayer." I think that that is an eminently fair way of dealing with this kind of operation. Would the minister like to comment on that? After all, I can't stress too strongly — I appreciate that some costs were incurred — that the basis of the purchase share issue was the free share issue, and the bulk of that expense is being borne by the taxpayer. Now that a lot of people in the province have bought the shares, it seems to me that it would be quite in order for the government to now go to the corporation and say: "You should pay for the costs that we underwrote." It was on the basis of the government launching this scheme that they were able to get off the ground in the first place.

Is the minister prepared to make an observation about that, or is it the end of the matter? Is it not the intention of the government to go to the corporation to secure more of the costs than they are getting at the moment? After all, we have a $12 million item here, and we have a $3 million item on a special warrant. Now, with a corporation that is sitting on well over $414 million, it would seem to me that the taxpayer would be in a position to be reimbursed for those costs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in my view there is a fair division of those costs, which was arrived at through laborious negotiations. As I said, the corporation is paying 25 cents a share for every one of those additional shares purchased, which turns out to be many times more than was ever anticipated — and in terms of their own expenses as well.

I appreciate your observations on the matter but, in my view, the division of costs there is quite clear.

MR. LEVI: I'm not talking about the issue of fairness with respect to the corporation; I'm talking about the burden on the taxpayers in terms of the cost. It's not a question of what is fair for the corporation. We're talking about

[ Page 347 ]

taxpayers' money. We don't know exactly how much money was expended, but the suggestion is that it was pretty close to over $20 million. Surely, with the large amount of money that corporation has got, and the work that was done with taxpayers' money, it's not a question of fairness in the sharing of the expenses. Without the expenditure of taxpayers' money that project could not have got off the ground. It's the taxpayer that made a success of that thing in terms of the initial financing, and it would seem to be eminently fair for the government to go and renegotiate the matter of costs and who pays it, because the minister said that they didn't expect to get such a large number of subscriptions. I see absolutely no reason why the taxpayer has to carry that burden when we have the corporation sitting out there with well over $400 million.

Vote 100 approved.

Vote 101: administrative and support services, $1,824,174 — approved.

Vote 102: office of the comptroller-general, $4,135,766 — approved.

Vote 103: computer and consulting services, $8,032,953 — approved.

Vote 104: Purchasing Commission, $1,698,648 — approved.

Vote 105: taxation administration, $5,074,404 — approved.

On vote 106: Assessment Act Appeal Boards, $579,000.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about the Assessment Authority and what he has in mind this year for farm assessment. I have in my hand here the notice which was sent out in June 1979 by the Assessment Authority, which says: "We will be reviewing all properties classified as farm to determine if they meet the standards of the 1980 assessment roll." It goes on to say that the standards have not yet been finalized, but will likely be similar to the standards sent to all owners of farm properties late in 1977, and based on income from primary agricultural products raised on the land.

As the minister is well aware, that 1977 instruction turned out to be a bit of a fiasco, because it was interpreted in so many different ways that no one really knew what exactly it meant. Recently I quoted in the House during discussion on a bill some of the statements that have been made by various people employed by the minister as to what these criteria are, and they certainly are varied — and confusing, to say the least. It is my belief that the reason that implementation of this particular emerging farm classification — confirmation of this existing farm classification — was delayed from 1977 to 1978 was that it was simply impossible to come up with something that gave the proper criteria.

I'm wondering if the minister is proposing to use the same thing and, if that's what he is proposing to do, if he is prepared to clarify it and make it firm and binding, because it certainly is anything but that as it now stands.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was a minor revision in the farmland classification requirements, which has been made by regulation within recent weeks and which should now be available to the member. As you say, these will be effective for 1980. The revisions were very minor, defining what the term "livestock" meant. The dollar figure for eligibility remains the same.

MRS. WALLACE: I have that particular document in front of me, and item 9 says: "The assessment commissioner may classify land as 'farm' where he approves a farm development plan for that land indicating that he is satisfied that the land is being developed as a farm, and it is likely to reach the standards for classification as a farm in the near future; and may revoke the classification if the development plan is not followed or completed." That certainly leaves it strictly on the lap of the assessor, and what I'm saying to this minister is that every area has different criteria.

Some people go ahead on the basis of the $1,600 for 10 acres and 5 percent of amounts over that, and then find out that one assessor says they're not sufficiently labour and capital intensive, even though they've put $45,000 into their land and have four or five people working on it. But it's his decision, according to this, and I don't think that's fair to the people of this province to have those kinds of discrepancies occurring and those kinds of decisions made by one individual in a particular area. There can be personality conflicts, or differences of opinion over various things.

One assessor has indicated that the way to go is according to how much land you have under cultivation. In that particular instance the land was very low-cost, low-quality land and was certainly best suited for browsing and pasture. That's the way it was being used, but they couldn't get prime classification because it wasn't under cultivation. You know, those kinds of criteria are wrong, Mr. Minister. I think it's up to you to ensure that there is some even-handed method of applying this particular thing, if you're going to insist that people come up to certain standards. You are talking about people who have lived on that piece of property for years and years in many instances, and they're trying to maintain that standard. That is their family home, and it's very difficult to come up with something and then find that it's not satisfactory. Maybe they buy four or five beef cattle, and that's not enough because they're figuring the retail price, and the assessor is figuring the farmgate price. The criteria have to be much more explicit, and they have to be the same all over this province, which is not the case, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would have to disagree with the member that the description is really very clear in terms of the requirement for farmland production. I don't think it's going to be within the discretion of any assessor. If you have been writing regarding this matter without receiving response, I wish you'd bring that to my attention. I've not been aware that you've had this difficulty.

The requirements for eligibility are very clear, and they are based on the production of that farm unit. I don't think you need to have the concern that there will be ambiguity on that question.

MRS. WALLACE: Will you explain to me what section 9 means? "The assessment commissioner may classify the

[ Page 348 ]

land as farm where he approves a farm development plan for that land, indicating he is satisfied that the land is being developed as a farm, and it is likely to reach the standards of classification as a farm in the near future." What are the standards of classification?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Through this new description of farmland various people previously enjoying farmland will become declassified. That's the purpose of the regulation. What you are referring to is simply an opportunity to give all possible latitude for people to indicate on a plan that they do propose to make modifications so that they will become eligible. They will still hold their eligibility in the meantime, but they'll have to provide a viable plan.

MRS. WALLACE: The item states "...it is likely to reach the standards for classification as a farm in the near future." Now what is a farm? What standards do you have to reach? Do you know, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Production.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but how much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sixteen hundred dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We must proceed through the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. The minister has indicated that it's $1,600. Strangely enough, the Assessment Authority has told me that it must come up to $5,000 to be classified as a farm. Otherwise it's not a viable farm.

Now those are the kinds of problems that are happening, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's the acreage?

MRS. WALLACE: No, it has nothing to do with acreage. If a 10-acre plot can't produce $5,000, it's not a viable farm because you can't earn a living from it. Those are the things that people are being told by the assessors out in the field, Mr. Minister, and that's my concern. I believe that the minister has to take some action to make sure that there is an even-handed interpretation of this regulation throughout the province.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to direct the minister's attention to the methods of assessment for mobile homes. It came to my attention, as a result of several inquiries that I had last year, that mobile homes are not being assessed in terms of willing buyer, willing seller, as they are assessed on other matters. They have set up classifications of various brands of homes, such as new homes, and as they age there is a certain rate of depreciation set out in the manual. It appears they have arbitrarily taken about two-thirds of that depreciated rate and come up with the magic figure. It's totally unrelated to the intent and purposes of the Act.

Furthermore, the price of new mobile homes usually contains such items as furniture, washers and dryers and refrigerators. These things come as part of the unit. As I see it, people who own mobile homes are being subjected to an arbitrary type of assessment. I took the trouble to go out and took at a few sellers' asking prices, and I compared them with certain assessments. I found that the assessments were way out of line in favour of the government and to the detriment of the owner. It seemed rather strange that while the mobile home registry hasn't had enough time to establish too many sales for the assessments to be done under normal assessment practices, it is an area that has many problems.

I would like to know if the minister has any objection to filing the appropriate portions of the assessors' manuals with members of this House who might want to look into this further.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'I look into that. As you are aware, these valuations are all subject to courts of revision. I'm told that, on balance, they are quite conservative in their estimates of values on mobile homes.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't like to put a person in the assessment office on the spot. I didn't want to ask him for a copy of the procedural manual or part of the procedural manual. Would the minister make that available to the budget if I should send him a memo?

Vote 106 approved.

Vote 107: government agencies, $5,844,261— approved.

On vote 108: interest on public debt, $21,740,000.

MR. STUPICH: I notice the figure is almost the same for 1979-80 as it was for 1978-79, yet there is a 10 percent reduction in the amount of debt. Has the rate gone up substantially or is it expected to go up substantially in the year ahead? Can he tell us what he expects the average rate of interest on public debt will be in the coming year, and what the average rate of earnings on term deposits will be in the coming year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The average rate on Series "B" bonds represented in the debt is 9.125 percent throughout the ten-year period. I'm not able to give you the figure on term deposits; it varies.

MR. STUPICH: I will come back to my question, Mr, Chairman, as to why the interest is the same for the two years. Has it gone up this year from what it was last year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, it is down.

MR. STUPICH: Well, not by 10 percent. Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that it is down. It's down by a few thousand dollars, but one would have expected it to be down by $2 million, and it's not.

Vote 108 approved.

Vote 109: grants, contributions and subsidies, $16,585,000 — approved.

Vote 116: interest on deposits, $5,500,000

approved.

On vote 111: British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation — free shares distribution, $12,000,000.

[ Page 349 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman it doesn't say so but I wonder whether it is in this vote that the cost of all of the advertising done by the government would also be included. The large newspaper ads advising people to pick up their five free shares — is that where this would be paid for, or would it be somewhere else?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to that is yes.

Vote 111 approved.

Vote 112: incidentals, $2,557,473 — approved.

Vote 113: advances under various statutes, $250,000 — approved.

Vote 114: salary contingencies (all ministries), $17,000,000 — approved.

Vote 115: Treasury Board, $1,058,041 — approved.

On vote 116: building occupancy charges, $3,569,000.

MR. STUPICH: Can I just ask why this figure is down even nominally down? Are you closing something? You're not negotiating a better rate, surely, with BCBC. It's down a bit, and maybe last year's was too high an estimate. At least this gives us time to get ready for the next vote. The record shows the minister doesn't know, and that's fine.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There's less space.

MR. STUPICH: What are you shutting down?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Nothing. We're just consolidating.

MR. STUPICH: Are you double-decking the employees?

Vote 116: building occupancy charges, $3,569,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF DEREGULATION

On vote 52: minister's office, $89,634.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We have now started the estimates of the Ministry of Deregulation, which had a change of minister in the not-too-distant past. I would just like to make a comment or two based on the initial experience I have had in dealing with this ministry and the impact it is having on the community at large in British Columbia.

Since I have assumed this responsibility, I would like to assure the House of the importance with which I hold the deregulation operation, as well as its importance to the government as a whole. The major concern which all of us have — or should have — who are responsible for government is the increasing impact of government, its bureaucracy and its regulations upon the economy and the lives of our citizens. I think we all recognize that we live in a highly complex society which requires a great deal of regulatory interference.

As I see it, our job in deregulation is not simply to attempt to remove all the regulatory interference, but rather to identify that which appears to be unnecessary or conflicting, that which appears to be imposing too much on the rights of individuals and that which appears not to be in the true public interest. This, I am satisfied, is a major task, but I am not interested in creating or perpetuating another bureaucracy in order to carry out the responsibilities inherent in this mandate.

I have already met with senior staff of the ministry and have reviewed their accomplishments since the formation of the ministry in January of this year. I am pleased to report that they have a good understanding of what we mean by deregulation and upon the positive attitude which exists within the small ministry to accomplish its objectives,

Since this government took the unprecedented step of creating a ministry to accomplish the purposes of deregulation, we have become aware of the interest which is being shown in this unique exercise from coast to coast. We know that other provinces and the federal government are watching our efforts with a great deal of interest. We have been visited by representatives of other provinces and other countries to see what we are doing. and this is viewed by them as a much-needed endeavour.

We also are participating in federal programs along similar lines and we know from our discussions in these federal committees of the high level of interest which is being shown in the British Columbia initiative, not only by government circles but, more importantly, by representatives of the private sector on whom the impact of government regulation inevitably descends.

