[ Page 713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Election Expenses Act (Bill 39). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 714

Oral Questions

Strike-lockout hardship cases. Mr. Curtis — 714

ICBC salary payroll return. Mr. Gardom — 714

Delay and cost of B.C. ferry construction. Mr. Wallace — 714

Pre-rental of space to Scotia Bank. Mr. Chabot — 714

Continued funding for alternate education programme.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 715

Subsidies for employment of students. Mr. Fraser — 715

Revenue from outside use of government aircraft. Mr. Morrison . — 715

Government involvement in "beaver" promotional film.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 715

Bremer settlement documents. Mr. Gardom — 715

Sidney alcoholism centre. Mr. Wallace — 715

Ferry cleaners' classification. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 716

New industry in province. Mr. Phillips — 716

BCR payment due Peace Wood Products. Mr. Smith — 716

Re-evaluation of Columbia River downstream benefits.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Change in driver insurance points. Mr. Morrison — 717

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates On vote 2.

Mr. McClelland — 717

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 719

Mr. McClelland — 720

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 721

Mr. Curtis — 721

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 721

Mr. Curtis — 722

Mr. McClelland — 722

Mr. Gibson — 722

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. Gibson — 723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. McClelland — 723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 724

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 725

Mr. McClelland — 726

Mr. Curtis — 726

Mr. McGeer — 726

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 728

Mr. Bennett — 728

Mr. L.A. Williams — 730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 731

Mr. L.A. Williams — 732

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 732

Mr. Phillips — 733

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 737

Mr. Phillips — 738

Mr. Wallace — 742

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 746

Mr. Smith — 750

Mr. McGeer — 751

Mr. Gibson — 753

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome today one of our former distinguished Members of this House from Richmond, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Ernie LeCours.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the gallery this afternoon — part of the group now and the rest of the group at 3 p.m. — are students from North Vancouver Senior Secondary School on their annual visit. They are accompanied today by their teachers, Mr. Rusterneyer and Mr. Rossetti. I'd ask the House to join with me in making them feel welcome here today.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 10 elected executive members of my own union, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, who have crossed the water to see how our meeting rules compare with theirs. So I would ask the House to make them welcome, and behave this afternoon.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery at 4 o'clock this afternoon will be a class from Carson Graham school in my constituency in North Vancouver. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery today are two long-time residents of the Shuswap area, Mr. Collings and Mr. Rivette.

Mr. Collings moved to the Shuswap area in 1908 and has lived in relative isolation in that area ever since, with the only access by boat. Mr. Collings' father is also a well-known. B.C. painting artist. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I would like to have the House join me in welcoming a group of students with their professors from Watcom County Community College.

Presenting reports.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, pursuant to section 5 of the Attorney-General Act which says that a report of the Department of the Attorney-General shall be laid before the Legislature each year, the first annual report of the Attorney-General's department.

Mr. Speaker, I may say that all of my predecessors in office may have got their decals up, but they were all in breach of that section 5 of the Act, down since 1899 when the Act was passed.

Introduction of bills.

ELECTION EXPENSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 39, Election Expenses Act, 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.

Oral questions.

STRIKE-LOCKOUT HARDSHIP CASES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources: has the Minister established any new policy specifically relating to the current civic workers' strike-lockout situation in greater Victoria in terms of payments to individuals who may be experiencing severe hardship?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, the policy of the department is to meet emergent need only.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. I wonder if the Minister has been approached by any representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees in greater Victoria within the last few days asking for a meeting in this regard, again relating to a specific hardship case.

HON. MR. LEVI: I met with a representative from CUPE, I think it was a week ago yesterday, and Mr. Larry Ryan was also along, at which time we discussed the policy of the department. I made available to them a copy of that policy. I have not, to my knowledge, had any request to discuss a specific case since that time.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister may find — and I am informed that this is the case — that in fact a request has been made on Friday last, March 13, and yesterday, March 17, on this specific issue. May I ask if the Minister has been made aware of a specific situation where a locked-out employee in the City of Victoria, Local 388, I believe, is pregnant and is in severe difficulties with regard to lack of funds? Has this been brought to his attention? I understand that the woman in question is perhaps even suffering a shortage of food.

[ Page 714 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: I think the case the Member is referring to relates to an eviction, if I'm not mistaken. Is that the one?

MR. CURTIS: That is possible.

HON. MR. LEVI: That case was brought to my attention in relation to an eviction. We meet emergent need and, in terms of families, we will not see anyone go hungry. But I think if that's the case you are referring to, it was discussed with me in terms of an eviction order.

MR. CURTIS: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I was informed of this this morning. Eviction may well be part of the problem, but there is a complete shortage of funds and a very serious circumstance for this particular locked-out employee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think there has been ample questioning on this matter.

ICBC
SALARY PAYROLL RETURN

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Last week I questioned the Hon. Minister as to whether or not the ICBC salary payroll return that he filed in the House was complete. The Minister initially took the position that he didn't understand the question but he would look into it. So I would ask the Hon. Minister today if he understands the question and has looked into it.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I understand the question and I'm looking into it. It will be answered.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows there is really no room for a supplementary until the original question is answered.

MR. GARDOM: I think there is, perhaps, to this extent, Mr. Speaker: the Minister filed a return indicating a top salary of $16,962. Is it complete or incomplete?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I understand the question and an answer will be forthcoming. I'm checking into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Member could hold his second barrel on the shotgun.

DELAY AND COST OF
B.C. FERRY CONSTRUCTION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport and Communications. With regard to the B.C. ferry presently under construction in Vancouver, can the Minister tell the House if it has been necessary to install a heavier shaft and heavier bearings than were specified in the design, and has this prolonged the period of construction and increased the cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The final design of the shafts was not available until after the tenders were awarded. Any necessary costs relating to that will have to be met. As far as delay is concerned, I had a meeting yesterday with the Burrard's management group and the ferries we are still expecting will be ready for some time in the late spring of 1976.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What will the extra cost be?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure with me. There is a long explanation of about eight pages which I could bring in sometime and read during question period. But the figure will be available. It's a valid thing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask one final question? The design, I understand, was selected because it was identical to already existing Washington state ferries and the Minister remembers the debate we had on that. Could the Minister tell us why there have been difficulties if this is an identical design to ships that are already in existence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, it's not an identical design. It's a prototype, but it's a different design, different dimensions, and so on.

PRE-RENTAL OF SPACE
TO SCOTIA BANK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Public Works. Did your department, on behalf of the Department of Highways, rent or lease two floors of the new Scotia Bank building in Prince George several months before they're being required?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary for notice, Mr. Speaker. How many months in advance of the requirement were these two floors of the new Scotia Bank...?

[ Page 715 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think the first question will lead to the second in any event.

MR. CHABOT: And at what cost?

CONTINUED FUNDING FOR
ALTERNATE EDUCATION PROGRAMME

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Human resources, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether he can give the House his assurance that the funds which have been made available to date by his department for the alternate education or work-experience programme operated by School District 61 and 62 in cooperation with the Boys Clubs of greater Victoria will be continued?

HON. MR. LEVI: Could I take that question as notice?

SUBSIDIES FOR
EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): To the Minister of Labour. With reference to the Department of Labour's plans for financial assistance to farmers and small businessmen who employ students for the coming summer, the applications for this programme are to be made by March 21.

In view of the problems with the mail and so on, has the Minister any intention of extending the deadline for applications? If he has, how long would he extend the deadline? We're just about there now.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'll check into that, Mr. Speaker, and determine just how many requests have been received from farm groups. If it appears that more time is needed, I'll certainly be prepared to consider that.

REVENUE FROM OUTSIDE USE
OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Does the B.C. government receive any income from any source for the use of B.C. government aircraft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental, then, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister then advise the House what arrangement the B.C. government has with the federal government for the use of B.C. government aircraft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only circumstance under which a B.C. aircraft is used by any federal government agency is during the period when the RCMP plane is tied up. In that case, on some occasions in the past we have allowed them to use our aircraft for their purposes.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, could I take it then that it is definite that no other people have had the use of government aircraft except the RCMP?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you speaking of the federal government now? That's to the best of my knowledge.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN
"BEAVER" PROMOTIONAL FILM

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary in respect to his portfolio as Travel Industry Minister. Last Thursday there was a promotional film shown with respect to a beaver being displayed in the State of California, Would the Minister advise the House if the cost of that promotional effort was paid by his department?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'll check into that and let the Member know.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As a supplemental, could we also have the amount of the cost, Mr. Minister?

BREMER SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Education. A couple of days ago I asked the Hon. Minister if she was prepared to file in the House the Bremer contract and settlement documents, and the Hon. Minister started to discuss an action that is now before the courts. I gather from the newspapers that she is relieved of her position in that action. Is she prepared to file those documents?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll take it as notice. But I do want to point out that the action is still before the courts, as you know.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Hon. Minister took it as notice all last year and it wasn't before the courts then.

SIDNEY ALCOHOLISM CENTRE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for the Alcohol and Drug Commission, if any further consideration has been given to the acquisition of the alcoholism centre being built in Sidney which has

[ Page 716 ]

gone bankrupt — and which the Minister of Health (Hon, Mr. Cocke) has commented upon already. But I wondered if the Minister of Human Resources, in view of the need for such facilities, has had any discussions with the owners of Gallain Manor?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any discussions recently. I did meet with Mr. Strachan some time ago and that was about the programme, not about the bankruptcy situation. It was referred to the chairman of the commission. I agree with my colleague, the Minister of Health, that to acquire such a facility would be an extremely expensive proposition, and I have not given any consideration to that at all.

FERRY CLEANERS' CLASSIFICATION

HON. MR. HALL: The Member for Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) a question last week regarding public service classifications and schedules. I'd like to answer, now that the matter has come to me from the Minister of Transport and Communications. The Member asked why apparent discrimination in one classification was still allowed on the list. I want to report to the Member that that discrimination was on the list. It has been removed.

The reason was somewhat confusing. It comes into the area of what is commonly called, I think, in the Attorney-General's staff, "public decency." But let me explain by saying we changed the titles that the Member referred to: "Cleaner, vessels — 1" and "Cleaner, vessels — 2." The difference between the two is that one is light duty and one is heavy duty. There is a difference in the work and there is a difference in the pay. Both men and women can be appointed to either position. The only limitation that is put on — and I referred to this earlier — is that at least two females and at least two males must be in either category in order to satisfy the questions of washrooms and everything else.

NEW INDUSTRY IN PROVINCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Economic Development. Since the Minister adjourned the House last spring to take a crisis trip to Japan to locate industry in the province, would the Minister advise me how many industries are located in the Province of British Columbia as a direct result of that trip?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can at this stage, normally.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have allowed it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you see, if I allow it, I get criticized, if I don't, I get criticized. Now what am I going to do, follow the rules?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not supposed to break them, but you are permitted to, I presume.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister advise how many industries in the Province of British Columbia he has directly helped through the Development Corp. of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: That's really not a supplemental.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't understand the question, Mr. Speaker. Is he referring to different corporations or industry sectors, or what is he talking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, how many grants have you made in total to either industries or development?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Member, I will take the question as notice. (Laughter.)

BCR PAYMENT DUE
PEACE WOOD PRODUCTS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River); My question is to the Premier as president of the B.C. Railway. Is the Premier aware that Peace Wood Products are experiencing considerable delay respecting payment of an account of $70,000 payable to them by the railway for the supply of railway ties?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: Peace Wood Products of Taylor, British Columbia, Mr. Premier.

RE-EVALUATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER
DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the Minister

[ Page 717 ]

indicate to the House whether he has attempted to have article 15 of the Columbia River treaty...involving the joint engineering board carry out a study as to downstream benefits and possibly have them re-evaluate the returns to British Columbia under the treaty provisions?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'll take the question as notice.

CHANGE IN DRIVER INSURANCE POINTS

MR. MORRISON: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. On the weekend there was an announcement that there would be a change in the drivers' insurance points, from 10 to three for those people who, perhaps, have not bought their $10 insurance. Could the Minister advise what the programme will be for those people who are not paying very heavily through the point system? Will they be entitled to a refund, and when will the policy take effect?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The policy takes effect the minute it is ratified by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I want to urge the Premier to reconsider his action, or lack of action, in regard to the question that was raised in this House some days ago in connection with a campaign donation given to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) at the time he was a candidate in the provincial election.

The Premier, in his comment to the House when he got involved in this question, said that he treated the matter very seriously, as he should. But I think that he reached the conclusion he reached because he didn't fully comprehend the exact issues and the sequence of events that led up to those issues. There are some serious questions which have been raised, and the Premier must recognize them, with regard to the sequence of events and subsequent events as well.

On Thursday March 6, 1975, the radio hotliner, Gary Bannerman, phoned John Twigg, the Premier's press secretary, and Ray Wargo, the Minister of Human Resources' executive assistant, and told those two people — Twigg and Wargo — that he had an important matter that he wanted to raise on the air on his programme regarding a campaign contribution....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley if he's questioning the conduct of an Hon. Member — namely the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not. I'm outlining the sequence of events which was raised in this House with regard to the Premier's statement on the subsequent events. I am not questioning the conduct of any Member of this House. I want the Premier to consider his action in regard to this matter.

So the important matter was re contributions and the Minister of Human Resources. By Friday noon — that's the day after — the Minister of Human Resources had the full details of the matter from the radio hotliner. An appointment was set up between the Minister and the hotliner for March 12, which the Minister did not keep. At that time he phoned and asked for a further delay, although the hotliner had waited for a week already. The hotliner felt he couldn't wait any longer and he ran the story the next morning.

I want the Premier to consider these questions: first of all, did the Minister make any attempt, other than the request for a delay, to keep the matter off the air? Did he make any other attempts to keep the story off the air?

The Premier's opening statement to the House was: "First of all, let me say that the Minister approached me and informed me that he had received a phone call from the radio commentator as outlined by the Minister." Is the Premier telling this House that his press secretary, John Twigg, did not tell him of the phone call on Thursday, March 6?

I can hardly believe that a person in a position of influence such as Mr. Twigg is in would not tell the Premier of such an important instance. Did he keep that information to himself and, if so, did the Premier, in fact, reprimand his press secretary for keeping such important information to himself?

Later on in his statement the Premier said: "I took the matter most seriously and did not comment upon it until the Minister presented me with the two cancelled cheques." The inference that I get from that statement by the Premier is that he concluded that everything was clear and that there was no impropriety on the basis of those two cancelled cheques, and on that basis only.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'd like to impress on the Premier is that those cheques do not mean a thing, because there are many unanswered questions with regard to those cheques as well. I think that if I can relate those unanswered questions perhaps the Premier will take a second look at his comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member before he proceeds that it

[ Page 718 ]

appears to the Chair that the Hon. Member is attempting to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. If you are questioning the conduct of the Hon. Minister of Human Resources directly it would be done by substantive motion. However, it appears that you are attempting to do indirectly what you cannot do directly. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his questions strictly to the Premier's area of responsibility.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about a statement the Premier made in this House. It was unsolicited and he has accepted some responsibility in this area. This is the proper area for me to follow that line of questioning — under the Premier's salary estimates.

With regard to the cheques, which were tabled before this House, Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the Minister that those two cheques were written nine days apart and were signed by two different people. If, in fact, the $200 campaign donation, which was mentioned in this House and on the air, prompted those two cheques, why weren't they both written at the same time by the same person?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that.... I would just draw to his attention this distinction: you may question the Hon. Premier on his actions. However, if you're getting into the overall merit of the whole situation, then you are attempting to do indirectly what you cannot do directly.

