CONTENTS

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 40). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Oral Questions

Court decision on charges against B.C. Lions. Mr. Bennett — 781

Fraud in Casa Loma project. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 782

Use of coal to produce methane. Mr. Phillips — 782

Political picture in the dining room. Mr. Lewis — 783

Statement of export gas price. Mr. McGeer — 783

Committee on coal-use options. Mr. Smith — 783

Application forms for student employment programme.

Hon. Mr. King answers — 783

Pre-rental of space from Scotia Bank.

Hon. Mr. Hartley answers — 783

Tax deductions for closed schools. Mr. Gardom — 784

Correspondence on Vancouver building bylaws. Mrs. Jordan — 784

Elimination of existing oil refineries. Mr. McClelland — 784

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2.

Mr. Bennett — 785

Mr. Gardom — 787

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 791

Mr. L.A. Williams — 795

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 797

Mr. L.A. Williams — 800

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 800

Mr. Bennett — 800

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 803

Mr. Bennett — 804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 804

Mr. McGeer — 806

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress. — 806

Mr. McGeer — 806

Mr. Phillips — 809

Mr. McClelland — 814

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 815

Mr. McGeer — 815

Mr. McClelland — 816

[ Page 781 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of 52 students from the Earl Marriott School in the South Surrey–White Rock area. They are accompanied by their teachers, Trish Paterson and Chris Fic. I hope the Members will make them welcome.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join with me in welcoming from the Sunshine Coast Regional District, Mr. Tim Frizzel, accompanied by his son Andrew.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that in the gallery we have three members from the John Howard Society of North Okanagan, Mr. Bill Hesketch, Dr. Hugh Campbell-Brown and a gentleman who I can't identify from here. We welcome you, and I would ask you all to welcome them.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): I would like to welcome my former co-worker from the John Howard Society, along with the Port Moody Secondary High School and their teacher, Mr. Whitlam. I would ask the House to welcome these students who are visiting us today.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have with us another group of visiting government agents from all parts of the province. Today's group includes Mr. Bob Macgregor from Duncan, Mr. Darryl Koskimaki from Fort Nelson, Mr. Norman Schulz from Fort St. John, Mr. Henry Ten Veen from Ganges, Mr. Gil Mundell from Golden, Mr. Seiji Matsuo from Grand Forks, Mrs. Bernice Houlden from Houston, Mr. Brian MacKenzie from Invermere and Mr. Jim Olsen from Queen Charlotte city.

As you all know, the government agents perform a very valuable role in terms of making information available about legislation and government services throughout the province and, as I mentioned earlier....

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): We could use them in here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, they're going to take the message from out of here, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

I ask the House to welcome them.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today is a group of senior citizens from my home constituency of South Okanagan and Kelowna, and I wish the House to bid them welcome also.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 3, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 4, Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 5, Administration Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 40, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

COURT DECISION ON
CHARGES AGAINST B.C. LIONS

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General: in view of the public interest surrounding the charges against two former B.C.

[ Page 782 ]

Lions football players which have been dismissed in Campbell River provincial court on a legal technicality, could the Minister advise the House if his department has made an investigation of the evidence?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the court investigates the evidence; I don't investigate the evidence. The matter is not one that's appealable, because the decision of the learned judge in that case was discretionary.

Mr. Bennett: Supplementary. Could the Minister then advise the House if, apart from the legal technicalities, his department believes there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case? There are other cases of other areas of bringing a case back to court after a legal technicality has been dealt with.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there'd be no further proceedings in view of the judge's decision in the Campbell River case. The judge, in effect, held that we were too heavy — that is the Crown, acting through the Crown prosecutors — against the accused in our procedure. Now frankly, and I can say so respectfully to the bench, I don't agree that we were, but that was the decision of the learned judge and as a result of that he denied an amendment to the charge. So that's where the matter rests. It's a charge of common assault and causing a disturbance in a public place, which has been disposed of in accordance with our judicial system.

Mr. Bennett: Just a further supplementary: could the Minister advise the House if all discretionary decisions by provincial court judges involving legal technicalities are treated in the same manner?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The answer is yes.

FRAUD IN CASA LOMA PROJECT

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Attorney-General: has the Attorney-General received a second request from one of the sub-contractors involved in the Casa Loma project, one N.B. Electric, suggesting that certain fraudulent actions may have taken place during the building of the project, and offering to provide the Attorney-General with further information if he's willing to launch an investigation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I'll take that as notice and check it out.

USE OF COAL TO PRODUCE METHANE

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines regarding the coal study that he announced this morning. Would the Minister advise me if the study will include the use of coal to make methane gas to relieve the shortfall of natural gas which is anticipated due to the policies of this government?

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Their guide rules are pretty broad, so I don't think it would stop them from investigating all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary. Does this mean that while the study is going on there will be a moratorium on issuing coal licences in the province until the study is completed?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: There has been a moratorium on issuing new coal licences since I came to office. We haven't issued any new ones. There were sufficient issued under the previous government and I didn't think it was necessary to issue any more.

Mr. Phillips: One further supplementary question. To what extent will this committee be permitted to investigate the known coal areas in the province with regard to hiring additional staff such as geologists, engineers and so forth? Will they be funded to do drilling and prove up known coal reserves, or is it just a study of what coal they presently know exists?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: What's right?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The federal government is doing a study on the other aspect as far as the coal resources go throughout the country. This committee will not be hiring geologists and drilling and everything; it's just to study the coal situation as it is and the advisability of exploiting those coal resources.

Mr. Phillips: Then you'll be working with the study group within the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: No, I have a task force that's going to do the work. I'm not going to be doing the work.

Mr. Phillips: No, no. But I mean the task force will be working with the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not necessarily, but I imagine they will get a lot of information input from the federal people.

[ Page 783 ]

POLITICAL PICTURE
IN THE DINING ROOM

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). When I was elected to this Legislature I understood that the dining room in the Legislature was to remain neutral and not political.

Yesterday I noticed a picture on the wall that had a striking resemblance to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). I say this is unfair politics and that, if it is him, it should be removed. I would like you to consider this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Public Works Minister is not in charge of the dining room. (Laughter.) If the Hon. Member wishes any questions to do with the Speaker's office, please direct a letter to me, in accordance with May, and I will answer to you. (Laughter.)

STATEMENT OF EXPORT GAS PRICE

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Premier. Did the Premier say yesterday, either in the corridor or in the House, as quoted in The Daily Colonist, that he feels confident that a price of $1.35 per cent of export gas to Ottawa would come out of the First Minister's conference that he is attending next month?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, never gave any price....

Mr. McGeer: You never said that?

COMMITTEE ON COAL-USE OPTIONS

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): A further question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources concerning coal-use operations. He spoke about a committee, and I'd like to know how the committee will be funded and what additional staff will be required to carry out the intent of the study.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: It will be an internal committee made up of people from the different departments. It won't need any extra funding.

Mr. Smith: One supplemental. Will there be no additional staff required by the committee?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: No.

APPLICATION FORMS FOR
STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Yesterday the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked a question regarding the circulation of application forms to farmers in the province so that they could avail themselves under the student summer employment programme. I have the following information for the Member.

For the farm segment of the programme, envelopes were prepared and mailing lists were supplied by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Discussions with the provincial Department of Agriculture indicated that their lists covered 99 per cent of all farmers in the province. There were 10,000 applications mailed which were stuffed in envelopes by students from the Dean Heights school for the mentally retarded. To ensure that even the 1 per cent not on the Federation of Agriculture mailing list was covered, our field representatives throughout the province received 12 to 15 application forms each. The field representatives made these application forms available to the district agriculturalists upon request. Staff discussions with the district agriculturalists in Quesnel and Williams Lake indicated that they still have a majority of their forms on hand.

Additionally, small-business application forms for small businesses were mailed to banks in the greater Vancouver area and bused to some 23 field representatives throughout the other areas of the province. By noon on Tuesday, March 18, every bank in Quesnel and Williams Lake had received application forms. So I would suggest that the Member's contact, perhaps, was not current with the banks in Quesnel. Additionally, the programme has been extended one week to March 28 to ensure that everyone is able to participate in the programme.

PRE-RENTAL OF SPACE
FROM SCOTIA BANK

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I would like to respond to be question asked yesterday by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I didn't say down the river either. The question is: did the Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Department of Highways, rent or lease two floors of the new Scotia Bank building in Prince George several months before this was required? Now, basically, the answer is no.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Basically?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, basically, the answer is no. We did not rent any space before it was required; we rented space and immediately set to prepare this space so that it could best serve five departments of government. Today 70 per cent of that space is occupied by the Department of Highways, 10 per cent by the Public Service Commission, 10 per cent by the Department of

[ Page 784 ]

Labour, 5.5 per cent by the Transport Commission and 3.5 per cent by the Department of Human Resources.

Mr. Chabot: To the Minister of Public Works. How soon before the building started to be occupied was rent or lease being paid by your department?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: On the signing of the lease, immediate steps were taken to prepare this space and a total of some $80,000 was spent in redesigning and preparing the building. The work started immediately. As soon as that was completed, occupancy was taken by the various stages.

TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR CLOSED SCHOOLS

Mr. Gardom: To the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Children, by law, are required to go to school, and property owners, by law, are required to pay school taxes. I would ask the Hon. Minister, if the schools are not, by law, going to be kept open and operating, whether he will indicate to the House whether or not he's in favour of taxpayers deducting from their taxes an amount that would be proportionate to the time that the schools are closed?

Hon. Mr. King: I don't know whether that's a statement of Liberal policy or a question regarding policy of the government in this House. If it's a question on government policy, I don't think that's an appropriate question for the question period.

Mr. Speaker: It is, in any event, argumentative, hypothetical and not appropriate for question period.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Okay, let's get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

CORRESPONDENCE ON
VANCOUVER BUILDING BYLAWS

Mrs. Jordan: To the Minister of Public Works with respect to the proposed provincial government building in downtown Vancouver. Have building permits been taken out in accordance with City of Vancouver bylaws?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Would the Minister of Public Works wake up? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Hartley: How can I wake up? I haven't been asleep.

Mrs. Jordan: I just addressed a question to you. Answer the question.

A supplementary. Would the Minister confirm that he has correspondence with Mayor Phillips of Vancouver, particularly on March 4, 1975, in which the Minister states: "We fully appreciate the position taken by your chief building inspector," et cetera? I quote on: "It is our opinion, however, that the advice which we have received is sufficiently convincing that we can relieve him of the responsibility to decide in this matter."

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm asking the Minister if he will confirm that he had this correspondence with the mayor of Vancouver on March 4, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to table the letter so that we can examine it. As you know, there have been several pieces of correspondence that have been tampered with. I would like to examine it before I respond.

Mrs. Jordan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the Department of Public Works to override municipal building bylaws and requirements when they do not conform with his department's position?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: When I've had the opportunity to examine the document, I'd be pleased to respond.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Public Works. Quite apart from any specific instance, is it the policy of his department to override or otherwise ignore municipal regulations when they are not in harmony with the Department's attitude on a particular proposed provincial government building?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: The answer is no.

ELIMINATION OF
EXISTING OIL REFINERIES

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development. The government is planning, apparently, to develop an oil refinery in the province,

[ Page 785 ]

and is establishing feasibility studies. Does the government plan to eliminate the existing refineries in the province and combine all the capacity in one huge refinery in a site yet to be selected?

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development): Before answering that question, it's just amazing — amazing — how little that Member knows about oil refineries. Eliminating oil refineries — what a ridiculous suggestion! The answer is no.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $286,290.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, earlier we discussed the authority of the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as a fiscal agent, and the responsibility and the knowledge and the judgment that are required in his capacity in placing bond issues at the most expeditious time on behalf of Crown corporations, perhaps for the province, and the extra financial cost that could accrue by not placing an issue at the appropriate time.

If that requires judgment and special skill on behalf of the Minister of Finance, certainly there's a more difficult area in which he's called upon to perform, and that is in dealing with the purchase of stocks, the dealing in the stock market and those areas of power that have been granted under the Revenue Act.

If we're concerned about the government's position, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to placing loans at too high an interest rate, certainly we should be concerned about the government's activities within the stock market. It was pointed out last session in this House that when the government and the Minister are taking over a company in total, the confidentiality that must apply, the fact that no leaks should be allowed to happen, the fact that nobody who hasn't given an oath of secrecy should be involved in the planning of the takeover of a company because of the nature of what it would do to the value of the shares.... Somebody could make profits, untoward profits. But in that area of those companies that have been totally taken over, which are dangerous and for which specific rules should apply when the Minister ventures into the purchase of companies like Plateau and Kootenay, when the government takes over companies like Dunhill in total.... We would hope that the investigation that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) initiated last year will be reported upon in this Legislature to do with the takeovers of Columbia Cellulose and the unusual trading patterns.

There's a more serious area we have to consider and that is where the government dealing in the stock market involves only single shares or multiple shares, but not a total company takeover.

This is the area in which the government can affect through buying or selling, or through information it may give out, information that may affect the stock adversely and make it go down or make it go up.... The Minister of Finance, and indeed the whole government, should be cognizant of the fragility of the market and the responsibility they have in dealing with the public's money in this area.

I've mentioned that there are companies where the government has taken over total companies. There are also areas where the government has made partial purchases of shares, or may be continuing to do so. There is B.C. Tel and there are other areas where we have had shares bought on the open market. However, one area that I'm concerned about is in the area of Can-Cel; it's not a Crown corporation but a company in which the government owns the majority of the shares. It's one in which the fluctuation of that share value may be affected by statements coming from either the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or the Minister of Finance or of government actions that will encourage the people to buy, or encourage them to sell, discourage them from buying in the future of the company, or make them make a decision to sell their shares or to buy additional shares.

I think we should be specially concerned about statements that the government has made, and particularly the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as quoted in The Province last August. The Minister stated that the provincial government could use money from dividends or from the sale of some of the company's shares — referring to Canadian Cellulose — to help finance new development at Ocean Falls. Here we have the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources making statements that will indicate to the public that the government is considering the selling of some or part of all of its shares in Canadian Cellulose. A statement such as this would indicate to the public that perhaps the government is not confident that the value of the shares will go up, that perhaps a lot of shares will be hitting the market and that perhaps they'd better sell too. The price of the shares might go down. At best it might be considered an intemperate statement, but at worst it could be an effort to devalue the shares so the government could purchase in the market. Here we have the Minister saying, when asked if the provincial government might sell some of its 79 per cent position in Can-Cel to the public to provide

[ Page 786 ]

financing: "It's one of the possibilities." And he did not elaborate.

This story was widely circulated, not only in The Province but picked up from there and elaborated upon in different financial publications that would influence the people purchasing on the stock market. Last year we were concerned, and expressed our concern during the Minister of Finance's estimates, that rules and regulations should be established as to the government's position when it's dealing in the stock market, that every attempt should be made to prevent leaks from happening, to prevent the possibility of insider knowledge and insider trading, and to prevent the type of statements that had happened in the past of Ministerial statements or the Premier's statements that may have affected the price of stock on the stock market — made profits from some, created losses for others — but in fact were intemperate on behalf of the government of B.C.

