[ Page 5571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hospital bed shortage. Mr. Cocke –– 5572

Health hazard of herbicide chemicals. Mr. Skelly –– 5572

Use of herbicide chemicals by summer students. Mr. Lauk –– 5573

Government aircraft flights to Kamloops. Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 5573

Health hazard at Alcan smelter. Mr. Howard –– 5573

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5575

Mr. Howard

On vote 66: executive management –– 5576

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 66 –– 5576

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 67: finance and administration branch –– 5578

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 67 –– 5579

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 68: British Columbia Utilities Commission –– 5579

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 68 –– 5581

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on the amendment

On vote 69: energy resources branch –– 5583

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on an amendment

On vote 70: mineral resources branch –– 5585

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 70 –– 5585

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Division on the amendment

On vote 70: mineral resources branch –– 5585

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Kempf

On vote 72: resource access program –– 5586

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Segarty

On vote 74: building occupancy charges –– 5587

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on an amendment

On vote 75: computer and consulting charges –– 5587

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 75 –– 5588

Mr. Lorimer

Division on the amendment

Committee Of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 5588

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Lauk

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government, this assembly and all peoples of British Columbia are shocked and saddened by reports today of the senseless attack on Pope John Paul II. It defies sanity that this gentle and loved spiritual leader who has devoted his life to the cause of peace in the world should be felled by bullets. This morning the following telegram was sent to His Excellency the Most Reverend Angelo Palmas, Pronuncio of the Holy See to Canada, in Ottawa.

IT IS WITH PROFOUND SHOCK THAT WE LEARNED THIS MORNING OF THE TRAGIC INCIDENT INVOLVING HIS HOLINESS. ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, WE WISH YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL OUR THOUGHTS AND OUR PRAYERS ARE WITH HIS HOLINESS AT THIS TIME.

Mr. Speaker, I say for all British Columbians that our prayers and our thoughts are for and will continue to be for His Holiness' recovery and for the further recovery of the two bystanders who were wounded at the same time. Our prayers and thoughts are also for our world, that it may become that which Pope John Paul II and all of us wish it to be: peaceful, tolerant and devoid of such acts of violence. I would request that these sentiments and remarks and those of the official opposition be conveyed by you, sir, to the Vatican.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wants to join with the expressions of the Premier and associate ourselves with them completely and thoroughly. We join with people all over the world in expressing our most deeply felt and spiritual regrets at this attack on His Holiness Pope John Paul II. It's a senseless attempt, we feel, reflecting sadness in the world. We pray along with the Premier and others for his recovery and for those other two who were innocent bystanders. We regret very much that this attempt was made on the life of a person who in our time is truly a prince of peace. We hope that the expression indicated by the Premier will be sent immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be done.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The introduction I have is actually a very happy one, but one can't help but be sorry that it coincides with the sad news we've received. Perhaps in a sense it's also appropriate.

It's my pleasure to advise the House that in the gallery today are four members of the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia: Mr. Robin Draper, the coordinator; Mr. Craig Sky, vice-chairman; Mr. Afan Jones; and Mr. Bill Shields. It's interesting to note that this council, the architects of the outdoor recreation map of British Columbia that you have so graciously allowed us to present to the House today, Mr. Speaker, are unique in Canada. With their spirit of coordination and love for the outdoors and desire to share it, they have worked with many of the ministries in British Columbia and with the assistance of a TIDSA grant to put together a series of outdoor recreation maps. The first is the one that you are being presented with today, which represents the Cariboo area. Further areas in the series will include Whistler, Garibaldi and Windermere Lakes in the Columbia Valley.

You'll notice there is a price tag on these of $3.95. These good people have worked together to produce a product that we hope will be self-sufficient in its financial abilities and that will also carry forth the spirit of British Columbia and the snowmobile association in sharing the opportunity for visitors and our own citizens to have safer and more properly guided trips and knowledge of outdoor activities in our province.

Before I ask you to join me in welcoming them, I would just like to point out and express your appreciation to the B.C. Snow Vehicles Association, of which Mr. Shields is the secretary-manager. These people have themselves become hospitality people in British Columbia. They now have a one-stop call. Visitors or citizens alike who wish to take part in recreational snowmobiling in British Columbia can plug into the system. While they pay their way, they are adopted by the local associations, who volunteer to act as guides and hostesses. In this way they have opened up a totally new area of recreation for handicapped people in British Columbia, and for people who are interested in photography and birdwatching in the wintertime, which they couldn't enjoy before. In expressing your thanks to them, may I also ask you to give them a very warm welcome to encourage them in their efforts.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I would like to remind the hon. minister that, although her guests are most welcome to the chamber and the expression of the House would be accepted as such, nonetheless, the purpose of introductions is not to make lengthy speeches or to introduce to the House items which could be considered of commercial value. Therefore I would remind all hon. members to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was one step away from the door and missed prayers this afternoon, so I was unable to share them with my good friend Rabbi Solomon from the synagogue of Beth Israel, a man of non-violence who is devoted to his community. I would ask the House to thank the rabbi for coming here today.

Also, I'd like to congratulate a man who is 39 years old today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

MR. LEA: We mean chronologically.

MR. LAUK: This gentleman is in the press gallery and has been working here for many years.

MR. MACDONALD: Jim Hume?

MR. LEA: He said "working."

MR. LAUK: Would the House congratulate Barry Bell of the CBC.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating one of our members today for being inducted into the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. At a luncheon today it was announced that Hon. Jack Davis, as a member of the 1936 UBC basketball team, was named to the Hall of Fame. I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the member, who is on his way to the assembly now.

[ Page 5572 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to ask the House to welcome a good friend, a Yorkshire farmer from the Yorkshire wolds, Mr. Arthur Connor, and his cousin, Mr. William Clarkson, one of my constituents and an escapee from the same place.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I join the hon. the Minister of Tourism in welcoming Bill Shields to the assembly. Bill is from Prince George originally, where all the good guys come from. But specifically I'd like the House to welcome in the galleries today Mr. Joe Ter Heide, Bob Hoffstrom, Rick Guerrier and Mike Maddigan. They're representatives from Prince George and they're with HUDAC, the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) our very warm appreciation of the presence of Rabbi Wilfred Solomon, and to thank him for his thoughtful address and prayer to our assembly today.

I would also like to ask our House to join in welcoming a group of young people who are here in the gallery. They have visited other areas around the precinct this morning and are visiting our legislative session today. They are representing the classes of grade 10 and grade 8 from York House School, and I know that the House will be pleased to welcome such a nice group of young people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce anybody in the gallery who might be visiting here from New Zealand. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my niece, Lisa Purdy, is on her first visit to Victoria, the capital city, today. I promised her mother that I would stand in this House and embarrass her by introducing her, so that her name can also appear. She's one of the York House girls. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL BED SHORTAGE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the Minister of Health. In the early hours of Saturday, May 9, a constituent of the minister was stricken with a seizure related to cancer of the brain. The ambulance, which arrived at his home at 1:30 a.m., took this gentleman to the Richmond General Hospital as an emergency patient. They were told there were no vacant beds so they had to try elsewhere. The ambulance next took him to the Vancouver General, which could not admit him to their emergency ward either. Recalling that he was picked up at 1:30 a.m., finally at 5:30 a.m. he was admitted to the emergency ward at the Shaughnessy Hospital. Is the minister willing to explain to this victim and to this House that there is something a little bit more than a jam-up in our situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in framing questions I would trust that the purpose of the question would be to seek an answer and not to bring information to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to look into this specific situation the member has related to the House. Possibly it would assist if the member could provide me with the name of the patient. I'd be pleased to look into it.

MR. COCKE: I'll certainly do that, and I could give a number of them, as the minister himself probably can.

The question really surrounds the subject where the minister was recently quoted as saying that there was a jam-up, but nothing really serious and not really an emergency. Has the minister now decided to view the hospital situation as an emergent situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to earlier questions last week by members in the House, officials within the ministry are conducting inquiries with various hospitals as to their difficulties in admitting patients in the acute wards, emergency wards or other wards. It's difficult to determine, based on one unfortunate and tragic situation, precisely where the problems may be. As I said to the member, I'll be pleased to look into that one specific case, if he could confidentially supply me with the name of the patient, and find out why this particular situation occurred. We'd be pleased also to look into other individual situations. It would be impossible to anticipate the requirements of an emergency case in advance and have facilities standing by for that situation. That which is made available to people in British Columbia is still at a very high standard, recognizing that there are always going to be specific incidents where the service is less than satisfactory or less than the individual would desire.

MR. COCKE: I gather the minister hasn't seen the gravity of the situation. The fact is that there were two emergency wards in Vancouver closed down that night. My question is: has the minister any idea what's going on in the hospital situation in this Province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer is yes. Not only is the minister aware of what's going on in the hospitals, but people within the ministry are aware and certainly hospital administers and officials within those hospitals are aware. Since this occurred May 9, there have only been a few days.... I would appreciate receiving the name of the patient. If the member were reluctant to provide that to me, I could indeed inquire directly to the hospital.

MR. COCKE: You will have it in seconds.

