[ Page 781 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill No. 63) Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 781

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill No. 43) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 781

The Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill No. 99) Mrs. Jordan. Introduction and first reading — 781

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Williams — 782

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 784

Mr. Chabot — 784

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 788

Mr. McGeer — 790

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 792

Mr. Schroeder — 793

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 794

Mr. Gardom — 795

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Gabelmann — 801

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Smith — 804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 806

Mr. Brousson — 807

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 808

Mr. Brousson — 808

Mr. McGeer — 811

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 813

Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Privtate Bills.

No. 6 — 813

Nos. 7, 8 and 9 — 814

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the bearer of good gifts who has placed beautiful daffodils on all our desks.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, to commemorate their visit, the Langley NDP Constituency Association who are now in the gallery brought along some daffodils to show that they are not only non-partisan but they come from the garden spot of British Columbia. I would like you to join me in thanking the constituency of Langley.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like the assembly to welcome today a group of 40 students from Alberni District Secondary School who are here under the direction of their teachers, Mr. Frank Holm, Mr. Rick Fears, and Mrs. Potter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will join me in welcoming to the galleries today His Worship Mayor Sid Parker of the City of Revelstoke and Alderman Dan Chernish and Alderman Don Gillespie, as well as the city administrator, Mr. Bill Eurby. I ask that the House join me in extending a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 63 — Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CHANGE OF NAME ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 43 intituled An Act to A mend the Change of Name Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 43 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

THE SENIOR CITIZENS HOME
REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 99 intituled The Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 99 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 782 ]

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to direct a series of questions to the Hon. Premier but before doing so I wish to make a few brief introductory comments so that the questions will perhaps be more meaningful to him and will indicate the point of view that I take on the matters which I wish to raise.

The matter I wish to raise is the apparent decision of British Columbia Railway to proceed with the development of port facilities at Britannia Beach. I say "apparent" because as I understand the remarks of the Hon. Premier yesterday and on previous days, no final decisions have been made.

First of all, I would, Mr. Chairman, recall to you the exciting words that were delivered in this House a week ago by the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) when speaking about the activities of the government and of the Parks Branch. In making reference to Hansard he said and I quote:

"We'll be establishing major new parks in the magnificent shoreline areas of the Queen Charlottes, which have been so often ignored. We will be establishing other major parks in the northern gulf, a very important area. We will be establishing a major park on the Alberta border in the Kootenays. In fact: "We'll be establishing at least three parks in the east Kootenays.

"We will be preserving some of that magnificent landscape of this province that for two decades that administration continuously refused to consider. For two decades they cut down on parkland by millions and millions of acres and continuously refused to preserve some of the most magnificent landscape yet untouched on this planet. For two decades the Parks Branch suffered the frustration of that inadequate administration, and this is only the beginning of righting the wrongs in that particular territory."

This is the statement, Mr. Chairman, made to this House by a Minister who has a specific responsibility and it is a statement which I assume he made expressing the point of view of the Government with regard to the preservation of the environment, of the aesthetic beauties of British Columbia.

In view of that statement, I say to the Hon. Premier and my first question to him is: In his capacity as Premier of this province, yesterday he said the only question so far as the development of a port at Britannia and Howe Sound was one of aesthetics.

Would the Hon. Premier indicate whether or not, in view of the statement of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams), he will in his capacity as Premier of this province appear at a public hearing and state that it is his position on behalf of the Government that the aesthetics of Howe Sound should be preserved?

Will he also state at such a public hearing that he is not prepared to sacrifice the beauties of Howe Sound as the result of some handshake make before by the former Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and some as yet unnamed representative of the federal government, with regard to the establishment of a port facility in Howe Sound?

I would say, Mr. Chairman, as well that it must be of concern to all Members of this House to find that the Premier in his capacity as president of the B.C. Rail has satisfied himself on the economics of the proposed development of a port in Britannia, and has apparently satisfied himself on the narrow ecological ground based upon a report made by Howard Paish and Associates — a report which surely came as no surprise to anyone familiar with Howe Sound, and in particular the Britannia area, on the narrow grounds of the ecology. But on the larger grounds of the impact on the environment of Howe Sound and the aesthetics, that report is silent. Therefore I ask the Hon. Premier, if we are to have a public hearing as announced, in connection with the Britannia port, what is the purpose of such a hearing? Because the decision on the matter of aesthetics can be made by the Hon. Premier and the Members of his cabinet.

The Premier says, "As it now stands the economics are that Howe Sound is the area. If the only question is aesthetics then obviously the public hearing must be limited to that matter." Therefore, I ask the Hon. Premier this question: Have you completed all of your studies into the economics of the development of a port facility at Britannia? Is that decision to be a matter of discussion at the public hearing or is it not? And if the answer to that question is yes, that the matter of the economics is to be discussed at the public hearing, then are we to have a clear statement from British Columbia Rail as to the basis for its economic decision in advance of the public hearing, so that the people who will have opposition positions to take may know the case that they must meet?

The Hon. Premier yesterday, as he was reported in the paper, in dealing with the matter of construction of a port at Prince Rupert is quoted as saying that: "The federal government has some new found concern for the development of a port in

[ Page 783 ]

Prince Rupert." May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the decision of the federal government with respect to development at Prince Rupert was made as a result of a report which was delivered to the federal government in 1971. And may I also remind the Hon. Premier, that in July of 1972, the federal Minister of Transport announced in extensive detail proposals for the expansion of the road and rail systems in British Columbia and the Yukon on a basis of joint financial contributions from the provincial and federal government. This was announced in the Vancouver Sun of July 24, 1972. And subsidies are provided for the development of B.C. Rail facilities and other facilities which will improve the economics of the north of this province in that federal plan.

My question in this respect to the Hon. Premier is: Do the present statements regarding British Columbia Rail and its development of Howe Sound mesh with the proposals made to this government and to this province by the federal department?

And an ancillary question on the same matter: Are discussions still continuing between the federal and the provincial government for just such a rail and road transportation programme?

Now, dealing specifically with the matter of coal and its relationship to Sukunka, I wish to pose further questions: Is the Government committed to a policy permitting the mining and export of coal from Sukunka? Does the Government adopt that same policy with respect to the export of other energy resources? With respect to the mining and export of coal from Sukunka, what royalty is the Government demanding?

The Minister in the Press this morning is reported as saying in his comments yesterday that, "Our coal reserves in British Columbia will last another 400 years, and therefore we must sell our resource." The Minister is shaking his head. If this report is wrong I hope he will correct it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The world coal reserves.

MR. WILLIAMS: The world coal resources can last another 400 years.

But you suggest that British Columbia must sell its resources in the competitive market.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't say it must.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister, Mr. Chairman — and I would like this record — indicates that it's not 'must". At any rate, if we must be competitive with other sources of coal available in the world, will the Minister indicate what price per ton of coal at the mine will make B.C. coal competitive with other sources of supply?

My next question, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier is: Does the British Columbia Railway have a firm contract to transport coal from Sukunka? And if it does, what is the cost per ton which B.C. Rail will charge for the rail transport for that coal?

If we are to transport the coal by rail to a British Columbia rail port facility in Howe Sound, to store it and then load it onto ocean-going vessels, would the Premier indicate, in his capacity as president and chief executive officer with the British Columbia Rail, if he is satisfied about the economics of this programme, what the cost per ton will be charged by B.C. Rail for storing and loading that coal into ships? How many tons of coal will British Columbia Rail contract to transport and load on an annual basis?

It has been suggested by the Hon. Premier that the development of a port in Britannia would result in the arrival and departure of one ship per week. And yet, there is other evidence to show that the initial movement of coal will be in the neighbourhood of 2 million tons annually, involving some 44 or 45 ships, but that the anticipated volume is 10 million tons, involving many more ships.

Would the Premier please indicate how much coal B.C. Rail will contract to carry? How many unit trains will be required to carry the coal? How many cars per unit train? How many locomotives per unit train, in order to move these unit trains? What is the cost of each unit train, including the locomotives required? What will be the cost to British Columbia Rail to build — the spur line facilities into the Sukunka coal deposit at Chetwynd?

What is the cost to British Columbia Hydro for the construction of any power transmission lines into the Sukunka coal deposit? What will be the cost to British Columbia Rail for additional rail facilities at Britannia? What will be the cost to British Columbia Rail for the construction of the coal storage facilities at Britannia? What will be the cost for the construction of the port and the loading facilities at Britannia?

Mr. Chairman, the significance of these questions will not escape you because these costs will be borne by British Columbia Rail, which is a company owned by the citizens of this province — a Crown corporation which, over the years, has had significant amounts of taxpayer dollars made available to it for capital construction projects. The answers to all these questions must surely have been taken into account in arriving at the decision that the economics are in favour of Britannia.

May I ask the Hon. Premier, in his capacity as president of British Columbia Rail, how many new jobs will be created in British Columbia Rail if the carrying and loading of this coal is proceeded with? Specifically, how many new train crews will be required; how many employees will operate the coal-loading facilities; what will the additional payroll

[ Page 784 ]

be for British Columbia Rail? Lastly, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this matter which must have been one of the fundamental issues bearing upon the economic decision that Howe Sound is the right place, what investigation has been carried out into the assessment of alternative routes for the transport of the coal and the use of alternative port facilities for the loading of that coal into ships?

Mr. Chairman, if we are looking at only the problem from the point of view of British Columbia without considering any of the other alternatives that are presented, then we must be looking at this problem from the narrow, selfish view-point of British Columbia Rail. We must truly be engaged in this conflict between governments and between railway companies — using the Sukunka coal resource and its possible export merely as an instrument to carry on a debate which has continued in this province and this country for too many years.

What are the alternative studies? What are the alternatives for the movement of this coal? Has British Columbia Rail considered them all?

It is interesting that yesterday in this House the Premier said, when dealing with the matter of whether the Canadian National Railway should be cooperated with in its construction of facilities at Prince Rupert, and I quote from the Vancouver Province of this morning: "Why should the B.C. taxpayer be used to subsidize the federal railway in terms of great services to it without the federal government paying their proper share. " Why should the provincial taxpayer, Mr. Premier, be obliged to subsidize the private companies which will mine and remove Sukunka coal?

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't be.

MR. WILLIAMS: Because if you have not made the economic studies and if you cannot answer the questions which I pose to you today, then you run the risk of the British Columbia taxpayers subsidizing the movement of coal to Howe Sound.

Now, the Premier smiles and nods his head to suggest that there will be no subsidy. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the announcement with respect to the development of port facilities at Britannia came hard on the heels of the Government's announcement that there would be no coal facilities, no port facilities, developed at Squamish.

The first news of that came as a result of a telephone call which the Premier made on January 26 to an official of Anaconda Mines — a short telephone conversation, indicating that the provincial government was considering Britannia as a site to load coal for Japan. That is the Press report.

On January 29 the Hon. Premier announced publicly that Britannia was a possible port site. By yesterday, Mr. Chairman, sufficient studies had apparently been made to prove the economics of Britannia. But, I suggest to you that there is another factor which has not heretofore been adequately considered. I find that on the Dow-Jones wire service of February 1, 1973, this news release was published, and I quote: "Brameda Resources Limited and Mikas Oil Company Limited of Calgary, a unit of Brascan Limited, said that the deadline for Mikas to decide whether to put Brameda's coal property in the Sukunka area of British Columbia into production has been extended to June 30, 1975. The deadline had previously been scheduled to expire yesterday…" That's January 31, Mr. Chairman…"after having previously been extended from September 30, 1972."

The report goes on to point out that, under the option agreement which has been extended, the Mikas Oil Company Limited rights to acquire interest for providing financing would go up from 5 per cent to 52 1/2 per cent.

I quote again from this wire release: "The company said that the extension was made because of a number of outstanding matters which must be clarified, such as location of a loading port. The company said that in the meantime development, mining and market research and certain other aspects of the overall feasibility study are continuing, although at a reduced rate." I stop my quote there.

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that by February 1 an arrangement had been made between Brameda Resources and Mikas Oil, extending its option for three years. Coming, as it does, hard on the heels of the Premier's public announcement on January 29 that Britannia was a possible port site, it must have a connection. Therefore my last question to the Premier:

Was there any consultation between him or senior officials of British Columbia Rail and Brameda Resources and/or Mikas Oil Company Limited, with respect to making Britannia available as a port development to handle Sukunka coal? I want to know, Mr. Chairman, from the Premier, is there a deal which is going to result in the sacrifice of Howe Sound and the environment of that area on the altar of British Columbia Rail's financial supremacy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the questions are interlaced with assumption and then the assumptions are used as a basis for further questions. I suppose it is excellent courtroom style, but it is not appropriate to keeping with the basic fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I recall he was

[ Page 785 ]

attempting to become a lawyer but, thankfully, he was not a success at the attempt. He became a successful politician as a consequence of failing as a lawyer.

There is no firm deal on Sukunka coal. That should be clearly understood. Now, two-and-a-half to three weeks before the election was called there was a deal announced by the former government related to Sukunka. That whole matter, including all of the questions raised by the Member, is under review.

Now I will say this: there is no absolute decision on Britannia, and there is no absolute decision to ship that coal out. If you will recall, Mr. Member, a statement I made during the election campaign and I've had occasion to make a number of times since then: if we couldn't make a better deal with the resources under the ground in the Province of British Columbia than what we had been confronted with in the past, then I would prefer to see the resources stay in the ground until a generation came along that had far more sense in dealing with those resources than we have had up to this point.

The Member frames his question in a rut that reflects his political philosophy. I'll extend on that by saying…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't interrupt you; don't interrupt me. You frame your question, in my opinion, in a way that reveals your political philosophy; one of free enterprise. There is a presumption through your statements or an assumption…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there is an assumption through your statements in one of your questions that asked, "Is there going to be a subsidy to the private company developing this coal?" Must there be an assumption that the company has private and exclusive rights to that coal? — and you can interpret that any way you want.

The coal belongs to the people of British Columbia, and if the coal is to be developed, it will be developed not to the advantage of a private corporation. The negotiations are going on in the framework of development for the best interest of the people of British Columbia, and unless we get a deal we want, there won't be a deal at all.

Now the Member asks the question of how much for royalties. We are in negotiations on the whole deal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right. I'm not going to tell you what the negotiations are, that would be irresponsible of any government, whether it was you or us, in the midst of negotiations to start a public debate around the particulars of the negotiations. We've been elected to govern, and in instances like this it's obvious that the Government must assume the responsibility of making the decisions.

The question of a public hearing on the economics is absurd, and the Member knows it. No government anywhere in Canada, any provincial jurisdiction or any federal jurisdiction, takes a basic matter of economic policy to public hearings. Does the federal Minister of Finance have public hearings on the taxation policy before he implements it in terms of specifics? Not at all, In general, yes, but not in specifics. And the Member suggesting that we take specifics to a public hearing is absurd in my opinion. It would be a dereliction of the responsibility that we have as a Government to start throwing around figures while we are in the midst of negotiations on a deal that may or may not go through. I want to tell you very clearly, through you, Mr. Chairman, as I've said on many, many occasions, the previous commitment of 25 cents a ton will not hold as a royalty.