In my budget originally presented in the House on Monday, April 2, and reaffirmed more recently, I made reference to this matter. I said: "To reduce the regulatory burden of government we are taking steps to reduce needless paper flow within government to speed the response to the individual's requirements for prompt government decisions and to reduce the cost of complying with government regulations."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Here are some examples of the new ministry's earlier achievements. First of all, the rights of the individual in dealing with government officials on regulatory matters have been set out. I am taking immediate steps to ensure these are published in the news media and that they are placed in every government office throughout the province and circulated publicly as widely as possible. Second, numerous redundant pieces of obsolete legislation have been identified, some of which have, been scrapped, with many more under review. Specifically, cabinet has already approved the repeal of about 50 of the present consolidated statutes, and we will be presenting, in the next few weeks, a recommendation on the repeal of some additional statutes.

We will, further, be working with the Ministry of the Attorney-General to make sure citizens have a clear understanding of the law of the province as it exists. We have also established, for immediate presentation to cabinet, a forms review project. We have been aware of the multiplicity of forms which confront the individual and which have grown up over the years within various

[ Page 350 ]

ministries. In our view, there are too many of these forms. In many cases they ask for information which appears to be unwarranted, and there is too much duplication. We are concerned that this impact on the community, and upon the rights of individuals, be minimized, consistent with the need to carry out government programs. Although reduction of forms is considered to be a long-range project, our staff is at present reviewing priorities for current revisions with every ministry, while at the same time developing a master plan for the program of overall revision to all forms currently in use.

Third, I also reported that steps are being taken to speed up the process of local government zoning and developmental approval. Without a doubt, the confusion, delay, overlap and uncertainty in the land-use approvals process has been one of the major complaints registered with this ministry.

Two task forces were established to define the existing systems in order that we can propose revisions and shortcuts to the existing processes. We are aware the problem is not a simple one of making it easier to develop land. We wish to preserve the necessary controls to protect the rights of all citizens, and ensure environmental concerns are met. It is our view that many unnecessary and time-consuming procedures involved in this process can be simplified and streamlined. Mr. Chairman, this we intend to do. I have met with the Deregulation Board. I understand the first of the reports from the task force will be in my hands in the near future, following which we will then establish a timetable for recommendations which will include the time for necessary discussions, both at the municipal and regional levels, in order to facilitate such improvements as may be recommended by this study.

I have reported steps are being taken to coordinate the standards for building construction, use and occupancy, with the necessary inspection systems to ensure compliance. In this regard, and as a consequence of the public examination, a continuing series of discussions have taken place with the ministries involved. I am pleased to report that very shortly we will present a proposal to unify the authority for the creation of standards for building construction, use and occupancy, and also establish a simplified and unified appeals process for all matters involved. Likewise, we intend to propose a representative review process for all regulations relating to building construction, use and occupancy. This will remove the present conflicts and will, we believe, satisfy many of the objections raised, not only by contractors and developers, but by members of the public involved in the building process.

We further expect to be able to present rationalization of the present inspection systems sometime this fall to simplify the dealings of those members of the public involved in the building process.

Last, I have asked that the program to speed up payments to suppliers be accelerated. This is presently being worked on in conjunction with the ministry's concern; and I have asked for an early recommendation, in order that improvements can be found to the existing systems. From my preliminary examination of the work of the ministry, and the Deregulation Board, I am impressed with the range of areas of concern being prepared for submission to me and, through me, to cabinet. It is apparent that the staff have been busy since establishing the office. I am further impressed with the attitude within this ministry staff. I emphasize that they continue this attitude of cooperation, which will include a healthy skepticism of all systems until they have been shown to comply with the basic mandate of this ministry.

It is my intent, Mr. Chairman, to make good our concern that the benefits of regulation can and will be achieved at lower cost to the taxpayer, the private sector and the economy.

MR. HALL: I am pleased to hear that report. It at least means that something was being done since last December, if only by the author. I hope he's well paid.

When I was a minister over there I used to have writers like that in the travel industry. They used to take you on tours of the province and tell you about the beautiful things in the province, just as we've heard some beautiful things about this ministry.

I would like to go over the history of this ministry, and ask some questions that might have simple answers rather than pages of puffery like this. First, on January 11, by order-in-council the cabinet set up this ministry with approval to spend $100,000 and hire two directors of deregulation. Can the minister tell us what the staff is now under this vote 52, so we can have the details in the record and an ongoing picture of the ministry? Second, on January 13 the then minister set up a strike force of seven men who were already top public servants in other ministries, plus a former Social Credit cabinet minister, Dan Campbell. They were to strike — and I use the word "strike" advisedly; it's a difficult word for some of us to use in this chamber, because they might bring in the Essential Services Disputes Act; I think they have, because they stopped them striking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair understands the meaning of the word "strike." Please confine your comments to the Deregulation ministry.

MR. HALL: The strike force that was put into operation appears to be going slowly, if not on strike. That force was supposed to look after the slow payment of government accounts with businesses. Yet we are hearing about that all the time. Just the other day we listened to a long list of people who worked in the election of May 10 and who had not been paid. What happened to the strike force?

For the appointments made, namely, Mr. George Giles, Mr. Tex Enemark, Mr. Richard Anthony, Mr. Maury Gwynne, and Ms. Donna Hall, could you please tell us the amounts of their salaries, and whether those gentlemen and that lady are still working for the ministry? I understand Maury Gwynne has moved to another ministry.

I notice that, in spite of having received that $100,000 and having taken on staff between December and April, there is still no estimated expenditure to the 31st of the month. It was under review in consolidated accounts; however, that's a bit of a mystery; I suppose that really accounts for what's happened.

I also note that if one excludes the Provincial Capital Commission, which I don't suppose will stay in this ministry all that long, this ministry is going to spend a million dollars deregulating.

The only performance that has been registered to date is the repeal of 71 statutes. All of them were actually repealed a long time ago, except that the last stroke of the pen was not attached to the document. They're all draining and diking statutes which go back to 1878. I hardly think that's

[ Page 351 ]

something we can all feel joyful about. If that's the sum total of accomplishment, would the minister tell us how long it took to review the accomplishments he referred to in his report? I think he should share with the House a few more details than just the words "a review of the accomplishments." How long did it take to review what has been accomplished?

Later he went on to say that some 50 statutes had been looked at. Are these the 50 I've already mentioned under order-in-council 371, approved February 9, 1979? Are they to do with diking at Sumas and other places? If not, could he share with the House what they are?

The words "projects" and "task forces" are liberally sprinkled throughout the report. I think the House deserves better than that. I would like the minister to tell us in detail what particular steps have been accomplished, and what instructions have gone out via the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What forms have been discontinued? If he can't read it into the record, perhaps he would be good enough to give his assurance to the House that in the next four or five days he will circulate to the members a detailed list of the form numbers which have actually been struck off the record, so we can phone our municipalities. My municipalities of Surrey and White Rock would be tickled to death to hear of some of them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's progress.

MR. HALL: Forgive me, Mr. Attorney-General, if I remain somewhat sceptical. What we have been able to ascertain from this side of the House — other than from the handouts — is that the ministry has received 359 letters since it was formed. Now that's not a lot. Those 359 letters have been coded and handled as complaints to Deregulation.

"A referral centre has been set up. Ninety-four pieces of correspondence have been coded and handled as briefs. Complaints have been logged and referred to the pertinent agency for responses to the writer." What they are really saying is that the secretary is working on some of that.

But again the use of the words "logged" and "referral" and so on really is somewhat extreme. But interestingly enough, of the 359 letters the ministry has, 201 have been answered — that's only two out of three. Now if you can only answer two out of three letters, and you're the Minister of Deregulation, what on earth is happening with the other 100? We can do as well on this side and we only have half a secretary each. You've got directors and you've got executive assistants and you've got deputy ministers, and you've got a million dollars to play with.

"Of the remaining 100-odd letters, 88 were overdue, with about equal proportions due to delay in mail and agency inability to provide answers within the average three-week demand time. " Some deregulation!

The briefs have been logged in separate files and have been referred to the pertinent official. The detail of those 359 letters is interesting: the largest number of complaints — a total of 51 — has been referred to Municipal Affairs. As I say, I share the concern of the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that almost all of them relate to the area of land-use approvals from basic zoning through regional district to Municipal Act authority. "The responses to most of the complaints, which generally have been reasoned and on time, have explained why the ministry has little or no power to overrule local decisions or authority without changes in the legislation. Many levels of authority have been created in the Municipal Act and handed over to other provincial or local agencies." In short, that means: "Don't bother us. We can't do anything about it." So there is Municipal Affairs stuck with those 51  letters and not much of any assistance coming.

The next highest number of complaints, 46, have been coded to Deregulation. Now here is where we get down to it. Forty-six out of 359 have to do with deregulation — well, we're getting somewhere now. "There are matters which relate to regulations and legislation that are, to a large extent, already under review by the ministry and offer background material. Such matters include such things as provincial resource use approval, provincial-municipal land use approval, building standards, redundant legislation, expropriation and payments to suppliers." You know, all you needed for that was for the Premier to stamp his foot once in Treasury Board and something would have been done. That's all that was needed, for the Premier to raise his voice once in Treasury Board, for the first time perhaps. That's all that was required there.

"Health drew the third-highest number of complaints" — did they tell you of any...this, Mr. Member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland)? — "but about two dozen or so of those were form letters seeking extra funding for a church group home in Hazelton." Now if in the letters on deregulation we've got we had form letters asking for money, what on earth were they getting? I mean if they want more letters, let's get together and send them some. I mean, really!

"A large number of useful suggestions have also been made. One coroner pointed out a number of somewhat similar forms he must fill out for government, hospitals, police, his own files and others." I suppose he's dead, or something like that. But there in a letter from a coroner we've got the kind of detail on that this ministry can obviously get its teeth into.

"We also received complaints about provincial and federal health and Medicare forms, as well as suggestions for simple, clear forms."

Now we come to the fourth-highest number of complaints, 34, for Transportation, Communications and Highways, most of them aimed at the subdivision approval powers of the ministry and half a dozen at the Motor Carrier Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the House too long with this, because while it starts off being comical, at the end it really is rather sad. And 359 letters in that kind of detail show that this ministry just is simply an unnecessary bureaucracy. It's not doing the kind of work it was supposed to do: it's a snare and a delusion, in my view, for the people to have to look at. For letters to go the Minister of Deregulation from the Attorney-General about horseracing is really absolutely fatuous. I suggest. Mr. Chairman, that this money is wasted. I would normally vote against it, except it has in it some $700,000 for the Provincial Capital Commission, which is money well spent, and that's about the only reason I can vote for this whole ministry.

MR. BARRETT: I hope the minister could give me some information on the most confusing area that's been brought to your attention, and that is the question of land

[ Page 352 ]

use permits. Could you inform me as to what action has been taken to clear up the long delays in applications for land use permits, and also purchase of land from the government? We're constantly getting criticisms about the delays in this area.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The matter of land-use approvals is probably the most important project for the Deregulation Board. It is a most difficult problem. The previous minister (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) had a very sincere interest in this topic, and has expressed it on many occasions. Considerable work has been done on this subject in terms of a task force which will hopefully develop some answers to these questions before too many weeks go by.

The previous member made a lot of fun of the referral centre. We can all josh about this, but it has given this government an opportunity to get a handle on what people are thinking out there. He may be critical of what people are saying; I hope that's not what he's saying. One of the major concerns is land-use approval and the delays involved with government on this subject. That's been the major thrust from the referral centre's analysis. There are 404 letters in the latest report. They've brought some two-thirds of these to a conclusion, while others are still being worked on. In some cases more information is required from ministries. It's an avenue which people are finding they can go to to vent their feelings on delays and frustrations in dealing with government. That's what we want to get out of this.

He mentioned slow pay. A great deal has been done through my ministry to have the comptroller-general speed up payments. One improvement was the decentralization of the ability to pay from regional offices throughout the province. We are now instituting a system where more direct payment is made to a local area from a regional office. I cite that as one instance of an improvement.

He asked what the strike force was. It's simply the Deregulation Board, and it has been meeting constantly. It arrived at a list of desired regulations, and the force is dealing with individual ministries. It is up to the ministry itself to announce and indicate changes it's making. We're simply talking about a structure which can suggest ideas, look at ministries and then rely on them rather than establish a completely separate, large bureaucracy. There is not a very large staff involved in this operation, but they're addressing themselves to the problem.

The member wanted exact instances of where we've taken out red tape and regulations. I have a list here of several in my own ministry. There has been the removal of forms and reduction of the need to file forms. The change we made in corporation capital tax from the minimum of $100,000 to $500,000 required 13,000 less companies to file forms. Also, we changed the requirements of people paying social services tax. Smaller companies only have to report twice a year now instead of once a month. He asked for details; I'm just giving you some details of improvements that have been made. In the Logging Tax Act, 25 provisions have been consolidated into five provisions.

