1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 341

Oral questions.

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

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

Impaired driving. Mr. Leggatt –– 342

Lake Cowichan activity centre. Mrs. Wallace –– 342

BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 343

Fraser Valley farm workers. Ms. Sanford –– 343

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 343

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates.

On vote 100.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 343

Mr. Hall –– 344

Mr. Stupich –– 344

Mr. Levi –– 345

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 345

Mr. Stupich –– 345

Mr. Levi –– 346

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 346

On vote 106.

Mrs. Wallace –– 347

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 347

Mr. Nicolson –– 348

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 348

On vote 108.

Mr. Stupich –– 348

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 348

On vote 111.

Mr. Stupich –– 349

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

On vote 116.

Mr. Stupich –– 349

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Deregulation estimates.

On vote 52.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 349

Mr. Hall –– 350

Mr. Barrett –– 351

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 352

On vote 54.

Mr. Barber –– 353

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 353

Mr. Barrett –– 356

Presenting Reports

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 370

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 370

Travel Insurance Board report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 370

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker. It is

my privilege today to present to the House some first-time visitors to

the province of British Columbia: my brother Howard, his wife Lois,

their daughter Elizabeth, and their son Dennis. They think B.C. is

pretty exciting, and if I keep talking to them they may stay here for

some time to come. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have relatives here this afternoon too. They come from

Winnipeg, Manitoba, and I would like the House to welcome Bob, Jose and

Pam Sanford.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, there are five

people whom I should like to introduce to the House today. The first of

them is a fellow with whom I had the honour of serving in the old and

fine days of the Alcohol and Drug Commission — his name is Ian Waddell.

He has now gone on to better things; he is the member of parliament for

Vancouver Kingsway. He and his associates, Sharon Olsen, Jim Duval,

Richard Bauln and Jack Woodward, are in the House today, and I ask the

members to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of myself and the member for Prince George North

(Mr. Heinrich), I would like the House to welcome His Worship Elmer

Mercier, the mayor of Prince George; Mrs. Bunty Mercier, Miss Gaylene

Mercier, and my wife Beverley.

MR. BARNES: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are Jude Kornelsen and

Ms. Tanis Saukins, both of Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver.

They aspire to become political scientists and hope to enter political

science at either UBC or UVic. I would like you to welcome them.

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

Introduction of Bills

MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

14 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed an orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CROWN LAND SALES BY REALTORS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. On April 6 the minister made a statement that no Crown land would be

going to the realtors of the province of British Columbia — either for sale

or for purchase. Does the minister still stick with that statement that he made

on April 6? Is that still the policy of the government of British Columbia?

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

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

MR. LEA:

A different question: is the minister aware that on March 6 — that’s

prior to April for the minister's knowledge — this policy was already

in effect within his ministry? Is the minister aware that when he made

that statement in April the policy that he denied was already in effect

in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing?

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon, members, the standing orders, or at least the rules

and practice of the House, prevent members from rephrasing questions in

such a way as to ask the same question again. I would like to caution

hon. members.

MR. LEA: A different question, Mr.

Speaker. Would the minister tell me whether he has any knowledge of his

ministry taking down payments from anyone for a piece of Crown land and

then, without notifying the people who made that down payment, turning

over through the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and selling land

they've already had down payments on? Is the minister aware that that's

happened in the ministry — that the ministry has taken down payments

for land and then, without even notifying the people who paid those

down payments, given that land to the realtors and they've sold it? Is

the minister aware that that has gone on in his ministry?

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, it seems to me I recall cautioning the House on Thursday

of last week about phrasing questions in such a way as to bring

information to the House. Those questions are not admissible, and I

wish members would keep this in mind as they're phrasing their

questions,

MR. LEA: Would the minister tell me if the

Government has worked out any ratio, when dispersing the Crown land, as

to what will go to the private sector and what will go to the public

sector and a method of determining what that ratio will be? Has the

government reached any decision on that?

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

[ Page 342 ]

MR. LEA:

One final question: would the minister have any objection if, after the

question period, I were to table absolute proof that he either doesn't

know what's going on in his ministry or that he knows and he's afraid

to tell us what's going on? Would he have any objection to me filing

documents in this House to prove that?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. That's clearly a question of future action, hon. member.

If the member wishes to table documents, he may do so by simply

requesting leave at a time which is suitable to the hon. member.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of

all I'd like to welcome the Attorney-General, because I've been trying

to ask him this question for a couple of weeks now. So welcome, Mr.

Attorney-General.

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

MS. BROWN: But not during question period.

Mr.

Speaker, to the Attorney-General, there is a great deal of uncertainty

about the Family Relations Act in the community at large because of

Judge Govan's decision that it went beyond the purview of the

provincial government. Is the Attorney-General doing anything to clear

this matter up?

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

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

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

IMPAIRED DRIVING

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Attorney-General also. It concerns the

recent changes to the Automobile Insurance Act in the

Attorney-General's drive against impaired driving in British Columbia.

the present time the law is that ICBC is only legally obligated to

cover minimum limits in the event of there being third-party victims as

a result of impaired driving. The minimum limit at the present time, I

understand, is $75,000. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if

he intends to bring forward a change in that law so that people in the

position of being quadriplegics or paraplegics have some assurance that

there is protection under the law if they are victims of impaired

driving?

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is actually a topic

that is not within my portfolio, but it's a very valid question. I

would like to take it as notice. It is a question of policy, but I'll

have to take it as notice today.

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

MR. LEGGATT:

While the minister is taking that as notice, would he also have a look

at the impact upon the impaired driver himself? At the present time the

change in the law will result in the bankruptcy of a person who, say,

has insured himself for $1 million or so. Under the law he denies

himself that insurance as a result of his impairment, and will wind up

as a bankrupt because of the subrogation provisions. Is the minister

also considering some change in the rules of subrogation against the

insured?

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

LAKE COWICHAN ACTIVITY CENTRE

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, and it relates

to the Lake Cowichan activity centre. This centre has been proclaimed by the

Canadian Mental Health Association as a model of what voluntary action can do

for mental health in a small community. The Human Resources grant to this centre

has been cut by 60 percent and the centre is facing closure. In spite of pleas

from myself and local individuals and groups, no increase has been forthcoming

except an interim grant delivered by the Social Credit candidate to prevent

closure during the election campaign.

Will

the Premier assure this House that funds will be forthcoming, through

the interministerial committee or other source, to keep this centre in

operation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this matter

is one which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could

resolve during her estimates. As valid as the question might be, the

budget has been set up for the estimates of the minister. It might be

possible for them to change priorities within the ministry, but we are

all dealing with areas — my own included — where many organizations

can't receive the amount of funding they would wish, so I can't give

you a yes or a no, but the matter will be discussed.

The

member has written two letters to me on this subject. I noticed that a

copy of the second letter went to the Minister of Human Resources. The

first letter did not, and, as such, there has been some difficulty now

in me meeting the Minister of Human Resources, who wasn't included in

earlier correspondence. That's now been passed along.

MRS. WALLACE:

I am sure that the Minister of Human Resources, if she were in the

House, would be able to advise the Premier that she has refused the

grant because the services that are being provided are not in the

purview of Human Resources. For that reason I am asking the Premier, as

the chief officer of the cabinet, to intervene with the

interministerial committee to ensure that this area, which falls

between several different ministries, does have attention before the

end of the summer.

[ Page 343 ]

BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier inform this House

whether he, or any of his representatives, have met with the board of

governors, or any of their staff, of the Toronto Stock Exchange to

discuss the listing on that exchange of the share offering in the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, neither myself nor anyone specifically authorized by me

has met, but it may be possible that someone from the Finance ministry

or someone other.... I know of no such meeting right now, but I will

certainly be glad to look into the situation for you and find out if

anyone has met, but they haven't done so on my instruction.

MR. BARBER:

Could you make the same inquiry regarding the Montreal Stock Exchange

and, as well, might you ask Mr. Helliwell or any of his representatives

if they have been in contact with the boards of governors or the senior

staff of either the Toronto or the Montreal stock exchanges?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not to be a Crown

corporation. It now has a large number of shareholders awaiting their

shares, and Mr. Helliwell may respond to his shareholders. You might

ask him that publicly, whether they have or haven't. It's up to them,

not the government of British Columbia, to arrange an orderly market

for their shares with exchanges. I will certainly pass along the

information.

FRASER VALLEY FARM WORKERS

MS. SANFORD:

We're getting our wires crossed here this afternoon. I would like to

pose a question to the Minister of Labour. There is a problem

surrounding the contracting out of farm labour in the Fraser Valley.

The minister indicated to this House there was an ongoing study with

respect to that particular problem. I'm wondering how long the study

has been underway, and I will ask that question first.

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

MS. SANFORD:

Could the minister advise the House when that study will be completed

so that an end to the exploitation of those farm workers can take place

through the efforts of this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The end of the study will not determine when any exploitation will

stop. The study is designed to ascertain if there is any exploitation,

and the extent of it,

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING:

A question to the Minister of Forests: could the minister tell us if

any timber has been removed from current quota and licence holders

under the small business program to date?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

There is no such thing as "quota in the small-business program." As the

member is probably aware, the regulations for the small-business

program were passed perhaps three weeks ago. Also. before the

regulations can be fully implemented, a minor amendment to the Forest

Act is required. The regional managers of the Forest Service have been

advised to prepare and start getting the program moving. I cannot tell

the member at this point whether or not actual sales have gone ahead.

Certainly no quota or allocations to people in the small-business

program have been removed.

Mr. Lea tabled documents.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to answer two or

three questions raised during the debate on estimates on Friday, before

their members ask questions.

First of all, the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) wanted a breakdown on the statement that an

additional direct debt of some $1 billion would have resulted if the

tax, increases in the early 1976 period had not in fact been

instituted. The member was concerned over the accuracy of this figure

and wanted an opportunity to examine the figures. I just want to

explain to him that I am putting these together; I have a breakdown of

the figure that we're talking about, but I want to have it updated and

will be supplying it to him within the next day or two, The breakdown I

now have relates to the impact on individuals. I think we should

appreciate and agree on the fact that it is through the total revenues

which would have been forgone had those increases not been put in place

that we have to examine what the impact of the resulting direct debt

would have been on provincial revenues.