MR. WILLIAMS: How much are you asking?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I'm asking. No, you'll find out. You'll find out whether or not they're willing to accept. And if they're not willing to accept it, then I'll let the public know exactly how much we asked, why we asked for it, and why they turned it down. If they accept it, we'll let the public know exactly how much we asked, what they've accepted, and why we asked it.

But I'll tell you this, the image that the preceding Government was "business like" is absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense. There is no way that I'll be party to coal leaving British Columbia with a royalty of 25 cents a ton. I say it over and over again. Now, even if that means that the deal doesn't go ahead, and in terms of jobs, Mr. Chairman, I make that clear — and there are a large number of jobs involved.

Now in terms of the questions of aesthetics, what are we dealing with? We are dealing with the position that the Government has taken that we would hold a public hearing before we made a decision at Britannia. There are ships plying the waters of Howe Sound. There are ships plying the waters of Vancouver and English Bay. Ships go back and forth past Stanley Park every day. It's a matter of aesthetics. In some people's opinion, one of the most attractive things of going to Stanley Park is to watch the ships go by. That's a matter of aesthetics. My friend, the Member from Point Grey laughs, but it's a fact. One of the most attractive things about a harbour as a tourist attraction is to see harbour activity.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 786 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, out of Howe Sound. Is it a position of the Liberal party that every private operator who is shipping in Howe Sound now get out? Is that your position? If so state it. Is it your position that Woodfibre shouldn't exist because ships go up there, or that Squamish shouldn't exist because ships go up there? Then you must be consistent, Mr. Member. If Howe Sound is to be pristine, then the Liberal party must say that not just the coal…

MR. WILLIAMS: We want you to answer the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well certainly. I'll tell you what my position is on aesthetics; that it's a decision that has to be made based on somebody's values. But it can't be conditioned politically by a position with absolute purity and ignoring what's already going on in Howe Sound. Somebody has to accept the responsibility of inherited situations, and we've inherited one. I've said there will be no deal, if it's not a good one for the people of British Columbia.

Now the question of the pressures of the CNR versus the BCR. It's an easy argument if you care to follow into it, then that's certainly your decision, not mine. But it's an easy one to fall into — that it's a fight between the CNR and the BCR. It's not a fight between the BCR and the CNR, none. If you're asking that any government of the Province of British Columbia surrender its responsibility to the taxpayers of this province by suggesting that they not get a fairer deal in terms of what's available in other parts of the country, then you're making a mistake. That's my opinion.

There's no way that this Government will make that mistake in the same way that the previous administration took the same position. It has the responsibility to fight for the people of British Columbia within Confederation. I can debate that position with you any time. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind. But I'll tell you, all things being equal, and in this case they are not; all things being equal, in this case the economics are in the advantage of the BCR, but all things being equal…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well you'll have to wait because we're in the midst of negotiations. If we're not satisfied with negotiations then there will be no deal. If the deal is made on our basis, then it will be a good one for the people of British Columbia, It will be economically the soundest one in terms of the choice of routes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'll ask the question on economics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, a very straightforward question, and I'll give you a very straightforward answer. The negotiations are continuing, and that's all you're going to get at this point. The negotiations are continuing.

Now the alternatives that can be checked and have been examined are two. One of which was discussed very clearly with the Minister of Environment, Mr. Davis — that was the use of Neptune Terminals in Vancouver. It would have been economically feasible,  a slight increase in hauling rates, to move the coal to downtown Vancouver and ship it out of Neptune Terminals. In facing that alternative, which was given serious consideration, we're aware of the fact that we would have to ride those coal trains through West Vancouver.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neptune Terminals have indicated that they would welcome the additional business. The decision was consciously made that we would not go through West Vancouver and Mr. Davis heard that decision in my office.

The other alternative is to ship the coal down to Roberts Bank. Again it's a matter of carrying the coal not just past West Vancouver, but right through Vancouver on the way down. There's the alternative of loading it on barges and taking it down to Roberts Bank, but that means a coal port somewhere in Howe Sound to take it to Roberts Bank.

You may not agree with the decision, and that's your right. You may not agree with the direction we're going, that's your right. But we are the Government and we must make decisions, and we're making the decisions based on the hard facts that we have plus the commitments that were made by the previous administration which we said had a basic germ of a good idea in that Sukunka export. But there will be no deal, as I've said time and time again, unless it's a good one for the Province of British Columbia.

I think you should reflect, you should think carefully and cautiously about a basic difference between this side of the House and your side. Rail transport publicly owned doesn't necessarily have to confine itself to the service of privately owned industry, and I'll leave that as it stands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, Mr. Chairman, a few questions. The Premier has made statements in the last few months that he has given consideration to engaging outside economic consultants. A few names have been bandied around, such as Eric Keirans and John deWolfe. I'm wondering

[ Page 787 ]

whether he's prepared to tell the House whether he is going to engage either of these individuals or whether he is considering engaging someone to advise him on a master or otherwise economic policy. Does he consider the type of economic advice being given to him by his department inadequate?

There's very little doubt, and I'm sure everyone realizes this, that the business community in this province was shocked by the flippant remarks made by the Premier on the question of takeover of private companies in the province.

Their confidence certainly has been shaken. I wonder whether the Premier believes that these remarks will result in investment capital not coming to British Columbia. I wonder if the Premier agrees with the philosophy that investment capital does create jobs.

We've been given evidence by a Minister, speaking about the growth of the construction industry for the forthcoming year, in which he has indicated that there will be no growth in the construction industry. I think that in view of the serious lack of confidence by the business community in your Government, that you have the responsibility to ensure that the business investment capital is welcome in this province.

Your taxation policy as well has had a detrimental effect in attracting investment capital in this province. As I have said before, I believe that investment capital, invested in British Columbia, be it in the primary or in the secondary industries of our province, does create jobs. I think that we should be most concerned about unemployment. I don't think that we can have too much discussion on this most vital and human problem that this province is facing at this time.

In British Columbia at this time we have 9.9 per cent of our labour force unemployed — 95,000 people are seeking gainful employment in British Columbia today. We've heard very little from the government as to what policies they might institute in order to alleviate this most serious problem.

The Premier has failed to indicate to us his concern for unemployment in this province. I think there is a time to act and the time is now, in my opinion. I am wondering why, in view of the high unemployment, we haven't had winter works projects in the province which would help alleviate the temporary high unemployment which exists in the province. Certainly there are vast projects in reforestation that could be considered.

I'm not going to go into a whole series of other programmes because I know that the Premier is just as familiar with where the needs are as I am.

In British Columbia we have over $200 million of parity bonds. Later this year $50 million of these bonds will mature and which will have to be refinanced. I am wondering whether the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) can tell us whether there is a substantial investment in these parity bonds by insurance firms or mortgage firms; whether some of his legislation might be a deterrent in attracting this type of capital into our province; whether the type of take-over legislation will affect the interest rate which he'll have to pay when these bonds are converted.

I believe, and I am sure that the Premier does as well, that the Minister of Finance is the custodian of the purse strings of this province. I want the Premier to indicate, whether this philosophy that he is the custodian of the finances of this province will continue, or whether he will delegate to some board or some organization or some commission the right to spend the taxpayers' dollars.

We've heard the Premier talk about a new direction relative to the investment of pension funds. The Minister of Finance is responsible for the handling of hundreds of millions of dollars of pension funds, when one considers the Canada Pension Plan, the civil service and the teachers' pension plan. I am wondering whether the type of investment he is considering is that of Crown corporations. I think this is the time in which we should have a clearcut indication from the Premier whether there is some consideration being given to the usage of pension funds for funding of Crown corporations.

Last year, when the Premier was in Opposition, he made a suggestion that we should market apples in the liquor stores. I am wondering whether he is going to pursue the suggestion that he had put to the former government, that is marketing of apples in liquor stores.

The Premier has indicated that he intends taking over the B.C. Telephone Company, and he has indicated that it is not at the top of his priority list. I am wondering if he could tell us where it stands on his priority list; whether it's item number 6, item number 8, or item number 5, or item number 9.

There is very little doubt in my mind, and very little doubt in the minds of many British Columbians that the actions of this Government in the last few months have accelerated inflation in our province. We had evidence just yesterday when an announcement was made that milk will be increased at the end of this month by 2 cents a quart. It was increased by 1 cent a quart on February 9. So within the course of two to three weeks we find that there's been an increase in the price of milk of 10 per cent. It's a most necessary type of food product. I am wondering whether the Premier has any intention of regulating any of the prices and regulating the type of inflation which British Columbians are facing today.

Certainly he has had meetings with the gas and petroleum industry. He didn't roll back any prices but nevertheless he's had some discussions. I hope that the discussions he has had there will be fruitful as well.

[ Page 788 ]

As the fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, I'd like to ask the Premier whether he has established a new B.C. Energy Board. He has indicated that a new B.C. Energy Board will be established in the province. I'd like to know whether the Premier could name the individuals who will be members of this board, and if not, whether he could give us some timetable or some idea as to when the new B.C. Energy Board will be established.

That's all I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR, BARRETT: I'll try to deal in order with the Member's questions.

First of all on businessmen being frightened of the New Democratic Party, I read this with some embarrassment and perhaps a bit of modesty.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. (Laughter). From the Vancouver Province of Friday, February 23, I quote a well known non-New Democrat, who says:

"If the New Democratic Party continues along its present course in British Columbia, business will have nothing to fear. James Pattison, president of Neonex International told the Victoria Chamber Of Commerce. In an interview later, he elaborated that the government take-overs and high taxes were the only things that dampened the expansion. He said there was nothing in the provincial budget in terms of tax measures or philosophy statements that would frighten any business out of the province."

Mr. Pattison is not a member of the New Democratic Party and to this date I'd never heard that his application was being submitted to the party — although there are a large number of people joining the party. We're in a little backlog of keeping up with the memberships, as I understand it…

AN HON. MEMBER: The price has gone up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The price has gone up too, I understand.

On the question of expenditures of public funds, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) yesterday, who gave a 1 hour 20 minute dissertation of something and then ran out of the House before he got his answers, was on the air calling us Communists. That's the report I had. I am sure if the report is incorrect the Member will correct that.

He wasn't here for the answers. He posed the speech and then took off. Then he was on the airwaves explaining to everybody why we were the names that he called us.

He posed the same question as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) did, that is as to the decisions by this government around the use of funds for job creation. That Member referred to an earlier statement of mine while I was Leader of the Opposition, in training for this job. He mentioned that I suggested the use of surplus funds for job creation when I was in Opposition and that's exactly what we've done in Government.

In the budget speech we announced an expenditure of $50 million in second mortgages to stimulate housing construction in the Province of British Columbia. We've even spent $10 million on land accumulation to go along with that policy, $5 million for reforestation, $5 million for parks development and $10 million for the development of community recreational facilities, all of which expenditures involve labour-intensive projects throughout the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not enough? I agree. But certainly it was the use of the surplus. As I said during the budget speech, if we have underestimated income — and I said that we were conservative and cautious in estimating income — if during the year it's necessary for us to spend funds to stimulate the economy and there are surpluses, we will not accumulate the surpluses to present a great big figure to the House next year. We will spend the money, if it is available, on projects to stimulate employment in this province.

Since we came to office we also immediately released $25 million in school and hospital construction. I'm relating this to the jobs and the question posed by the Member and the question of pension funds. It has always been the policy of the previous government and it continues to be the policy of this Government that pension funds can and will be invested in Crown corporations. There's no objection to that.

On the question of the parity bonds. I'm glad that the Member gave me the opportunity to talk about those parity bonds, because it begins to dispel the myth that somehow with the election of the NDP money would evaporate or that our credit would be bad. I'm very pleased to report that, after six months of an NDP administration, those parity bonds are a most sought-after investment, to the point that right now, on the parity bonds paying a premium of 7 per cent, there is a minimum of a 0.5 per cent bonus that you have to pay before you can buy. On the 6 per cent parity bonds there is a 0.25 per cent bonus. They are very healthy, strong securities that are much sought after. They are a reflection of the economy of British Columbia — not the NDP, not Social Credit, not Liberal, not Conservative — but a reflection of the faith of many people in the Province of British

[ Page 789 ]

Columbia.

The last question the Member asked was about an energy board. It was because of my experience with the oil companies and the requested rollback which was not successful that after discussion with my cabinet colleagues and a report to our caucus, we have asked that a whole new energy board policy be drawn up. The Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) staff is working weekends now as I understand it. The bill is in the works.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know. We need more staff, and if there are any lawyers listening to this particular debate or who read about it in the newspapers, we are willing to hire young lawyers to help the Attorney General in his department — middle-aged lawyers and older lawyers — we need legal help. The staff in the Attorney General's department have been working very, very hard. We have no objection to hiring outside consultants in terms of legal assistance.

Now the question of Mr. John deWolfe. I relate that to the question about Mr. Eric Kierans, whose name has been mentioned, I have yet to meet Mr. Kierans.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I would think he was a good man. I have had excellent reports about him. I have yet to meet Mr. Kierans. I am looking forward to that opportunity. I like meeting people from all over Canada. But he's not advising me.

As to Mr. John deWolfe, a very fine, outstanding British Columbia citizen — despite the fact that I've had my political differences with him, Mr. John deWolfe is also not in a position of being an adviser to the Premier.

I am using the excellent staff of the civil service in the Department of Finance, I find that they know their work thoroughly, they are non-partisan, they are highly-skilled, able people, and I take their counsel and advice on that basis. It's given in a non-partisan manner. They were here before I came and they'll be here after I go. That's the beautiful thing about the civil service; they serve loyally, no matter who's hanging around. (Laughter). And that's exactly the way it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no intentions of going outside?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No intention of going outside? You mean in terms of adding people to my staff?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there will be occasions when specific projects will be sent out. That's why we set up the $5 million fund. What we hope to do out of that is that as each department has various problems we intend to hire consultants. As I said in the budget speech, we will hire consultants on the basis of their skills, their abilities and their experience. We will not confine ourselves on the basis of nationality. If there is a particular person in some country of the world who has a particular knowledge about a particular problem we're facing, we won't hesitate to hire him — an American or someone from Great Britain or from Europe or from France, La Belle France.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not necessarily through the London School of Economics. The London School of Economics has turned out some very, very conservative people. But we don't hesitate to go to conservative people. I understand Mr. deWolfe has been doing some consulting work for one of our departments.

We haven't made the decision on the basis of politics. Why, we'd even go to a Liberal if it were necessary. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we have? We've even gone for a Liberal.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about Gunderson? He's got ability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that name again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no vacancy for a bagman at this time. (Laughter).

There will be a bill introduced before the end of the term of this Government that will put those people on the unemployment rolls, I hope. I hope to see the limitation of campaign funds and full disclosure of the source of campaign funds. The only regret that I have about that is that it can't be retroactive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to make a point at this time. If an Hon. Member has a supplementary question on the same point that he wishes to put to the person answering his question, he may do so before another person is recognized. However, just to regularize the procedure I would ask you to do that

[ Page 790 ]

rather than interrupting while he is on his feet.

