[ Page 7633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 22). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7633

Mr. Lea –– 7633

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7633

Mrs. Wallace –– 7634

Mr. Leggatt –– 7634

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 7635

Mr. Howard –– 7638

Mr. Stupich –– 7638

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7639

Division –– 7639

Motive Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 23). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7639

Mr. Stupich –– 7639

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7640

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 9 –– 7640

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I understand there was a tragic loss in the family of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last night, when he lost a son-in-law in a tragic car accident. I would ask you, on behalf of the House, to extend our deepest sympathy and regrets.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: I will do it.

MR. KING: I see we have in the gallery this morning a distinguished visitor from the city of Revelstoke. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Fred Bervschi Jr., who is a proprietor of the Regent Inn in Revelstoke.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: In rising to speak to and move second reading of Bill 22, I should observe for members of the House and you, sir, that this is one of the significant tax measures announced in the budget speech. It deals with the exemption of compressed natural gas and propane from provincial fuel tax in the province of British Columbia when used to propel a motor vehicle. One section of the bill amends the Gasoline Tax Act to implement this exemption. This measure will have the immediate effect of reducing the price of compressed natural gas and propane by 5.06 cents per litre. This represents about a 20 percent saving in fuel costs, and for the average automobile it will amount to a $160 saving in the first year. The amendment also ensures that these fuels will continue to be exempt from social service tax and the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, although no longer taxable under the Gasoline Tax Act. CNG and propane — as others more knowledgeable than I will be able to tell you — are safe, clean-burning substitutes for gasoline. This move can also make a major contribution to reducing British Columbia's dependence on external oil supplies. Clearly British Columbia has an abundant supply of natural gas and there is a substantial propane surplus in Canada. The federal government, as part of its program to reduce our dependency on oil, is now providing grants for the conversion of vehicles to either CNG or propane. The province has announced that it will also be providing a conversion grant. I'm sure these measures, in combination with the provincial tax exemption for these fuels, will substantially encourage conversions. However, I must point out that even in the absence of these incentives, it is financially attractive to convert high-mileage vehicles to CNG or propane, and some individuals and fleet owners have already done so. In the case of CNG, this results largely from the government's very favourable pricing policy for natural gas.

Nonetheless, the conversion of many more vehicles is being hindered by the lack of an available distribution network for these fuels, CNG in particular. It is the government's hope — and I know it is shared by a number of my colleagues — that these two additional incentives will be seen as a commitment by the province to further the use of these alternative fuels and the private sector will respond by gradually establishing the required distribution network. Mr. Speaker, knowing the innovative spirit of British Columbians, I'm confident that within a few years a significant share of cars and trucks in this province will be utilizing these fuels of the future, if I may use that phrase.

Other sections also increase the urban transit authority levy under the Gasoline Tax Act for municipal transit purposes to 95 cents per litre from 66 cents per litre, effective upon proclamation of these sections. There are also amendments to increase the fines under this act to a level which will provide an adequate deterrent to persons who do not comply with the legislation and a level which is consistent with other taxation statutes. However, those are details, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the main thrust is the recognition — and I think I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the persistent urging of my colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I could not tell him when he had made his case, because it was a tax measure. Nonetheless, without his enthusiasm in this particular regard, we might not have been in a position to undertake this measure this particular year, I think it is a move forward in terms of motive fuel in British Columbia, and I have great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 22.

MR. LEA: We agree with the government that it would be desirous if we could get more people to use those natural products from British Columbia that are in abundance, and that are cleaner. I suppose everyone — or at least lay people — has a little apprehension about whether or not it's safe in all cases. I know this is being brought through the House by the Minister of Finance, when indeed it is really the brainchild of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

One of the things that concerns me is that we have had, in the past five months, a 26 percent increase in fuel taxation through the provincial government. This increase affects fishermen, which means many people in my riding, and farmers throughout the province. This 26 percent increase for fishermen and farmers is a horrendous increase and is really cutting into the profitability of fishing and farming. I know the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is going to speak during this debate, and I wonder if he will tell us if the government has done anything in regard to researching whether this is also adaptable for fishing vessels. Is it still safe? And has the government any plans whatsoever for moving into that area, because it's an area that not only would help the fishermen but the economy generally. We could keep fishermen and farmers economically healthy. So when the government speaks through its Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, would he let us know what the government has done, if anything, in regard to adapting this fuel to the fishing and agricultural industries?

MR. D'ARCY: First of all, I'd like to indicate, if the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has not, that we will be supporting this bill. It's an excellent change. I'm glad the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is in the House. I would like to note that a year or so ago, when we in the opposition made the suggestion that the tax on propane and compressed natural gas for motive vehicle use be reduced

[ Page 7634 ]

to increase its competitive advantage over gasoline at that time, the Minister of Finance reacted by noticing, for the first time, I think, that there was a price and taxation advantage for propane. Instead of reducing it, the government reacted by raising it to the same level of taxation as was placed on diesel fuel and gasoline. I'm glad to see that, possibly at the urging of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, the government has now seen the error of its ways and has removed the tax. I commend the government for that.

I also commend the government for the conversion grant. I think that's a positive step. I'd like to note, Mr. Speaker, that this is not something new. Twenty-five to thirty years ago propane was very common in industrial fleets in the private sector, especially those in warehouse service. That was back when gasoline was 25 cents a gallon. It was desirable even at that time for warehouse service vehicles in industrial fleets to be using propane. So it's not something new; the advantage has been there all along. We as a society, perhaps because of very effective lobbying by the petroleum industry, didn't really cotton on to the fact that propane and compressed natural gas were available, were cheap, were efficient and had numerous other advantages in terms of avoiding tune-ups and compared to the length of life of other internal-combustion engines. With those remarks, I want to repeat that we will be supporting the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: In introducing the bill, the minister indicated that this bill was related, in effect, to the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, and I note that in the explanatory notes it refers to the fact that natural gas will also be taxable under the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act. I note in another piece of legislation, which will come before this House at a later date, that there is provision to include natural gas in the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act.

The question that I have for the minister is this. Under the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act there is provision for farmers who use gasoline to get a reduced rate. As my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has indicated, that reduced rate has been drastically increased over the last few years. Farmers in fact do pay tax, and it seems to me that this act, combined with other pieces of legislation that we're going to be looking at, is going to put the farmer in the position of paying tax on natural gas if in fact he uses it for farm purposes, but if he uses it for other purposes he's not going to be liable for tax. I wonder if the minister has looked at this possibility, because it seems to me that this is the thing we're getting into here with these various pieces of legislation. I'm raising it under this act in the hope that sometime down the road we'll see an amendment on the order paper that will ensure that that doesn't happen. I would like the minister to consider that particular aspect.