Secondly, Mr.

Chairman, there were statements made by this member and others taking

exception to the inference that the former government had overestimated

the revenues in the year 1975. By way of reminder I'd like to supply

the House with a breakdown of all the revenue items for that year,

showing the original estimate of those revenues and the resulting

actual figure for revenues. I think the picture will become very clear,

in that the original budgeted revenue was some $3.2 billion and the

actual final revenue for that period was $2.972 billion. In other

words, there was an overestimate of some 7.8 percent for that period,

and it is, generally speaking, right across the board.

Mr.

Chairman, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wanted me to look into the

matter of requested government agencies at the villages of Fraser Lake

and Granisle. I now have reports on these two matters, and I can say,

with regard to the village of Fraser Lake, that there is a field report

on this particular area, and I will have the report in my hands in the

very near future and will report to him at that time. Secondly, he was

asking about the village of

[ Page 344 ]

Granisle.

There has been an ongoing discussion, I believe, between the

motor-vehicles branch and my ministry — through the government agency

system — and the village, which originally requested back in 1973 to be

allowed to handle motor-vehicle matters. They wanted to alter the

situation early in 1978, at which time a review of various numbers

indicated that there was no justification at that time for a separate

agency at the village. I just want to indicate to the member that we

will again review that situation at Granisle.

Mr. Chairman,

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked questions of a

detailed nature regarding the Systems Corporation. He wanted to know

the numbers of excluded employees and the number of employees in the

bargaining unit, and, I believe, he also wanted to have the salary

totals for those two categories. I don't have those figures — I was

just not able to get them this morning — but I will be able to supply

those to him on a subsequent day.

Further, the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Hall) wanted a detailed breakdown of the salary vote

for the Ministry of Finance. I have that breakdown here, which totals

$87,149 and accounts by classification for five different staff members.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the minister has now got those figures, but

he hasn't given them to us. If the question is on the record, should

not the answer be on the record?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Fair

enough. Mr. Chairman, I was going to hand the member the breakdown of

the salary vote for the minister's office. It is as follows — for the

year 1979-80: the Minister of Finance — $24,000; minister's executive

assistant — $19,500; secretary to the minister — $16,836; clerk-steno 4

— $14,573; office assistant 2 — $12,240. Total: five employees —

$87,149.

MR. HALL: I asked the minister two other

questions on Friday. The answer to one was that I should take the

matter up when the Provincial Secretary's estimates come up in the

alphabetical way in which I understand we are still proceeding with

estimates, although the committee obviously has no real knowledge of

that. I am not prepared to wait until the end of the estimates to get

some sort of answer. My question was what, as the minister who collects

the information to put this budget together, he can tell the House

about the criteria used and whether he and his Deputy Minister of

Finance are satisfied the correct criteria are used in establishing the

rents paid to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for each of

the ministerial occupancies.

As this is a figure common to

all estimates, I would like to know whether it is the going rate, the

commercial rate, the local municipal rate, or if it is a standard

provincial rate — a number of things like that would occur to me to

ask. I wonder if the minister could advise on that.

My other

question — again the common denominator throughout the estimates — is

that of recruitment savings. The minister said there was something

about that in the budget. There may well be there's something about

everything in the budget. What I would like the minister to tell me is

how recruitment savings work. That line in the budget is a deductible

item from all expenses, which total some millions of dollars. I would

like the minister to tell me how it's going to work, and what level of

achievement is anticipating being seized.

The last question

I asked him was: in view of the auditor-general's report on page 43, in

which the auditor-general says, referring to the liquor distribution

branch, that in general the accounting systems and procedures were

found to be inadequate for today's business environment, was he as

swift in seeing that department as he announced he was in seeing the

Minister of Forests? And if he has seen the Liquor Board people, what

success has been achieved there? Indeed, have all the inquiries

announced during the past three years by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) and by the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) when he was

the Minister of Consumer Affairs now been finished? Can this House be

satisfied that the accounting and control systems in the liquor

distribution branch are okay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As

explained in the budget, the recruitment saving question is a deduction

from each ministry's salary vote. It was based on an estimate of 10

percent, represented in the type of saving which we are referring to —

that is, vacant positions, not filled as yet, where there is a search

for employees. There is an ongoing saving previously unexpressed.

The

total salaries in all these estimates are some $600 million, so 10

percent of that is $60 million spread across the ministries. If you

took at any one ministry, I believe, you will find the deduction from

the ministry's vote is roughly 10 percent.

Second, on the

question about space occupancy — the basis of arriving at it, and so on

— the minister responsible, the Provincial Secretary who has to do with

the B.C. Buildings Corporation, will have a complete breakdown on that.

Any minister who sees this vote in his estimates has the liberty to

examine and question and ask questions as to whether the charge is

excessive or not.

But it might be more appropriate to direct

that question to the Provincial Secretary. Similarly, with the liquor

distribution branch, the minister associated consumer services would

have answers to the questions regarding studies and to the financial

concerns over the liquor distribution branch; they should be addressed

to him.

MR. STUPICH: I'm interested at the minister's

offering to table in the House, I gather, a photocopy out of public

accounts of two pages, because all the information is there. He's not

offering to table at the same time — and I'm not asking him to —

similar pages out of public accounts for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78.

The point of my presentation last week on this matter was that, in some

instances, the revenue estimate he presented exceeded the actual

revenue by as much, or more, as some single instances in our case. His

tabling of those documents isn't going to solve that argument, or

change my presentation or change his presentation. Neither is it going

to add very much to our information since it's simply a couple of pages

out of public accounts.

I just wanted to emphasize a couple

of points. The minister has so far refrained from accepting my

challenge to tell us how much the province was in debt on December 22,

so I take it we actually weren't. I have been saying that all along,

and he hasn't denied that. I think it's safe to assume

[ Page 345 ]

the

province was not in debt when the government changed hands on December

22. I did ask him to give examples of government waste under the NDP

administration, and he has not accepted that challenge either.

have a couple of questions about the proposed regulations under the

bill to amend the Income Tax Act. The regulations were circulated among

the leaders of the various opposition parties, and the specific

questions are with respect to those regulations. This is something the

minister can answer later if he prefers, but I'm wondering whether or

not it was his intention that the regulations would actually contain a

pro forma receipt or whether we are to be guided simply by the

description within the regulations. Federally, for example, not only is

there a pro forma receipt, but I believe the blank receipts are made

available and are circulated.

The second question is with

respect to a report that's called "The Prescribed Return." Does the

minister intend to make blank copies of these available? I'm just

wondering about the administration of this.

As I say, Mr.

Chairman, we certainly don't want those answers today. There is some

concern, I suppose, and that is that the regulations also said that

some of these forms had to be returned within 140 days of polling day.

So I think the questions have to be answered sometime, but, not

necessarily today.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just

wanted to find out whether the minister was able to get any further

information on the Honeywell project. He did mention on Friday that at

this stage he couldn't give us any detail. That was probably because he

didn't know. Has he had an opportunity to find out about the Honeywell

project, and whether in fact it is now defunct and the machine is just

sitting over there with no work being done on it?

The second

question that I'd like to ask the minister is about the work done by

the Systems Corporation in respect to the issuing of the BCRIC shares.

Presumably the corporation now has in its possession extensive tapes

regarding the identification of people who've been given shares. Can

the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the Systems

Corporation...? Has it been discussed as to whether these tapes and

information will be turned over to the BCRIC to assist them in doing

the kind of monitoring which they obviously will have to do with so

many shareholders, in terms of the free shares and the other

information that has been gathered?

Also, can the minister

tell us whether the Systems Corporation will now be billing the BCRIC

for all of the work done for them in respect to the issuing of the

shares? Considering the amount of money that the corporation has

collected, it would seem to me that it would be in the interests of the

taxpayer to receive a refund now from the Systems Corporation for all

the money laid out by the taxpayers for the issuing of these shares. So

perhaps the minister would comment on those matters that I've raised.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

If I could start from the back to the front, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) asked me if the Honeywell situation

was defunct. The answer is no. The plan which was developed to make

maximum use out of it — having to do with the Ministry of Education —

has been changed. Originally it was planned, through the Renfrew site,

to provide partial service to some educational institutions. I'm told

that this is now being revised, but in no way will it become defunct or

lack use. It has caused a delay in the maximizing of the applications

attributed to the Honeywell. It's used by the Ministry of Forests on a

time-sharing and a scientific computer, and also has other projects

being developed. So it's primarily a change which has taken place in

the plan developed by the Ministry of Education.

You asked

about the tapes held through the BCRIC issue which are in the hands, I

presume, of the Systems Corporation. I haven't got the precise answer

to that question. It's presumed that the only list which the resources

corporation would receive would be a list of their registered

shareholders, which they would, of course, be obliged to have. I could

give you a more detailed response to that when I find out, but that

would be my judgment — that the only list which the BCRIC will receive

is a list of the registered shareholders on which they would have to

institute their records.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) asked whether we were in debt on December 1975. The answer is

yes, in the amount of $261 million — or by the time we got to the end

of March, which is the figure which was certified as being a....

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Well, who knows what the exact figure was? I would say that the

estimate at mid-December 1975, judging by the Clarkson Gordon report,

was in excess of that. The member nods: I think he agrees with this.

There is just no record in public accounts where you could answer the

question as to the exact debt at that point in time.

asked other questions about the proposed regulations on political

contributions. The only one I can answer at this time is that the

receipt form on the material you have is simply described as being

requirements for it. At this stage there is not a pro forma or an

official type of receipt planned. The ingredients for what has to be in

the receipt are being set out so that they can use their own receipt

form.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, further on that

receipt form. Just to remind the minister, those were proposed

regulations and I expect that the final ones will be coming out in due

course.

The minister says that we were in debt at the end of

March by $261 million; therefore we must have been in debt $261 million

or more in December of '75, some three and a half months earlier. Now I

just can't follow that kind of logic, Mr. Chairman, that you're exactly

the same amount in debt, or more, simply because he says so without

producing any figures to back it up. He says it's impossible to come up

with any interim figure. I find it very difficult to believe that the

government could not tell us how much the province was in debt, say, at

the month end, December 31, 1975. I don't disagree that the minister

might not be able to tell us at this point in time, but to say that

that kind of information just is not available anywhere is something

that I find a little difficult to believe.