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I have certainly enjoyed the Premier's remarks this afternoon, particularly the part about how, while he was Leader of the Opposition, he was learning how to be Premier. He certainly displayed that well this afternoon, because we're carrying on in a very charming fashion the tradition that was established by the previous administration of not getting right to the point in answering questions that Opposition Members put forward.

I have six brief questions to place to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. They relate to his many roles as Minister of Finance. The first of these is: As trustee for all the trust funds of the province, how much money do you control as trustee for the trust funds?

Secondly, as these trust funds are invested by yourself, on what basis are the interest rates for each investment established?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I can save your questions. The information will be made available to the House but you'll have to put it in the form of a question on the order paper and I'll give you a return. I can't give it all to you right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Premier, I would ask you to…

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member just be seated and I'll just make a point of order.

I just want to request that you reserve any comments until after he has completed his questioning, and then answer them all at the same time.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, through you if I could just make a clarification, I am not asking the Premier to list every dollar in every fund. I just want to get a general idea from him as to the total size of this portfolio that he manages because, Mr. Chairman, he is the trustee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's big. That's a general sign.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but would it be $1.5 billion, $2 billion, $2.5 billion? If you were to talk to the manager of an investment fund, he would tell you the size of the portfolio he manages, and that's really the question I'm asking. How big is this portfolio?

And the second thing is, since the Premier or Minister of Finance not only manages the portfolio but says what the interest rates shall be on the funds that are invested, I would like to know: On what basis are these interest rates established? Now, those are the two questions I have for the Premier in the one hat he wears as manager of this investment portfolio.

I have another series of questions to the Premier regarding the Crown corporations for which he is the fiscal agent because, Mr. Chairman, on one hand he has the funds, and he says how they are going to be invested and at what interest rates, and on the other hand he receives the funds on behalf of the Crown corporations. So the questions that I have now are in regard to this other role — asking to hang the one hat up, and take the other off the rack and put it on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Better make sure I don't have sticky fingers.

MR. McGEER: Well, perhaps we'll learn that. You'll have a chance to wash your hands clean or show us how deeply they're in the cookie jar this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the four questions are similar ones.

The first is as the fiscal agent for the B.C. Hydro. In the budget speech the Premier made it clear that he was the fiscal agent for the B.C. Hydro. How is the budget for the B.C. Hydro decided? In other words, how does the Premier or Minister of Finance know how much the B.C. Hydro requires?

The second question with regard to the B.C. Hydro is: What is the budget for the coming year for the B.C. Hydro? I'm talking about the capital budget.

And the third question is: How much of that budget…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was number two again?

MR. McGEER: What's the budget for the B.C. Hydro? The capital budget wasn't detailed at all in the budget address — only that the Premier was the agent.

The third question is: How much of that B.C. Hydro capital budget will come from the trust funds? In other words, how much must the Premier receive for the B.C. Hydro that he gives as trustee for the trust funds?

Question four:…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, I missed three.

MR. McGEER: Three was these three questions — 3 (a), (b), (c), if you like. O.K.?

Now, we're going on to the B.C. Railway. Mr. Chairman, the Premier is fiscal agent for the B.C. Railway. So, as fiscal agent for the B.C. Railway I'm asking the Premier: 1) How is the budget for the B.C. Railway decided? 2) What is it for the coming year?

[ Page 791 ]

3) How much comes from these provincial trust funds?

The next question — as fiscal agent for the B.C. Schools Capital Financing Authority: 1) How is the budget decided? 2) How much is it for the coming fiscal year? 3) How much of that comes from provincial trust funds?

Lastly, as the fiscal agent for the B.C. Hospitals Financing Authority, how's the budget decided? How much is it? And how much of this comes from provincial trust funds?

Six questions, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I hate to push a booklet that I had something to do with in authorship, but had you perused this particular book, and had done your…. Can I draw your attention to page 10, Mr. Member? It's obviously a page that you skipped.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has his own budget.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I see — sorry, he was probably spending his time reading his own budget, and didn't have enough time to do the research. On page 10 of the Government's budget, Mr. Member, the information is there for everybody to see and perhaps you would like me to read it to you. The British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is a Crown corporation. It has within it Canada Pension Funds as $74,992,000, and Provincial Trusteed Funds as $51 million. British Columbia Railway has no Canada Pension Funds, but $60 million in Provincial Trusteed Funds. And I'll give you the total of the trusteed funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON, MR, BARRETT: We're coming to your point. I'm just telling you what's there now. You forget your questions. You did ask me how much money we've got in these trusteed funds and where they were spent. Don't you remember that? Remember I jumped up and said, "Would you like to put it on the order paper as a question?" But you didn't want to, and now I'm giving you the answer. So take out your pencil and take some notes. Now right here, Mr. Chairman, on page 10 of the budget speech — he can just photostat that information — it says that British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority, which the Member asks, has Canada Pension Funds of $48,380,000 and Provincial Trusteed Funds of $7 million. British Columbia Regional and Hospital Districts Financing Authority — which the Member asked, is $15,428,000 in Canada Pension Funds, and Provincial Trusteed Funds $6 million, for a total in the four Crown agencies of $138.8 million in the Canada Pension Funds, and $124 million Provincial Trusteed Funds.

The Government of British Columbia has a total of $3,008,284,000 in Trusteed Pension Funds, 98 per cent of which is invested in long term commitments. The figure again is, $3,008,284,000.

The boards of directors of both B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail determine the budget. Since assuming office we have made a careful study of the budgetary processes, and at this moment the Auditor General — not the Auditor General, the Comptroller General — that's what you want. That's the one you wanted to fire in Ottawa. Are you suggesting that when you fire them in Ottawa, we hire them here? What was his name? Max somebody in Ottawa that the Liberals wanted to get rid of. That's a strange schizophrenia with the Liberal party — "We don't want to do these things in Ottawa, but it's all right out here in Victoria." So actually all you wanted to do was move Max Henderson out of your Liberal hair there, and bring him out here.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I can understand how you feel about that group in Ottawa. And I'm not going to rub you about it. I'm not that kind of fellow. (Laughter).

Our Comptroller General, Mr. Minty has been instructed by me as the fiscal agent to give us a detailed report on the budgeting and accounting procedures of both Crown corporations. We have been in office six months and we hope that Mr. Minty's report will be available shortly. The current budget that is just finishing for the BCR and for B.C. Hydro — the current budgets were ones that were drafted in an existence when we were elected. Both corporations are now in the final preparations of drawing up next year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary question. I recognize the Hon. First Member for Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the supplementary question that I want to ask really is: Are the budgets for the Crown corporations — I talk particularly about the B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Rail — being revised? Because it's difficult for me to believe that firm budgets for the coming fiscal year had not by this time been prepared. Mr. Chairman, the Premier read us all the information on page 10 of the budget. But what's so astonishing to those of us who've sat here year after year and watched these budgets come forward, where in the figures quoted there's no meaningful relation to what is anticipated in the way of revenue, is that the budgets never mention the capital requirements of the Crown

[ Page 792 ]

corporations.

Yet each year suddenly appearing out of nowhere, is several hundred million dollars worth of investments that were made under our very noses in the Crown corporations.

In presenting the fifth Liberal budget this year, Mr. Chairman, I said that the figures we presented for revenue would be at least $100 million closer to the truth than those presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I was surprised once more not to see the budgets of the Crown corporations included because as the Premier just stated, there is something in the order of $3 billion invested in these Crown corporations.

Mr. Chairman, I've been here for 10 years now, and those funds have grown from less than $500 million to $3 billion in that time. Never has there been a word of debate on the floor of the House, regarding that huge amount of money. We're just presented the next year with several hundred million dollars having sort of flown away into these Crown corporations.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm no wiser as a result of the Premier's present statements than I was with the previous Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you are not any wiser, you perhaps should ask more precise questions. I answered the ones that you put forward.

Now, in terms of the BCR, let me correct my statement. I did approve a draft early in the fall of the current fiscal year of the BCR's budget. Hydro budget has not been completed yet.

You will note that, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Public Accounts Committee now has the distinction of having a Member of the Opposition as chairman. From what I read in the newspaper, I note that the Public Accounts Committee is asking someone from Hydro to appear at that committee. I'm curious about their appearance too, because I shared the same depth of lack of knowledge as that Member did, and the same curiosity.

Yes certainly public accounts has been opened. The avenue is now open. For the Member to suggest that something less is happening is not correct. Are you a Member of the Public Accounts Committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes I am.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well that's good. I would appreciate hearing from you about what is going on in public accounts because it is dominated by the Opposition now. That's where they've got to do their homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well they've got a chairman. The chairman is calling the shots there. He's saying, "This fellow come and that fellow come." A whole new era of liberty; access to information. I welcome it. I'm proud of the Government that has allowed an Opposition member to be chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I know that the Opposition is proud of it too. As a matter of fact I saw in the newspaper when this election was announced, it said, "Socred wins election." The only one they've won in a long time. Even that one was biased…

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The first one this year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …because all the NDP Members, I think, voted for that particular Member. He's a good Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hope he does a good job — because he knows that this House hasn't had access to accounts that way before. I look forward to the new experience.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: The Premier is yet to say anything about the school district's capital financing authority; has yet to say anything about the B.C. hospital…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about the budget for the coming year — not the information for the past year that was printed in the budget speech. We've had the information after the fact before.

[Ms. Young in Chair.]

I was very pleased with the delightful way in which the Premier said how much public accounts was going to be doing. But, Ms. Chairwoman, it was the Premier himself who made the motion that the Public Accounts Committee should deal with the accounts of last year — not the budgets for this coming year. His motion restricted what the Public Accounts Committee can do. He may be very curious about the coming year's budget, because perhaps that way he'd get the information too. But, I would hope since he's the fiscal agent, he wouldn't be duped by these Crown corporations. I would hope that as of this moment he would know exactly what the financial status of the province was; he would know

[ Page 793 ]

exactly what the budget requirements of Crown corporations would be; he would know exactly the state of the trust funds which he would control; he would know exactly how he was going to invest them and at what interest rates.

These are the sort of things that a man who has that many hats needs to have right at his fingertips. Not even to be aware, Ms. Chairwoman, that his own motion restricted the Public Accounts Committee to public accounts of last year and leaves us without any power to enquire into these budgets, I think was either carelessness or incompetency. But, Ms. Chairwoman, I ask the Premier once more, will he give us the information about the capital requirement of schools and hospitals in this province for the coming year?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.

I am not going to take time this afternoon to run down the page marked M-15 in the blue-book which talks about the allocation of funds for the Premier's office and gives us a fine comparison of last year. I think that it should be left to the Premier and his office to decide what kind of funds he needs in the operation of his office. If he needs $20 million more or $20,000 more for this year than they needed last year, then I think by all means he should have that.

I think that when the next Premier takes over the office in 1976, he should be given the same latitude. If he thinks that he has not enough staff or too much staff, I think he should be given the luxury of deciding for himself what it is that he wants in his office I think that it is not quite kosher, if I might use one of his own terms, to make a comparison just on the end totals — comparing $137,000 directly across the page from $156,000 and having it released for the Press and by the Press that the increase is only $20,000 in his office.

I think that we should talk about the fact that the Deputy to the Premier, whose figure is $27,000, has just been transferred over to another page and that in essence, the additional expenditure in the office, not counting renovations, is something like $47,000 in the office. I am not here to discuss that, I'm going to leave that with somebody else.

I'm here to ask one question. The question is a serious question, in my opinion. It has to do with the credibility of the office of the first Minister in the Province of British Columbia. I want to know, Mr. Premier, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, what shall be your attitudes on contracts throughout this year?

A little history on contracts. It used to be, Ms. Chairwoman, that the highest honour that a man could proffer was his word. Now that's sort of fallen by the way, you get evidence of that in this House from time to time. But, the highest honour that a man could proffer was his word — they didn't need anything else but his word. If a man said, "I'll be there at 8 o'clock." You could count on the fact that he was going to be there at 8 o'clock, However, degradation set it and it wasn't too long and they had to have some kind of a signal that a contract existed. It was then that they went to the handshake. If I was to be contracted to you, Ms. Chairwoman, on any score, we would hold hands on the deal.

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SCHROEDER: Then after that it degraded a little farther and even the handclasp didn't have enough significance to bind the parties to a contract. They went to a token of contract, of which a dowry might be an example — where somebody had to give 3 pigs or 8 cows or 6 changes of raiment so he could get a wife.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get a husband.

MR. SCHOEDER: Husband, Ma'am, did you say husband?

Then after that they took a seal of contract, whereby they melted some wax and somebody had a ring, and there was some engraving on that ring and a seal was given to a contract. After that it went to the writ of contract. Now it degraded even beyond that point and they had to have witnesses to the writ.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): And lawyers.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just a second, I'm coming to that, Mr. Member. But then degradation set in again and now, lo and behold, we have to have notarized contracts, Now, I'm wondering about these notarized contracts Ms. Chairwoman.

I want to remind the Premier that the real fabric, or the real essence, or the real gut of any contract is the intent of that contract — it's the intent to abide by its terms. The security of any contract is not in its existence, but it is in the performance of the contractor to abide by his contract.

I would like to express an opinion. I think that the scope of a contract involves this: It is the first Minister's responsibility — I hope you are listening Mr. Premier…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm listening.

MR. SCHOEDER: It is the first Minister's responsibility to go beyond his personal guarantee when he is the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 794 ]

It's more than just personal guarantees that are involved. It is more than just the guarantee of the council that is involved. It is more than just the guarantee of a political party that's involved. It goes beyond all of this and, indeed, it envelopes the contract of the people of British Columbia with an individual or with groups of individuals.

It is also my opinion that responsibility is not repealed by an election. If people of British Columbia have an obligation to a group of individuals, it is not repealed by an election.

Now I want to talk about the consequence of the contract. If we do not abide by the contract — if we renege at the first Minister's level — then we cannot insist on regard for a contract at any level. We cannot break the sanctity of a guarantee at any level unless we wish to allow guarantees to be broken at every level. That's just plain logic, Mr. Premier, through you, Ms. Chairwoman.

I would like just to raise before the Premier several instances of contracts. I am not going to discuss these; I just want to allude to them. How about the Port Simpson cannery, where "Barrett says he will finance it all," in Native Voice, August of 1972?

What about the Canadian Bill of Rights which allows a man an ownership in which every title deed is a guarantee by the people of the province that a private individual shall have ownership and every right of ownership to a piece of property in the Province of British Columbia? What happened to the time when you had a willing buyer and a willing seller and the two could get together in the time honoured tradition and could have a transfer of property? Now, lo and behold, they're going to be brought in chains to the marketplace.

How about the copper smelters at Kimberley and at Clinton? Cancelled. Contract given. Cancelled.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What contract?

MR. SCHROEDER: What about the vocational school at Chilliwack? Contracts had been let. Cancelled. No regard for contract.