HEALTH HAZARD OF HERBICIDE CHEMICALS

MR. SKELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. The IWA local in Port Alberni, based on extensive research into the health effect of herbicide chemicals including 2, 4-D, has advised their employer that IWA members will no longer handle or apply these chemicals used in the forest for weed or tree control. MacMillan Bloedel's forestry operations in the area have now made it a condition of employment that new employees, including summer students, agree to handle these very same dangerous chemicals. Has the minister investigated this problem to determine whether or not this practice discriminates against new employees? Will he agree to investigate this to see whether it violates the provision of the Labour Code or fair employment practices legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This problem has not been brought to my attention, but I will certainly take the question on notice. I'll look for Hansard later this afternoon so I have the context of the question, and I'll report back to the House.

[ Page 5573 ]

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question on the same subject to the Minister of Health. The IWA was....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A supplementary question would ordinarily be addressed to the same minister.

MR. LAUK: It's a new question on the same subject. It's customary to allow the same subject to be canvassed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I would have had to ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to defer and would gladly have done so had it been a supplementary question.

MR. RITCHIE: In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), I direct my question to the NDP energy critic, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). Has the NDP adopted a policy on nuclear power?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the tradition of the House, a question has been permitted on rare occasions directed to the Leader of the Opposition. But in this House questions to another member of the House have on no occasion been permitted unless they are to the Chairman of a committee.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it proper that I address my question to the member who is the acting leader of the NDP?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of any acting Leader of the Opposition.

USE OF HERBICIDE CHEMICALS
BY SUMMER STUDENTS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Health on the issue of the use of dangerous chemicals by IWA employees. Through independent research, evidently, the IWA has found that these chemicals are deleterious to the health of their members, and has advised their members that they should refuse the use or handling of these things. Yet by making it a condition of employment, MacMillan Bloedel is forcing summer students to use dangerous chemicals. I ask the Minister of Health: will he intervene to prevent MacMillan Bloedel from forcing summer students to use dangerous chemicals that could well be deleterious to their health?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is whether he has intervened, it is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, since I didn't hear all of it. I believe it was originally addressed to one of the other ministers. But I'll look into that and respond.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
FLIGHTS TO KAMLOOPS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), I'd like to answer a question posed to him in the House yesterday by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). This was the question: "I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Given that three government aircraft arrived at Kamloops airport on Saturday, May 9, 1981...?" I'd like to inform the House that first of all the member is absolutely wrong, as he is wrong on every occasion and with every question he raises in this House. Only one government plane arrived in Kamloops on May 9, not three, as the member insinuated. That is from the dispatchers at the airport. I suppose the member will try and say the dispatchers are wrong in their information.

The other innuendo that the member for Atlin tried to state in this House is: "Will the minister indicate to the House the names of those persons of the Social Credit Party who have been flown in and out of Kamloops on government aircraft during the by-election so far?" I'd like to say that according to dispatch records there have been no members of the Social Credit Party flown in or out of Kamloops since the beginning of April until last night. That's more innuendo and half-truth of the sort the member seems to thrive on.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please confine his remarks to the answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say further that not only were there no members of the Social Credit Party, but there were no unauthorized persons flown in on a government aircraft to Kamloops. There were no campaign workers, and there were no volunteers. By innuendo and half-truth, that member is continually trying to mislead this House. To that party over there, half-truth and lies are like spinach is to Popeye. It gives them vim and vigour.

HEALTH HAZARD AT ALCAN SMELTER

MR. HOWARD: At the end of the question period I'll raise a point of order about the use of the word "lie" by the minister, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. About two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Labour what steps he was going to take regarding the health hazards to employees in Alcan aluminum smelter in Kitimat. The minister took that question as notice and hasn't bothered to come back to the House yet. So I'd like to ask the minister this: in view of the fact that the UBC study into health hazards at that smelter found that workers were exposed to multiple contaminants such as benzopyrene, fluorides — both gaseous and particulate — and chlorine, will the minister tell the House now whether he has decided to direct the Workers' Compensation Board to take immediate steps to see that these contaminants are eliminated and the health of the employees thus protected?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To answer the member, I have been accumulating the material so that I could provide a full answer to the member in the House. I have some of the material in my office now, and I am still waiting for a couple of other items which are outstanding. I've given the undertaking to report. I might say to the member that that particular report commissioned by the WCB is being farmed out to other areas where there is expertise with respect to the problem at hand. I am also advised that the company has been incurring substantial capital expenditures to handle some of those contaminants in the air along the plot lines. I certainly will reply, but I haven't got all the information I require to reply.

MR. HOWARD: Can I ask the minister a supplemental question? Obviously he has discussed this question with the WCB and with Alcan. Am I correct in assuming that he has discussed this with the Aluminum Company of Canada?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I have discussed the problem with Alcan. As a matter of fact, I had contact with them

[ Page 5574 ]

the afternoon your question was raised. I asked for a report, and it came.

MR. HOWARD: Did you discuss it with CASAW, the union?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I have not.

MR. HOWARD: Why not? What's the matter with you? Ignoring the health of workers up there. You won't even talk to the union.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, because I had a question that I wished to ask during question period to the Leader of the Opposition, recognizing on occasion that because of a question of serious nature the Leader of the Opposition could be questioned. It dealt with the question of a meeting in 1979 between Mr. Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition, and Governor Hammond, with regard to statements made by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

However, I cannot ask that question, and I rise on this point of order. Standing order 8 states that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given to him by the House. I can tell you that on a number of occasions the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is affectionately known on this side of the House as Kermit the frog.... I would just like to ask the Speaker if it's appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to be in New Zealand at a time when serious matters of this province require his attention in the House. Has he been excused?

MR. SPEAKER: From time to time various members have sought under standing order 8 to question the attendance or otherwise of members in this House. The Chair has steadfastly suggested that attendance in the House is required, but the Chair cannot possibly determine whether or not that attendance is exact, because attendance in the precinct itself would be considered to be attendance of the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) answered a question and referred to documents. I would ask that those documents be tabled with the Clerks of the House, pursuant to the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever documents are quoted in the House, tabling is suggested. Whenever they are referred to or summarized, then, of course, they cannot be asked to be tabled. We'll have to leave it to the discretion of the minister.

MR. LAUK: The rule is that any documents read, referred to or used in support of a speech must be tabled in the House. Any documents quoted or any documents that have been used as evidence to support a speech must be tabled. It is at the discretion of the minister to table documents merely referred to. This minister used the documents to support an answer, and we want to know whether he was telling the truth. Would he table the documents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will please be seated. I will find the proper citation for the first member for Vancouver Centre and have it on his desk in a few moments.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order that I alluded to during question period, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, in answering a question in the House, clearly said members on this side of the House lied. That was well heard by everybody, and he should not be permitted by the Chair to get away with that sort of falsehood.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear that word.

MR. HOWARD: It's appropriate to his style and his manner of smearing everybody, but he shouldn't be able to get away with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the word. I was undoubtedly using the gavel at the time. However, I would ask the minister, if he used the word "lie," to withdraw it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not about the member, Mr. Speaker; about the party.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please withdraw the word.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I said anything that offended the members opposite I'd be most happy to withdraw, and just say that the people of British Columbia are very fortunate to have that member in the House and not in a classroom polluting the minds of the students in Atlin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister withdraw the word "lie."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I thought I did. Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister withdraws the word "lie."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Unequivocally.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated to us that members considered in the precincts of this House are considered in the House, or words to that effect. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is in New Zealand. It's a publicly known fact. He held a meeting; the number of people that did or didn't show up is immaterial. But as I understand it rule 8 says that unless leave of absence has been given to him by the House.... I seek your direction, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is absent. Has he been excused?

MR. SPEAKER: I will inquire of House Leaders on both sides to see whether or not arrangements had been made. If they have been, to my satisfaction, I'll carry that information to the House.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health was politicking in Kamloops all day. The House gave him no permission, to my understanding. I would ask that you include that in this question that's being researched through the members.

[ Page 5575 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Are we going to move to orderly business soon?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to advise the Chair that I was in Kamloops yesterday at the Ponderosa Lodge inspecting the facilities there along with the administrator of the lodge and representatives from the Ministry of Health in Kamloops. They have advised that they wish to see some resolution to a longstanding problem in the Ponderosa Lodge. I do not resent the member for New Westminster saying that I was politicking there, but I think the residents of the lodge would.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have reached beyond the point of the point of order. We are now debating a statement made in the House.

MR. RITCHIE: I, too, rise on a point of order to seek your guidance, sir. Apparently last night the NDP candidate stated that he favoured nuclear power. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to know who I may direct my question to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

The first member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor on a question of privilege.

MR. LAUK: The question of privilege is briefly stated as follows. Obviously there are some members of the House who wish to misuse standing orders. I am not saying....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I point out to Mr. Speaker that irrespective of the side of the House from which those abuses of standing orders arise, it breeds disrespect for the rules and disrespect for the Chair. That offends my privileges as a member here who wishes to get on with the orderly business of the House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will proceed to business in an orderly fashion.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I used to say when I took Latin II: "Mirabile dictu."

On vote 65: minister's office, $194,679.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, yesterday there were a few questions asked of me which I wouldn't mind answering. I promised the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) some figures on the costs of electricity and the export charges for hydro power. It's difficult to come up with exact figures, because they vary so much with each sale almost. But I certainly wouldn't come up with a figure of $2 billion, which is the only figure the member for Atlin seems to know. I did promise I'd come up with these figures.