Will the Hon. Member continue with the questioning of the Premier?

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in the Premier's statement he has indicated that his whole statement was based on these two cancelled cheques, and he reached a conclusion because of these two cancelled cheques. I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that there are some questions that need to be answered regarding these cheques and that the Premier may want to change his statement if I point out these unanswered questions, because I think that they should be clearly answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member for Langley that if he continues to discuss the general merits of the case I will be obliged to rule him out of order. However, he may question the Premier on specifics of his responsibility.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm doing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, you've established, commencing yesterday, a new approach to the estimates. You tend to forget, Mr. Chairman, that we have serious limitations in the estimates now. There are only 135 hours per year in which we can question the Ministers. If you're going to occupy 10 per cent of the time, it's going to make it extremely difficult for members of the opposition, through your constant interruptions, to get through the estimates which we have to discuss. I wish, Mr. Chairman, that you would change your approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member please take his seat?

MR. CHABOT: Stop wasting the time of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Langley continue with the questioning of the Premier?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, the Premier made his statements on the basis of the cheques which were tabled before this House. Those cheques, of which we have Xerox copies and the originals of which we have just viewed in the Speaker's office, leave many questions unanswered. Since those cheques were the basis of the Premier's statement and since those cheques were tabled with this House, then I'm entitled, under these estimates, to ask questions about those cheques.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the merits of the case, which is the relevance of the cheques to the merits of the case, is a matter for a substantive motion. The Premier's actions are the part you must question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the one cheque seems to have some serious omissions. It is a cheque made out to the Vancouver Centre Liberal NDP Association. There is, with the new system of computerized banking, a note when the cheque clears; there's a computer note at the bottom of it indicating how much money was paid out on the cheque. In the cheque to Denofreo that computer notation is there. On the cheque to the Vancouver Centre Liberal NDP Association that computer....

AN HON. MEMBER: Federal, not Liberal.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, yes, that was a federal NDP, wasn't it? I'm sorry — that was a Freudian slip, I guess.

That computerized notation is not there. Now,

[ Page 719 ]

according to people in the banking business, there is a possibility that that cheque could be cleared without that notation if it were taken directly into the branch upon which it was written, which in this case would be Vancouver City Savings Credit Union. However, the cheque does not contain any endorsement on the back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that you cannot use the time in the estimates under this vote to raise the merits of the case and express your views rather than....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking questions of the Premier under his estimates. We want to know if he's going to check into the validity of these cheques and what he's going to do about it. He's made the statement. We want him....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the only other way that the cheque could have been cashed was if it had been taken directly to the credit union and cashed, with the cash being received there.

However, there is no way that I have ever heard of a bank — and no banking people that can tell me — giving cash for a cheque which was not endorsed on the back. It's just utterly impossible. There is no endorsement on that cheque — no endorsement whatsoever. We've checked this very carefully, because I didn't want to go by the Xeroxed copy. We've checked the original in the Speaker's office. One thing or the other has to be there, but no bank will give cash for a cheque which has not been endorsed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that that question alone should be enough to make the Premier take a second look at his statement, because obviously he's based his whole attitude in this situation on seeing those two cancelled cheques. That's what he said in his statement.

The Premier should also answer the questions regarding the apparent conspiracy of silence. There were six silent days during which the Premier knew about this issue, yet he said nothing and, in fact, did not advise the Minister to make a statement in this House. The people of this province, if the Premier would have had his way, would never have learned of this situation if the radio hotliner hadn't aired the story. The people of British Columbia would never have known about this.

Did the Premier, in fact, advise the Minister not to make the allegations public in the hope that in one way or another either he or the Minister or someone else could convince the radio hotliner not to use the story on the air?

I think it's important, too, since the Premier has taken a direct involvement in this whole affair, that the Premier contact the radio hotliner, Gary Bannerman, and insist that Bannerman present to this House any further documents he may have in his possession relating to the allegations he made on the air. There are questions about certain documents which have been tabled before this House in the form of cheques. Are there other documents which are important to know about? Does Bannerman have them? If so, will he present them to this House? I think that as Premier, Mr. Chairman, he has no choice but to insist that Bannerman make public every bit of documentation that he has for the people of this House.

I think the next important thing is that the Premier take a second look, ask the Minister to resign until a full judicial inquiry can clear up the matter once and for all....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would draw to the attention........

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Everyone who comes into public life is subject to allegations, both of fact or of fancy. People can make statements and leave innuendo, and leave the impression they wish to leave at any given time in public life.

For my own part, I'm completely satisfied with the Minister's explanation, and I'm satisfied that he made the right decision in explaining to the House. I'm quite sure that the official opposition is not satisfied. If the official opposition possesses any information, further documentation or other facts, they have full access to the normal court procedure that exists in this province. Frankly, if they feel, other than innuendo, that there's more action....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, please be silent for a moment. I was silent when I listened to your Member speak.

I'm saying that if you feel that there is something wrong, then have access to the courts or bring new evidence. I am distressed, however, that there has been no apology to this House over the fact that one of the copies of the cheque was doctored — admitted publicly by an assistant to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). There has been no apology to this House and its Members that after the knowledge was public that misinformation was being forwarded by an altered cheque by a member of the Leader of the Opposition's staff. No public apology has been forthcoming from the official Leader of the

[ Page 720 ]

Opposition's staff member for doctoring that cheque.

Each man must act on his own conscience, but let it be a matter of record that a staff member responsible to the Leader of the Opposition — self-admitted — doctored one of the cheques presented and used that doctored copy as argument.

To this moment we have not had the Leader of the Opposition stand up in the House and say that he regrets the action of his staff member. I think that everybody can measure for himself the purpose of other people's actions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has done, again, a masterful job of attempting to skirt a very serious issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he doctor the cheque? Did he doctor the cheque?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, he didn't, eh? What does he say in the paper even?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Hon....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there was....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he alter the cheque?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he alter the cheque?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley to confine his remarks to the actions of the Premier on this matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member for Langley continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I've spoken in this House on this matter on one other occasion. The Premier cannot accuse me of using any altered or doctored information at any time. I've laid all of the facts on the table for the Premier. He has refused to accept some of them. I'm asking him now, in the light of further facts and further questions about documents which have been tabled before this House, if he'll take a second look at the matter.

There is no doubt that there are some questions about the validity of those cheques that need to be answered. There is no doubt that the Minister accepted a personal donation by himself in clear violation of the elections Act, even though....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that I want the Hon. Member to make this distinction: You may question the Minister about his actions. However, if you are discussing the merits of the case it must be done by substantive motion. Furthermore, the action in question took place before the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi) was the Minister for Human Resources or a member of the executive.

MR. McCLELLAND: What's that got to do with anything? What does that have to do with anything?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member for Langley continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm very surprised at your comments, because to me they're unbelievable. I really don't see why you should be attempting to help to manufacture a defence for the Minister of Human Resources. And that's what you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm cautioning the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the actions of the Premier.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, the questions that I asked of the Premier are still valid. He hasn't even attempted to answer them. His own press secretary, apparently, withheld information from him which was very important. Why did he do that? Has he been reprimanded for that? Is the Premier going to take a second look? Does the Premier think that the cheques, which appear to have some irregularities, should be investigated further? And will he give us the answers to those questions? We don't really want, again, Mr. Premier, the kind of stick-handling that you've been doing. Why not be straight?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, why don't you be straight?

MR. McCLELLAND: I am being straight.

[ Page 721 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've been advised by the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) office that letters that you've used that were falsely altered have been referred to the police. And I hope that we find out who altered those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I hope that you'll check from now on before you use documents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not had an apology in this House ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not had an apology in this House from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Premier, as well, that any charges against an individual Member of the House must be done only on a substantive motion. I would ask the Hon. Members to refrain, on both sides of the House, from any innuendo or charge against an individual Member of this House but, rather, to confine themselves to questioning the Premier on his actions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I say again, I'm completely satisfied with the actions of the Minister. I had expected that there would be a statement of apology from the official Leader of the Opposition for the altered cheque that was used by his staff member. No apology?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr. Chairman, since you did not bring the Premier to order when he again referred to doctoring or altering....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands that I said to the Hon. Premier that he should not bring any charge against an Hon. Member except on a substantive motion. The rules apply to everyone. Would the Hon. Member for...?

MR. CURTIS: You seem to enforce them with greater promptness on one side of the House than the other, Mr. Chairman. I think that if we're asking for apologies today (and perhaps that might be helpful on the part of the Premier), we should have the Premier indicate to this House that his use of the word "doctoring" was certainly not intended as most people will take it. This is a perfect example of skating away from the central issue under discussion this afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was the cheque altered?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Premier, when you've finished asking the question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands has the floor.

MR. CURTIS: My understanding, Mr. Chairman — and I believe that the Premier knows full well that this is the case — is that as a matter of convenience for the press, when there was great interest in these cheques after they were filed in this House, there were probably three Xerox copies of the cheques available. The press came to the office of the official opposition and asked the research assistant for one copy. The research assistant, not the executive assistant to the Leader of the Opposition — the research assistant, Mr. Weeks — had been attempting to decipher a notation on the reverse of one of the cheques in question. It was that copy which he gave to the press as a matter of convenience.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he write on that copy?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Premier, he did write on that copy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! Would the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands confine his remarks to questioning of the Premier's actions? Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again point out that the use in this House this afternoon, first of the word "doctoring" and, second, of the word "altering" is a smokescreen on the part of the Premier to move away as rapidly as he can from the issue before us.

Now, to return to the subject, would the Premier indicate to the committee when he was first made aware of this allegation by one Gary Bannerman, by whom we understand it was as a result of a telephone call to Mr. John Twigg?

That's a very simple question in discussing the Premier's estimates this afternoon. Mr. Twigg is, as I understand it, a member of the Premier's staff. When was the Premier informed of this situation? Was it by Mr. Twigg? May we hear from the Premier on that subject?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the Member has attempted to give an

[ Page 722 ]

explanation of the altering or the doctoring or the writing on the cheque.

Did you tell the press that the staff member had written on the cheque? Nobody knew except the staff member. Did he tell the press? I ask you in front of this assembly and this inquiry: did you tell the press that it was written? Come on, answer the questions. Don't lie. Just because it's my estimates, don't lie.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Answer the question. Did you know it was doctored?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When did you tell the press?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Change your image.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to get at the truth, Mr. Chairman, just like them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Ha! Smokescreen!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Premier and to those who are questioning the Premier that we are....

HON. MR. BARRETT: When was it altered?

MR. PHILLIPS: Farce!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame on you! The whole works of you should resign.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Premier and to those who are questioning him....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, estimates will be over by the time you complete this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I point out to the Premier and to those who are questioning him that we are considering vote 2 — the Premier's office and the responsibilities of the Premier. I would ask the Hon. Members and the Premier to confine their questions and answers to these responsibilities rather than entering into debate on this general subject matter outside of the estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been in this House as long as the Premier. I may be in a little longer the way things are going. But I understand that Mr. Twigg is a member of the Premier's staff; we are therefore discussing the Premier's vote.

AN HON, MEMBER: Right.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's in his estimates.

MR. CURTIS: We can have the grandstanding once again, and attempts to distract not only this House but also the gallery, on the part of the Premier but the question is a straightforward one: when did the Premier learn of this particular situation and was it from Mr. Twigg?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the Premier's silence that his press secretary did not tell him about a very important....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe the Hon. Member's microphone is on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if my assumption is correct — that the Premier's silence means that his press secretary did not tell him about this important issue although he was phoned on March 6 with regard to it. I just wonder if that is a correct assumption. If it is, it's an incredible turn of events that a member of the Premier's staff would take it upon himself to withhold that kind of information from the Premier.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to speak at any great length on this subject at the moment, but I do want to suggest to the Premier, through you, that he does have the general superintendency of his Ministers, and the responsibility for their conduct and their fitness to hold office.

I would suggest to him that, whether any of us like it or not, there has been an important charge made here this afternoon — questioning in effect whether or not the cheque tabled with this House and dated September 15, 1972, in fact did go through the clearing procedure at that time. If it did not go through the clearing procedure at that time then that has a number of grave consequences and implications which I don't even want to speculate on at this point.

[ Page 723 ]

May I simply ask the Premier if he is prepared to make it his business to find out, through the channels of inquiry he will have, whether or not that cheque did in fact go through the clearing procedure in September, 1972?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is the point you are trying to make, Mr. Member, that there is a possibility, in your opinion, that the cheque was manufactured past that date? Is that the point you are trying to make?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm searching for what....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Please. I'm searching for what you are looking for so that I'm clear in my mind.

MR, GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have tried not to make any allegations. I deliberately didn't go into any of the possibilities. All I said is that the charge was raised as to the validity of the clearing procedure, and would the Premier take it upon himself to satisfy....

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I satisfied myself. I saw a stamp on the front of that cheque showing that it had been cleared. That satisfied me.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed any further with this matter I would draw to the Members' attention the decision that was given by the Speaker yesterday and contained in Votes and Proceedings. This paragraph is a quote from Mr. Speaker Michener when he was the Speaker of the House of Commons:

"In my view, simple justice requires that no Hon. Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence."

So I would ask the Hon. Members just to bear that in mind.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I just want to say that it seems to me that what we are trying to do is follow up the Premier's responsibility — which I know he agrees is his responsibility — for the propriety of actions of members of his cabinet.

I take it that his answer, then, is that he is completely satisfied that that cheque did go through the proper clearing procedure. I would say, in support of his contention, that there is on the face of that cheque a stamp saying "Vancouver City Savings...Paid September 15, 1972" — and "3295 West Broadway, Credit Union" at the bottom. On the other hand, what the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has pointed out is that there are no computer clearing marks, there are no stamps whatsoever on the back of the cheque and there are no endorsements on the cheque. For that reason, without mentioning anything further, I ask the Premier if he would undertake to satisfy himself a little bit further on this point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am quite satisfied as it stand, Mr. Member, unless you can show me new evidence that it was not cleared at that time. I assume that that stamp is genuine. If you can show me evidence that it isn't, then of course I'll take another look.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the same subject, I find it incredible that the Premier could be satisfied with a cheque which had no endorsement on it. That's a very highly irregular situation.

The second question, Mr. Chairman — and perhaps this is a pretty simple request and perhaps the Minister could feel his way clear to give us at least one answer to one question — is the request I made that the radio hotliner be asked in an official way to table in this House any further documentation he may have in relation to this whole situation — and the original cheque as well.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, why ask the Minister? It's the radio hotliner.... We want to find out if he has any further documentation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if anybody is withholding information from the public on this matter, I appeal to them publicly to bring it forward. But I'm not going to chase every hotliner. I asked the Minister and he has brought forward everything he possesses. I know that your purpose is not to sling mud or leave a cloud of suspicion over the Minister; therefore I assume that you will go out and bring forward any undocumented evidence that you may have as quickly as possible.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear this up. You have said that you do want to appeal publicly for anyone who has further documentation to bring it forward?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure.