To come back for

a moment to his statement that if we were $261 million in debt March

31, then we were also at the end of December. Could I simply remind him

of a number of expenditures that were made? There's nothing

[ Page 346 ]

wrong

with any of these, nothing right or wrong, as the Clarkson Gordon

report so clearly pointed out. It's entirely at the discretion of

government whether transfers into or out of special purpose funds may

be made, whether transfers to Crown corporations or transfers back from

Crown corporations may be made. That is entirely at the discretion of

government, and any one of those transfers in or out has an effect on

surplus or debt, as it may be.

But may I remind him then, as

I say, without questioning why these expenditures were made, that an

appropriation to the Provincial Transit Fund dated January 13, 1976, a

month after the election, in excess of $25 million was made by this

administration? Then an amount of $32.6 million was transferred to B.C.

Hydro on March 16, 1976, again by this administration. An amount in

excess of $181.5 million was transferred to ICBC on March 31, 1976. The

others are small — $2.5 million on March 4, 1976.

Now all of

those transfers totalling almost $250 million were made in the last

month of that fiscal year, in excess of three months after the

election. So for the minister to say that if we were in debt the day

after all these transfers were made it must mean that we were in debt

the same three and a half months earlier is applying logic that I find

very difficult to follow.

MR. LEVI: The minister

glosses over the Honeywell mess. That thing did not operate for well

over a year. For him to tell us now that the Education ministry has

finally let them know that they're not being able to use it.... When I

checked with various educational institutions around this province, I

only found one that was actually using that project in a whole year.

The decision to do what was done with it, to split it in half and take

it to Vancouver, was a disastrous decision in terms of not being able

to get the work. It was recommended against by a committee, but they

went ahead with it anyway.

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Who bought it?

MR. LEVI:

Never mind about who bought it. We're talking about who's dealing with

it now. We're not talking about history. We're talking about the mess

you've made in terms of the Honeywell mess. You didn't know what was

going on for well over a year, and the Education ministry was supposed

to do something about it.

I asked you a third question,

which was in respect to the BCRIC shares. Is it the intention of the

government or the Systems Corporation to now recover from BCRIC the

expenses that were incurred by the government and by the Systems

Corporation? You have an item in your budget of $12 million. Is it the

intention of the government to recover that from BCRIC? Don't tell me

it's a matter of policy. Have you made a decision about it?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I believe the prospectus indicates that the cost for the

BCRIC, the cost of their side of distributing the free shares, was some

$2.5 million. That's fully set out in the prospectus. They are also

incurring the cost of additional share purchases, which are

substantial. That's entirely their responsibility. So there's no plan

for the government to charge them any additional over what has already

been negotiated with them.

MR. LEVI: All of the free

share issue that was sent out that's all very well, and I understand

what the minister's saying. But in order to be able to buy the

additional shares, the first step had to be that those people that

bought them had to have the free shares. So the free shares were the

basis of what went on in terms of the acquisition of the purchased

shares. Now it seems to me that it's reasonable, from the point of view

of the taxpayer, that if the basis of the purchased shares was the free

share issue, why shouldn't some of the cost, or all of the cost,

considering the large amount of money that's been taken into the

treasury, be borne by BCRIC? After all, without the issuing of the free

shares, that particular operation, in terms of the sale of shares,

could not have got off the ground. It's not possible to buy shares

unless you have possession of the free shares.

Now it seems

to me that it's reasonable from the taxpayers' point of view that the

government can now go to the Systems Corporation and say to them: "We

were the basis on which your large share offering was launched so

successfully, and you should now consider refunding this money to the

government on behalf of the taxpayer." I think that that is an

eminently fair way of dealing with this kind of operation. Would the

minister like to comment on that? After all, I can't stress too

strongly — I appreciate that some costs were incurred — that the basis

of the purchase share issue was the free share issue, and the bulk of

that expense is being borne by the taxpayer. Now that a lot of people

in the province have bought the shares, it seems to me that it would be

quite in order for the government to now go to the corporation and say:

"You should pay for the costs that we underwrote." It was on the basis

of the government launching this scheme that they were able to get off

the ground in the first place.

Is the minister prepared to

make an observation about that, or is it the end of the matter? Is it

not the intention of the government to go to the corporation to secure

more of the costs than they are getting at the moment? After all, we

have a $12 million item here, and we have a $3 million item on a

special warrant. Now, with a corporation that is sitting on well over

$414 million, it would seem to me that the taxpayer would be in a

position to be reimbursed for those costs.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, in my view there is a fair division of those costs, which

was arrived at through laborious negotiations. As I said, the

corporation is paying 25 cents a share for every one of those

additional shares purchased, which turns out to be many times more than

was ever anticipated — and in terms of their own expenses as well.

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

MR. LEVI:

I'm not talking about the issue of fairness with respect to the

corporation; I'm talking about the burden on the taxpayers in terms of

the cost. It's not a question of what is fair for the corporation.

We're talking about

[ Page 347 ]

taxpayers'

money. We don't know exactly how much money was expended, but the

suggestion is that it was pretty close to over $20 million. Surely,

with the large amount of money that corporation has got, and the work

that was done with taxpayers' money, it's not a question of fairness in

the sharing of the expenses. Without the expenditure of taxpayers'

money that project could not have got off the ground. It's the taxpayer

that made a success of that thing in terms of the initial financing,

and it would seem to be eminently fair for the government to go and

renegotiate the matter of costs and who pays it, because the minister

said that they didn't expect to get such a large number of

subscriptions. I see absolutely no reason why the taxpayer has to carry

that burden when we have the corporation sitting out there with well

over $400 million.

Vote 100 approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about the Assessment Authority

and what he has in mind this year for farm assessment. I have in my

hand here the notice which was sent out in June 1979 by the Assessment

Authority, which says: "We will be reviewing all properties classified

as farm to determine if they meet the standards of the 1980 assessment

roll." It goes on to say that the standards have not yet been

finalized, but will likely be similar to the standards sent to all

owners of farm properties late in 1977, and based on income from

primary agricultural products raised on the land.

As the

minister is well aware, that 1977 instruction turned out to be a bit of

a fiasco, because it was interpreted in so many different ways that no

one really knew what exactly it meant. Recently I quoted in the House

during discussion on a bill some of the statements that have been made

by various people employed by the minister as to what these criteria

are, and they certainly are varied — and confusing, to say the least.

It is my belief that the reason that implementation of this particular

emerging farm classification — confirmation of this existing farm

classification — was delayed from 1977 to 1978 was that it was simply

impossible to come up with something that gave the proper criteria.

I'm

wondering if the minister is proposing to use the same thing and, if

that's what he is proposing to do, if he is prepared to clarify it and

make it firm and binding, because it certainly is anything but that as

it now stands.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was a minor

revision in the farmland classification requirements, which has been

made by regulation within recent weeks and which should now be

available to the member. As you say, these will be effective for 1980.

The revisions were very minor, defining what the term "livestock"

meant. The dollar figure for eligibility remains the same.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have that particular document in front of me, and item 9 says: "The

assessment commissioner may classify land as 'farm' where he approves a

farm development plan for that land indicating that he is satisfied

that the land is being developed as a farm, and it is likely to reach

the standards for classification as a farm in the near future; and may

revoke the classification if the development plan is not followed or

completed." That certainly leaves it strictly on the lap of the

assessor, and what I'm saying to this minister is that every area has

different criteria.

Some people go ahead on the basis of the

$1,600 for 10 acres and 5 percent of amounts over that, and then find

out that one assessor says they're not sufficiently labour and capital

intensive, even though they've put $45,000 into their land and have

four or five people working on it. But it's his decision, according to

this, and I don't think that's fair to the people of this province to

have those kinds of discrepancies occurring and those kinds of

decisions made by one individual in a particular area. There can be

personality conflicts, or differences of opinion over various things.

One

assessor has indicated that the way to go is according to how much land

you have under cultivation. In that particular instance the land was

very low-cost, low-quality land and was certainly best suited for

browsing and pasture. That's the way it was being used, but they

couldn't get prime classification because it wasn't under cultivation.

You know, those kinds of criteria are wrong, Mr. Minister. I think it's

up to you to ensure that there is some even-handed method of applying

this particular thing, if you're going to insist that people come up to

certain standards. You are talking about people who have lived on that

piece of property for years and years in many instances, and they're

trying to maintain that standard. That is their family home, and it's

very difficult to come up with something and then find that it's not

satisfactory. Maybe they buy four or five beef cattle, and that's not

enough because they're figuring the retail price, and the assessor is

figuring the farmgate price. The criteria have to be much more

explicit, and they have to be the same all over this province, which is

not the case, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would

have to disagree with the member that the description is really very

clear in terms of the requirement for farmland production. I don't

think it's going to be within the discretion of any assessor. If you

have been writing regarding this matter without receiving response, I

wish you'd bring that to my attention. I've not been aware that you've

had this difficulty.

The requirements for eligibility are

very clear, and they are based on the production of that farm unit. I

don't think you need to have the concern that there will be ambiguity

on that question.

MRS. WALLACE: Will you explain to me what

section 9 means? "The assessment commissioner may classify the

[ Page 348 ]

land

as farm where he approves a farm development plan for that land,

indicating he is satisfied that the land is being developed as a farm,

and it is likely to reach the standards of classification as a farm in

the near future." What are the standards of classification?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Through this new description of farmland various people previously

enjoying farmland will become declassified. That's the purpose of the

regulation. What you are referring to is simply an opportunity to give

all possible latitude for people to indicate on a plan that they do

propose to make modifications so that they will become eligible. They

will still hold their eligibility in the meantime, but they'll have to

provide a viable plan.

MRS. WALLACE: The item states

"...it is likely to reach the standards for classification as a farm in

the near future." Now what is a farm? What standards do you have to

reach? Do you know, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Production.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but how much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sixteen hundred dollars.

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. The minister has indicated that it's $1,600.

Strangely enough, the Assessment Authority has told me that it must

come up to $5,000 to be classified as a farm. Otherwise it's not a

viable farm.

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

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

MRS. WALLACE:

No, it has nothing to do with acreage. If a 10-acre plot can't produce

$5,000, it's not a viable farm because you can't earn a living from it.