On the wholesale price, which is our average industrial bulk rate, the average price for surplus power exported is just about twice — that's a ball-park figure — the cost of the average industrial bulk rate in the province. In 1978-79 it averaged about 1.15 for industrial rates in British Columbia, compared to about 2.36 for sales to the United States. In 1979-80 it was about 1.3 for industrial rates in British Columbia compared to about 3.5 for sales to the United States — this is kilowatt hours. So we get a considerable advantage over those sales.

The other important aspect to remember, of course, is that all our exports under the NEB export licence are only approved on an interruptible basis — except the two I mentioned yesterday in Hyder, Alaska, and Point Roberts, Washington, where we have committed to supply power. Of course, that means that we can cut off the supply at an hour's notice if that supply is needed either for ourselves or for other Canadian users, primarily Alberta. So I hope that helps the member a bit.

I also want to answer a couple of questions that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked. He was talking about the energy film and whether or not.... He said he wouldn't ask any more questions if I would promise to take responsibility for that film. So in order to save the House any further questions from that member, I'd be glad to take responsibility for that film. It was done by the Ministry of Energy, and all responsibility is the Ministry of Energy's.

There were some questions about taking polls to find out whether or not people appreciated the message given in that film. I guess everybody takes polls, Mr. Chairman, from time to time. I notice there is a poll going on in Auckland, New Zealand, right now. The sales marketing executives international are doing a market research program to discover why only seven people out of 2,000 invited came to a dinner for the honourable Dave Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition. I suppose we take polls for different reasons. Mr. Chairman, but the magnificent seven that turned out last night are at least going to get their money back. That's not what usually happens.

I don't know how you go about asking questions from this side to the other side, Mr. Chairman, but I think there is an important question to be asked by the people of British Columbia to the official opposition, which has consistently, in this House at least, indicated that it is opposed to nuclear power in this province. I don't know whether that's still a policy or whether the policy has changed on the opposite side of the House, but if there is a way the first question I'd ask is: is the official opposition opposed to nuclear power generation in this province? If it is, why was the New Democratic candidate in Kamloops saying last night at an all-candidates meeting that he is in favour of nuclear power for British Columbia. He spoke last night at an all-candidates meeting sponsored by the Hat Creek Coalition and said yes, he was in favour of nuclear power for British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether he's speaking for that party and whether or

[ Page 5576 ]

not there is a policy on behalf of the official opposition that they're trying to hide.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as the Chair permitted the minister to engage in some discussion about events in New Zealand, let me put the facts on the record to show that once again the minister hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about; or if he does, he's telling another distorted bit of information to the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, really? Tell us about it.

MR. HOWARD: Really! He's holding up a piece of paper. I could suggest to you what you do with that piece of paper.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What?

MR. HOWARD: It would be quite appropriate to your style.

Mr. Chairman, that newspaper clipping which the minister is holding up and waving around is a false report of what took place. It's a lie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Do you want me to say that?

When Mr. Barrett arrived in New Zealand he was advised that a private group was attempting to arrange an all-party meeting, the speakers from Labour, National and the Social Credit parties. That was not on Mr. Barrett's itinerary. He refused to attend. He said: "I can't attend. It had nothing to do with the New Zealand Labour Party." Because this group of Social Credit friends in New Zealand hadn't been able to attract anybody to it, the proposed seminar had been cancelled before Mr. Barrett got there.

But it is in keeping with the desperation on the part of Social Credit opposite, and particularly this minister, who will grab anything and take it as gospel so long as it smears somebody else. That's a despicable act on the minister's part, but quite in keeping with his normal manner of dealing with things, like telling falsehoods at every opportunity he gets the chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That word, Mr. Chairman, should not have escaped my lips; it was in my heart but it should not have come out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I guess all many of us can do is respond to what we read in the paper. On the opposite side of the House we often find that most of the questions in question period are posed as a result of newspaper articles. The story says it was a big luncheon with a B.C. star, but nobody came, and now they're doing a marketing survey to find out why. I'm just interested whether or not the member said what I thought I heard him say. Did he say that Mr. Barrett was not in New Zealand with anything to do with the Labour Party?

MR. HOWARD: Dig the wax out of your ears. You understood what I said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Well, I would like you to know that the newspaper article — and I think the people of B.C. should understand this — says that sales marketing international sent out 2,000 tickets and spent $1,000 in Canadian money for a luncheon debate between local political heavies and B.C. opposition leader Dave Barrett. About 16 people called to ask about the dinner and about seven decided to come. Sponsors had to cancel the lunch, pay back the money and then start the market research to discover why the program bombed.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I don't suppose there is much sense in saying anything more than that, except that we all take our market research for different purposes. I hope they're successful in finding out why no one wanted to see the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind the committee that we are on vote 65.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We don't have one.

MR. HOWARD: As the government is not prepared to proceed with business, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: executive management, $1,120,071.

MR. D’ARCY: Vote 66, we note, the executive management branch, is a vote which has increased between the two budgets — last year's and this year's, Mr. Chairman. If the committee passes it as it presently is constituted, it's a vote which has increased by the amount of some $600,000. We note that some $220,000 of this increase in an advertising increase. I'm not saying it is only $220,000 to be spent on advertising under this vote; I am saying that that is the amount by which the minister intends to increase this vote. We also find that the minister is hoping to get committee approval to increase the professional services part of this vote by an amount of $96,000.

In view of the abysmal failures of this minister in formulating policy and his even greater failure in attempting to buy professional services to articulate this policy throughout the media, I am left with no recourse but to move that vote 66 be reduced by the amount of $378,550, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order, hon. members.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly speaking out against the amendment and, frankly, I think perhaps I might just mention or touch upon the purpose of this particular vote, which is in part to provide the citizens of British Columbia with information regarding the many good efforts of the ministry to promote good use of energy and to utilize our resources well. Perhaps there are a number of ways in which we can do this, not the least of which is when we as individuals in government travel throughout the province and attend various meetings and are given the op-

[ Page 5577 ]

portunity of explaining programs and the problems as they exist, and how they might best be addressed to the various groups in all of the communities. The people have a right to know. The people deserve to know. The people must know. I think it's only right that the people hear and receive this information from us in all forms possible. Again, as I said, perhaps we can all, as members of the House and of different political parties, do a good job in presenting it personally at the various meetings we have the opportunity of attending.

That brings me to a very important point. Certainly there has been discussion from time to time in this House with respect to statements which have been made by a member who is now affectionately known as "Nuclear Nic" or "Nic the Nuke," the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who in the past certainly has come out very openly in favour of the use of nuclear energy as a means of generating power in British Columbia. As I understand it, that certainly has been stated and restated by the member at various times. As of late — certainly during the last several years when we've been discussing the mining of uranium and the use of nuclear energy as an alternative — these sorts of statements which have been previously made have in more recent times been denied.

I think the populace of British Columbia has a right to know that — it's a part of the information program that the people should be involved with — the impression was left last night, as I understand it, at a public meeting in Kamloops by the candidate for the New Democratic Party that he supports the use of nuclear power to create energy in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, while the Chair appreciates the point the member is trying to make, it's very difficult for the Chair to relate, under this specific vote, which is executive management — notwithstanding the member's attempt to relate it through the necessity for advertising.... I feel that while the need for advertising may be canvassed, the issues for which that need would arise would be very difficult to canvass in this vote, or we would be opening the whole argument all over again. I must ask the member to be more specific on vote 66.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I sat in my seat and I heard the critic for the opposition introduce the amendment which would reduce the available money for the ministry, specifically to advertising. It was his opinion that the vote could be reduced because of the amount allotted to advertising. The record will show this very clearly. It's based upon that that I make this argument. As I said, certainly we can do advertising by way of the media. We can similarly advertise by getting out there as individuals and talking to the various community groups throughout the province, telling them what our stand is on the various problems. Certainly the provision of energy is one of those. This is why I think this is most appropriate.

I might mention, too, it's rather ironic that at this time, when there ought to be a great awareness in the province by all the people about the need to conserve energy, the possibilities for developing alternatives, the use of resources and how they might best be used for the benefit of all the people, the critic for the opposition should deny the people this knowledge by cutting back on what I deem to be one of the most important parts of government — that is informing the people of what we stand for and propose to do. That immediately again relates back to the statement made in Kamloops by a candidate at a time when the whole of the party on the other side — the New Democrats — are concentrating on that area in terms of presenting to the populace their stance on the various issues. I need to know, as a citizen of British Columbia, whether in fact — not only I, but my family, my friends and everyone everywhere need to know — the position of the New Democratic Party is that they support nuclear energy.

These charges have been made in the past. The member for Nelson-Creston has been accused of this, and there's been nothing to refute it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please, hon. member. Again, the first part of the member's address was in order, but at this point I must say that it is virtually impossible for the Chair to relate the current remarks of the minister to vote 66. I must ask the minister to return to the amendment to vote 66 which is presently before us, which deals exclusively with the articles that are listed in the member's estimate book.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman. perhaps all I can say in conclusion, then, is that I cannot support the amendment. Certainly this is a part of the vote, and specific reference was made to it. I'm sure this must be in order. As a government, we have a position on the use of energy. We know, certainly — and we ought to advise all of the people — that our position on nuclear energy is that there's no place in British Columbia for it. We should advise the people of this. Similarly, with respect to mining for uranium, our position has been made clear. The hon. minister asked the question of the other side as to what their position was. No answer was given. I guess they're going to remain silent on this, and perhaps that's the answer. They don't have a position. As a government, we have the responsibility of making the populace aware. Certainly I cannot support the amendment which would deny the people this right.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure the minister would be supported in his position by Doug Heal and those Hollywood artists as well. They're the type of people who just love to get their hands on S20 million in the estimates, scattered throughout to propagandize.