[ Page 724 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, to follow up on this subject, the Premier indicated that he is considering some guidelines, and we certainly appreciate that. That was the purpose of the questioning.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Guidelines for what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Guidelines on acceptance of gifts by Members of the Legislative Assembly or cabinet. We are discussing here the acceptance of gifts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member making a charge?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Obviously if you find that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Second Member for Victoria is making a charge against another Hon. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'm not. I'd like to read, if you like....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...the Minister's own statement in the House.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an accusation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not making accusations. I'm asking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I accept the word of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that he is not making a charge against another Member of this House. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I started off to ask, in the light of this particular instance where indeed a cheque was accepted and signed and deposited, whether or not the Premier, who is responsible for the general overseeing of the cabinet, who has stated in this House and elsewhere — or outside the House, I might add, not inside — that each Minister is allowed only one mistake, is taking steps to make sure that the acceptance of gifts is, in future, totally about reproach so that we don't have the type of argument we have had here today, or indeed the type of comments we've had on hotlines.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order. Is the Member suggesting that the $200 in question falls into the category of a gift? Is that the allegation you are making?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we can argue semantics....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will quote from the Minister's statement: "I recall receiving a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in the amount of $200 prior to September 6, 1972. The cheque I accepted as a political donation."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Is that a gift?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in the circumstances, it apparently was not destined for the federal campaign by the original donor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member if he is making a charge against the Hon. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am making no charges. Why have you got charges in your mind? Why don't you sit back quietly and act as Chairman of the debate, and if you want to take part, take your seat over there and let someone else sit there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I assume from the answer of the Hon. Member that he is not making a charge. Would the Hon. Member continue; otherwise I will caution him that he must do it by a substantive motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that a gift was accepted and put, in this instance, into the account of the Minister. Later on....

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was not a gift.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Later on, one cheque was issued on September 15. Before, one cheque was issued, I believe, on the 5th, prior to the depositing of the cheque. Now gifts can be accepted and gifts can be given out. It's not as though the two have to be related directly in terms of either amount or date.

But the Speaker's decision which you quoted indicated that indeed the subject did not really arise in view of the fact that the Member concerned did not become a Member of the Legislature until September 15, when he took the oath and signed.

[ Page 725 ]

But to get back to my original point before you and the Premier got so touchy: under the circumstances, where we have charge and counter-charge going across the floor and where we have hotliners raising the most unpleasant suggestions, there is obviously a need for the Premier, as the man who oversees the integrity of the cabinet generally, to lay down some sort of guidelines. But about 10 minutes ago I asked the Premier whether or not he has requested other Ministers, subsequent to this particular event, to report to him gifts they may have received in the past two years, before or after they signed. I would ask him specifically whether or not he received from the members of the party that accompanied him to Japan a list of any gifts other than a token nature and whether or not he is willing to make such material available to the House. It's a fairly simple request.

There is, in this instance, a fair amount of dispute with reference to the cheques in and the cheques out. It would seem that the Minister responsible — namely, the Premier — should be interested to make sure that this type of situation does not arise again. It would seem to be his responsibility to check further, particularly as he has said publicly that a Minister is only entitled to one mistake. I would like to question him on this and ask him whether or not he has spoken to the other cabinet Ministers concerned, whether it's been raised with them and whether they in turn made reports to him and, in particular, whether not only the cabinet but also those who accompanied him on his trips abroad were asked to make similar declarations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to apologize for responding to you emotionally. I do find your attitude, on occasion — in my interpretation — as an insufferable snob. I want to apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier not to make personal remarks about other Hon. Members. I would ask the Hon. Premier....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm confessing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Premier withdraw the remarks directed personally to another Hon. Member — unconditionally?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remarks, but I must admit that I do have an emotional response. I withdraw them unconditionally.

There is a deliberate mix on your part of the words "gift" and "campaign donation." Now you must stand in this House, if you are intending to do so, and make an accusation that the Minister took a gift. But don't leave the innuendo by mixing the words "gift" and "campaign donation" — that somehow the Minister took a gift. If that is your implication, then I find it despicable. I'm entitled to that opinion. I do have emotional reactions and I am human and perhaps my emotional reactions are insufferable to you. Nonetheless, that is a matter of fact.

Now in terms of the question raised by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), there was no policy; there never has been a policy in this province related to gifts, not by the former administration or by any other administration before. As I said yesterday, we are looking into this matter to formulate a policy. I think it is a sensitive area, but there is no existing policy and there never has been. I quite recognize that vacuum.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has indicated that there is this amazing distinction between a gift and a campaign contribution. But this would only be a campaign contribution if Mr. Joe Hargift expected that money to go to the federal NDP on the one hand and a particular individual on the other hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would caution the Hon. Member again that I draw the distinction between questioning the Premier on his actions and discussing the merits of the case. If the Hon. Member is seeking to discuss the merits of the case, it should be done by substantive motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I feel I had a number of questions on the Premier's actions and statements only a few minutes ago. But this fine distinction that he would like to make that somehow or another a gift which was accepted — and there is no question here about that — somehow becomes a campaign contribution to another campaign entirely, even though half the money involved was paid out prior to the receipt of the original cheque, is too much to take — that this somehow was a totally different thing. Now no one is questioning the Minister's payment of those two cheques — or, at least, his wife's payment of one of the cheques and his payment of the other — to the tune of $200. The cheques have been sent out. But the fact is that a previous or subsequent gift — and I use that word advisedly — does not alter the nature of the gift from Joe Hargitt to the Minister; and that's the point I want the Premier to understand.

It's a problem which he is faced with at the present time. That is why I pose the questions — which are totally unanswered — about what requests he's made to other Ministers, and specifically what

[ Page 726 ]

questions he's posed to other Ministers concerning gifts in relation to trips overseas. And I repeat those two questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I recognize that there is a problem. As I said, there was no policy and is no policy, and I hope that we are able to formulate policy in the near future.

It is a matter of concern to all politicians in this country, federally and provincially. I'm saying quite candidly there never was a policy on this issue of gifts, and I hope to formulate a policy as soon as possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (mike not on)...of a constant reference to policy that he has not, in fact, asked any other Minister about the receipt of gifts and he has not asked any members of his staff, or any other person who accompanied him on trips, about the receipt of gifts.

MR. McCLELLAND: Again, on the same subject briefly, the Minister's statement in the House was: "I took the matter most seriously." Does the Premier accept the Minister's statement that he did accept the $200 and put it in his own personal bank account, and doesn't the Premier find it at least highly unethical in relation to what the elections Act of British Columbia says?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that you have strayed from questioning the Minister to discussing the merits of the case, and I would rule the last part of your remarks out of order. I would draw your attention to standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We're considering the actions and the responsibilities of the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just perhaps, for our own information, the Premier could interpret the elections Act for us and tell us whether or not ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and maybe that's another area that needs to be discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out again to the Member for Langley that you are making judgments about this situation and about the actions of the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), and this is out of order in this particular debate. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue that course of action it should be done by other means, either by substantive motion or by going through the courts. I would ask him to question the Premier only on his responsibilities.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, again noting that the matter was answered with silence a few minutes ago, because we're discussing the Premier's estimates, when did the Premier first learn of this situation? Question 1. Was the Premier informed of this matter by a member of his staff — and we're again on his estimates — by Mr. Twigg, and, if so, when? Was it on March 6 or 7 — or ever? Finally, why was no statement made by the Premier on this matter until the afternoon of March 13, the day the matter became public?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would like to deal with this issue, and if others have questions on it, I'd be happy to yield my place. I was going to raise another topic briefly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Be our guest. Go ahead.

MR. McGEER: On March 10 I asked the Premier, with regard to the purchase by the government of the Minnekhada stock farm in Coquitlam which the Premier announced: "Could he tell us the price paid by the provincial government by Daon Development Corp., and what price the Daon Development Corp. paid to the former owner, Mr. Clarence Wallace?" The Premier took it as notice.

Prior to this question of mine, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had asked a similar question about two weeks previously. The information that we requested, first the Member for Oak Bay and then myself, could have been provided in an afternoon, and I find it curious that these questions have not been answered. Perhaps the Premier can correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of what has already appeared in print, Mr. Chairman.

According to the record, Daon Development bought this farm from Mr. Wallace, just over 1,000 acres, for $1 million. The first report of that was on January 16. Two days later there was an announcement by the general manager of the B.C. Land Commission that Daon Development Corp. was taking a big gamble by buying that farm for $1 million. Well, as it turns out, Daon Development wasn't taking a gamble at all because 10 days later there's an announcement that the B.C. government had bought the stock farm for $2 million.

Gracious me! This development firm took this tremendous gamble in buying a stock farm for $1

[ Page 727 ]

million. None other than the head of the B.C. government's own Land Commission said that, because it was clear that the Land Commission wasn't about to take this particular piece of property off the reserve list. Unless Daon Development really knew what they were doing, they were going to be on the hook, Mr. Chairman.

But here we have, on February 1, a big headline in the business section: "Daon Boss Has No Regrets." Yes, no regrets. Within a month he made a million bucks. Who would regret that? Well, Mr. Chairman, naturally the opposition want to ask a question or two about that, and I'll bet the government took that as notice. But it was the Premier himself who announced that $2 million purchase and, as far as we can interpret from what has appeared in the press, the million-dollar profit for Daon Development. We've asked the Premier to straighten this matter out and to tell us just exactly what happened. Perhaps he could do that this afternoon.

Perhaps, as well, Mr. Chairman, since this kind of thing has come up more than once, we might ask if, with the open government that the Premier is now running, we might have a policy of tabling all government contracts — the purchases, the terms of agreement, and so on — so that we aren't continually left having to ask questions about Casa Loma and about Daon Development and about Dunhill and about.... What's that firm in New York that's buying our newsprint?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gottesman.

MR. McGEER: Gottesman — buying it for $180 a ton and selling it for $565 a ton. This is the kind of thing that people like...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...Daon Development and Casa Loma and so on wouldn't be encouraged to undertake with the government if there weren't secret contracts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just ask the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey if he's questioning the Hon. Premier on this matter in his capacity as Premier and Minister of Finance or as MLA for Coquitlam. I do think that the subject matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson).

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm questioning him because he's the boss. He's the No. 1 man in the government. He's the Premier; he's the Minister of Finance; he's the one and only Member for Coquitlam; he's the man who announced that they paid $2 million to Daon Development.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the rest of the note I gave you: "young, handsome, intelligent." (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to draw to the attention of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that you may not discuss every Minister's responsibilities merely because the Premier happens to be the chairman of the executive council.

MR. McGEER: No, I was merely asking that he might set a government policy that would apply to the other Ministers. If you prick one, they all bleed, Mr. Chairman. We saw that earlier today. If the Premier were to set this standard for everybody, why, it would make things a lot smoother. Our debates would be over more quickly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's going to be difficult to set the standard because it'll be new in Canada, considering the lack of any standard by the federal government. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr., Chairman, was that the answer to all of these questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have a note, Mr. Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! One man on the floor at once, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I have a note, Mr. Member, and I'll try to get the information for you this afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, people are sleepy this afternoon. I'd like to ask the Premier another question with regard to the Columbia River treaty, if we could just come back to that for a moment or two this afternoon, and our efforts to get this commission started, and so on.

One of the key figures is the representative of Canada on the permanent engineering board, set up under article 15. In the past it has been the commissioner of water resources for British Columbia. It was first Mr. Paget and then Mr. Raudsepp. In view of Mr. Raudsepp's resignation from the government, who will be the representative on the permanent engineering board? Does the government

[ Page 728 ]

have any policy with respect to the duties of that representative?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Raudsepp was a permanent member, and he's resigned.

MR. McGEER: Well, he resigned from the government. Did he resign from the engineering board? I presumed he had.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that was his duty as well. He has resigned from there as well.

MR. McGEER: Do we not have a representative?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll find out from the two members of the board what their action has been to replace him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier a question, if I might, about the B.C. Railway. In view of the difficulties with the former contractor, who slipped his equipment in the dead of night up the Stewart-Cassiar road into the Yukon Territory, is construction on the section up to Dease Lake proceeding according to schedule? Is equipment in there working? Who is doing the work?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you've touched on a very delicate area, as I have been advised by our lawyers. I've asked the House to consider a full debate on the BCR when the bill is called, related to further financing. I will have a prepared statement to make at that time related to the questions you've asked and the court cases we face. I'm advised that because of the nature of the court case it would be wise to confine my remarks to areas that would not be considered sub judice. I'm asking the House to wait. There are serious charges, as you know; serious charges have been laid.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it does, partly. Yes, he's talking about the contractor across the border — the whole thing. So I'm asking the Members to wait until the bill is called, when we will have full discussion on the BCR and its problems.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Construction is going on, yes. There have been arrangements made for the continuation of winter work, the details of which I will give during the calling of that bill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was trying to find out just how the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) himself arrives at decisions in order to go to the market for long-term money and the advisability of borrowing $100 million last September for the B.C. Hydro Corp. The Premier admitted to the House that B.C. had the financial capability to avoid going to the market at a time like that.

After some discussion as to who was to blame, whether it was the underwriters or the staff or himself, he came to the decision that he has the ultimate responsibility. It's unfortunate that he tried to hide behind the staff — that they were the only advisers. I always thought the Premier, in selecting the Minister of Finance, would choose someone who had the capability of making the final decision, of questioning the staff, of questioning any advice they get; and the capability to analyse and take the best information available to predict the market.

The Premier said: "You're dealing in hindsight." We're talking about six months. Yet his big smokescreen issue about the Columbia is dealing with hindsight going back to 1964 and before. It's amazing how we can have selective memory and we can say it's hindsight for six months, but I advocate to this House that the Minister of Finance must have the capability to question his advice. We have to be concerned with the advice he gets and how he gets advice and how things are taken to cabinet now.

Last November, delivered to my office, was a memorandum. It was delivered from the Deputy Provincial Secretary (Mr. Wallace), and it said:

"With reference to my memorandum dated October 8, 1974, I am enclosing a further memorandum dated November 4, received from Marc Eliesen, planning adviser, cabinet."

Why would they deliver this memorandum and put me on the mailing for the cabinet? Maybe they're anticipating what will happen after the election.

The memorandum says:

"Subject: cabinet agenda.

"May I amend my previous memo concerning orders-in-council and policy planning items to appear on cabinet agenda?"

HON. MR. BARRETT: Open government.

MR. BENNETT: It goes on:

"Firstly, would you have these submissions into my office not later than noon on Tuesday each week. Secondly, in the event you have no submission, would you please forward a nil return by the same deadline time of noon every Tuesday."

HON. MR, BARRETT: And you never replied.

MR. BENNETT: "Thank you. Marc Eliesen, planning adviser to cabinet."

[ Page 729 ]

I want to know if the memorandum from Marc Eliesen to the Deputy Ministers and the cabinet, setting out control procedures and the cabinet agenda, applies to the Premier's office and the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson). What is the procedure followed by the Deputy Minister of Finance to get an item on the agenda if he misses the Tuesday deadline each week set by Mr. Eliesen? Does the Deputy Minister of Finance under the terms of the memorandum file a nil return in the same manner as all other Deputy Ministers? Were there any nil returns before at times when we needed advice about decisions requiring the decision of the cabinet or the decision to go to market?

This is the government's own memorandum. It's the Premier himself who suggested yesterday that he has new advisers, new authorities. He attempted to say in this House that he took the advice of the authorities he inherited and that somehow any financial guesswork that was wrong would somehow he their responsibility. I can only take that implication from the Blues.

Yet here we have a decision made last September — only six months ago — at a time when major national financial advisory groups were saying: "Don't go to the market." Many financial officers, who are there, who were appointed because of their ability to be chief finance officers, not because they also happened to be Premier, decided not to go to the market.