Yet here we have in August last year apparently no new clear-cut guidelines as to how Ministers should act or speak on behalf of trading or future trading possibilities of the government in shares — statements that may, in effect, depress the market and, I believe, did depress the market and left the impression with the public that the government intended to sell a good part of its shares in Can-Cel. The government has never denied that, nor has it ever announced that it has a further interest in increasing its shares in Can-Cel from the 79 per cent interest.

Then we come to the unusual situation we have today. My office was advised by Mr. Irwin Miller of Montreal, Quebec, that he had lodged a complaint with the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to large-scale operations in the market by the British Columbia government for the purchase of further shares involving Can-Cel. He indicated in his complaint, and further confirmed with Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission, that in January of this year the British Columbia government did in fact purchase 119,600 shares of Can-Cel. This information hasn't been given to this Legislature. It has not been given to the public of B.C. It goes contrary to the earlier indication of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that he was considering perhaps selling to finance further development at Ocean Falls.

Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission also confirmed that, since that time, the British Columbia government has purchased additional shares. He was not prepared to discuss the amount. But here we have a major stock transaction and what apparently is an ongoing transaction. The people of the province have not been advised of the government's intention to purchase, either on a large-block basis or a continuing basis. In fact, if you go back to the statement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, under whose direction, perhaps, the future of these companies lies.... Perhaps now that we are in a new era of government involvement in big industry, these rules that we asked for last year concerning government statements, Ministerial statements, government actions, to protect confidentiality.... Apparently we weren't listened to, and they haven't happened. Here we have a case, because there were no rules, because the Minister made that statement in August, because the government hasn't denied that, because the government hasn't announced its intention to either purchase this large block of 119,600, or announce that it is continuing to purchase in the market, where we have a complaint from an individual in Montreal with the Ontario Securities Commission.

Mr. Miller's complaint is, in effect, as follows: that in the December 11, 1974, issue of the Dow-Jones there were indications that the government might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel. The article in the Dow-Jones was based on the Minister's statements as reported in the media in August and never denied by the government. Never denied by the government. Never denied by the Minister. Never denied by the Finance Minister. We find again that Ministerial indiscretion has affected the price of stocks in the stock market. We see that from the period of the Minister's announcement in August when the shares were trading at $4.80, they started to slide. They slid to $4.60, to $4.50, to $4.10, to $3.75. They stayed at $3.75, $3.80, $3.85 until, funnily enough, the government was accumulating in January.

Here we have a stock market that was depressed because of a Ministerial statement, with no correction from the government, no correction from the Minister of Finance, no attempt to stabilize the market or bring understanding to the market. Indeed, the government seized the opportunity of a market which may have been depressed by the Minister's statement, moved in without announcement, without taking the public into their confidence, and, of course, purchased 119,600 shares and left orders for the continuing purchase of shares.

Once the government has made a commitment to buy, I think the public should fully understand the intent of the government at all times — its intentions to purchase and future intentions for those companies. I think Ministers must, because of the incidents in the case of the Col-Cel takeover, the Dunhill takeover, and the controversy surrounding those shares, realize once again the responsibility that rests with them to be guarded in their statements, because statements of this nature affect the fragility of the stock market.

People who sell on the basis of information such as this aren't giant corporations; they're individuals, Canadian citizens, perhaps even British Columbians. When a number of shares of this magnitude have been traded, it's a strong indication that many people have

[ Page 787 ]

not received the full value of their shares. Yet the value has been depressed and the price dropped directly after and directly in the relationship to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' statement.

Now we have a Canadian citizen who's upset because he believes that not only was it an insider trade but, when it comes with government, we had conflicting statements of the government's intention and, indeed, what the government actions were. If this transaction and his complaint involved around this was done by a private company — one of the big large companies the Premier is fond of condemning in the private sector — they would be in serious difficulties with the Securities Commission. In fact, because of this, he has lodged a complaint with the Ontario Securities Commission, a complaint that's being confirmed by Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission.

As you can see, there's a very strong possibility that the minority shareholders have not been kept aware of the further acquisition or the desire for the further acquisition of the majority shareholder in this case, a corporation known by the Province of British Columbia; and further, that they have been misled by the Minister involved with the future of this company — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We have the value of the shares continually dropping from the date that Minister made that statement to The Province.

As I say, at best it was intemperate. Certainly it wasn't in keeping with his responsibilities as a Minister, realizing that the weight of his statement, because of his office and because of his involvement in this firm on a cash basis, would affect, because of the fragility of the market, the value of these stocks and ultimately cause a loss to the minority shareholders — private citizens who do not have any knowledge of the intent of this government other than the statements of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Perhaps he was intemperate, perhaps it was irresponsible of him — and that's the best that can be said.

It certainly has to be the duty of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the provision of money for the purchase of total acquisitions and government share purchases, to correct statements and to inform the public correctly. We find out that the government is not selling; indeed, it is buying in a very major way, buying in a way that would indicate that this statement in no way indicated the government's intention. In fact, it's clearly the opposite point of view. It has depressed the market; it has caused a loss to these citizens.

It brings to mind the very real questions we brought up in this Legislature last year. The Premier, just the other day, was saying: "Yes, we have to develop guidelines about how gifts are accepted. We have to establish rules as to how certain campaign moneys are handled." But here the problem was identified a year ago, a problem which didn't exist until this province gave itself the additional authority through the Revenue Act to speculate in the market. Now we have the very thing we pointed out; one of the possibilities that could happen if the government wasn't strict and had rules, rules that would bind all cabinet Ministers to be temperate, cautious and accurate in their statements. If the government had provided the rules for the amount of confidentiality and the manner in which they were going to further acquire companies....

While I don't agree with the government's philosophy of takeover and public ownership, I believe that while they are government and have that philosophy, the rules should be clear-cut. The rules should prevent the type of abuse of Ministerial statements that can affect the stock market so that anyone, in particular the government, can benefit from insider knowledge and affect the stock market by statements.

Over and above that, there would be the further possibility — not this case, but others such as total takeovers — where there are public stock issues and where it may be affected by a slip or an indiscretion, of unusual trading patterns, such as were apparent in the Columbia Cellulose original takeover and, indeed, in other stock purchases this government has made.

I wonder if the Premier and Minister of Finance could comment on this shocking situation and whether this government is indeed taking steps to correct this statement, if he does believe that this government or the Minister is subject to rebuke, and that Mr. Irwin Miller of Montreal has cause for complaint.

In light of this further fact of the government not adequately realizing its position in the market, and its position as the government and the position it gave itself when it gave itself the right to speculate and play in the stock market — to the detriment of the individual citizens of this province — perhaps now, a year later, we are going to get some rules, some manner in which the public will have confidence they are not being manipulated. Perhaps we will get some rules where the public can be confident that there are no leaks, where the public can be confident that windfall profits aren't made by insider knowledge, where the public can be confident that, indeed, the government is acting in the best interests of the citizens and not in its own desire to fulfill its own desire to acquire the shares at a cheaper price because the depressed the market because of Ministerial statements.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): A few questions to the Hon. Premier in his capacity of holding the purse-strings of the province — and pretty

[ Page 788 ]

tenuous strings they are at the present time.

It was most interesting to hear him read his budget address to the House, but more so for what he neglected to talk about. One, of course, must ask whether or not what the Premier said in the House during his budget address constitutes the budget address, or whether what one reads in the paper constitutes the budget address, or what is printed in the budget address itself constitutes the budget address.

When he was talking in the House we find that he didn't refer at all to a very interesting and revealing statement dealing with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. And we see it was completely neglected when he was standing in front of the television cameras with his sincere suit on and his nice new tie.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): That wasn't a new tie.

Mr. Gardom: He didn't read this statement from the budget address:

"Legislation approved by this Legislature last year provides that the corporation will have access to the consolidated revenue fund of the province in order to assist its operations."

The Hon. Premier neglected with the greatest of chance and oversight to bring that very revealing and indicative statement to the attention of the people of this province. Certainly he went out of his way not to emphasize the obvious — that ICBC must be in red ink right smack up to its armpits.

The Hon. Members will recall that last year I explained at length the plight of some very seriously injured individuals who fell between two stools, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund — neither of whom accepted responsibility to take care of the claims of some very seriously injured people. Each of them were larding off onto the other the responsibility to accept and pay for such claims.

Well, following a great deal of prompting and debate — unfortunately, acrimonious debate, on the part of some of the government Members — eventually the government introduced an amendment to the provincial statute which implanted the full responsibility of payment into the camp of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

I am going to have to ask the Premier today: is this corporation having difficulty in meeting its financial obligations? Since the debate last fall, and since this amendment became part of the law of the province, I'm informed that once again stall tactics are being practised by ICBC which, in view of the circumstances and in view of the fact that it's the only game in town and certainly in view of the fact this is supposed to be a social legislation, are totally irresponsible and disgraceful.

I mentioned to this House the case of the paraplegic who was injured in August of 1972. Still no recovery in March of 1975. I mentioned to the House the case of the quadriplegic injured in 1973. Still no recovery in 1975.

I am informed that the representatives of these seriously injured people have been after ICBC for payment without any results ever since the legislation was passed — just stall, stall, stall. They have written to ICBC in November, December and January. I understand they have placed all sorts of telephone calls, and in one, the representatives of these people was finally told by ICBC that yes, they did accept the claim, but they regretted that no action had been taken for payment "because no authority to pay as yet has been received."

Now, in plain language, Mr. Premier, that must mean that there is not any money available or not any money labeled or authorized for payment, and no money has been made available for these seriously injured people. I want to know just why, and so do these people. They are just claims of some people who have been injured piteously, of people who in some instances hold judgments, of people who have now received from this government, from this Legislature, a statutory, imperative right to recover. But justice to them and equity to them are still denied, and it's grossly unfair.

I want to ask the Premier why ICBC isn't paying these claims. Is it bust? Is it bankrupt? Is it that there's a shortfall there? What's the trouble with it? Why doesn't the Premier have a heart?

I remember him making a great big show in this House the night the Prime Minister of Canada got married. He asked one question of the former Attorney-General all through the night: to write a letter for a seriously injured person. Here we've got quadriplegics and paraplegics who are not being paid by ICBC because they say they haven't got the money. Don't you start to fog it off on to your Minister, because you, my friend, control the consolidated revenue fund. You brought in the gas tax, and you know that ICBC cannot pay its way.

Why don't you go ahead and do the right thing? That's what you should be doing. Why don't you, please, Mr. Premier, inform the House today how much money is going to flow into ICBC from the gas pumps? How much transfusion money are you going to shoot into that insurance corporation?

We all remember the debates last year and the great deal of abuse that was received on this side of the House when it was estimated that ICBC was going into the red. In order to come up with that estimation, estimates were made with the available material that was given to us — which was a paucity of material. But by using the government material, by adding up all of the estimated premiums and interest income and revenues of ICBC, a figure came about.

[ Page 789 ]

By adding up its estimated claims expense on the basis of its current exposure and deducting that and the capital expenditures, one found, Mr. Premier, there was only $17 million left to pay for salaries and administrative expense.

Then we went to the Manitoba experience. By utilizing the Manitoba experience of 12.4 per cent of gross income for salaries and administrative expense, it was estimated that ICBC would have a loss of $10 million.

Now the problem was approached from a second position. Once again it had to be approached this way because the government refused to give the public of this province all of the information. We added up all of the revenues of the insurance corporation, added up the estimated expense for claims, the capital expenditures and deducted as well. Once again, by using estimated salary costs, with overhead being one-half of that, we arrived at a loss of $20 million, which proved to be mighty close at that point in time.

No subsidies! Can you remember the howling and the talking in this House when it was suggested over here that there were going to be subsidies to ICBC? We were accused of being cynics and vicious and arrogant, and you name it. But what happened in the next couple of days? Down the pipes they came — subsidies. I think it was announced up in the interior at Kamloops, unless I'm mistaken.

But the $20 million deficit that was forecast last year was based on an estimated salary income of about 60 per cent of what it's proven to be, because the Hon. Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) filed in the House a few days ago — and we're not sure if that figure is correct, because he doesn't know himself, and he says he's going to look into it again — a figure that showed there was an estimated salary payroll of about $2 million.

Once again, by using exactly the same kind of a formula, we find from the $17 million that is available to take care of salary and administrative expense — which comes to $52 million — a $35 million shortfall of ICBC. One could say that it's losing about $2 million to $3 million per month exclusive of what it may receive by way of transfused funds from the gas tank or transfused funds from premium income, because now, as the Hon. Premier well knows, all of the government agencies and operations have got to be insured by ICBC, whereas in the past a lot of them were self-insured. It's a pretty easy thing for the Premier and the Minister of Transport to get together and make up their minds what the cost of a premium is going to be.

I ask the Hon. Premier again: why are these people not being paid? You should just get on the telephone today to ICBC and demand payment today. Make no bones about it. Their claims have been received and the ICBC people are putting their hands up in the air and saying: "We haven't got the authority. We haven't got the money." It's a rotten situation.

The public in this province also want to know from the Premier just how much ICBC is in the red, how much money it is going to have to have come from the consolidated revenue fund to meet its obligations. Is it or is it not meeting its obligations today? It doesn't seem to be in the instances which I've given to you.

Furthermore, I think this House would very much like to have from the Hon. Premier his solemn undertaking that the annual financial report of ICBC is going to be filed in this House long before the estimates of the Minister of Transport and Communications come up.

One of the most unattractive characteristics of this government has been its consummate arrogance of silence. I think this is best exemplified by the unswayable, unalterable and inflexible attitude of the Premier in ignoring the right — not the privilege but the right — of the general public to be given full, complete, honest, impartial, factual accounts of the business of the province, specifically the financial information. But that has been denied, it is being denied and it's going to continue to be denied by this government and by the Premier. The sunshine government? As my colleague says, once they were in — down came the blinds.

The representatives of the people of the province on this side of the House have continuously solicited information from the government about financial affairs of the province, which is their entitlement. I say it's their legal entitlement, it's their moral entitlement and it's their ethical entitlement to full, proper and honest accounts so the public are able to assess the performance of the government, of their programmes and their policies, of their civil servants and of their elected representatives. Let the public be able to make their own assessment as to whether or not they're receiving true value for their dollar.

I'm not talking about whether there's a need to maintain secrecy because of public morality or national security. I'm talking of the refusal of this government to provide information which should be right smack out into the open. You have gone into the private sector. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke about it a few moments ago. By virtue of your advent into the private sector, you have a greater responsibility to furnish full and proper accounts, which you are not doing. You've slid the other way, make no mistake of it at all, and every day you're sliding the other way.