How about the mediation commission contract? Cancelled. How about the Kaiser deal? Breach of contract. Now we haven't actually broken the contract yet. But what we are talking about involves a breach of contract.

How about the PNE? No negotiations with the Vancouver Council, no meeting with the directors, just no regard for contract.

What about the agreement to have consultation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture before Bill 42? What about the contract that was given, not by the present Premier but by the previous administration — a contract that was given to the petroleum industries which said that there would be no change in the royalty structures in 1975? But, lo and behold, we have no regard for that contract which, in my opinion, is the contract of the people of British Columbia to the petroleum industries. Lo and behold, we have an increase.

I've got this letter here which says, "…the doubling of royalty rates when regulations provided for no change until 1975 and by amending legislation so that the constant rate of royalty during the initial term of a lease is also doubled, you have dramatically changed the political policy of the province and in so doing you are removing the stability and the confidence required for high-risk investment."

This comes over the signature of J. O'Brien, dated February 26, and it arrived at the Premier's office today.

How about Sukunka coal? — where the Premier says, "No deal." Regardless of what the previous commitment was, handshake or written agreement; like I said before the essence of a contract is not in what form it exists, but the essence of a contract is in the intent to perform.

How about the Seattle Light & Power? I've got a list here a mile long that I could talk to you about. But I just want to ask you, Mr. Premier, just one simple question, through you, Ms. Chairwoman: What is your attitude toward contracts and what shall be your performance on contracts? I need to know this before I can vote on whether or not we are going to give $28,000 to the Premier. —

Fellows, you've all seen this somewhere, haven't you? It says, "Dave Barrett, a man you can trust." A man you can trust. After the list that I've just gone through, I want to ask you just this question: Would you buy a used car from this man? (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ms. Chairwoman, first of all, on the basis of a used car, I don't know who's trying to peddle what kind of car, but it's obviously loaded with either a load of ignorance or a load of manure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is there something wrong with the word "manure?" It's one of the most healthy ingredients and natural ecological questions.

Normally I wouldn't stand up and respond to a Member who is new to this House and who has taken it upon himself to lecture to this House about the meaning of a contract. But I think it's worthwhile for his edification and others to discuss the meaning of an election contract.

My first campaign was in 1960 when this party took the position that there should be public ownership of the B.C. Electric Company. It said so openly it said so honestly. For that position, Ms. Chairwoman, we were called "socialists." The Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett), who finds it

[ Page 795 ]

convenient to send telegrams from Buenos Aires and points south, was the leader of the Government at that time, the Premier of the province and the leader of the party for which that Member is a somewhat new spokesman.

In that particular campaign it was the former Premier who said, "Don't vote for those socialists. They're going to take over the B.C. Electric. My contract is, as a Social Crediter, elect me and we will not take over the B.C. Electric." Do you remember that? Then after a nine-month pause, a pregnant pause, we were offered the baby of a broken contract that even shocked the shareholders, who believed in free enterprise.

I don't mind the Member attempting to give the impression to the House that there's something sanctimonious about the Social Credit Opposition; that if they make contracts that bind another government…an election, Ms. Chairwoman, is all about contracts.

He raises the mediation commission. One of the things we said during the election campaign was that if we got elected that contract's over. And guess what happened. We got elected. And that contract was over.

The Member has some gap in his learning about political science. Election time is a presentation of point of view. That's a contract between the voter and elector. One of the things that amazed me upon our election was when I was being criticized in an editorial on how "dangerous" this fellow Barrett was. "He's actually going to keep his word!" In British Columbia that's a brand new experience.

The contract to the voters to open up the public accounts committee: done. To have the rules rewritten: done. To eliminate the mediation commission: done. To give $200 a month to every senior citizen in this province guaranteed that minimum income: done.

All the way through he has this presumptive attitude that somehow this commitment is to continue. I'm surprised that he's even got both shoes on today. (Laughter). It's a refreshing thing.

I cast no reflection on the fact that you're a new Member, but it certainly is a degree of protection for the rest of us. Nonetheless he is here with both shoes on and he is beginning to learn. I want to add to his information about some of the other things that he raised.

He mentioned the Sukunka coal. Do you mean to stand there in your place, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, and say that if there was a rotten, lousy, stupid deal in the works by a previous administration, that we had no obligation to end that lousy, rotten, stupid deal? Well we did end it.

It's a matter of interpretation. I can understand why you're in the profession you're in. If you were a lawyer, along with what you're doing and how you interpret it, we'd all be in trouble.

I want to tell you that you can't twist principles on the basis of that kind of analysis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, you'll give me lessons and I'll give you lessons. We'll share philosophy. I spent a little time discussing philosophy in my time. I don't make the presumption that because I'm a Member here that a particular six years of tuistic philosophy is superior to your Calvinistic approach; or my very good friend down here with his Wesleyan approach.

But the philosophical differences in terms of interpreting principle are not applied to the Social Credit Party or the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. Politics is a matter of saying, "This is the kind of contract we will go forward to and if this exists we will end it."

British Columbia was used to 20 years of being told one thing during an election campaign and another thing when the government was returned to office. If you want a classic example, go into the library. They have an excellent clipping service. When you have some time to spare in the House, as some Members do, call in the clippings from the 1959 session, the 1960 session; then the short session of 1961, when you had all the statements about contract or the protection of free enterprise by Social Credit, and all the threats that were made within that nine-month period. Your framework of contract, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, by your party, left a bad taste in the mouth of all British Columbians.

MR. SCHROEDER: I don't remember, Mr. Premier, asking the question, "What was it that the Social Credit had done in the past 20 years?". I thought the question was, "What do you intend to do about contracts in the future?".

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Madam Chairman, this afternoon I think we've heard some very excellent questions and very excellent debate, particularly from the very last Member (Mr. Schroeder). He made an exceptionally good point to this House about the viability of contracts.

The Premier rather wrapped the whole thing up. I may say he's had a remarkable afternoon of taking the balls off the wall and just returning them more quickly than they came to him. I've got to give him full credit for that. But he sort of summed up and he was talking about bad taste. I can tell one thing — bad taste continues in the Province of B.C. It continues mighty bad in the Province of B.C.

[ Page 796 ]

We still do not have the right in the Province of British Columbia, as a citizen, to sue our Government. I think that is absolutely, utterly disgraceful. There's not one word in your throne speech and there's not one word in your budget speech about bringing in the right to sue the Crown. The Premier agrees that is right. Do you agree with the premise that we should have the right to sue the Crown in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will come.

MR. GARDOM: "It will come." Well, you won't have to look too far for a good bill because they've been introduced by four — even by one of your own Members who's sitting in the corner overly dressed today. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you attacking the haberdashers?

MR. GARDOM: He'll get me at coffee for that, I know.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Premier, that the points that were made by the former Member are exceptionally valid points. If the Government has taken the right steps against industries, against the farmers that it is hurting, if it has taken the right steps against the miners that it is hurting, if it has taken the right steps against the insurers that it is hurting — fine and dandy. But if it has not, those people should be permitted to have their day in the courts of this land. Make no mistake of that.

When we're talking about cases in the courts of this land, I don't think we wish the courts to be used for frivolous political lawsuits. I would ask the Premier today if he is going to announce to this House if he's going to discontinue his lawsuit against the former Premier of this Province; or, if he is not, why he isn't; or, if he is not, when is he going to get along with it. The legal process is not something to be tinkered with by a politician, which is happening insofar as this lawsuit is concerned if it doesn't go to trial. If you mean business, you do it. If you don't, you scratch it right off the books.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You offering a settlement? (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: You know, the Premier in all of his sweetness — I just was wondering where all of this came from. Because it's really a remarkable thing, in the Premier's estimates, to find that we've got so much sweetness and perhaps, in some cases, so little light over here. I find out at least where the sweetness comes from.

I read in the paper that the Premier of the province has a portrait in white and chocolate icing sugar which is three-foot-six by six feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bigger than life. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I think you must have been nibbling at your own picture today. I really do. It says that if you keep it in a dry place, it will last for several months. Well I tell you, I think the morning line in B.C. is about five to two. It may well outlast your office if you continue to make the number of attacks that you have against various sectors of the community.

The Province of British Columbia, notwithstanding the "happy days" statements of Mr. Pattison — which I'd like to refer to in a few moments — is still very worried as to what your ideological direction is. It seems that day by day by day we are going more to the left, more to the left, more to the left. Every day there's an indication that your political direction is becoming more socialistic, more socialistic and more socialistic. Make no mistake of that.

The thing that is even more disturbing, which was touched upon by the last speaker and was also touched upon by the First Member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), is that you seem to be totally ignoring the practical — and I'm underlining the word "practical" — advice of people who have had experience in a specific endeavour and in a particular field. I'm talking here of the miners and of the farmers and of the insurers and of the members of the Pacific National Exhibition — which is not a community centre and God help us if it ever becomes a community centre, because it is the Pacific National Exhibition for the whole of this province, period. Also, you haven't been receiving or soliciting any advice from the corporate structures.

What you do is this — and it's a very interesting and not really novel political mechanism for the problem. You lock yourself in with a position — with a very, very firm, extremely rigid socialistic position — and then you sit back and wait for reaction. This is one of the many reasons, I think, that the people in the province are slowly getting the willies. They're looking upon, Ms. Chairwoman, the direction of the New Democratic Party, NDP — No Darn, for lack of another word, Prosperity Party — in the Province of British Columbia. They're looking upon you as a bunch of socialistic regulationists and academic theoreticians and structuralists. I'd like to hear the Hon. Premier's remarks on these three terms when he gets up.

You don't seem to be going to the doers in society. You don't seem to be going to these people within the PNE. You don't seem to be going to the mining industry. You haven't gone to agriculture to request their assistance and advice as to what to do, when to do it, how to do it and where to do it. No siree. You just come in with a big fat smack bill,

[ Page 797 ]

without any notification of what it may be, and then wait for a reaction. You say this is participatory democracy. I don't think it is one bit. People are scared silly, save and except nothing-to-fear Pattison. Well, I think he must be suffering from naivety in the extreme. If he thinks, Ms. Chairwoman, that a Prince Charming approach on his part can change what the Premier in this province has to do and what he has to represent within the confines of his own party — if he thinks that that can change the Premier into a Cinderella, I very much doubt it. I think we've got something there which is more like Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother. What Mr. Pattison should perhaps do, as a word of advice to him, is to go ahead and decorate his office with a couple of 20-foot signs of the Waffle Manifesto and read it every day.

The Press could do a good service to the Province of B.C.in this regard. One newspaper, I believe it was the Vancouver Sun, published the total provisions of one of the statutes that are in front of us now, the land commission bill. I think that was a very good service. I would like to see the newspapers in this province print the Waffle Manifesto from start to finish. It's not that long. I'd like to have them put at the bottom of the printing of the Waffle Manifesto the names of all of the current elected representatives in the New Democratic Party who support it.

I would like to hear from the Premier today if he disavows it, all of it. Does he subscribe to it, all of it? What part does he like? What part doesn't he like? So we'll know which way you're going. Because Mr. Pattison says, "Oh, I didn't find her in the budget so the boy must be O.K." But there's a little more to it than that, I think, for Mr. Pattison's interest.

You've got to give the Premier excellent credit for being darn prophetic. In the election material that was sent out, it said this: "The good life in God's country has faded." "Has faded" — well, I suppose, it's an admission that there was a completely good life, which we seriously questioned and you seriously questioned too. But the fading seems to be pretty white. I think what we had is fading. He continues. He says, "Our citizens feel uneasy." Right on, right on. They do feel uneasy. They feel a darn more sight uneasy today than they felt when you were elected last year. Make no mistake of that whatsoever.

There are a couple of other very interesting things in here, talking about an economy for people:

"As an immediate step an NDP Government will introduce a Resource Companies Information Act to ensure full financial disclosure by resource firms. The Act will provide information needed to significantly increase revenues from our resources."

I wish Mr. Pattison would read that statement.

Where is this immediate step that was so immediate at the time of campaign and we've not heard too much about it? When is Big Brother going to come totally in and sit behind the private till? Furthermore, as was indicated by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), why won't you make the public tills subject to full financial disclosure, and give us the complete policy and economic direction of these Crown agencies, which we are not receiving in the Province of B.C. today.

What about an Auditor General? It's all very well to make a few remarks about Max Henderson — I was going to say "Ferguson" again here — in Ottawa. It's all very well for the Premier to say, "Well, you know, you boys wanted him out in Ottawa." I didn't want him out in Ottawa. We need an Auditor General I think in every legislature in this country, and we certainly need one on the federal side.

I've been talking about this thing for the better part of five or six years in the Province of B.C., and rather than use my own words, which I am becoming more tired of no doubt than you are, I'd just like to quote a little bit of an extract from an editorial in the Vancouver Province, which I think is today or yesterday, or pretty close by:

"B.C. needs an Auditor General with a real degree of independence from government control, and he would need an adequate staff to do the difficult spade work of checking for waste and impropriety in government spending. Without the information collected by an expert staff of independent auditors, the members of the Public Accounts Committee can't begin to meet their watchdog responsibilities in more than a token way."

How correctly that was summed up by the editorial writer for the Province. They won't know where to sink their teeth in. How correct that statement is.

At the moment, B.C. has a Comptroller General who is required to make sure that government spending accords with the law, which is very correct, and no complaint whatsoever about that. But he's a creature of the Department of Finance, and by no stretch of the imagination does his job permit him to be an Auditor General in the public sense in the Province of B.C.

I'm introducing a bill to that effect tomorrow, and I do hope that I will at least receive the support of some of the Members of the backbench of the Government, because there's been no indication, in fact negative indication, that there'll be any support from the cabinet.

You know, we hear fine words about that from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He goes to the trouble now of writing a letter to the editor because he's had such a silent time in the House so far this year. He talks about his insurance bit and he says this: "This administration is determined not only that public business will be done

[ Page 798 ]

properly, but that it will be seen to be done properly," which is a paraphrase of that great quotation.

But that's what the last Social Credit Member who was speaking was referring to — proper account. That's what the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was referring to — proper account, doing the public business in the public eye. And if it is mucked up, the public have the right to go to court to wage their case against the government, any government. As the Premier says, and quite correctly, there's going to be changes of government in this province. Against any government, we've got to start protecting citizen's rights in this province, and there's no indication of that being done effectively at the present time.

You carry on in this thing: "An NDP government" — talking again about economy for people — "an NDP government will be prepared to place firms unwilling to meet these conditions under public ownership." Without recompense? Just guillotine them out, and not let them have an opportunity to go to court? You say in here you're going to establish full public control over our resources sector. Mr. Pattison doesn't have anything to worry about. I'd like to send him a copy of this too.

Now, the first speaker today, the Member from West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) when he was talking about Squamish, said let's see what the NDP were saying when they were running for election and when they were making contracts and offers to the public, saying, "You elect us and it shall be done," which he didn't explain in his analogy. You made an offer. The public accepted it. You're not doing it today — that's breach of contract.