I don't think anyone can be opposed to using our own natural product, which is in plentiful supply here in British Columbia, and to encouraging its use. I am concerned, though, that the cost of conversion is estimated to be in the range of $1,000, and the assistance is going to be a very small portion of that. How many people are actually going to be able to take advantage of it? How available is the supply going to be in outlying areas? There has to be an available supply of natural gas, if in fact we are going to go to this major conversion. Are there any plans or has there been any consultation to ensure that it is available?

It's difficult to talk about this bill, because it has a lot of varying things in it. The third point I have to raise is that once again in this bill we're into increasing minimum fines. I think there is a real danger there. It imposes upon a judge a limit below which he cannot go. Very often it will be absolutely unrealistic because of circumstance. Surely we have to rely on the judiciary to use good common sense. Certainly if it's a flagrant breaking of the law, then it should be justly punished. But as long as the maximums are there, you're okay. I think it should be left with more discretionary power in the hands of the judiciary, because you can't heavily penalize someone who really shouldn't be so heavily penalized. That's another point in this act about which I have some very grave concerns.

As for removal of tax from natural gas, I think that's a step in the right direction. I'm concerned about the techniques of how it's going to work. I am certainly concerned about whether or not a farmer is going to have to say he's not using this particular gas for farm purposes, if in fact he's going to be exempt from tax.

With those remarks, I would ask the minister to respond.

MR. LEGGATT: I welcome the bill. As other speakers have said, it's a useful piece of legislation. It is really a tiny little crack of light, though, in terms of the total legislative package. Nevertheless, the principle is good.

What I think concerns me from a sort of industrial strategy point of view is why we should have to go through the conversion process. Why is the auto industry itself so inflexible that it has yet to produce a motor vehicle that we can buy which burns this product that we have in the west? The answer, of course, lies in the Autopact and in the disastrous decision that was made years ago to integrate our auto industry with the United States. Of course that brings up the whole question of how we in Canada should have handled our industrial future. It has long been my belief that by now we could have been producing a Canadian vehicle for sale in the northern climates of the world using natural gas as a fuel. But, of course, partly because of the regional nature of the country and also because we have tended to allow our industrial base to be so completely dominated by the United States, we have never been able to grow up as an economy and produce a motor vehicle in Canada for Canadian conditions. If we had done that, we would have been able to produce a motor vehicle using natural gas without the necessity of intervening in terms of conversions now. I certainly welcome the efforts the government has made to encourage conversions. Like most people in the opposition, we wish it were more, but in any event it is useful.

The second point I want to make about the bill deals with the question of offence and penalty, which my colleague has referred to. Again we are getting into minimum penalties. The offence that section 7 of this legislation is attempting to change is this: "A vendor who in violation of section 6...fails to furnish any return or keep any records that may be required under section 7...commits an offence against this act." That is the heinous offence that we are going to impose on a small businessman failing to turn over a record. What we are now saying is: "You have a minimum fine of $200. You have no choice; you have no discretion." If the guy loses a piece of paper out of his office he gets a $200 fine, no questions asked and the judge has no discretion. It seems to me that we've got to stop this business of imposing minimums on non-criminal offences — offences that are not venal in nature and inadvertent offences.

[ Page 7635 ]

Here we have a minimum fine of $200. What we're amending is the old section, which had no minimum at all. The old section provided that the fine was not to exceed $500 but the magistrate could impose any fine that he felt was appropriate in the circumstances. What, are we imposing a minimum fine on somebody who may have forgotten to file a record? For God's sake, we're getting out of hand here. He may have been sick; he may have been in the hospital. There may be a hundred excuses.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, maybe he didn't get his mail. But he faces a bureaucrat who says: "No, you haven't got the record there; it's too bad, you're charged," and suddenly the guy is facing a $200 fine. It could be more; it could be a minimum of $200 for every charge, and they could lay five or ten charges on the same businessman.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they will.

MR. LEGGATT: And they will.

I ask the minister to have a serious look at this provision in the bill, and in the other bills that are coming down. We don't need minimum fines for inadvertence. We don't need minimum fines for people who don't commit crime, who just happen to do something inadvertently. And if it's not inadvertence, if it is some kind of conspiracy to prevent the government from receiving their fair share of tax, the maximum gives the magistrate all the discretion he wants, and he can nail the guy.

We have the bureaucrats running rampant, with the minister under total control. The minister hasn't spoken up when his bureaucrats have come in with these minimum fines. I don't believe the minister is sympathetic to this kind of legislation. I really don't believe the minister wants to see minimum fines imposed. I believe he'd rather leave it with the magistrate, but I don't think he has stood up to his officials. He's got to stand up to his officials. The minister should be the boss of this department, but he's not. He's letting those bureaucrats dictate to him what those minimum fines should be.

I'm glad he's making notes about this. I hope he'll take the bill and go after those bureaucrats and say: "Wait a minute, are we really going to nail every little businessman out there who forgot to file his records, who lost a sheet of paper, who maybe didn't get his mail on time, who maybe was sick?" There are a hundred different reasons for this, and I don't trust the bureaucrats to be judges in these things. They'll lay the charge.

You have our support on the bill, but serious consideration should be given to not imposing minimum fines for the inadvertent, little offences that can occur under this kind of legislation. Let's stop the bureaucrats from imposing a standard penalty on people where it could be inadvertence. A small businessman could be bankrupted by a series of these kinds of charges. We don't all have Touche, Ross & Company doing our books, you know. Some of these poor fellows have to do their own books, and they do them in a scribbler or on a tiny piece of paper, and they make mistakes; now we're telling them they're going to have minimum fines? That's unjust, unfair, wrong-headed.

I'm urging the minister to seriously consider amending this provision in the bill in committee so that we do justice to the small businessman who's having terrible problems right now in a recessionary time trying to make ends meet. He can't hire chartered accountants to do his books and make sure that everything is great, and here you are imposing minimum fines on him. It's wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister will reconsider.

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the government for bringing in this particular measure, and I want particularly to thank the New Democratic Party for its support. I can assure the members that what we're doing here in British Columbia is being watched closely around the world. This is the most advanced, significant and determined program to be embarked upon since the initial OPEC crisis of 1973.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Member, it isn't world-shattering, but it's extremely significant, and I'd like to explain how I first became interested and concerned about our vulnerability in Canada and in British Columbia.

As members of the British Columbia Hydro board, one day during the second oil crisis at the time the oil allocation board was formed in Canada, we were informed that if restriction of supply were to continue as anticipated, there would be gasoline rationing in Canada and our oil would be allocated to the east. The particular concern of B.C. Hydro was that such a shift in oil allocation would not only bring gas rationing to British Columbia, but would leave us short of power, because the shift from oil energy to electricity could not be met by the current availability of electricity reserves in our province.