For what purpose? Are you trying to protect the back of the bureaucrat or feather the political nest of some of the weak cabinet Ministers that you may have? But I tell you, it's a gross misuse of public information because your job is not to propagate the welfare of the civil service nor the welfare or the continuity in office of your party.

[ Page 790 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't attack the civil servants.

Mr. Gardom: You're darn right I'm attacking to that extent. I think they have a responsibility. If you won't tell or give the people the facts, they should. The job is to perform for and in the better interests of the people, and that is not being done here. The people have the right to have full information about the Crown corporations.

You know that old expression in law: "Justice must not only be done but appear to be done." Government, similarly, must not only govern but appear to govern. And you've absolutely no right, Mr. Premier, not to fully instruct your Ministers — fully and unequivocally instruct your Ministers — to fess up and lay the financial conditions of their portfolios straight on the table, of Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Rail, the Daon deal and the Casa Loma deal. It's just like pulling teeth to get any information out of this government. All you're doing is playing monopoly with the people's money in the dark, and make no mistake of that fact.

Well, okay, here's an example. You give me one good reason — one good reason, Mr. Premier — why the public should not know who lent the money to B.C. Hydro. One single reason. The public of B.C. are committed to pay it back, not you. By far the majority of B.C. citizens are law-abiding, conscientious, fair-minded people. We all agree with that, and they want to have fairness in dealing. They want to deal with friends. They may want to deal with people who have those same kind of characteristics and they may not want to deal with people who don't. How can they know without you telling them?

I for one would not want Mafia money coming into this province behind a Crown corporation on borrowed money. I'm not suggesting it is. Don't start to throw up your arms and say: "Aha, he said Mafia money!" I know, I'm anticipating it. (Laughter.) I'm just anticipating. But we want to know where it came from. The public are entitled to know. Why should it be Dave's deal in the dark? Why? Why should it be hush-hush? Why should the public not be entitled to a full and proper account?

Why indeed, Mr. Premier, are you continuing to carry on and propagate the divisionistic practices that have hamstrung municipalities in this province ever since it was a pup? Decade after decade, year after year, day after day, the municipalities and the cities of this province have had to come cap in hand to each and every provincial government we've ever had, literally begging for handouts. Your philosophy and the philosophy of prior governments have been very wrong from the outset. The concept that these municipalities should be regarded as creatures of the provincial government is archaic, stupid and wrong.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Some of them are playing politics.

Mr. Gardom: Some of them are playing politics?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Gardom: Oh. Well, in a democracy, Mr. Chairman, I think you play a little politics now and then, too. Yes, you certainly do that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Order!

Mr. Gardom: But the fact that you're not accepting as a philosophy and a policy of your government that the municipalities are not creatures of the government but partners of the government is outmoded and stupid and wrong. It's just as outmoded and stupid and wrong as Chinese ladies binding their feet. B.C. municipalities are still shackled by that archaic concept which you are still practising.

You know, there are very, very forthright and blunt criticisms by the Plunkett report a few years ago, and those criticisms are just as valid today as the day they were written.

Municipalities are being economically overburdened and financially starved by this government. They cannot make a go of it without being granted a fair, continuing and formulatively predictable share of provincial revenues — not by tying them to the fluctuations, the rise and fall of any one taxable sector. That is not enough, be it gas, belch or prevailing political flatulation. Tying their share to overall provincial revenue — that is what the municipal share should be applied to. As the overall provincial revenues increase, the municipal share should increase; as they decrease, so it should decrease.

Anything less amounts to a combination of fiscal meddling and political handouts much along the line of that NDP maypole you had in your budget address and the economic exercise which I have referred to in my talk. That maypole symbolizes NDP economic policies: skipping around in circles, entwining, running out of breath, falling down, and claiming accomplishment. The cities and the municipalities deserve and are entitled to something better than that.

You have really scurried away from your commitment that school taxes would be taken off the back of the property owner. You have now refused to accept responsibility for that position. We can well remember the dewy-eyed promises that were made during the election — how wrong and how cruel it was that the property owners should bear the full brunt of education. Oh, it was just woe, woe, woe —

[ Page 791 ]

terrible, terrible, terrible. "Vote for Dave to save," you pleaded. That is what you did. Unction was just flowing like melted butter.

You know, you used to say "I care." You were wringing your wallet away there, Mr. Premier, saying "I care." Somewhere in the back of the room a little voice piped up and said: "I care too." And he said: "Services for people paid for by taxes on people; services for land paid for by taxes on land." You said: "Well, that is a nice phrase. But I want you to get one thing straight, my friend, I am going to do the caring. My friend, that is my bag; not yours." And since you have got in, you have become careless, Mr. Premier. Make no mistake of that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I think you are being critical of us.

Mr. Gardom: You are continuing to thrust the educational load solely on the back of the property owner, which is outdated and outmoded. You are not typing municipal revenues to provincial revenues, which is outdated and outmoded. You are not linking the per capita grant to provincial revenue, which is outdated, outmoded and grossly unfair.

You are not paying proper municipal assessments for your provincial operations within the boundaries of municipalities and cities. I gave you a figure last year and that figure is just as sound as it was last year. It was a half a million dollars last year which the provincial government ripped off the City of Vancouver by failing to pay normal, accepted business and property taxes. Make no mistake about that fact. That figure today is probably up to three-quarters of a million dollars.

You are not doing another thing: you are not setting aside and earmarking what I would like to call "crisis money," making funds available for the out-of-the-ordinary projects, the time for which, unfortunately, is critically approaching — or even worse, has arrived, certainly in the cities, and you know it. It is a fact of life in this country that seven to eight people out of every 10 are going to be situated in the cities by the year 2000 B.C.

Look at Vancouver, third largest city in Canada. It has serious, critical traffic problems. It has had more transit studies and more transit plans, I suppose, than Smith has cough drops, but without any money, any crisis money being set aside and building up to care for it, without any preventive-medicine money being set aside.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): That's where the gas tax should go.

Mr. Gardom: As my friend over here suggests, that is where the gas tax should be going. I think that is a practical suggestion — a very good suggestion.

But the closest Vancouver will ever come to having an underground, I suppose, is your government continuously going underground once they have asked for any kind of an intelligent response to this kind of a question.

There are very serious fire problems in our city today. Without any question of a doubt, one could find the very worst of catastrophes happening. These highrise buildings are proving to be excellent furnaces and perhaps perfect incinerators. It is a situation that is extremely serious.

The Hon. Premier asks if it is his fault. I will tell you why it is your fault — directly, no; indirectly, yes — but the blame has got to come to the top. "The buck stops here," as Harry S. Truman said. That is where the buck is stopping. These people are short of dough. They need M-O-N-E-Y. That is what the cities and the municipalities need. There is not adequate fire-fighting equipment to take care of a really highrise building fire in the Province of B.C. today. How high do the ladders go? Do they reach the top of these 25-story-and-over buildings? They probably don't. For goodness' sake, the cities and the municipalities don't have the necessary dollars to produce these kinds of savings to produce these kinds of protections for the people of their municipalities and cities, and they have got to come to the only source they have, the senior government. Can they go ahead and put on another specific assessment against the property owner today? We hear it suggested that taxes are going up 25 per cent as it is. There should be some crisis money available for something such as this. It's all very well....

We have to have, certainly, a set of effective building bylaws for the new structures which would have self-closing doors or automatic sprinkler systems and smoke vents for each floor, with fire doors and fire barriers and pressurized stairwells and elevator shafts and smoke detectors, and all of those things. But what about the buildings that are already constructed that are unsafe? Is it too much to ask that the cities and the municipalities should have 100 per cent effective fire-fighting equipment so the fire chiefs would be able to say: "Okay, I can get to the top of that building with my men with my ladders from the outside"? You put that question to the fire chiefs in this province, Mr. Premier, and I'll tell you what your answer will be, unfortunately: "No."

It's a dangerous situation. You've got the opportunities, the wherewithal, the resources; you don't need any imagination. Leave the imagination up to the cities and municipalities. They can tell you what they want to have done, but you have the resources. By virtue of the fact of having the resources you have the responsibility, and you are abdicating that responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Minister of Finance

[ Page 792 ]

will try to answer for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and also the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

Mr. Gardom: You set the policy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, do you want me to answer all those questions related to those departments in my estimates? Now I don't know the details of whether or not ICBC is paying those cases. You'd think that it was....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, it's the first time you have brought it to my attention — the first time. Okay, now that you've brought it to my attention, you want an immediate answer. Do you want me to go to the phone? Well, let's get those estimates through.

Mr. Gardom: Well, you're in charge of the consolidated revenue fund. You can do it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I listen quietly — with a few interruptions. Six; you have five left. (Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: I'll wait for a good one.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Four! (Laughter.)

I don't know the details of these cases. If there is an injustice, I want to know about it too. Now I am going to find out. I have made a note of it, and I'll try and find out as quickly as I can. I don't believe there should be any bureaucratic excuse or reason or anything else impeding justice. It's not a question of money.

Mr. Gardom: That's what they say.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's not a question of money, and I'd like to see in writing who's saying that.

Mr. Gardom: That's what they say.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I don't know who says what. You're a lawyer, Mr. Member; you know that that's not hard evidence. Sometimes you lapse into being a politician with soft evidence. You know, you had a bad night last night. You stayed up all night writing that speech and the most you could come up with in criticizing the government was that there were not ladders in Vancouver high enough to reach the top of the apartment buildings. Now, for goodness' sake, after 30 months...

Mr. Gardom: Humbug!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...of this government, that's the only thing he could come up with to criticize in the estimates. I feel sorry for the opposition. They are so hard up for issues that it's down to the colour of fire trucks and the size of the ladders.

Now we'll deal with some of the other things that you didn't touch on and the things you did touch on.

Mr. Gardom: Accountability.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Municipalities. Well, we paid for all of their court costs. You didn't mention that. That was a change.

Mr. Gibson: You take the fines, too.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, there it is. You remind me of the fellow who was in the hotel room in Ireland recently. He woke up in the middle of the night and there was a gun at his head. Is that your story? Were you the guy?

There was a gun at his head right in the middle of Ireland and he could hear the click of the pistol, and he was asked a quick question: "What are you, a Protestant or a Catholic?" The guy thought in a hurry; he knew his life was in the balance and he came back with a snappy answer. He said: "I'm a Jew." The voice behind the gun said: "Well, what do you know! And I'm the only Arab in Ireland." (Laughter.)

The moral of the story is that it doesn't really matter what you say, they'll never be satisfied over there. They're against the government. A lot of people are surprised with that statement and I want to apologize on their behalf, because when they are against the government, this is what they are against....

An Hon. Member: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When he talked about compassion he didn't mention Mincome.

Mr. Gardom: That was one of our policies. You took it all. (Laughter.) You just swiped it. I'm glad you did. You learned.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mincome was a Liberal policy.

[ Page 793 ]

Mr. Gardom: You remember the amendment?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's three! (Laughter.)

That's like the Liberal promise in 1919 for medicare. Forty years they went on it with the theory: "Why ruin a good promise by doing something about it?" That's Liberal philosophy. We went to Ottawa after we brought Mincome in in this province and we said: "Lower the age to 60." And do you know what the federal Liberals told us? "No." And you're still a Liberal? They told us no, and we unilaterally did what no other jurisdiction in North America has done: we have lowered the age under this programme down to 60. Don't you praise that?

Mr. Gardom: Your predecessor used to do better than that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, you know, I get confused when I hear you speak because you'd think the whole world was coming to rack and ruin — ending up with a lack of ladders in Vancouver, which is my fault! I'm going to lose a whole night's sleep over that accusation.

Mr. Gardom: I hope you do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm going to find out what's going on. Why would they allow them to build those high buildings without planning ahead? What's wrong with the city administration to allow that to happen? No planning ahead in the city, and you're attacking them for that. And now, because there hasn't been the planning, you want me to rush in and solve their lack of planning. Now, Mr. Member, I don't mind taking a lot of problems on my shoulders, but not everything.

Now, the next thing, we reduce the welfare percentage to the cities. We've taken off the cost of the assessment department — Bill 82. We've been able to provide financing for sewers, for municipalities and cities throughout this province. We've done a lot for the municipalities.

You know, you just can't get up and say that we haven't done enough because we haven't got high enough ladders on fire trucks — that they purchased, not us. When they put in the order for the purchase, did they consider what kind of buildings they were having to service? Do they do any planning? Don't blame us by saying we didn't give them money. Did they ever ask us for higher fire truck ladders? No, Mr. Member. We're going to come to the more....

That's an interruption, even though it's silent, so you've got two left. (Laughter.) Gestures are interruptions.

An Hon. Member: Double or nothing.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, what about day care? Pharmacare? What about all the services that we're providing the people? They're terrific! They're wonderful!

Mr. Gardom: Who's knocking those?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, nobody's knocking them, but how about a little word of praise once in a while?

Mr. Gardom: That's not an interruption.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How about a little word of praise once in a while?

Mr. Gardom: I do that all the time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You know, you get up and you make out as if we haven't done anything for the people of this province, and that's not so. We've done a lot of good things.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thirty months. We had a mess to clean up. In 30 months we've done a terrific amount of good for a lot of people. I get letters every day from former Liberals and former Socreds saying: "Thank goodness you're around, and we hope you get some support from the opposition." That's what they say to me. The people are fair out there. They write in, and I say I have hope for the Liberal Party. I've written off the Socreds, but the Liberals I had hope for. But then, after today's speech....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fickle! I'm surprised you're still around; it's past your afternoon nap time, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). You've almost spent an hour in the House today. It's a bit of a record. Write it down.

Mr. Bennett: I'm here more than you are....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, the next question is the municipalities. We've made a proposal for revenue-sharing with the municipalities. I don't understand why you're opposed to that because you used to talk about resource-sharing with the municipalities. Now we've done it, you don't like it.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): No guarantee.

[ Page 794 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, I think you're getting political.

An Hon. Member: Hodge-podge.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to make that accusation, Mr. Chairman, because I've been here a long time.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Too long.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fifteen years. And I don't like to accuse anybody of being political in here. But once in a while I get to thinking, maybe there's politics behind those criticisms.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Shame!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I apologize. Not yet have they reached that point, but it's close to it when you say that our approach to the municipalities isn't fair. You people over there have been saying all along: "Share the resource revenues." Now we have a proposal to share the revenues and you're attacking it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why, Mr. Member, do you think the price of natural gas is going to go down? After I heard the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) speak, I went and researched his statement on the bill which he voted against, setting up the petroleum corporation — which your colleagues voted against, which your seat-mate voted against. And he said that we were being greedy in that bill, asking for more money. And then, last night, you birds have the nerve to say we're not asking for enough. Now that's one thing about the Liberals: they're quick to switch their ground when they're in trouble. I only wish it produced as much gas as it does hot air. Your position has changed completely in a year-and-a-half's time because some of you are playing politics.