I won't belabour the House with all this detail, but I'd like to table the detailed improvements that have been done in terms of forms removal.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for all the answers to questions I didn't ask. I want to know who's handling land sales now for the government. Who is handling the land sales now?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think you know the answer to that.

MR. BARRETT: That's what I need to know. Deregulation is looking after the backup, but who is handling the land sales?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. BARRETT: Why would you raise the subject of deregulation in looking at land-use permits and land sales, and then say the ministry is handling land sales? What's happening there? Is there a change in policy or are real estate agents handling land sales now? That's what I'd like to know. No one seems to know and Bill's telling you how to answer. You know, it's the Bill and Evan show. They're vaudeville on the side. Who's handling the land sales?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you introducing us?

MR. BARRETT: I certainly am, yes. Who's handling the land sales?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to read hymns too?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, who's handling the land sales that you are looking at? How are you cleaning up these land sales contracts that you raised?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The ministry.

MR. BARRETT: The ministry is. Have you looked under the land-use permits and the backup of the ministry's handling of this?

Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll leave that as it stands. There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to government policy and deregulation around land use and land sales. That's clear.

The next question. When you tell us that there are individual delays and your department's looked up these cases and cut down a number of delays, you're acting as sort of a red-tape cutter for individual cases. Is that correct?

The assumption, in terms of the statement you've just made, is that if people complain to you about problems with land.... Do you want to get the answer, Bill, and then give it right across to me in a hurry? Your deputy on your left there will give you the answer. You have answered letters by clearing up their individual cases. Is that right?

Now that I have the minister's undivided and unregulated attention, could you tell me again how many cases you speeded up by them writing directly to the Ministry of Deregulation?

The minister is confessing here that if you write to the Ministry of Deregulation, and you have a problem, they will speed the process up. Is that right? That's what he said. I’m just saying that if everybody out there has got a problem and they heard today that the way to solve the problem is to write to the department and they'll speed the process up in the department, but the red tape is still there, all you're doing is laying on a circumventing route through another angle to beat the red tape and you haven't solved any problems.

[ Page 353 ]

Can MLAs write the minister when they've got problems? Would the minister care to answer the question? Is it part and parcel of your mandate to speed up individual cases once they are brought to your attention?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would just remind the member that I have just assumed responsibility for this ministry. It has very broad responsibility, and naturally one of its objectives is to speed up response. That's been indicated in a policy statement as one of our priorities. I've just recently assumed responsibility and, as he is well aware, I will do the best I can to get some action in terms of deregulating, cutting away the frustrations that people have in dealing with governmental departments.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, what I'm concerned about is that you appear to be developing a pattern here — and if I am incorrect I will stand corrected — of individually dealing with separate cases and getting them through the bureaucracy rather than cutting at what caused the delay in the first place.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think we're doing both.

MR. BARRETT: You're doing both. So it is okay now for MLAs to write you to speed up cases as well — or constituencies. Because if this is an avenue for MLAs to go through, we welcome it, okay? A nod of the head: that's the policy.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we invite all members of the public, including MLAs, to write this ministry with their problems.

Vote 52 approved.

Vote 53: general administration, $824,041 — approved.

On vote 54: Provincial Capital Commission, $704,048.

MR. BARBER: This is the vote that provides $704,000 for the Provincial Capital Commission. The government seems to be somewhat confused here. I read an order-in-council just a very short while ago that assigned responsibility for the capital commission to the Provincial Secretary. Today I find it in the estimates for the Ministry of Finance. Where may I debate it?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Just a minute now. I don't want to be hoist on someone’s petard. I want an opportunity to ask a number of detailed questions about the convention centre and other matters. As far as I can tell, the only vote that they actually appear under is vote 54. However, I am told that the responsible minister isn't responsible for vote 54. So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister might advise whether or not the Provincial Secretary could come into the House now and answer the questions, as is reasonable enough a practice.

Or perhaps I could have a commitment from the minister or the Premier in Hansard that when the Provincial Secretary's estimates come up, I will not be disentitled to discuss this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. Why is it here then if you gave it to the Provincial Secretary? Why is it in the Minister of Finance's estimates? Just a matter of the time of it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes,

MR. BARBER: Okay.

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: building occupancy charges, $90,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 6: Premier's office. $245,047.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, a few brief remarks before we hold any further discussion on this vote, just to say that the Premier's office has an important role in the executive branch of government. As chairman of the executive council, I see a lot of the important work that the ministers and the government do flow out through the Premier's office. As such, we carry on a number of very, very important meetings with not only other governments in Canada, but external to our province, states, foreign governments and, of course. meetings with the government in Ottawa.

Now since the election we have been able. In this new mood of growing confidence, because of the conclusive results of majority government, to hold a meeting with the new Prime Minister of Canada and with the new government of Canada, to discuss a number of the issues that have been there to be resolved over a period of time, but which may now be resolved because of the change in policy of the new government of Canada. It has always been our position, both as a party in this House and in this province as a government, and it has been our position at first ministers' conferences as well, that we wish to preserve the provincial control and keep the provincial control over our resources, and not extend that jurisdiction to the federal government. But further, we have sought jurisdiction in an area that has been unclear, because of judicial decisions and others — and it needs a political resolution — and that is that of offshore resources.

It has been the stated policy of the new government of Canada that they believe that offshore resources should be in the hands of the provinces. So we have taken this early opportunity to then remind them of our position of maintaining control of the provincial resources within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and not surrendering it to the government of Canada. We also look forward to the early opportunity now to clarify our control over the offshore resources. Now, upon the new government concluding the meetings that are offshore now in Tokyo, the important conferences that are taking place, hopefully we can bring early resolution to this long-standing discussion. Certainly then there will be more stability, more confidence, and certainly we can look then at perhaps the development of our resources in a more confident way.

It is not because the provinces should not have this responsibility. It is a fact that the provinces, through the

[ Page 354 ]

various ministries that look after resource control, not only for their development.... But as with the Ministry of Environment that we do have, Mr. Chairman, we can be more responsive to the immediate needs of British Columbians and respond to their concerns, and also respond to local situations as the need arises. Concurrent federal jurisdiction would mean duplicating facilities and ministries and responsibilities. We have just finished talking about overlap and cost of government and regulations; it would be a nightmare having concurrent administration in this area.

We hope, then, the discussions will lead to a more efficient management of the people's resources, more orderly, safe development by governments immediately in the area where these resources are. This will be a major breakthrough in the country to have this resolved. It is important, and an election was just fought on it in the great province of Newfoundland. That was the major issue. I am sure that the decision they gave, in electing their government, appears to be a decision now shared by both of the major federal parties, because certainly the new Liberal leader who spent some time in Ottawa has come around to the opinion in that election that offshore resources should be managed by that province. Of course, with British Columbia being the total west coast of Canada, we feel we can do the same job. That means for British Columbians an even stronger future, and a future that looks very promising now.

We are not without our uncertainties, and we are not without some of the problems that plague the country, and North America as a whole. But I can see, with what we have seen since the election, a growing mood of investor confidence. We see the private sector making announcements now that perhaps were being held back until they had an opportunity to see what sort of government was going to be here in British Columbia. We now see the smaller companies making the type of announcements concerning expansion with capital of manufacturing facilities in all our resources areas. These are the ones that deal not only with our forest industry, but mining and in other areas as well.

My office and my own mail have been particularly busy with the number of inquiries that have now come in, just to the Premier's office, and this doesn't include those discussions that are going on with the Minister of Tourism, Minister of Economic Development, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Minister of Forests, and others. It means that things look very promising in British Columbia. This type of development will mean investment capital; it's also good for our construction industry. It will provide work for our people and in those industries where they're improving facilities so that they can be more cost competitive, and give a greater permanency for jobs for the people who already work in that industry.

If there's one thing forestry industry workers feel now with the billions of dollars of new and much-needed investment that hasn't been taking place, but is now taking place in this province — it is that their jobs are more secure. They knew outmoded, non-competitive facilities would soon lose markets and that, ultimately, they would be losers, as well as the provincial economy. It is time the private sector and these companies have taken on this important investment and development of facilities. It's good for the industry; it's good for the province and, above all, it's good for the people who work in the industry.

Mr. Chairman, I know you share my views that the much-needed commitment to mining development, long absent, is again starting to move with major mines, accompanied by major activity taking place in the search for new minerals, The provincial economy fares well, and perhaps the industry fares well.

Perhaps we're starting to bring back to British Columbia those skilled technicians, and the people who developed a mining technology in British Columbia that was second to none, who were driven out by legislation passed some years ago. It's important we keep that type of expertise, that we try to bring it back and centre it here in British Columbia. Also, we must consider the people who work in the day-to-day jobs in the mines as well — the ones who, if they closed, wouldn't have an option of going somewhere else. We've got to tell them there will be further mines developed, and greater work opportunity. That now goes hand-in-hand with the price and demand for coal, starting to meet the hopes we had for it when we first became government.

Some firms have been developing and working in the northeast, securing contracts. We're not now just dependent on the Pacific Rim for markets; we've got market contracts for 20 years with Romania, contracts in Europe, and contract discussions with countries and firms in the Pacific Rim. It now brings much closer that whole project of transportation, ports, rail and port development that goes beyond just the discussion of grain development, but of the coal port at Ridley Island. It means the development of the coal extraction process in the major areas of the northeast is much closer because of these contracts and because of the work. It means the joint policy the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada have been working on for the last three years, where we've been jointly doing studies of the environment and developing the infrastructure, the transportation, looking at how it will deal with the people — it will mean work in that area, including town requirements. All these have been proceeding. So we're right on stream and ready to try to meet those target dates of 1983, when all these can be ready. That means, then, prosperity for the areas in which those resources and transportation facilities will be located, and a general surge in value to the provincial economy. It's not just a selfish feeling that it's good for British Columbia; it's also good for our country.

Our country is a trading nation. We're great importers, and we've got to export to resolve our balance of payments. British Columbia is going to play an even more major role in the future in helping resolve Canada's balance of payments. This will not be to the detriment of our future. Well-balanced development of our economy provides the jobs that are needed now; it serves the needs of British Columbians, both as individuals and through government. And it provides a great service to our country. It helps to stabilize our place in the world as one of the stronger nations and a country with a great future.

These things can be resolved with the government of Canada. Any possible development of offshore resources, by having jurisdiction in the province, now can add to our known knowledge of what we have; and that's important.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that another important area is cooperation with other governments. Indeed, this year I was chairman for the Western Premiers' Conference, which was held in Prince George, and at which we discussed a

[ Page 355 ]

number of issues of common interest which are important not only to our province but to the prairie provinces as well.

These are not areas where we are ganging up on the rest of Canada or the government of Canada, but where we are really working in areas of common interest, because there are those areas where we disagree as well — Crows Nest rates and things like that. There are areas of agreement and areas where we can make our voice heard in a more effective way, or sometimes have combined cooperation to make things happen. Certainly, having the western Premiers to the port of Prince Rupert was important. It was important for them to see what part of the port could be additionally developed at Ridley Island for the grain terminals, to give additional grain capacity, and also where British Columbia and perhaps Alberta coal could be put through the ports, and also other commodities, Saskatchewan has its potash and other materials and certainly there is an area of cooperation there.

We've also met in a number of other areas that, while sounding dull, involve all the ministries of this government. Agreements are, of course, concluded at conferences such as this in areas of difficulty. such as interprovincial trucking, which is a problem that every province is dealing with. All of these things — important matters — are concluded or worked on at these conferences, and certainly the conference in Prince George was a great success, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to report that external to our country, it is important that we have a working relationship with our counterparts, particularly in those areas adjacent to our province. One of the areas often concerned is the northern part, the Yukon and Alaska. When we became government, Mr. Chairman, we resumed meetings that hadn't been held for some years, annual meetings between the Governor of Alaska, the Commissioner of the Yukon and the Premier of British Columbia. A number of those meetings have been held. The first one, of course, when we resumed them, was held in Victoria.

This year I say again that the invitation for those meetings has been extended to my counterparts, the Governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond, and the Commissioner for the Yukon. While the date hasn’t been fixed. It will be sometime this fall — a very important meeting to pick up on the work that has been going on.

From time to time, Mr. Chairman, as you know, it's important to involve other governments — sometimes the federal government of the United States, the government of Canada and other governments — on specific topics of mutual interest rather than the broad range of connecting roads and things that are between two jurisdictions.

We have been able to conclude a number of agreements that are beneficial to both. where cooperation could not be reasonably withheld. We've built up an area of mutual trust and confidence, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully that is going to continue because there can be many benefits for all of us in cooperation and in continuation of these meetings. They are conducted, I might say, in a non-political atmosphere but in the area of governments with common problems. trying to resolve them rather than just talk about them. I think we've made great progress.