I mention that because the fundamental circumstances have not changed since that time. Canada is every bit as dependent on OPEC oil as it was during the time of the second oil crisis. If Saudi Arabia were to shut down its production, we in British Columbia and all consumers in Canada would be on gas rationing within three months. What has happened during the previous oil crises is that we have experienced price shocks. We've paid the price, and we've got the oil. That's because the vulnerability in supply has never quite reached the point where we've had to take the next step, which is to restrict our usage of oil and thus remove what we in North America, without realizing it, consider to be our greatest freedom: freedom of mobility, based on personal transportation. That's really crucial to our commerce and our lifestyle in North America.

People may talk about the need for rapid transit. Of course that exists. But the very essence of the way our society is built in the twentieth century depends on mobility and transportation, in boats as well as in automobiles. Over the years, we've allowed ourselves to become dependent on the world's most successful cartel — that cartel, of course, being OPEC. In response to the moves of the cartel, we have had a proliferation of energy departments being struck in most countries of the western world. Unfortunately, few of these ministries and departments have clearly seen what lies ahead in the world.

The person that possesses the greatest and most effective weapon in the world today, and the person who sees the energy situation more clearly than anyone else, is Sheik Yarnam of Saudi Arabia. He has spoken quite frankly of the "oil weapon." He has said that what the OPEC cartel nations

[ Page 7636 ]

must do is never to raise the price of oil to the point where western nations seriously consider alternatives. To do so would not be in the interests of his country and would remove the oil weapon. Those are Sheik Yamani's words — not President Reagan's, nor those of any member of this Legislative Assembly or anybody in Canada.

What we're doing, and why it is significant, is taking the only steps that will make it possible for the western world to relieve its dependency on Sheik Yamani and his friends. Of course, in British Columbia, a mass conversion to methane would not do anything. It won't persuade the automobile manufacturers and it certainly won't terrify Yamani. What would terrify Yamani and remove the oil weapon would be to take away the dependency upon OPEC, because we have the capacity in our hands in North America to achieve that objective and because this is the only direction in which it could be done. Then, of course, this program remains of interest because it is the only solution to the problem.

If North America's automobile fleet were to operate in the same fashion as my ministry car, which is to have gasoline in the tank but, by pulling a lever on the dashboard, to be able to switch to an indigenous North American fuel, one which we have in abundance in British Columbia, then if Sheik Yamani and his friends wanted to charge too much for oil or wanted to shut down the production, people would pull the lever and be free. On the other hand, if the OPEC nations said: "We will make the price right," one could push the levers in and use OPEC oil and conserve our supply of what, in terms of cheap availability, is a limited fuel.

One should understand that methane is something that can be made from biomass, from coal, and from other renewable and nonrenewable resources. The significance is simply this: if we are successful, at least to the extent of building a comprehensive infrastructure here in British Columbia, then the oil can be allocated across Canada, as it will. OPEC may shut down its production, either willingly or unwillingly, as it will. Our citizens of British Columbia will be protected and our transportation fleet will still move. That won't do for the rest of Canada and the rest of North America if they fail to follow our lead. But if they do follow our lead, then the OPEC cartel is finished. Not only that, we would then begin to see the logical solution suggested by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). Of course, the automobile industry should be producing at the factory automobiles that will run on a Canadian fuel, rather than an OPEC fuel or a North American fuel rather than an OPEC fuel. Because of the massive commitment that the automobile industry has to the United States — I might say the lack of insight that has developed in the Department of Energy in the United States, and of course the pressure of the oil companies themselves — there has yet to be a significant move on the part of the automobile manufacturers.

It was my pleasure just last Friday to be in Washington addressing a second world conference on methane as a motor vehicle fuel, sponsored in this case by the American Gas Association. Very significant forward steps taken had been taken since we held our world conference here last September.

In the United States people are beginning to realize that, first of all, they have enough natural gas to serve their purposes. Of course, that's why the Alaska gas pipeline was cancelled: they've discovered enough in the lower 48 states.

Secondly, the gas companies have realized that since conservation has taken place their pipelines are no longer running at capacity. They have the overhead, but they don't have the customers. Now an automobile uses about the same amount of natural gas as would a three-bedroom home. Every time they convert a car, they've got another home as their customer. They are beginning to realize in the United States the need to develop both new markets and the assurance of their own supply. If you throw in on top of that the relief of dependency upon OPEC, even the automobile manufacturers are beginning to get the message. That's why the Ford Motor Co. came for Washington and announced their willingness to produce a methane-only car.

The problem, of course, with the methane-only car is that the infrastructure is not in place. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said: "What about availability?" This is part of the chicken-and-egg problem. You don't want to convert until you know there's a service station there to till up your automobile. The man who runs the service station doesn't want to put the equipment in until he knows you've converted. Because of that chicken-and-egg situation, we're going to have to move step by step to get people converting as the service stations are opened.

Here in British Columbia, our first public service station will be open next month. We hope to have as many as 50 planned or in operation by the end of the year. That's an unlikely target to reach.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you make a deal with PetroCan?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, we've had many discussions with PetroCan, and we're moving them along. But the unfortunate part is that it's an oil company and it really takes a little while to penetrate the thinking of an oil company about gas as a fuel.

Until this lock-step conversion can take place, it really is necessary to have a dual-fuel automobile. And this is the thing that we have yet to get across to the oil manufacturers. As far as Canada is concerned, what we paid for foreign oil last year was $13 billion — equal to the increase in our national debt. Half of that — $6.5 billion — went in a direct subsidy of $20 a barrel, and you get about 20 gallons of gasoline from that barrel. In other words, Canadians have been paying $1 a gallon subsidy for OPEC oil all this time. It's been hidden. We've got nothing to show at the end of the year for that except exhaust fumes, and at the same time we're shutting in our own Canadian fuel.

Worse than that, the federal government taxes our own Canadian fuel. I don't know how many members realize this, but natural gas is subsidized by this Legislative Assembly to about $1 per thousand cubic feet. It's taxed by the federal government to about that extent. So what we're doing in British Columbia is paying a horrendous tax on our native fuel, which then gets spent abroad for OPEC oil to run the automobiles.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The tax is $1.20.

HON. MR. McGEER: The federal tax is $1.20, and our subsidy is about a dollar, Mr. Minister. So that gives you some picture of the massive insanity that's going on in Canada today with respect to its energy policy.