That Minister of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) have proven today that they will take any situation and, in their desperation, twist and distort it to suit their own needs, desires and hopes. That's exactly what they've done. They were permitted to make reference to an event, which apparently took place last evening. Let me set forward what happened as a result of a telephone conversation with the person you have just sought to malign for your own cheap political advantage in Kamloops. That's what you sought to do: malign an individual who's a candidate and distort the position of that candidate. You guys can't play it straight even if you try.

Mr. Dack attended a forum last evening and put forward the proposition that British Columbia should very carefully consider whether the Socred–B.C. Hydro proposal for Hat Creek is best for the province; he asked for very careful consideration of that, because of the potential of acid rain emanating from that particular project. Mr. Dack pointed out that new technology was becoming available. He used as an example of new technology that might be looked at something once called the B.C. Research Council, which was

[ Page 5578 ]

partly funded by this Legislature and by budgetary items that we have already dealt with and passed, under the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. The funding of the B.C. Research Council was provided to examine fusion — not fission but fusion — nuclear technology. He said that inasmuch as the Social Credit government is funding B.C. Research to do that, that's new technology that should be looked at. He was specifically asked at the meeting whether he supported nuclear power, and he clearly said no.

Then we find today these purveyors of smear-at-every-opportunity rising desperately in this House in an attempt, as I said, to grab something in Kamloops tomorrow. It's a sad shame. I thought better of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). That he would stoop to the same level as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in this regard, and to the level of the member for Central Fraser Valley....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I know you guys don't like the truth when you hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Shall we address the Chair'?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I know those guys and gals over there don't like the truth when they hear it. They just love to distort, twist and hold up pieces of paper — as the member for Central Fraser Valley is now doing. He was the person specifically responsible for misusing public funds so their own Social Credit caucus research bureau could send out lies about members of the opposition. The member for Central Fraser Valley is suspect when it comes to talking about truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again I must ask that we return to the amendment on vote 66 before us.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 66 approved.

On vote 67: finance and administration branch, $1,470,565.

MR. D'ARCY: Once again we find that the increases under this particular vote for such capacities as....

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the interesting fact that I was on the front steps, just at the door, and I heard no sound of the bells. I should have heard the sound within the building, but I heard no sound. I was speaking to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who states that the bell rang very intermittently in his office. I believe that we should bear in mind at this time that members are not hearing these bells. There's a question of doubt that they're ringing in various offices, and I would like to bring to your attention that no vote is decisive if the bells are not rung. I bring it to the floor that I may object at any time if I'm not satisfied the bells have been heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well taken. It is a most serious matter, and will be looked into by the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: I would agree that for a Whip of a party with a three-seat majority, particularly in view of the fact that throughout most of yesterday there were only two or three of them in the House.... They seem to show up at convening time and disrupt the procedures of the House with frivolous points of order and then disappear for the day. That poor member for Dewdney had to spend a great deal of his time going out beating the bushes in order to try to find a few people to people the treasury benches. In particular the Minister of Municipal Affairs was not in the House all day. I don't know what he was doing; he certainly wasn't working. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was not in the House all day. He certainly wasn't working. In fact there were only two members at various points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 67.

MR. D'ARCY: You're quite right, Mr. Chairman, on to vote 67.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. One of the things we have to do on this side of the House in order to make sure there's an accurate record of proceedings here is to call the occasional division for the purposes of a little exactness in terms of the amounts the government intends to spend on what we think are, in some cases, frivolous items. Of course one of the motions moved yesterday was moved by my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who was forced to move that the Chairman do now leave the chair because there were only three members. The poor Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had to hold the fort all by himself against this overwhelming opposition over here, so my colleague had to move such a motion.

[ Page 5579 ]

In any event, without further ado, in view of the increases in this particular vote, which have been totally unjustified by statements made in the House by either the minister or any of his colleagues or by any actions they have taken during the past year, we wish to move that the amount of vote 67 be reduced by $183,903. I would point out that once again this does not restrict the government in terms of the things they were attempting to do last year — with very limited success, I would point out. We are granting them the same amount of money as they had last year, and we're hoping that the minister, if he is capable of learning something about administration, will make better use of these funds this year in his administrative capacity as Minister of Energy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. members.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out to the committee that under this finance and administration branch you sure know how to pad the accounts. The minister sure learned how to build up the funds — or he sure knows how to spend money for propagandizing. Last year all he wanted for advertising was $465; this year he wants $14,250. That's something like a 3,000 percent increase — a tremendous waste of money. All those guys are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is justify that onerous tax increase on people, and they're padding the accounts every which way they can in order to build up the expenditure side, either to propagandize us or to save the $250 for actual advertising and use the $14,000 to employ a couple of other Hollywood artists to tell them how to do it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, these guys are harder on me than Treasury Board is. I just want to point out that you can't just say "advertising" — it's advertising and publications.

I might say that we're having extreme difficulty, not only in this ministry but in almost every other ministry, attracting people to come to B.C. from other parts of Canada, because of some very serious problems we have. When someone wants to move we can offer him an extremely attractive job, but there are problems in remortgaging houses. Someone may be buying a house with an 11 percent mortgage, and they have to sell their house, come back and pick up a mortgage for 15 or 16 percent. So we've had to increase our recruiting campaign a tremendous amount in order to get scarce professional employees. We're also competing for employees with the energy industry, which is an extremely lucrative industry in the private sector. We must do everything we can to attract the best possible professionals to our province in order that we can cope with the demands that we have in the energy sector.

Yes, we'll have some increased costs in order to do that. I don't apologize for them. I'm against the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before putting the question, the Chair has again been informed that, although the division bells were rung six times — the A and B systems were each rung three times — some members heard only one short ring. I ask members to bear that in mind. For future divisions, it would be appreciated if any further problems were reported to the Chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman. In view of that, I think it would be appropriate to request unanimous agreement of the House to have the vote taken.

MR. HOWARD: The Chair might consider receiving information throughout the day from the Whip of each side of the House that all their members have heard the bells and that they are all here, before you proceed with the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That seems eminently fair, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think we have to have agreement to proceed. I think that's the appropriate procedure, Mr. Chairman. If the opposition or the government happen to have any members not present, I'd like to know about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members can agree on anything they wish to agree on, but possibly, hon. members, if it is the wish to the House to discuss this matter.... Right now we are faced with a vote that must be called on an amendment to vote 67. I would ask hon. members if it is agreed that we proceed.

Leave granted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 67 approved.

On vote 68: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $2,469,409.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to repeat that while we on this side are also very concerned about the operation of the bells, I'm quite convinced that they haven't worked as well as they used to when the member for Vancouver South used to be in charge of maintaining the bell system. In passing, I just want to point out that all caucus and ministerial offices are located in this building. Our standing orders allow for a full five

[ Page 5580 ]

minutes for people to answer the bells. Certainly I have every confidence in the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) an whomever he may deputize to make sure that all members of the House can get into the chamber. Mr. Chairman, it would seem that the government House Leader should discuss the government's position with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) or the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), because they say it's the duty of all members to be here at all times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on vote 68.

MR. D'ARCY: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, the Utilities Commission, and we're going to that. I hope all members are here at all times, as those members over there have suggested. I can't really understand why the House Leader should be concerned that some of his members wouldn't be here at all times. After all, that is the position of three or four members on the back bench over there — where, I'm sure, they're going to remain.

As the Chairman may remember, since he was a member of the House last summer when the Utilities Commission bill was brought in, we had numerous concerns about the particular licence it gave the minister to override, bypass or simply disregard the Utilities Commission. It was not only we on this side of the House who had reservations about the operation of the commission. By the way, this does not in any way reflect on any personnel of the commission, who I think are attempting to do the best they can with any issues referred to them. However, as we all know, very few issues — certainly no issues of any importance — have been referred to the Utilities Commission.

I note that during these estimates the minister has said that it's a first for the province of B.C. that rate increases of British Columbia Hydro should be referred to the Utilities Commission. I want to give a personal opinion that the policy of the former minister responsible for B.C. Hydro under W.A.C. Bennett, Ray Williston, was that Hydro rates were too important to be left to the whims of a utilities commission, and should be decided by cabinet. I disagreed with that position. I was not a member of the House at the time. I was a taxpaying private citizen, but I disagreed with that position of the former Social Credit government.

When the New Democrats were in office, the minister in charge of Hydro, Bob Williams, had a similar position. I disagreed then with his position for three years. Mr. Williston had had that position for about 12 years prior to that. Now for the first six years this government has been in office, they've had the same thing. They've simply decided that they're going to make decisions behind closed cabinet doors on Hydro rate increases. But the minister said last summer that there was going to be an end to all that. Hydro rate increases were hereafter going to go to the Utilities Commission.

Since the minister began making those statements — and he has repeated them constantly ever since — there have been three Hydro rate increases. Not a single one has been referred to the Utilities Commission. The cabinet approved a Hydro rate increase while the legislation was before the House. Since the first of the year there have been two other rate increases. One was based on a refinancing formula that the government had to go to to protect the bond rating of B.C. Hydro. Its absolutely terrible equity-debt ratio had to be approved, or there was going to be some difficulty in forecasting by financial advisers to the government in floating any more bonds for B.C. Hydro, whose debt is now well over $6 billion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

The other rate increase was based on an arbitrary decision by government to increase taxes — the water rental fee, which was simply done. In fairness to this situation, it was also applied to West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Ltd. and to Cominco Ltd. But certainly it applied carte blanche to B.C. Hydro, and the Utilities Commission was given the luxury of deciding how that rate increase was going to be applied — whether it was going to be applied across the board to all Hydro customers, or whether the entire load of that rate increase was going to be borne that first year by commercial and residential customers.