One of the first meetings of some importance which will take place within our country will be the annual Premiers' conference, this year to be held in Quebec City in the province of Quebec. I will be taken away from the Legislature during the mid part of August, but I know you'll miss me.

Anyhow, that's one of the important areas where the Premiers get together in an informal setting. It's been a tradition for some years. They're not highly structured meetings but they have helped to bring a common understanding. One of the things I have found, Mr. Chairman, in our party being elected government and having a responsibility for representing British Columbians at these conferences, is how much we have to learn about each other and how many of the problems that affect different regions of the country cannot be fully appreciated by others. But on the other hand there are areas, no matter what government is in power and what political party is in power and problems that we share together which have a common solution, where we can help each other in providing solutions.

So we go there to try and resolve a number of these areas. As I say, I will be taken away from this Legislature in August to go to Quebec, but I am sure I will be able to extend your best wishes to the other Premiers, and particularly to the Premier of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and assure them that British Columbia and British Columbians wish them to stay a part of a strong and vibrant Canada. I hope that in any coming vote they will, make a very strong expression to stay with us and to build with us because they have a stronger future with us. Together we're strong and, of course, divided all of us would be weaker and not just in an economic way but in very real way in which we build on each other's strengths and the strengths which are important to make our country different and unique.

There are a number of things that I see developing. We see the growing confidence; we see major new investment; we see a mood of building. We see that people are returning to British Columbia, which is nice to see in one way, but it is something we have to deal with as a government and as legislators in another way. We now have more people coming to British Columbia than are leaving, and that wasn't the case a few years ago. It creates problems. Work must be found, for many come without a job in mind. Many just get up and move to British Columbia with no prospects for a job. They have probably vacationed in this province for a number of years. and they've finally said: "Life's too short; we're going to live in British Columbia." They get here and then they must find something to do. I am sure that applies to all areas of the province, but it was brought home to me in the recent election when I was in Vernon with the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We were going around the streets early in the morning, and we saw a number of people having breakfast. The first three families we talked to were all new residents. They were mostly young people with young families. I said: "Where are you from?" One was from Saskatchewan. I said: "Well, it's good to have you in British Columbia. Have you moved out her'?"

They said: "Yes. we've just moved."

I said: "What are you going to do?"

"We don't know, but we just wanted to come here."

While it is flattering for us who live in British Columbia, that they want to join us, it gives us a special problem. These people are looking at the quality of life we have here and want to share it. People don't always move for economic reasons. They move because they want to be a

[ Page 356 ]

part of the way of life that we have in British Columbia. That is why it is important also that we try and preserve and conserve what we have, but it gives us special problems. These are problems not only for the Economic Development ministry, but also for other ministries in the government that provide the social services. We cannot sometimes direct, or even know, where the pressure will be with these people who move in. They may require health facilities or educational facilities, and it makes it harder to predict the growth.

It is easy to look at national statistics and see that the baby boom curve is changing and that by 1983 we will be in another set of circumstances, possibly of labour shortages. But British Columbia always has a problem — or benefit, depending on the way that you look at it — of having more people wanting to live here than sometimes even our developing economy can absorb. It is a special problem that British Columbians are used to dealing with.

We see a mood of confidence; we see the province growing; we see problems yet to be resolved. But we feel that with continued effort, not only our government but the other governments of Canada can resolve these problems. There are a number of new governments in Canada with perhaps fresh ideas. We can resolve some of the things and reach some solutions that have escaped us over the last few years. This government starts its new mandate confident, full of energy and with vigour. We know that there will always be new problems to confront us, but with an air of cooperation we look forward to trying to provide solutions to these problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I note that the Premier wound up his remarks talking about the government with its new mandate. I think it is important that we focus a great deal of our time on the present and the future, but I think it is important, too, to just spend a few minutes on some of the things in the past which I think have to be said. Unfortunately we didn't have the opportunity of speaking together on television during the election campaign. When the Premier talks about different points of view and cooperation, it would be worthwhile if the Premier had sat in front of the people of British Columbia and said exactly what he wanted to do with the mandate, and I, in turn, would have said what I wanted to do. We would have asked each other some questions, but obviously the Premier decided not to take that opportunity of making mincemeat out of me with his policies on television. I thank him for this small mercy in avoiding the television debate, so that he wouldn't chop me up and reduce us to, perhaps, even fewer seats than we got out of the last election.

The Premier called an election. To this day we don't know why he called the election. That question is now shared by the rest of his party. The results brought that focus home very quickly. You went into the election campaign with, I think, a 17-seat majority. You came back into the House with a five-seat majority, and it is almost panic to the people who have bladder problems when it comes to the time of a vote, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There are couple of things which offended me personally, and obviously offended a number of people in the province of British Columbia, coming as they did from the Premier of this province, who speaks not just for a political party but for the government of the day. Among the things I was shocked at was the Premier's statement that the official opposition party were national socialists. When given the opportunity to clarify or apologize for the remark, the Premier sought the escape route of the kind of talk he gave us today, waving his hand and going in circles.

Perhaps the best that can be said is that the Premier was totally ignorant of the connotations of what he was saying. Perhaps the Premier is unaware of the overtones of "national socialism" in terms of world history.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: This is the one time that the Premier has to sit and listen, so we might as well take advantage of it; it happens so infrequently in this province from the leader of a government who runs and hides and dodges almost every major issue that comes up.

The remark about national socialism was one that offended many people in this province, none more dramatically than two particular people who approached me during the election campaign, both very upset because of their own personal experiences of how they came to Canada in the first place. The Premier talks about people coming to British Columbia. It's worthwhile that he should know some history, and about this country and this province being a haven for people who come for freedom, security, peace of mind, and to never again be threatened by bombast and rhetoric that shatters their personal life.

A man of about 55 approached me in the town of Merritt. He's a member of the New Democratic Party and had been a member of Helmut Schmidt's political party in Germany. Helmut Schmidt is the chancellor of Germany with whom Bill Bennett, as Premier, dined, and whom he praised. This man spent 13 months in a concentration camp for being a member of the democratic socialist party in Germany, and was personally highly offended that the Premier would infer that the party he belonged to was national socialist. He's a Canadian citizen. He had hoped that the Premier would offer some explanation or some apology for the comment made. None was forthcoming.

Perhaps, Mr. Premier, if you only offended one person you could write it off — you satisfied the other 2,399,000. But it's hardly the role of the Premier of the province to make remarks about political activity that are based on either ignorance or hostility; both are inexcusable. The opportunity to apologize was there.

The second person was a lady who came to me in a restaurant in Vancouver, who lifted her sleeve and showed me a number on her arm from a concentration camp. She had survived two years in a concentration camp. She was a political opponent of national socialism. She'd lost three members of her family in fighting national socialism. She was highly offended by the statement made by the Premier.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) may be amused and shake his head, but as a school principal he should be aware that some people came to this country to escape the ravages of national socialism. Some of them heard the Premier of this province make the accusation that this party was national socialist. No one heard the Premier of this province apologize for the inference of those remarks.

[ Page 357 ]

MR. BRUMMET: How can you possibly make a connection?

MR. BARRETT: I wasn't the first to make the connection. I didn't comment on the issue for three or four days, while waiting for the Premier himself to explain it.

The Premier was asked about this at the press conference before I commented on it. There was still no apology or explanation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: How could I interpret it that way, Mr. Member? Every single member of the press gallery interpreted the remark that way. Mr. Jack Webster, a former intelligence officer in the British Army — before he went on to lesser things in this province — asked the Premier on television about the remark.

When I'm approached by a citizen who was in a concentration camp for 13 months because of his political beliefs, and by a woman who was in a camp for almost two years, with her serial number still tattooed on her arm — I'm relaying to you how she, not Dave Barrett or Jack Webster, interpreted the statement — then, for the sake of those people, I think the Premier owes an apology.

In my opinion, the Premier deliberately set out on a course of provocation in the election campaign by throwing out highly evocative words. The press did ask me, finally, if I had anything to say, and I said: "Perhaps he's made a mistake; perhaps he will apologize." They said: "Do you think he knew what he meant when he said that?" I said: "I'm not sure." But I know what it meant. I said that on television. I know what it meant, and I still know what it means, and we still have not had an apology from the Premier of this province for what I consider to be one of the lowest and most dastardly remarks ever made about a political party in the province of British Columbia's history.

If you want to cement relations and develop cooperation, you do not slander people whose record, right from the Kreisau circle and von Stauffenberg and the only group that stood up to Nazism in Germany and paid with their lives for it...you do not slander those people. The Kreisau circle led to Willy Brandt's administration. The Kreisau circle was the one saving factor at the height of Nazism in Germany in 1944. When the one attempt was made out of moral outrage by those people against Hitler's life, it was led by a group of democratic socialists, one of whom was a devout Catholic and a member of the Social Democratic Party, Count von Stauffenberg.

Those of us who read history, of course, understand the role of this great party and its international ties, and the fact that democratic socialists through the whole world and in the British Commonwealth were in the forefront of fighting national socialism, right from volunteers who left this country in the mid-thirties to fight in Spain and from people who lined up because of political convictions to fight for Canada, to fight for the free world.

It ill behooves the leader of any jurisdiction in this country to stand up and bandy about the words "national socialism" affecting people's political affiliation. If it was said in ignorance, and perhaps it was, then the Premier could honestly stand up and say: "Well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone by the use of that word." But if it was said deliberately, as I think it was, to inflame, then I think, indeed, this province has sunk to a low level by a Premier who is willing to say anything and do anything in an attempt to evoke emotion or hostility around a political debate that should be rational and mature.

There's a lot more I could say about the remark. I did mention the personal offence. I have been offended before in this House, but I have never been that deeply offended in anything I have done as a citizen, born in this country, as a free citizen participating in the active political life of this country, and as a former Premier. How would it be if I said that Social Credit were a bunch of Fascists?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you?

MR. BARRETT: No, I have not.

Or a bunch of Nazis, which I have not. How would it be if I slandered with a base attack the political party that you represent, and then when the opportunity to apologize comes after that base attack, say: "Oh, well, blah, blah, blah!"? How do you answer, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — that man in Merritt and that woman in Vancouver who feel a deep, personal offence at your statements?

I'm not asking for an apology for me or for my party. We expect the kind of abuse that we've had when we were in government. You talk lovingly of cooperation now, but what of the hate and hostility that emanated from these opposition benches when you were in opposition? What would you say to that man and that woman who came to me during the election campaign or perhaps to the people who wrote to you about your comment?

It would make a much larger person, as leader of this province, to quietly stand up sometime today and just say the few words: "If anyone misinterpreted what I am saying, I regret that very much: it was not the intention of my remark to imply national socialism as being Nazism." It would go a long way to add some stature that belongs to the office — perhaps not to the person, but at least to the office of Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Now since we did not get a chance to deal with the debate issues, it might come as some surprise to your backbenchers, who are involved very much in political baiting, that you announced with pleasure that you have sold some coal from northeast British Columbia, and you have sold it to Romania. You sold it to communists. What do you think about that? You sold coal to communists. What does that mean in terms of political action in the future?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, from your area, coal to communists. How would you explain that when you go home?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, sure, it’s all right then. That's fine. Let's get that clear. You want to trade in the international marketplace, and you welcome those trades. That's fine, just so we know what we're dealing with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Premier says he wants to build Canada and he wants cooperation those were your words. You want to send a

[ Page 358 ]

message to the people of Quebec. You hope that there is an understanding that this government, with its new mandate, wants to cooperate. When we were in office, Mr. Premier, we made sure that opposition representatives were available at federal-provincial conferences, because we believe that in a free democratic society the opposition and the government, at the federal level, must be represented when we're talking about the future of this country.

When there were important national conferences, it was my instruction as Premier of this province that the opposition send representatives at government expense to those conferences in Ottawa. Has that been the case in terms of the pious words of this Premier? Petty politics. Were the Conservatives, Liberals, myself or any representative of the opposition ever asked to any federal-provincial conference? Not on your life! Too petty; too small. Is that the mark of leadership? Is that the mark of cooperation? Is that the mark of a man who understands what the responsibility of being Premier is?

MR. MACDONALD: He didn't even ask me to open the courthouse.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't even ask you to open the courthouse, but you went ahead and did it anyway. I'm glad you did.

The pettiness, the narrowness and the downright bordering on hate that emanates from those benches have permeated the province for the last six years, right up to the election campaign. Now we hear words about them wanting to cooperate. Do you want to cooperate? Then make sure the opposition has enough staff to do the job they've been elected to do. Let's cooperate on that. Do you want to cooperate? Let's make sure that there are no more petty arguments about having opposition representation as observers at national conferences. Do you want to cooperate? Then rise above pettiness and bring this House to a level of behaviour beyond what you've demonstrated up to now and during the last election campaign.