[ Page 7637 ]

MR. HANSON: Liberals.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure, you supported them in the House of Commons to defeat the government. And it was over 17 cents a gallon. How many price rises have there been since that 17 cents? I'll tell you, I wouldn't support those Liberals, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, what we're trying to do in our small way and with the support of the opposition is get some common sense introduced into the global energy situation and our role in it in British Columbia. It's a step-by-step business. The first is to recognize that we've got our own Canadian fuel at prices that we can set for ourselves, except for the federal tax. Even with the federal tax, the cost to the consumer is about half the cost of gasoline. So there's going to be a big saving for those who convert.

I sympathize with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who complains about the high cost of conversion. It is costing too much. Essentially what you and I are required to do as consumers in order to use our own Canadian fuel in a so-called Canadian car is to spend a couple of thousand dollars correcting a congenital defect in that car. Because it has been designed for OPEC fuel, it's made more for the southern United States than it is for Canada, and therefore we deny ourselves a cleaner, superior — and cold-starting I might add, to bring in the Canadian weather conditions — fuel.

We should say just a word or two about propane and methane, because one of the great myths that exists in Canada today is that we have a surplus of propane and somehow this is what we should do for our automobile fleet in order to relieve our dependency upon OPEC and OPEC oil. Propane is about 2 percent of a gas field. There is not enough propane in North America to run the cars in the city of Montreal, much less all of North America. We don't have a surplus of propane here in British Columbia; in cold winters we need to import some. Propane is a minor constituent of an oil refinery. To the extent that we have a propane surplus temporarily in Canada today is because of refinery runs, not because of utilization of natural gas from our gas fields. There isn't enough of it.

So to all of those who look to propane as the answer to our oil problem, I merely say beware. If there is a shortage of oil, it's my firm conviction — I don't like to be a pessimist — that we can't get long-term stability out of the Middle East. There's too much money going into countries that simply can't handle the distribution of such wealth, but that's a personal opinion and each of you would make your own judgments. But I do say that if there is another oil crisis — if there is a shortage — then we will be pinched for propane just as we're pinched for oil. Vancouver Island depends on propane, because there is no natural gas pipeline. All of the isolated communities of the coast depend upon propane, because they don't have natural gas. Therefore we're not going to have enough for fleets that could otherwise run on gasoline and diesel, and if there's a shortage, the people who have cars or trucks that run only on propane are going to find that there simply isn't any of that commodity to go around.

Methane is a different question altogether. Some of the members have raised concern about safety. Methane is compressed in a thick-walled cylinder under pressure. If there's release of the gas, it's lighter than air and it goes right up, it doesn't puddle like propane. Therefore there isn't the danger of explosion in the basement, garage or the hold of the boat. There is a danger with automobiles. Members may have remembered seeing a sensational headline just a few weeks ago about seven people who had been killed in a tunnel in Oakland because of a rear-end car accident that caused gasoline to catch flame. You don't have that with methane. It is said that if we had started with methane or even propane as our fuel for automobiles, permission would never ever be given to use gasoline. So it's the safest of the fuels, and with proper management — less care than we have to exert with our current gasoline stations — all will be safe.

I can't resist making one comment about the Alsands oil project, about which there has been so much weeping in Canada. A projected cost of some $13 billion would produce, in approximately a decade, about 140,000 barrels of oil — sufficient to operate less than a million vehicles in Canada. For the cost of that Alsands project it would be possible to give away to every automobile owner in Canada a methane conversion kit. There is enough methane in Canada to drive all our automobiles, guzzling as much as they can, until the end of the next century. We've already got it. Therefore, if we gave every Canadian citizen a conversion kit, instead of building an Alsands plant, we'd be exporting oil to the United States and not engaging in the kind of polemic that's taking place today where the Americans are saying to Canada: "You're more dependent on oil than you ever were, and if you get into trouble we should let you freeze in the dark." We've been overconfident. We've been prodigal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: In theory methane would be a far superior system to propane or to gasoline. What you need to do for fishing boats is to install a cryogenic system and therefore have liquid natural gas in the boats. It would work extremely well. The Beech Aircraft Corporation has got a system they use in cars that would be perfect for putting into boats. If you had a small liquefying plant in Prince Rupert, then I would highly recommend to the fishing fleets that they convert to LNG, and I would also highly recommend to the Minister of Finance and the government that they give incentives to the boat-owners to do that. It would be a super fuel.

MRS. WALLACE: What about hydrogen?

HON. MR. McGEER: The problem with hydrogen is how you are going to make it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps under another bill this discussion would be okay.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can compare hydrogen and methane as fuels under this bill, may I not, Mr. Speaker? Methane is cheaper and it's available. Hydrogen has to be made by some method. A method for making hydrogen is electrolyzing water, but we don't have power development in British Columbia to do that. You can make it from oil, you can make it from methane, and you can make it from coal. We don't have the oil and as far as coal and methane are concerned, it is cheaper to use the methane straight or to make the methane from the coal. That will be cheaper and better for us. That is why hydrogen is not practical for us now, although it is being talked about as the fuel for the future for airplanes. Possibly that will come. If you go from oil to

[ Page 7638 ]

electricity and then to hydrogen you have really introduced a lot of inefficiency, and in so doing you've raised the price.

I would like to thank the minister and thank the New Democratic Party for their support. It is small. It's not going to overturn the world by itself but if it's successful and if we can only get the rest of North America to copy us — that was essentially the challenge I took to the Reagan administration in Washington last week — OPEC is finished.

MR. RITCHIE: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: It is certainly my pleasure, on behalf of our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) to introduce to the House 13 Girl Guides from the first Surrey troop of White Rock. They are accompanied by three adults and their leader, Mrs. Peelo. Would the House please welcome these people.

MR. HOWARD: I listened with tremendous interest to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), as I always do when he discusses subject matters with which he is thoroughly familiar. He does a very good job of fully explaining and discussing the ramifications of matters under his expertise. The only time he got into trouble was when he started to refer to his buddies in Ottawa, his friends in the Liberal Party; he stumbled and felt a bit embarrassed about that. In any event, I thoroughly enjoyed his explanation of things.

This is the type of bill in which there is an acceptable feature. That was the one discussed by the minister. There are a couple of unacceptable features, as far as I'm concerned. One was dealt with by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), with respect to the imposition of fines and restrictions placed upon the courts regarding their flexibility with respect to transgressions under this act.

One of the principles that I want to deal with relates to an increase in the tax on gasoline for purposes of the Urban Transit Authority Act. The way I read the bill in relation to the act which it seeks to amend — and perhaps the minister can correct me from his point of view — is that every person in British Columbia will be paying an increased gasoline tax for the purpose of subsidizing urban transit functions. In my view, that means that the bill proposes to further discriminate against people in rural areas, who don't have any urban transit authority applicable to them. For instance, everybody who lives in Atlin, where there is no urban transit system, who buys gasoline in Atlin will be paying an increased tax on gas in order to subsidize the urban transit system in the lower mainland and in other communities where it exists. People in my own constituency — in Smithers, Hazelton, Kitwanga and in all the small communities — who buy gasoline from any retailer will be paying this subsidy to the Urban Transit Authority. I think that sort of discrimination should not be contained within the act. I realize there is some difficulty in trying to confine it, for argument's sake, to the residents of the lower mainland.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not correct, Frank.