It may seem a small thing to the Premier — that 1.375 per cent interest differential between then and now, just six months. It is not very much to him, but over the 25-year period of this issue, if we compound this differential at 9 per cent, it adds up to $116 million. You could do a lot of rural electrification for that, Mr. Premier. You could do a lot for the people of Hydro in picking up losses on the transit system, which seem to be affecting the financial balance sheets of Hydro — great losses in transit. You might be able to do that if you were able, or had the ability, as the Finance Minister, to analyse the advice you get and make a decision on your own ability. Six months isn't much hindsight.

Those areas, those companies, those people who were able to have flexibility to delay their decision to go to the market last September and not come until March saved their investors and saved their people a lot of money. Here we have a situation where the Premier says we're dealing in hindsight, yet the very subject he keeps wanting to introduce, make the major discussion in B.C. as a smokescreen for many of the deficiencies of his government, the Columbia River, is a lot of hindsight.

Yet he pleads hindsight; he pleads the advice of the staff he inherited. Nowhere do we see that he takes accountability for the 1.375 it costs this Hydro, and if it was compounded, as I say, it would come to $116 million.

I'm concerned. It doesn't take a genius. Nobody is saying that they have abilities to do great predictions. I'm saying that somewhere somebody has to make decision based on their ability to do so. Many people made the correct decision last September. This Minister of Finance made an incorrect decision and cost the Hydro a lot of money in excess interest.

The Premier may wave his hand. Apparently he's used to saying "What's $100 million?" on Human Resources, so he says "What's a $100 million in interest benefits?" — compounded at a loss because of this one marketing procedure on just one of the many bond issues that he's floated on behalf of Hydro. Just $100 million of the $375 million effects that type of cost, and he must take responsibility for the decision. That's what it adds up to — benefits lost, compounded, of $100 million. That's a lot of money.

It's a lot of money when the public in this province is concerned that perhaps the direction isn't there, that the money isn't being managed wisely. Perhaps the concern of the public has that unemployment is out of control and the Premier has no answer, that he can't even market a bond issue correctly ... perhaps the rumours and the stories of government incompetence are true in all areas.

Perhaps when they say $100 million overrun in Human Resources — the first excuse, I remember, was that it was a clerical error. It's a government of great excuses — they run for cover every time. "A clerical error." "I got the best advice of the staff I inherited." "It's the Americans' fault" — we haven't heard that one in this yet, but we certainly heard it when the Premier finally decided to get back from China and Hawaii. Then he went through the Christmas period and, finally, in January he decided to deal with a very serious question of resource revenue sharing which the federal government and other jurisdictions had dealt with.

Alberta had made sure that they dealt with the situation in November and December so that exploration could continue in the north of their province. Gas exploration can only take place in the winter. The area has to be frozen to support the rigs — everybody knows that. Yet in British Columbia there was a sort of a two-and-a-half-month gap, then all of a sudden, bang, in January a complete British Columbia network on radio about some proposal that's shocking. All of a sudden our gas exploration isn't happening, but I noticed it was happening in Alberta. It just so happened that their Premier had been tending to business before the Christmas season and did make sure that the exploration continued.

It is important to areas of not only local economies like Fort St. John and others, but it is also important to the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 730 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Alberta government is going to fix the Socreds too.

MR. BENNETT: Without getting partisan I say that the Premier there did his job in Alberta, and I think we are concerned in British Columbia that perhaps when the Premier is on the job he doesn't do it correctly.

I'm concerned about the procedures for marketing, particularly as it has been announced that we are going to go for almost $1 billion in new issues in the near future for the funding of the new projects on Hydro for Site 1 for power for the Province of British Columbia. We are blessed by not being critically short, like other areas. It's going to cost some money, and now that we've departed from the norm of financing internally and have this new policy of going outside the province, perhaps the Minister of Finance can advise if....

Then there was some question about the amount paid to the underwriters — amounts that were $875,000 or $750,000. Perhaps in British Columbia, if this were a new policy and we had all this money we are going to the market for, we would set up our own mechanism so that we could save this commission or this underwriting fee.

That's a lot of money when we talk $1 billion. It's possible for the province then to cut out the middleman in the marketing of money and save that money for the people of B.C.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm rather surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that if the Government of British Columbia is going to go to the public market for money we should somehow cut out the people who have the kind of advice to offer to the government that the leader is talking about, The financing of large loans of the nature of which the Leader of the Opposition speaks requires a great deal of skill, and that's what I think, quite properly, he was critical of the Premier for. But if we're going to cut out the people who know the answers then we're not going to get the advice.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't want to deal with the past. The former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had no trouble whatsoever in divining in advance what the interest rate was going to be because he borrowed it all from his own trust moneys and he paid them the rate of interest that he decided.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: He never had to go to the public market. He never had to concern himself with what the interest might be in the market from time to time.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the pension funds. You know he paid the pension funds the interest rate he wanted to pay them, not what the market wanted to pay them at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about schools and hospitals?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Anyway, I don't want to deal with the past. We should be forward-looking in British Columbia, and that's the matter I want to deal with for a few moments with the Premier.

Last evening, as the debate drew to a close, I think we had reached the situation where the Premier admitted that, within limitations, the identity of the dollars we were borrowing for this province was not of major concern to him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not equity money.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. It's not equity money but a straight loan, and we don't have much identification on dollars, but there would be some limitations, I suspect, on this or any other government as to the source from which they would borrow. But we have a situation where the government has gone to the public market — actually it's gone to a private segment of the public market — for two loans of $100 million each under an agreement whereby some details are known of the nature of the loans but not the identify of the borrower.

I'm not too much concerned about the identify of the borrower but I am concerned about one aspect, and that is the extent to which the Government of British Columbia is obliged, when negotiating these loans, to provide the prospective lender with information concerning B.C. Hydro, the nature of its operations, its future debt requirements, in order for them to be encouraged to make the loan in the first place. We have not had, in this province, any exposition from the government with regard to B.C. Hydro and its present and future financial position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was a prospectus available to the public last fall.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right, last fall, but not in respect of these two $100 million loans, and I'm concerned to know what kind of information was made available to these lenders beyond the scope of what may have been in the prospectus. The reason I raise this is because it, too, has been historical in this

[ Page 731 ]

province, under the methods of financing for B.C. Hydro, that we were never told anything about B.C. Hydro and its operation. Not until 1967, when the former government went to the public market and was obliged to file a prospectus, did the Members of this House, and the citizens of British Columbia generally, have an opportunity to really see into that Crown corporation.

Therefore, my question to the Hon. Premier, as Minister of Finance and chief fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, is: in respect of these negotiations for the two $100 million loans, what information was made available to those lenders with respect to B.C. Hydro, its future operations, its future financial position, and the financial position of this province, which has not been disclosed generally to Members of this House or to the public? That's question No. 1.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, the information that was available through the prospectus was the same information that they used — nothing more, nothing less.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

May I also inquire of the Hon. Premier what the future lending requirements of B.C. Hydro are, within his knowledge? We know there's an $800 million obligation that we face in order to complete the Columbia River. We know there's Site 1; we know there's the Pend-d'Oreille. We know that other hydro-electric generating programmes have been considered, and a year ago it was contemplated that the future capital requirements of B.C. Hydro were in the neighbourhood of $3 billion. We have this year on the order paper legislation increasing the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro significantly. I would like to know if the Premier can advise us now as to the future debt requirements for B.C. Hydro that he can foresee, within the limits of the information made available for B.C. Hydro. That's one part of the question.

The second part is: bearing in mind the size of the borrowing that B.C. Hydro faces, does the Premier believe that he will continue to go to the public sector, to the public money markets, in order to meet those borrowing requirements, or are we going to be in a position within the financial ability of this province to meet all or part of those capital fund needs?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the prospectus, Mr. Member, on page 15, you have a detailed outline of the capital projections. Certainly we can have more detail in the debate on the bill itself, but everything that is in the prospectus is available publicly at this very point. I don't have intimate details under the general policy commitments, so I can't give you exact figures off the top of my head. My knowledge is that the commitments are in three major areas. One is the completion of all our obligations under the Columbia River treaty and maximizing that through the machining of Mica, which was an obligation from the past. Site 1 and the Pend-d'Oreille: those are the two major projects we are faced with now.

We will go to the Canadian market, the American market and, as is being advised by the federal Minister of Finance, we will go to the offshore markets as well. We have received a release from the Finance Minister's office on February 27 of this year. The subject is withdrawal of foreign borrowing guidelines. "Finance Minister John Turner announced today" — that was February 27 — "the withdrawal of foreign borrowing guidelines introduced by the government in 1970." It goes on to explain withdrawals.

We have not accepted the advice that the Municipal Financing Authority accepted: that is, borrowing outside of Canadian currency. I want to assure the House that not only did we bargain for the borrowings offshore, but we borrowed in Canadian currency. You speak about hindsight. I am not blaming anyone. But I think, if you logically follow the course of the tortured argument by the Leader of the Opposition, you would somehow come to the shocking conclusion that everybody — because of his hindsight — at the Municipal Financing Authority should be sacked. The tragic fact is that they made a decision with the best advice possible to them, and I am not knocking that. They made a decision to borrow in foreign currencies and they are in for a nosedive of $8 million cold cash...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If not more.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...if not more. I hope that it is not more, Mr. Member. But I think I find it a little bit difficult to swallow the self-professed genius of the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) knowing back then what was going to happen and, also, with the implication that others somehow knew too. If that advice had been available, I am sure that the Municipal Financing Authority would have welcomed it and avoided the disastrous situation they are faced with.

We are not faced with that. We borrowed in Canadian funds. It is not equity. I am saying that the advice I got was a lot better than the advice the Municipal Financing Authority got.

MR. BENNETT: Are you advising them now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not advising them, Mr. Member. They have not asked for my advice. But your presumptive remarks demand some comparison by analysis. I don't want to even embarrass the Member sitting behind you. It is a decision they made, and that's the way it bounces. I would never

[ Page 732 ]

borrow in other than Canadian funds. I made that decision.

We are faced with massive borrowing, Mr. Member. I welcome Mr. Turner's guidelines. We will be looking to all three markets. As for the exact details, we will of course be discussing the bill itself.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If I may just continue that matter one step further, the Premier didn't indicate the extent to which he and his government were taking steps to ascertain whether or not we could meet any of these borrowing requirements, or part of these borrowing requirements, within the funds available within the government itself. The reason I raise this question is one of which the Premier must be wary.

If, in fact, we are faced with large capital requirements for B.C. Hydro and if we must go to the public money market in Canada, the United States and overseas.... I appreciate the limitation you have placed upon us, Mr. Premier, that you will borrow in moneys which are repayable in Canadian funds. That only means it costs you points of interest. In one way or the other the lender is going to consider also what his situation will be as the moneys are repaid. So while it is possible to guard yourself against unpredictable shifts in exchange rates, the lender will also have that in his mind and will compensate for it by interest rates.

My point is, Mr. Chairman, that with massive capital requirements of B.C. Hydro to be filled in the public money market here and internationally, we may find ourselves in the situation that as the public money markets shift and as the cost becomes too expensive, the wisdom of proceeding with large capital projects for B.C. Hydro is placed in doubt.

When we embarked upon the Pend-d'Oreille of $50 million, when we embark upon Site 1 and the other hydro-electric projects and maybe some of those non-hydro-electric projects so far as B.C. Hydro is concerned, we get ourselves committed to capital tasks at a time when we do not have control over the funds needed to pay for those projects. If we're left at the mercy of the public money market, then we may find that the wisdom of proceeding with any particular project is seriously diminished.

In fact, we run into exactly the same situation as the Premier has mentioned with regard to the Columbia River. We enter into a project, thinking we know what it's going to cost both in the direct dollar outlay to build the project and to finance it. But by reason of changes in financing cost, we suddenly find that it costs much more. Therefore we have an overrun, not because of any inability to perceive what is happening to inflation and the cost of the construction itself but because of what is happening in the money market. It is at that time, if the government has made proper provision to assume part of the financial requirement within its own funds, that we can guard against those shifts in money costs.

We in this House among the Liberals, over all the years that we've been in opposition and when the NDP were in opposition, urged the government of the day, when money was comparatively cheap to what it is today, to go into the public money markets and not to use the trust funds which should be made available for schools and hospitals and so on.

We agree with that programme, but there still has to be some balance. What we do is conserve our own moneys for schools and hospitals and the like, but we leave ourselves unguarded on the flank when we have to deal with fund requirements for our Crown corporations. I'd like to know to what extent the government is protecting its flank in that regard.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you very accurately describe the situation that we found ourselves in. Whether it was us or someone else, it was the situation the province was in because of the deliberate decision, as you described, to cut back on other priorities. That's a government policy: to cut back on schools and hospitals. Internal financing was available. We've said that we will not cut back on the schools and the hospitals. The railway, then, is the next large borrower in that order.

At this point, we've made the decision to go ahead with both projects — Site 1 and the Pend-d'Oreille — based on the advice that we received not only from Hydro but evaluating the diminished demand for hydro that our own Energy Commission has presented us. This is new information. We have never had the balance of another. I think it's very, very valid. I think people hastily criticize a commission like this without examining its great worth. I think they've done a tremendous service, these people, and Dr. Thompson should be recognized publicly. We've been able to gather, federally and provincially, some very good people.

At this point we've made the decision and we are quite sure that we are able to handle these amounts of borrowing. The difference, of course, in terms of the availability of funds, is not the lack of the availability of funds; the thing that has been confusing is the shift in who has the funds. The traditional market was, of course, the United States, but now the funds have shifted to the Arabs. Some few years ago, there was a huge surplus in Japan of some $32 billion that they were seeking to alleviate themselves of.

I think funds will be available. The question is: at what interest rate? Not possessing any genius but listening to the best advice possible and being very, very cautious, and sticking to the rule of Canadian funds, we'll compete in that marketplace as the funds are needed.

The two $100 million loans were very good loans

[ Page 733 ]

— very good loans. All the information is available except the country of origin; everything else is available.

I am anticipating beyond the Pend-d'Oreille and beyond Site 1 a gap of time that, hopefully, we can have some rational discussion within about where next in power. I have said publicly that I'm not pro-nuclear. I have had no evidence given to me, despite a lot of attacks both emotional and non-emotional about my position. But I'm still not in favour of the development of nuclear power in this province.

I think that with the Pend-d'Oreille and with Site 1 maximizing the Peace, we're going to have that gap that the power commission predicts. I'm inclined to believe them that our power demands won't be as great as Hydro has been pressing upon us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the former commission had a growth syndrome related to it — right. It bent almost backwards.

So we've taken what we were obliged to take — that is, the completion of the Columbia, Site 1. Site 1 would have been made by us or anyone else because it was in the works by the time we got elected to the point of almost no return. The final decision was a compelling one. We would have had to scrap everything and all the work. It was the former government's policy to go to Site 1. The engineering was done; we were pretty well locked in. There was no reason to say that it was a bad decision. I think it was a good decision to maximize the Peace.

The Pend-d'Oreille decision we made. Now that brings it in the area that I think you're discussing. Are we over-extending? I don't think we are. I think that our position is such that we can do the financing of the schools and hospitals, and I announced yesterday what our projected commitments were in schools for 1974 and 1975.

The railway is a bit of a problem, not because of financing but because of contracts we inherited.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, there are allegations made about the inaccuracies of those contracts which I want to steer away from because they are a matter of a court decision. We think we can handle it. Remember, too, that we've changed the policy of subsidizing Hydro but of the pension funds by low interest rates.