You said, "The NDP will establish a provincial transportation authority to co-ordinate all provincial transportation systems." Well now, why in heaven's name don't you get along with your provincial transportation authority to co-ordinate all provincial transportation systems, before you start nibbling at Britannia and saying you don't want to nibble at Prince Rupert?

Where is that kind of an effective decision being made? This is where it should be made. I think this is a good idea. You certainly get my total support for it, it's a first class suggestion. Why don't you do it instead of running ad hoc across the country and trying to flit a little stuff out of Britannia, which I don't think will end up flitting out of Britannia one way. Not one way.

Now, I would like to direct myself to one final topic, and this is a topic that I have spoken about before in this House. It's a topic that has been spoken about by one of your former Members, now Mr. Justice Berger, and it's a topic that has been talked about by the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder).

You have not done the right thing to the British Columbian Indian community. You have not done it. They have had studies up to here and back and forth. Make no mistake of it. We've heard these very sentiments from the other two names I have just mentioned. The former Members of this House heard this before from me.

I'm going to ask the Premier today, first of all not just to say, "We're going to have a study and we don't want to go ahead and do one thing because it may reflect against another, " because I am going to tell you four or five things you can do today as a cabinet, and should ethically and morally do today as a cabinet, and just by snapping your fingers. All you have to have is a correct change of attitude to do it. What I'm asking that you do is change the attitude toward our British Columbian Indian citizen.

I think that a lot of people will agree that the reserve system has resulted in a form of cloistering. What was maybe considered to be humanitarian and workable over 100 years ago, today is definitely not, because we are no longer a community of trappers. But we've got to remember, Mr. Premier, that our society has developed in three phases — rural to resource development, and now it is one that has almost become 90 per cent urban.

But over the past 100 years, and this is not any criticism of the federal side — they're entitled to their share of criticism too and make no mistake about it — the province has done nothing. But over the past 100 years, the rules dealing with our Indian people were established for all practical purposes totally without their consent and totally without their consultation.

They have not experienced anything like any part of the dynamic change that has been enjoyed by the rest of our society. Be it ever so slowly, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Premier, the very dreary documents and philosophies that encircled the Indian into this position of second class security are at long last beginning to change. I say thank God for that.

Nineteen fifty-two was a very banner year, apart from the provincial side as my friends over here will like. The Government of Canada finally recognized in 1952, and it wasn't until then, 21 years ago, that the new Indian Act, or the Indian Act then, accepted the theory that autonomy over Indian land by Indian people was not only possible, but it was fair and in their better interests. So that decision was totally made. So once again the Indian person started to become recognized as a person of the moment, as opposed to the fallacy that he was something that history had finished and dealt with and the people of Canada slowly started to realize that it was only the buffalo that had disappeared and not the Indian.

Now, the Indian communities in our province that are close to the urban centres are emerging into our society more quickly, I think, than their rural

[ Page 799 ]

neighbours, but every Indian in our province still gets the wrong end of the stick. It's about time we all put our shoulder to the wheel and see that that comes to an end, because you've got to remember that they're taxpayers.

I'm going to emphasize this, because there's nothing in your election material in my view that's worth a darn insofar as coming up with any kind of effective programme for the Indian people. You just say "Indians, a new way" and that you're going to work to ensure the repeal of the Indian Act. A lot of the Indian community don't want to have that happen. But you don't say in here one thing that you're going to do for them within the Province of B.C.

Now, you cannot go ahead and deny him his reserve, because that is his land, but he's got to be given the full opportunity to free himself from the fetters of the reserve system. It's the system that's the bad thing. To do that, and I would repeat this half a dozen times, he has to be equipped to cope. He's got to be equipped to cope.

We have to instil in these people feelings of confidence and equality. You know that's pretty darned difficult, when they attend a modern B.C. school in the daytime, and, in many cases, they have to cross the potholes each evening to squalor, because their daily living becomes a series of contradictions and insecurity.

Now, you do have the legal and the moral and the governmental responsibility to do something. The constitutional side step — I don't want to hear that, particularly from the Hon. Premier, because this is something that was used by his predecessor, and very badly used in my view indeed.

The first step in reducing the apartness of the Indian lies in him becoming completely accepted as a citizen of the province in every respect. The British North America Act is no obstacle to that at all. I'm going to read one section of the Act, and this is the one section of the Act which I wish the Hon. Premier will never forget and which will give him the scope to make the necessary changes.

That's section 87. It says this: "Provincial laws of general application shall be applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province." That doesn't mean anything more than what it says. So make provincial laws applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province. This means that they are entitled to the home acquisition grant. They are entitled to municipal aid; they are entitled to services; and they are entitled to each and every provincial law of general application the same way as each and every other citizen of the province.

The constitutional sidestep is not the kind of game that can be played here. I say, just forget the "i" dotting and forget this old "Hiawatha" outlook and thinking that we have been having in British Columbia over the years and get to this thing very, very quickly.

I'm just going to mention a few specifics dealing with this. As I said, they should be entitled to the service because they fall under provincial laws, but still they don't, They are definitely taxpayers. There is some misconception among certain members of the community, and hopefully not any elected representatives, that Indians are not taxpayers. But they sure are, because they contribute to provincial revenues just the same way as everybody else. They pay their 5 per cent — their motor vehicle user tax, gasoline, driver's licence, building material tax, manufacturing tax and liquor tax. They contribute to workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance and no end of other things.

The only tax shelter for a B.C. Indian is totally nebulous. He doesn't have to pay income tax for any income he may earn on a reserve, which is about as close to nil as anything could possible be. Also, he does not have to pay land tax for his reserve land. Well, there is no need for the Government to got steamed up about these two points because the working side of the Indian community earns whatever they earn off the reserve and they pay income tax on it.

Insofar as the land tax is concerned, the majority of homes on the reserves would never, ever, attract the provincial land tax. These arguments are very hoary and old arguments — that they are not taxpayers — and apart from being hoary and old they are grossly unfair. It is just plain bunk, insofar as I'm concerned.

So we can see that the provincial contribution in B.C. has been next to nil. The federal contribution has been very large indeed. Maybe the Indian community feel that it hasn't been large enough, but it certainly has been large. Apart from anything else, the federal government year paid $683 plus transportation for each Indian child in a provincial school. That's going up to $737. Say you have four children, you multiply that by four, and I'd ask the Hon. Premier how many people in B.C. would be paying close to $3,000 land tax for education costs — next to none.

The province is doing pretty well insofar as the schooling is concerned. For housing, a couple of years ago the federal government provided about $3 million by way of direct subsidy plus low interest loans by CMHC. Two years ago — I haven't got a figure closer than that — the federal contribution overall was about $8.3 million. I read in the paper this morning that they are putting up $1.7 million to assist diking in the Chilliwack area for about 700 acres — which is a very worthwhile step.

But, in B.C. — here's what we have done as governments — the past contribution was about 50 cents a head from the Indian Advisory Act and about

[ Page 800 ]

$1.4 million from the First Citizens Fund. The First Citizens Fund was conceived primarily, I would think, as a capital resource for the hydro dams and secondly, a very mighty poor peace pipe for the Indian community. Getting grants from it was pretty well like subjecting oneself to offerings from the tables of the mighty.

In other jurisdictions you find help. Ontario — 50 per cent for roads and 80 per cent for bridges. Manitoba, about the same formula. Ontario — the reserve Indian receives relief from sales tax. Quebec — the reserve Indian receives relief from sales tax. Saskatchewan — 50 per cent of the taxes the municipality collects from an occupier of Indian land is transferred right back to the band. In Alberta an occupier of Indian land has a total exemption from municipal taxes in order to provide better rents to the Indian.

Those provinces provide some economic nourishment on their own hook, but not in B.C. Here is what I see you've got to do. There are four points, Mr. Premier, that I would like you to note and I would like you to reply to each of them specifically. Firstly, I would say that you should notify the House this afternoon that you are going to ensure all the services that are received by the rest of the citizens in this province can be made available to reserve Indians. There is no reason why they should have blacktop on one side and pot holes on the other — electricity on one side and coal oil lamps on the other — running water on one side and wells on the other. Most important — improved housing. They must have the opportunity to apply for the grant and mortgage moneys provided under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

The Provincial Home Acquisition Act, Mr. Chairman, does not apply to only one section of British Columbia. Isn't that nice — it does not apply to reserve Indians.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Indians don't get it?

MR. GARDOM: They are not allowed to receive it. They should be entitled to the $5,000 loan, or the $1,000 grant for new homes, or the $2,500 loan or $500 grant for older homes. This has been advocated before, but these are the only people in B.C. who are denied the right to apply for the provincial home acquisition grant. I am introducing an amendment tomorrow to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act which will make it possible for them to receive those funds. So they should.

I understand of the 192 bands we have, about 159 or 160 have some form of self-government. I say the municipal per capita grants — $32 it is going up to, which is hardly enough — must be made available to self-governing bands.

Fourthly, I would say the bands should be granted a fair share of the taxes a municipality collects from non-Indian occupiers of Indian land. They must not be denied their reserves, Mr. Chairman, because that is their land. Some bands are very fortunate, as I have said earlier. By virtue of their personnel and their location they have been able to do not too badly. Others are far less fortunate. The opportunity must be granted to help our B.C. Indians free themselves from the fetters of the reserve system and the second class pseudo security in which they are locked into now.

In order to do that, as I have said, they have got to be equipped to cope with confidence and equality and to move into the main stream of life in the future of this province. Retain their heritage — certainly — and retain their culture.

I commend the Government for giving a lot of consideration to assisting in that regard — the introduction of language teaching and the preservation of the arts. We have something far, far too valuable to lose here and it is starting to slip away, make no mistake of that. Fine, retain their heritage, retain their culture and be not denied of their reserve — but they have to be entitled to exactly the same keys that are available to the white man.

There have been some very disquieting statements and I would like to read this one just before I sit down. It is in John Norris' book, which is a good book and I recommend it to all of the Members of the House who haven't seen it — Strangers Entertained, which is a history of the ethnic groups in B.C. He says this concerning Indian people, page 61:

"As long as the province's economy grew relatively slowly, most of the Indians were able to adapt successfully to it. But with rapid change and its attendant economic and social dislocations, life on the reserve came to be increasingly out of harmony with that in the main community. What was relative prosperity among the Indians 40 years ago, is now desperate poverty.

"Health standards are too often low in the reservation and opportunities for the young appear to be hopelessly inadequate but the metro policies of the new industrial society are not havens and new beginnings but rather the last most terrible chapter in a history of human decay.

"All too often a young Indian couple, enticed by the opportunities of the city, find themselves under-prepared or excluded like immigrants from a foreign land; condemned by poverty to live in its worst districts and pushed by despair into the alcoholism, drug-taking and prostitution of skid row."

This is not justice, Mr. Chairman, this is not fairness. And this is a daily, continuing disgrace in B.C. I would like to have something affirmative, not promises, affirmative from the Premier today.

[ Page 801 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member for outlining a series of very serious injustices that can not be defended on moral grounds, cannot be defended ethically, and frankly, cannot be defended politically.

I want to tell the Member that his appeals in this House, when we were in Opposition together, have done a great deal to bring these problems to the attention of the people of this province.

When I asked my colleague, the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) to immediately look into the whole matter of injustices to the native Indian people, I asked him to put a timetable for the blueprint. He said, "One year, but, Mr. Premier, I'm going to come back to you before that year is up with specific recommendations that don't need any further study."

As the Member points out, and I'm pleased to say, that before this session is over we will be bringing in some significant and somewhat historical legislation to try to correct in our own small way the many, many injustices to these people. I hope that the legislation will be in within two weeks. I understand it is now in the works.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. I'll be happy to see a draft of specific things that we've got in. They're already in the works. We're not waiting for the end of the year. I appreciate your comments about the studies. We have not embarked through that Member on another meaningless study.

Of all people to ask in this House to take the study on, that's the last guy (Hon. Mr. Calder) who would go through a meaningless study. So the results of his activities and his representations to me and also representations by the native Indian people themselves directly to the Minister and to myself and other cabinet colleagues will lead to significant legislation before this House is prorogued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask two unrelated questions of the Premier. The first question relates to a subject I mentioned in the throne speech debate, and that was the question of the B.C. Railway providing a ski train on weekends to the Whistler Mountain ski area so that people could avoid having to drive that quite treacherous highway, and at the same time perhaps provide some profit for the B.C. Railway.

I've made several inquiries to the B.C. Railway concerning the question and I just wonder whether the Premier has had a chance, as president of the railroad, to check into that question. That's the first point.

The second question relates to energy in its broadest sense. I'm not absolutely sure, Mr. Chairman, whether it's proper under these estimates, but in the sense that we have been talking about the use of the coal deposits in the Sukunka area in the Peace River, I think perhaps it is appropriate in the Premier's estimates.

I am curious to know whether or not there have been studies done in British Columbia that give us any indication about our total energy reserves of all forms and how those energy reserves fit into the kind of energy reserves that are left in the world. In other words, we may well have 400 years worth of coal in British Columbia. That may be a fairly academic or a fairly irrelevant figure if it turns out that the world has to convert from other forms of energy use over to coal use in the next few years. That 400-year figure could quickly turn into a five or six year figure.

There has been some speculation or some indication by some people in the field that energy reserves in the world are limited in a sense to a six to 10 year period. I wonder whether there's any work being done by our Government on that whole question.

I wonder too whether or not we're plugged in in any way to any of the research that's going on about fusion reactors. I'm not altogether sure from the reading that I've done whether or not, technologically, fusion sources of energy are going to be practical. Some of the experts are saying that the smallest form in which we could ever develop fusion energy would be the size of a star. If that's the case then we may well be in trouble in the future. I just wonder what kind of research is being done by the government or by government agencies or is being commissioned by the government or, if there is not too much going on, whether any thought would be given to some kind of study of world-wide implications of British Columbia use of B.C. energy reserves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, through you, the question of the ski trains is something that I asked the railroad to look into. We have a problem related to the replacement or maximum use of Budd cars. Budd cars are not being manufactured any more. It's the problem of picking up the proper kind of equipment. When I asked the railway to look into the ski trains and the whole passenger service, the obligation they took to me was to give a report on an alternative to the Budd car. That is the problem at this time.

[ Page 802 ]

In terms of energy studies, we have instructed B.C. Hydro to determine in the British Columbia framework what best route we can go in attempting to meet the growth and energy demands.

I don't accept the energy growth patterns that have been shown to us. That's why I made the initial statement about turning lights out. A lot of people were amused at that suggestion. But in actual fact there are a number of significant programmes going on right now in other jurisdictions to that very end. The City of Seattle has an excellent pamphlet out urging people to cut down on the use of power. I've shown that pamphlet to the two Members we have on the board of directors of Hydro.

Con-Edison of New York has an excellent programme known as "Save a watt," where the whole question of attempting to significantly reduce the energy demand is being looked at.

The California pattern is one that I am afraid that we will either learn by or perish by. The California demands of electricity are astronomical. It has been predicted by that the year 2000 California will need a nuclear plant every 8 miles on its coast just to meet their demand at the present growth of power.