So there have been three rate increases after the minister began announcing that this was never going to happen again, and he was still announcing in the House yesterday that this was not taking place anymore. I only hope that at some point in the future the minister does come through with what he's saying is the state of the situation now, and begins actually referring requests for rate increases by B.C. Hydro to the Utilities Commission.

I also want to point out.... Let's see. Yes, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is in the House. It's good to see the Minister of Labour in the House. He's your colleague from Prince George, Mr. Chairman.

We have noticed, and I have certainly been advised in discussing this with some of his Social Credit supporters — or at least they were in the last election — that the minister seems to understand the concerns people have in the Prince George area about the Energy ministry, the Utilities Commission and the Utilities Commission Act when he's in Prince George. However, the Minister of Labour somehow alters his point of view when he gets to Victoria, altering it somewhere between Prince George airport and Flat Bay airport. Every politician has the right to change his mind. That happens quite frequently. However, somehow the Minister of Labour changes his mind again when he goes back to his riding.

We're hoping to hear the Minister of Labour or the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — who's not in the House, Mr. Chairman — or the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) make some remarks in this debate about the reservations they have constantly expressed since last August about the Utilities Commission Act. They have not complained any more than we have about operations by the personnel on that commission. They have complained about the act itself, and the arbitrary powers which the minister has taken under this bill.

In particular, the member for Omineca was wont to say that he was sure the bill was written by communists and various fellow travellers. He certainly could not support anything like that. Well, Mr. Chairman, he's on record a supporting all the provisions of the bill when it was before the House last year, and we certainly have not been able to find him questioning any of the policies of the minister within this House. We are wondering how he's going to vote on this particular vote 68 under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because it covers the B.C. Utilities Commission. I understand that that member for Omineca does have problems every now and then. He lost his research

[ Page 5581 ]

staff a few months ago in an arbitrary way. I believe he also lost the chairmanship of the caucus rather suddenly. However, we do know that he is an outspoken person when he has concerns for the people in his riding, and those concerns are certainly always brought home. When the Social Credit Party told him that he was unlikely to get the nomination unless he changed his tune on a number of things....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the vote before us is the British Columbia Utilities Commission; it's not the member for Omineca nor is it any other member in this House. It has to do with the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the functions that it performs and the money that it needs, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is, of course, advised that during the estimates of ministers and during Committee of Supply there must be relevancy; the relevancy must pertain to the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us at present. I am sure the committee and all members are aware of our standing orders with respect to those rules.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could beg leave to make an introduction of a school group that's presently in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wouldn't have interrupted the hon. member's speech, but he was interrupted anyway.

We have in the gallery today a very important and bright school group from Hatzic, which is in the municipality of Mission — grade 10 of the Hatzic Junior Secondary School under the leadership of Mary Philpot, Wayne Lennie and Charles Weber. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman. I would agree totally with you that vote 68 involves the administrative responsibilities of the minister, and that's precisely what people outside this House — the Employers Council, various environmental groups, various labour bodies, various sport-fishing groups and some of the members on the government side who are a little more independent than others — have been complaining about: the administrative responsibility, how much has been given to this minister for his administrative responsibility under the act and how they would like to see amendments brought in to change that act. Perhaps the minister will, in due course, be willing to bring in some amendments to alter that act to satisfy the concerns of people both within and outside the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of some kind of order in the House, we had full opportunity to talk under my vote, the ministry's office vote, about anything that was deficient in the way the ministry was operating and all of the functions of the ministry, including the British Columbia Utilities Commission. That was done by that member and by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and others. Now we can’t reflect on votes or ask for amendments; we're into the administration of the British Columbia Utilities Commission. I think that the Chairman should bring that member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a very interesting point of order. The committee is, of course, reminded that the necessity for legislation is not allowed to the committee while we're in estimates of supply. The administrative action is what we debate during Committee of Supply.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, without agreeing with the minister's statement, but certainly understanding why he is terribly embarrassed by discussions of the B.C. Utilities Commission bill or any aspects of it before the House, I will, because of my total lack of confidence in the effectiveness of that statute to look after the interests of the taxpaying public in British Columbia, move that vote 68 be reduced by the amount of $763,658.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I want to just very briefly speak against the amendment. I'm very surprised that an amendment of this nature would come in under this vote, particularly given that the members opposite have given such an eloquent plea for a B.C. Utilities Commission, which can be effective and take its rightful role in doing the important job that it will have to do over the next many, many years, including its regulatory role as to regulation of the rates of B.C. Hydro and the other utilities in the province, which no other government in the province has ever done; and also the very important role that it will play in regulating energy projects.

A terrific workload is going to be faced by that Energy Commission in looking at things like the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, Site C, liquefied natural gas projects, petrochemical projects and various power development, in addition to the increased demand that they will have for their regulatory activities as well. Those increased demands, Mr. Chairman, lead to the need for, first of all, new staff to deal with the problems but secondly, while we're recruiting staff, there is a need for a major amount of money for professional and special services to use until we have our recruitment up to par.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of things about two or three of the comments that the member for Rossland Trail made. The first one, that no issues of any importance have been referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission since it was established by legislation.... I guess you put your priorities where you want to, but I would say that one of the first tasks the Utilities Commission had to deal with was the public hearings on natural gas pricing in this province. They were a very major set of hearings for the future of British Columbia. Those hearings have been held and now I have a report on my desk. They'll be considered.

The other, of course, is that the Site C dam application has been referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. I'd suggest that that's a pretty major issue in this province.

Regarding the other two points of error that the member put forward in his speech, he indicated to the House that the financing criteria which were directed to the B.C. Utilities Commission with regard to the debt-equity and interest ratio for B.C. Hydro had led to rate increases. That's not true. There have been no rate increases as a result of that, so there was no need to refer anything anywhere. It simply has not resulted in rate increases. In terms of the water rate increases which were put forward by the government, that's true: those did result in rate increases. Those were referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the same as the other util-

[ Page 5582 ]

ities which faced the same dilemma. In both cases — not just for B.C. Hydro, but for the other utilities which were affected — there were applications made to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. Under the terms of their legislation, which is the same for every utilities commission that I've ever seen anywhere in North America, they have an opportunity to pass on rates, given increased taxes from government or from some other source over which they have no control. That was done. There was no difference between the way B.C. Hydro was treated and the way West Kootenay Power and Light was treated. It was referred to the BCUC. Again, the financial criteria that were recommended to the B.C. Utilities Commission have not led to any rate increase.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister would have us believe that he's a schizophrenic and that when he is wearing his minister's hat, the decisions that he makes somehow have no bearing on the decisions he must make when he is wearing his director of B.C. Hydro hat.

He mentioned that the water licence increase was something over which B.C. Hydro had absolutely no control. I would suggest that as a member of government he was part of the decision-making process that led to those water licence increases, and that the question of whether or not those water licences were going to be increased, and by how much, was never submitted to the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was never considered. The B.C. Utilities Commission was allowed to consider whether or not and in what way the various utilities and industries affected by the water licence increase.... They considered how those could be passed on to the consumers, whether those consumers be industrial, commercial or residential, but not whether the increased taxation costs to the various utilities were going to take place. I would suggest that the minister is not being completely direct in explaining those rate increases for B.C. Hydro.

I think there are a number of other things that we could discuss on this; however, the afternoon is moving along and I merely want to make one more point. Last year, for part of the year, questions which are now hopefully referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission were considered by the former B.C. Energy Commission. Later on in the year, due to actions of this Legislature, the B.C. Energy Commission was disbanded. Those questions — and perhaps the minister would indicate this — and perhaps some different ones were referred to the new B.C. Utilities Commission, which he was responsible for setting up.

Our point in opposition is that because he has overridden the B.C. Utilities Commission in a way that he never did or could do with the old B.C. Energy Commission, there were a number of items considered by the B.C. Energy Commission which the B.C. Utilities Commission has been unable to consider. That is not because they desired it to be that way, but because the minister did not refer those things. Therefore, in view of the fact that it's hard to make a point that the workload of the B.C. Utilities Commission has actually increased over that of the old B.C. Energy Commission — I think they would like to see their workload increased, but they have not been allowed to do so — we find it rather difficult to understand how the minister can justify a funding increase from $1 million to $2.4 million this year. That's an increase of almost 150 percent. Inflation is around 12 percent. I wish it were much lower. I'm sure you do too. It certainly is not 150 percent.