You might question sometime how easy it is to be a financial genius when you carry your argument logically a step further. And the argument is quite valid when you can play Harry the Horse with the interest rates and you can look in and call the numbers out. That's exactly what it was — Damon Runyon's famous story about Harry the Horse throwing the dice in the hat and calling the numbers out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did it the hard way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, do it the hard way — three and a one. The former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was not only able to do that but also keep the interest rates down lower, and those interest rates on pension funds were subsidizing Hydro. In effect, all those people's pension funds were being managed — were being used. They were not getting a fair shake. It's great to be a financial genius if you've got the hat and you've got the dice and you call out the numbers and the people who are victimized by it have no option.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You have not changed hats. Look at ICBC. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. We are paying current interest rates on the internal borrowings from our own pension funds. We've made that change and that's good news. That's good news. It will have cost the British Columbia people a bit more, but we should not use those pension funds to subsidize Hydro. I don't anticipate any serious problems in terms of commitments we have at this point. And we have a gap of time to make further commitments which we will certainly look at it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member begins to speak, I would again remind Hon. Members not to speak from their seats because they should realize they are not recorded in Hansard.

MR. PHILLIPS: It would be interesting to find out what rate of interest Can-Cel is paying versus the rate of interest B.C. Hydro is paying and what other little gifts, what other little gratuities, what other little favours Can-Cel is receiving from the government to make their profit position look so well. It would be very interesting.

It is also interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance talk in glowing terms on the floor of the Legislature about the profit that Can-Cel has made this year. He doesn't stop to tell the entire truth to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if Can-Cel falls under the responsibility of the Hon. Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: I just have to presume that it does because the Minister of Finance in glowing terms spoke yesterday afternoon in this Legislature, during

[ Page 734 ]

his estimates, about the profits of Can-Cel. So I presume that it naturally falls under his jurisdiction. He was telling us how Can-Cel made $60 million profit last year. He didn't even bother to delineate how much of that was real profit on the operation and how much was recaptured income tax from the previous year. But in this Legislature we're getting used to having the Premier not tell the whole story — sort of give us part of the story — I won't say in a deliberate attempt to mislead the people, but certainly in an attempt to cloud the issue — to sort of bring in an overall view to say that his government looks good.

He isn't completely candid with the Legislature, and it bothers me to see the Premier take this position because I know he is trying to change his image. I thought during the estimates we might get some complete truths from the new Minister of Finance. But, Mr. Chairman, with trying to change the image and a new office of Planning adviser to the cabinet he hasn't even put the cost of that department — $276,131 — in his own Department of Finance under the Premier's estimate, he has tried to hide it under the Provincial Secretary's budget so that maybe the people won't realize he's paying out an additional $276,000 for planning advice in an endeavour to change the direction of the province and maybe get it back on an economic basis again. We're certainly headed into the economic wilderness, going the way he was going. I'm not sure whether the new whiz kid from Manitoba will be able to convince the rest of the cabinet that this province is in for economic chaos.

If the Premier is going to continue to bring all the social services he's trying to bring in, he must have a tax base to work from. I sometimes think that the Premier realizes that himself, although he just recently tried to tell a group of students at the University of British Columbia that he wasn't going to continue to give the natural resources away, and he tried again to create the image that before he came upon the scene everything was not so rosy; everything was being given away.

But he had another group of students in Fort St. John who were a little more perspective — you know, who had a little broader view of exactly what is going on in the province. These children had their fathers unemployed, and they asked the Premier: "What are you going to do about it?" You know, Mr. Chairman, they had that Premier stumped. He couldn't answer them. I don't know whether that's the first time the Premier has ever been stumped or not; but here's a couple of high school students from Fort St. John asking the Premier about his economic policies, asking him about unemployment, concerned because at home their fathers were one of the 107,000 unemployed people in the province. They had the Minister stumped. They said: "What are you going to do to put my father back to work? Are you going to change the course...?"'

The Premier talked in vague terms about a new policy change for next year: "Maybe your father will be able to go back next year. We're sorry this happened." I didn't hear the whole conversation, but I was really dumbfounded, Mr. Chairman, to read a report of this in the paper and find out that as the Premier walked away these kids weren't happy and they called him a "bloody communist." I think this is disgraceful that the young people of this province should have to go to that depth of despair that they would have to call the Premier of our province a bloody communist. That really hurt me.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just move on to another subject here. I realize that the new economic planning commission is not costing the taxpayers as much as the previous one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that there is a vote number and we will be able to discuss this particular item when we come to vote 191.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just trying to cover in broad, general terms the Minister's responsibilities to the taxpayers of this province. He is the chief tax collector. That's really what he is, a tax collector, and he is doing a good job at it. He's brought in punitive taxation not only on the people, but he's brought it in the back door to increase the price of gasoline, through the increased cost of natural gas and through the increased cost of hydro. So he's a past master at being a tax collector.

Now when he collects those taxes, it is up to this Legislature to see that they are spent in a prudent manner. That's why I say this new group of advisers he's got (it's only costing us $276,000) is a little better deal than we got from the previous think-tank — you know, the think-tank that was set up with the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and a group of people out at the University of Victoria. The purpose of this think-tank was to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who at that time was his right-hand man.... I understand he's been replaced now by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), but after this afternoon I'm not sure the Attorney-General hasn't been replaced by somebody else for not obeying the orders of the Premier this afternoon to stand up and bring the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to order when he was speaking.

However, what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this $276,000 is quite a bit less money than the $5 million we funded Dr. Mason Gaffney and his think-tank out at the University of Victoria. It bothers me to try.... I've done some research, gone

[ Page 735 ]

to the library and looked through various books to find out just exactly what return the taxpayers of British Columbia have received for the $5 million.

Mr. Chairman, $5 million would build a lot of roads and open up a lot of.... It would do a lot of good in your area, for instance. This $5 million has been taken out of general revenue.

The Minister of Finance has left the Legislature again, and that really doesn't surprise me. Practically all of his cabinet have deserted him both this afternoon and yesterday afternoon, and certainly most of his back bench have deserted him. I can understand. I noticed yesterday afternoon that some of his cabinet and some of his back bench were sort of smiling in shame while he was trying to justify his position. They have deserted him, and I can understand this because....

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Not on your life!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member kindly relate his remarks to vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's very difficult to talk to an empty seat, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has gone out. I think that when the Premier wants to leave the House and his estimates are on, we should adjourn the House.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have to stay in here. We could certainly adjourn the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is always entitled to make a motion of adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe the Premier had to go to the bathroom, and that's fine. I'll just wait until he gets back. But maybe he has deserted; I don't know. He didn't say "excuse me" before he went.

My entire point is that I do hope this new whiz kid from Manitoba and all of his group of advisers that we're paying $276,000 for would give us some direct benefit for these taxes. If you consider the $276,000 versus the $403,000 that the Department of Northern Affairs is using up, we wouldn't have to get very much in return because neither one of them is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again ask the Hon. Member to discuss vote 2 rather than vote 191 and the other votes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just trying to relate it to revenue versus tax. It does disturb me that we haven't had any direct return from this $5 million from this great think-tank that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Dr. Mason Gaffney set up at the University of Victoria.

I understand that some new directors have just been appointed to that and there may be some direct benefits forthcoming to the taxpayers for their $5 million. But, Mr. Chairman, you relate because you're from the north and you know what $5 million is when you're going to try to get some farmer's road fixed that maybe only costs two truckloads of gravel — maybe a total of $200. But they don't relate to this $5 million waste for the think-tank.

But with the new image, Mr. Chairman, we have a change in direction of bookkeeping. This really concerns me — a complete change in direction. In the comptroller-general's interim financial statements which were tabled in the Legislature for the nine months ended December 31, 1974, in the section where it says "Contributions from Government Enterprises," we have details of revenue for the nine months. In that particular section we have the net profit from the liquor administration branch; we have the returns from the B.C. Ferries division; we have the curriculum resource branch sales and rentals; we have in that the dividends from the British Petroleum Corp. In the amount of $26 million. Now this says "dividends" so it could be that it is not the entire profit of the British Petroleum Corp. made in those nine months. Or it might be any figure at all. But if the Premier wanted to show that the B.C. Petroleum Corp. had been a good deal, I imagine he would put in as much revenue as he could.

Then we go to the new estimates which are before us for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976. We have a change in there, Mr. Chairman. Under the section where it says "Contributions from Government Enterprises" we have again, as we had in the comptroller-general's report, the net profit from the liquor administration branch — you might say a very healthy increase in the coming year — and we have the revenue from the British Columbia Ferries division, the same as we have in the comptroller general's report. Well, that's a fairly hefty increase there. Then we have the curriculum resource branch sales and rentals, the same as we have in the "Contributions" in the estimates.

But there is one very glaring error or deviation from previous bookkeeping methods in the budget. In the estimates of revenue which we have before us there is no revenue in the section on "Contributions from Government Enterprises." There is no revenue whatsoever from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp.

Now I know, Mr. Chairman, and you know that the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. is going to be functioning in the fiscal year 1975-76. We know that it's going to make more money in the current year than it made in the last year because it will be

[ Page 736 ]

operating for a full 12 months. We know that the Premier is going to endeavour to get an increase in the price of natural gas. We know that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to be paying for a full year the increased punitive taxation in their gas bill which the Premier is taking back into revenue to try and prove that he's getting a great deal more from natural resources. I hope the people of the province realize that a lot of the return on the natural resources is coming right out of their back pocketbook, particularly in the north were they have to heat their homes 10 months out of the year. We realize that's going on out there. It's another form of punitive taxation, the same as the gasoline tax which people in the north will be paying for to subsidize transportation in the bus system in the south.

What really bothers me is that I've asked the Premier just where he has put the revenue from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and he says that it's under "Privileges, Licences, and Natural Resource Taxes." They say it's a change in bookkeeping this year. But under that section, Mr. Chairman, there is no mention specifically of the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

So the Premier said yesterday afternoon that there's a financial figure under the section "Petroleum and Natural Gas Royalties and Fees" — which is a figure of $230 million. But how are we to know, Mr. Chairman, how much of that figure is from the B.C. Petroleum Corp.?

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether this is a direct endeavour on the part of the Minister of Finance or his advisers to mislead the people of British Columbia or whether it's an endeavour to actually hide the facts from the Legislature.

You know, we're talking about a lot of personal increase in taxes in the coming year. The Premier has made certain commitments to the municipalities to give them a large sum of money from the increased price of natural gas. What we'd like to know, and what I'm sure you'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, is what is the revenue going to be from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp.? I have a very strong feeling that the Premier is trying to mislead the people of British Columbia. The reason I have to say that is because if....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes I do, because you won't tell me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. You said "a substantial sum." If you tell me how much money you plan to take in of this $230 million, I won't have to think that you're misleading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've got the total figure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I've got the total figure. I'd like to know what basis it's on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out to the Hon. Member that you are imputing an improper motive to the Premier, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have no other alternative until the Premier answers the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows the rules of the House. You cannot impute an improper motive to another Member of the House. You may state something like this and say that the facts appear in error, but you should not impute an improper motive. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: What would you think if you were in my position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to obey the rules of the House, to obey the rules of parliament. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll obey the rules of parliament, and maybe the Premier could explain to me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, the Premier didn't yesterday. He said "a substantial amount" but I know that the Premier has in this estimate figured on the price for natural gas he hopes to get from Ottawa, and he has included it in this revenue.

He is saying in this that the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. will make up approximately $150 million to $180 million of this figure. Now based on last year's performance ... whereas I pointed out that in the first nine months the dividends from the petroleum corporation were only $26 million. The licence fees and so forth were not even half of the $230 million figure. What bothers me about this, and the thing I would like the Premier to explain to me, is that if he has estimated the increased revenue from the petroleum corporation based on an increased price of natural gas which he hopes Ottawa will agree to, then I'm being misled because nowhere in the estimates does he show the figure coming out. Do you understand what I'm saying? He's putting the big figure in and he's taking it into his total revenue, but

[ Page 737 ]

in his estimates there is no estimate of expenditures to share this resource with the municipalities.

If the Premier could explain this I'd be happy to have him explain it to me. I'd be most happy to have it explained to me because maybe it's just an oversight on the Premier's part. But he can't have it both ways. If he's going to put the increase in, he's got to show where that money's going out to the municipalities.

If he doesn't explain it, I say that he isn't telling the entire truth in his estimates. The taxpayers of this province have a right to know and the responsibility of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to get the answers to these questions. I'd like the Premier...

Maybe if I take my place, the Premier would explain this. Possibly it's an error on my part.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll explain it, but I cannot guarantee that you will understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I don't understand it I can always question you on detail. Would the Premier try and explain?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and I will go through it very slowly because I know the Member prefers that approach. The Member is very quiet today, subdued with embarrassment about not understanding yesterday. I appreciate that and I don't want too many people to know that.

Now here we go again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not really mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like Napoleon. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I accept your definition. (Laughter.)

We are going to go back to Ottawa next month and ask for an increase in the price for natural gas. We have a commitment from the federal government that there will be an increase. I am not in a position to say publicly what figure we are going for because I think the federal government has a right to know that specific first.

However, if you want to estimate the range, I think I can refer you fairly to the court decision that was upheld today related to the export of 55 million additional cubit feet per day from Alberta to Idaho. That court decision, which was upheld by United States Energy Commission, will allow the price to range from a minimum $1.61 to $1.93.

For those skeptics who said that my position was incorrect in asking for a substantial increase in gas, and to the editorial writers of unnamed papers who scoffed at the figures I was using, I would hope that they would write editorials today saying that if the 55 million cubic feet per day additional export from Alberta is worth the range between $1.61 and $1.93 today, what the justification is for allowing B.C. gas to still be sold in the U.S. at $1 per thousand cubic feet. I'm sure those editorials would substantiate and agree that I was correct in my request for an increase.

The equivalent British Thermal Unit price, at a minimum, for oil used as heating versus natural gas is $1.93. I made it clear when I was in Ottawa last time that I didn't expect them to go to $1.93 immediately, but I took the position, Mr. Member — and I think underneath you'll agree with this position — that I could not stand by and allow our natural gas to be sold to the United States, under federal order, at a price far below its real worth. Unfortunately, I was attacked by an American newspaper after that statement as a blue-eyed Arab. They should do a little research themselves. (Laughter.)

Nonetheless, withstanding that cavalier attack from our American friends, I had the opportunity of receiving unexpected support, but not from some Members of this House who should be fighting for British Columbia. I have yet to hear the official opposition say: "Right on, Mr. Premier." I got one telegram from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) urging me on to my fight, but I never heard from the official opposition. The official opposition's position, when I asked for more money, was to quiver with fear; and the official opposition leader said they might retaliate.

MR. BENNETT: I said your methods.

[Ms. Brown in the chair]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, my methods!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member! If you want to justify giving away our natural gas....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Listen to who's talking about publicity; they go out and buy hours of television time, radio time. How do they justify the position of saying we should sell our gas at $1?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): It runs in the family.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you said: "Don't upset the Americans." They're paying....

[ Page 738 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, I'm glad you're back in, because I like to see you around once in a while. Now that you're here, why don't you just sit and listen? The position you took was that if we raised the price, or asked for a price raise, the Americans would retaliate. Now, Alberta has just today been granted the right to export gas — 55 million cubic feet at $1.61 to $1.93, on a ruling by an American court. Will the United States retaliate against the state court in Idaho? That decision, made in an American jurisdiction, says the Americans must pay $1.61 to $1.93, and the official opposition's position was: "Don't ask for a raise because the Americans might retaliate." The Americans have more understanding, and their courts have made a decision with more justice to Canadian gas, than we can get out of the National Energy Board or the timid Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

Far be it for me to be the upholder of the Idaho court, but I wish we had that kind of leadership in Canada. Now we will go back to Ottawa with the case strengthened because of this Idaho incident — and I don't intend to flog the federal government with that matter of record. It's enough to be embarrassed to read it, without me reminding them of it. I'm not the kind of politician to go running down to Ottawa and say: "See what the Idaho court did?"