The only significant decrease in power use in California was during wartime. Interestingly enough, when there were heavy industrial demands, there was an actual, relatively speaking — not an overall figure — but an actual, relatively speaking, lessening of demand for hydro power. Perhaps it could have been the blackouts on the coast during the scare years. In 1942, just before the Battle of Midway took place, there was the impression that the particular Japanese fleet that was about in the middle of the Pacific was going to invade California. They had a series of blackouts.

After the Aleutian invasion and the Midway battle, it went on for another 18 months. During that period of time there was a method of actually controlling the use of electricity on a domestic basis. They showed a relative decrease so in terms of state control there was an example.

The energy demands of California are being looked at by a California legislative committee. It would be worthwhile for Members of this House, perhaps, to correspond with some of those committee members. The amount of research that's available by the Rand Corporation would make very worthwhile reading to every Member. It cost about $5.5 million. We've ordered two copies of the research volumes. I went through all three volumes during…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $5.5 million worth of research and we have it for nothing — well, it cost us $15 for a set of the volumes. I took the volumes with me on my recent vacation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How far did you get'?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How far did I get? I got through all three volumes, much to my surprise. I want to tell you that I was very, very proud of the fact that I got through all three volumes, till I opened the back at the flyleaf and read that these three volumes are a condensation especially prepared for Members of the California Legislature. So the technical data was obviously removed. But the patterns were there and they were clearly outlined.

California is faced with decisions on the use of nuclear power. We don't have the wherewithal to duplicate the research necessary in terms of fission. We hope that either the Soviet Union or the United States, or perhaps even Canada, makes a breakthrough. But for my own part, certainly in terms of the foreseeable future with B.C. Hydro, we don't anticipate nuclear power in the Province of British Columbia.

That's not the situation that the State of Washington finds itself in, interestingly enough. They are seriously considering expansion of their nuclear facilities. But the great expansion of nuclear facilities is being held up in the United States because of environmental fights in the courts. Some Members in this House do read the papers about these things and although we don't attend lectures we do have some knowledge of what's going on in other jurisdictions. It appears that the assault by environmentalists in the United States has curtailed the development of nuclear power in that country.

The specific question of coal. By all calculations, and the ones that I rely on are the last Forbes analysis of the world's coal supply, and their figure is a conservative one — they estimate a 400-year supply of coal based on the present use and the average increase of use over the last 12 years. Now, the validity of Forbes analysis may be limited by the fact that coal as an energy source over the last 12 years was perhaps not reaching the rate of growth that others predicted could be reached. In any event there is a 400-year supply according to Forbes.

The coal that we are dealing with in British Columbia varies in quality and in quantity. The Sukunka coal is a particularly prized type of coal in that it has ingredients that make good steel. The European market right now for good coal, coking coal, is very good. Prices are quite high, relatively speaking. In terms of all the information that we have had in front of us as a government, I don't consider us to be making a mistake if we sell the coal at what I consider to be a right price with all of the social and economic benefits that we have attached to that project. If we can put the proposition together on that basis, then I think that it will be sound and it will not be threatening future needs of coal.

Coal for the use of generating power. I don't

[ Page 803 ]

know. It's a long debate that went on. When we first came to this House, the former B.C. Electric president, Dal Grauer, was of the opinion that the next great move to be made in the generation of power in British Columbia was to come from the Hat Creek coal deposits. As I understand it from the outside, that was a part of the debate between the previous government and the private utility, B.C. Electric.

The previous administration felt that it needed to do something spectacular, and that's when we evolved into the Two River policy. The work done by the B.C. Electric Company as a private utility on Hat Creek coal was at a standstill. I've not read any of that information, but I know it is available. Perhaps a motion on the order paper to have it filed would be interesting. People are curious. I don't see why Hydro should keep it back if it's there. Maybe it is public — I don't know.

We are now in a position as public owners of Hydro, the Crown corporation now owning the Hat Creek deposit…There is a dispute about the Hat Creek deposit, as to its value either as a use to generate electricity through steam, through heat and then steam, or to use it to experiment with its properties as a filter. The specific research that has gone on has been limited to the sporadic borsatlemites in the Fraser Valley where they were having a very serious problem of eliminating the offal and other wastes from their packing house. The fellow in White Rock — I think his name is Jones — came up with the proposition that filtering this material through the lignite coal from Hat Creek was a method — I'm not filibustering, Mr. Member, I'll finish as quickly as I can — of using the coal.

Now the proposition does exist to the Government that perhaps the coal is of more value in using it for the properties of filtering.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I beg your pardon?

MR. PHILLIPS: All those millions of tons?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All those millions of tons and a fantastic potential. If the system is workable we could end up by owning those Hat Creek coal deposits and we could be sitting on a…

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you get all the animals up there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we move the coal down to the animals. As a matter of fact the value of that coal increases quite dramatically if that particular process works out to be useful in other areas, At the present time we have asked B.C. Hydro to examine very closely whether or not there is some realistic programme we could embark upon to conserve electrical power. When I made the suggestion of turning out the lights, although it was a matter of public amusement, it was made with full knowledge that the reaction to it would be a matter of jest and speculation politically. But, it is a very serious matter, one that needs every individual's attention.

In terms of federal directions there are things that we could be doing — that I would like to see this country do — in terms of changing our building codes to improve the insulation in housing, to cut down the use of electricity in housing heating. In the appliances, in many instances, refrigerators and airconditioners, are overpowered and using great amounts of electricity, beyond what they really need to perform.

New York as a state now has a system of labelling utilities for appliances on the basis of whether this particular utility, this particular appliance, is a good one to use because the electricity content is less.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the more efficient use of natural gas. We have some proposals as a government to make to our friends in the United States about the use of energy. When I go to Washington, I will not be going just with the idea of criticizing the oil tankers. We will be placing forcefully our position against the oil tankers. But we have an alternative, and I'm taking my optimistic sales book with me and a number of very, very interesting proposals.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I notice that the former Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a statement today about a plan he had and immediately was attacked by the present Liberal leader in the House. The present Liberal leader in the House appears to be the only one who is the expert and if anyone ever offers a suggestion it's, "Stay out of my territory." Which is somewhat presumptuous, really. I find it somewhat…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I find it somewhat presumptuous. I found that when I suggested that I go to Washington, I was attacked by the Member. I have on file the telegram from the Richmond Women's Liberal Association thanking me for taking the initiative of going to Washington and suggesting that I take them along with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly consider

[ Page 804 ]

travelling companions. But, after all, when somebody is a self-styled expert in every particular aspect — I had to ignore the Liberal Party's telegram, much to the regret of the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all. I have assembled a group of very interesting people who at this very moment are finishing in some detail a specific proposal that we will be making in terms of energy use, energy delivery and energy sources. That will be shared with everyone after I've had my visit to Washington.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to take part in this discussion this afternoon. I was sitting here listening to the Hon. Premier answer questions a little while ago, just before I rose in my place. He threw a small remark across the floor to the Members on this side that he wasn't filibustering his own estimates.

Well, after sitting here this afternoon and listening to the answers — he could have fooled me, Mr. Chairman, he could have fooled me (Laughter). If he hasn't been filibustering his own estimates, at least he hasn't been really answering very many questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't answered a question.

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), when he spoke in this debate, referred to an ad in the Vancouver Sun, an ad that was run by the NDP August 29, 1972. It was a pretty large ad, with a picture of the now Premier, saying, "Dave Barrett, a man you can trust."

Well, I think that we have a right as Members of the Opposition to evaluate the things that he says and compare them to the things that he does.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll have to speak louder for the Premier. He's out of the House.

MR. SMITH: Well, I'll recognize the fact that it has been a rather long afternoon and the Premier is as entitled as all the rest of us to a quick break when nature calls, so I'm certainly not going to harangue the fact that he's not presently in the chamber for a moment. But, I do think that we have a right in the Opposition to be apprehensive when we hear statements made in this House, and at Press conferences outside of the House, on many matters affecting the provincial economy. Then we compare those statements to what is actually being done through the policies that have been introduced or through the policies that we hear will be introduced.

I think that it's fair to say that the policy of preserving farmland is agreed to almost unanimously by everyone in the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the subject of a separate bill.

MR. SMITH: I'm not doing more than referring to that, Mr. Attorney General. But the policy of removing the rights of individuals to own land in the Province of British Columbia is something altogether different.

The point that I am making, Mr. Chairman, is simply this. What is being said and what has been said by the Premier about land generally and what is included in that bill are completely and diametrically opposite. They are not one in the same at all.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: It's not fair to have the public think that this whole thing is going to preserve farmland and that's the reason for….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that he should not state a position in regard to the substance of a bill before the House.

MR. SMITH: I'll pass on to another particular point, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to speak for a few moments about the farmers in the Province of British Columbia, particularly the farmers in the Peace River area. I'd like to direct a question to the Premier. That question is this, as simply as I can say it: Why the great discrepancy and difference between the settlement that was paid to farmers who had a disaster in the Surrey area of the lower mainland and the amount that was paid to farmers who had an equally bad disaster in the Peace River country?

What's the difference, Mr. Premier? Why is a farmer farming in the Peace River country treated differently?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under agriculture and the disaster…

MR. SMITH: Why is he treated differently? The disaster fund is under your administration and jurisdiction, Mr. Premier. We have a payment to the farmers of the Peace River country averaging $3.75 an acre. We have a payment to the farmers in the Surrey area averaging $277.44 per acre for exactly the same type of problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be

[ Page 805 ]

seated. What is your point of order?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the vote, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Agriculture, respectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. Would you now discuss the matter under the Minister of Agriculture's aegis.

MR. SMITH: Let me suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier that as the fiscal agent for all the Crown corporations in British Columbia, as the Minister of Finance, funds will be available to look after a disaster in the Peace River country far in excess of what is presently being made available. If that doesn't come under his department, I don't know what does.

I'd like to bring another problem to the attention of the Premier. We have in British Columbia about four or five communities where the rate for electricity, which is supplied to them by B.C. Hydro, is far higher than in any other part of the Province of British Columbia. I refer specifically to the community of Fort Nelson.

The postage stamp rate that was introduced many years ago throughout the Province of British Columbia apparently does not apply to the people who live in Fort Nelson. I understand it does not apply apparently to the people who live in McBride. I would like to know why, because the generation of electricity in Fort Nelson is accomplished by gas turbines run by natural gas. It seems a little irrational to me, and very unfair, that a community that is sitting really on top of the greatest supply of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia pays electrical rates for the consumption of electricity up there better than twice the rate of other communities in the Province of British Columbia. I think that it's a matter that the Premier should certainly look into and see why, when they have the natural gas literally on their doorstep, they have to pay such a high price to consume a few kilowatts of electricity in that community.

One of the things that is a concern to northern British Columbia is the apparent direction being taken by the provincial government with respect to the service industries in the petroleum field. We service the exploration industry. This industry is served by a number of small businesses and corporations. Collectively, they're responsible for probably 60 per cent or more of the total payroll in the northeastern section of British Columbia.

This was a matter that was brought to the attention of the Premier during a previous debate, and I'm not going to reflect on that. It was a matter that was brought more forcibly to his attention just yesterday, when he met with the mayor of Fort St. John and a delegation down here specifically to bring to his attention again the problems. I understand that the result of that meeting was to suggest to these people that we should get further into secondary industry in northern British Columbia and that we should expand into the cubing of alfalfa, meat processing, and pulp and tourism areas.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that that was a way of evading the whole question of what will happen to all those people who are presently employed in the service industry in this province, particularly up there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Can I continue? You can answer when you get back to your feet again, Mr. Premier.

Those industries that I have referred to will employ a few people in British Columbia. But they will not begin to replace the employment that can be and is being lost to people who presently work in the service industries servicing the petroleum industry in northern British Columbia.

I'd just like to refer briefly to a few letters from people who feel that this is a vital problem to their welfare. I have a letter here from a construction company in Fort St. John. The construction company is Ardills Construction Ltd. I have a copy of the letter, at least — the letter originally went to the Premier, dated February 22:

"…cancellation of two leases to be prepared for Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. Our company moved in equipment to prepare these locations and were operating on a double-shift system. On Friday afternoon, February 16, 1973, we were informed to cease operations and to hold off until Monday morning for further development. On Monday we sent an operator to this particular location to clean up lease and backfill sumps, as this company cancelled their work programme with our organization."

Here's a letter from a welder:

"I am an independent oilfield welder and since the announcement of the proposed legislation, work has slowed down to practically nothing. I am not alone in this respect. There are about two dozen welders in Fort St. John in the same line of work who are in the same situation."

Here's a letter from a company that located in Fort St. John about 18 years ago, Haliburton Services Ltd. They go on to say that they went from one truck and two men in the first year of their operation to 19 trucks and 45 men with a payroll approaching $500,000 in 1972:

"During the last few months we have seen a need for more and different equipment for this area and plans were in the making to have this equipment brought in this summer. Also, we have drawn up plans for a new and larger shop to

[ Page 806 ]

accommodate the increase in equipment and men. But as of this morning, I have been instructed to stop all plans for a new shop and, unless the picture improved, we would not be bringing the expansion equipment."

That letter was dated February 21. The letter was to Mayor Peter Frankiw in Fort St. John.

Here's a letter also addressed to Mayor Frankiw from a Mr. A.C. Henderson, President of WDC Services Ltd.:

"The following wells had been prepared for drilling operations, ranging in cost from $50,000 to $60,000 for Cat and survey work but have now been stopped and are being filled in, and restoration is being put into effect due to definite cancellation."

He refers to three drilling leases contracted by Hudson Bay Gas & Oil, and we have in the letter the leases themselves.

Flint Engineering:

"Our normal manpower requirements in this area from November to breakup is between 100 and 150 men. Our payroll will verify this. As of February 15 we have 42 men on our payroll. The others were either laid off or left on their own because of lack of work."

I've got dozens of letters like this, Mr. Chairman, from small companies that collectively employ many hundreds of people in northeastern British Columbia.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: Quite a point to make. The Member across the hall, the Minister says, "You haven't read one letter to yourself yet." What do you think the mayor was doing? He was requesting people to get in touch with him. He was in touch with me. He was concerned about what was going on in the area. So whether the letters went directly to Mayor Peter Frankiw, whether them came directly to the Premier of the province or whether they came directly to Ed Smith, MLA, makes little difference. The jobs are still on the line and the people are unemployed. They have no work to look forward to because of bungling on the part of the provincial government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask, the Hon. Member to address the Chair when he is making his remarks.

MR. SMITH: I will, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: We look forward to that.

MR. SMITH: We'd like to know, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, what he has in mind for the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. He certainly talked about increased royalties, but just how much? How soon? When is the axe going to fall on the mineral industry?

The 1971 report indicated an average net return on invested capital of minus 1.1 per cent to an industry that invests millions in this province. What are his plans for the future of mineral exploration and mineral production in the Province of British Columbia?