If the minister could demonstrate to this committee and the people of B.C. that their tax dollars are needed for this massive increase, instead of arbitrarily making decisions such as the one we discussed about the water rate increase, and bypassing the commission on the issue of the Vancouver Island pipeline, then I think the opposition — I hope we're reasonable people — would find some justification in a fairly substantial increase in the amount of taxpayers' money allotted to the Utilities Commission. But in view of the way the minister has been handling the Utilities Commission, which after all is his own creation, in all fairness we have to have severe doubts about this particular vote. That is why we are moving a reduction in the amount, not to eliminate or clip the wings of the capability of the Utilities Commission to do the jobs the minister may refer to it, but simply to put them down to where their operation level was last year in order that there can be some accounting and some justification for the funds that they are, in fact, spending.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. The member talks about the Utilities Commission deciding whether or not the water rates in the province should be increased. He's right that it is a form of a tax increase. Government brings in taxes in many ways, whether it's water rates, ferry rates or rates for fishing licences or car licences. Those are all forms of taxation; I wouldn't dispute that. But I don't think that member, on reflection, would really suggest that some other agency outside of the elected Legislature should decide whether or not those increases should be made or taxes should be increased. It has been accepted practice for as long as I've been around in public life — and I think almost forever in the democratic system — that it's the responsibility of government to establish taxes, not some agency that is set up outside of the government responsibility.

I think that if the member stopped and thought for a minute he would agree. His leader certainly agrees. I'd like to refer you to Hansard of February 27, 1973. Hon. Mr. Barrett was talking about whether or not a public hearing or public debate should be held with regard to some financial decisions that the government was being called upon to make at that time. This is what the then leader of government said: "The question of a public hearing on the economics is absurd, and the member knows it. No government anywhere in Canada, any provincial jurisdiction or any federal jurisdiction, takes a basic matter of economic policy to public hearings." That's the parliamentary system. He went on to say: "The member suggesting that we take specifics to a public hearing is absurd, in my opinion. It would be a dereliction of the responsibility that we have as a government to start throwing around figures while we're in the midst of negotiations...." Mr. Chairman, I just say that that's the parliamentary responsibility that elected governments have.

The matter of the rates then went to the B.C. Utilities Commission — and it always will. I would expect that the member would want to apologize for saying that the rates were increased as a result of the financial directive and criteria that were given to the B.C. Utilities Commission, because that didn't happen.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

[ Page 5583 ]

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did I understand the Clerk to read the names Heinrich and Kempf as supporting the government's Utilities Commission structure? That's right, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be recorded, hon. member.

Vote 68 approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Vote 69, Mr. Chairman: resolved that a sum not exceeding $7,242,262 be granted to Her Majesty, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, energy resources branch.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. D'ARCY: Even the member for South Peace River was surprised at the amount of this. He stumbled over the $7 million. Even he was surprised at that amount, and so are we. We note that that is an increase from a little over $5 million last year. We simply can't fathom any explanation the minister has given as to why this particular vote should be increased by this particular amount. That's why we are moving that vote 69 be reduced to last year's level by the amount of $1,178,750.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. Prior to the question, I recognize the member for Prince George South for an introduction.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I might have leave of the committee to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to introduce a group of students from McBride Secondary School in the lovely Robson Valley and their chaperones: Andy Peasgood, Len Linka, Dan Hughes, Guy Lawrence, Tim Dunn, Glen Roger, Hilda Wingie, Jan Swets, Terry Gunster and Bob McKinnon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I might ask the government Whip if he's prepared to proceed with the vote. Thank you. I assume the opposition Whip is similarly in accord.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The opposition Whip says no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, are we agreed to proceed?

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration in making rulings I would like to point out that several times this afternoon the government House Leader of the moment — they seem to switch around; it's kind of like Beau Geste over there, depending on who's working at the particular moment — has several times got up after the five-minute time period has expired and talked about leave to proceed with the vote. I note rule 16(2): "Upon a division being called the division bell shall be rung forthwith" — as you have been doing, Mr. Chairman. "No sooner than two nor longer than five minutes thereafter Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment, if any." There is no provision there for any leave being a asked of any member of the House to proceed with a vote. When five minutes are up the vote is taken, and that's it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would think that in the interest of fairness to the opposition and government members, when it's been brought to the attention of the Chair by hon. members that the bells are not working effectively in this assembly this afternoon, we would have agreement to have the vote taken so we don't have any particular member on any side of the House literally disfranchised by mechanical failure.

MR. KING: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the standing orders of the House and the Chairman of the House can be relied upon to dispense fair play in this institution. Certainly I would not cast any aspersion on the Chair by inferring that only the government is competent to assess and dispense fair play.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the question of fair play is the question of every member having an opportunity to vote and having heard the bell. If there's mechanical failure. that is hardly the fault of the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, just to repeat what had been said very briefly earlier, I would like the government House Leader of the moment to get together with some of his own back bench, who several times in the last couple of days have made the point that it is the duty of all members to be attending in the House at all times unless they have leave to be away. We can't understand why he has a problem with some of his members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I remember when the bells have been erratic during this sitting of the Legislature and on previous occasions it has been at your initiation that both sides were asked that the bells would not ring until agreement was achieved, any day when the bells were identified to be in faulty condition. That has been the practice in committee for some time. I don't think it’s inconvenient for the House to continue what has now become practice in committee having identified this problem on an earlier occasion. The bells ring in the precinct, and a member is not being derelict in his duty if the bell does not ring in the area where he is in the precincts. That's if he's in the precincts. Obviously the bells don't ring overseas in New Zealand.

[ Page 5584 ]

MR. HOWARD: You still have to rule on the point of order raised by my colleague, Mr. Chairman. I would point out to you, contrary to what the Premier has just said, that the only bells that are ringing are in his head. There was an agreement reached on one occasion not too long ago; that was all. That does not constitute practice regardless of how desperate the Premier might like to make it practice. There was an understanding reached on one occasion and one occasion only. There was an offer made earlier today that was not taken up by the government: it was in fact rejected by ignoring it. So we have to abide by the rules — five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think we have entertained sufficient debate on the point of order raised by the hon. member. The Chair will entertain one more point on each side of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the ringing of the division bells, I feel that if the standing orders are deficient insofar as the procedure for ringing divisions bells are concerned, perhaps you could suggest to the Speaker of the House that we notify the members of the Social Credit caucus by registered mail.

HON. MR. BENNETT: My point of order was to do with the remarks of the member for Skeena. I took exception to his facetious words that the only bells the Premier could hear were ringing in his head. While that may exemplify the best of NDP humour, I find it offensive and would ask him to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: If the Premier finds that offensive, and there's nothing going on in his head, I'll gladly withdraw the reference to bells ringing there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I have concluded debate on the subject. The matter is now before the Chair and the Chair will....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I would inform the member that we are in the middle of a division. I have taken the points of order regarding the division that is about to be held by the Chair. I will entertain a point of order by the member at the conclusion of the division.

On the point of order that was raised, I think it is fair to note standing order 16: "Upon a division being called, the division bells shall be rung forthwith." It has been brought to the Chair's attention by both sides, both in the House and privately at the table, that problems are being experienced with the bells. That being the case, it is the Chair's opinion that some extension must be granted so that members can have full opportunity to attend the House to vote. I'm sure all hon. members will appreciate that it is the responsibility of members not only to be in the precinct to conduct business but also to attend divisions. In view of the fact that this does not happen that often and we've had few problems with the bells until today, I would ask all members to extend that courtesy to their colleagues so that they may be here in order that divisions be taken.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 25

Hon. Mr. Gardom requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, in reference to the suggestion by the Premier that this side of the House was showing poor humour when it was suggested that he had bells in his head, I would like to remind the House that a few years ago this Premier referred to the opposition as dogs that he was going to train.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: What are they so jumpy about? I've got you this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is not on a point of order.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'll just conclude by saying that the Premier is so sure that we are out of order, but he made reference to the opposition being dogs that he could train. I suggest that the Premier was unparliamentary. Surely by now he has learned to heal himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order — personal reflections never are.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While we didn't want to challenge Your Honour's ruling earlier, you seem to have placed the members of the assembly in a bit of a dilemma. I ask your guidance. Perhaps you'll want to consider what should be done in this situation. Your Honour read the standing order with respect to the ringing of he bells forthwith, and that it has been indicated to the Chair hat bells have not been heard in some parts of the precincts. Therefore the Chair should have some leeway to extend the period of time. What would be the situation, sir, if an hon. member came in after a vote had been conducted and complained that he had not heard the bells? Would he then be permitted to vote retroactively? It should not be left to the discretion of the Chair to allow that period of time to elapse.

[ Page 5585 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point the hon. member has made, but it would be virtually impossible for this Chair to rule on any hypothetical situations, and they must be dealt with when they arise. Again, I would point out that this is not a regular occurrence we're dealing with regarding the division bells. When it has been brought to the attention of the Chair, particularly by both sides, then I respectfully submit that it is the duty and obligation of the Chair to take that into account.

Vote 69 approved.

On vote 70: mineral resources branch, $7,839,878.

MR. D’ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we note with some pleasure that this is one of the few votes under this minister not to increase astronomically. The mineral resources branch is a very important one to the province of British Columbia, and to the industry and workers in B.C.

However, we do find a couple of items on this vote which we are concerned about. We particularly would like some better explanations than we have had as to why the travel costs under this particular vote should have gone up by $82,000, and why the professional services should have gone up by some $29,000. So even though we concede that a substantial part of the roughly $400,000 increase under this vote is reasonable and justified, we do have concerns about those two items. I therefore feel that I must move vote 70 be reduced by the amount of $112,291.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the amendment. I am really surprised at the opposition in bringing in an amendment to this vote, particularly when they face the possibility that I would repeat the same speech I've been giving for three days about the mining  activity in British Columbia, and the healthy activity going on. But I won't do that; I'll resist that opportunity today, except to say that there is significant mining activity in this province, up to something like 70,000 new mineral claims recorded in the five years between 1975 and 1980. It's extremely important that we have staff on hand who can handle those new mineral claims.