We're going to ask for a raise in the price of that natural gas, and we're going to get it. And we're going to share that with the municipalities. We would have shared it with the federal government but they didn't want that. They wanted us to stuff more money into the pockets of the oil companies. That we refused to do. And we're going to get a higher price for our natural gas, just as that price yesterday was warranted out of Alberta, vindicating the position that this government had taken all along. As a matter of fact, the NEB agreed to it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the NEB agreed to that price, only after a court decision in another jurisdiction said what the price should be. An American court, telling the Canadian National Energy Board that they were not charging enough for your gas — how embarrassing!

An Hon. Member: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense? It certainly is nonsense. It's consummate nonsense.

An Hon. Member: Stick to your facts.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The fact that we should sell our gas at $1 per cent, while next door, Alberta, the NEB has agreed with the Idaho court that gas could go up to $1.63 to $1.91. Check my facts. Is that wrong? Are they selling the gas at a different price than what the Idaho court ordered they could get? Am I wrong?

An Hon. Member: NEB decision.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: NEB decision. The NEB decision was forced on it by an American court. How humiliating for Canadians. How humiliating, when we had been saying all along that natural gas was selling at a giveaway price to the Americans. The federal Liberal government said: "No, no, no." The American court said: "Yes, it is." They forced the NEB to back off. An American court doing more protection of a Canadian resource than our own federal government. You ought to be embarrassed as a Liberal.

Mr. Gibson: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's nonsense to be embarrassed as a Liberal? No matter what you say about the Liberals, they never get embarrassed. They're around forever. They are the amoeba party of Canada. They bob and shape and twist and turn and encompass. Who was it who described them as not a political party but an alliance for power?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't think it was Fotheringham originally. I think it was some social scientist — the consultants that are in the Prime Minister's office. All the money.... I never hear you complain about that. You talk over there, but I never hear you mention a single thing about the Prime Minister's office and what the federal Liberal Party spends on consultants and waste back there.

[ Page 795 ]

An Hon. Member: Get back to B.C.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I am. I'm answering your question about the municipalities. Just raise the price of that gas and we'll be able to give more money to the municipalities. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Gibson: A guarantee. That's all it takes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I now give a guarantee to every municipality in this province that if the federal Liberal government gives a raise in gas...

Mr. Fraser: If! If!

Mr. Gibson: Give them your own guarantee.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...to the same price or more, than what Alberta gets they will get a third. Now what's wrong with that? Would any federal government say that British Columbia has to sell it gas cheaper to the United States than what Alberta does?

If any federal government says that, what they're really admitting is this: British Columbia has a publicly-owned corporation which allows the people to make the profit. Alberta has private gas companies which allow the private gas companies to make the profit. Ergo, the federal Liberals will be saying that if you're private and international, you can have huge profits and walk away from Canada, but if you're public and you're going to share with the people, you can't have huge profits. That's what it simply is, Mr. Member. I don't believe any government — Liberals included — would dare face the Canadian people and refuse to give us an increase.

So we've solved your problem on the municipalities.

Mr. Gibson: You haven't solved their problem, though.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The money is going to come.

Mr. Gibson: They want a guarantee from you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I give you that guarantee. I guarantee that they'll get one-third of the net increase above $1 for natural gas.

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Why did you switch? Why did you switch your position?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd rather fight than switch.

Mr. Gardom: When you stood over here you used to say exactly the same thing: tie the municipal revenues into the provincial revenues.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you have one interjection left. You've been a flop in five; make one good one.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Five flops in a row and not one good.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Do you guarantee $60 million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I will guarantee one-third and you figure it out. If that gas went up to what it should be, just how much money would it be?

As far as the Socreds go, for them to be yapping over there about guarantees — they gave the gas away: 33 cents per mcf. They gave it away, and that's their solution. Give it away to someone else rather than sharing.

Mr. Member, I'm disappointed in your speech today.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And I don't want to be political because you weren't political. But you've got nothing to criticize. You're the only one who has tried to go on the issues. The rest has been on innuendo and a little bit sleazy and smeary. You weren't at that level. And that's where they were at in the last three days. Simply because they haven't got issues, they'd rather deal in personalities.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Now that we've enjoyed the afternoon performance of non-partisan, non-political effort in this House, I would like to raise some of the same issues with the Premier. I'm not going to deal with innuendo or anything sleazy, but I'm interested in this whole matter of whether or not the municipalities in this province should have their future and their future revenue sources from the provincial government tied to any profits which we may realize on natural gas.

I think the government is making a mistake in this approach to municipal finance. There's only one thing that is not a mistake about it and that is that there is now, for the first time, a clear recognition from this government — a recognition which we didn't have from the former government — that the municipalities of this province are in desperate need of financial assistance and a new formula by which

[ Page 796 ]

they will participate in the revenue sources which come from all the people of this province. The revenue sources which this provincial government has come from the people of this province, and they aren't to have any preferential right to the use of those revenues. Those same people live in the villages, towns, municipalities and cities of this province, and those local governments are entitled to have their proper share of revenue as well.

For the Minister to suggest that the way for relief to the municipalities is to give them a share of profits out of a diminishing resource, a non-renewable resource, is to build into the formula for provincial/local government sharing the same kind of inequities that the former administration built into the formula that exists today. They never would tie the revenues of the municipalities in a fair way to the total revenue potential of the Province of British Columbia.

What is required — and the Hon. Minister of Finance knows it, because when he was on this side of the House and say things with wisdom and clarity he used to suggest the same thing — is that they should be....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that when I was over there. How can you say that?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, we never had to deal with your estimates when you were over there.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You were always estimating our chances.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right. Gosh, we made some mistakes then, too.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you made another one today.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I think it is a fundamental error that is being committed, and it is involving the municipalities, unfortunately, in a political atmosphere in which they should not be involved on a subject of this nature.

Now there is another reason I am opposed to having natural gas revenues made available to the municipalities. That is that those revenues, because they do come from a diminishing resource, are going to be needed for other purposes in this province in the years to come.

We all recognize that the increase in energy value has largely stemmed from the late realization by the Middle East countries that they were giving away their diminishing resource too cheaply. What we have had in this world is a rising energy cost because the Arabs have awakened to the fact that they were giving away their most precious resource too cheaply.

The Premier agrees with that.

But they also recognize that what they must do is to take the return from that resource and, as quickly as they can, reinvest those returns in industrial enterprise which will ensure that when the oil resources are depleted — and they are finite — they will have something else to take their place in order to sustain the economy of those nations. This is what we must do as well.

Not only must we provide against the day when we will have to seek other energy sources because the gas will be gone. As I said in my earlier speech, it may be 25 years, it may be 35 years. But that's not very far away. The Premier agreed with me that we should be considering at this particular time not what our requirements are in 1975, but what they will be in the decades to come for the citizens of this province as they come to take their place.

But let me give you one example. The Premier and I had a discussion yesterday afternoon in this House with regard to the borrowing requirements of British Columbia Hydro. In order to fulfill that Crown corporation's needs just over the next five years — and the Premier knows that the records should show this — the total borrowings for capital purposes of B.C. Hydro in the period ending 1979 are $3,385 million. That's the kind of money that corporation needs in order to do just the jobs that we foresee for them today: the completion of the Columbia, the completion of the Peace, Site 1, Pend-d'Oreille, Kootenay Canal and then additional transportation, rail services, and so one, in which that corporation is involved. It isn't all for the purpose of hydro-electric generation.

The Crown corporation forecasts that of those dollars it can produce from its own operations about $600 million. That leaves the corporation, and the Minister of Finance as its chief fiscal agent, with the task of having to borrow $2,708 million over the next five years in order to keep that Crown corporation growing.

Now the interesting part about this particular figure is that those borrowings exceed by $350 million the total debt of B.C. Hydro today. I'm not suggesting that this province will not be able to sustain that borrowing level. All I'm saying is that this is only one indication of the demand that this province will be making for money.

If you look in the prospectus that was filed last September, as the Premier has indicated as late as yesterday, the moneys we generated inside this province are going to be given priority for schools, hospitals and purposes of that nature. I agree with that.

But when we are approaching the day when we, too, realizing the value of our natural gas resource, are increasing its price of $1.35, $1.60, $1.91, whatever the government is able to arrange in its

[ Page 797 ]

future negotiations with national government — because that is where we are now; we are locked into that situation where they are going to control our price, if they don't already do it today.... But with the revenues we get as we realize the potential of our energy source, in the same way as the Middle East countries have recognized the value of their resources, we should be doing the same thing as those countries are doing — husbanding those moneys for purposes such as the future expansion of British Columbia Hydro, the other Crown corporations and those other areas of legitimate provincial responsibility which will be needed to replace this resource when it is gone.

Growth dollars are what I am talking about — dollars to sustain our economy, to provide purposeful employment for our citizens who in turn, through their energies, will provide the tax dollars which will flow into the provincial coffers to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Education and do all the other things that we want to do, including Mincome (which we applaud), Pharmacare (which we applaud), day care, (which we applaud).

If we take this natural resource money and say we are going to give a third of it to the municipalities so that they can use it in their ongoing operating expenses, then we lose that opportunity to invest in the growth of the future, and therefore lose a part of the opportunity of being able to continue that kind of aid to the municipalities in 25 or 30 years from now.

I suggest that the Premier should seriously reconsider his programme. There is no question that it has got tremendous political appeal. I don't blame the Premier for taking that opportunity. He is saying to the municipalities: "We are going to give you a better deal out of a share of our revenues you never had before." The trouble is that it is misty; it can disappear like the mist in the morning. When the resource revenues go, some other revenue source will have to be provided for those municipalities. Why not fund them properly in relation to total provincial revenues, then take your gains on your natural resource revenue and set them aside for appropriate future development of this province?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Your argument has a lot of validity to it, but it is not as clear cut as I'd wish it or you'd wish it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, maybe we can work it out together. What is the debate for?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Debate is excellent in terms of defining differences of opinion and decisions that have to be made. Your argument would have more merit, in my opinion, if we were not in the situation that has really jeopardized that question of maximum return from a natural resource, not only in banking in terms of dollars but also banking in terms of conservation. It was wrong: you argued against it; your colleague from Point Grey has made statements against it. We argued it, but the former administration signed a 15-year contract to export up to 809 million cubic feet of gas a day to the United States.

In the middle of the debate last year, October, 1973, I asked the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, in the middle of his comments when he talked about conservation, if he suggest we break the contract. He said no, renegotiate.

The Americans want that natural gas. The Socreds signed a contract. There is only one option; it is not a question of renegotiating. The question is that the Americans want more gas now and they are not going to renegotiate now. That is why there was the Idaho court decision. That was the basis of the Idaho court decision to pay more. They will pay even more for peaking gas if you can deliver it. There is no opportunity to renegotiate the amount now. Thank goodness we are able to interpret the wording as "up to 809 million cubit feet a day." That is a matter of dispute between their lawyers and our lawyers.

Let us both agree that the former administration made some tragic blunders in resource areas, the Columbia River for one, the 15-year contract on the sale of natural gas for another.

Now, that's not purely a political statement. There are economists right across this country, both in the National Energy Board and outside of government service, who agree that those long-term export contracts on natural gas should never have been signed. The NEB itself says that five years is the maximum.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thirteen.

Look, I know it's non-renewable. We've got, on the best estimates, around 20 to 25 years of gas supply left at the current rate of production. Some people speculate optimistically that we have discovered one-third of our potential; others say that we're well over into three-quarters of our potential. Okay, let's take your figure of 25 years.

Your suggestion that we take the profits, which I really strongly feel we should maximize on the basis of price.... The Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said, in attacking the corporation, that we were being greedy, but I think he's seen the validity of the argument in the intervening 16 months.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you were.

Interjection.

[ Page 798 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to quote you from Hansard, but if I have to, I will. You said here:

I don't think greed is any help if it comes from a government.... Governments that are greedy are just as much to be condemned as private corporations or individual citizens. When the Premier stands up and talks about the $100 million we should be getting for our resource, that's a reflection of greed.

Those are your words, Mr. Member, from October 23, 1973, page 877, in Hansard.

Now it's changed. Last night we had a speech saying that I was selling out, not asking for enough, when a little over a year and a half ago he attacked me for being greedy. I don't want to be responsible for his irresponsibility.

I appreciate the theoretical point raised by that Member. There is the potential of saying, okay, we will capitalize on this sale because it is a capitalizing sale — it's a non-renewable sale. We will capitalize on this sale by setting up a trust fund.

Mr. L.A. Williams: You're selling inventory.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're selling inventory. You bet.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Your dad would understand it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, my dad understood. I understood, too. Gas doesn't go rotten; what my dad dealt with was perishable.

Mr. L.A. Williams: He had to sell quick.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You bet. He was a darn good one, too.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never swiped my dad's bananas. He always gave away a lot free to people.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you calling me? A banana bootlegger? (Laughter.) I've been called a lot of things in my life but....

Look, here is a policy decision that we have to make. Do we say, with the range of decisions in front of us in terms of capital cost, which I think you've predicted with some accuracy — certainly in ballpark figures — we'll take this inventory sale and put it into this other capital construction and diminish the possibility of developing other enterprises and other sources of activity by locking ourselves into that one commitment? Or do we do some rational, thoughtful borrowing that we can well handle in this jurisdiction compared to...? Only Alberta is in a better position than we are, when you consider that Ontario is $1 billion in debt in one year on operating budgets alone. They're going into debt in operations; we're not. Even with the attacks of the overrun in that Minister's department and other expenditures, we still have a surplus. We are still working within the operating funds generated in this province.

The other option was to cut taxes. I don't agree with that in theory at a time of recession. I think that's a mistake. I think there are times when it's necessary for the government to strengthen the economy by making direct moves in capital ventures. That's why we're making the commitment to provide jobs in Hydro. It's not as if we're taking the total inventory of the sale of natural gas and pushing that away into operating. It's new revenue, it's exciting revenue, and we will certainly use some of it for operating. But the figures that are available, if we maximize that cost, also allows the corporation to consider major investment of its own in terms of using those sales for further capitalizing.

One area of doing it is exploration to maximize the gas even further. I don't think that's necessary philosophically. Some people might disagree with me. I don't think it's necessary; I think there's room for the private sector to do that. But the corporation is certainly looking at the possibility of an oil refinery. That's public knowledge. When we capitalize the cost of that oil refinery — if a refinery is decided upon and if a location is agreed upon — we will be in the very, very fortunate position, Mr. Member, of doing exactly what you're suggesting we do. The corporation itself may be in a position to do a major part of the capital financing or a minor part, or at least saying to outside investors that we are in a financial position to share joint venture or back up. That's good. It's good, hard-nosed business — nothing to do with socialism, nothing to do with free enterprise. Good, hard-nosed business.

The question about the refinery has to be resolved. It's a difficult time that we're in. All questions of ecology, all questions of a location, all questions of economic feasibility must be resolved before the decision is made.

