[ Page 887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

On vote 2.

Mr. McGeer — 887

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 890

Mr. McGeer — 892

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 893

Mr. Bennett — 894

Mr. Liden — 896

Mr. L.A. Williams — 898

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 902

Mr. Gardom — 907

Mr. McClelland — 908

Hon. Mr. Lea — 910

Mr. McGeer — 910

Mr. Gibson — 912

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H.D. Dent(Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to draw to the attention of the House that sitting on the floor of the House this morning, in the far corner, is Mr. Sam Houston Johnson, the brother of the late Lyndon B. Johnson, former President of the United States of America.

Mr. Johnson is visiting Victoria and is a guest, coincidentally, of the man whose responsibility it is to read the prayers this morning, Mr. Harald Bredesen and the church which he represents. I would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. Johnson to Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure he's not used to being in a political atmosphere like this. (Laughter.)

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I, too, was going to welcome the late President's brother. I thank the Member for Skeena for preceding me. I just wanted to add my words of welcome to Sam Houston Johnson. I hope he enjoys his stay in British Columbia very, very much.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): The vote wasn't going to slip through that early — think if I hadn't been here, Mr. Premier, that vote might have gone through.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Think if I hadn't been here. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: I'm sorry the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) isn't here. I understand she's off to Australia, studying the system. My, how they junket, these cabinet Ministers. I think we should be fortunate enough there isn't a consumer affairs services on the moon or we'd be sending our Ministers there at public expense to examine the methods.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're not like Pierre — always goodbye, Pierre!

Mr. McGeer: I'm wondering how interested the Consumer Services Minister is in consumers because just a short time ago, but long enough ago, I wrote her a letter suggesting that she should investigate, under the Trade Practices Act, an advertisement placed by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I'd like to ask the Minister whether she has investigated this advertisement, and if she has recommended to him any course of action he should take.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the line of questioning the Hon. Member is pursuing would be more properly directed to the Minister of Consumer Services.

Mr. McGeer: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to....

Mr. McGeer: I take it for granted....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She's not here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member under the responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. You don't understand, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) She was to ask the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She did. I told her it was great, and she agreed. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: It that an official position?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would ask the Hon ....

Mr. McGeer: Would you say that was the extent of the investigation, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order! Just before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would like to ask....

Mr. McGeer: Order! Just before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would ask....

Mr. McGeer: She left for Australia....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would ask the Hon. Premier not to speak from his seat but rather wait until he has been recognized and use his mike. Would the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey proceed?

[ Page 888 ]

Mr. McGeer: I gather from what the Premier said that the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) undertook a thorough investigation before she left for Australia.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She's looking at those federal energy Acts.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I wanted to deal for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, with the energy question again. Though it may seem a little repetitious, after all, this is probably the most important decision the Premier will make in his time in office as far as its long-term effects on the people of British Columbia are concerned.

It is no secret, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the Liberal Party in British Columbia are a little disappointed with his performance so far. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) asked rhetorically yesterday in the House how they'd like it if you turned off the tap.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You anti-American, you.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier, I think, twisted the meaning of that just a little bit, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Scandalous!

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: He twisted it just a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You turn off the gas, or you take gas: which is it?

Mr. McGeer: He doesn't usually do that, but on this particular occasion, under pressure, he twisted it just a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ever since the Member said it, he hasn't been back in the House. He's embarrassed.

Mr. McGeer: He's just weary of this Abbott and Costello performance that's been going on here for several days. (Laughter.)

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Who's the leader of the Liberal Party today?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), whose job it is to provide the B.C. Petroleum Corp....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The CIA will get you!

Mr. McGeer: He used to say when he was on the opposition benches that there wasn't that much gas in British Columbia, and we shouldn't be exporting it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But we have a contract.