Many times during the campaign the opportunity presented itself for me to respond to the kind of baiting that existed. I went about my business and discussed the issues of the campaign, only to view the Premier on television bursting with hostility, rather than addressing himself to the issues of the day.

The Premier comes in today and talks about energy policy. Let's talk a bit about energy policy. It's my understanding, Mr. Premier, as I interpret your statements today, that you now take the position that you want all offshore mineral rights for the province of British Columbia. Is that correct? I assume that in terms of the statements you made and the framework of the recently conducted campaign in Newfoundland. If it is your goal to have all offshore rights — those include oil and gas rights offshore — and if that's what you're negotiating with the new Prime Minister, fair enough. But the question follows: is it the policy of the government of British Columbia to initiate offshore drilling for oil and gas? Is that your policy?

Why would you bring in the question of a debate on offshore mineral rights unless you were going to do something with those offshore rights? We need to know and the people of this province need to know if you plan, if we receive the rights from the federal government, to do offshore drilling for oil and gas off the coast of British Columbia. Is that your policy? Let's hear about it. You talk about British Columbia and the national scene, and you talk about energy. You never mention the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which is a state-owned petroleum corporation. You voted against it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did I?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you did. You are on record as voting against it. I'll bring you the copy. You were incorrect when you said you didn't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say I didn't, did I?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you're quoted in the paper as saying you would have voted against it had you been here. But you were here, and you voted against it. Sometimes you get caught up in your stories. Unfortunately the press people and others were there. You get a little mixed up, so we'll just straighten the record.

You voted against the Petroleum Corporation; it's a state-owned petroleum corporation. Do you understand that? It is owned by the government of British Columbia. All you people out there in this province, it is owned by your government. Don't you feel apart from it and frightened that the government owns this great, big marketing monopoly for natural gas? Why didn't you sell that off? Last year that great state monopoly made $228 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's a vehicle.

MR. BARRETT: It's a vehicle. Why didn't you say that? You should read what they said when they voted against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's what you intended to do with it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed with the Petroleum Corporation except some of the personnel. We have a state monopoly on marketing natural gas. There's no free enterprise left in the marketing of natural gas in British Columbia. Social Credit has perpetuated that monopoly and out of that monopoly have made $228 million last year. Well, can the minister or the Premier name any oil company that's allowed to sell natural gas out of the province of British Columbia, other than through the Petroleum Corporation? Imperial, Esso, Exxon, Fly-by-Night, Upside-Down, Backwards — name one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Giddy-Up Go.

MR. BARRETT: We're going to deal with that one too. The fact is that we have the most successful single Crown corporation ever started in the province of British Columbia, and it was started by my colleague, the former Attorney-General of this province. It is a marketing agency for natural gas, and thank goodness it's there. That $228 million, had we not passed that legislation, would have gone into the pockets of the international oil companies. Let's make that clear.

[ Page 359 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Dave!

MR. BARRETT: If not, why have you not destroyed the Petroleum Corporation? Why have you not amended our Act? Why have you not allowed free enterprise back in to sell natural gas? When we came to power you were giving it away till 1989, selling our natural gas at 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. That was the contract.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is that the contract you said the government had?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, approved by the government, and it had to be regulated by the government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you're changing it now.

MR. BARRETT: Have you changed the Petroleum Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, you're changing your story.

MR. BARRETT: Have you allowed free enterprise back in? No, not at all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're twisting, David.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier of this province to tell us whether or not he intends to destroy the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation and put it in the hands of BCRIC. Do you intend to do that? Do you intend to take the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which is a state monopoly, and put it under control of that private company? I need to know that answer.

What is your position on Petro-Canada? We have an instrument here in British Columbia known as the Petroleum Corporation, but I understand you're opposed to Petro-Canada. Is that correct? If I'm incorrect, then I won't bother making the comments that I am, but are you opposed to Petro-Canada as a national instrument on oil policy?

The Premier talks very glibly about national energy policies; he talks very glibly about Ottawa's role in the energy field. But I put this to you, Mr. Chairman: Alberta supplies crude oil to the province of British Columbia on six-month renewable contracts, and if the attitude he displays goes for the balkanization and control of resources exclusively by the provinces, what is to stop Alberta from carrying through a comment that they will cut off crude oil to the province of British Columbia in five or six years? It's a threat by Mr. Getty. There are six-month renewable contracts on crude oil for the province of British Columbia. Mr. Getty was quoted as saying before he left the Alberta cabinet that in five or six years they would stop supplying British Columbia with crude. The first thing you'd have to do — through you, Mr. Chairman — is go down to Ottawa and ask the federal government to ensure that a supply of crude oil be made available from Alberta until it could be replaced.

What is the role of the federal government in the energy field? Without Petro-Canada, without an instrument that is in the hands of the government of Canada — whether it is Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or any other party — there is no way we can guarantee a constant place in the world market for meeting our needs for energy and oil supplies in this country. At a time when OPEC nations are meeting now and talking about raising the price of oil to $18 a barrel, we still haven't had a clear-cut statement from the Premier of this province as to what kind of national energy policy he wants to see protect this province and every other Canadian province against that international cartel.

If I read the Premier's statements and his attitude toward Petro-Canada correctly, the laissez-faire approach that he advocates would mean the destruction of one major reason why we should stay together as a nation based on our own industrial needs. The opportunity for guaranteed oil supply to all of Canada has to come through Petro-Canada.

Do you trust the international oil companies, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier? Much to its regret the federal Liberal government discovered that Exxon had been lying to the federal government. It had been trading off-shore on oil destined for Canada. It had made commitments to the government of Canada, and then behind the government's back had been trading that oil into the U.S. market, threatening a supply, threatening jobs here in this country. The Liberals were shocked that the oil companies would do a thing like that.

I would commend to the Premier a book, if he has some time to read, by a Mr. Sampson, called the Seven Sisters. If the Premier has any illusions about the private oil companies or the international oil companies not going past governments and getting their own way, he should just address himself to recent history and current events in terms of the international oil companies' dealings with the people of this country and their government.

I am not ashamed to say clearly and firmly as a Canadian that I support the government of the day that has a guarantee — just as we do in British Columbia through the Petroleum Corporation — that there is an instrument that will be in place to assist every region of this country to see that it has its energy needs met.

I don't mind the posturing of the province of Alberta. I don't mind the posturing of the province of British Columbia. But I want to make something very clear, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, this country of Canada is far more important than any one single province. Let's get that straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'I sit down, have a drink of water and get up again and finish my remarks.

We must have a national energy policy and we must have an instrument to carry out that national energy policy — and the only instrument is PetroCan, which in a small measure goes some way towards meeting our own instrument here in British Columbia, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

I think I've given the Premier a few questions and I would be happy if he would answer those. I have a few more and I await the opportunity of responding to the answers and asking the other questions that I have to ask.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there is some opportunity presented by the Leader of the Opposition to refight the election...and his wounded ego in having lost two elections and being under some assault from

[ Page 360 ]

his own party. He tries to see slights where no slights are. But he is well known for that and, of course, if he can justify being a two-time loser to himself, maybe he can give his party some reason for him to remain. But I'm not going to refight the election campaign. It may be important to him, because....

MS. SANFORD: Aren't you going to apologize?

MR. HANSON: Apologize.

HON. MR. BENNETT: My friend across the floor said: "Apologize." If I asked that party to apologize every time they offended someone, we'd get no work done.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a couple of the questions. One concerns the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which, as I have said before, is a tax-gathering vehicle.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not right. It's much more than that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If it was used to build refineries and gas stations — if it was intended to extend a tax-gathering vehicle to developing facilities to take over the industry — then it would be something more than a tax-gathering vehicle. But the way it's operating, we have a choice. We can operate through royalties or we can use it as a sales mechanism — both make it a tax-gathering vehicle. As I say, part of the discussion is about the way it is used, and the intent to use a tax-gathering vehicle as a tax-gathering vehicle is just what this government has. If there was a party in government now that used that vehicle to build gas stations or to announce refineries in the middle of every town in which it wanted to win an election campaign, then it would become something more than that.

You know, it's quite unusual for someone to try and say that a Crown corporation that is used as a tax-gathering vehicle is some sort of success for socialism or government ownership. If that party ever became government again, they would set up a Crown corporation to collect the 4 percent sales tax. They would set up a Crown corporation to collect their share of the income tax and they would claim a great success for government ownership.

That tax-gathering vehicle will be continued to be used only in that way by our government, because it would be costly to break it down and put in a royalty system, or do it some other way. We have no intention of using it as a Crown corporation to build refineries and service stations and compete with the small service-station owner and set up our own retail gas distribution and take over the exploration and the drilling. I will make that perfectly clear today.

Are we going to turn it over to BCRIC? No, we are not going to turn over to the prime sector any of the tax-gathering vehicles of the government. We are not going to turn the 4 percent sales tax over to them either. So if you want to keep asking that question about every tax collecting, source we have, it's no to all of them.

What do we say about PetroCan? There are parts of the assets purchased in PetroCan that are economic instruments in this province. I'I tell you quite frankly, after the experience of having another government buy PWA and seeing what can happen there, we are not going to allow any other government or agency to control an economic instrument in this province. Westcoast Transmission has a pipeline within this province — that's another thing.

Our government can deal with the private sector quite fairly; they only make economic decisions and sometimes they can be wrong. Add to that someone mixing that up with political decisions and you have got yourself a major opportunity for a problem and dissension between parts of this country that need not exist.

The administration and direction of our oil and gas industry, the exploration and its development, are clearly shown, and if you want it to relate, even to government.... If you want to go back in history and talk about how your policies encouraged exploration and developed the oil and gas industry, I would be quite willing to compare the records, because there were very few rigs and very little exploration taking place in British Columbia in 1975 when we became government. The reserves were dwindling, and you would have thought that with a dwindling of reserves there would have been a massive search, but there wasn't. This government has encouraged development and it is taking place.

Now obviously the rest of Canada benefits as well from any economic activity taking place in British Columbia. But those resources are part of the people of British Columbia's heritage; they belong to British Columbia. By glibly saying that all you are talking about is some national marketing vehicle when you are on record as saying you would give away the constitutional rights, as that party has....

MR. MACDONALD: Would you quote what you're referring to?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The whole press release — read it all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This isn't a press release, it is part of the minutes....

MR. BARRETT: Read the whole submission.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'd be glad to. I'll read it sometime during the debate, as soon as I find it. Here it is. Gee, it just happens to be here. This is attributed to the then Premier of British Columbia. It says: "On November 10 last they stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil and gas rights granted to it by the constitution if the government of Canada resolved to assume control of all the country's reserves and ownership, the means of petroleum production, transmission, processing and distribution." I'll tell you, that would be giving away British Columbia's tradition and heritage of resources, giving it away....

MR. KING: Giving it away to Canadians — wouldn't that be terrible!

MR. BARRETT: So we could have oil guaranteed for B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: See how alarmed they get? They've been caught and now they're trying to justify it. He never said that a few weeks ago; he wouldn't talk about that being what he meant. "Oh, just a little marketing agency, that's all I meant." He forgot they kept records. He talked

[ Page 361 ]

about a little marketing agency. What he wanted to do was give away part of our British Columbia heritage, that's all. That's fine. If you think you've got a good case, next opportunity you go out and sell it solely on that. Let's set that as the issue the next time we go, and if you are not there, commit whoever is trying to follow you to that as the issue. I would be pleased to take it up. Set the time and the place. We could discuss it and take it to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING: You'd still be afraid to debate though.

HON. MR. BENNETT: My friend, I've never been afraid. You can bring as many as you like. Send someone who knows what they are talking about.

MR. KING: Well, if we did that you wouldn't be there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If that was a criterion, you would have no one to send.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address your remarks to the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I can't remember any other questions that came out of that. It's amazing someone can talk so long without asking any questions, but I think there were only the two.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we can go back and forth on the gas and oil debate, but I just want to quote from the Victoria Times on May 9, 1979, when the Premier was explaining why the $700 million of the B.C. Rail was not a debt. He is quoted here as saying this: "Bennett said, however, the government's highly successful natural gas marketing agency, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, had not been included on a list of government-owned companies being returned to the private sector because it is merely a tax-collecting agency." That's just what he has repeated here. Understand that the Premier has said that it is merely a tax-collecting agency. Even though that is all it is in his definition, he goes on to say this: "Bennett said he would not have voted for the corporation had he been in the Legislature when it was set up." So even if it was a tax-collecting agency you wouldn't have voted for it.