Mr. McClelland: Why are you buying land in Surrey?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, we are buying land in Surrey and we are buying land elsewhere because....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, there is a possibility that may be a good site, or elsewhere might be a good site. We've made no decision yet.

[ Page 799 ]

An Hon. Member: Yes, then sell the land back to the people.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, just sit still and be quiet for a few minutes and calm yourself.

Now when you talk about recapitulating on the amount, we are taking one-third of an increase over a fixed price. Remember, we'll still be making the amount of money, from 33 cents up to $1, reducing ourselves our cost — there is another 10 cents, as I understand it, for processing.

Now what does it do when the corporation then moves out? — perhaps into an oil refinery, perhaps into a steel mill, two major important industrial ingredients in this province. If we're going to keep up in terms with the pressures that we have — people flowing in here, job demands by our young population, all inescapable decisions somewhere down the road; we can't put everybody in some kind of a secure nest and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world — we've got to be competitive. We've got to broaden our base. We don't have to go for massive growth, but rational, economic planning.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we're all involved as a group and the question was related to what the Member says.

An oil refinery and a steel mill are two important ingredients, in my opinion, and the decisions could have been made years ago but were not.

All right. Where is that capital going to come from? Exactly the source you're talking about. And what does that do? That regenerates economic activity and does something else: it provides for the municipalities of location even more permanent income through taxation for that municipality. That's the point that seems to escape people's reckoning.

I know it doesn't escape you, but when you have the government directly involved in making those major economic decisions — relocation, viability, social as well as economic need of the region — once the investment is made, you've enhanced the taxation base for that municipality.

What has happened, unfortunately, in this province is that we have had the syndrome of company-town development with the corporations being protected as a taxation base. We eliminated that with Bill 71, with much anguish, and now we move on to the next step. So you can't make a logical case by saying that when we say one-third of the increase on the non-renewable stuff that will, perhaps, give the municipalities a false sense of security. We've got 25 years to look at it, and we've got the option — whoever is government, whether it's us or you. God help us then. But we have time to make the decision about stabilizing our own economic base beyond the extraction of raw materials.

For 100 years we've been a province of raw resource development with very limited secondary industry, very limited tertiary industry. We talked about it over there. Now we mean to do it while we are over here.

So, Mr. Member, we haven't lost sight of what you are saying, but you can't confine yourself to one narrow direction. We have an opportunity to do something absolutely exciting, imaginative and sensible in municipal financing, and you say it has political overtones. But what act of government doesn't have political overtones? What act of government doesn't mean that a political party through an election won enough seats to make a decision? The problem in this country has been the government has been elected and has refused to make decisions.

Now the severest criticism against our government has been that we are doing too many things too fast. But I notice that everywhere I go in this province, and I go all over, I never read in the local papers any statement by any Member of the opposition about what we should cut out or what we should change. "You've gone too fast," people say, but they never say what we shouldn't have done because they wouldn't dare cut out the things we've done.

Then the last resort, Mr. Member, is that they wail away at socialism. When logic comes to be a barrier to them peddling anything, then they say it's socialism. I actually go into some Social Credit constituencies and hear this argument: "We like Pharmacare, Dave. We like ICBC, Dave. We like day care, Dave. We like Mincome, Dave. But we can't stand socialism." That's the kind of illogic that that group peddles.

Really, you can't have it both ways. We've done a lot of things. We've made mistakes. So help me, goodness, some of the people over here are mortal. Some of us are. (Laughter.) But some of them over there have handicaps, and I forgive them for those handicaps.

An Hon. Member: That was unfair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd forgive the whole group — wherever they are. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: So there, Mr. Member, is a decision that we've made: 33 per cent of the net increase above the dollar. We have to look at the other options in the economy. The other investments you are discussing are valid, but we've got to look beyond Hydro and we have to secure those economic moves that we make.

So that's the whole range. We have a word called "faith" in the potential of this province. We're not

[ Page 800 ]

looking backwards to the sale of resources as the only way of financing, but once we are committed to it by inheritance, let's maximize it. That's the decision of my colleagues and the backbenchers and myself. I think it is a good decision.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Premier and I, I think, are in substantial agreement with regard to this matter. Now I didn't mean to suggest at all that the money should be husbanded to be used for B.C. Hydro. I only gave an example of how much they wanted to borrow as one example of what we face in the future if we're to go forward on all fronts.

Now my one point would be this. I don't think that your suggestion of a steel mill or a refinery is really not imaginative enough, but it's the kind of thing that will happen if we are going to have controlled, responsible growth in the province. My suggestion is that if your one-third share of increased revenues to municipalities — and I think $1.50 would amount to $20 million a year.... My suggestion is that by doing it the way you suggest — and I agree — by maximizing the value you can get from the investment of $20 million in one of these ways, any of the exciting range of ideas there are, you will have long-range benefits far greater than to take $20 million and put it into the hands of municipalities to help them pay for their garbage collection, their police, their sewers, and so on.

You do today have revenue sources which would permit you to say to the municipalities: "We will enter into an arrangement with you where you get $20 million available to you without identifying the source." You take that $20 million and you use it as a punch, year after year, to go out into the province and to assist those areas and the municipalities in those areas to stand more and more on their feet by reason of action which you, in turn, generate.

It's like having a family with 10 kids. You could take 10 bucks and give $1 to each of them and say: "Kids, go!" Or you can take that $10 and do something for the family as a unit which may, in the long run, give far more value for the total family group. That's my only point. I just think that we are tending to fritter the money away in operating-expense methods when we can use it for capital purposes which, in turn, will generate more money which can be used for operation.

I think the Premier and I otherwise are in substantial agreement on the approach to the use of these moneys.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, we are in substantial agreement. The only thing wrong with your analogy is that you are absolute. You're saying that you give 10 kids one buck each and that's it. But we're not doing that. You notice that we are being very cautious. You are not listening to my words.

Okay, here we are. We're at a dollar now and they don't share in that. Right? Anything above a dollar we're saying one-third. So we're saying we'll get $30 for the 10 kids. We're going to give each one of the 10 kids $1 and we're going to have $20 left over to invest in their future by the industrial development that I've talked about.

Now your argument would be valid if I said I was going to give them $3 apiece and dissipate the $30. We're not going to do that. We're giving $1 apiece. We'll have $20 left over to start building those industries that they were starved from having before. When we build those, up goes their tax base, and that becomes a source of revenue. That's the only difference.

Your argument would be valid if we were giving the whole works for operating, but we are not.

Mr. Bennett: Earlier this afternoon I presented a very serious case to the Premier and Minister of Finance, and I was hoping that by now I could have had an answer. Last year we presented a very serious situation of possibilities that could exist with the government now having the additional power to invest in the stock market, and the fact that the government, through Ministerial statements, can affect the value of the stocks on the stock market. Because of the powers taken under the Revenue Act.... The same discretion that surrounds the budget and the presentation of the budget on budget day, and the fact that because items contained in the budget affect the value of stocks, the budget is traditionally brought down after the stock market is closed.

Although there was some question it might not happen, that was the tradition again this year. There's a very good reason for the tradition: government actions both in budget and in statements of Ministers can affect the price of the value of stocks in the stock market. People who get information in advance or people who may be directed or misdirected in advance have an opportunity of profits that are not available to all of the people and the citizens of both the province and of Canada.

It has been traditional that Ministers of Finance will respect the position and the power they wield. That is why the budget is brought down after the stock market is closed. Last year we pointed out, because of the power taken under the Revenue Act where the government further is now a buyer and a seller on the stock market and that we now had a government committed to purchase or buy or take over companies, that this same type of discretion must apply both to Ministerial statements as it affects their departments, and especially where they have departments that affect companies which they may own and particularly as it may affect companies in which they are buying or selling stock. It is serious.

[ Page 801 ]

The implications are serious.

It requires a government policy both of commitment.... It requires that the government and those surrounding these purchases will deal with the oath of secrecy and will be concerned with the responsibility and the damage that can be done by their office or the profits that could be made. It isn't measured in dollars; it's measured in the fact of accepting the responsibility of the office, as I have said.

A few years ago in Great Britain a Finance Minister resigned because he inadvertently let slip that the price of tobacco was going to change a few cents. It wasn't that someone could make great profits on tobacco; it was the fact that this type of secrecy should and must exist binding Finance Ministers.

Now that we have a new situation in the Province of British Columbia where the government and the Minister of Finance and some Ministerial departments have the opportunity to purchase and sell stocks on the stock market and where the very statements they make can affect the value of those stocks, it's very important that this government has a set of rules and a set of conditions along the guidelines that govern the presentation of the budget and the Minister of Finance in the presentation of that budget.

I pointed out that this year, because apparently no such rule exists or because the rule wasn't enforced, but because of statements apparently made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as reported in The Province of August 29 — statements in which he implied, and the article implied, that the government may be considering selling shares in the Can-Cel operation, may people could interpret this in different ways; but the interpretation may be that the government, because they were selling, the stock would go down, and that, indeed, was from that statement as reported in The Province. It was further stated in the December 11 issue of the Dow-Jones that there were indications that the Government of British Columbia might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel. No attempt at correction was made that I can find to correct the implication or the impression that the government indeed may reduce its interest.

The value of the stocks from that August fell from $4.80 to $3.80 to $3.85 — a different range. In January the stock all of a sudden jumped to $4.85. We find that an unannounced purchaser, in fact a purchaser whom many people felt, by the statements of the Minister, was selling the stock or may be selling the stock, indeed was the purchaser in January of 119,600 shares, and that the government, on checking, has bought additional shares since then.

This information hasn't been related to the people of British Columbia and they haven't been advised that the government is purchasing. There has been no announcement to counteract the earlier impression.

Because of this, some people — someone in Ontario where some of the shares were traded — has lodged a complaint with the Ontario Securities Commission. He is concerned that he has lost money by being encouraged to sell or given the impression he should sell because the government, which owns 79 per cent of the stock, may be selling.

My office was advised on Friday that this man, Mr. Irwin Miller of Montreal, had lodged a complaint with the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to large-scale operations in the market by the British Columbia government for the purposes of share purchases involving Can-Cel. Upon checking his statement to our office, Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission confirmed on March 17 that in January of this year the British Columbia government did in fact purchase 119,600 shares. Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission further confirmed that since that time the British Columbia government has purchased additional shares. He has to be discretionary in his statements. He could give no further information.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, these are where we spoke to Mr. Ross.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: We were asking for a policy. I am going to go on further. Mr. Miller's complaint is as follows: that in the December 11 issue of the Dow-Jones there were indications that the government might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel. These were based on the Minister's earlier statements. He said: "The prospect of share selling by the British Columbia government could have a depressing effect on the market."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you care to save yourself some embarrassment by sitting down and letting me answer? Or do you wish to...?

Mr. Bennett: I asked earlier for a statement. I would like to go further. You were signing letters and apparently not listening.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I hate to prove your research inadequate again. I hoped you wouldn't raise it but, now that you have, I'll prove to you again that you have not checked out what you are talking about.

Mr. Bennett: The complaint is made by Mr. Irwin Miller and the complaint is verified by Mr. Ross.

[ Page 802 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You say that it is verified by Mr. Ross. He doesn't say that he agrees with the complaint, does he?

Mr. Bennett: The Ontario Securities Commission did not advise us.

The point I am making is this, Mr. Premier, if you would listen and if you had been listening earlier: the same condition exists that we considered last year, and the same condition may exist. This government, or any government that has given itself the authority to deal in the stock market, and any government where government Ministers control the future of a company in which they own a majority interest, and where those shares trade on the stock market.... When that condition exists, those Ministers must be guarded in their statements. Those Ministers must be discretionary in their statements. If they do not understand the ethics of the situation, then surely there must be a firm government policy outlined to them and to the Legislature and to the people of British Columbia as to what procedure the government is going to take and how the government will guard against the fact that these types of statements may affect the prices of shares on the stock market.

We have said that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) controls the profitability of the whole lumber market. He can assess stumpage and he can reassess stumpage. He can affect the profitability as a Minister, because we have a stumpage rate in use in the interior that can affect the profitability of individual companies on an individual basis. The government also owns 79 per cent of Can-Cel.

The Minister must be guarded and show discretion, such as any Minister should — such as, I know, the Premier and Minister of Finance would. Those are the precautions he takes in the presentation of his budget. I know that the Premier and Minister of Finance in the two years I have been here, and when we have had an opportunity, has made it available for the opposition with confidentiality and secrecy so that nobody will get a leak of the budget and that at no time will it be leaked. There is a lot of secrecy and a lot of discretion. The point we brought up last year, Mr. Premier, is the same point we bring up now: that the Ministers involved with the power to affect the price of shares in which they control the future, the profitability, where they may be a buyer or a seller, whether it is one share, 10 shares, 1,000 shares or 100,000 shares, must be prepared to be cautious and discretionary with their statements. They must not leave any public impression that they are either buying or selling. That isn't correct. If such an impression gets out by a reporter or a report in which what they have said may have been misinterpreted, it is their obligation and their duty to clear up such a misunderstanding, as it would be misleading to the average citizen who is not in the position to interpret any government's intent, except by the statements reported to him by the press.

The average citizen, who may or may not purchase or sell stocks in Canada, hasn't the opportunity to question the Minister directly to clear up those misunderstandings. He must go by what he reads in the press. Therefore it is the responsibility of those Ministers, if they were misquoted, to clear up any misunderstanding that may have happened that may affect the price. This is something that apparently happened, and it was reported in more than one journal.

What we're saying is this: it's the type of thing, where the same type of discretion that you use yourself, Mr. Premier, as the Minister of Finance, should apply to your Ministers. We say now that it's happened. We're not here supporting Mr. Miller's claim; we're saying that because such discretion wasn't part of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) statement, because the Minister didn't clear up any misunderstanding about that statement — and, indeed, the actions in the purchase of these shares is completely contrary to the impression he created.... Mr. Premier, I feel that if you were involved in the purchases, you should have made sure the public didn't misunderstand the statement that was left out there that was reported in these financial journals. This case is only an indication that the public could be upset.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're back-pedaling.

Mr. Bennett: If you'd listen you'll see exactly what we said, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're back-pedaling like mad.

Mr. Bennett: I'm not back-pedaling at all, because it has been a serious indiscretion on behalf of the Minister of Lands and Forests.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now you're running for cover.

Mr. Bennett: He has left the impression out there that the government was selling. No attempt that that wasn't the intent or to clear up that impression. No attempt by the Minister of Finance, who must have been aware of any purchases that were going to be forthcoming, that he would, in fact, clear up this misunderstanding with the public. Instead, it has come to this: the very thing we pointed out that could possibly happen.

Now the Premier may think that it means nothing

[ Page 803 ]

to him because the complainant is a man from Montreal and he doesn't vote in British Columbia. He may say that the opportunity to make or lose money may not have been great. But it's the principle of the position of the Minister to show discretion when his statements can control the attitude that the public may show towards the purchase of the stock that may affect the price.