Mr. McGeer: After all, using natural gas for heating homes is a little like heating your home by burning $20 bills. This is the natural feed for the petrochemical industry, and we're going to need it in the future.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Boy, now you're going to get it. I'm going to read one of your old speeches.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I hope you study them carefully, because I've said right along that natural gas is something we should conserve here in British Columbia. We shouldn't be seeking to export it. It was necessary for a time in order to justify the cost of building the pipeline down to the distribution and industrial centres. It isn't necessary now. We have contracts, but they should be for fair market value. We should be phasing them out.

Do you know who agrees with us, Mr. Chairman? Yes sir, it's in today's paper. Why, it's the B.C. Energy Commission.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Which you voted against.

Mr. McGeer: They agree with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — not with the Premier, with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

We want the Premier, Mr. Chairman, to give us a commitment that he is going to protect the interests of British Columbians, because by yielding under section 109 of the BNA Act the right of the federal government to tax provincial natural resources, we're not just giving away revenue from natural gas; we're giving away revenue from all our resources — coal, copper, aluminum, timber, oil....

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): We have no bauxite in this province, and you know it.

Mr. McGeer: We don't yet. And I think that as long as you're in power.... If it were to be discovered, Mr. Chairman, it would be after the socialists left office.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. McGeer: Because mining exploration in British Columbia has disappeared.

Interjection.

[ Page 889 ]

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is in fine form this morning, Mr. Chairman, really.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're reading your old speech.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: You know, he told us last night that he was full of love.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yup, I still am.

Mr. McGeer: He's full of love. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was describing how the Premier went down to Ottawa with his Teddy bear under his arm, full of love for the federal government. But, you know, there is another side to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ohhh!

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, there is another side, and the Liberal leader was giving us a little vignette of that other side. It was only a week after the Premier took office. There he was with the members of the Egg Marketing Board, threatening to kick the censored out of them if they didn't do what he said.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Is that how they say it in Point Grey?

Mr. McGeer: He turned to the Minister of Agriculture and he said to him.... And the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was sitting right there behind the Premier's desk, according to the testimony that was presented in court, daydreaming.

The Premier said, according to the testimony: "His head will roll off or come off if he doesn't do as I say." That's pretty tough talk. The Minister of Agriculture couldn't remember that. He couldn't remember it in the House; he couldn't remember it on the witness stand. I tell you, if my boss had said that to me when I was sitting in his chair the week after I took office, I'd remember it. (Laughter.) But he forgot it.

You know, my elderly aunt, when we were worrying about whether we'd have to put her in a home, we could have counted on her to remember something like that. If you have Ministers with that sort of memory I don't know what you can trust them with, because they might forget it between the cabinet room and their offices. But apparently the Minister of Agriculture got some kind of a message because he sure pushed the members of the Egg Marketing Board around in a hotel room in the next hour or two.

What I am trying to say is that we want the Premier, when he gets down there to Ottawa with those nasty federal Liberals to be just as tough as he was with the Egg Marketing Board. Go ahead and say, when you leave that conference room: "If you mention a word of it outside the room I'll deny every word of it." Say that to them, too. That's all right in one of those conferences. I don't think any Ministers of the federal government are going to swear out affidavits. It's far more important to show your tough side when you're dealing for rights of the province, when the stakes are large, when the decision will stand through history than to bring in those poor people on the Egg Marketing Board and show your tough side to them.

The Premier not only capitulated, he never even put up a fight. Get the full market value for our natural gas, of course. But do more than that, Mr. Premier: defend our rights for all mineral resources for all times. Don't leave your backbone behind in your office here in British Columbia. Take it with you, because it's going to be required. No one said those nasty federal Liberals were a pushover. They aren't. No federal government has been a pushover since Confederation. Quebec had a little more success than British Columbia but they have a history of going in there with a pretty well prepared case. That's how they won the day on the Canada Pension Plan — by doing their homework more thoroughly than the federal government had done it.