Those are the things that people are being told by the assessors out in

the field, Mr. Minister, and that's my concern. I believe that the

minister has to take some action to make sure that there is an

even-handed

interpretation of this regulation throughout the province.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to direct the minister's attention to the methods of

assessment for mobile homes. It came to my attention, as a result of

several inquiries that I had last year, that mobile homes are not being

assessed in terms of willing buyer, willing seller, as they are

assessed on other matters. They have set up classifications of various

brands of homes, such as new homes, and as they age there is a certain

rate of depreciation set out in the manual. It appears they have

arbitrarily taken about two-thirds of that depreciated rate and come up

with the magic figure. It's totally unrelated to the intent and

purposes of the Act.

Furthermore, the price of new mobile homes usually contains such items as furniture,

washers and dryers and refrigerators. These things come as part of the unit.

As I see it, people who own mobile homes are being subjected to an arbitrary

type of assessment. I took the trouble to go out and took at a few sellers'

asking prices, and I compared them with certain assessments. I found that the

assessments were way out of line in favour of the government and to the detriment

of the owner. It seemed rather strange that while the mobile home registry hasn't

had enough time to establish too many sales for the assessments to be done under

normal assessment practices, it is an area that has many problems.

would like to know if the minister has any objection to filing the

appropriate portions of the assessors' manuals with members of this

House who might want to look into this further.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'I look into that. As you are aware, these valuations are all subject

to courts of revision. I'm told that, on balance, they are quite

conservative in their estimates of values on mobile homes.

MR. NICOLSON:

I don't like to put a person in the assessment office on the spot. I

didn't want to ask him for a copy of the procedural manual or part of

the procedural manual. Would the minister make that available to the

budget if I should send him a memo?

Vote 106 approved.

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

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

MR. STUPICH:

I notice the figure is almost the same for 1979-80 as it was for

1978-79, yet there is a 10 percent reduction in the amount of debt. Has

the rate gone up substantially or is it expected to go up substantially

in the year ahead? Can he tell us what he expects the average rate of

interest on public debt will be in the coming year, and what the

average rate of earnings on term deposits will be in the coming year?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The average rate on Series "B" bonds represented in the debt is 9.125

percent throughout the ten-year period. I'm not able to give you the

figure on term deposits; it varies.

MR. STUPICH: I

will come back to my question, Mr, Chairman, as to why the interest is

the same for the two years. Has it gone up this year from what it was

last year?

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

MR. STUPICH:

Well, not by 10 percent. Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that

it is down. It's down by a few thousand dollars, but one would have

expected it to be down by $2 million, and it's not.

Vote 108 approved.

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

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

approved.

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

[ Page

349 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman it doesn't say so but I wonder whether

it is in this vote that the cost of all of the advertising done by the government

would also be included. The large newspaper ads advising people to pick up their

five free shares — is that where this would be paid for, or would it be somewhere

else?

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

Vote 111 approved.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. STUPICH:

Can I just ask why this figure is down even nominally down? Are you

closing something? You're not negotiating a better rate, surely, with

BCBC. It's down a bit, and maybe last year's was too high an estimate.

At least this gives us time to get ready for the next vote. The record

shows the minister doesn't know, and that's fine.

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

MR. STUPICH: What are you shutting down?

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

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF DEREGULATION

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

We have now started the estimates of the Ministry of Deregulation,

which had a change of minister in the not-too-distant past. I would

just like to make a comment or two based on the initial experience I

have had in dealing with this ministry and the impact it is having on

the community at large in British Columbia.

Since I have assumed this responsibility, I would like to assure the House

of the importance with which I hold the deregulation operation, as well as its

importance to the government as a whole. The major concern which all of us have

— or should have — who are responsible for government is the increasing impact

of government, its bureaucracy and its regulations upon the economy and the

lives of our citizens. I think we all recognize that we live in a highly complex

society which requires a great deal of regulatory interference.

I see it, our job in deregulation is not simply to attempt to remove

all the regulatory interference, but rather to identify that which

appears to be unnecessary or conflicting, that which appears to be

imposing too much on the rights of individuals and that which appears

not to be in the true public interest. This, I am satisfied, is a major

task, but I am not interested in creating or perpetuating another

bureaucracy in order to carry out the responsibilities inherent in this

mandate.

I have already met with senior staff of the

ministry and have reviewed their accomplishments since the formation of

the ministry in January of this year. I am pleased to report that they

have a good understanding of what we mean by deregulation and upon the

positive attitude which exists within the small ministry to accomplish

its objectives,

Since this government took the unprecedented

step of creating a ministry to accomplish the purposes of deregulation,

we have become aware of the interest which is being shown in this

unique exercise from coast to coast. We know that other provinces and

the federal government are watching our efforts with a great deal of

interest. We have been visited by representatives of other provinces

and other countries to see what we are doing. and this is viewed by

them as a much-needed endeavour.

We also are participating

in federal programs along similar lines and we know from our

discussions in these federal committees of the high level of interest

which is being shown in the British Columbia initiative, not only by

government circles but, more importantly, by representatives of the

private sector on whom the impact of government regulation inevitably

descends.

In my budget originally presented in the House on

Monday, April 2, and reaffirmed more recently, I made reference to this

matter. I said: "To reduce the regulatory burden of government we are

taking steps to reduce needless paper flow within government to speed

the response to the individual's requirements for prompt government

decisions and to reduce the cost of complying with government

regulations."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Here

are some examples of the new ministry's earlier achievements. First of

all, the rights of the individual in dealing with government officials

on regulatory matters have been set out. I am taking immediate steps to

ensure these are published in the news media and that they are placed

in every government office throughout the province and circulated

publicly as widely as possible. Second, numerous redundant pieces of

obsolete legislation have been identified, some of which have, been

scrapped, with many more under review. Specifically, cabinet has

already approved the repeal of about 50 of the present consolidated

statutes, and we will be presenting, in the next few weeks, a

recommendation on the repeal of some additional statutes.

will, further, be working with the Ministry of the Attorney-General to

make sure citizens have a clear understanding of the law of the

province as it exists. We have also established, for immediate

presentation to cabinet, a forms review project. We have been aware of

the multiplicity of forms which confront the individual and which have

grown up over the years within various

[ Page 350 ]

ministries.

In our view, there are too many of these forms. In many cases they ask

for information which appears to be unwarranted, and there is too much

duplication. We are concerned that this impact on the community, and

upon the rights of individuals, be minimized, consistent with the need

to carry out government programs. Although reduction of forms is

considered to be a long-range project, our staff is at present

reviewing priorities for current revisions with every ministry, while

at the same time developing a master plan for the program of overall

revision to all forms currently in use.

Third, I also

reported that steps are being taken to speed up the process of local

government zoning and developmental approval. Without a doubt, the

confusion, delay, overlap and uncertainty in the land-use approvals

process has been one of the major complaints registered with this

ministry.

Two task forces were established to define the

existing systems in order that we can propose revisions and shortcuts

to the existing processes. We are aware the problem is not a simple one

of making it easier to develop land. We wish to preserve the necessary

controls to protect the rights of all citizens, and ensure

environmental concerns are met. It is our view that many unnecessary

and time-consuming procedures involved in this process can be

simplified and streamlined. Mr. Chairman, this we intend to do. I have

met with the Deregulation Board. I understand the first of the reports

from the task force will be in my hands in the near future, following

which we will then establish a timetable for recommendations which will

include the time for necessary discussions, both at the municipal and

regional levels, in order to facilitate such improvements as may be

recommended by this study.

I have reported steps are being

taken to coordinate the standards for building construction, use and

occupancy, with the necessary inspection systems to ensure compliance.

In this regard, and as a consequence of the public examination, a

continuing series of discussions have taken place with the ministries

involved. I am pleased to report that very shortly we will present a

proposal to unify the authority for the creation of standards for

building construction, use and occupancy, and also establish a

simplified and unified appeals process for all matters involved.

Likewise, we intend to propose a representative review process for all

regulations relating to building construction, use and occupancy. This

will remove the present conflicts and will, we believe, satisfy many of

the objections raised, not only by contractors and developers, but by

members of the public involved in the building process.

further expect to be able to present rationalization of the present

inspection systems sometime this fall to simplify the dealings of those

members of the public involved in the building process.

Last,

I have asked that the program to speed up payments to suppliers be

accelerated. This is presently being worked on in conjunction with the

ministry's concern; and I have asked for an early recommendation, in

order that improvements can be found to the existing systems. From my

preliminary examination of the work of the ministry, and the

Deregulation Board, I am impressed with the range of areas of concern

being prepared for submission to me and, through me, to cabinet. It is

apparent that the staff have been busy since establishing the office. I

am further impressed with the attitude within this ministry staff. I

emphasize that they continue this attitude of cooperation, which will

include a healthy skepticism of all systems until they have been shown

to comply with the basic mandate of this ministry.

It is my

intent, Mr. Chairman, to make good our concern that the benefits of

regulation can and will be achieved at lower cost to the taxpayer, the

private sector and the economy.

MR. HALL: I am

pleased to hear that report. It at least means that something was being

done since last December, if only by the author. I hope he's well paid.

When

I was a minister over there I used to have writers like that in the

travel industry. They used to take you on tours of the province and

tell you about the beautiful things in the province, just as we've

heard some beautiful things about this ministry.

I would

like to go over the history of this ministry, and ask some questions

that might have simple answers rather than pages of puffery like this.

First, on January 11, by order-in-council the cabinet set up this

ministry with approval to spend $100,000 and hire two directors of

deregulation. Can the minister tell us what the staff is now under this

vote 52, so we can have the details in the record and an ongoing

picture of the ministry? Second, on January 13 the then minister set up

a strike force of seven men who were already top public servants in

other ministries, plus a former Social Credit cabinet minister, Dan

Campbell. They were to strike — and I use the word "strike" advisedly;

it's a difficult word for some of us to use in this chamber, because

they might bring in the Essential Services Disputes Act; I think they

have, because they stopped them striking.

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

MR. HALL:

The strike force that was put into operation appears to be going

slowly, if not on strike. That force was supposed to look after the

slow payment of government accounts with businesses. Yet we are hearing

about that all the time. Just the other day we listened to a long list

of people who worked in the election of May 10 and who had not been

paid. What happened to the strike force?