As the chief officer of the province I think he has a right to tell the people of British Columbia what his plans are with respect to increased royalties so these people may know exactly how hard they're going to be hit and what their future is in British Columbia.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we should know a little more about the Premier's position on the takeover of B.C. Telephone. Certainly he's said it's not a high priority. If he really thinks that this is going to happen, then he should tell the people of British Columbia when — how far down the line.

We'd also like to know something about his announced policy on the investment of pension funds. It has been said that the funds accumulated in the pension plans will be released for investment at rates higher than those which we presently obtain from the Canada Pension Plan. What are his intentions in this regard, Mr. Chairman. What other investment does he have in mind? Is it to invest pension funds in Crown corporations which in turn will be set up to take over all the small private business enterprises in British Columbia, including the insurance business?

What are his plans and where does he stand on all of the resolutions that came before the annual convention of the NDP regarding takeovers?

What is his position with regard to the forest industry in British Columbia? Is it his intention to take them over as well?

Is this really — the things that we have seen in the past month — just a first step in the complete socialization of almost every industry in the Province of British Columbia? Mr. Chairman, the things that have been said by the Premier and by other Members of his cabinet, and the things that we see happening, are not one and the same. I think it's the responsibility, as Premier of this province, that he should explain the position, explain the policy and answer our questions. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. On the oil industry, let's get something straight right now. The royalties don't start until January 1. I made it clear weeks ago when I spoke to a chamber of commerce

[ Page 807 ]

group, that changes would not take place this year. The bill is on the order paper. We had three meetings with the Petroleum Association of Canada before we introduced the legislation. It doesn't start until January 1, 1974.

The matters referred to by the Member — about the alfalfa plant, and about tourism, and about pulp chips, and the local abattoir that is having problems financially — were all raised by the mayor in my office. If the Member is trying to leave the impression that these were matters that I raised in an attempt to divert his attention from another problem, the Member is incorrect. I am sure he didn't intend that.

What the mayor shared with us was that they had never had an economic or an industrial officer up into the area to investigate the feasibility of broadening the base of their economy. The mayor recognized that he did not wish to get caught in the middle of a fight between the government and the oil industry. I would regret it if the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) attempts to put municipal people in that plight.

You're certainly welcome in it. You can take the side of the oil companies or any side you want. But don't involve the people in the area who are asking for a broadening of the base that they never had; nor were there any efforts to make it.

So I said, "Okay, Mr. Mayor, you've made a very sensible presentation. It's got merit; it's got logic, and we'll act on it."

The question was, "When?"

And I said, "Immediately."

At fifteen minutes to nine in my office this morning was the Deputy Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and an economics officer. We reviewed the conversation we had with the mayor and the economics officer was ordered to proceed immediately to Fort St. John. He'll be there before Friday. He'll be on the job, and there'll be a report back on my desk and the Minister's desk within 30 days.

One of the comments of the people who came to my office was, "Wow! We didn't think governments acted this quickly." They've never had that experience before. So I want to put the record straight. The mayor set out the terms of what he wanted looked at. The mayor does not wish to get involved in a dispute between the government and the oil companies on the matter of royalties.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right. There is no closure of any well or drilling operation because of this policy, as that Member knows very well. The concern is focused to January 1, 1974. Now if the Member wishes to interpret it another way, that's up to him. But the record stands that the mayor was in my office; he made the request; we are sending a staff member up immediately and we will have the report back.

Unfortunately we don't even have that kind of basic information from the area. I don't know what the former MLAs did in terms of fighting to see that that information was established. But be that as it may, we now are on the track of having the information gathered and some action taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to discuss briefly with you this afternoon some ideas and some views and some policies under the general subject of power and energy.

I was a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier spoke earlier this afternoon in answer to what seemed to be perhaps a little bit of a planted question with the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), when he had an opportunity to answer a question and to discuss at some length the matter of power and energy policy.

He said he was joking a little bit when he talked about the lights going out — putting out the lights. He talked about using the coal for filtering. Then he said we are not going to have any nuclear power. That was really all he said when he had a golden opportunity, with quite a lot of notes and statistics in front of him, to talk about the power policy for British Columbia.

To start off my discussion on it I'd like to put in perspective a little bit what the former government's policies were in this regard, Mr. Chairman. As I would summarize those former policies, they were along these lines:

First, the Government used and directed B.C. Hydro, not as a Crown corporation, but rather almost as a government department; as an arm of government policy.

Second, the policy was to allow little or no legislative involvement in B.C. Hydro — very little knowledge, very little involvement of the inner workings of B.C. Hydro as far as this Legislature was concerned.

Third, there was a policy to concentrate on what the former Premier called "clean hydro power development."

Fourth, there very definitely was an expansionist policy to encourage the growth of electric power.

Fifth, there was a clearly enunciated policy to build a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island from the mainland.

Finally, there was a clearly spelled out policy to build a thermal plant — natural gas-fired — on Vancouver Island.

[ Page 808 ]

Well, under this new Government, I wonder what changes, what new policies, what new directions we're going to get in power. Certainly the Government is still directly involved in B.C. Hydro as a political arm of the Government of British Columbia. The new Chairman of B.C. Hydro is clearly a political appointment. I want to refrain from any personal comments in this regard, Mr. Chairman. But I think the Premier must take responsibility for a partisan political appointment as time goes on.

Mr. Chairman, there is more information being made available to us today about B.C. Hydro. But certainly we still have no chance to deal directly with the senior officers of B.C. Hydro — to question them, to discuss them, to debate their policies with them. Clearly, a Crown corporation with two cabinet Ministers on the board of directors is a direct arm of Government. It is not operating as an independent Crown corporation.

We have apparently still a good deal of confusion on the future power plans of British Columbia. We have the report of the Energy Board, which the former government conveniently held back until after the election last August. We had that report come in. Then there's been, shall we say, silence as to the future of that report since the new Government has been in office.

The natural gas pipeline to which the former Premier was committed, and on which hearings were held, has apparently gone into limbo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the point of order is made.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Member, but I've made an error in one of my statements and I want to correct it before it goes abroad.

I left the impression that the oil royalties were not to go in until January 1 and I'm incorrect. I wish to inform the House that my advice was wrong. The Minister has brought that to my attention and I'd like to bring it to the House's attention before it goes abroad. I've made an error. I was incorrect in stating that it was on January 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his comments.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Premier would be willing this afternoon to correct all of the other mistakes he's made so far.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If they're pointed out to me one by one.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be here 'til Friday. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: As I said, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted, the natural gas pipeline between the mainland and Vancouver Island appears to be in a state of limbo.

The Premier talks, as he admits, in somewhat simplistic terms about turning out lights. With this kind of thing he confuses and alarms industry in the province and he certainly misleads the public as to what the priorities are and what really can be done, with those kind of comments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not suggesting that I'm deliberately misleading the public.

MR. BROUSSON: We're trying to, Mr. Chairman, and I think we're getting through. The Premier is beginning to realize what we've been trying to tell him for this past month.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's unparliamentary…

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Premier would spell out more clearly the power policy of his Government. I'd like to suggest some things for him that might be a part of this policy, for his consideration.

The very first point, I think, the Premier and I would have some agreement on. He's already referred to it this afternoon. That's the matter of conservation being a cornerstone of any intelligent power policy in 1973. As we have been doing, we cannot go on doing indefinitely — doubling our power needs, our power use, every seven to 10 years. The former chairman of B.C. Hydro used to consider it his responsibility to provide the power whenever anyone flipped the switch. That is a philosophy I think the Premier and I agree on completely — that a change is needed. I hope it is taking place.

I would suggest, though, that there are many more things to be done, and not just putting out lights. I think that kind of talk misleads the public, that a simplistic answer can solve a very complex and a very difficult problem. The key thing in this regard, Mr Chairman, must be the control not of use, but of demand. It's the peaks in demand, the public must learn to understand that are the problem in electric power. We get great steep peaks that drop into valleys…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Voluntary or compulsory?

MR. BROUSSON: I want to come to that point in just a moment. Mr. Chairman, the past policy has been that when there was a valley in the curve of electric power demand — and the peaks usually come in British Columbia, I think, in the northwest sometime in January or something of that sort. So we have a valley in the spring or in the fall. The past

[ Page 809 ]

policy has been to build up the usage, to fill up the valley, so theoretically one would have a flat curve in power usage. But the very moment you do that, you've just moved the peak up that much higher. Somehow we have to develop policies that will level off the peak and much higher. Somehow we have to develop policies that will level off the peak and fill up the valleys.

Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to do is not do this kind of thing by legislation. I think it's almost impossible to do by legislation. But we can do some things in this regard by motivating people to use less peak power. There are ways that industry and the homeowner can use off-peak power, if he is encouraged to do so by rate structures that are so designed. Automatic switching equipment can take care of this kind of thing if a rate structure is designed to make it worthwhile.

Many utilities in the past — to go back 25 years — used to use this kind of rate structure. It's become fashionable in the last 20 years to get away from this motivated lower demand. It's been fashionable in developing utility rate structures to follow this practice that I've referred to — the customer is entitled to have as much power as he wants when he flips the switch. We used to have a variety of these kind of rate structures in B.C. but they've gone by the boards. I think this is one example of the kind of motivation that we have to provide to the public.

But to give the public the impression that turning off a few lights can have any effect on the demand at all is completely misleading them. This is what a lot of people have begun to think because of this. My wife goes around behind me turning off the 100-watt light bulb and turning on some other one. It just won't work.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Start the debate.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm carrying on with the debate, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Good. An important debate.

MR. BROUSSON: The Premier referred to earlier some of the excellent programmes that could be brought in, of course, at the federal level in terms of building codes, which would provide more insulation and a variety of these things. I don't want to belabour this point but this must be the first cornerstone on policy.

Second, I agree that hydro power has a great many advantages. I'm saying I'm agreeing there with the former Premier. Hydro power does have many advantages. We should develop as much as we can, subject to the environmental considerations. I wonder, for instance, if in the '70's we would still proceed with the flooding of the Kootenays behind the Libby Dam, with the kind of priorities that we have today. I'm not sure if we would. I think today we would have a different set of priorities in looking at that.

But there are a number of hydro-electric projects in B.C. that can be built with little or no further environmental damage right now. One of those, of course, is site No. 1 below the Peace River Dam. Beyond these very few projects, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that No. 2 policy should be a complete moratorium on all further hydro power until a complete assessment is made of the environmental damage and the alternate sources of power that are available.

Third, Mr. Chairman, there should be no natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. It's an expensive, controversial line which can only be justified economically if you build a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island. Without that thermal plant, you cannot justify the line economically. Considering the finite nature of the natural gas reserves in British Columbia, the economics of this particular pipeline simply do no make any sense at all. I think the Premier should make a clear statement of policy in this regard. There is no more hydro power to speak of, Mr. Chairman, on Vancouver Island. Very definitely there are advantages of having alternate sources of emergency power on this side of the mountains, in southwest British Columbia. The example of that was just over a year ago, when there were major storms in the lower mainland. The lower mainland area west of the Cascades did need extra power. At that time we had to go to the State of Washington to get it. It would be extremely useful to have additional power generated on Vancouver Island to feed back to the lower mainland through the underwater power lines in that kind of an emergency.

I would therefore propose, Mr. Chairman, a nuclear power plant at a suitable location on Vancouver Island, in the range of 500 to 600 megawatts, planned so that a second reactor could be built later if necessary and desirable.

At the last session in the Legislature Mr. Williston and Mr. Kiernan both expressed doubts about nuclear power and stated that B.C. didn't need to go into those kind of experiments. "Those kind of experiments," they called it. Since then…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: The last spring session, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this winter the Premier has been heard to say that he has some kind of a hang-up with nuclear power. He's been reading some learned tomes which now have further convinced him that there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia, he says — without discussion, without stating his reasons, with-

[ Page 810 ]

out further examining the matter.

I was privileged last June, Mr. Chairman, to have a very thorough and a very exhaustive trip — I would say a very exhausting trip — through the Pickering nuclear plant just east of Toronto, run by Ontario Hydro. I would recommend this particular trip to the Premier and to anybody in this Legislature who is interested in this subject, before they go out and make statements about whether nuclear power is good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a worthwhile study to be made.

This particular plant will consist of four reactors, each one 540 megawatts, so that the four, when they're finished, will total 2,160 megawatts of power. In that one power plant, Mr. Chairman, you will have slightly more than one-half of B.C. Hydro's total generating capacity — in that one power plant in Pickering, about 20 miles east of Toronto.

Reactor No. 1 has been going now for about a year and a half. It was shut down during my visit because it was having at the end of its first year a routine check of the turbine blades. One of the interesting things about this visit was to see the turbine completely stripped down and spread around the power house, while the blades and the other internal workings were being examined to see what condition it was in after its first year of operation. The report on that first year's operation was just 100 per cent. They were delighted with the results they found.

Reactors No. 2 and 3 at that time had been operating on full-rated load for many, many months. I saw the chart which showed that they'd been on 98 to 99 per cent of full-rated power for many, many months, That's reactors 2 and 3. Reactor 4 was at that point still under construction. As a result, I had the privilege of walking through the entire internal area of the reactor and seeing the internal workings of it, the safety regulations, how it was constructed, the various things that were going to be done to make it safe.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I've got the figures all here in this file, if you want to look at it, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Hydro is doing virtually all of the construction costs of Pickering. There certainly has been federal government involvement in some of the others. The figures are all in this file for you.

If what I saw at Pickering in this development is an experiment, as Mr. Williston used to call it, I wonder what he would consider to be conclusive evidence. If the Premier has a hang-up about it, I think he should go and look at it and see exactly how it works and learn something about it from the people who have designed it and who are building it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the wastes?

MR. BROUSSON: I don't mind saying that I was tremendously impressed by Pickering and by what I've been able to learn of it since. I would personally be prepared to start planning a nuclear plant for Vancouver Island right now. This is a project that would take at least five years to plan and construct. So, even if we started now, it would be 1978, 1979 perhaps, before it would be ready to go on line.

I know there are problems, Mr. Chairman. But I think the greatest problem we have in terms of nuclear power in British Columbia are fear and ignorance. In my view, we can be very proud of the Canadian achievements in this field. We have probably the finest nuclear power system in the world — the Candu system. It's certainly the safest. The major concern is that eventually, modern science being what it is, there are probably going to be improvements that will make this plant old-fashioned sooner or later. But I don't think that's any reason why B.C. shouldn't be a part of going forward in the nuclear age today.

For one thing, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro needs to develop a nucleus of knowledgeable people in this field. Right now there are only one or two people in the entire staff of B.C. Hydro who are really knowledgeable from a technical point of view of nuclear power generation. I think B.C. should do its share in training people in this field, and that B.C. Hydro should have a nucleus of people who have some knowledge of it.

I'd like to, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, look briefly at some of the major points that are problems in this regard. First, danger from accident. I believe that the safety controls that we have under the Candu system — C-a-n-d-u — which is the name for the Canadian system — are completely adequate and safe. I say without fear of contradiction that Canada has the safest nuclear power system in the world.