We can't go down there with a lot of love for the federal government and a Teddy bear tucked under our arm and win. We've got to be tough. If we can't win in the conference room, we are not necessarily beaten. We happen to have a constitution in Canada and we have a supreme court. Our constitution says that the money is ours.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): I wish it did.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Attorney-General, we concede that your record in the courts is not very good.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: We won one the other day.

Mr. McGeer: I know, and that places your batting average higher than the previous Attorney-General (Mr. Peterson).

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Why not try a winning streak?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Well, Mr. Premier, you haven't exactly got a winning streak going with the federal

[ Page 890 ]

government.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I just think that the Premier ought to take a little of that reasoning that he expressed to the members of the Egg Marketing Board. You were there, Mr. Chairman; you know that he can be tough. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was there. I see he is not in his place this morning, again. He just comes to tell me I'm not here. (Laughter.) I don't think either of you, Mr. Chairman, have been tough since that meeting. So we know that if the circumstances are right the Premier can take the.... I think he's out tending to those chickens and eggs, myself. (Laughter.) He's there as an exhibit.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the House. I do want to make a point that the Premier, neither in Ottawa nor in this chamber here in British Columbia, has given any indication that he is prepared to fight for British Columbia's constitutional rights. In two weeks' time he's going back to Ottawa, as far as we know, to capitulate again. That isn't good enough for a Premier of British Columbia. What we want to hear from him before his estimates are passed is that he is prepared to stand up for our rights to the income from our natural resources.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that stops me from being a little angry about the hypocrisy of the Liberal Member is the irony attached to it. Now I'm not saying the Member is hypocritical; I'm saying his position is. I'd like to read something to the House to refresh the House's memory of what this Member was saying just a little over a year ago on this same issue, First of all, on the matter of going to Ottawa he said: "...where the comments to the press, the release of telegrams are made before the other government receives notice of what the intention or wishes are of the administration in question." You were attacking us for doing that.

Mr. McGeer: What?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You were attacking here in your speech. You say — I'll quote the whole paragraph:

And we've slumped with this new government into the same sorry state of affairs that we had for so many years with Social Credit. We enter into debate with the national government by telegrams and press release, whereas the comments to the press ...

I'm trying to get the whole dramatic Point Grey emphasis in here.

...and the release of the telegrams are made before the other government receives notice of what the intention or wishes are of the administration in question.

The very thing that he said was wrong he's demanding today: "Tell us ahead of time before you go." What a hypocritical statement — not the Member. A year and a half ago he said: "Don't do it that way." Now he says: "Do it this way." But it's Friday morning and I'm not going to get angry.

Then what else did he say on October 23, the same Member? Woe befalls those who don't remember that we've got a Hansard now, where every word that's said is written down. Listen to this: October 23, 1973, page 879:

To say turn down the taps this afternoon and turn it up tomorrow; turn it down when we're short and turn it up when we think we can get a high price, isn't good enough for a private corporation, a private enterprise government or even a socialist government. It's not worthy of any individual.

Not worthy of any individual! And he's sitting with one who said: "Will you consider in your arsenal of weapons turning down the taps?"

How can they sit together?

Mr. L.A. Williams: The B.C. Energy Commission says that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The B.C. Energy Commission? You said it yesterday. And your colleague said a year and a half ago that saying such a thing would be unworthy of any individual. Are you splitting up?

Now I don't have to keep on reminding them of what they say a year ago, but I think it's necessary. He came in and said we're not getting enough. In October of 1973 he said: "Asking for more money is being greedy and we have a greedy Premier." Flip-flop, dive, swim around, change positions, run for high ground, into the river, into the forest. You have no position. You've changed your position so many times on this issue you'd make a whirling dervish green with envy.

Mr. McGeer: That's not a good analogy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not a good analogy? In your case it's pretty good, Mr. Member. And to show how important this issue is, the Member even showed up on Friday morning. Friday morning — a record of attendance! But he didn't think that his own words would come back to haunt him.