The member mentions specifically increases in travel. That increase is necessitated by the buoyant activity of new mines opening, and the need for inspector s to travel and make sure that when those new mines open they adequately meet the regulations under the Mines Act. I'm proud to say that we're a victim of our own success here, and I reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 70.

MR. BRUMMET: I believe it might be appropriate under this vote to make a brief request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Fort St. John chamber of commerce has a project underway to establish a petroleum industry museum in the city of Fort St. John — appropriately, because of the size and scope of the industry in that area. They have managed to get an old derrick provided to them. It would take approximately $10,000 to move and install this derrick in connection with the museum, which will, of course, be funded from community and industry donations and in various other ways available to the chamber.

I won’t quote the amount of revenue which comes from oil and gas sales in the area; I think the minister is fairly familiar with those figures. Very briefly, I would like to ask if the minister could find it in his heart, and more particularly in his budget, to come up with about $10,000 for this very worthy cause.

MR. KEMPF: I said most of what I wanted to say yesterday in regard to this minister's estimates, but, very briefly, there is a question I would like to ask the minister under vote 70. The question is in relation to the Placer Mining Act. As members will recall, the Placer Mining Act was brought in by the NDP in 1973, and it's still on the books of this province. It's one of the acts mentioned in the news release from which I quoted yesterday. The news release said that through those kinds of acts the government of the day was destroying the mining industry in the province.

This act not make any sense. As we all know very well, gold is found where you can find it — in the streams and rivers of this province. It's found where it exists, not where the government decrees it should be found. [Laughter.] The urban members laugh, but I'm sure the rural members, should they be in the House on that side of the floor, would agree with what I'm saying in regard to this detrimental act which exists on the books of this province. This act is also a deterrent to the entrepreneurial spirit of many citizens of this province, particularly citizens in the north who have initiative enough to get out and look for that gold.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have, Madam Member. Have you? Well, good for you.

Interjection.

[ Page 5586 ]

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have. I've done many things in this province, unknown to many members over there, many of which the members opposite wouldn't understand.

But, Mr. Chairman, back to the Placer Mining Act. It's a backwards document; it's typically socialist, a government-knows-all, government-knows-better piece of legislation. My question to the minister, on behalf of all of the miners and prospectors of this province, is: when are we going to strike this socialist document once and forever from the statutes of the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I must say I've had quite a lot of correspondence and personal contact about the Placer Mining Act in the last little while, including representations from the member for Omineca, a number of people from his constituency and some from the Cariboo as well. In fact, the Cariboo Placer Association met with us not too long ago and talked about this act. It is designed to attempt to come to grips with some of the many land-use conflicts that are prevalent whenever a stream or some part of the environment is disturbed. There may be better ways to do it, Mr. Chairman, and all I can say to the member, as I've said earlier, is that I have a review going on — both at the ministry level and through the Attorney-General's ministry as well, because there is apparently some legal consideration to be made here in terms of land tenure or claim tenure and things like that. So I promise that that review will be expedited, and perhaps I can have another answer for the member.

As far as the oil derrick at Fort St. John goes, I think that, first of all, the efforts by the chamber of commerce and the citizens of Fort St. John are to be commended, because the petroleum industry is the life-blood of the economics of that whole area. For them to bring in a museum and the related activities which go on around that museum will be a welcome addition to Fort St. John and to the whole northeast of British Columbia. I would say it's beyond the terms of the budget of this ministry to get involved in museums, except in a very minor way perhaps for operating programs, which I think we do in Nelson, Rossland and perhaps at Britannia Beach as well.

But I can say that if we can divorce the museum idea from it and talk about having the oil derrick.... I've talked to the chamber of commerce and they've been extremely successful, first of all, in getting the rig and getting an oilwell trucking company to bring the rig in — I believe into Fort St. John — and assemble it. There is need for some $10,000 to paint it, sand-blast it and do some other things that are necessary. If we can divorce it from the museum, Mr. Chairman, I'll do all I can to see if we can find that money in the budget for the derrick itself. If we can, we'd be happy to provide it.

Vote 70 approved.

Vote 71: petroleum resources branch, $2,140,743 — approved.

On vote 72: resource access program, $550,000.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire whether the minister received and read a copy of a resolution submitted by the East Kootenay Recreation Association. It has to do with some mining claims being placed on some very valuable recreational property in that area. But just for the record of the committee, I would read it. You may have a copy, I'm not sure, but it states that a copy was sent to your office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That member never brings these things up under the proper vote.

MR. BARNES: This is the proper vote, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, it isn't.

MR. BARNES: How do you know? You haven't even heard the subject matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps the committee can briefly hear the member's argument with respect to vote 72, and what he wishes to tell us.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it's amazing how twitchy the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is this afternoon.

This has to do with the possibility of a mining exploration road being built through Mause Creek over the top of Lost or Sunken Creek to the headwaters of Dibble Creek through prime recreation land located in the Steeples range of the East Kootenays. Are you familiar with that resolution?

Just to make a point, you see how twitchy and jumpy they were. Do you still want to object, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs? Do you still feel this is not relevant? Would you like to speak to this matter? Everything is unimportant to that minister.

Mr. Chairman, I will proceed. The resolution reads as follows:

"Whereas the B.C. Forest Service is very concerned regarding newly staked mineral claims encompassing seven square kilometres in this area, the main question of concern is perceived to be the acceptability of road development for mineral exploration purposes, before the viability and certainty of a mine is established,

"Whereas the East Kootenay Recreation Association, along with the E.K. Hunters Association, the Kootenay Nordic Outdoor Club and numerous Outdoor recreationists are very concerned about a conflict between a development of access, and prime outdoor recreational land and wildlife habitat protection,

"Whereas the control of road construction, and its possible environmental implications, as it relates to the ability of the ministry to prevent unnecessary damage and obtain a sufficient standard of road reclamation under existing regulations,

"Whereas the area in question provides more recreational and tourist value than any future potential timber harvesting or any known significant mining potential,

"Therefore be it resolved that the B.C. Recreation Association support the resolution of the E.K. Recreation Association to oppose any construction of roads through Mause Creek to Lost-Sunken Creek to Dibble Creek headwaters for the purpose of mineral exploration, and that the B.C. Recreation Association submit the resolution to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

[ Page 5587 ]

I was merely asking if you had received that resolution, and if you would indicate to the House your response with respect to protecting this recreational land.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member asking the question, but he is already about a month behind. The problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and the Ministry of Forests at the regional level in Cranbrook. Thank you very much. [Laughter.]

MR. BARNES: I wonder what the Premier was laughing about, Mr. Chairman. The Premier jumped up and started laughing. He was sitting there twitching a few minutes ago. He didn't know what was going on in his own government. Now he is attacking the opposition for trying to bring a matter before the House. I am merely raising it as an inquiry to the minister. I'm not accusing him of anything. What's he so jumpy about? Why are you so negative on that side of the House? I would like to point out to that minister and members on that side of the House that last weekend, from May 7 through May 10, the B.C. Recreation Association held a conference in Vernon, in the riding of the Premier. This resolution was passed this weekend. Now the minister is telling me that I'm behind the times. If I'm behind the times, you write a letter to the B.C. Recreation Association and tell them that their resolution was redundant and not necessary. That's all I'm asking. It's an inquiry, not a condemnation of the government. There's no need for that ridiculous arrogance on the part of those people on that side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll tell all members of the committee we are straying beyond the scope of the vote.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern with respect to the subject matter. But the problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of all, at the constituency level in Kootenay. I have no mandate to the British Columbia Recreation Association. I have one to the people of my constituency and I pride myself on being a hardworking constituency MLA. I'm going to continue to do that for a long time to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the hon. member's commitment to his constituents. I have no problem with that, but I'm wondering if he is condemning the B.C. Recreation Association for also having some concern about that area. You have no obligation whatsoever, Mr. Member, to the B.C. Recreation Association? Is that what you're telling this committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment please. We're allowing a little bit of latitude here, which will be extended to the member. The subject has been canvassed, I'm sure.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the mandate is the responsibility of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have got that problem resolved, as I said, at the regional level, and I don't see any point in taking up the time of this Legislature to debate the issue. I commend the British Columbia Recreation Association for bringing up the subject, but if they would do some research and read the papers, they would find that the matter has been resolved. Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I shall, on behalf of that member, assure him that the B.C. Recreation Association will have his remarks in full. Thank you.

Vote 72 approved.

Vote 73: Fort Nelson Indian Reserve minerals revenue sharing, $6,000,000 — approved.

On vote 74: building occupancy charges, $1,716,483.

MR. D’ARCY: Once again, as we have with other ministries in the estimates that have been brought before the House this year, we are absolutely aghast at the kind of rental charges that a government agency, totally controlled by the government.... All the directors of that agency are appointed by the Premier and his executive council, at the stroke of a pen.... They have arbitrarily decided to increase rents to this ministry by a sum in excess of $450,000. We see the rental charges to this ministry going from $1.2 million to a little over $1.7 million. We find this action by the government absolutely unconscionable. I suppose the minister might get up and say that this is something the government has no control over, as he claimed with the water rental fee earlier. The fact is that it's a government decision, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I move that vote 74 be reduced by the amount of $454,483.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 74 approved.