MR. HOWARD: The minister says I'm wrong. If I am wrong, I'd certainly appreciate the minister pointing it out to me in his closing remarks. What he's saying is that under sections 4 and 5 of this bill rural people are not required to pay the proposed tax increase on gasoline. If that is what the minister is saying, I would very much appreciate his full explanation of it, because people have asked me about it. I would also appreciate it if he could tell me, for argument's sake, how it is confined and how you are able to differentiate between the owner of a vehicle who lives in a rural area and one who lives in an urban area. In other words, if a person from a rural area drives into the city of Vancouver and buys gasoline, he will pay the tax, but if he buys it, say, in Chilliwack — I don't know whether there is an urban transit system in Chilliwack; I've just picked it as an example — then he does not pay it. Is that what the minister meant when he said I was wrong? I would appreciate it if he would identify the sections in the act where those exclusions exist.

MR. STUPICH: I think it's been a longer discussion than most of us had anticipated, but generally interesting. I must say that when the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications entered the debate and told us that the purpose of this bill was to make Sheik Yamani shake in his books, I wondered what bill was before us at this point. That certainly that wasn't the purpose announced by the Minister of Finance in introducing the bill.

I also have some real concern about one remark by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that was thrown in near the end of his presentation. He assured us that there is enough methane to drive all of the automobiles, wasteful as we are, until the end of the next century. It reminds me of the same arguments that were used by the Liberal government — at the time when he supported that government as a Liberal member of the Legislature — when they told us it was quite all right for us to export all our cheap oil. Because we had unlimited supplies, we exported it at $4 and $5 a barrel to the Americans. We're now buying it back, as he says, at a subsidy of $20 billion a year. If we were to use all our methane gas that rashly, then I think we would have other problems long before the end of the next century.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is continuing his arguments now, and he's advancing the same arguments as his Liberal cohorts used to do some 15 years ago: export it, get rid of it, because there's lots of it. He says we'll never run out of methane. We'll, that's fine, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I'm not here to prove him wrong some day in the future.

In any case, this idea of conversion is a good one. I don't think there is any question about that. Certainly we oppose the doubling in some cases of the minimum fines, in other cases of instituting minimums when there were no minimums before. But with respect to conversion, the NDP administration tried to get something going in a very small way by reducing the tax on propane used in automobiles. That didn't work. The present administration has been talking about this for several years. They have been trying to persuade people to convert. This, I suppose, is the largest step forward. I am curious as to whether any progress has been made to date. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance is able to tell us anything about progress to date.

A friend of mine here in Victoria converted to propane recently at a cost of $1,700. As I read this bill it won't help him, because he has to use propane. He drives on Vancouver

[ Page 7639 ]

Island, and this particular bill will not help him in any way, as I understand it, at least for some time to come. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications told us that his ministry car has been converted. He also told us that he can use either. I don't know whether his car is being driven on Vancouver Island or on the mainland. I don't know whether it's a fancy feature introduced into that particular automobile at great cost to the taxpayers, and yet is seldom used because the car is driven on Vancouver Island and has no access to that gas. I just don't know these things.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He drives it through the tunnel.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't even ask him about the tunnel. I think the time to ask him how much it cost to convert that particular automobile, and how often he uses the gas part of it, will be during discussion of his estimates.

But is the minister able to tell us anything at all? Has there been any progress made to date in conversions? I've told him of one. It's the only one I've ever heard of, and I must say that the person who told me about his own conversion is very pleased with it. The performance is excellent. He believes that even without the help that this bill would have given him, had it extended to propane as well, and if he gets the government grants that he's still hoping to get — after several months he's still hoping — as he drives a lot of mileage he will be able to pay for it in two years. That's some progress, but I wonder if the minister can tell us about any further progress.

I also wonder whether the minister would comment on this idea of why in so many pieces of legislation, this one in particular, the fines are being increased, leaving no freedom.... Not that I'm always ready and willing to put my faith in the hands of judges under all circumstances, but I think in this instance it might be better if the judge did have some freedom to have no minimum at all if he felt that way.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the comments which have been made with respect to this new measure. In answer to the member for Nanaimo, who has just taken his seat, the program is very new. Tomorrow we are graduating our second class of those trained in the conversion process. It is extremely new, and I think all hon. members recognize that. That is why the bill is before us at this time: to give full effect to what is happening in the private sector and the interest shown by individuals throughout British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points without getting into section-by-section debate.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) spoke about farm vehicles, and I would like to assure her that on matters of this nature, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), we are embarked on discussions with the executive of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. We have discussed this kind of process, and certainly the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the minister in particular, are very supportive of seeing this developed, refined and expanded. In specific answer to her question as I recall it, farmers can now use compressed natural gas and propane, exempt of any provincial tax, in a farm tractor or any other motor vehicle used on a farm. I think that was the point she made. Further discussions will be required and further amendments will come before this House, I'm sure, in time to come with respect to these fuels on farms throughout the province.

My colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has spoken about distribution. It is a chicken and egg. We have decided to start with the egg, I think, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) accepted my quiet interjection across the floor when he spoke of one aspect of this amending act which deals with the tax for UTA purposes. I would refer the member, without straying too far from the debate, to the Urban Transit Authority statute and the regulations which flow from that. Quite clearly it does not apply outside the designated area of the Greater Vancouver Regional District or the lower mainland. As an example, here we do not pay a tax on any fuel. With respect to Urban Transit Authority purposes, the Capital Regional District opted for another option. That was on our power bills. With respect to the hon. members for Atlin, Skeena or other areas in the interior and northern part of British Columbia — anywhere, in fact, but the Greater Vancouver Regional District — there is no change resulting from this review. It applies only to the purchase of fuel in that area. As I would expect if I were in another province, I pay the taxes that are appropriate in that province. In the case of an automobile in Vancouver, whether it is converted for these fuels or not, I will pay the tax that is levied in that area, notwithstanding the fact that my car is from Saanich, Skeena or whatever may be the case. I trust that assists the member in that regard. I refer him to section 5 of the Gasoline Tax Act.

We had a considerable debate yesterday on minimum fines. On this point, members opposite and members on this side disagreed. We are altering a number of fines in a number of statutes. I think we had an interesting debate yesterday, with participation by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It certainly applies in precisely the same way to the act which is presently before us.