Now look, Mr. Member, regardless of what kind of political posturing your irresponsible group is taking over there, you voted against the petroleum corporation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the lion. Premier to withdraw the imputation of this group being irresponsible.

[ Page 891 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The position is irresponsible, not the group. Not the group.

Mr. Chairman: I ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw the remark. Would the Hon. Premier continue?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If there's any way that you can interpret that I was saying any individual Member was being irresponsible, I withdraw. I say the whole group's policy is irresponsible. The whole group's policy is irresponsible. They can't help that; they're provincial Liberals. If they felt that strongly about the position they're taking today, do they have the nerve to stand up and say: "If the federal government treats British Columbia this way, we'll quit the Liberal Party "?

No, they only go up to the edge. They never quite go all the way because there is always the question of senator judge. You don't want to go too far, Senator or Judge, because you will ruin everything. You just go up to the edge before you can be completely responsible.

Last night we heard the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) ask: "Are you prepared to take in your arsenal of weapons 'to turn off the tap'?" When I asked him, "Is that one of your weapons?" he wouldn't answer. Oh, no. He was playing a cute game. He was trying to leave the impression that somehow the Government of British Columbia should threaten to turn off the tap, but he is silent on whether or not that is his position.

Mr. Member, you can't say one thing and not really mean it yourself. What is your position? Would you turn off the tap? Would you or wouldn't you? You are the one who came in the House with those words, the very words that were attacked a year ago by your seatmate, saying that any individual who suggested that would be irresponsible. Now you are hoisted. You made a mistake yesterday and you are uncomfortable. I feel sorry for you, but under no circumstances will we go into a position of threatening our American friends. Yes, we are a democratic socialist government, but we are responsible. We will not threaten our American friends with that kind of irresponsible semi-threat that is not, backed up by a position, but is thrown out as a hypothesis.

I am going to have to tell the federal Liberals what you said because that reflects a political atmosphere that people in this province are trying to create — trying to stir up bad feelings between us and the Americans when we are talking about a business deal, not about relationships between two foreign countries.

I am going to have to tell them in Ottawa that an irresponsible position has been taken. Then I am going to have to tell the British Columbia people how a year and a half ago they said we were being greedy when we asked for more money. Now today they say we are not asking for enough. Who are they trying to kid? Then to ultimately suggest that we consider turning off the tap, the highest degree of irresponsibility, and then not putting their own position to that hypothesis, who are they trying to kid? I say we have seen a most irresponsible performance from the Liberals.

What is our position? Our position at the outset was to establish a petroleum corporation to end the basic giveaway. (1) They didn't agree with that. They voted against the petroleum corporation. (2) We moved the price of gas up; they said we were being greedy. (3) We asked for an increase. We got it to $1. Now when the B.C. energy board says it is worth $2, proving the case I made, they say two things: wipe out our history and tell them down in Ottawa that we want more money; and consider taking as a threat the idea of turning off the gas.

How can they sit in this House and be on record in completely opposed positions and then change overnight? How do you do it, fellows?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: They are chameleons.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How do you justify it? I don't know. Not chameleons — they do that by nature. They are politicians, Mr. Chairman. They have got a responsibility to stand up to the people of British Columbia and say why they have changed their position. I think it is politics, not based on a demand of a consistent policy that we have had as a government for the people of this province.

I want to tell you again and clearly, and I want it to get across to our American friends: in no way can we be associated with a suggestion that we take in our arsenal the threat to cut off the gas to the Americans. That is disgusting in my opinion! Disgusting for any Member to even suggest that it be in the arsenal without even himself taking a position on whether or not he would do it. All he said was "perhaps you should consider taking that in your arsenal" without himself having a commitment to that very theory which he suggested and to which his colleague is opposed. and the positions we took all along. We could have threatened months ago and demanded an immediate increase. The federal Minister requested that we wait until April. We accepted that compromise. Now what is wrong with reasonable negotiations with Ottawa? We know we are going to get an increase, We will say how much we want and over what period of time. But I will not in any way tolerate my association with the position outlined by that group, which has flip-flopped in the last year and a half, including the suggestion of threat to our American friends. I say shame!