I say, Madam Chairman, through you to the Premier, I would like to find out, as in my earlier question: has the Ontario Securities Commission before today been in touch with the Department of Finance? Have any other complaints from individual citizens been made to any other securities commission? Will the Minister of Finance and the Premier this year bring in a set of rules that will govern the purchase of stock or the takeover of companies, such as we asked for last year? Does the Premier feel that his Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has committed an indiscretion? Will the Premier be prepared to deal severely with cases that will cause this type of misunderstanding in the public marketplace in the future?

These are the questions I asked earlier — questions that the people are entitled to know.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If I may refer myself to the last question: does the Premier intend to ensure that these misunderstandings don't go abroad to protect the public? I had hoped, quite frankly, that after you had asked the first series of questions — which I didn't respond to — you would leave the matter there. It's like playing tennis with someone who keeps on coming back with a greater handicap and a greater handicap, and you whip 'em every time.

This week we have seen time after time after time where they have not done a single bit of research. Now I didn't answer the question the first time because I thought they'd been whipped enough this week.

You are referring to a single complaint from a Mr. Miller to the Toronto Stock Exchange. That is the case that you raise here, Mr. Member. Before you started back-pedaling about the case, you alleged earlier in your questions that the Toronto Stock Exchange was doing something perhaps other than having acknowledged that the complaint was filed. Then when I yelled across the floor at you to be careful, that's when you started doing the reverse.

Mr. Bennett: Read the Blues!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you please, sir, not lose your temper yet? You're a little bit due for it soon, but not yet — because temper is one way of overcoming the lack of facts.

You said that you spoke to Mr. Ross. Did you speak to Mr. Ross? Did your office phone Toronto Stock Exchange or did they phone the Ontario Securities Commission about this complaint before you said anything on the floor of this House.

You did.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, the office phoned.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did they say that there was validity to the complaint?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't come into this House, Mr. Member, and leave the impression that you've done a little bit of research without going all the way and saying exactly what the position is of the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange. Do you know what their position is? Do you?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! So there may have been nothing wrong.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Let me say for the public and for the information of the Leader of the Opposition that the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange have said: "We are aware of and have approved any and all activities of Can-Cel that we've been involved in."

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bennett: You didn't understand the question.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Mr. Member, did I understand the question! You were trying to leave the impression...

Mr. Bennett: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...with this House that somehow a statement allegedly made by that Minister affected the stock market. You based it on Mr. Miller's complaint without asking the position of the Ontario Securities Commission or the Toronto Stock Exchange. You've been caught with your serge trousers down again. (Laughter.) Again! Again!

Now, Mr. Member, if you have checked it out....

Mr. Bennett: We have checked it out.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You would have found out. I assume that you spoke to Mr. Ross. The fact is

[ Page 804 ]

that I say — unless you're calling me a fibber, and you'll have to prove that one — that the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange are aware of and have approved of any activity of Can-Cel that we've been involved with. And that after Mr. Miller's complaint! We're sensitive, too. We're aware of the complaint; we're aware of the misinterpretation that might be placed on it, so we took immediate action. You never checked that out.

You never asked us if we took any action with the Ontario Securities Commission. You never asked us if we took any action with the Toronto Stock Exchange. You just got up and blabbed without checking anything, and you're wrong again. There it is.

I have no knowledge of the Toronto Stock Exchange or the Ontario Securities Commission ever being NDP. If they are, something's wrong with our policies. (Laughter.) But, I'll tell you....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Montreal Stock Exchange? Mr. Kierans is a left-wing Liberal. He ain't quite made it yet, but we have hopes. (Laughter.)

The Toronto Stock Exchange — deep blue. Deep blue is the colour. The Ontario Securities Commission — deeper blue.

Don't you think that we know what's going on, too? You walk in here like a.... Well, I won't say.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): Careful, careful!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No wonder McClelland is No. 2 and coming on hard. (Laughter.) No wonder he's coming on hard. Even he gets up in the House and says: "Well, I quoted from a mistake." You walk right into the maelstrom and don't even know what's hit you.

The Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange are aware of and have approved any and all activity in Can-Cel shares that we've been involved in since....

Oh, a candy supplied for me for strength, succour and concern of my health by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is a kindly soul...

Mr. Phillips: I'd have somebody else taste it, if I were you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...and is keeping me from wasting away, which is an imminent danger.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How embarrassing again....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you, a chauvinist? The Chair does not recognize sexism; we recognize authority. (Laughter.)

So Mr. — Madam — Mr. Madam Ms. Chairperson (laughter), the facts are that that poor fellow is wrong again. Report card, Monday — flunked; report card, Tuesday — flunked; report card, Wednesday — flunked. I think you should take a long weekend and head for Kelowna now before it's too late. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bennett: Madam Chairman, the Premier, again, would like to distort the obligation of the Minister in the very point we identified. We're talking about a question of the ethical conduct of government in making announcements that will affect the price of the stock. Whether it goes up or down, it must clearly involve the intent of the government. The Ministers must be guarded in their statements and show discretion.

It's a question we brought up last year if you'll.... Perhaps you can't hear through the back of your head, Mr. Premier, and that's why you always put the worst possible interpretation on any question seeking information in this Legislature and in this committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: If the Minister of Finance and Premier will listen, let us remember.... I tried to draw an analogy to make it very clear to the Premier that the same type of discretion that involves the way he presents his budget, and the fact that he brings his budget in with discretion and that the confidentiality that surround that budget demands that it be brought in after the stock exchange is closed. I know that he has difficulty understanding that because this year the budget was scheduled to be brought down before the exchange was closed. It was only a lot of last-minute scurrying by perhaps some people outside the elected benches that brought home to the Premier and Minister of Finance...

Mr. Phillips: He doesn't even know enough.

Mr. Bennett: ...what is demanded of him as a Minister of Finance in the confidentiality of the budget, and in the discretionary nature of his office, and the fact that it's easy to walk around and deal like a sledgehammer. But the marketplace is fragile. Elected representatives who have the opportunity to serve in the executive capacity of government and who have the power through Ministerial statement to

[ Page 805 ]

affect the price of stocks on the stock market can't be allowed the type of foot-in-the-mouth statements that characterize this government. The type of off-the-cuff flamboyance and the Shecky Green routine have nothing to do with the everyday administration of government, recognizing the responsibility for caution. At times, silence is best. When you have the responsibility of government, if you leave an impression that will affect the prive of the market, you have the responsibility to correct that impression if it is false.

In this case, the impression that was created by the Minister's interview, an impression that was reported further in other magazines, was that the government may be selling shares in Can-Cel. It affected the price of the stock. It was incumbent upon that Minister, and if not by him — if he didn't recognize what he'd done — then surely the chief finance officer, the Minister of Finance, recognizing the position and the responsibility of his office, would clearly indicate to that Minister to tell the public that that wasn't so. All government ministers have a responsibility to be discretionary.

As we pointed up last year to the Premier and Minister of Finance, now that he has taken the power to play in the stock market, now that the government has involved itself in buying businesses, now that at least one of those businesses that is controlled by government also has stock that trades on the market because it's not a wholly-owned government subsidiary, the Minister responsible for that department that owns the shares in that firm must be doubly careful in the statements he makes which will affect the shares and the price of those shares at trade. His statements are taken.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Not even all the people of British Columbia, let alone the people of eastern Canada who haven't had a chance to assess the validity of statements that are made by this Premier and his Ministers, perhaps not even they who haven't had this opportunity to take everything with tongue in cheek, may be suckered into making a move, believing what they hear.

The Premier groans, and I suppose we'll get another performance. We're talking here about the fine point of discretion in government.

Mr. Phillips: He doesn't know what discretion means.

Mr. Bennett: The fine point. If the Premier and Minister of Finance doesn't recognize the possibility that exists for the people of this province to believe, and if he expects that the people of this province shouldn't believe what the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources says, that none of us should believe what he says is accurate and that the rest of Canada should believe that also, then let him say so. Then this Minister will not be able to have interviews that create the impression that they may affect the price of stocks of companies owned by this government.

It's an ethical point. It's a point that requires the supervision of a Premier who recognizes the responsibility of the government and the Ministers in the way they present and make statements to the public, particularly as those statements will affect the price and the value of stocks, particularly as they affect stocks in companies which they control, particularly in view of the fact that the government now has the authority and the opportunity to play in the stock market, and particularly, as in this case, the government has, since the Minister created that impression, purchased 119,600 shares.

It doesn't have to be illegal. We're talking about the responsibilities; we're talking about Ministerial conduct; we're talking about the responsibility of Ministers in this government — that is the Premier and Minister of Finance as he leads that government and sets the standards and responsibility for statements which the Ministers make.

Nowhere can we find any attempt to clear up the misunderstanding created by the interview of the Minister, which was reported. If it was inaccurate, it should have been cleared up, if not by the Minister then by his boss, the Premier and Minister of Finance. It's not the responsibility of the opposition to go around telling the public not to believe the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources when he makes statements as to the government's future plans on shares for Can-Cel. It's not our responsibility to go to even one person in the east.

What we say is that every government Minister has the responsibility of his statements, the responsibility for the factuality of his statements, especially where he can affect the marketplace and particularly where he has the ability to control the profitability of the company whose shares he is talking about and where the government owns an interest and where the government may be a purchaser or a seller. If the Premier doesn't understand that, if this government doesn't understand it, then it's a sorry day for British Columbia, It's one of the first responsibilities of government to understand there is a fine point and an ethical standard and an area of confidentiality that goes with the oath of office. If even one citizen is misled — even one — then it is wrong. It doesn't have to deal with large profits, or any profits at all. It has to deal with the responsibility towards the government, towards the Premier and towards the Ministers.

The Premier tries to distort it, as he does everything, and says: "Lay a charge." What charge?

[ Page 806 ]

The charge is that the government doesn't understand its responsibility for accuracy as it will affect public opinion. It's a very fine point of the ethics of government and the responsibility of government and Ministers. I'm sorry for the Premier if he doesn't understand that now that the government and the Ministers through their statements can affect the marketplace, they have a responsibility that no one be misled, especially when the government apparently has the contrary opinion to the impression it has created, and instead of selling shares it is buying shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, let me just say very quietly: lecturing the House is one thing, and I suppose some people assume that's one way of scoring points. But lecturing each other in this House is a fruitless enterprise. Nonetheless, if the Member wants to give a lecture on ethics and responsibility of government, I've yet to hear him stand up as the official leader of Her Majesty's opposition and apologize for his staff's action in sending out a doctored document.

Ethics, my friend? Stand up and tell me about your ethics.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to, if I may, deal with two other topics for a few minutes.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Madam Chairman, I find it difficult to continue under the circumstances.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): We knew you were going to make the same speech.

Mr. McGeer: No, it was quite a different speech, but perhaps I can deal with the Deputy Minister of Finance for a moment or two. Perhaps he can get his pencil out and whisper the answers in the Premier's ear, because we would be having that anyway.

That is with regard to the $230 million that we have in estimated revenue for petroleum and natural gas royalties, leases and fees. That's up from $78 million, and it's part of the $3.2 billion that is built into the total estimated revenues for the coming fiscal year.

Promised in the budget was an additional amount to be given to the cities and municipalities in proportion to the increased funds that might be coming to the Province of British Columbia if the federal government grants an increase in the export price of natural gas.

Madam Chairman, I find it rather irregular to be speaking on the Premier's estimates when he's in the corridor giving a press conference. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 30

Mr. McGeer: I don't know that we have gained very much by this, Madam Chairman. Anyway, he has not gone home. He was taking a few signals from the gallery there, and he is probably being reminded to get the hamburger for supper tonight.

I find it disconcerting the way corridor interviews are given. In most Houses of Parliament the challenge always is: "Step outside and say that." But here the challenge we have got to give to the government is: "Step inside and say it."

Hon. Mr. Lea: It had to happen the day you were here.

Mr. McGeer: To find out what happened yesterday in government — even though we are here debating in what is supposed to be in public — you have to read the newspapers to see what was said out in the hall. Just today I asked the Premier during question period: did he say $1.35 about natural gas in a corridor interview? Here it is in the paper: "The Premier said that he feels confident that a price of $1.35 will come out of the First Ministers' conference." That was in the newspaper. I didn't hear it in the House.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): You're hardly ever here.

Mr. McGeer: I couldn't find it in the Blues. It must have been said in the corridor. We ask him and he says: "No, I didn't say that."

[ Page 807 ]

I see there is an interview. I can see it through the windows right now. It will be reported in the paper tomorrow. We may ask a question: "What did you say out there in the corridor?"

Madam Chairman: Would the Hon. Member please confine his remarks to the vote under consideration?

Mr. McGeer: That is very, very difficult. Our public business is being done right out in the corridor. I don't mind the Premier excusing himself. I don't think we should ask the Ministers to bring a senator's helper in here. But, on the other hand, we can ask the Ministers, including the Premier, to make public statements in the House and not in the corridor. I think it is fair to ask that any Minister, if he does make a statement in the corridor, should admit to it the next day, not stand up in a public forum and say: "I didn't say that." It is a little difficult for us, and I would think a little difficult for the general public, to know exactly where they are with Ministers who say two different things 15 feet apart.

I can certainly understand some Members getting lockjaw. When the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was in opposition, he used to say some pretty terrifying things in the House. He got lockjaw as soon as he walked through the door. Now he doesn't utter a peep in the House. He's got it all to say in the corridor.

An Hon. Member: There is no need for that.

Mr. McGeer: Does Lauk get lockjaw?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I hope so. Madam Chairman, before I so rudely interrupted the proceedings I was directing a question at the Deputy Minister of Finance, because I know that that is where the answers come from. The question was: how is it possible to go from $78 million to $230 million in petroleum and natural gas royalties, as shown in the revenues here totaling up to $3.2 billion, and then count on more than that to fulfill the obligations the Premier has given on the floor of the House now that he will share extra revenue with the cities and municipalities?

If we are being told the truth in estimated revenues.... I said in my budget speech that I thought they were finally telling the truth. Now I'm not so sure. I don't see how you can go to $230 million at the present export price of $1 per thousand cubic feet.

I did do some checking with officials today in the Mines and Petroleum Resources department and the Finance department as to how this $230 million is broken down. The estimates are: $80 million for oil royalties and leases; the other $150 million is to come from the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

Madam Chairman, I called the B.C. Petroleum Corp. up today and asked them how much money they were bringing in. At the current average weighted cost, which is 70 cents, roughly, per 1,000 cubic feet — because we are selling to the Americans at $1 and we're selling to Canadians at 55 cents — it's roughly 60 per cent foreign sales versus 40 per cent domestic sales. From this 70 cents average that we're getting now we have to deduct 25 cents for transportation and 23 cents for the purchase of the gas. That's a total of 48 cents that has to come off the top. We don't get any profit on the first 48 cents; we only get profit above that.