Danger from radiation has been one of the things that have been suggested as problems. Our standards at present are exactly the same as the safety standards of the United States. But the actual escape of radiation in the water or through the air at Pickering and others has proven to be only about 1 per cent of those standards. In other words, we could raise those standards by 100 times and still be within the practical operating limit of Pickering.

Thermal pollution has been listed as one of the dangers, one of the problems. Well, it can be a problem in some places. I suppose if you're building a nuclear power plant in Florida and places of that kind — perhaps Hawaii, southern California — where the waters are warm, this may be a serious problem, But it's certainly not true on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In fact, it's very clear from the basis of

[ Page 811 ]

scientific knowledge becoming available that there are advantages to come from this in terms of oyster farming and a number of other potential benefits, Perhaps the most nagging and serious problem at the present time is that of waste disposal. This is not one of immediate urgency. For, at the very least, the first 13 years of a Candu nuclear power plant, the waste can be contained completely within the premises in what is called the spent fuel bay, which is approximately the same size as an Olympic swimming pool, only deeper. The waste fuel is canned — put into heavy-duty cans — and kept under water securely. The U.S. does have some real problems, some serious problems, because they enrich their fuel by 100 times compared to the Canadian system. The American fuel is enriched uranium. Ours is natural uranium. That factor of 100 makes a great deal of difference to the danger of the spent fuel.

There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that in the long-term future we have to provide for this. I've got abiding faith in our technology to solve this problem. In the short-term, in the foreseeable future, in terms of a few small power plants, this is not any kind of a problem at all.

As far as cost, our system of heavy water and natural uranium does cost a little more than the United States'. But the fuel is cheaper because we use natural, not enriched, uranium. The fact is that our long-term operating costs are less but our first cost is a little higher. As a result of that first cost, we get a safer system.

If you assume a 7 1/2 per cent interest rate, which is higher than the last issue of Hydro parity bonds, and retire the capital cost over only 30 years, the operating cost of a Vancouver Island nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 6 3/4 mills per kilowatt hour for a 1979 start-up. Yet some estimates for a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island under the same conditions are 9.1 mills, approximately 30 per cent more.

It's clear that natural gas is not going to come down in price; whereas the materials needed for a nuclear plant — which in the case of the Canadian system are the heavy water, estimated to be 2/10 mill per kilowatt hour and the natural uranium, about 9/10 mill per kilowatt hour — are certainly going to be resistant to the inflation and the rising cost of other kinds of fuel.

The final problem that the Canadian system does have is heavy water. The source of this is perhaps the biggest immediate problem for the Canadian system. There is a serious shortage at the present time. By 1977 there could well be a surplus, on the basis of plants that are under construction and will be on stream by 1977. And 1977 is well before we are going to be needing it in British Columbia.

So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that a Canadian nuclear power system is safe, economic and practical. Least a beginning in its use should be made in British Columbia in certain selected areas. Vancouver Island, for the reasons I suggested, is an ideal place for it.

My final point on a power policy for British Columbia would be the establishment in this Legislature of a power committee of this House. I think it's important that if we're going to have Crown corporations of the size of B.C. Hydro…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. If the Hon. Member wishes to propose a committee, this can be done in the normal way,

MR. BROUSSON: I'm suggesting that this is part of the policy that the Premier should bring in in terms of power policy for British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I won't follow the point, I think it's clear what I'm getting at. We should have a committee in this House to which B.C. Hydro could report. The Premier mentioned a little while ago, the books from the Rand Corporation that had been prepared for the California State Legislature. It's too bad there isn't a committee of this House which could receive those books, and study perhaps Xerox copies of the two that the Premier has got coming to Victoria.

Those are some of my views, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the Premier will explain further his policies on power, how he will make B.C. Hydro into a Crown Corporation that is not politically dominated, but still responsible to the legislature. I think the people of British Columbia deserve the opportunity to come to grips with the power policy in the eighties and the nineties. I think we're entitled to better leadership than we've had so far from a Premier who talks about turning out the lights and says he has hang-ups on nuclear power.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might return for a moment to some of the questions I was asking the Premier earlier. We determined that the Premier, as Finance Minister, controls somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion in trust funds.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $3,008 million.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I wanted to talk about a portion of those funds if I could, Mr. Chairman, because one of the questions that I asked that the Premier didn't answer was how he arrives, as the trustee of those funds, at what the interest rate shall be; because amongst the funds that he controls there is over $257 million belonging to the municipal civil servants. There's over $238 million belonging to the provincial civil servants. There's over $216 million

[ Page 812 ]

belonging to the teachers. Finally, there's over $45 million belonging to employees of the B.C. Railway.

All told, there's well over $750 million of funds belonging to little people of the province. They're invested by the great big Premier, and we would hope that as trustee of these funds of some 60,000 individuals or more, that a policy was being followed that would maximize the return to those individuals.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've spoken again and again about the need for individuals to be protected, and how it was little individuals that lost out when the trustee of the funds that were to bring a maximum return to the individuals, was the same man who is taking those funds and investing them in crown corporations.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well Mr. Member, there are ways of managing portfolios to maximize returns to the people, and I wouldn't object if some of the perpetual funds, and other funds like the Accelerated Park Development Fund, and the Greenbelt Protection Fund and so on, were invested in such a way as to bring only a minimum return to the fund. But I feel differently about pension funds, and after all, each of us as MLA's have a pension fund too, and he's the man that invests it. I think we're entitled, even as individuals, to see that our pension funds in his hands are invested in such a way to bring the maximum return of those funds. That's why we know of one rate of return on pension funds that's set. That's the rate on the Canada Pension Plan Fund which, as of December 31 totalled $791 million. The Minister of Finance of Canada establishes that rate, and it is the lowest interest rate in Canada.

In other words, the return is that of the prime Federal rate, and what one is doing, if one uses that as the bench mark, is that you take all the investment funds of these little people and guarantee that they get the lowest return in Canada. I think it would be better if a policy were followed that benefited the individual who contributes to the pension fund instead of the government. That's why again, I would like to as the Minister of Finance, would he do anything now that it's a completely new deal for the people, do anything to help out the teachers, the civil servants, the municipal civil servants, and the employees of the Crown Corporations? Could he announce some more exciting policy?

The Members on my right have drawn attention, Mr. Chairman, to the marvels of investment in Crown corporations. In other words, what they're saying is that if he takes that money that all these little people have put into the superannuation funds, and puts that into the Crown corporations, then he's making the best possible investment. In other words, no corporation is operated in a better fashion, and more in the interests of individual investors than a Crown corporation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Right, says the Member.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well the Member for the Cariboo…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would you address the Chair please.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Crown corporations are the most soundly managed companies in British Columbia, perhaps they are.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): "Were," not "are."

MR. McGEER: They were, they were. I'd like to ask just a question or two of the Premier exploring that, because, Mr. Chairman, we've had a great deal of difficulty getting at the accounts of these Crown corporations. We hope that that's going to change and that the officers of the B.C. Hydro whom we've invited will accept with joy and dispatch, the opportunity to describe the operations of the corporation and how their budgets are arrived at and so on.

But I'd like to ask a few specific questions about one Crown Corporation, where the funds, part of them, have come from these same people who are contributing to the pension funds, and where the officer providing the capital money has been the Minister of Finance. I refer specifically to contracts which were questioned in the House by the Member for Fort George. (Mr. Nunweiler) They had to do with the B.C. Railway and Keen Industries.

The Member, Mr. Chairman, drew attention to a 1969 contract that was awarded to Keen Industries for $1.8 million on the Fort Nelson extension, where the final payment was $3.4 million, That was from Beaton River to Niteal. He also referred to a contract further north from Niteal to Fort Nelson, which was for $5.9 million on tenders, and the actual payment received was $11.1 million. That same company, after two fantastic overuns on contracts, still holds three on the Dease Lake extension. One of these may be completed by now. It was for $3.9 million, and as of July of this year it was unfinished, but had totalled $6.5 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the name of the company again?

MR. McGEER: Keen Industries. And judging from

[ Page 813 ]

the way they seem to have milked the B.C. Railway and therefore, indirectly, those who contributed funds to the Minister of Finance, they are "keen" indeed. They have two more contracts, each of them for more money than the one I described as already having a $1.6 million overun. These two contracts are for $6.8 million and $8.8 million.

At the present time, this corporation is asking for private funds. It has a prospectus out for 300,000 shares at $10 per share, 75,000 of them being sold in the United States, so that there is an attempt now to raise $3 million in capital for this corporation.

What I would like to ask the Premier, Mr Chairman, is: How is it that a company which runs to these fantastic overruns repeatedly on contracts is still a successful bidder? — presumably on a tender basis, we don't know that. How is it that they can go over again and again and again and still be the successful bidder on these contracts?

They have contracts, as I understand it, for almost half the sections going up to the Dease Lake extension. It isn't only the B.C. Railway. They also have bid on the Stuart-Cassiar road, and as I understand it were much closer to staying within their bid. They bid $2.1 million and held at $2.4 million. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, there was better supervision in the Highways Department, I don't know.

But the questions that I would like to ask the Premier are these: How are contracts awarded on the B.C. Railway? What kind of supervision is provided to see that these cost overruns do not exist?, or if they do, that there is an avoidable reason for them? What kind of public or private follow-up is there to see that companies that repeatedly submit incorrect bids continue to be awarded contracts? Why is it that companies with the president and head office outside of British Columbia are awarded the contracts?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well the head office and most of the officer of this particular operation are from Alberta. Can we expect that there will be any changes in policy in the future that will give us better control over the funds this Legislature appropriates to the B.C. Railway?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the answers on Keen. I'll try to get them when we adjourn for dinner.

As to the question on the pension funds, I sat here in some amazement at the Member's questions. I know that perhaps there is some rivalry in your group, or some attempt to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't understand why you don't do your research before you come to the House and ask questions like that.

One month after we came into office we made a public announcement that the B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail would have to pay going rates on a pension fund — we made it a standard policy. Take the benchmark as you said, of the Canada pension plans. We rescinded the previous order-in-council. It was months ago. Public knowledge.

We are now telling the Crown corporations to borrow at .025 per cent above the Canada Pension Plan rate. They are paying a competitive rate. If they had to pay any more they would have to go to New York and borrow the money. The problem that you recognize as the espouser of the cause of the people on the pension fund was corrected one month after we came into office. It is public knowledge. So I find that speech a little much.

Then you go on to suggest that somehow the people who are the beneficiaries of the pension funds were not going to be paid attention to. Well, as I recall it, Mr. Member, you were one of the ones to attack the throne speech — that debate that went on some four weeks ago — the point was made that it was not a lengthy throne speech. I was criticized, but one of the points made in the throne speech was about the pension plan — that there would be improvement.

So, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm puzzled by your lack of research. Why the questions? You obviously haven't been keeping up with the many changes that have been welcomed by the people who are governed by the pension plans and other people elsewhere. I'm glad that the Member now has the information. He'll go abroad and tell everybody that the government has changed those two things that were problems to him.

In terms of Keen Construction, I don't have the knowledge at my finger tips. I'll try and get some information when we return. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee rise and report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's sixth report which was read as follows:

Report No. 6,  legislative committee room, February, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on

[ Page 814 ]

Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered and is in general agreement with Mr. Speaker's observations relating to prayers used in the House. Accordingly your committee respectfully recommends that prayers be limited to two minutes and that they should include: 1) a brief invocation, 2) an appreciation of constitutional monarchy, concern for the people and the people's representatives in the House, and 3) the Lord's Prayer.

In your committee's respectful opinion, Mr. Speaker should, within the foregoing guidelines, instruct the clergy from time to time attending the House.

G.V. Lauk,
Chairman

MR. LAUK: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's seventh report which was read as follows:

Report No. 7, legislative committee room, February, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered and approved recommendation No. 5 of Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Enquiry Act. Accordingly it is recommended, with reference to the hours of sittings on Fridays, that standing orders 2 and 3 be amended to read as follows:

No. 2, the time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall be 2 o'clock in the afternoon, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, and if at the times mentioned in this order, there be not a quorum, Mr. Speaker may take the chair and adjourn. If at the hour of 6 o'clock on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered.

No. 3, the House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 o'clock p.m. and it shall stand adjourned unless otherwise ordered until the following Monday.

G.V. Lauk,
Chairman

MR. LAUK: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's eighth report, which was read as follows and received:

Your select standing committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered and is in agreement with the proposal regarding loudspeakers contained in Recommendation No. 2 of Mr. Speaker's first report made, pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Accordingly it is recommended that speakers with "on", "off" and volume controls may be installed in each caucus room, Press gallery, Speaker's, Clerk's and Leaders' offices to permit debates to be transmitted outside the chamber.

Your committee further recommends that Mr. Speaker's proposal relating to closed-circuit television be deferred pending availability of additional technical information relating to lighting, camera positions and related matters.

G.V. Lauk,
Chairman

MR. LAUK: I move the rules be suspended and the reported be adopted.

Report adopted.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's ninth unanimous report, which was read as follow:

Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered the matter of an oral question period, contained in recommendation No. 1, Proposal 2 of Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act and recommends as follows:

That the reference in standing order 25 to questions put by Members be interpreted by Mr. Speaker as permitting a 15 minute oral question period for urgent and important questions without notice, commencing at the opening of each day's session, except Fridays.

Your committee further recommends that the following provision be applied to the oral question period:

(a) only questions considered by Mr. Speaker to be

[ Page 815 ]

urgent and important shall be permitted and his decision shall be final;

(b) no debate shall be permitted during questions. Supplementary questions from Members may be allowed by permission of Mr. Speaker;

(c) the question period will be dispensed with on Fridays.

G.V. Lauk,
Chairman

MR. LAUK: I move that the rules be suspended and that the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: I do suggest to the Hon. Members that as a courtesy to the Speaker, and for your own benefit, it would be wise for you to check with the Clerks at the table questions that you propose to ask to facilitate the question period, and to make it easier both for yourself and the Speaker in dealing with the question period in an expeditious and fair way. Because otherwise it leads to snap decisions. So I do urge you to consider that. Whether you want to or not it's a courtesy both to the House and the Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: May I make a suggestion? I wish to see this implemented as soon as possible. Could you give us your opinion by way of memorandum to all the Members outlining how you see it as the Speaker, how it should work, your suggestions and then give us a starting date? Monday? Fine? Could you do that by Monday?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I would be pleased to do it on my birthday.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is your birthday?

MR. SPEAKER: March 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Might you also have the amendments for the rules on March 1. If it could be inserted that would be of help to all the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually you are asking me to interpret standing order 25. I would be happier to make it clear in that standing order that it does include an oral question period. Although in some jurisdictions they do not even have it in their rules that there is an oral question period. It has just grown by custom, as in Saskatchewan.

Hon. Member, a further point?

MR. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I'd just like to add that that concludes our committee's deliberations on your report. I think that I am speaking for all of us when I say that we appreciate the work you did. It was a very comprehensive and helpful report to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: It's a document that can be kept for a while.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, during the debate in committee, at which you were not present, there was mention of a document, namely a telegram, I ask leave of the House to file the telegram with the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.