[ Page 892 ]

Mr. McGeer: The Premier made a wonderful speech.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I appreciate your comment.

Mr. McGeer: He has made a lot of speeches this week. Some might have judged that he was filibustering his own estimates. But what he has been short on is answers.

We wanted a commitment from the Premier that he would fight for the constitutional rights of British Columbia, which is to keep the revenue from the natural resources, whatever those natural resources and whatever the revenues. The Premier is so keen to get a nickel more for natural gas that he'll give away our future. That's the problem with the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You made a big mistake yesterday.

Mr. McGeer: I voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and I'm proud of it...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: ...because what should have been done by the government was to take royalties on the natural gas, which they're entitled to do, without attempting to slither by Ottawa instead of facing up to them. The federal government wouldn't tax a Crown corporation. You formed that B.C. Petroleum Corp. to avoid the constitutional issue. You didn't have any backbone then and you don't have any backbone now. That thing should have been laid right on the table on a royalty basis. It should have been made quite clear that royalties belong to the province. That's constitutional right under the BNA Act, and that's the right you haven't had the backbone to fight for.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! That wasn't your position in an earlier speech.

Mr. McGeer: Of course it is. You take the income from natural gas, or any other natural resource in British Columbia, on royalties. If you think you can slip by the federal government by forming a Crown corporation, the answer is that you can't. You learned that last time you went back, because what did the federal government do? They just turned around and said they were going to tax the private companies on fair market value. You can't try and sneak by them, Mr. Premier; you've got to face up to them. That's what you haven't been prepared to do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: You can go and stand and make all the flowery speeches about flip-flops of Liberals Members and so on.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: That's not going to do future generations of British Columbians any good.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: Only defending our constitutional rights would do so.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: I said before in the House ...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: A contract is a contract ...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: ...and we live by it. We get fair market value, but that doesn't mean to say we carry on exporting our natural gas forever. That's foolish. Even your own Energy Commission, the commission that you appointed yourself, agrees with us on that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Your Attorney-General agreed with us when he sat in opposition. Don't tell us that we're flip-flopping. It's your Attorney-General and you. You're going against your own Energy Commission.

We said it independently, but they agree with us. In the long term, we don't export our natural gas. It's foolish. We don't have enough.

Sure, we've got to turn the taps off. It's just a question of when it can be done consistent with the contracts we signed, that's all. Of course, if some vast new supplies of natural gas were to be discovered.... They never will be under your government; the drilling rigs have packed up and left. As a result of your ineptitude, we've lost a winter of drilling in British Columbia, which just shrinks our serves that much more. Isn't that right, Mr. Attorney-General? How much drilling has gone on in British Columbia this year?

[ Page 893 ]

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Half the rigs have gone, and it's your bungling that sent them away. You're a disaster for northern British Columbia, and you're a disaster for future British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: You don't understand the issues and you're not prepared to fight for our rights, When you're confronted here in the House, you bring out old copies of Hansard and twist the words around and give a beautiful speech. But, Mr. Premier, you don't have the backbone to fight for British Columbia, and you don't deserve to be in that office.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: To suggest that I don't have the backbone and that I shouldn't be in that office doesn't wash away the record. Let me read some of that Member's own words to this House. I'll read them calmly without his emotion so that he will digest them and recognize how much he has changed his position.

On October 23, 1973, this is what that Member said, right here in black and white:

There is no relation at all to the cost of exploration or a fair return on the investment, public and private, that has been made. It reflects only one thing: greed. I don't think greed is any help if it comes from a government or from private enterprise because greed works against the interests of the ordinary citizen. 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. It is an inaccurate representation of the situation we are in today.