For the

appointments made, namely, Mr. George Giles, Mr. Tex Enemark, Mr.

Richard Anthony, Mr. Maury Gwynne, and Ms. Donna Hall, could you please

tell us the amounts of their salaries, and whether those gentlemen and

that lady are still working for the ministry? I understand Maury Gwynne

has moved to another ministry.

I notice that, in spite of

having received that $100,000 and having taken on staff between

December and April, there is still no estimated expenditure to the 31st

of the month. It was under review in consolidated accounts; however,

that's a bit of a mystery; I suppose that really accounts for what's

happened.

I also note that if one excludes the Provincial

Capital Commission, which I don't suppose will stay in this ministry

all that long, this ministry is going to spend a million dollars

deregulating.

The only performance that has been registered

to date is the repeal of 71 statutes. All of them were actually

repealed a long time ago, except that the last stroke of the pen was

not attached to the document. They're all draining and diking statutes

which go back to 1878. I hardly think that's

[ Page 351 ]

something

we can all feel joyful about. If that's the sum total of

accomplishment, would the minister tell us how long it took to review

the accomplishments he referred to in his report? I think he should

share with the House a few more details than just the words "a review

of the accomplishments." How long did it take to review what has been

accomplished?

Later he went on to say that some 50 statutes

had been looked at. Are these the 50 I've already mentioned under

order-in-council 371, approved February 9, 1979? Are they to do with

diking at Sumas and other places? If not, could he share with the House

what they are?

The words "projects" and "task forces" are

liberally sprinkled throughout the report. I think the House deserves

better than that. I would like the minister to tell us in detail what

particular steps have been accomplished, and what instructions have

gone out via the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What forms have been

discontinued? If he can't read it into the record, perhaps he would be

good enough to give his assurance to the House that in the next four or

five days he will circulate to the members a detailed list of the form

numbers which have actually been struck off the record, so we can phone

our municipalities. My municipalities of Surrey and White Rock would be

tickled to death to hear of some of them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's progress.

MR. HALL:

Forgive me, Mr. Attorney-General, if I remain somewhat sceptical. What

we have been able to ascertain from this side of the House — other than

from the handouts — is that the ministry has received 359 letters since

it was formed. Now that's not a lot. Those 359 letters have been coded

and handled as complaints to Deregulation.

"A referral centre has been set up. Ninety-four pieces of correspondence

have been coded and handled as briefs. Complaints have been logged and referred

to the pertinent agency for responses to the writer." What they are really

saying is that the secretary is working on some of that.

But

again the use of the words "logged" and "referral" and so on really is

somewhat extreme. But interestingly enough, of the 359 letters the

ministry has, 201 have been answered — that's only two out of three.

Now if you can only answer two out of three letters, and you're the

Minister of Deregulation, what on earth is happening with the other

100? We can do as well on this side and we only have half a secretary

each. You've got directors and you've got executive assistants and

you've got deputy ministers, and you've got a million dollars to play

with.

"Of the remaining 100-odd letters, 88 were overdue,

with about equal proportions due to delay in mail and agency inability

to provide answers within the average three-week demand time. " Some

deregulation!

The briefs have been logged in separate files

and have been referred to the pertinent official. The detail of those

359 letters is interesting: the largest number of complaints — a total

of 51 — has been referred to Municipal Affairs. As I say, I share the

concern of the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that

almost all of them relate to the area of land-use approvals from basic

zoning through regional district to Municipal Act authority. "The

responses to most of the complaints, which generally have been reasoned

and on time, have explained why the ministry has little or no power to

overrule local decisions or authority without changes in the

legislation. Many levels of authority have been created in the

Municipal Act and handed over to other provincial or local agencies."

In short, that means: "Don't bother us. We can't do anything about it."

So there is Municipal Affairs stuck with those 51 letters and not

much of any assistance coming.

The next highest number of

complaints, 46, have been coded to Deregulation. Now here is where we

get down to it. Forty-six out of 359 have to do with deregulation —

well, we're getting somewhere now. "There are matters which relate to

regulations and legislation that are, to a large extent, already under

review by the ministry and offer background material. Such matters

include such things as provincial resource use approval,

provincial-municipal land use approval, building standards, redundant

legislation, expropriation and payments to suppliers." You know, all

you needed for that was for the Premier to stamp his foot once in

Treasury Board and something would have been done. That's all that was

needed, for the Premier to raise his voice once in Treasury Board, for

the first time perhaps. That's all that was required there.

"Health drew the third-highest number of complaints" — did they tell you of any... this,

Mr. Member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland)? — "but about two dozen or

so of those were form letters seeking extra funding for a church group

home in Hazelton." Now if in the letters on deregulation we've got we

had form letters asking for money, what on earth were they getting? I

mean if they want more letters, let's get together and send them some.

I mean, really!

"A large number of useful suggestions have

also been made. One coroner pointed out a number of somewhat similar

forms he must fill out for government, hospitals, police, his own files

and others." I suppose he's dead, or something like that. But there in

a letter from a coroner we've got the kind of detail on that this

ministry can obviously get its teeth into.

"We also received

complaints about provincial and federal health and Medicare forms, as

well as suggestions for simple, clear forms."

Now we come to

the fourth-highest number of complaints, 34, for Transportation,

Communications and Highways, most of them aimed at the subdivision

approval powers of the ministry and half a dozen at the Motor Carrier

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the House

too long with this, because while it starts off being comical, at the

end it really is rather sad. And 359 letters in that kind of detail

show that this ministry just is simply an unnecessary bureaucracy. It's

not doing the kind of work it was supposed to do: it's a snare and a

delusion, in my view, for the people to have to look at. For letters to

go the Minister of Deregulation from the Attorney-General about

horseracing is really absolutely fatuous. I suggest. Mr. Chairman, that

this money is wasted. I would normally vote against it, except it has

in it some $700,000 for the Provincial Capital Commission, which is

money well spent, and that's about the only reason I can vote for this

whole ministry.

MR. BARRETT: I hope the minister

could give me some information on the most confusing area that's been

brought to your attention, and that is the question of land

[ Page 352 ]

use

permits. Could you inform me as to what action has been taken to clear

up the long delays in applications for land use permits, and also

purchase of land from the government? We're constantly getting

criticisms about the delays in this area.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The matter of land-use approvals is probably the most important project

for the Deregulation Board. It is a most difficult problem. The

previous minister (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) had a very sincere interest in this

topic, and has expressed it on many occasions. Considerable work has

been done on this subject in terms of a task force which will hopefully

develop some answers to these questions before too many weeks go by.

The

previous member made a lot of fun of the referral centre. We can all

josh about this, but it has given this government an opportunity to get

a handle on what people are thinking out there. He may be critical of

what people are saying; I hope that's not what he's saying. One of the

major concerns is land-use approval and the delays involved with

government on this subject. That's been the major thrust from the

referral centre's analysis. There are 404 letters in the latest report.

They've brought some two-thirds of these to a conclusion, while others

are still being worked on. In some cases more information is required

from ministries. It's an avenue which people are finding they can go to

to vent their feelings on delays and frustrations in dealing with

government. That's what we want to get out of this.

mentioned slow pay. A great deal has been done through my ministry to

have the comptroller-general speed up payments. One improvement was the

decentralization of the ability to pay from regional offices throughout

the province. We are now instituting a system where more direct payment

is made to a local area from a regional office. I cite that as one

instance of an improvement.

He asked what the strike force

was. It's simply the Deregulation Board, and it has been meeting

constantly. It arrived at a list of desired regulations, and the force

is dealing with individual ministries. It is up to the ministry itself

to announce and indicate changes it's making. We're simply talking

about a structure which can suggest ideas, look at ministries and then

rely on them rather than establish a completely separate, large

bureaucracy. There is not a very large staff involved in this

operation, but they're addressing themselves to the problem.

The

member wanted exact instances of where we've taken out red tape and

regulations. I have a list here of several in my own ministry. There

has been the removal of forms and reduction of the need to file forms.

The change we made in corporation capital tax from the minimum of

$100,000 to $500,000 required 13,000 less companies to file forms.

Also, we changed the requirements of people paying social services tax.

Smaller companies only have to report twice a year now instead of once

a month. He asked for details; I'm just giving you some details of

improvements that have been made. In the Logging Tax Act, 25 provisions

have been consolidated into five provisions.

I won't

belabour the House with all this detail, but I'd like to table the

detailed improvements that have been done in terms of forms removal.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the minister for all the answers to questions I didn't

ask. I want to know who's handling land sales now for the government.

Who is handling the land sales now?

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Why would you raise the subject of deregulation in looking at land-use

permits and land sales, and then say the ministry is handling land

sales? What's happening there? Is there a change in policy or are real

estate agents handling land sales now? That's what I'd like to know. No

one seems to know and Bill's telling you how to answer. You know, it's

the Bill and Evan show. They're vaudeville on the side. Who's handling

the land sales?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you introducing us?

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Minister, who's handling the land sales that you are looking at?

How are you cleaning up these land sales contracts that you raised?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The ministry.

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

Well,

Mr. Chairman, we'll leave that as it stands. There seems to be a great

deal of confusion as to government policy and deregulation around land

use and land sales. That's clear.

The next question. When

you tell us that there are individual delays and your department's

looked up these cases and cut down a number of delays, you're acting as

sort of a red-tape cutter for individual cases. Is that correct?

The

assumption, in terms of the statement you've just made, is that if

people complain to you about problems with land.... Do you want to get

the answer, Bill, and then give it right across to me in a hurry? Your

deputy on your left there will give you the answer. You have answered

letters by clearing up their individual cases. Is that right?

Now

that I have the minister's undivided and unregulated attention, could

you tell me again how many cases you speeded up by them writing

directly to the Ministry of Deregulation?

The minister is

confessing here that if you write to the Ministry of Deregulation, and

you have a problem, they will speed the process up. Is that right?

That's what he said. I’m just saying that if everybody out there has

got a problem and they heard today that the way to solve the problem is

to write to the department and they'll speed the process up in the

department, but the red tape is still there, all you're doing is laying

on a circumventing route through another angle to beat the red tape and

you haven't solved any problems.