Of the profit, Madam Chairman, that we do get, we have to remit 30 per cent of that to Ottawa. That's the agreement the Premier made and this is the agreement we have been condemning.

Well, if you work all of this out, right now we're getting a net 22 cents of which we have to pay 6.6 cents to the federal government, leaving us the difference of 15.4 cents. That's bringing us in about $60 million a year as of now. So you see, Madam Chairman, at the current selling price we're going to fall short $90 million. Now that's before we get to sharing anything with the cities and municipalities, according to the estimates revenue.

If the price goes up to $1.35, which is what the Premier said he didn't say after he said it outside — $1.35 — that would give us $141 million, which is only $9 million short of the revenue estimates here. But that's for a full year. If the increase doesn't go until July 1, then you've got to cut that $141 million down by the quarter of a year where you don't get the extra revenue, and that makes quite a difference. That gets us down to $118 million, which is $32 million short of what appears on this page. If he gets $1.50, which is not what he's predicting he's going to get — he's predicting he's going to get $1.35 because that's what he's been told he's going to get....

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier said it outside in the corridor yesterday. Certainly it's what he's been told. He's not going to get 1 cent more than what they've agreed to give him back east because he's not the kind of Premier that wins any victories.

[Ms. Brown in the chair.]

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: He has sold us out, and he'll sell us

[ Page 808 ]

out again. All I'm pointing out, Madam Chairman, is that with what he's going to get, he'll be short $30 million from the figures that were presented here in the budget. Even if he gets as much as $1.50 — more power to him if he does — we're still short. Now, was that promise to the cities and municipalities phony or wasn't it?

Something is wrong here, Madam Chairman. Either the figures given in estimated revenues are wrong or the information that I've been given by the BCPC today is wrong or the information that I've been given by the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Department of Finance is wrong.

The ones who are going to get hurt are the cities and municipalities as far as revenue is concerned this year. But the people who are going to be hurt in the future are our children and our children's children, because they're the ones who will pay the penalty for this sellout in Ottawa.

All the attempts to bring in the cities and the municipalities to fight this great political battle aren't going to do a bit of good. They're being used as political pawns in a shameful way. Perhaps if what I've said is wrong, the Premier could correct me. The Deputy Minister will give you the information, Mr. Premier.

I want to deal very, very briefly with another subject which should be of joint concern to you and your jolly Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

An Hon. Member: Ho, ho, ho.

Mr. McGeer: The smiling Gauleiter.

Last week, Madam Chairman, I was in Mexico attending a neurochemistry conference. But while I was there, I took the trouble to inquire about Canada-Mexico trade. Mexico is one of our larger trading partners and it's the wealthiest, by far, of the Latin-American countries. I was so appalled by what I learned that I sent a press release back from Mexico City. This is what's happening down there.

In the past year, 20 Canadian mining companies have taken out exploration permits. In the past four months, Canadian investment in the mining industry in Mexico has trebled. It's gone up threefold in the past four months.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: The figures are these. While mining exploration in British Columbia has gone down to 20 per cent of what it was when the NDP took over...

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Less and less all the time.

Mr. McGeer: ...mining exploration in the Yukon more than trebled, and as far as mining exploration by Canadian companies in Mexico, it's gone up threefold.

I think it's generally understood that as long as the NDP government is in power, we'll have no new mines in British Columbia because capital won't come in. People aren't even bothering to look for mines because mining exploration has gone down 80 per cent.

Still and all, the Premier has stood very proudly in his place and told us that things were never better in mining. Look at the total production of mines in British Columbia, and we are left with the very definite impression that even though no new mines might be coming on stream in British Columbia, we were doing pretty well with the mines we already had. Maybe it wouldn't hurt us to be without exploration for a year or two; perhaps we could catch up at some future time.

But what the mining exploration is for and what the trebling of Canadian equity in producing mines is for, is to produce copper concentrates. Who's the customer for that copper concentrate? Listen closely to this: the Japanese. They've got their production sold out. Who will be competing with us to sell copper to the Japanese? Mexico. Who will put the Mexican mines into production? Canadians.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: "Hurray," says the Minister. That's exactly the point. That's why we're asking the Minister of Finance to step in.

The day after I got back to Canada there was an announcement on the business pages of this province that one of our Canadian mining companies — a copper company — was going to the Canadian public to raise capital here in Canada to bring copper into production in Mexico. Listen very carefully, Mr. Member, because what we are doing, what that Finance Minister is doing, is dismantling our second largest industry.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: They are dismantling our industry and they are shipping it to Mexico. That's what the Allies did to the Germans at the end of the First World War as reparation. They dismantled their factories and moved them to another country.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: The Minister of Mines hasn't understood yet. He says: "Name one mine that's closed down." Madam Chairman, it's the mines that are opening up in Mexico, producing minerals competitive with ours, that will cause our mines to shut down in the future. In other words, it isn't just

[ Page 809 ]

exploration....

Interjections.

Madam Chairman: Would the Hon. Member relate his remarks to vote 2, please?

Mr. McGeer: Yes, I'm relating them to the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance to introduce fiscal policies that will keep our No. 2 industry from being dismantled and shipped to Mexico. He has heavy responsibilities. We've heard them right along: schools, hospitals, welfare programmes — $100 million here, $30 million there. We have to have some industry to support it and we can't rely on the NDP government to bring in new industry. All we can rely on them to do is to use taxes to buy up existing industry and not provide any long-term benefit to the people at all.

Instead, with the fiscal policies they're strangling our No. 2 industry to death and they're breathing life into our competition. One customer — Japan. Now, two countries — Canada and Mexico. Of those two countries, the country of the future as far as their supplies are concerned is not ours, but Mexico. They use Canadian capital, they use Canadian know-how, they use Canadian companies, but the jobs are in Mexico and the wealth goes to Mexico.

I spoke in the budget debate about the hierarchy of dollars, and how secretaries, welfare recipients and MLAs don't generate wealth; we turn it over. It's the money that's generated on that high economic ground that filters down through every level of society. Mining exploration stands higher than mining production, but both of them stand higher than services, and certainly they stand higher than the consuming part of our society, which is our investment in people.

I'd like to ask the Premier a couple of questions. What's he going to do to see that our mining industry — our No. 2 industry — can survive this new competition?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Well, there wasn't a problem, you see, Mr. Member. There wasn't a problem before you came to office. As a matter of fact, your area was one of the major exploration areas in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: That's why, when it folded up and disappeared completely, there was a petition sent around your riding to get rid of you. And they will, Mr. Member. Not that you aren't able, not that you aren't an excellent individual Member, but you represent....

Madam Chairman: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair and try to stick with vote 2, if possible?

Mr. McGeer: I thought I was right on vote 2, Madam Chairman, but I've asked my questions: what changes in financial policy can we expect of our First Minister to allow this mining industry to survive, and what kind of arithmetic has gone into this petroleum and natural gas resource?

I'd hoped to be able to stay and listen immediately to these answers, but, Madam Chairman, I do have to leave the chamber for five minutes. I'll be back. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: I'm as usual very disappointed that the Premier did not see clear to answer the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who brought up a subject which I asked on Monday of this week, and I asked on Tuesday of this week, and I asked last night, about the false impression being created by the Minister of Finance with regard to his budget — with regard to the moneys that he's going to receive from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. which he's taken into revenue but hasn't shown as an expenditure. The Member for Point Grey put it very well this afternoon.

The question is still there, and all we get from the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to be answering the questions during his estimates, is a filibuster of his own estimates. He can't disregard the temptation to stand on the floor of this Legislature and put on the clown act to try and divert the Legislature away from the issues we are bringing to his attention. He doesn't give us the answers.

I think that some of the false creations he's trying to bring up here in this budget must be impeding from his heat-oppressed brain, because I know the pressure is on him. I know that the heat is on him. And the heat is on him, Madam Chairman, because of the mismanagement of his own cabinet. The mismanagement of his own cabinet — that's what's brought on the pressure and the heat on the Premier, on the president of the railway, on the Minister of Finance, on the president of the executive council. He has all these great responsibilities and he has proved in the last 30 months that he can't stand up to these tremendous responsibilities.

I just have to believe that the present Minister of Finance is living in a state of myth-o-mania. He's living under the myth that everything is going well out there in the mining industry. He's living in a state of myth-o-mania. He's living under the myth that everything is going to continue to be good in the forest industry. He's living under the myth that he can continue to add punitive taxation to the real taxpayers of this province and that they will continue

[ Page 810 ]

to come in. He's living under the myth that things are going to be good when he goes to Ottawa and that the petroleum industry is going to survive. He's living under the myth that the investment capital that is so dearly needed in the Province of British Columbia to provide the jobs for unemployed is just going to float in out of the air.

When this Premier and this Minister of Finance took over in British Columbia, we had a healthy, sound economy. In this Minister of Finance's first year of operation in 1974 things were never better in British Columbia. The mining industry was healthy, the price of minerals had never been higher and the demand for those minerals had never been greater. And the dough rolled in. It gave the Minister of Finance a sense of false security.

In our largest industry, the lumber industry, the prices were never higher. The demand was never greater for our products, and the money rolled in to the tax coffers like it had never rolled in before in the history of British Columbia. It created a sense of false security, and the Minister of Finance took the attitude: "Boy, oh boy, things are so great that the money's just never going to cease." And he's still living with that myth today.

When the Minister of Finance took over, the petroleum industry was healthy in the Province of British Columbia, and the money was rolling in. Everybody was employed — the lowest rate of unemployment in 1973. Everybody was happy and we had a healthy economy — unfortunately for that Minister of Finance who now lives in that state of myth-o-mania that this is going to continue.

The Premier still lives under that myth because he hasn't been able to come to the pure, hard facts of the economic world. He can't seem to grasp what is happening in the world today in the economic situation, when everybody is predicting that we should cut back and that government should cut back in their spending to sort of at least put a curb on this rapid growth of inflation. What does our Premier do? He brings in a budget that creates inflation — more spending, more spending, more spending. If he took a real hard look, he would realize that the revenues are going to decline.

He's trying to hang his hat on the fact that he's going to get a better price for natural gas. But if the Premier would come out of this state of myth-o-mania he's in and look further down the road, he would realize that last year our petroleum reserves in the Province of British Columbia declined by 15 per cent. He would look at the real hard facts and know that there is practically no exploration going on to find new gas fields in the Province of British Columbia. He would realize that if there is no exploration for new gas fields, there will be no new gas wells drilled and no new reserves proven up.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: The Premier again, not willing to look at cold, hard facts, lives in this state of his, and, Madam Chairman, it really bothers me.

I would like to speak for just a moment about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the subsidy that our Minister of Finance is going to provide to that insurance corporation.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): To the people! What are you talking about?

Mr. Phillips: We have in the estimates of revenue the sum of $179.5 million coming in from gasoline tax, a tax which is paid by the motorists of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance passed legislation last year — section 21 of the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 — which gives the Minister of Finance the authority to pay to the corporation (and I am referring to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia) out of revenue surplus or the consolidated revenue fund an amount not to exceed 10 cents per gallon on every gallon taxable under the Gasoline Tax Act, and such portion of funds as is considered advisable of the fees payable under the Motor-vehicle Act, commercial transport Act, and Motor Carrier Act.

The Premier, in his estimated revenue, increased this year the estimated revenue on gasoline tax by some $59 million — $500,000 over the estimated revenue for the year ending March 1, 1975. I have asked the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the president of the railway, the president of the executive council, and the adviser to B.C. Hydro, just to tell us where in the expected anticipated expenditure this money is going to be diverted or given, as the law requires or as the law gives him permission to do, to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

As I have said, if he is not going to use the authority he has to pay this 10 cents per gallon to the insurance corporation or if, by any great stroke of good luck (because it wouldn't be good management), the insurance corporation will not require this 10 cents per gallon, then I say to you, Madam Chairman, the Minister of Finance...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't say it. Don't say it.

Mr. Phillips: ...is taxing the motorists of this province under false pretences.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No! You can't do things like that.

Mr. Phillips: That Minister, Madam

[ Page 811 ]

Chairman....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, no, you can't do it.

Madam Chairman: Order

Mr. Phillips: I have asked him on Monday

Madam Chairman: Order. Proceed, please.

Mr. Phillips: Do you have a point of order or are you just now in the House?

Madam Chairman: Point of order, Mr. Member.

Mr. Phillips: If the Member is new in the House, I can forgive him.

Madam Chairman: Would you sit down, Mr. Member, please? A point of order.

Mr. Phillips: I would be quite happy to obey the Chair, Madam...

Madam Chairman: Thank you. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Phillips: ...because I have great respect for the authority of the Chair.

Madam Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Member. Your point of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: With respect to the authority of the Chair, Madam Chairperson, the Member said that I was falsely taxing — "false pretences," that's it. "False pretences." I ask the Member to withdraw that. That's not nice.

An Hon. Member: Don't get picked on!

An Hon. Member: It is not parliamentary, either.

Madam Chairman: The Member cannot impute improper motives to any other Member. Would you withdraw, Mr. Member, please?

Mr. Phillips: Madam Chairman, far be it for me to ever impute improper motives!

Madam Chairman: That's not permitted, Mr. Member — not even in the state of myth-o-mania. (Laughter.).

Mr. Phillips: Far be it for me to ever impute improper motives. I wouldn't be caught dead doing that!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You could be caught alive.

Mr. Phillips: No! And I wouldn't think of lying to the House.

An Hon. Member: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: Nor would I think of misleading the House.

An Hon. Member: Right!

Mr. Phillips: Nor would I think of giving a half-truth to the House. No, Madam Chairman!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You better stop while you're ahead.

Mr. Phillips: I wouldn't think of doing any of those things. I leave that to the government because they are past masters at it. I leave it to the government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: I leave it to the government. I leave it to the cabinet. I leave it to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). I leave it to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I leave it to the Premier himself. I leave it to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). I leave it to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I wouldn't think of it, Madam Chairman, but I'm certainly glad you brought it to my humble attention. I shall see that it doesn't happen again.

Madam Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I promise never to listen to him again. I'm sorry I brought it up.

Mr. Phillips: Now maybe, Madam Chairman, in just one little bit of sincerity, we could have that Minister of Finance explain to us just in one little bit of sincerity during the whole estimates — just one little bit of sincerity — stand up and be sincere with this Legislature, tell us humble people in opposition the truth. Just tell us the truth. If we are in error in the assumption that we have here, tell us, and we'll humbly repent.

But, Madam Chairman, we want to see it in black and white because we can't believe these myths that the Minister of Finance is imposing on us. No, art thou not false creation, impeding from the

[ Page 812 ]

heat-oppressed brain. The pressure is on.

Now, Madam Chairman, I want to know where in this book of estimates are the subsidies going to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. I'll tell you, if it isn't, the Minister of Finance is levying a tax.