MR. WALLACE: You'll mention it, of course. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll mention it. You're right, Mr. Member, I'll mention it.

MR. WALLACE: In passing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll draw it to their attention, and I'll say to them: "Please, Mr. Liberal Government of Canada, and all your friends, explain to me how I'm going to tell the people of British Columbia, when I get back out there across the Rockies, why the Idaho court orders the United States to pay $1.61 for additional gas while you, the Liberal government, are still forcing us to sell our gas at $1." Now, I don't want to have to come home and tell the folks at home that Ottawa is further away than Idaho when they have that less understanding because of the distance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What would you do if it happened?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What would I do if that happened? It will not happen. I do not believe any government could be that incompetent, Mr. Member.

But I am surprised that it is a Liberal Member who raised the conjecture. (Laughter.) Who knows better their incompetence than one of their colleagues?

No, I don't think it'll happen. I think sense will prevail. I will return from Ottawa with an increase in natural gas prices and then, when we have that figure, Mr. Member, we can accurately give a report to the House of the exact figures you're requesting. But without that figure, and knowing that we have a commitment to increase to an "X" figure — we don't know what figure they'll agree to — it is impossible for me to give you exact information. But as soon as we return from Ottawa I will give you the exact information you're requesting and we will announce that to everybody in British Columbia.

We won't keep that secret. I have no intention of keeping it secret, because all of us will share it. That is the best I can do for you, Mr. Member. If I had any other knowledge, I would share that with you too. But we must wait until those figures are set in Ottawa.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am certainly glad that the Premier started out in a sincere, civilized manner when he started to reply to me this afternoon. I know that he is concerned about his Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), that he is concerned about the fact that he might be misleading people here in British Columbia. But he couldn't resist the temptation for just a little bit of the old showmanship. The old clown just had to come out before he sat down when he talked about Ottawa.

If our Premier would talk in sane, sensible language and deal with Ottawa in a sane, sensible manner, maybe the people of British Columbia would be the benefactors. Don't you think that when that Premier and Minister of Finance stands in this Legislature and whines and makes fun of our senior government, they know this, and that when he goes back and sits down in a meeting with them in a sincere effort to deal on behalf of the people of British Columbia, they know how he has scoffed at them and made fun of them and joked about them and gone on in the press and the radio? They understand it; they are human beings. He can't ridicule them here in British Columbia in this Legislature and then go to sit in Ottawa in an endeavour to negotiate with them and do it on a sincere basis, because they know. Stories travel. They know how he has ridiculed them here in the Legislature. They can read Hansard.

I want to, and the opposition want to, wish the Premier well in the negotiations in behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I said in this Legislature before the Premier even thought of it — early in the spring of 1973, the first session after the Legislature — "Yes, the prices of

[ Page 739 ]

natural resources are changing and those gas contracts with the United States should be negotiated." I was the first one to mention that in this House after the election. I am glad to see that the Premier has taken my suggestion. But if we are going to negotiate and act like businessmen and be sincere, we have got to do it all the time. We can't just do it when we are sitting down with the cabinet Ministers in Ottawa. We can't change. We can't turn it on and turn it off. That's right. If you are going to condemn somebody in public, you can't say, "Well, what a great fellow you are" and "Try and help us out," when you are sitting down dealing with them in business.

The Premier said, before he took his seat, that he could give me a figure. Well, he has got a figure in the book of $230 million. There has got to be some basis for that figure, or I have to say that the Premier just up and picked the figure out of the air.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What does it say on the cover of the book?

MR. PHILLIPS: What we call an estimate. But an estimate is....

MR. CHABOT: The estimate is based on something.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, just look on the first page: estimated revenue — it is all there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, stop this muddle.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll try to explain that in any business, when you estimate your revenue, you have to have some basis on which to estimate it. I ask the Premier again: on what basis did he estimate the $230 million? If, as he told me, there is a substantial amount in there from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. and if he doesn't want to tell me that figure, that is fine. But tell me. No, you haven't told me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm going to tell you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the figures. I want to know how much of that $230 million....

HON. MR. BARRETT: A substantial amount.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is the Premier trying to be the comic again. "A substantial amount." We are only talking about $230 million. We are only talking about a 30 per cent increase in the price of natural gas to every homeowner in the Province of British Columbia.

These punitive taxes are of great concern to the taxpayers of this province. If in that estimated $230 million there is a figure in there from the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia based on a price that the Premier intends- to get for his natural gas, I would like to know what that figure is. As I said before, he is taking the increase into his estimated revenue to make his budget balance. But he has already said in this Legislature that he is going to give a vast amount of that, a third of this new revenue from our natural resources, back to the municipalities so that they in turn can lower their taxes on property and housing to people — the everyday nuts and bolts. It's the taxpayers of our province who are being hit more every year. As every budget comes out, there are more punitive taxes.

If he has estimated in his revenue the increase in the price of natural gas then his budget isn't going to balance, because nowhere in the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer's) budget is it shown as an expenditure.

So I say again to the Minister of Finance: if you have based your revenue from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. on an increase in the price of natural gas because of certain commitments made to you by Ottawa, where in your budget do you show it going out to the municipalities?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wrong.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier says I'm wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're all mixed up.

MR. PHILLIPS: He didn't really tell me anything when he stood on his feet. He got off on his great harangue about Ottawa, Well, you saw the disgusting performance in this House this afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You saw it. I've said in this Legislature before that we want a Premier who goes to Ottawa to negotiate, not to go down there as a buffoon. I've said that we want negotiations, sincere negotiations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Like the last Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not buffoonery.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Like the last Premier with the empty chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now, there we go again.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has got great eyes in the back of his head.

[ Page 740 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the last Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: Great eyes in the back of his head. But I would say that he can't even see to the end of this budget. It's unfortunate...

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is, yup

MR. PHILLIPS: ...because the taxpayers of this province are the ones who are going to suffer.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Aye. Next. Next.

MR. PHILLIPS: This year, property taxes — $23 million...

HON. MR. KING: Next speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...sales tax — $480 million; personal income tax....

MR. CHABOT: $85 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: These are taxes on people — not taxes from natural resources. These are taxes on people.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Personal income taxes — $655 million; gasoline tax — a tax for every time a person drives his automobile — $179.5 million. Nowhere in the estimates do we know how much of that tax is going to subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — nowhere. We don't know.

We were told at one time that there would never be any subsidization to ICBC. Yet there was legislation passed and the Premier has told us that the insurance corporation is going to be subsidized from a tax on gasoline. By how much? We see it in the revenue side, not in the expenditure side. So there again we have the old formula of estimating the revenue but nothing about the expenditures so that the Premier can balance his budget.

That's why I believe that the Province of British Columbia is heading into the economic wasteland where, instead of removing taxes to invite investment and to provide the jobs for our unemployed, we're creating taxation which will drive investment out. The jobs will not be there for out young people for whom we are paying for education. The producers, the taxpayers will become few and the amount of taxes they will have to pay will become greater. This will lead us into the economic wasteland from a point not very many years ago when we were a "have" province with a high standard of living and the lowest taxes in Canada to the point in a very few years where we will be one of the most heavily taxed provinces in Canada and nothing to show for it.

The Premier tries to tell us and every audience he gets before: "Oh, the give away gang, the wrecking gang." Well, the group that's in there now, Madam Chairperson, unfortunately is the wrecking gang.

The Premier doesn't want to live up to his promise of open government, not at all. The more questions we ask here in the Legislature, the fewer answers we get. I'll ask the Premier once again so that I can get this out of my mind that he's not being completely factual in his budget, taking in revenue from the gasoline tax, which we know is going to go to subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and anticipating revenue from the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia — based on what figure I don't know or how much I don't know, but not showing it in his estimates. Now, surely to goodness, that's a pretty simple question.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

If you have anticipated in your taxing, based on expenditures, sharing that resource with the municipalities and taxing gasoline in order that you can subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia then I'm asking this Minister of Finance a very simple question. Where in the expenditure side of the budget or his estimates do I find those two figures?

Now, if they are in there, where are they?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you when we get back from Ottawa.

MR. CHABOT: Do you want to withdraw your estimates and throw in another Minister's?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe we should adjourn the House because it's impossible ... you don't need to wait until you get back to Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How do I know what's going to happen? I can't second guess the federal government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then tell me simply that the revenue you anticipate from the B.C. Petroleum Corp., in this $230 million, is not based on an increase in the price of natural gas — in a very simple way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are simply mixed up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Unfortunately, I am not mixed up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, you are.

[ Page 741 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier is trying to cloud the issue. If he doesn't know any more about finance than what he's trying to tell me this afternoon.... If you take it in, you say you're going to spend it all. What I want to know is: where are you going to spend it? If you haven't set up the budget on the anticipated increase, then tell me so.

The Premier doesn't want to answer the questions because either he doesn't know or he is wrong. We might as well take this budget and we might as well take his estimates and throw them in the wastepaper basket because it doesn't have any meaning to me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Deface government property.

MR. PHILLIPS: It doesn't have any meaning whatsoever to me and I get a little weary of trying to stand in this Legislature and intelligently debate estimates which aren't worth the paper they are written on. We went through this exercise last year when the estimates were brought in.

MR. CHABOT: We had changes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Before we even got through some of the departments they were changed by as much as 20 and 25 per cent — Education, for example. So I don't know why we go through this exercise; it's an exercise in futility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: We are trying to ask intelligent questions. We'd like to know.

HON. MR. KING: We hadn't noticed.

MR. PHILLIPS: I won't even comment on that, backbencher.

As I say, it's a complete exercise in futility and I think it's a waste of the taxpayers' money and it's a waste of our time. Why bother printing estimates if we can't find out on what basis they're made up? Now tell me that.

The Premier pulls a figure out of the air, so he tells me — he won't tell me on what basis it's made up. He pulls a figure out of the air, just a small figure, a quarter of a billion dollars. In all sincerity, how do you expect us to deliberate these estimates intelligently?

I go back to when we first arrived at the Legislature this year — we looked at an order-in-council which granted $15 million to the B.C. Railway, and that grant was for an expenditure not foreseen and provided for by the Legislature, and is urgently and immediately required for the public good.

"And whereas the undersigned Minister of Finance reports there is no legislative authority for this expenditure and whereas the Minister of Finance reports the necessity for this expenditure is urgent...." — they give the B.C. Railway $15 million.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we asked the Minister of Finance what this $15 million was for. Was it because of the strike and an operating deficit? Was it for unforeseen losses? Was it to provide railcars? What was the $15 million for? Were they short of cash, or was it because they lost money last year?

What does our supposedly capable Minister of Finance tell us? Our supposedly capable Minister of Finance tells us that this is not a grant at all. Now I don't want to believe that the Minister of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) made up this order-in-council.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: What's a grant, and what's a loan?

MR. BENNETT: It's a groan. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: But our supposedly capable Minister of Finance says that it is not a grant; it is a loan. I don't know whether there's a new order-in-council to change the terminology from a grant to a loan, or whether the Premier just snaps his fingers and all of a sudden the grant becomes a loan — and we have asked the Minister to explain to us.

I'll ask him again this afternoon: if this is a loan, when does it have to be repaid? What is the interest and what are the terms of repayment? How much interest? I think those are perfectly legitimate questions. The Premier could clear up the matter.

I don't know whether he is trying to pull the Minister of northern affairs out of the mud with this, or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who let that strike carry on and on and on and on.

MR. CHABOT: Conflicts of interest.

MR. PHILLIPS: But $15 million — Mr. Chairman, you know and I know an expenditure of $15 million can do a tremendous amount for the taxpayers in your riding and in my riding in providing a little extra snow removal, providing a road for some pioneering soul who has gone into that area and bucked the climate, bucked the road, bucked the dust and the mud and the potholes to open up this country for the rest of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would caution the Hon. Member that his time is running out.

MR. PHILLIPS: Time is running out? I feel fine.

[ Page 742 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing orders say that each speaker is entitled to 30 minutes at a time. However, when he takes his seat, he may speak again after another speaker has spoken.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize that we had closure other than total closure. Now we have closure in estimates. This is a mini-closure. Well, it's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. I'll take my seat and let the Premier once again try.... Maybe he could go and ask Mr. Eliesen to come in and answer some of the questions if he doesn't know.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Phone the rentalsman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was it Mr. Eliesen, this new $267,000 Deputy Minister of something, giving the figure? Maybe it was five-million-Gaffney who gave him the figure. I don't know. But the Premier doesn't seem to know what the figure's based on.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the interest on this grant loan.... Maybe that's where the Department of northern affairs is getting its money from.

I'll take my seat for the present moment, Mr. Chairman. Let the Minister of Finance consult with his new Deputy Minister of what, I don't know — Deputy Minister to the cabinet.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you'd like to know some of these answers too, so we'll let the Premier....

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to say a few words about the statement made by the Premier quoting the decision handed down on the allowable price of natural gas. Our position should be very plain that we believe that indeed all non-renewable natural resources leaving British Columbia, or being used inside British Columbia, should realize their realistic competitive economic value. On that basis we certainly support the attempt of the government, or any other British Columbia government, to attain the highest possible price. What has given us some concern is the question of honouring contracts.

First of all, a question of raising the price raises the issue of whether we're in a breach of contract. I would like the Minister to mention what we were actually tied into by the existing contract when the whole issue of raising the price was first discussed and settled in the first price raise when it went from 22 cents to 39 — or whatever the figure was. This was the feeling that I heard expressed by members of the public: that it was certainly a justified goal to obtain a realistic price for a natural resource, but to what degree were we tied in to a contract which we were breaching by unilaterally raising the price?

The second question of honouring contracts was....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no breach of contract.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm asking the question, Mr. Chairman. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's answer at the appropriate moment.

The other question that I think members of the public are asking is that we seem to be unable to deliver the natural gas in the quantities that we have contracted to deliver. So it just isn't a question of unilaterally jacking up the price but it is also, in the minds of many people, a matter of whether we are actually delivering what we've contracted to deliver.

I think the Premier made some remarks about the Americans appreciating the international problem and the whole question of world demand — increasing demands — for resources. I'm not sure that the Americans appreciate the fact that if we contract to deliver X million cubic feet of gas a day and run into problems.... Should we share proportionately our problems with the Americans? If we've contracted to deliver X million cubic feet of gas, which falls short by a certain amount, I'm not so sure that the Americans are all that understanding or appreciative if we leave them in real difficulties in providing the gas for their industry and homes and other domestic uses.

I think the Premier, while he certainly has outlined the justification for seeking price increases in the way that he's about to renegotiate with Ottawa, realizes the tremendous importance of achieving the best possible friendly relationships with the Americans.

It is not just a question of proving statistically that the price we should get for the natural gas is $1.93, but that in asking and getting that price, we will abide by the contract to deliver the amounts contracted for. If there is a shortfall, we will agree to share the difficulty with the Americans.

On that basis, of course, the shortfall and some of the technical problems, as I understand the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) explained in the fall session of the Legislature, were unavoidable. I'm not saying otherwise, but the fact is that we got into a position where we couldn't deliver what we said we would deliver. Then there was the problem of finding that the companies were not drilling — and this has been touched upon already in the debate.

I wonder if the Minister would also mention just exactly where this government is at in its decisions to

[ Page 743 ]

enter or not enter the business of drilling under government sponsorship through one vehicle or another.