[ Page 353 ]

Can

MLAs write the minister when they've got problems? Would the minister

care to answer the question? Is it part and parcel of your mandate to

speed up individual cases once they are brought to your attention?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I would just remind the member that I have just assumed responsibility

for this ministry. It has very broad responsibility, and naturally one

of its objectives is to speed up response. That's been indicated in a

policy statement as one of our priorities. I've just recently assumed

responsibility and, as he is well aware, I will do the best I can to

get some action in terms of deregulating, cutting away the frustrations

that people have in dealing with governmental departments.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Minister, what I'm concerned about is that you appear to be

developing a pattern here — and if I am incorrect I will stand

corrected — of individually dealing with separate cases and getting

them through the bureaucracy rather than cutting at what caused the

delay in the first place.

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

MR. BARRETT:

You're doing both. So it is okay now for MLAs to write you to speed up

cases as well — or constituencies. Because if this is an avenue for

MLAs to go through, we welcome it, okay? A nod of the head: that's the

policy.

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

Vote 52 approved.

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

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

MR. BARBER:

This is the vote that provides $704,000 for the Provincial Capital

Commission. The government seems to be somewhat confused here. I read

an order-in-council just a very short while ago that assigned

responsibility for the capital commission to the Provincial Secretary.

Today I find it in the estimates for the Ministry of Finance. Where may

I debate it?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Just a minute now. I don't want to be hoist on someone’s petard. I want

an opportunity to ask a number of detailed questions about the

convention centre and other matters. As far as I can tell, the only

vote that they actually appear under is vote 54. However, I am told

that the responsible minister isn't responsible for vote 54. So I

wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister might advise whether or not the

Provincial Secretary could come into the House now and answer the

questions, as is reasonable enough a practice.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you. Why is it here then if you gave it to the Provincial

Secretary? Why is it in the Minister of Finance's estimates? Just a

matter of the time of it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes,

MR. BARBER: Okay.

Vote 54 approved.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, a few brief remarks before we hold any further discussion

on this vote, just to say that the Premier's office has an important

role in the executive branch of government. As chairman of the

executive council, I see a lot of the important work that the ministers

and the government do flow out through the Premier's office. As such,

we carry on a number of very, very important meetings with not only

other governments in Canada, but external to our province, states,

foreign governments and, of course. meetings with the government in

Ottawa.

Now since the election we have been able. In this

new mood of growing confidence, because of the conclusive results of

majority government, to hold a meeting with the new Prime Minister of

the issues that have been there to be resolved over a period of time,

but which may now be resolved because of the change in policy of the

party in this House and in this province as a government, and it has

been our position at first ministers' conferences as well, that we wish

to preserve the provincial control and keep the provincial control over

our resources, and not extend that jurisdiction to the federal

government. But further, we have sought jurisdiction in an area that

has been unclear, because of judicial decisions and others — and it

needs a political resolution — and that is that of offshore resources.

believe that offshore resources should be in the hands of the

provinces. So we have taken this early opportunity to then remind them

of our position of maintaining control of the provincial resources

within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and not surrendering it to

now to clarify our control over the offshore resources. Now, upon the

new government concluding the meetings that are offshore now in Tokyo,

the important conferences that are taking place, hopefully we can bring

early resolution to this long-standing discussion. Certainly then there

will be more stability, more confidence, and certainly we can look then

at perhaps the development of our resources in a more confident way.

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

[ Page 354 ]

various

ministries that look after resource control, not only for their

development.... But as with the Ministry of Environment that we do

have, Mr. Chairman, we can be more responsive to the immediate needs of

British Columbians and respond to their concerns, and also respond to

local situations as the need arises. Concurrent federal jurisdiction

would mean duplicating facilities and ministries and responsibilities.

We have just finished talking about overlap and cost of government and

regulations; it would be a nightmare having concurrent administration

in this area.

We hope, then, the discussions will lead to a

more efficient management of the people's resources, more orderly, safe

development by governments immediately in the area where these

resources are. This will be a major breakthrough in the country to have

this resolved. It is important, and an election was just fought on it

in the great province of Newfoundland. That was the major issue. I am

sure that the decision they gave, in electing their government, appears

to be a decision now shared by both of the major federal parties,

because certainly the new Liberal leader who spent some time in Ottawa

has come around to the opinion in that election that offshore resources

should be managed by that province. Of course, with British Columbia

being the total west coast of Canada, we feel we can do the same job.

That means for British Columbians an even stronger future, and a future

that looks very promising now.

We are not without our

uncertainties, and we are not without some of the problems that plague

the country, and North America as a whole. But I can see, with what we

have seen since the election, a growing mood of investor confidence. We

see the private sector making announcements now that perhaps were being

held back until they had an opportunity to see what sort of government

was going to be here in British Columbia. We now see the smaller

companies making the type of announcements concerning expansion with

capital of manufacturing facilities in all our resources areas. These

are the ones that deal not only with our forest industry, but mining

and in other areas as well.

My office and my own mail have

been particularly busy with the number of inquiries that have now come

in, just to the Premier's office, and this doesn't include those

discussions that are going on with the Minister of Tourism, Minister of

Economic Development, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, Minister of Forests, and others. It means that things look

very promising in British Columbia. This type of development will mean

investment capital; it's also good for our construction industry. It

will provide work for our people and in those industries where they're

improving facilities so that they can be more cost competitive, and

give a greater permanency for jobs for the people who already work in

that industry.

If there's one thing forestry industry

workers feel now with the billions of dollars of new and much-needed

investment that hasn't been taking place, but is now taking place in

this province — it is that their jobs are more secure. They knew

outmoded, non-competitive facilities would soon lose markets and that,

ultimately, they would be losers, as well as the provincial economy. It

is time the private sector and these companies have taken on this

important investment and development of facilities. It's good for the

industry; it's good for the province and, above all, it's good for the

people who work in the industry.

Mr. Chairman, I know you

share my views that the much-needed commitment to mining development,

long absent, is again starting to move with major mines, accompanied by

major activity taking place in the search for new minerals, The

provincial economy fares well, and perhaps the industry fares well.

Perhaps

we're starting to bring back to British Columbia those skilled

technicians, and the people who developed a mining technology in

British Columbia that was second to none, who were driven out by

legislation passed some years ago. It's important we keep that type of

expertise, that we try to bring it back and centre it here in British

Columbia. Also, we must consider the people who work in the day-to-day

jobs in the mines as well — the ones who, if they closed, wouldn't have

an option of going somewhere else. We've got to tell them there will be

further mines developed, and greater work opportunity. That now goes

hand-in-hand with the price and demand for coal, starting to meet the

hopes we had for it when we first became government.

Some

firms have been developing and working in the northeast, securing

contracts. We're not now just dependent on the Pacific Rim for markets;

we've got market contracts for 20 years with Romania, contracts in

Europe, and contract discussions with countries and firms in the

Pacific Rim. It now brings much closer that whole project of

transportation, ports, rail and port development that goes beyond just

the discussion of grain development, but of the coal port at Ridley

Island. It means the development of the coal extraction process in the

major areas of the northeast is much closer because of these contracts

and because of the work. It means the joint policy the government of

the last three years, where we've been jointly doing studies of the

environment and developing the infrastructure, the transportation,

looking at how it will deal with the people — it will mean work in that

area, including town requirements. All these have been proceeding. So

we're right on stream and ready to try to meet those target dates of

1983, when all these can be ready. That means, then, prosperity for the

areas in which those resources and transportation facilities will be

located, and a general surge in value to the provincial economy. It's

not just a selfish feeling that it's good for British Columbia; it's

also good for our country.

Our country is a trading nation.

We're great importers, and we've got to export to resolve our balance

of payments. British Columbia is going to play an even more major role

in the future in helping resolve Canada's balance of payments. This

will not be to the detriment of our future. Well-balanced development

of our economy provides the jobs that are needed now; it serves the

needs of British Columbians, both as individuals and through

government. And it provides a great service to our country. It helps to

stabilize our place in the world as one of the stronger nations and a

country with a great future.

These things can be resolved

resources, by having jurisdiction in the province, now can add to our

known knowledge of what we have; and that's important.

might say, Mr. Chairman, that another important area is cooperation

with other governments. Indeed, this year I was chairman for the

Western Premiers' Conference, which was held in Prince George, and at

which we discussed a

[ Page 355 ]

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

These

are not areas where we are ganging up on the rest of Canada or the

common interest, because there are those areas where we disagree as

well — Crows Nest rates and things like that. There are areas of

agreement and areas where we can make our voice heard in a more

effective way, or sometimes have combined cooperation to make things

happen. Certainly, having the western Premiers to the port of Prince

Rupert was important. It was important for them to see what part of the

port could be additionally developed at Ridley Island for the grain

terminals, to give additional grain capacity, and also where British

Columbia and perhaps Alberta coal could be put through the ports, and

also other commodities, Saskatchewan has its potash and other materials

and certainly there is an area of cooperation there.

We've

also met in a number of other areas that, while sounding dull, involve

all the ministries of this government. Agreements are, of course,

concluded at conferences such as this in areas of difficulty. such as

interprovincial trucking, which is a problem that every province is

dealing with. All of these things — important matters — are concluded

or worked on at these conferences, and certainly the conference in

Prince George was a great success, Mr. Chairman.

I would

also like to report that external to our country, it is important that

we have a working relationship with our counterparts, particularly in

those areas adjacent to our province. One of the areas often concerned

is the northern part, the Yukon and Alaska. When we became government,

Mr. Chairman, we resumed meetings that hadn't been held for some years,

annual meetings between the Governor of Alaska, the Commissioner of the

Yukon and the Premier of British Columbia. A number of those meetings

have been held. The first one, of course, when we resumed them, was

held in Victoria.

This year I say again that the invitation

for those meetings has been extended to my counterparts, the Governor

of Alaska, Jay Hammond, and the Commissioner for the Yukon. While the

date hasn’t been fixed. It will be sometime this fall — a very

important meeting to pick up on the work that has been going on.

From

time to time, Mr. Chairman, as you know, it's important to involve

other governments — sometimes the federal government of the United

topics of mutual interest rather than the broad range of connecting

roads and things that are between two jurisdictions.