Well, lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, surely by accident we discovered that the Premier was not telling the truth. On September 19, 1973, from the Journals, we note that Mr. William Richards Bennett, having taken the oath and signed the parliamentary roll, was introduced by Mr. Richter and Mr. Chabot, who remembers it well — much to his regret. After that introduction, he was out of the cabinet for a year and a half waiting — to be slighted that way.

What do we find here? On October 23, almost six weeks after the Premier was sworn in, there was a vote on the Petroleum Corporation. The motion was the second reading of Bill 70 intituled Petroleum Corporation Act. A debate arose. The House divided. The motion was agreed to on the following division: 32 in favour. 15 against. I read from the Journal, in order not to offend the rules of the House: "Chabot, Richter, Jordan, Smith, Fraser, McGeer, Anderson, Wallace, Phillips, McClelland, Morrison, Schroeder, Gardom, Curtis, Bennett.... Bennett! He wasn't here! It must be a mistake.

Now here's the convoluted logic. "It's only a tax collecting agency." That's what he said. "But even at that, I wouldn't have voted for it, had I been there.'' But he was here and he didn't vote for it. Now he is boasting about how it's running. He neglects to inform the House that it's more than a tax-collecting agency. Doesn’t it advance money to people who want to explore and drill? Just nod your head. Why, yes, it does advance money. What do you think of that?

MR. LEA: Sounds like welfare.

MR. BARRETT: Welfare, is that what it sounds like? Does it not sign individual contracts with producers? Yes, it does that. There is absolutely no change in the structure of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, and his name is recorded as voting against it. This government has not touched it. It voted against it, and last week it announced a profit of $228 million. You're embarrassed by the fact that this was the most successful venture initiated by the New Democratic Party while we were in office.

I want to talk about my statement and the question of oil and gas in this country. I'm trying to get through to the Premier with the understanding that Alberta is already on record as having said that five or six years down the road, those six-month, renewable oil contracts with British Columbia to supply crude could be stopped.

Mr. Chairman, one-third of all of the oil needed by British Columbia is purchased from Alberta. Alberta could cut off crude oil supplies to British Columbia. The Premier has lamented the fact that Alberta bought PWA. What is the role of the federal government in regard to ten provincial administrations that it's trying to bind together? It is the responsibility of a federal administration to ensure that every single one of those provinces has a continuous supply of gas and oil on an equal basis, to ensure that the viability of their economy continues. If the Premier of this province is trying to balkanize the approach to energy policy in this country, he is missing the point of the responsibility of every single government in this country to make every single possible move to keep this country together. The danger of this country falling apart is not a question of language; it's a question of the economy. If any province was threatened by an oil shortage they might look to the lines of gasoline customers waiting to buy gasoline and the lines of bunker C customers waiting to buy bunker C or industrial fuels. If one province arbitrarily cut off a supply, where would you run to? You'd run, first of all, to Ottawa and ask for some protection from the federal government. Every citizen must understand that the role of Petro-Canada must be maintained. We must not allow our economic destiny, which is so rigidly based on non-renewable energy supplies of oil and gas, to fall into the control of the international oil companies, or any international oil cartel. Anyone with a more limited view that threatens the very future of the economic development of this country.

It might be worthwhile for the Premier to read a little bit about what caused the war against Japan that finally broke out with the raid on Pearl Harbour. It was the threat of a cut-off of oil supplies. Mr. Chairman, that was the last straw in terms of that economic conflict.

When nations or states are threatened by a depleting constant source of energy supplies, all kinds of problems arise. I said this at the federal energy conference, and I say

[ Page 362 ]

it again: I am a Canadian citizen. I believe in this country and I believe this country must stay together because the whole is greater than any one of its parts. I believe that one of the most important ways of keeping this country together is to have a national energy policy that says from the federal government that no matter where you live in this country we guarantee you to the best of our ability equal access to gas and oil for all citizens in this country when the demand is there and the need is there.

I'm not ashamed to take that position. I'm not ashamed to say that people in Quebec or Saskatchewan or the Maritimes need to understand that they are full partners in this country and that the energy sources and the supply of energy in this country must be directed towards a national policy, not to any one single province, whether it is Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or any other province.

Now that may not sound good on the hustings, but I've said it and I'll say it anywhere. I believe this country is more important than any chauvinistic moves by any Premier of any party in an attempt to appear to look good for local consumption. Any threat to PetroCan is a threat to national energy policy, and I would hope that every government in this country would back a federal initiative in the PetroCan area. I hope Mr. Clark has a second took. I hope he backs off. I really do. I think it would be a tragic mistake if he abandoned our role in PetroCan. Now the Premier had his name read out in the record where he voted against the Petroleum Corporation. So when you're interviewed next time, you will say: "Yes, I was there. It slipped my mind."

The Premier then said that we have to look for B.C. interests. "B.C. is not for sale." You remember the famous argument he had with Big Julie, Mr. Sinclair. His nickname is "Big Julie" in the media. Ian Sinclair is the head of....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You met him in a ski suit, that's right. And after blowing the snow around a bit, you said B.C. is not for sale and MacMillan-Bloedel is not for sale to the CPR.

Will the Premier tell us what instrument he will use to stop the CPR from buying shares in BCRIC?

MR. KING: Did you ever sell any land to CP Rail, Marathon?

MR. BARRETT: Just write them down. Yes, the Premier did sell land to the CPR, oh, yes. It's okay for the Premier when he wasn't in office, a little bit of land to the CPR. But they can't pack that up and take it down to Montreal the way they can pack up the building down in Vancouver and take that to Montreal.

B.C.'s not for sale. It depends on what is for sale and who owns it.

MR. KING: Personal profit is okay.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's different. Personal profit is different. That's free enterprise. Mr. Chairman, I'm having some difficulty in sorting out the confusion in the Premier's position.

The Premier talks about the need for inflow of capital. Why has the Schroeder report not been released to this House? You can write that down, the Schroeder report. You made a big to-do about having Schroeder and Company examine the need for outside investment in British Columbia. Why has that report not been released? Why has the report from the B.C. Central Credit Union committee dealing with the financial institutions of British Columbia not been released? That's two reports. Do you want to make a note of them? The Schroeder report, the B.C. Central Credit Union report on the financial institutions of British Columbia — why are you keeping those two reports secret? Why are those reports being kept secret?

The other question I have is related to BCRIC. The Minister of Finance, when he was asked questions about borrowings for B.C. Hydro on the recent bill passed in this House, which we cannot discuss.... I ask the Premier: will BCRIC be loaning any money to B.C. Hydro?

Now there are a few questions and then I would like to go on to foreign investment. I would appreciate the answers to those questions first.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Number one, I am pleased to say that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my position is inconsistent although my memory might be faulty. I'm quite willing to say that there was quite a blur as a new member when I was first elected to the House. But I'm glad I voted against something that I said I wouldn't vote for now. Because I believe that, as a tax-gathering vehicle, we may have used the traditional form to get our fair share of it, once it's there.

I get a kick out of them saying that it's a great success for a Crown corporation, this tax-gathering agency for personal income tax this year. That $1,182,000,000 sounds good. We could use that to advance our argument that somehow setting up all taxes into Crown corporations is a way of proving that government ownership works.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote against that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think he's trying to fool the public. You're the person who's had three different positions on the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

First they said the shares were worthless. Then they said they were going to make their people take them and give them to their party, and then they said: "Don't take them."

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to talk about MacMillan Bloedel and British Columbia's forest industry. I'd like to talk about the Canadian Pacific bid to take over MacMillan Bloedel. What we were opposed to was the domination of our forest industry by what would have been a single, giant company, much larger than MacMillan Bloedel, that would have combined the assets of Canadian Pacific. At what point does one company become too large in what is our most important resource?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We certainly weren't going to let it become larger than MacMillan Bloedel is now. We weren't going to have that head office outside the province. We certainly weren't going to make our province vulnerable.

[ Page 363 ]

Canadian Pacific holds other substantial interests in British Columbia, and they have additional opportunity to invest. I said at the time, and I urge them again: "Carry on that investment. You're welcome in British Columbia. But not in an unusually heavy way with a company in the forest industry."

We have no anti-trust in this country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) laughs; he doesn't care.

We have no rules and regulations about when a company is too large in a part of the economy. In assessing the economy, it's up to them. When we had to deal with it in this first instance, we said: "No, that's too large. For the forest industry in British Columbia to have a company that large with external direction...."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: External to the interests of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No B.C. direction.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That company has good management, and the forest industry is cyclical. They have investments everywhere. From time to time, their interests may turn from forestry, and rather than have the interests here in that company their attention might be diverted to other interests. We couldn't leave British Columbia in that position; and that's the position we take.

In answering the question why we did it, I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say he supports the Canadian Pacific purchase. I haven't heard from him. I'd like to know if he supports it.

We are not speaking against external investment from Canada or elsewhere. Investment which also guarantees us markets is not unacceptable to the people of B.C.

Would the Leader of the Opposition tell us if he's in favour of CP taking it over? If he isn't, tell us why not. I've told you what this government's policy position is. I've said we believe in the private sector, but there is a point where there can be undue size in any given area. We want it clearly understood we are not going to let that happen. That is what our new Forest Act is about. That party was in the House; they know there are guarantees for various sizes of businesses in the forest industry in the province. Small, middle and larger firms know we have brought in a major Forest Act for the first time. We're clarifying government policy in declaring there is a point at which a company can be too large in a certain area. That's the policy of this party and this government in British Columbia. That's what we've said. That is public policy from the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

The other question is: how can I guarantee that CPR won't buy up B.C. Resources Investment Corporation? No company or association of companies will be allowed to own more than 1 percent. It's in the bill. That's the guarantee, and that's right there in legislation. It's out there for people to see. That's what we've done, Mr. Chairman. We've guaranteed that this can't be taken over by anyone. It's in legislation. It's a private sector company. It's not something this government will be directing. Government's heavy hand won't be in this, no matter what government takes over in the future. It's now a public company in the private sector. It's not a Crown corporation; it's not a Crown agency, nor can it be. It's to be managed for the benefit of the shareholders by the director they elect. They'll make all decisions in that company. That's where the decisions will be made, not by government.

You see, that's the difference. You don't call them into your office and make special deals. Someone said during the election they were going to have a mining tax and make a deal company by company. I remember that statement. "Oh, don't be afraid of us bringing in our old mining tax. We're not going to tell you what the rules are. We'll deal with the companies one at a time." That statement was attributed to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). He said that. Unfortunately I didn't have time to sit around and watch news reports and read newspapers, but I remember that.

You have to have a consistent policy. That's what government is about. You don't call people into your office because you're the Premier and threaten to kick the censored out of them, then deny it after they've told it, after they say that's how the government was run, nor do you make deals with mining companies on that basis. The rules have got to be clearly there for large and small.

MR. LEA: How large?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that would be the question. The member for Prince Rupert has asked a good question. That would be the question when there are no rules, such as was advocated recently by the first member for Vancouver East — that there would be no royalties, that they'd make a deal one at a time. Mining companies would come in and say, "Here’ s the deal," and depending on.... I don't know what conditions, what it would take to make a deal. I don't know what the conditions would be to make a deal. I don't know what it would be. I don’t know what the deal would be to make a deal. You might have to give to a certain political party — did you ever think of that? — to be able to make a deal. When there is no stated government taxation policy, you might be required to donate to a certain political party. That might be part of it; I don't know.

The public has got to be guaranteed that the rules are debated in the Legislature, the legislation put on the statute books, and everybody understands it. I'd like some of the people to tell me if they support that statement as a mining policy of your party during the election, that there wouldn't be a stated amount, that you would deal with the companies one at a time in the Premier's office. I said we wouldn't. Our policy is there; it's in legislation. The opportunity is there. It's in legislation. The opportunity is there and people are coming in and they're looking. That's what’s happening, Mr. Chairman. There are some differences and we should have some answers.

Now as far as this tax-gathering vehicle goes we get money from our oil and gas resources in two ways. Either people bid on drilling rights or we get it through taxation — through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation or through royalties, whichever means we choose. We can collect as much as $259 million a year on the price to export. through that tax-gathering vehicle.

I have a question for the first member for Vancouver East. If you are giving over the constitutional rights to those

[ Page 364 ]

resources, not leaving this heritage as part of British Columbia's wealth, then there are substantial millions of dollars.... It could reach as high as $400 million a year, I know, because that revenue goes along with those resources that you would give.

I would want you to know, and to tell British Columbians, what taxes they would have to pay in a personal way to pick up the loss of that revenue. It's very important because it's easy to say: "Give away the resources." That can sound very noble, but the value we receive, even directly as government.... Just tell me what taxes you are going to put on the people to pay for this noble sentiment. How would you do it — $400 million? Would you put the sales tax up to 20 percent? What would you do?