The Premier has stated many times, publicly and also in the House, that it will be a serious matter if there is not continuing exploration to provide new sources of natural gas. I wonder if at this point in time, in view of the information that he now has compared to the uncertainties when he was last in Ottawa, the government is on the verge of entering into the drilling business or whether that possible decision is being held as some kind of a threat to the private sector.

In other areas, such as the forest industry, the Premier has made statements that the forest industry has to get used to the idea of competing with government. I make the point....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not exactly those words, but pretty close.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe not exactly these words, but I have a clipping — within the bounds of complete accuracy I couldn't guarantee — in which he replied very clearly that the government was in the forest industry business and automatically was a competitor with the private sector.

The point I am trying to make is that in regard to undertakings such as Plateau Mills.... I have made the point before and I think it is worth making again, Plateau Mills is not paying federal income tax whereas any member of the private sector operating in the forest industry certainly is. That seems to me a very unusual way to describe competition.

If the government is going into the drilling business for natural gas, I wonder if the Minister is at the point where he can tell this House and tell the people of the province just exactly how that's going to be done and what the ground rules will be.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Minister, you have stated many times that you really don't want to get into the business. If the industry, in your view, is sluggish or obstructive in any way, you will be justified in moving into this field. Well, I don't approve of that approach because it smacks of threat. But I think at least the Minister could probably give some idea of what point we are at. Has the government reached that point of decision-making yet?

Before I just leave that question of natural gas, I think a review of the total estimates shows tremendous increases in various administrative expenses being budgeted for throughout all the government departments. I think it would be a much better idea, for revenue being derived from non-renewable resources, that instead of spending them as part of the operating budget of various departments, the government should seriously look at the idea of setting that money into capital funds, setting up capital funds, escalating the funds as more money becomes available — such as the present example the Premier is predicting when he goes to Ottawa — and use the interest on an increasing scale but always having the original capital derived from non-renewable resources as a source of further interest to finance much of the social development in this province.

It is our feeling that it could quite readily become an easy-come, easy-go situation. So we jack up the price from $1 to $1.93 or $1.61, and the money comes in. It is frequently referred to as "windfall." But however you describe that kind of money, it is windfall on a non-renewable resource. If we have the problem of not finding new supplies, it may well be that the day is not too many years ahead when this kind of windfall capital will not be coming in annually to the province. If in these affluent years we invested that money and set up capital funds and used the interest, we feel this would be a more prudent way in which to use revenue from our natural resources.

We also believe that the price, even within British Columbia, should be a realistic price. If we believe at all in the principle (which society is recognizing) that there is an end somewhere to resources that are available and that we just can't use them like there is an endless supply, then it would seem that making a realistic price in competition with equivalent sources of energy would go some way towards making people use these resources in a more efficient and judicious way.

So I wonder if the Minister of Finance would comment at all on the proposal that maybe the money, or some of it at least, should indeed go into capital funds, the interest from which could be allocated to the kind of social development for health services and education and human resources and for social development in some areas of the province which presently are not as favoured as the cities.

Just another point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask is whether the Premier is prepared to enlarge upon his public statement that the priorities of his party have changed. We had a statement the other day that the takeover of B.C. Tel is no longer a party priority.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still a party priority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier is looking a little dismayed, and I'm quoting from a newspaper report....

[ Page 744 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not dismayed.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Premier looked surprised when I said that the takeover of B.C. Tel was no longer a priority, and I'm just explaining the statement is based on a report I read which ....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That report is incorrect.

MR. WALLACE: So we have the Premier's acknowledgement then that the takeover of B.C. Tel is no longer a priority of the provincial government, which is a quote from the newspaper of March 4.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The federal government won't let us do it.

MR. WALLACE: This was a very prominent plank in the election platform of 1972, something of the same order of the plank which talked about automobile insurance — monopoly programme of government automobile insurance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't lose them all.

MR, WALLACE: I just wonder if the Minister could give us some better explanation as to why there is this shift in policy. Is it a change in philosophy or a lack of money to do the job?

The Premier has just interjected across the floor that the federal government would not let this government take over B.C. Tel, but I haven't noticed any great reluctance or hesitation by the Premier to knuckle under to lots of other federal government proposals, such as the natural gas price increase. So I think it's a pretty weak answer he now gives to suggest that the reason they're not going to take over B.C. Tel is that the federal government says they cannot do it.

We have had this same government tell us many times, and tell us when they were opposition, that there are other provinces where the telephone system is under provincial jurisdiction and that they see no reason why B.C. should be treated any differently if that is the wish of the duly elected government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: So that answer is pretty thin. I don't accept that it's got anything whatever to do with the position of the federal government that this government has backed away from its committed policy to take over B.C. Tel.

It comes at a very unusual time, Mr. Chairman, when we have another member of the cabinet — the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — railing against B.C. Tel in public because of what he considers an insolent and impudent demand for further increase in telephone charges at a time when it was considered that the recent increase would be adequate.

I wonder also if at least the Minister of Finance could now answer the question I asked him in question period a week or so ago: if the government does not intend to take over B.C. Tel, has it continued to purchase shares beyond the amount that was originally announced some months ago?

Finally, on the B.C. Tel subject, I wonder if the government still has as one of its goals an attempt to have its representative elected to the board of directors of B.C. Tel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He lost the election.

MR. WALLACE: I understand that Mayor Pollen was less than successful in being elected to the board, but so much of what has happened in the press has been speculation by a certain columnist about the fact that...

MR. GARDOM: He lost the election.

MR. WALLACE: ...Mayor Pollen might be the person whom the Premier would have preferred, or would like to serve, on the board of B.C. Tel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wanted two but I lost them both.

MR. WALLACE: I really asked the first question about the acquisition of shares to try and find out, Mr. Chairman, if by increasing the acquisition of shares the government finds that to be the most desirable route to acquire representation on the board. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could tell us how many shares of B.C. Tel the government now owns.

I think this is an important subject, not just the B.C. Tel takeover, but also the other kinds of statements like that statement of March 7. I am quoting from The Daily Colonist: "Premier Barrett says the forest industry in British Columbia doesn't need to fear a takeover by the provincial government."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. WALLACE: Bang-bang-bang statements that they won't take over B.C. Tel, that they're not going to take over the forest industry — seem to me unusual for a party that had so many members signing the Waffle Manifesto, which believed in widespread takeover of the means of production.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Besides the government,

[ Page 745 ]

what have we taken over?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Ocean Falls and Can-Cel and a few others.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The government's running them, anyway, and you're in the marketplace running them on different terms from private industry — that's the point I already made about Plateau Mills.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The point that I'm making is that we — and I have no shame or no regrets whatever — voted to support the takeover of Ocean Falls in this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I gather from the Minister of Finance's comments that he equates takeover with acquisition without fair payment, or that takeover implies some way of acquiring corporations without paying what they're worth. What else does takeover mean?

MR. GARDOM: Closing their doors — like the insurance industry.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, I don't think it serves any great purpose to go into semantics as to what I mean by takeover. The point that I'm trying to get to is that....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just trying, with some difficulty, Mr. Chairman, to make the point that this government and many members of the cabinet have previously publicly dedicated themselves to a belief in public ownership. I got that established, with some difficulty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Next.

MR. WALLACE: Now we have public statements by the Premier that in two of these particular areas which have previously been mentioned as areas of takeover — the forest industry and the telephone company — the Minister has stated publicly that neither is in any fear of being "acquired," shall I say, by the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Expropriated.

MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't say expropriated. "Or otherwise acquired" I guess is the delightful phrase we all use in this House when we want to tread warily about ownership or the acquisition of ownership.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can't take over B.C. Tel.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Premier, when you were in a little chat with your friend a minute ago, I was trying to explain that that really wasn't much of an excuse in the light of other events — that the federal government won't let you do it. There are a lot of other things they've tried to prevent you from doing, and you're doing very well, thank you, such as the increase in natural gas.

You're using that excuse just when it happens to suit you. So all I'm saying is that for the people of British Columbia could the Minister perhaps spell out the degree to which the philosophy of this government has changed? That government and public ownership of the means of production in industry and private concerns such as the forest industry — the telephone system and so on — to what degree has this party shifted its ideological position? That's a very important concern to many of the voters in this province.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Member asks if the government has shifted its position enough for me to join them. The answer to that is a resounding no!

I do feel, however, because of such a contradiction, or at least a substantial shift of position, that we're entitled to some statement from the government which was elected in substantial measure because many people who voted for this government did support that ideology — that there should be public ownership of the major industries in this province.

The last point I would make... I know it's tedious and repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but I'm almost finished. If the Minister is so confident — and I hope he is justified in being confident — that we might get a gas price increase starting at $1.61, would he please reconsider one of the big gaps in his budget, an expenditure which is the provision of intermediate-care facilities for the senior citizens who require some nursing care?

We feel, even taking fairly — I hesitate to use the word — liberal figures that it would not cost more than $25 million a year to provide the coverage for all those who need it. I realize that some of the initial annual capital would be required in creating the facilities, and that, ultimately, the operating costs would be higher than that figure I have quoted.

[ Page 746 ]

But we are dealing in the Minister of Finance's estimates with some very large sums of money and a total of $3.2 billion, which might be even more from the Minister's confidence regarding the price increase he expects to get approved by Ottawa.

Then I would say: will the Minister please take another look at what is an unfortunate and very serious gap in the social and health services available to our senior citizens with this kind of money? Or could he even perhaps create the kind of fund we are suggesting and at least use the interest to start such a programme to pay for those intermediate-care services?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2...? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the questions raised by the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace).

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the leader of the backbenchers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he has no trouble in his caucus.

If I could go from back to front, I think that is the best way to deal with that. There is no decision yet on chronic care.

Ownership. We were under a great deal of political debate in this province around government acquisitions — which are not takeovers; they are purchases. Everything that we have acquired has been through purchase.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is absolutely right. I remember that the height of hysteria around our purchases was here, not out there in the community. As far as Prince Rupert was concerned, they wanted that pulp mill to continue to operate, the same as Castlegar, the same as elsewhere. Ocean Falls.

There was a line dividing us ideologically on these matters until a certain friend of mine blew the whole game plan. It was only the socialists who were supposed to be in the business of acquiring companies. That was our platform. Guess who swiped our platform from us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Peter the Red!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Much to the embarrassment of the Conservative Party, he bought PWA (Pacific Western Airlines). I describe that as a high-flying takeover! I warned all Canadians not to trust the Tories. You listen to the socialists and you know where you stand, but with the Tories you never, know from one day to the next what they are going to do.

MR. CHABOT: You said you would vote for him?

MR. WALLACE: He's going to win the Alberta election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly he is going to win the Alberta election, because the Socreds are going down the tube.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bye!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Their campaign is like a lead balloon, with about the same kind of planning in it.

Peter the Red is going to win because he is learning from us! We are helping him with the kind of programmes he is bringing in in Alberta.

AN HON. MEMBER: God help him!

HON. MR. BARRETT: God help him? God help the Socreds!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and he inherited that from the former administration; the former administration of Social Credit in Alberta had.... No, don't give them credit where credit is due. The Social Credit administration pioneered good.... Community-centred bases.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, even earlier than that. The capital costs, of course, the present Government of Alberta doesn't have to pay.

It is a matter of fact in modern society that more and more administrations are going into public ownership. Let's talk about natural resources. Take a look at what is happening in the Latin American countries that have been exploited for years by outside capital. In what direction are they moving? They are moving into public ownership and control of non-renewable resources. It is no longer a matter, Mr. Member, of ideological debate; it is a matter of economic necessity. New governments, new concepts, changing world times bring home the reality of governments being responsible for having an entree

[ Page 747 ]

into their own economic marketplace. Without it, each jurisdiction would be left to the whims of (a) its neighbours or (b) its offshore foreign owners.

Our handicap is that we are well educated. We don't want to act like those banana republics with those revolutionary governments and all that kind of thing. We would rather continue being exploited because that is what we have always done in this country. Ninety per cent of all oil and gas in this country is foreign-owned. Foreign-owned!

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shameful!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: My dear friend, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), there is no way that I would put up a dollar alongside international oil companies for that development.

If the federal government wants to go into the development of Syncrude and invite the public, through the governments of this country — and British Columbia — we'd welcome that. But we haven't had any leadership from the federal government. There is no national energy policy.

MR. GIBSON: You should have demanded a piece of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did demand it. I demanded it in a speech in Montreal, and I said and I say again, for the record, that I believe all gas and oil in this country should be publicly owned under federal/provincial auspices; and if the federal government moved in that direction, we would cooperate fully. Let us be masters in our own house.

The Member spoke about our export commitments. We don't have a commitment to export 809 million cubic feet a day; we have a National Energy Board limit on that total. That's the way we interpret the contract. Now we have fortunately been able to overcome some of the technical problems and we're delivering, as of today, well over 600 million cubic feet per day. But, Mr. Member, let me ask you to consider some basic economics. Let us say, in round figures, that we are sending out 600 million cubic feet of our natural gas a day to the United States. Use your computer over there. Let's not even ask for the $1.63. Let us assume that instead of the price being $1 it was $1.50. If it was $1.50 we are losing out of the pockets of the people of this country and of this province $300,000 a day. That's because the federal government has delayed in giving us the price increase.

I am convinced, with those facts facing the federal government, that they will give us an increase. But even if it were only 50 cents, our non-renewable energy resources are flowing through those pipelines, down to the United States, never to be recaptured again — guaranteeing employment, guaranteeing security, guaranteeing economic development to another jurisdiction. And we're subsidizing it? Just 50 cents more: 10 days — $3 million. Every 10 days the federal government has stalled it's meant a loss of $3 million.

MR. LEWIS: Shocking!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now no one can justify that position. So I know that the federal government, despite our political rhetoric that exists between the Liberals and the NDP, or any other party label you want to put on ... no one can justify those figures.

In terms of the direction in the forest industry, we said right at the outset that the forest industry is renewable. It is, in effect, an agricultural crop. It comes in over a long period of time, but it is an agricultural crop. That is not as much a matter of concern in terms of conservation — the potential of the resource, not conservation in terms of ecological concept — as the concern with mining and the concern with gas and oil. If we don't make a move on gas and oil now, we lose time every single day. Therefore, you come to the question about exploring.

We have given very good terms of reference to the petroleum industry. They've been fairly satisfied with the deals we've worked out with them. Remember they were getting 9 cents for old gas when we arrived, and they're now getting 22 cents for old gas. And there's no capital cost in pumping old gas — none. Well, they're up to 22 cents now for old gas. Old gas — 22 cents per thousand cubic feet.

Now if we had been a mean and cruel and vicious government, we would have forced them to stay at the 9 cents. But we wanted to give them a little incentive to go and explore. We give them 33 cents for new gas. Very fair.

We have sold leases, and we expect performance on those leases. If some companies, for whatever reason, cannot or do not perform on those leases, we have an obligation to the people of this province to find an alternative, and the alternative is public drilling. That's not the alternative I want; and I mean that frankly. If that's what we wanted, we would have done it as soon as we set up the petroleum corporation. We haven't. So after having said clearly what our policy is, after having clearly demonstrated that we do negotiate prices, we said to them: "Go and drill." We lost a significant portion of this year's drilling because of the dispute between British Columbia and Ottawa. But that should not hamper next year's drilling.

We have asked the B.C. Petroleum Corp. to monitor the plans for next year and be prepared on short notice that if private industry fails in its obligation, we will have to take up the slack. Now

[ Page 748 ]

that's not a threat. That's a contingency plan that everybody should know about. We've made it known publicly.