We have

been able to conclude a number of agreements that are beneficial to

both. where cooperation could not be reasonably withheld. We've built

up an area of mutual trust and confidence, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully

that is going to continue because there can be many benefits for all of

us in cooperation and in continuation of these meetings. They are

conducted, I might say, in a non-political atmosphere but in the area

of governments with common problems. trying to resolve them rather than

just talk about them. I think we've made great progress.

One of the first meetings of some importance which will take place within our

country will be the annual Premiers' conference, this year to be held in

Quebec City in the province of Quebec. I will be taken away from the Legislature

during the mid part of August, but I know you'll miss me.

Anyhow,

that's one of the important areas where the Premiers get together in an

informal setting. It's been a tradition for some years. They're not

highly structured meetings but they have helped to bring a common

understanding. One of the things I have found, Mr. Chairman, in our

party being elected government and having a responsibility for

representing British Columbians at these conferences, is how much we

have to learn about each other and how many of the problems that affect

different regions of the country cannot be fully appreciated by others.

But on the other hand there are areas, no matter what government is in

power and what political party is in power and problems that we share

together which have a common solution, where we can help each other in

providing solutions.

So we go there to try and resolve a

number of these areas. As I say, I will be taken away from this

Legislature in August to go to Quebec, but I am sure I will be able to

extend your best wishes to the other Premiers, and particularly to the

Premier of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and assure them that

British Columbia and British Columbians wish them to stay a part of a

strong and vibrant Canada. I hope that in any coming vote they will,

make a very strong expression to stay with us and to build with us

because they have a stronger future with us. Together we're strong and,

of course, divided all of us would be weaker and not just in an

economic way but in very real way in which we build on each other's

strengths and the strengths which are important to make our country

different and unique.

There are a number of things that I

see developing. We see the growing confidence; we see major new

investment; we see a mood of building. We see that people are returning

to British Columbia, which is nice to see in one way, but it is

something we have to deal with as a government and as legislators in

another way. We now have more people coming to British Columbia than

are leaving, and that wasn't the case a few years ago. It creates

problems. Work must be found, for many come without a job in mind. Many

just get up and move to British Columbia with no prospects for a job.

They have probably vacationed in this province for a number of years.

and they've finally said: "Life's too short; we're going to live in

British Columbia." They get here and then they must find something to

do. I am sure that applies to all areas of the province, but it was

brought home to me in the recent election when I was in Vernon with the

member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We were going around the

streets early in the morning, and we saw a number of people having

breakfast. The first three families we talked to were all new

residents. They were mostly young people with young families. I said:

"Where are you from?" One was from Saskatchewan. I said: "Well, it's

good to have you in British Columbia. Have you moved out her'?"

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

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

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

While

it is flattering for us who live in British Columbia, that they want to

join us, it gives us a special problem. These people are looking at the

quality of life we have here and want to share it. People don't always

move for economic reasons. They move because they want to be a

[ Page 356 ]

part

of the way of life that we have in British Columbia. That is why it is

important also that we try and preserve and conserve what we have, but

it gives us special problems. These are problems not only for the

Economic Development ministry, but also for other ministries in the

government that provide the social services. We cannot sometimes

direct, or even know, where the pressure will be with these people who

move in. They may require health facilities or educational facilities,

and it makes it harder to predict the growth.

It is easy to

look at national statistics and see that the baby boom curve is

changing and that by 1983 we will be in another set of circumstances,

possibly of labour shortages. But British Columbia always has a problem

— or benefit, depending on the way that you look at it — of having more

people wanting to live here than sometimes even our developing economy

can absorb. It is a special problem that British Columbians are used to

dealing with.

We see a mood of confidence; we see the

province growing; we see problems yet to be resolved. But we feel that

with continued effort, not only our government but the other

governments of Canada can resolve these problems. There are a number of

new governments in Canada with perhaps fresh ideas. We can resolve some

of the things and reach some solutions that have escaped us over the

last few years. This government starts its new mandate confident, full

of energy and with vigour. We know that there will always be new

problems to confront us, but with an air of cooperation we look forward

to trying to provide solutions to these problems. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I note that the

Premier wound up his remarks talking about the government with its new

mandate. I think it is important that we focus a great deal of our time

on the present and the future, but I think it is important, too, to

just spend a few minutes on some of the things in the past which I

think have to be said. Unfortunately we didn't have the opportunity of

speaking together on television during the election campaign. When the

Premier talks about different points of view and cooperation, it would

be worthwhile if the Premier had sat in front of the people of British

Columbia and said exactly what he wanted to do with the mandate, and I,

in turn, would have said what I wanted to do. We would have asked each

other some questions, but obviously the Premier decided not to take

that opportunity of making mincemeat out of me with his policies on

television. I thank him for this small mercy in avoiding the television

debate, so that he wouldn't chop me up and reduce us to, perhaps, even

fewer seats than we got out of the last election.

The

Premier called an election. To this day we don't know why he called the

election. That question is now shared by the rest of his party. The

results brought that focus home very quickly. You went into the

election campaign with, I think, a 17-seat majority. You came back into

the House with a five-seat majority, and it is almost panic to the

people who have bladder problems when it comes to the time of a vote,

Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There

are couple of things which offended me personally, and obviously

offended a number of people in the province of British Columbia, coming

as they did from the Premier of this province, who speaks not just for

a political party but for the government of the day. Among the things I

was shocked at was the Premier's statement that the official opposition

party were national socialists. When given the opportunity to clarify

or apologize for the remark, the Premier sought the escape route of the

kind of talk he gave us today, waving his hand and going in circles.

Perhaps

the best that can be said is that the Premier was totally ignorant of

the connotations of what he was saying. Perhaps the Premier is unaware

of the overtones of "national socialism" in terms of world history.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

This is the one time that the Premier has to sit and listen, so we

might as well take advantage of it; it happens so infrequently in this

province from the leader of a government who runs and hides and dodges

almost every major issue that comes up.

The remark about

national socialism was one that offended many people in this province,

none more dramatically than two particular people who approached me

during the election campaign, both very upset because of their own

personal experiences of how they came to Canada in the first place. The

Premier talks about people coming to British Columbia. It's worthwhile

that he should know some history, and about this country and this

province being a haven for people who come for freedom, security, peace

of mind, and to never again be threatened by bombast and rhetoric that

shatters their personal life.

A man of about 55 approached

me in the town of Merritt. He's a member of the New Democratic Party

and had been a member of Helmut Schmidt's political party in Germany.

Helmut Schmidt is the chancellor of Germany with whom Bill Bennett, as

Premier, dined, and whom he praised. This man spent 13 months in a

concentration camp for being a member of the democratic socialist party

in Germany, and was personally highly offended that the Premier would

infer that the party he belonged to was national socialist. He's a

Canadian citizen. He had hoped that the Premier would offer some

explanation or some apology for the comment made. None was forthcoming.

Perhaps,

Mr. Premier, if you only offended one person you could write it off —

you satisfied the other 2,399,000. But it's hardly the role of the

Premier of the province to make remarks about political activity that

are based on either ignorance or hostility; both are inexcusable. The

opportunity to apologize was there.

The second person was a

lady who came to me in a restaurant in Vancouver, who lifted her sleeve

and showed me a number on her arm from a concentration camp. She had

survived two years in a concentration camp. She was a political

opponent of national socialism. She'd lost three members of her family

in fighting national socialism. She was highly offended by the

statement made by the Premier.

The member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) may be amused and shake his head, but as a school

principal he should be aware that some people came to this country to

escape the ravages of national socialism. Some of them heard the

Premier of this province make the accusation that this party was

national socialist. No one heard the Premier of this province apologize

for the inference of those remarks.

[ Page 357 ]

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

MR. BARRETT:

I wasn't the first to make the connection. I didn't comment on the

issue for three or four days, while waiting for the Premier himself to

explain it.

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

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

How could I interpret it that way, Mr. Member? Every single member of

the press gallery interpreted the remark that way. Mr. Jack Webster, a

former intelligence officer in the British Army — before he went on to

lesser things in this province — asked the Premier on television about

the remark.

When I'm approached by a citizen who was in a

concentration camp for 13 months because of his political beliefs, and

by a woman who was in a camp for almost two years, with her serial

number still tattooed on her arm — I'm relaying to you how she, not

Dave Barrett or Jack Webster, interpreted the statement — then, for the

sake of those people, I think the Premier owes an apology.

my opinion, the Premier deliberately set out on a course of provocation

in the election campaign by throwing out highly evocative words. The

press did ask me, finally, if I had anything to say, and I said:

"Perhaps he's made a mistake; perhaps he will apologize." They said:

"Do you think he knew what he meant when he said that?" I said: "I'm

not sure." But I know what it meant. I said that on television. I know

what it meant, and I still know what it means, and we still have not

had an apology from the Premier of this province for what I consider to

be one of the lowest and most dastardly remarks ever made about a

political party in the province of British Columbia's history.

you want to cement relations and develop cooperation, you do not

slander people whose record, right from the Kreisau circle and von

Stauffenberg and the only group that stood up to Nazism in Germany and

paid with their lives for it...you do not slander those people. The

Kreisau circle led to Willy Brandt's administration. The Kreisau circle

was the one saving factor at the height of Nazism in Germany in 1944.

When the one attempt was made out of moral outrage by those people

against Hitler's life, it was led by a group of democratic socialists,

one of whom was a devout Catholic and a member of the Social Democratic

Party, Count von Stauffenberg.

Those of us who read history,

of course, understand the role of this great party and its

international ties, and the fact that democratic socialists through the

whole world and in the British Commonwealth were in the forefront of

fighting national socialism, right from volunteers who left this

country in the mid-thirties to fight in Spain and from people who lined

up because of political convictions to fight for Canada, to fight for

the free world.

It ill behooves the leader of any

jurisdiction in this country to stand up and bandy about the words

"national socialism" affecting people's political affiliation. If it

was said in ignorance, and perhaps it was, then the Premier could

honestly stand up and say: "Well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone by the

use of that word." But if it was said deliberately, as I think it was,

to inflame, then I think, indeed, this province has sunk to a low level

by a Premier who is willing to say anything and do anything in an

attempt to evoke emotion or hostility around a political debate that

should be rational and mature.