Now, listen to this....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: The Minister of Finance is levying a tax on the motoring public of this province that he shouldn't do.

An Hon. Member: He needs a little humility.

Mr. Phillips: And if he is not going to give it to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, who is he going to give it to? Who is he going to give it to?

Is he going to give it to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)?

An Hon. Member: It's a tragic situation.

Mr. Phillips: Madam Chairman, yesterday in Ottawa there was a meeting with the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister, Andre Ouellet. People of this department were negotiating with representatives of the major chartered banks to make more money available at reduced interest rates to low-income families.

Now you and I heard the Minister of Finance in great and glowing terms speak about how he was going to create a bank in the Province of British Columbia. Mind you, between you and me, Madam Chairman, I hope he isn't the bank manager of my bank because he doesn't know the difference between a grant and a loan.

However, he spoke in great, glowing terms about how he's going to help the widows, how he's going to help the widowers, how he's going to help the low-income families by creating in the Province of British Columbia an institution which will provide low-interest money for the needy families.

Now I could take this at face value, but once fooled, twice shy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You've never been shy.

Mr. Phillips: I heard the Minister of Finance one evening, when we were creating the Development Corp, of British Columbia, and I remember him chastising the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in the back-bench because we were voting against it. He said: "I'm going into your riding and I'm going to tell the constituents up there that you voted against this great measure to create industry in your riding."

I was just new in the House then. I was quivering in my seat because the Premier was threatening me.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: But of all that great and glowing speech that the Premier made about that great industrial Development Corp. of British Columbia, going to help all the poor small industries and the individual, the man with an idea, to help him get going, to help him create jobs in British Columbia, to help him bring in new industry in British Columbia, what happened to all of those great promises by the Minister of Finance? They fell by the wayside.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: He hasn't helped any small industry. Oh, in the forest products in Mackenzie, sure, an already established big organization. But when a small man with an idea comes to him, what does he do, Madam Chairman? He turns a deaf ear. He passes by on the other side of the road.

Therefore, Madam Chairman, I have to ask you: do we have to take with that same grain of salt all of this Minister of Finance's promises to create this great institution to serve all the needy people of British Columbia? Do we take it with the same grain of salt? I ask you, Madam Chairman, and I ask you sincerely: did the Minister of Finance, the new president of the bank of little people in British Columbia, have a representative at this meeting in Ottawa yesterday? Did he have a representative at this meeting? Do you know what they were doing at this meeting? They were discussing the revision of the Bank Act, which will come up for revision in the year 1977.

Now I want to tell you, Madam Chairman, that had I been the person who had promised this great new banking facility in the Province of British Columbia, who is going to provide low-interest loans, I would have had a representative at this very, very important meeting to do the same thing that the Premier has promised to do for the taxpayers of British Columbia. But what did they say?

"Ouellet said talks between department officials and the banks should be concluded in May. It may result in a set of voluntary guides for banks to follow in freeing a larger proportion of their reserves for loans to low-income applicants. He refused to specify the amount of additional money the department wants the banks to provide or the interest rate at which it hopes the money will be loaned by banks."

Listen to this, Madam Chairman, and I hope the Minister of Finance listens to this, because he may have had the rug pulled right out from under him. He

[ Page 813 ]

said, and I'm quoting Corporate Affairs Minister Andre Ouellet:

"However, if the banks are unwilling to cooperate voluntarily, the government may force them to do so when the Bank Act comes up for revision, probably in 1977."

An Hon. Member: Threats! Threats! You can't trust the Liberals. Threats!

Mr. Phillips: No threat at all. But if the Premier would come out of this state of myth-o-mania and get down to the cold, hard facts of life, maybe he would realize and maybe he would study what is going on. Now it may be, Madam Chairman, that Ottawa has taken the cue from the Minister of Finance. It may be. Maybe they've asked him for advice, which I doubt very much — but it could be.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. I only give it by appointment.

Mr. Phillips: Madam Chairman, I have just one other area of concern in mind, and it is a great concern of mine. I feel that there is going to be a clash of personalities — a clash of personalities in the advisers to the cabinet, a clash of personalities in the economic advisers to the cabinet and to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Name names!

Mr. Phillips: If we have that clash of personalities, Madam Chairman, there may be chaos. There may be chaos in the economic advisory planning department. We passed an Act in this House in 1974 and this Act is called — and I read from the statutes, chapter 28 — "a bill to create the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia." Now this Act was brought into the Legislature. I recall, again, the great and glowing speeches by the then economic adviser to the cabinet, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He talked in glowing terms of how he was going to establish this institute of economic planning at the University of Victoria. I thought: "Instant salvation for the Premier. This group that he's going to set up will solve all of his problems, and we will get the economy of British Columbia back on the track again."

An Hon. Member: The ship of state back on the track. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: But what happened? "The ship of state back on the track." You put it very well, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) But, Madam Chairman, what happened?

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: My hopes were dashed again. Do you wonder I'm losing faith? My hopes were dashed again.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): He gets off the track.

Mr. Phillips: This bill lays out in minute detail how this institute of economic planning will be set up, and it says in this chapter: "The Minister of Finance shall, on the first day of July, 1974, pay from the revenue surplus appropriation account of the consolidated revenue fund and from the consolidated revenue fund, or partly from the revenue surplus appropriation account and partly from the consolidated revenue fund" — you see, he's got all kinds of kitties he can pay this out of....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you quoting from?

Mr. Phillips: "...in such proportions as he may consider requisite or advisable, the unexpected balance of the sum of $5 million."

Mr. Chabot: The Gaffney Act.

Mr. Phillips: That's $5 million. Now I'll tell you, in my books, Madam Chairman, $5 million will buy you one awful great big pile of advice, but so be it. The Act was passed, and the think tank was established. Oh yes, Act No. 1.

Mr. Chabot: And it's been in a hiatus ever since.

Mr. Phillips: Act No. 1: think tank established.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, okay, $5 million worth of think tank established. Then, lo and behold Act No. 2 comes and what happens, Madam Chairman?

Madam Chairman: Mr. Member, it pains me to do this, but I'd like to draw to your attention the fact that your green light is on.

An Hon. Member: Ohhhh!

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Does that mean my time is just about up again? All right.

That's Act No. 1. Act No. 2 — the curtain was

[ Page 814 ]

never drawn on Act No. 2 because since they disappeared behind that $5 million curtain, we have seen neither hide nor hair of the great think tank. But what happens then? We look through our estimates and, lo and behold, we have another economic planning adviser — this one a little smaller. It's only $250,000. Not $5 million, but $250,000, Madam Chairman.

What are we getting from all of this? We're getting policies that will lead us to economic chaos in the Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: We're getting gaffed.

Mr. Phillips: The people of British Columbia elected that cabinet to serve them. They elected that cabinet to make decisions. They're abdicating their responsibility and hiding behind all of these think tanks and economic advisers so when the thing goes down the tube and we head into the economic wilderness, they will be able to say: "Oh, we had poor advisers." And who will be the people who will lose? Ah, woe, it will be the taxpayers of British Columbia...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Doom and gloom.

Mr. Phillips: ...the third of those people in British Columbia who are the real producers, the third of those people in British Columbia who are the taxpayers. And here we can't even get truth in our estimates. With all of this $5.25 million worth of expertise, we can't even get the truth before us.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your indulgence and for being so persevering.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She has to be with you.

Mr. McClelland: Before I remind the Premier of some unanswered questions for which we'd like to have answers, I'd like to thank the Premier for reminding us today that he got his training for Finance Minister selling bananas after school with his Dad.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right.

Mr. McClelland: It also reminded me that a poem came across my desk the other day that was written by one of my constituents. It's a long one, about five pages, but I'd just like to read the first page for the former banana salesman who is now the Finance Minister of British Columbia. It's called "The Banana Vendor and the Caped Crusader." It goes:

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't slip on the skin.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. McClelland: It goes:

Once a banana salesman trod
Across a land great blessed by God,
Vending his alluring ware
At roadside and at county fair.
"Try my fruit," the huckster cried
Whene'er a prospect he espied.
"The price I ask is a very small –
Why, scarce 'tis any price at all!
The future which you cannot see,
Entrust it but to care to me.
Give me the right but to command
The highest office in thy land,
Then verily, I promise thee,
These morsels I shall give for free."
"Agreed," they cried. "Let it be done.
Pass out the fruit to everyone!"
With banana bunches fast unpeeled
Thus was the bargain rightly sealed.
One banana, two banana,
Gorging on the new found manna,
The populous so replete
Could not define the great deceit.
Aye, the eating after it was done
Made monkeys out of everyone!

An Hon. Member: Give us some more.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't mind you picking on me, but not my poor old Dad. (Laughter.)

Mrs. Jordan: He would have made a better Minister than you.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, we asked some questions in the House yesterday for which we have received no answers. I would just like to repeat those questions before we rise for the evening so that the Premier can think about them and perhaps finally give us some answers. There are only a few.

Has the Premier or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) checked the authenticity of the $100 cheque donated by the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) to the federal NDP? Has the Premier determined how a cheque could be deposited or cashed without a deposit stamp or endorsement or both?

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Does the Premier intend to continue to hide behind the statute of limitations, or will he suspend his Minister and call a judicial inquiry?

Did the Premier's press secretary, John Twigg, tell the Premier about a possible indiscretion by the Minister, or did he keep it a secret? Did the Premier

[ Page 815 ]

or the Minister, or both, attempt to get radio station commentator Gary Bannerman to keep the story off the air?

The signed affidavit, tabled by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), indicated that Joe Hargitt was looking for a friend in government. Does the Premier not consider that to be a serious indiscretion by a Member?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Fake letters.

Mr. McClelland: Did the Premier advise the Minister not to tell the people of B.C. about that serious indiscretion?

The Premier of this province has destroyed the confidence of his office. He's just destroyed the trust in his office. First there was the Premier's involvement in the chicken-and-egg war — the Premier's forcing of the Agriculture Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to also take a poor position in regard to the chicken-and-egg war and, in fact, to develop a case of selective amnesia. There's the case of the Premier's indulgence in the Housing Minister's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson's) activities in this House. He answers questions differently every day and has got us into the glue in relation to Casa Loma for over $500,000. There's the Lands and Forests Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams) who hasn't yet apologized for bringing an altered document into this House. There's the Transport and Communications Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who has smeared and used innuendo against people and businesses in this province in a method which is unbecoming of a Minister and certainly unbecoming of a Member of government.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Are you dealing with vote 2?

Mr. McClelland: I'm dealing with vote 2.

Mr. Chairman: I would remind the Member that you're supposed to be dealing with vote 2.

Mr. McClelland: That's exactly what I'm dealing with, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I suggest that you're not dealing with vote 2, and you should get back to it.

Mr. McClelland: Finally, Mr. Chairman, there's the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) who has committed, or did commit, a serious indiscretion, and the Premier not only condones it but refuses to take any action.

The Premier of this province has stood up in this House in the last couple of days and said that he's going to press for a tough elections Act which will come in this session. Considering the events that have been disclosed in this House in the last few days, I'd suggest you had better make that Act retroactive.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Before the vote passes, let it be recorded, Mr. Chairman, that the official opposition has embarked upon personal innuendo without having the guts to bring charges in this House. It is a matter of record of three days that there is still no substantive motion on the order paper. I say that that's gutless coming in with charges without backing it up with an order.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: I wanted to ask the Premier if he would answer some of the questions about how he can figure on $230 million for revenues from the natural gas and oil resources of our province, but he's having a little trouble. He's exercised. He has definitely exercised. I haven't seen the Premier so exercised for quite a while.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Good for my health.

Mr. McGeer: I think, quite frankly, that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) had a very interesting and worthwhile point.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Are you a mud-slinger too?

Mr. McGeer: No, I made my position perfectly clear last....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sling mud!

Mr. McGeer: If the Minister committed an indiscretion, he was wrong. He shouldn't have accepted the money. It should have been referred to his financial agent. If he wished to redirect the money, he should have informed the man who made the donation that that was the situation. He didn't do any of those things, and he was quite clearly incorrect. I don't think the Minister should be fired for that. He was wrong, guilty, but it was a small amount of money and I don't think it merits a resignation. What it does merit is the Premier of British Columbia spelling out for his cabinet, if they don't yet understand, what the ethics are regarding gifts and donations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The federal Liberal rules?

Mr. McGeer: No, Mr. Chairman, not the federal Liberal rules but what has been standard practice, I would hope, for politicians in British Columbia for

[ Page 816 ]

the better part of a century. Some have transgressed those: some former Social Crediters, some former Liberals. Yes, indeed, people have transgressed in every party. None of us is pure. But it is necessary to redefine what the ethics are at intervals in case people forget.

It's pretty simple. You never accept money during or after an election campaign, even if it is intended for campaign purposes. Of course, if money comes in after an election, it's a little harder to argue that it's for campaign purposes than if it came in before.

But if it comes in in your name, you flatly refuse to take it. You can advise the man when you send the money back that, if he wishes, he should get in touch with your financial agent. Your financial agent should understand the ethic that while he accepts money for your campaign, he neither reveals the individuals nor the amount to you. That's pretty simple.

If those ethics haven't been followed in the case of Members of the Treasury benches.... After all, they're the ones, really, who are in the most sensitive position. They have the power; they can grant favours. If people know that they have committed indiscretions, then those people also know that it would be embarrassing to have that publicly revealed.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has been embarrassed and I know that he's learned his lesson from this. He's been subjected to embarrassment far out of proportion to the $200.

But the point is: now we don't want anybody in British Columbia to feel they have a weapon over the provincial government. Anyone now who has done a similar thing would know that a Minister would be terribly embarrassed were he placed in the same position as the Minister of Human Resources. That's why we've got to have the statement made, and this is why it's necessary for the Premier to establish the standards for all his Ministers now.

Let everybody understand what those standards are. Then, if people don't make their statements....

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, I did that. Then, of course, at some future time, if it's discovered that they did do it, a resignation would be automatic. I don't see that that's placing a terrible burden on the Premier or the government. I certainly wouldn't want to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Human Resources. don't think that's appropriate. As a matter of fact, I'm sympathetic with the Minister because I think that he's been subjected to severe embarrassment far out of proportion to the size of the donation.

But there's a problem, and it isn't the Minister of Human Resources' problem. It's the problem of the Premier. It's his estimates we're discussing; he's the man who has to deal with it. Every social worker knows that when it's your problem, you deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll try to help you.

Mr. McClelland: I just want to make one point, Mr. Chairman, and make it very clear. That is that the opposition is under no more obligation until the government takes some action in this matter. The government has all the facts at its disposal and the Premier must call an inquiry.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: The Premier knows very well that the moment a motion is made before this House, that quits debate; it'll never be discussed again. That government wouldn't have the guts to ever call the motion before this House. He knows very well that all debate must stop when the motion goes on the order paper.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again, and reports that there was a division in the committee and asks that this division be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.