I just want to know, when you are giving revenue away that goes along with it, plus what is even more costly: the direction and management of the exploration and development of our oil and gas lands.... When you are giving that over to someone else, if they direct that industry outside our province, what are you going to do with the people who need jobs? Secondly, what taxes are you going to put on the people of British Columbia to pay for the loss of revenue? It's a question that should be asked.

I just say that it's our policy. It's firmly on the record, and here we're well opposed. Those resources belong to the people of British Columbia to be developed under the direction of their provincial government. The revenue, then, goes to the people of British Columbia. You give it away and you are going to have to find alternate sources of revenue, and that means taxes for our people in B.C. to pay for what you are giving away. That's what you are giving away — constitutional rights. When you're giving those resources totally away, you've got to recognize the offer you have made, what you would do, and the implications for every British Columbian. They've got to know that they're going to pick up the bill.

Does the fact that those resources are under the jurisdiction of British Columbia mean that we're any less Canadian? Not at all. The rest of Canada — for those who have spent a lot of time in Ottawa and don't know what British Columbia contributes — is doing very well because of the success of the resource industries that are under the direction of British Columbia. Perhaps you might listen; you can talk to your friend when you're in caucus. They do very well: over $500 million a year. Yet a sum much larger than that is contributed from the British Columbia economy to the rest of Canada. It goes to equalization payments and a number of other areas. If you take the costs that we bear because of an economic policy does not impact equally across the country, the bill to British Columbia to be Canadian runs much more substantially than that.

We have never minded developing what we can control. The forest industry, oil and gas and the mining industry are a success. What I'm saying is we would lose the ability we have to continue that success because of those who would give it away. What the people have to realize is that there's a bill that goes along with this. When we're healthy and developing in British Columbia, the rest of Canada will get its share, as it has. As one of the three provinces contributing to equalization, and making the second-largest contribution in a major way, British Columbia has always been fair.

But there is a bill to this type of commitment — easily given in the glare of national spotlight. It is the loss of revenue. The people have to know quite clearly that they've got to pick it up. It's got to come out of their pockets. You've given away the value of the resources. That's what it does. You've given away the value of those resources. You've given away our opportunity to direct the development of those resources.

It's shaky enough; you just have to take a look at the type of development that wasn't taking place under that government, your government, Mr. First Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). When we took office there was no action, no development. We had a decline in reserves. The Canadian interest wasn't being served and there's enough danger there. It was a government that did not respond, or could not respond or provide the type of atmosphere to have exploration carried on reserves proved up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You can yell across the floor. Perhaps you might like to be first. Just tell me what taxes we should put on the people to pick up that amount. Try and find the money; tell them where you're going to take it out of them. You're going to give that away, and, if that principle extends, then at some time you will give away the forest resource for some particular reason. You're going to give away other mining resources that will take away from the British Columbia tax base. You want each one of these commitments, you want government takeovers, and you want Ottawa to take them over. I'm almost afraid to use the word "socialism" because you might take offence, but that's what you want. But to say "socialize them" might be to read some slur into those actions.

MR. LEA: Why are you nervous?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, because you people are quick to try and find offence as the best method of attack. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Mr. Chairman, do you think you could bring to order the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member who lives in Victoria and represents Prince Rupert?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that is the point. We must know these answers. Our policy is on the record, and when we get into the energy estimates we can deal with this in more detail. This is the general policy. The resources belong to British Columbia because we can develop them well. We can direct our own provincial economy. You cannot have a strong provincial economic strategy if you give away part of the base of that strategy. You're going to have to pick up the loss of value and place that burden upon the people. Who advocates that must be willing to tell people how they will be called upon to pay for it, in a way that's understandable, or in a way that's believable, because that's a value lost out to this province.

We have a number of those, and the fishing industry is the one resource that's under the control of the federal government.

MR. HANSON: How is our fishing industry?

[ Page 365 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'I deal with that tomorrow or the next day. We've got to deal with that, because it's one of the areas of discussion with the federal government. I've had a lot of discussions with the Prime Minister, and I expect to hold more. And it wasn't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, it might appear that at some time in the future someone may want to read Hansard of this particular dissertation.

MR. LEGGATT: I doubt it. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That observation may, in fact, be very much in order. Hansard has great difficulty in carrying only one side of the conversations. And since these are estimates, and since there is no limit on when members can participate in the debate, perhaps if you let ministers finish their statements it would assist the staff of the House. Would you please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping you'd give us that opportunity to continue.

Those are several answers to questions on provincial policy and how it reflects nationally. It suggests somehow that that policy is anti-Canadian, that it denies the history of this province of Premiers and governments that jealously guarded the right to develop the resources to bring a better standard of life for the people of this province. To the detriment of the country they haven't done it; they never have.

I want to further remind that party over there that the federal government doesn't have to have someone who's willing to give our heritage away. There are instruments within the constitution, and anyone who has observed the constitutional debate knows very well that the federal government, under its power, can move in where there is a national need to bring about a policy without seizing the resources or having someone willingly or foolishly hand them over to them. They have that opportunity now. You know the powers the federal government has; you know very well. You know the number of areas and the declaratory powers of the federal government, they can do it. But to give away what is and has been the subject of constitutional debate and government discussion for years in this country by all provinces and by those who taught to hold and preserve what was their provincial heritage; to have someone crack now and give it away when there can be no case made that the province — and particularly this province — hasn't managed it well and that the country hasn't benefited as well would be a tremendous loss and a tremendous financial burden to place upon our people.

That's what you've advocated; that's your policy. There would be a loss of revenue both in the bidding rights and money that can be collected in what you can argue about and call the tax-gathering vehicle — that would be lost as well. If you give that away, it's all lost. You've got a narrower tax base, and that means that other people, the people in the province, will have to pick up the difference; or, rather than sitting around saying the government isn't giving enough money to this or enough money to that, you've going to have to cut government services. If you're not going to put up the taxes on the people when you bring about this policy — should you ever get in — then I think that clearly you should announce what $400,000,000 would mean of services taken out of the budget.

Let's take a look what they would mean in curtailing services, because that's the other choice you'd have: you've got to put up taxes dramatically for our people: you could cut out 60 percent of the Human Resources budget: or you could take it out of the Health budget with a tremendous impact — not much room there. Those are the big ones; you could cut back on Education substantially. That's the only other place you could do it. But we're not prepared to do that.

MR. LEA: Succession duty.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the member there from Prince Rupert who again forgot your warning, Mr. Chairman, says: "Succession duty." I talked to the government of Saskatchewan, who took off succession duties. They're like us and the rest of Canada; they want to encourage the people to build up some wealth within their province and their country, so that others can't come and take it away, because the tax collectors are taking all the money. It's tough enough for most families when you tax them and tax them when they're alive, and to want to take the rest when they're dead. that doesn't leave very much for people to own things in this country. Governments take away the money and then they say: "Why are you selling out? Why do you need foreign capital?" Taxpayers say: "If you would leave something in our pockets, we could do it." What the member for Prince Rupert is clearly saying is: "We believe in tax, tax, tax you while you're alive and, with succession duties, if we don't get it all then, we'll take the rest when you're dead." That's what he's saying.

I agree with Premier Blakeney and the government of Saskatchewan. We won't do that just as they won't do it; and they took it off. They know there are ways to deal with profits that were brought in a tax reform in 1972; perhaps some of the Ottawa members can talk about that. They can talk about that when capital gains and other taxation was brought in.

By maintaining that tax you would have, in effect, put double taxation on our people — no encouragement to try and build up anything of value, or any ownership. It's an attack on people building up any ownership, and perhaps for philosophical reasons the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is against that. If the people don't own it, then it provides a better excuse for the government to move in and own it.

AN HON. MEMBER: State ownership.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what I say. How can they own it if you don't leave any money in their hands? We're willing to do that.

One of the strongest motivations for many people is the family tie. The family unit is much stronger in society. The member need only look back. We work for others; people work for others. You might find that hard to believe, but people do work for others and it does mean something.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now if someone wants to speak out against the family unit, I'd be quite willing to enter that debate as well, because the foundation of our society is the

[ Page 366 ]

fact that everyone and every family unit has an opportunity. To start taking away that opportunity just because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're also taking away the opportunity for others who will work eventually. We could argue this all day. I just say that it's important that our people be given the opportunity to have goals, and we believe that the individual in the private sector can best meet those goals.

Not all goals can be achieved by people as individuals. There are some things that we must develop in common. Obviously our highways and other things which connect communities — infrastructure and other things — must be developed in common. That's why we have government. The government's there to provide rules and regulations for our society, which make it possible for us to live together. Even when we set rules against crime and lawlessness, and for protection of property — protection of private property is written right into the laws of the land — people will still break them. That's one of the fundamental rights that we have, and opportunities. So, Mr. Chairman, the discussion has become wide-ranging; but I've asked a couple of questions in response, and I'd like to hear the answers to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, might I point out that while debate is very wide-ranging on the estimates of the Premier's office, it does not afford the opportunity for the Premier to ask questions of the opposition. Perhaps it could at some future time, if we have legislative procedures reordered.

MR. BARRETT: We could have it done on television.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier says: "You can dish it out, but you can't take it." Is that what he said? I'm not the one who ran from a television debate. The Premier of the province is very comfortable in this milieu now. He spins out his stories and he runs off with his clichés. Remember, I'm not the one who was afraid to face the people of British Columbia on television — face to face on television with you anytime.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All right — right now.

MR. BARRETT: Right after 6 o'clock we'll get a television studio and the two of us will go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll go right now — at 5:30.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, 6 o'clock tonight. Don't waffle; don't run and hide.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Why don't we invite a television studio to set the time for both of us? Will you answer that? You will. We're going to have a debate, okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You won't have to bring your friends because they'll have briefed you by then.

MR. BARRETT: Now I asked a question about offshore drilling. Is it your policy to go for offshore drilling, if you have the rights to the offshore resources?

I asked a question on the Schroeder report. Why are you keeping it secret and do you intend to release it? Do you intend to keep the report from the B.C. Central Credit Union secret as well? Will BCRIC be permitted to buy government bonds? Will BCRIC buy Hydro bonds? I would like those questions answered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to get up again, now that I have an opportunity. I see the first member for Vancouver East plays a game, but I would be quite pleased to meet with him in a discussion on specific topics, and I think it would be useful for the people of B.C. I think we'I set it up. His first offer was 6 o'clock, and he played the game of you're-running-and-I'll-go-at-six. But then he felt that this silly little gesture couldn't be met. Sure, we'll go; it would be useful.

Now he asks whether BCRIC will be told to buy Hydro bonds. I don't tell them to buy anything. It's the directors who make that choice. I'I explain to you again, one more time. B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is a public company in the private sector. It has almost two million shareholders — it's their company. The directors they elect will decide what investments will be made to the benefit of those shareholders. They have a tremendous responsibility and they have a great opportunity. If they don't make good decisions, then the shareholders will change the directors.

I have great confidence in those directors. They are highly competent, highly motivated people who will recognize their responsibility and make the right decisions. They won't make them lightly. But will the government direct them? Not this government, because we haven't the right to push them into investment. They will make any choice they want on investment.

It's a public company operating in the private sector. MacMillan Bloedel is a public company operating in the private sector. Daon Development is a public company operating in the private sector. Hy's of Canada — where you might eat a number of your meals — is a public company operating in the private sector. Their directors, their management decide what they're going to buy. The only difference between those companies and this company is this company has a much broader base of ownership, a greater number of shareholders — and in equity — which makes it a giant and a good vehicle for those people. They have found a way in which they can harness their savings and have their savings harnessed in a way that is acceptable to them.

The other way of collectively harnessing the savings of all those people would be to tax the money away from them and have government do those things. But this is a way in which they make an individual choice. They harness their own savings and then the investment is carried out according to their directions for their individual benefits.

That is exactly the difference between government ownership and individual ownership. Those of you who advocate government ownership would say: "Well, if they could raise $400 million, gee, we could have taxed that away from them. Look at what we could have done."

[ Page 367 ]

That's the option of government ownership. That's the way you get your hands on the people's money: you tax it away from them and then you carry out investments that you choose, as you say, in their name.