There's a lot more I could

say about the remark. I did mention the personal offence. I have been

offended before in this House, but I have never been that deeply

offended in anything I have done as a citizen, born in this country, as

a free citizen participating in the active political life of this

country, and as a former Premier. How would it be if I said that Social

Credit were a bunch of Fascists?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you?

MR. BARRETT: No, I have not.

a bunch of Nazis, which I have not. How would it be if I slandered with

a base attack the political party that you represent, and then when the

opportunity to apologize comes after that base attack, say: "Oh, well,

blah, blah, blah!"? How do you answer, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr.

Chairman — that man in Merritt and that woman in Vancouver who feel a

deep, personal offence at your statements?

I'm not asking

for an apology for me or for my party. We expect the kind of abuse that

we've had when we were in government. You talk lovingly of cooperation

now, but what of the hate and hostility that emanated from these

opposition benches when you were in opposition? What would you say to

that man and that woman who came to me during the election campaign or

perhaps to the people who wrote to you about your comment?

would make a much larger person, as leader of this province, to quietly

stand up sometime today and just say the few words: "If anyone

misinterpreted what I am saying, I regret that very much: it was not

the intention of my remark to imply national socialism as being

Nazism." It would go a long way to add some stature that belongs to the

office — perhaps not to the person, but at least to the office of

Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Now since we

did not get a chance to deal with the debate issues, it might come as

some surprise to your backbenchers, who are involved very much in

political baiting, that you announced with pleasure that you have sold

some coal from northeast British Columbia, and you have sold it to

Romania. You sold it to communists. What do you think about that? You

sold coal to communists. What does that mean in terms of political

action in the future?

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, sure, it’s all right then. That's fine. Let's get that clear. You

want to trade in the international marketplace, and you welcome those

trades. That's fine, just so we know what we're dealing with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

[ Page

358 ]

message to the people of Quebec. You hope that

there is an understanding that this government, with its new mandate,

wants to cooperate. When we were in office, Mr. Premier, we made sure

that opposition representatives were available at federal-provincial

conferences, because we believe that in a free democratic society the

opposition and the government, at the federal level, must be

represented when we're talking about the future of this country.

When

there were important national conferences, it was my instruction as

Premier of this province that the opposition send representatives at

government expense to those conferences in Ottawa. Has that been the

case in terms of the pious words of this Premier? Petty politics. Were

the Conservatives, Liberals, myself or any representative of the

opposition ever asked to any federal-provincial conference? Not on your

life! Too petty; too small. Is that the mark of leadership? Is that the

mark of cooperation? Is that the mark of a man who understands what the

responsibility of being Premier is?

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

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

The

pettiness, the narrowness and the downright bordering on hate that

emanates from those benches have permeated the province for the last

six years, right up to the election campaign. Now we hear words about

them wanting to cooperate. Do you want to cooperate? Then make sure the

opposition has enough staff to do the job they've been elected to do.

Let's cooperate on that. Do you want to cooperate? Let's make sure that

there are no more petty arguments about having opposition

representation as observers at national conferences. Do you want to

cooperate? Then rise above pettiness and bring this House to a level of

behaviour beyond what you've demonstrated up to now and during the last

election campaign.

Many times during the campaign the

opportunity presented itself for me to respond to the kind of baiting

that existed. I went about my business and discussed the issues of the

campaign, only to view the Premier on television bursting with

hostility, rather than addressing himself to the issues of the day.

The

Premier comes in today and talks about energy policy. Let's talk a bit

about energy policy. It's my understanding, Mr. Premier, as I interpret

your statements today, that you now take the position that you want all

offshore mineral rights for the province of British Columbia. Is that

correct? I assume that in terms of the statements you made and the

framework of the recently conducted campaign in Newfoundland. If it is

your goal to have all offshore rights — those include oil and gas

rights offshore — and if that's what you're negotiating with the new

Prime Minister, fair enough. But the question follows: is it the policy

of the government of British Columbia to initiate offshore drilling for

oil and gas? Is that your policy?

Why would you bring

in the question of a debate on offshore mineral rights unless you were

going to do something with those offshore rights? We need to know and

the people of this province need to know if you plan, if we receive the

rights from the federal government, to do offshore drilling for oil and

gas off the coast of British Columbia. Is that your policy? Let's hear

about it. You talk about British Columbia and the national scene, and

you talk about energy. You never mention the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation, which is a state-owned petroleum corporation. You voted

against it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did I?

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, you're quoted in the paper as saying you would have voted against

it had you been here. But you were here, and you voted against it.

Sometimes you get caught up in your stories. Unfortunately the press

people and others were there. You get a little mixed up, so we'll just

straighten the record.

You voted against the Petroleum

Corporation; it's a state-owned petroleum corporation. Do you

understand that? It is owned by the government of British Columbia. All

you people out there in this province, it is owned by your government.

Don't you feel apart from it and frightened that the government owns

this great, big marketing monopoly for natural gas? Why didn't you sell

that off? Last year that great state monopoly made $228 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed with the Petroleum Corporation except

some of the personnel. We have a state monopoly on marketing natural

gas. There's no free enterprise left in the marketing of natural gas in

British Columbia. Social Credit has perpetuated that monopoly and out

of that monopoly have made $228 million last year. Well, can the

minister or the Premier name any oil company that's allowed to sell

natural gas out of the province of British Columbia, other than through

the Petroleum Corporation? Imperial, Esso, Exxon, Fly-by-Night,

Upside-Down, Backwards — name one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Giddy-Up Go.

MR. BARRETT:

We're going to deal with that one too. The fact is that we have the

most successful single Crown corporation ever started in the province

of British Columbia, and it was started by my colleague, the former

Attorney-General of this province. It is a marketing agency for natural

gas, and thank goodness it's there. That $228 million, had we not

passed that legislation, would have gone into the pockets of the

international oil companies. Let's make that clear.

[ Page 359 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Dave!

MR. BARRETT:

If not, why have you not destroyed the Petroleum Corporation? Why have

you not amended our Act? Why have you not allowed free enterprise back

in to sell natural gas? When we came to power you were giving it away

till 1989, selling our natural gas at 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.

That was the contract.

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Have you changed the Petroleum Corporation?

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier of this province to tell us whether or

not he intends to destroy the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation

and put it in the hands of BCRIC. Do you intend to do that? Do you

intend to take the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which is a

state monopoly, and put it under control of that private company? I

need to know that answer.

What is your position on

Petro-Canada? We have an instrument here in British Columbia known as

the Petroleum Corporation, but I understand you're opposed to

Petro-Canada. Is that correct? If I'm incorrect, then I won't bother

making the comments that I am, but are you opposed to Petro-Canada as a

national instrument on oil policy?

The Premier talks very

glibly about national energy policies; he talks very glibly about

Ottawa's role in the energy field. But I put this to you, Mr. Chairman:

Alberta supplies crude oil to the province of British Columbia on

six-month renewable contracts, and if the attitude he displays goes for

the balkanization and control of resources exclusively by the

provinces, what is to stop Alberta from carrying through a comment that

they will cut off crude oil to the province of British Columbia in five

or six years? It's a threat by Mr. Getty. There are six-month renewable

contracts on crude oil for the province of British Columbia. Mr. Getty

was quoted as saying before he left the Alberta cabinet that in five or

six years they would stop supplying British Columbia with crude. The

first thing you'd have to do — through you, Mr. Chairman — is go down

to Ottawa and ask the federal government to ensure that a supply of

crude oil be made available from Alberta until it could be replaced.

What

is the role of the federal government in the energy field? Without

Petro-Canada, without an instrument that is in the hands of the

Conservative or any other party — there is no way we can guarantee a

constant place in the world market for meeting our needs for energy and

oil supplies in this country. At a time when OPEC nations are meeting

now and talking about raising the price of oil to $18 a barrel, we

still haven't had a clear-cut statement from the Premier of this

province as to what kind of national energy policy he wants to see

protect this province and every other Canadian province against that

international cartel.

If I read the Premier's statements and

his attitude toward Petro-Canada correctly, the laissez-faire approach

that he advocates would mean the destruction of one major reason why we

should stay together as a nation based on our own industrial needs. The

opportunity for guaranteed oil supply to all of Canada has to come

through Petro-Canada.

Do you trust the international oil

companies, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier? Much to its regret

the federal Liberal government discovered that Exxon had been lying to

the federal government. It had been trading off-shore on oil destined

then behind the government's back had been trading that oil into the

U.S. market, threatening a supply, threatening jobs here in this

country. The Liberals were shocked that the oil companies would do a

thing like that.

I would commend to the Premier a book, if he has some time to read, by a Mr. Sampson, called the Seven Sisters .

If the Premier has any illusions about the private oil companies or the

international oil companies not going past governments and getting

their own way, he should just address himself to recent history and

current events in terms of the international oil companies' dealings

with the people of this country and their government.

I am

not ashamed to say clearly and firmly as a Canadian that I support the

government of the day that has a guarantee — just as we do in British

Columbia through the Petroleum Corporation — that there is an

instrument that will be in place to assist every region of this country

to see that it has its energy needs met.

I don't mind the

posturing of the province of Alberta. I don't mind the posturing of the

province of British Columbia. But I want to make something very clear,

Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, this country of Canada is far more

important than any one single province. Let's get that straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, Mr. Member.

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

must have a national energy policy and we must have an instrument to

carry out that national energy policy — and the only instrument is

PetroCan, which in a small measure goes some way towards meeting our

own instrument here in British Columbia, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

think I've given the Premier a few questions and I would be happy if he

would answer those. I have a few more and I await the opportunity of

responding to the answers and asking the other questions that I have to

ask.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there

is some opportunity presented by the Leader of the Opposition to

refight the election...and his wounded ego in having lost two elections

and being under some assault from

[ Page 360 ]

his

own party. He tries to see slights where no slights are. But he is well

known for that and, of course, if he can justify being a two-time loser

to himself, maybe he can give his party some reason for him to remain.

But I'm not going to refight the election campaign. It may be important

to him, because....

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

MR. HANSON: Apologize.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

My friend across the floor said: "Apologize." If I asked that party to

apologize every time they offended someone, we'd get no work done.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to deal with a couple of the questions. O