On vote 75: computer and consulting charges, $965,700.

[ Page 5588 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Once again, we find a Crown corporation, created by this government and totally controlled by the government over there, increasing the amount of computer and consulting charges to this ministry by an amount in excess of $500,000. I would point out that since we're debating a budget that sees a number of taxation increases to private citizens as well as to business and industry in this province, to see these kinds of computer and consulting charges — which were once open to bidding by the private sector, but which are now completely controlled by that big government over there — increased by an amount in excess of 100 percent leads us to believe it is totally in order to move that vote 75 be reduced by the amount of $515,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LORIMER: I have a few matters to bring up in this vote. I want to relate this particular vote to the other votes in the ministry, regarding the overexpenditure in this vote and other votes within this ministry. If we compare the estimates for the 1980-81 year and the 1981-82 year, we find that we have a 50 percent increase. Yet if we look at the interim financial statement for ten months' expenditures, and if you carry out the figures to a 12-month period on the same ratio, we find we have had expenditures this year of only $15 million, with an estimate of $21 million. We will likely underspend the 1980-81 year by some $6 million; about 75 percent of the estimate will be spent. Now we have an estimate increased by 50 percent over the amount of money that we didn't spend last year. I'm suggesting here — like others have suggested before — that this is a straight padding of the estimates, with no intention whatever of expending the funds that we're voting on. These motions to reduce should be accepted by all sides of the House, because, obviously, we'll look at it next year. We know that this money isn't going to be spent. We're increasing last year's vote by 50 percent. This year we won't have spent the money that was voted last year. We'll have spent only 75 percent of that figure.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. D'ARCY: Just before the question is put on vote 75, since this is the last vote under this particular ministry I just want to say that I, for one, appreciate the efforts that you yourself and the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) have made to keep a reasonable semblance of order this afternoon during what has occasionally been a somewhat fractious debate.

Vote 75 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 54: minister's office, $225,957.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure this afternoon to rise in support of these progressive estimates in the Ministry of Education. Before I make a few brief introductory remarks I will introduce my staff arranged behind me here: Jim Carter, Deputy Minister of Education; Grant Fisher, Assistant Deputy Minister (Post Secondary); Glenn Wall, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (Schools) and Jack Fleming, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance).

The year 1980-81 will be a year in which I hope we'll see some good changes being plotted out in the field of education. During the past six months I had the opportunity to go on a province-wide tour for two months in which I was able to visit some 70 schools in a number of districts and to hold 41 public forums on education....

MS. BROWN: Did they all give you lunch?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, 19 of them gave me lunch, hon. member. In the case of 18, no incidents were untoward.

MR. BARBER: You're always worried about eating lunch.

HON. MR. SMITH: I know. We had student and professional forums each day and we had public forums in the evening in 19 schools. About 1,000 briefs were received and an educational report is under final preparation. It will be released shortly and will be sent to every person who presented a brief. The modest cost of this tour was $125,000. We did spend money advertising. We advertised the tour because we were advertising for commentary on the public education system. We had very good response.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I should also mention just a few areas of education this year which have received special attention. One is the area of special education and the needs of handicapped students. We have made major initiatives this year in providing educational services for the severely disabled, and the first member for Victoria will be pleased to hear that there are going to be some further initiatives for the gifted, believe it or not. We are going to be providing a major in-service training program of teachers for the gifted this year. I hope that this will progress to some gifted funding.

In the area of handicapped education, the strides we have made have been most important. We're setting up regional resource centres in two sections of the province, and these

[ Page 5589 ]

will be expanding. We're taking steps to ensure that there is more provincial funding in the area of the severely handicapped. The strides made in special education have been, I think, particularly important.

We are also revising the facilities manual, that document so often complained about, and the long approval system so often complained of is being streamlined. It is now going to be easier for districts to receive emergency funding and easier for small school districts with needs for small schools to receive the facilities needed.

As evidence of that, our capital budget this year had a major increase in borrowing — from $120 million the previous year to $219 million this year. This is partly because some school districts have had shifts in school population, and we have some growth districts as well. We have encouraged some badly needed school construction not possible before.

I'm also pleased to say that a number of changes were implemented following the education tour in such fields as scholarships and discipline. Changes in letter grades were made as well. We also gave leadership to arrange for portability of sick leave. We're trying to construct a system whereby portability of sick leave between school districts in this province can be brought about with provincial leadership.

We have also altered and revised the administrative handbook which sets out the times that are spent by students in the school in various courses of study. We have introduced two new courses into the curriculum, which will be effective in September 1982. A number of changes have already been made.

It is apparent that we must have a revision and modernization of the School Act, formerly the Public Schools Act. That document was created about 20 or 25 years ago and needs a considerable amount of changing and updating. I think it has to set out in much clearer form the relationship between the various participants in the education system, and point the directions of the future, and not simply be the somewhat mechanical document of powers and authority that it is today. It should point out the modern responsibilities and rights of the participants in the system. I know that that will occur, and that revision will take place in the next year.

I believe that the rights of the disabled to an appropriate education must be guaranteed in law, and guidelines which will allow and assure that those rights can be exercised must be clearly set out. I anticipate that that will include an appeal procedure which will permit and, indeed, encourage parents of handicapped children to take part in decisions that are made as to the assessment and placement of their children, and which will allow for an avenue of appeal to some lay authority in their region against a placement decision which may be deemed by those parents to be inappropriate.

Another very important question in education this year is teacher bargaining and the desires of teachers, which I heard during my tour, to have a much greater say and involvement in the decisions that are made concerning their schools and classrooms. That matter was considered by the B.C. Teachers Federation at their convention — they are going to be balloting on it — and by the B.C. School Trustees Association at their convention last weekend.

I should also mention the fact — well known in this House, of course — that, because of the government's concern about the rising property assessments and the way that that impacts on the school finance formula, a school tax committee was established by this government to look into that matter, to meet with interested parties and to hold hearings if they wish. This committee has been active now for the past month, has received a number of submissions and briefs and will be making recommendations to government.

The government moved to take important steps to try to cushion the effect of rising assessments by reducing the taxable value of home owners' property from 14.5 to 11 percent this year. So if you had a house assesed at $100,000 last year you would pay $14,500 tax. If that house climbed in value to $135,000 in the ensuing year you would pay tax on roughly the same amount. Where assessment increases were larger, that shift did not cushion the blow, but it was an important step taken by government. We will be examining the report of the school tax committee to try and find a long-term way of addressing this question.

In the field of post-secondary education. I should also mention very briefly that operating budget increases for colleges and institutes were up 19 percent. The critical skill shortages that are acute in this province are being addressed by the provision of additional training. Under post-secondary education, we also increased the amount of money available for student aid, as a start to implementing in this province some of the changes that I hope will occur nationally, when the task force on student aid reports.

The member for Burnaby will be pleased to know that it's been decided to fund women's access programs for a three year term and to assist in their establishment in the colleges. I thank her for the comments she made to me many times on that subject.

Another matter that will come up for review in the year ahead, because of the provisions in the College and Institute Act, is a review of the functions of the three councils, which are required to be reviewed in 1982.

I think that I will make more extensive remarks later during the course of my estimates and allow my critic a chance now.

MR. LAUK: It is a pity that this Minister of Education has such little respect for this chamber that he's given the opening to his estimates that he has. Many briefs later, touring the province at great public expense, announcing and reannouncing his long-awaited policy statement based on those hearings, we’re still waiting for a report from the minister. I would think that at the present rate those children entering elementary school at the beginning of this minister's term would well have gone on to post-secondary by the time he announces a revision of the Ministry of Education pursuant to the forums he conducted this year. It's most unfortunate that the minister is such a semantic stutterer that it takes him so long to see what's so obvious and provide some solutions.

For example, I was just canvassing some of the briefs and recommendations that have been made. There were dozens of....

Mr. Justice Gardom has dozed off, Mr. Chairman. That's why he's not going to be on the court of appeal — or maybe that's why he will be on the court of appeal. Delegatus non potest delegari, milord.

For example, Mr. Chairman, 80 briefs were received on curriculum — I'm reading from the BCSTA synopsis of briefs presented to the minister. Several matters to do with curricula were raised and prominent were the new social studies and family life curricula. Also, more time was requested for new curriculum implementation, and subject

[ Page 5590 ]

specialists requested more time for their speciality. There were 78 briefs on a wide range of issues — accreditation, scholarships, learning assessment and graduation requirements. My files are full of material on that, both before and after the forums. Some of it came from the ministry. There were 132 briefs with respect to parents, with a range covering strikes, Canadian content, family life education — for and against — class size, and discipline. Discipline and French courses emerged as themes, as did bus problems. I suppose if the minister's file on bus problems and my file were put on top of each other, they'd come to about three feet. There are a lot of letters on bus problems — both before and after the forums — and 116 briefs on associations and councils, groups advocating more resources and curriculum time for the handicapped, arts, multicultural, women, French and other interests. Integration of the handicapped was by far the most common issue in that series of briefs.

There were 52 briefs on nutrition in the curriculum, morals instruction, biblical creation. Creationism emerged as a recurrent theme in 52 of the briefs, Mr. Chairman.

The most significant report from the minister's tour, and one that should cause us great concern, was in the Kelowna Capital News of October 22, 1980.

HON. MR. SMITH: New material.

MR. LAUK: At 5:30 p.m. on this day in particular, do you expect me to get into the stuff? Who's kidding whom, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.