We are seeing one of the areas that they want, and that is the right to make individual investment. They have accepted that challenge. Many people say that the people made a major decision for confidence on May 10 in this province, but I think that a more significant date was the confidence they exhibited on June 15. That's when they exhibited the additional confidence, and the two dates are significant and they are related. It is that very thing, that very commitment to private sector development and individual ownership.... I have asked the people a question: how would they find money from resources you would give away? Now you must say, if you are against things like BCRIC and letting the people harness their own capital, what other taxes you'd put on for government to undertake a program of government ownership and investment. That is what you would obviously have to do.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to get into a number of other areas to do with the government of British Columbia and the estimates, because I think we have a number of things that are significant and with which we would like to deal. One of them is the cooperation of governments in Canada in a number of ways, through which the economic strategies of the various regions can be melded.

Now one of the ways, obviously, is for associated areas to get together in areas of cooperation. They do it with the Maritime Premiers and they do it with the western Premiers. One of the areas in which we must find resolution, in which there is a common problem, is that area of interprovincial trucking and transportation, and the difference in the various weights, sizes and measures of the truck transport that crosses provincial boundaries. We need to have a commonality of policy and regulation so that there will be easy access between areas, but under similar circumstances. That's one of the areas.

The other is a blending or a melding — and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) will be interested in this — to try and develop in those areas of specialized education, rather than four provinces developing competing institutions, to develop in a regional way, in a Canadian way, one institute of excellence which will service all our students, Such cooperation has already been carried out in developing facilities in Saskatchewan that serve the young people from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

But there are other areas of special need. We talked about it. I believe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) talked about it in relation to some of the specialist medical training where there were paramedics in certain areas where we could have a single training centre in the west that could service all our children. It would give us institutes of excellence where the demand is not great in numbers and stop the type of competition that has developed in the past.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I refer you to standing order 43 on page 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 deals with tedious and repetitious debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is a brand-new discussion. What is tedious to the first member for Vancouver East may be very real to people in B.C. He only gets upset when it's not his topic. Mr. Chairman, if you can say that talking about interprovincial trucking, talking about interprovincial education institutes, which haven't been discussed yet in this debate, is tedious and repetitious, and if they want to tell that to the people of this province who would be serviced by those institutions, I would object to that interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would think that if the Chair was asked to rule on repetition for the first time, I might add, on the Premier's estimates, I would think that I would be able to rule on it on almost every estimate. It has been the tradition of the House to allow the minister whose estimates are up to carry on at some length and discuss all the various aspects of their portfolio. If they do occasionally repeat things that they said earlier, I'm sure other members will excuse them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the educational opportunities for our young people are unimportant to the first member for Vancouver East and he wants to play political games, then let the people know. But they are important to me. The educational future of our children is important to us. It may not suit your political mind at the moment. It is important in the cooperation that exists not only among school districts in this province, but also in what we are doing with other governments.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Order, please. The Chair's attention has been brought to standing order 43. I think I explained to the House that ministers have been allowed certain latitude, and on occasion they do repeat themselves. It seems to me that on one occasion here we were involved for 17 days on one vote on one estimate. I'm quite sure that several points were brought up a second time at that time. If members are particularly offended and they bring it to the attention of the Chair, the Chair is under obligation to bring it to the attention of the member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Cooperation among western provinces goes beyond education, motor transport and interprovincial carriers. We've sought a common, although loosely defined, strategy and interchange of information which will be helpful. It would be interesting for regions in other provinces to know what pressures are exerted on schools and technical training, the economic policies of adjacent governments, the demands there are for certain types of training, and if they'll be going to the market for large amounts of capital. That capital will strain the borrowing power or make it difficult for other governments. We're trying to achieve harmony between governments in all areas where. In our legitimate aim to serve our people, we have may have a harmful impact on each other. But cooperation, of course, serves the people of all four western provinces. That extends, as well, to studies of such important things as energy.

When we talked about energy earlier, we ignored one of the more important aspects of energy development, hydroelectric power. Obviously hydroelectric power could be an area where we disagree on general policy. We've said that hydroelectric power developed on a project basis may

[ Page 368 ]

be controversial. But you cannot say that there will be no more hydroelectric development in British Columbia. When you can deal with any of the environmental impacts on a project-by-project basis, that, to our people, is more acceptable than some of the alternatives which they may not wish to face.

We cannot reject this; in fact we have to look at this as our number one resource. We also must recognize the flood control benefit that water storage brings, and the importance of it to our province. I come from the Okanagan, which is the most highly controlled watershed in all of North America. The storage and preservation of water may, in fact, become a far more useful commodity for us in the future — fresh water — than many of the other things in which there is some urgency today.

It is in this area of hydro that we have discussed, and are studying among the western provinces, a national grid. Now it may not be feasible or practical for all provinces, but that wish was fostered by the province of Manitoba, who find themselves in a very unique position, because the former Schreyer government, of which you have some knowledge — a New Democratic Party government — had a policy of developing power for export. They developed their power in advance and built their dams. They said they would sell the power to the United States and that would pay for the dams. They said they could build at today's costs, and they carried out that massive program of hydro and dam development, but they forgot one essential part of it: you had to have a contract with a buyer who was going to pay for it. We now have the prospect of Manitoba having all this tremendous power generation coming on stream with nobody to buy it.

So the new government has come to the other provinces in desperation, and they've said: "Look, we're caught with this power. We've got to put on the front burner off of the back burner the need to study a national grid, because we've got this power coming on. Will other Canadians take it? Is it interchangeable? Can we do it?"

Well, we went along and we're waiting but there are studies that have been undertaken and preliminary studies have been carried out. We're awaiting the further studies of whether, as Canadians and as part of an energy policy, we can help resolve the problem of this miscalculation. It doesn't mean that the government of that day was wrong in building in advance of today's cost, but when you do that, you've got to have the customer signed on the dotted line. That's what it means or you leave yourself vulnerable. You've got to have someone signed to pay for it.

The first member for Vancouver East is bored because I guess he doesn't like that problem. It came from the government of Manitoba at that time. But to us, it shows the very real way that we can cooperate with other governments in the development of energy, and that's important to British Columbia.

Now those areas are important because it matters whether this government were good Canadians and whether we cared about the country and whether we would share and cooperate. Obviously we do. It's more than just rhetoric; it's more than just giving away what is traditionally ours. It's real cooperation in a real way, and we've worked at it because the problems can be mutually resolved many times. That's why our government played a major role. Perhaps in the public view — and perhaps in the view of many who have attended them — there have been too many constitutional conferences. And the work that leads up to them has been an extra burden on government over the last two or three years in carrying out these intensive discussions.

But the goal is really worthwhile, if sometimes the momentum is lacking. The goal is worthwhile. Some of the things we discussed there we can resolve now, as I say, because of a change in federal governments and their policy. Offshore resources was always a major part of those discussions; control of provincial resources was always a major part of those discussions.

I have heard the Premier of Saskatchewan eloquently pleading that the provinces maintain control of their resources, that the resources belong to the provinces, particularly in the petroleum industry. It's a provincial resource. They believe that we're managing it well; they're managing it well. It might be open to interpretation, depending on if you live and work there in Saskatchewan. It's their opinion at least, and we agree in this party that the resources belong to the province.

While I'm dealing with this area of cooperation in energy, one other area would be the agreements we're trying to achieve with the government of Canada, which also could be, depending on the now-delayed project, the Alcan pipeline, an agreement which must be completed with the government of Canada. British Columbia's proposals have been before the federal government for some time. Although the United States and the government of Canada came to quick agreement, it has not been as easy for discussions on where that pipeline may have impact and on how British Columbians can have their concerns listened to.

Mr. Chairman, that pipeline, which primarily will take American gas to American markets, can be part of our cooperating with our neighbours to the south. It also provides for bringing Canadian gas in a common carrier to Canadian markets. It provides a great opportunity for Canada; it's one of those areas of cooperation. You have the Yukon, Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan all involved in a territorial way. But these negotiations are important to British Columbia for the environmental impact and the capital impact, for the needs that will have to be met, the people found, and the cost it will leave with the province after the construction period is over. And they have benefits that may be gained in being a good neighbour — and in being a good Canadian, because obviously the gas that comes out of that area is not destined for British Columbia; it's got to go to other parts of Canada. American gas will be providing a land bridge.

Those things are important in the context of this government cooperating. I've said that is what we've tried to do beyond our own borders. Those policies are important to us, and I would stress again that, because we protect and jealously guard provincial jurisdiction, we are not anti-Canadian. We really are serving British Columbians and Canadians as well in our wish to maintain this heritage. It's not in conflict; it's something we can do for all. But there would be a tremendous cost to British Columbians as individuals, that they'd have to pick up in other ways, if a Premier and a party were to give away the constitutional rights and all the value that goes with them to the government of Canada. It would have to be picked up out of the pockets of British Columbians. That's what anyone who advocates that would do to our people. I want to say we're solemnly against it. Someone should go on television and

[ Page 369 ]

spend a lot of time explaining how their pocketbooks would be hurt by someone who would so glibly offer it.

It's something they haven't had a chance to understand yet. Perhaps an event like that could focus their attention. Those who would give away leave not themselves but the people to pick up the bill.

MR. BARRETT: When the Premier gives away gas leases to the BCRIC, who picks up the bill? I have listened very closely to the Premier's argument about giving away resources. The only giveaway that has taken place in this province has been a direct gift to BCRIC of gas leases that normally would have remained in the hands of all the people. You've narrowed the base according to your own argument. Therefore after you've given away the gas leases, who has to pay up? Who has to pony up because of your giveaway? You tell us.

The working people who didn't buy shares are going to have to pay increased taxes because of your giveaway to BCRIC. That's the only instance that your argument has been demonstrated in this province. We've listened to you for some 40 minutes and another 19 minutes, attacking your own policy. The giveaway to BCRIC means that other people will pay more taxes.

Did you charge them for the gas leases? How much did you charge them for the gas leases? How much money is BCRIC being charged? Did they bid competitively in a free market for them? Did they bid in a free market that you believe in? Did anyone else bid for those gas leases that you gave BCRIC? Did anyone else put on paper a bid or did you just at whim give those gas leases?

You are saying today also that BCRIC is free as a corporation to buy anything it wants. Is that correct? It took you 19 minutes to say that. We went through a convoluted education argument. We went through a very lovely blue book, and we went through 19 minutes of bafflegab to get one answer: BCRIC is free to do what it wants. Therefore BCRIC, if it wants to, can buy Hydro bonds. Is that correct? Yes, it's correct. BCRIC can buy Hydro bonds. Instead of going into the marketplace in New York or any other place in the world, BCRIC may use those surplus funds to buy Hydro bonds. Would the Premier be angry if BCRIC decided to do that? Would the Premier tell the people of British Columbia?

Here is a little note I have had sent to me. I assume it is correct. "CKVU television herewith extends an invitation to you and the Premier, the Hon. William Bennett, to use our facilities to debate issues of concern to the province at a time convenient to both parties." Let's do it — now and in the next election.... And you can bring the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) with you. He's anxious to fill that role. He can be the surrogate Premier, in case you run down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hope you're still around when we finally get to it.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I'll be around. How long are you putting it off for? Run and hide. Dish it out but can't take it — that's what you said today. Let's do it now and during the next election, Bill — you and me. The next election too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do it right now.

MR. BARRETT: Now and the next election. We'll make it a weekly event.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I think once a week is too much,

MR. BARRETT: Yes. that would be a bit too much. That would be pretty rough on family life. The Premier mentioned family life — the foundation of British Columbia. Whose government was it that cut off the family life council for funds as soon as they got elected? Who was it, George? It was that government over there. It was the only family life council operating in Canada, and that government cut off the funds the first year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wrong again!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Minister. Wrong again, yes. Rewrite history. Sure, the Council For the Family is operating — and it is a good thing, too. It should be and supported on a non-partisan basis, but you were so hostile on a partisan basis that you threatened it and many other programs simply because of your narrow bias.

The Premier says that a company is allowed 1 percent. Therefore Marathon Realty can buy 1 percent of BCRIC; Pacific Logging can buy 1 percent, Pacific Holdings and Pacific Steamships can buy 1 percent. Can CP Hotels buy 1 percent?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. Read the bill. It says "associated companies."

MR. BARRETT: How are you going to stop them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because it says "associated companies."

MR. BARRETT: Through a trust and held at arm's length. Mr. Premier, you can beat this any way you want at all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No wonder you're confused. You still don't understand the legislation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there is a method of dealing with it at arm's length. What about non-Canadians? Will non-Canadians be permitted to buy? I've read the legislation, and I know what dodges are available.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why can't you understand? Are you that bad?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is very nervous and very twitchy. He goes on and on. I listen patiently and then he yaps every two minutes. You're a little nervous, Bill. I think you need a little rest. So I move the committee rise, report very little progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 370 ]

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled "Details of Revenue for the Fiscal Year 1975-76" and a report on the Ministry of Finance entitled "Reduction of Forms and Red Tape."

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the report of the Travel Insurance Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.