Mobil Oil had some technical problems, and they shared with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) the seriousness of these problems. So I had lunch with the Attorney-General and Mr. Rhodes of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and I said: "Send them a wire and suggest to them that if they can't clean up the technical problems within seven or eight days, we'll have to look to alternatives to their problems."

Lo and behold, 24 hours before the deadline was up, they wired back saying the technical problems were solved. I want to tell you, I was pleased with the scientific miracle. The technical problem was solved by wireless. CN-CP did it again.

Now some skeptics questioned the motives of Mobil. Not me. Do you believe that a major international oil company would fudge? Some people think that they might — even play with the Mafia a little bit out in the middle of the Atlantic. Not me. I'm a social worker and I'm full of love. I don't believe that any oil company would do a thing like that. But just in case, we have to have a contingency plan.

Now, Mobil solved the problem. Gulf, Shell, Imperial — they're all problem solvers. I've watched them do it between the periods in a hockey game, and I know how skilled they are. They tell the Canadian people how much money they are spending on exploration, and how much sacrifice they are putting on our behalf, how kind they are to the Canadian people for finding out oil and gas. I'm thankful to the oil companies for doing that. I'm saying: "Give them a chance to perform, Mr. Attorney-General. Don't be too hard on them."

But if they don't produce, what alternative do we have? We are forced into this position against our best wishes. Now that we are forced into that position we may have to take action on it.

The B.C. Petroleum Corp. may have to do drilling. Tell Jimmy Rhodes to get the pipes ready.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If the oil companies don't do the drilling, then we've got to employ his dad. The only way his dad will get employed is by us doing the drilling, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll be the dentist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll be the dentist? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we'll charge a little bit more. Nonetheless, that's the situation as it stands now.

The other questions are appropriate. We said as soon as we came in that B.C. Telephone was not a priority because we had other matters that we had to face in terms of existing capital available. That remains to be the case.

I regret that B.C. Telephone had an opportunity of sharing in an election. We nominated two outstanding British Columbia citizens, the mayor of Victoria, Mayor Pollen, and a former MLA of this House, Tony Gargrave, both with a record of no axe to grind against anybody in particular. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They did have some questions about that particular operation — not Tony, but Mayor Pollen did. Mayor Pollen is a prominent British Columbia businessman, not a socialist. I'm sure his motivation in letting his name stand for the board was to help private enterprise survive by cleaning up its act. And what happened? Somebody voted the American shares and we lost.

No, I like a fair election. I believe in democracy. But we went in with a stacked deck. Anglo-Canadian owns 51 per cent. The American shares were voted against poor Mayor Pollen and poor Tony Gargrave and they lost. I thought they were going to win. (Laughter.)

Once again I've been found to be naive. I really thought that that beautiful telephone company that sponsors "Reach for the Top," that says, "We want to serve the people of British Columbia," would open its board to a major shareholder. And what happened? I can't tell you how surprised and shocked I was that both Pollen and Gargrave on the slate went down the tube.

Some of my backbenchers said that we should pack the meeting. Now the only way you can pack the meeting is by hanging on to more shares. But we can't get all those shares because Anglo-Canadian owns 51 per cent and they are protected by — guess what — a Liberal federal charter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! I hear a total Greek chorus.

So no matter what happens, things will be okay in Ottawa. You will never get a busy signal there. (Laughter.) It's a direct connection.

Now we are going to try again next year ... and I want to announce the campaign now.

MR. CHABOT: Jimmy Gorst?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't put MLAs on

[ Page 749 ]

the board. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't have to stay an MLA.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you won't even have a chance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not this year. Not this year.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Premier, you go up to our riding again and I'll have a better chance than I have ever had because memberships never sold so fast since you were up there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The reason why memberships are selling fast in Peace River is because he hasn't been in town for a month. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But I'm not going to knock it; he's got his own thing going.

So there, Mr. Member, is our hope and our dream for a share of the direction of the B.C. Telephone Company. But that company chose not to open its corporate board structure to a shareholder that represents all the people of this province with almost 10 per cent of the existing shares. Shame on them! They should have....

I think we are close to 10 per cent — until they start stock-splitting and then we lose ground again. (Laughter.) That a tough game they've got going. You would get the idea that they are ruthless capitalists.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if I ran the Legislature the way the B.C. Telephone runs its business, you wouldn't get past committee stage let alone in that door. B.C. Tel wouldn't even put you fellows around with their heavy-handed majority.

MR. PHILLIPS: They'd have to invent dial-a-town — we'd get it for free.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Member, you wouldn't even make the information service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong number.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's true, he's had a wrong number for years.

MR. McGEER: You don't hold annual meetings at your corporation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what do you think we're doing right now? We're holding an annual meeting and you're wasting all the time at the annual meeting of the people's business. But that's all right.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. This is an annual meeting of the people's business and we're going to vote the shares. Guess how the vote is going to come out? (Laughter.) The same way as B.C. Telephone.

MR. CHABOT: Sheep, sheep.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're learning a few tricks from B.C. Tel. Not at all — no, no, not sheep.

MR. CHABOT: Yes you are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bulls.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, bulls.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a bull market. Well, where did I learn it from? I sat over there for how many years? — 13 years.

MR. McGEER: You'll be back there, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. No, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean you're going to lose everything?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've got a chance — you've got a chance of overtaking them. Just let them continue the irresponsible road they're taking and every day you gain points on them, much to my regret. Much to my regret, it's true; it's dividing the opposition in a way that I have more fear about because you are coming out more responsible than they are. You are becoming the responsible alternative.

MR. McGEER: Call Pierre and tell him the NDP supports him. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that was a political remark. (Laughter.)

So in detailed response to your questions let me say that I have tried to answer them to the best of my ability.

MR. PHILLIPS: And that's not much.

[ Page 750 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you don't mean that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. You don't mean that. I know that you share the same love that I do for each other as human beings. I know that with grace and mercy in your heart you leave this House every night feeling kind about this government.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not Wallace.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know you're not. But that's your handicap. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: His turn is coming next month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Back to the vote, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, let me say I'm in favour of it.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it was nice to listen to that vaudeville performance by the Commotion Creek Kid.

When he talks about the drilling activity that he would like to become involved in.... Reluctantly, of course — reluctantly, very, very reluctantly he would get involved in the drilling...

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. SMITH: ...campaign in the province. Only if he had to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. SMITH: Let's look back and see what Pattullo did. He didn't do so hot, did he?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he was a Liberal.

MR. SMITH: He got involved in a drilling campaign and he only missed the pay zone by 300 feet, as the Hon. Premier told us one day on the floor of the House. Of course he had his figures a little bit wrong.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what really happened? He missed the pay zone by 50 miles — not 300 feet, because that's exactly how close the producing gas and oil wells are to the Commotion Creek fiasco. So let's not try to fool the public into thinking that it is an easy thing to find natural gas or oil anywhere, and particularly in northeastern British Columbia. You know, it's easy for the Premier to get up and wax eloquent about that fact that problems were overcome because they sent one little wire. That's not the case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, how else was it overcome?

MR. SMITH: Okay, I'll tell you how it was overcome. We happened to have in the north this year a period of about 10 days of extremely cold weather. Every production company in northeastern British Columbia in the production of natural gas was concerned and had problems with freeze-off, with all the production problems that they periodically run into when we have temperatures of 30, 40 and 50 below.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They didn't all have freeze-off.

MR. SMITH: Most companies had these problems. Some had more problems than others.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no.

MR. SMITH: Some had more problems than others.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had a quick thaw.

MR. SMITH: Yes, the weather warms up, you can thaw out the wells and you can get your production back up. But they can't do it in mountain areas, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) well knows, because they've got a problem there that they can't lick. It's supposed to be one of the biggest, best gas-producing fields in all of British Columbia, and so it was for a short time. But they can't get that production back, and they'll never regain it, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know that. It's a problem that they didn't foresee, that they couldn't overcome. There are problems.

Believe me, it wasn't one cent of taxpayers' money that went into that. It happened to be about $80 million of investment by a petroleum company who would desperately like to get some of it back. They're not charging you and I or the taxpayers of the province one red cent for that. They're producing as much gas now as they can. So it's very nice for the Premier to get up and talk about the sale of natural gas predicated on the work that has gone on in the business for the last 25 years.

Where was the Premier in November? Where was the Premier in November when the federal budget came down...

[ Page 751 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Working in his office.

MR. SMITH: ...a budget that created an impasse over the taxation of resource revenues? Where was he at? He and his fur hat were in Japan. That's where he was at.

HON. MR. BARRETT: China — there's a difference.

MR. SMITH: China at that time. Yes, he and his fur hat were in China, pardon me. Where was he at after that? In Hawaii.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can I help you? It's in that direction.

MR. SMITH: In Hawaii, not here in British Columbia where he was needed, not here in British Columbia settling the impasse between the Province of British Columbia and the federal government over taxation of resources. What has happened as a result of that? I'll tell you what has happened, Mr. Chairman. We lost the complete winter for exploration in northern British Columbia. Lost a complete season. No seismic work done. Nothing now to go on next fall, even though we are successful in negotiating a higher price for natural gas and resolving the impasse between the federal and the provincial government on the matter of how resource revenue and taxation of it will be shared. We've lost two years, two full years at a time when natural gas production in British Columbia is steadily decreasing as a result of the fact that it is a non-renewable resource.

We have no quarrel with the idea of our selling the gas for what it is worth as a comparative or competitive source of energy. But, surely, if you're going to say in one breath that we don't want to take the petroleum industry over, and in the next breath say "but if this, that or the other thing, we may be forced to," what position does that put the industry in when they go to the money market to borrow money for exploration, exploration which today is three and four times as expensive as it was even two years ago? It is exploration which must be conducted today in areas of the province where the reasonable expectation of return is far less than it's ever been before. Hopefully, we still have a tremendous amount of natural gas in reserve. Hopefully, we'll have some major new discoveries. But never let it be said that the attitude and posture of the Premier and the members of his cabinet will do anything to help the business of exploration for natural gas in British Columbia.

So sell the natural gas while you can, Mr. Premier, for the highest price you can get, because if the trend continues, you'll throw taxpayers' money down the drain in trying to compete in a business you know nothing about. Let the companies get back into the field of exploration and, hopefully, we still have substantial reserves of natural gas to be found in the Province of British Columbia.

The Premier talked about the sale of leases and the responsibility of the companies. Fine; they have a responsibility to drill. But what if the conditions are such that you can't drill? In one season out of about every four or five they don't even get into the muskeg areas of the province in the wintertime, because it never freezes up. There's a need for continuing exploration on an increased scale, yet it's not there. So let's not play vaudeville at the expense of the people in the Province of British Columbia.

There's more natural gas to be found and, hopefully, with the proper climate in the province, the companies will continue to explore as they have in the past. The Province of British Columbia will still retain the giant proportion of the revenue without any risk of taxpayers' money in a game they know nothing about. Everybody benefits in that respect, maybe even the municipalities in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Premier, although if I were in the municipal field today, I wouldn't want to predicate my programme on one-third of the increase in the price of natural gas because that might just amount to nothing for the coffers of every municipality in the Province of British Columbia.

There is an increased demand for energy throughout the whole world. At a time when we're faced with a problem like that, what does the Premier do? He hams it up. Probably, if the representatives of industry had been in the gallery this afternoon, they would wonder if there's really any future in British Columbia, particularly after the performance we witnessed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment or two and ask a question of the Premier with regard to the natural gas issue.

I think as everyone knows, I sent the Premier a telegram before he went to Ottawa, supporting the position that British Columbia should get full market value for whatever its natural gas is worth. I'll continue to support the Premier fully in that regard. There's absolutely no reason why the people of British Columbia should sell a depleting resource at one penny less than its full market value.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, I don't think we're being threatening to anybody; we're just charging what the market bears. As free-enterprisers, we've got to insist on that. As free-enterprisers, we insist on that.

[ Page 752 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sometimes you make sense.

MR. McGEER: But.... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: My colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) depicted your victory in Ottawa as the most substantial victory since Napoleon's visit to Moscow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he wants to make military parallels and he gets them all messed up. (Laughter.) He didn't read his history very good.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Premier, we don't think you exactly took a tough stand down there. We think you sold British Columbia out. We think you did that by yielding to the federal government taxation rights to our natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, may I read from the British North America Act, section 109....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you quit the Liberal Party over this issue?

MR. McGEER: I'll fight for British Columbia over this issue, and I wish the Premier would too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: And I wish all the Premiers of western Canada would read the British North America Act. I'm going to read the relevant section to you right now — section 109.

"All lands, mines, minerals and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada — Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such land, mines, minerals, or royalties shall belong to the several provinces ... In which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the provinces in the same."

Section 109, Mr. Chairman, says that the natural gas is ours and that all the royalties from that natural gas are ours — all of them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So they tax the companies. That's the device they used. Didn't you understand what Turner did?

MR. McGEER: I understand perfectly well what Mr. Turner did. And the way I read the British North America Act, he did something that a federal government and a federal Finance Minister, by law, was not entitled to do. I want to know why the Premier of British Columbia is not taking the federal government to court.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have a right to tax the corporation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, but a private corporation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: What we should be asking of the federal government.... If they refuse, then make it public knowledge. We should be asking the federal government, jointly with the provinces, to reassure the companies that they will be taxed only once, and that the division of revenues, whatever it may finally be, will be decided by the courts of our country interpreting the British North America Act.

We have a Supreme Court of Canada to decide questions of this kind.

I remember debates in this Legislature when the question arose regarding who owned offshore mineral rights. I remember our federal Minister of the day, Arthur Laing, one of the finest we ever had from this province, not taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude. He said: "I want a decision from the court." If the federal government, in that situation, was prepared to refer the problem to the Supreme Court of Canada, how can they possibly refuse a request of the provinces at this time to do the same?

I don't think you have had to have studied law for 50 years to read and understand section 109. Let me read it once again for you:

"All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada — Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Union — and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the provinces in the same."

When British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, it was granted the same rights under section 109 as were given to the provinces who were the original signatories of Confederation. That's our court case and we shouldn't be so anxious to obtain $300,000 a day, or whatever it is, that we yield to all future generations of this province the royalties that they are entitled to under the terms of Confederation. In the long stretch this is worth far, far more to our people than the small amount of

[ Page 753 ]

money we might gain by boosting up the price of natural gas in the next few weeks or months. It means more, Mr. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), than losing a year or two in drilling for natural gas, urgent as that may seem. This is one of the greatest issues that has ever come before the people of this Legislature or this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. McGEER: That's right. And, Mr. Premier, it's your responsibility, being in office at this particular time, not to sell British Columbia out. Before you sell this province out, you take it to the courts.

You've taken your coat off, rolled up your sleeves and you've said to those people in Ottawa: "Let's make a deal. " No, sir, Mr. Premier, don't you go making deals like that on behalf of the people of British Columbia. You stand up for our rights.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Every last right that we have obtained under the BNA when we joined Confederation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet, you bet....

MR. McGEER: ...100 years under these terms and we don't want you giving it away — not because you don't understand the BNA Act, not because you want to go and make political deals, not because you want the headlines when you go back for some formula that will give revenues to the cities and municipalities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: We want you to stand up for the rights of British Columbians now and in the future, and you're giving those away.

MR. GIBSON: Does the Premier have anything to say in response to the speech — I thought it was a very fine speech — by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). As a matter of fact, we're on vote 2, Mr. Premier....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that Member is wrong.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answers to question 27.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.