One member who is not in his seat — and it was a lawyer who yesterday observed that lawyers make their point and then take off, or words to that effect — is the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I hope that he will hear this or will read it later, with respect to who is in control of the Ministry of Finance. He spoke specifically of this. I have no doubts about that. I understand that the buck stops with the minister. If the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, had one-fiftieth of the control that I have here over the Ministry of Finance in Ottawa, this country would be in a hell of a lot better shape. I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 22, Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 23.

MOTIVE FUEL USE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would hope that the members will agree that this bill is more appropriately debated in committee. There may be some sections with which members agree fully and others with which they disagree. I have some second reading comments, but I would suggest to the House with respect that committee debate on this bill would be more appropriate. Therefore I move second reading of Bill 23.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition agrees.

[ Page 7640 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Motive Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I defer to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) if he wishes.

I have some questions to answer from yesterday. Among the questions posed yesterday — I think in this particular case they were from the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — were some concerning the degree of consultation which occurred and the communication which was held with a number of organizations. I had earlier referred — in order that we have this in context — to the number of briefs which had been received following the invitation. Then on February 22, some four days after the announcement of the compensation stabilization program, meetings occurred with a number of representatives present. I make it clear that I was not present for those meetings. I believe there are very valid reasons why I should not be in on these discussions. The program was explained in some detail. I am as satisfied as I can be with respect to the organizations I am about to mention. If there is an error or an omission, it is not intentional and I trust the committee will understand. Attendant on February 22 in this building were representatives of: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers; the British Columbia Firefighters Association; Teamsters joint council, local 36; the Workers' Compensation Board Employees Union — actually there were two groups representing the WCB employees; the Camosun College Faculty Association; the BCIT Staff Society; and the Professional Employees Association, otherwise known as the managers in the provincial government. Others were contacted on an individual basis dealing with individual aspects of the program. I would not want to leave the committee with the impression that this consultation all took place on February 22, but I did indicate those organizations which were represented on that date. Subsequent to that, however, there were a number of telephone calls and a number of meetings of one kind or another.

I don't know if yesterday the member was interested in the meetings with employer groups or employer representatives. Very briefly they were with representatives of the University of Victoria, British Columbia Hydro, the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, British Columbia Ferry Corporation, British Columbia Assessment Authority, British Columbia Systems Corporation, the British Columbia School Trustees Association, British Columbia Buildings Corporation, the Public Employers of B.C., the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and then some regional education and municipal organizations such as BCSTA in the Okanagan, the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association, the Greater Vancouver Regional District Labour Relations Department and the Government Employee Relations Bureau, among others. Those meetings occurred in the days just following the announcement by the Premier on February 18. While some members of the committee may still have concerns, I'm satisfied that a number of consultations did in fact take place. I could carry on with additional examples, but I trust that will satisfy the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who mentioned this in a somewhat critical sense yesterday.

MR. LEVI: I wonder if I could just go back to the minister. When I spoke yesterday, I asked about the consultative process. All you've told us — and I know you've said you were not there.... But what did you actually discuss with them? The point we've been making is that the Premier made the announcement and presumably set the guidelines. What did you tell these people? What kind of things were discussed? After all, the majority of the people you listed submitted briefs which were two pages or less. Perhaps the minister can tell us, if he's heard from his officials, just what the nature of the discussions was. It is my impression from talking to some people that they simply had the guidelines laid out because of what the Premier said. Now what was the discussion all about then? That's really what we would like to know.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I recall my briefing following those meetings, and the discussions related to the program and how it would be implemented. Some of the discussions, particularly one which I think occurred the day following the Premier's announcement, would have been more of a listening situation with respect to the individuals who attended. I speak of the meetings with employers' representatives, but I think by February 22, some four days later, there was an opportunity for the kind of interchange between the representatives of various trade unions or union groups and the officials who are charged with the administration of this measure. I can't cite book, chapter and verse — precisely what occurred — for the member. It's not that I decline, but as I have observed and as he acknowledged, I was not present. But there was general discussion of the need for public-sector stabilization, public-sector restraint and the kind of give and take which would flow in a meeting such as that.

MR. LEVI: I just draw the minister's attention to one letter that he got, in which there was a fairly detailed brief. That was from the health association. I covered that yesterday in my speech. Yesterday, when I quoted from that brief, that association was warning the minister, in no uncertain terms, that the application of the guidelines was going to have a serious impact on that association and all of the health-delivery systems. From maintaining the senior staff, they said it could very well lead to a lot of people leaving the province. I'm talking about senior administrators. After all, the impact of what the Premier announced was that there was going to be restraint, which we now interpret on this side, on

[ Page 7641 ]

the basis of the evidence, as cutbacks. And here we were dealing with the health-delivery system.

Can the minister recall whether he dealt with that one? That was a very significant brief that they put forward, in which they cautioned the minister; and the very things that they said would happen have in fact happened, particularly to the health system. That was sent in March; that was not done in February. That was a very significant brief, Mr. Chairman.

Does the minister recall that? They gave some very significant warnings, which evidently have not been heeded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, throughout this process, following the evening of February 18, there were concerns expressed on a number of occasions with the freeze imposed on senior officials. I think that may have been the case in the brief to which the member has referred. I recall that through March and into April — I don't say it critically, but it is a fact — considerable concern was expressed by groups of officials or individual officials, regarding the vast number of employees that would be affected not by the CSP but rather by the freeze which was imposed immediately, and the review of which is still underway. I offer that for the committee's consideration and for their own interpretation of that sort of dialogue that did occur. I admit that it did occur. It occurred on a number of occasions, but it was not to do with large groups of employees but rather the officials whose salaries were frozen as of the announcement.

MR. KING: I have a little difficulty with the process which the minister has just outlined. It seems to me that it's a bit difficult for people to respond and engage in any intelligent or meaningful dialogue when there is a lack of any clear enunciation of the guidelines that are to be imposed upon them. The statute itself is totally flexible, as I read it. The minister can say it is the intention to proceed with the guidelines spelled out by the Premier back in February, but that's not what the statute says. The statute says in section 9: "The executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers and public-sector employees." That is totally permissive. That empowers the minister, as the representative of cabinet, to establish guidelines at any level he chooses. That is what the statute provides for. Section (a) simply refers to the period of time the guidelines will be in effect, and section (b) contains the methods for introducing them. There is another section of the bill, yet to be debated in committee stage, which provides that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the stabilization of compensation in the public sector, and I wonder why the difference. Section 9, which is before the committee now, says the executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines unrestricted, unspecified, which means the minister is asking the Legislature to vote him the authority to arbitrarily set the guidelines, in the secrecy of his office, at whatever level he may deem appropriate. Under this permissive legislation, it is not necessary to be consistent. The minister may set guidelines at one standard for one group of public-service employees and employers, and at quite another for a different sector of public employees and employers.

That is the kind of sweeping, unrestricted power that no minister of the Crown should come before the Legislature and ask for. He is asking us to write a blank cheque, to give him the authority to arbitrarily set the standards of compensation for thousands of public servants and their employers in the province of British Columbia. Aside from the philosophy behind the bill generally, I submit that it's totally inappropriate for any minister or any government to ask for the kind of blank cheque authority that is contained in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it's not only the opposition that is confused about the government's intentions. It's not only the opposition and those people who will be affected by this particular section. Daily headlines and comments are made by colleagues of the Minister of Finance and by the leader of the government and his staff, which come into conflict with what the minister's stated objectives are. There is a headline in the Province today saying: "Bennett Says Rollback Men Won't Have to Touch Pacts."

"Premier Bill Bennett said Monday the man who will rule on public-sector wage increases will be like 'the Maytag repair man — the loneliest man in town.'

"Bennett suggested that Ed Peck, commissioner of the government's compensation stabilization program, won't have any contracts to deal with, because they'll all be under the government's guidelines for wage increases of 8 percent to 14 percent.

"Bennett said in an interview: 'What I see developing in the community, both from the public-sector employers and amongst the workers in the public service, is a real willingness to settle responsibly and keep their colleagues employed and not see any deterioration in services.

"'I'm confident now from what I see that a responsibility and challenge has been placed on them, and they will respond to it.

"'I think now that the commissioner, Mr. Peck, will probably not have any contracts to deal with. The job will be done by the people who should do it on a voluntary basis.

"'I think he will be like the Maytag repairman — the loneliest man in town.'

"Peck later laughed at the 'good line' — but said he'll stay open for business. In the Legislature...."

Well, I won't read the whole article, but the point is, we are being asked to vote moneys to the commissioner and his office to the tune of approximately $883,000 for a function which is not clearly specified in the statute before the House, for a function which now the Premier of the province says will be of no value. There will be nothing to refer to him — he'll be like the Maytag salesman with no work or activity to undertake.

This is the government, Mr. Chairman, which is advocating restraint. This is the government which is advocating curtailing foolish public spending, and here we have a proposal before the Legislature costing $883,000 — close to $1 million — for a function that the Premier now says is totally useless, totally irrelevant and without any useful function to perform.

What kind of madness have we got before us? What kind of nonsense is this when we have the Premier and the sponsor of the bill — the Minister of Finance — openly fighting in public about what the guidelines are? The Premier, on the one hand, is saying the guidelines will be 5 percent or less. The Minister of Finance is saying: "Oh, no, the statement of February indicating a 10 percent to 14 percent level is the operative statement." We now have the Deputy Minister of

[ Page 7642 ]

Intergovernmental Relations, who is seconded to the Minister of Finance to develop and try and advise him on this bill, in open conflict with the deputy minister from the Premier's office, Mr. Spector. Mr. Spector is saying one thing and the architect of the bill is saying quite another. What utter and absurd nonsense for the minister to insist that this bill be shoved through the House, with the majority the Social Credit Party holds, without the responsibility to outline clearly what the purpose, the function and the guidelines are. There's no coherence to this program whatsoever. It's not only making a mockery of the collective-bargaining system; it is not only threatening and undermining the confidence of the total industrial relations community in the impartiality of the government's role in collective bargaining — particularly with respect to arbitration. The Premier of the province says: "If we don't like the arbitration award, we'll override it. We'll call the Legislature back and we'll override any arbitration award that we do not like, if it exceeds the guideline that is unstated." It's totally absurd — and the minister can surely recognize that.

The final absurdity and the final irony, I think, is contained in the statement in the minister's estimates with respect to the compensation stabilization program. Here is the vote description: "This vote provides for the introduction and administration of the public-sector compensation stabilization program and allows for" — listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "the establishment of an independent administrative agency to interpret and administer policies and regulations developed under the program." How can it be independent when the Premier says: "If we don't like the arbitration we're going to call the Legislature back and we're going to override that arbitration"?

The arbitrators recognize that this is an unwarranted intrusion into their independence and impartiality. Statements have been made by many highly qualified arbitrators whose integrity and professional qualifications are impeccable, such as the recently retired chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Don Munroe, who clearly indicated that interference with his independence is not welcome from the Premier, the government or anyone else. The whole theory of adjudication, whether in labour relations or in a court of law, is that there be an independent adjudicator with impeccable integrity and credentials. What this government is clearly doing, apparently oblivious to the need to ensure that justice is done — and is also seen to be done — is chipping away at the credibility of that adjudicative process. It is sheer madness.

Under this bill the independence talked of the administrative staff of the stabilization program is eroded and removed. How can Mr. Peck be independent when the Premier calls him a Maytag repairman and says there'll be no work for him? What is he paid? "B.C. restraint czar 'loneliest' but comforted by $325 a day," says an article in the Victoria Times-Colonist this morning. To quote briefly from it:

"While British Columbians are staggering under the burden of Premier Bennett's restraint program, the government is spending $882,000 for its own Maytag repairman.

"Ed Peck, the restraint commissioner, who now receives $325 a day, has a budget of $882,000 this year to review all public-sector settlements and ensure that they don't surpass the 8 to 14 percent limits imposed by Bennett last February. Peck already has hired several employees at more than $50,000 a year.

"He will have power to roll back contracts that exceed the guidelines, and Bennett has threatened legislative action against any contracts that threaten layoffs or loss of services, even if they honour the limits."

Mr. Chairman, we have to believe the Premier. He's already cut back on employees in the health industry in the province of British Columbia. Hundreds of hospital beds are closing and over 2,000 hospital employees have been laid off already, and this is as a result of cutbacks imposed not on a new contract but on the existing contract from last year. What a state of utter chaos and confusion the Premier and the Minister of Finance have introduced into health care in this province and into industrial relations by the conflicting fuzzy-headed policies that they are trying to introduce in this Legislature.

It's totally absurd, and we don't know who to believe. The Minister of Finance says the guidelines are going to be those enunciated back in February. The Premier makes a different statement every day; and, after all, he is the leader of the government. We have to believe that the Premier, as confused as he is, has more clout within his own cabinet than does the Minister of Finance. So we have to believe that the Premier is correct when he says there'll be nothing for Mr. Peck to do; there'll be no business referred to him for his $325-a-day salary. We also have to believe the Premier when he says that the guideline may now be 5 percent or it may be no increase at all.

All the opposition can do is scrutinize the statutory authority provided in the bill before the House, and that particular statutory authority leaves it wide open as to what the guidelines will be. Indeed, it may be the intention of the Minister of Finance to say it's a basic 8 percent, 10 percent or whatever, with an additional 2 percent available for unusual circumstances or for demonstrated productivity increases, but absolutely nothing in the statute restricts the level to those numbers. The statute is permissive, it's wide open; it allows the cabinet and the minister separately, in two different sections, to do any darned thing they please. Under this particular statute, the government could, once the bill is passed, come in with a regulation providing for a 10 percent cut in pay for all public servants. That authority is there; no question about it.

I have to wonder what the Premier's intention is when he talks about calling back the Legislature to scrutinize and to amend any ruling that the commissioner makes. He talks about calling back the Legislature, but he already has the power, as contained in this bill, to do as he chooses. I have never before, in all the years in the Legislature, seen such an utter state of chaos and confusion surrounding any statute introduced in this House. Perhaps there is one exception, and that was last year when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) introduced amendments to the electrical inspection or gasfitter's bill, or whatever. He was totally unfamiliar with the contents of it and, under questioning from my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford), uttered an expletive and abandoned the bill on the floor of the House. I suppose that's all right, but it doesn't really do a great deal to instil confidence in the people of the province that this government knows where it's going, knows what it's doing, or has any coherent policy at all. I suggest that the same kind of problem exists with this particular bill that's before the House.

[ Page 7643 ]

Perhaps Allen Garr put it best in his column today, when he presumed to intercept the message to the Premier somewhere in outer space. I think it was taken from the Mork and Mindy show, and I can't think of a more likely stand-in for Mork than the Premier of this province.

It's totally unacceptable. If the Premier or the minister were prepared to amend this section to give specific guidelines, then at least it would be reasonably fair to the employees affected. At least they would know what the standard is. They would know that the goalposts are not going to be changed during the middle of the game. At least the members of the Legislature would know that we're not giving the blank cheque to that government that very few people trust these days, but that we are voting on a specific authority for a limited purpose. Under this section there is no such limitation; it's carte blanche and it's a blank cheque. No government — leastwise a discredited administration such as this one — should come before the Legislature asking for this kind of power.

The Premier is agitated. His colour is high. He's obviously under a great deal of stress and pressure.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 9, hon. members.

MR. KING: I appreciate that we're on section 9, but I have someone piping away at me — someone who seems highly agitated, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've been ordered to oppose the bill.

MR. KING: There's that artificial giggle again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 9, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I know the Premier is agitated. So he should be, because he has an obligation to clarify the government's intention. He has repudiated his Minister of Finance, the sponsor of the bill. He has impaired the credibility of the commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, who has an impeccable record of integrity in terms of his record with the industrial relations community. Now the Premier refers to him as a "Maytag salesman."

Mr. Chairman, it's rude and it certainly casts questions as to the function and the purpose and the worthwhile objective to which Mr. Peck has been assigned. I think that's regrettable — indeed, I think it's unforgivable.

The Premier has destroyed the credibility of his Minister of Finance already by repudiating what the Minister of Finance told us in the House. He disagreed with the figures publicly. He's got his own Deputy Minister, Mr. Spector — the phantom. He's got him disagreeing publicly and repudiating the architect of the bill, Mr. Matkin, who at least knows something about industrial relations. Everyone on that side of the House surrounding this particular bill and this specific section is in a state of total disarray, yet they are too stubborn to admit that they have erred on this provision. At least the Premier's father used to be willing and flexible enough to take a second look. It is unfortunate that we have a very stubborn, hidebound government today which insists on going blithely ahead, even though it is obviously heading into troubled waters without the understanding and sensitivity to heed any advice whatsoever.

We can't support this kind of authoritarian power for this government. We have to have clarification from the Premier and his Minister of Finance as to who was right.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're afraid to vote on it.

MR. KING: No. we're not afraid to vote on it. We have always stated our position quite clearly, and we've been true to our position. We have never fled our party in an opportunistic way in order to get on a coalition bandwagon. The bill is authoritarian and arbitrary, and until....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've never fled? How about the debate on independent schools? You ran so fast!

MR. KING: I think they made an error when they sent Bill down here instead of Russell. I think Russell had the most to contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Please address section 9.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I am just amazed that the government is asking for this kind of awesome, arbitrary, unbridled power without being able to identify precisely what the purpose is, what the guidelines are and how they are going to be enforced and administered. We have had nothing but conflicting statements. We have had the Premier repudiating and undercutting his own Minister of Finance, the architect of the bill. We have had Mr. Spector, who came out here from Ontario to shore up the Premier's image, sneaking out of his office into the corridor every once in a while and making a statement which conflicts with that made by Mr. Matkin — I assume it is Matkin, the architect of the bill. This is a totally unsatisfactory method by which to introduce a statute in this House and guide it through the legislative chamber. No responsible opposition can grant that kind of authority to a government which is in disarray, or to a government that apparently can't even get its own act well enough together to agree on what the guidelines should be. If you're going to regulate and restrict people, surely they have a right to know precisely what the regulations and restrictions are going to be. How do you comply, otherwise?

The Premier said: "I'm satisfied that these cooperative people in the public sector are going to comply voluntarily." Comply with what? Is it 10 percent, 14 percent, 8 percent, 5 percent or, as the Premier himself said, in some cases no increase at all? They have a right to know what it is. Does the government have any idea? Can they come up with a coherent and mutually agreeable guideline? It's totally unacceptable. It's just another indication of the ineptitude of this government that apparently strikes out, each in his own way. It's not good enough to put this kind of measure before the House, to ask for this totally unacceptable and wide power, without very carefully outlining to the people affected and to the Legislature just precisely how it's going to be used.

Three weeks ago the minister's adviser, Mr. Matkin, indicated that the guidelines would be ready in a week or so. Well, if they're ready, let's see them. Better still, why not

[ Page 7644 ]

write the guidelines into the statute, which would ensure that in the secrecy of the cabinet room the government are not going to have a change of mind tomorrow and alter the goalposts? That's what we're concerned about. If they know what they're doing, if they are dedicated to a guideline, for goodness' sake include it in the statute, so everyone knows where you are going, and you are committed to it by law. That's what we're asking. To give you this kind of unbridled power, which can be wielded in secrecy, is totally irresponsible and totally unacceptable.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to rise on a point of order, although it would have been appropriate a couple of times while the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was speaking. I would draw the Chair's attention again to our standing order 61(2). It seems to me that sections 3 and 6 of the bill, which have already been approved in committee, covered a number of the remarks made by the member.

Having said that, there are a few more comments I could make. I would assume they would be more appropriate later on this afternoon. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.