Eighteen months ago, when I asked for a modest increase to allow us to get a $100 million return, he said that it was a matter of greed. Now what is his position? He's saying: "When it comes to greed, follow us Liberals. We can be the worst greedy hogs in the whole world."

What a position to take! Eighteen months ago, saying: "You're squeezing too much money out." Then saying two weeks before I go down to the conference: "You're not being greedy enough." Do you know what has happened to him? Logic hasn't caught up but political vibes have. Political vibes. They know that the people of this province are finally....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhh! Shhh! Political vibes are catching up. They know the people of this province are beginning to understand what's involved in the export of natural gas. They know that the people of this province are beginning to understand how much money is involved with the sale of natural gas. They know that the people of British Columbia have already had a demonstration of a major increase to general revenue for the higher increases in natural gas. So they have flipped their position to outdo the doers. They have gone from the position of crying havoc and attacking us for being greedy to saying: "You're not greedy enough."

Now how do you do that? How do you sleep at night and do that? Is it purely politically motivated? Is there no continuation of logic with you fellows?

Then last night I had to repeat it again — it's in Hansard — and I'm going to have to take it to Ottawa: the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggesting that I should consider taking in my arsenal the threat that we turn down the tap. Those were his words. On the record we have his seatmate saying the same day, October 23, 1973:

To say "turn down the taps" this afternoon and "turn it up" tomorrow; turn it down when we're short and turn it up when we think we can get a high price, isn't good enough for private corporation, a private-enterprise government or even a socialist government. It's not worthy of any individual.

Did you read, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, what your colleague said about that? Or has he changed his mind too? Neither of you have answered this question. After playing around with the edges of threats, after talking all the tough talk we're still a province in Confederation. What is your position? Would you turn off the tap if you couldn't get your way? Yes or no? Yes or no? Would you turn off the tap if you couldn't get your way?

Mr. McGeer: Sit down and we'll answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes or no? It just takes a nod of the head. Yes or no?

Mr. McGeer: Sit down and we'll give you an answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You sit down and obey the rules.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes or no? Nod your head. In the case of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, he stuck it out so far, if he nods it, it might fall off. That was the most irresponsible suggestion ever made in this House, and you regret it. We know you regret it. But we're going to have to tell Ottawa what kind of position is represented by almost 20 per

[ Page 894 ]

cent of the vote in this province. If we don't get a better price, that group will pour gasoline on the flames of separatism in British Columbia because of their position —  that irresponsible position. That's what it is. They would defy our law outside of Confederation, that's what they'd do. They've joined the Quebec Liberals now.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Pretty soon they'll bring in their own language bill. Pretty soon they'll bring in their own language bill and, judging from the record in 18 months, it'll be on doublespeak.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The language bill on doublespeak sponsored by the Liberals in British Columbia — that's what we've seen Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier return to the vote, please?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am, Mr. Chairman. I can only presuppose a language bill on doublespeak from the Liberals to match what their colleagues have done in Quebec.

I say again that a contract is a contract. It was stupid and foolish of Social Credit to sign a 15-year contract. I've said publicly many times that we would never again sign a long-term contract like that. But we're going to honour it. You even said that 18 months ago that that's what has to be done. Are you changing your position on that? Inconsistent, irresponsible, and I want no part of it. But I'm going to have to tell the Liberals in Ottawa how you've been behaving, as much as it grieves me.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot this morning about reasonable negotiations with Ottawa from the Premier. Reasonable negotiations. Yet a negotiation over which he has some control, which is called reasonable negotiation with the municipalities, isn't taking place.

He's great on province-wide radio broadcasts before he goes down to negotiate, on saying everything in advance, on taking his hard position in advance. No room for conciliation, no room for discussion. He talks about reasonableness when it applies to them, but here we have the municipal governments in this province that are starved for revenue, that are looking for a more reasonable source of revenue — a part of the growth taxation of this province — and that can no longer afford to finance off the property tax. The people who live in those municipalities want service. They don't care about the silly arguments between governments. They're not concerned with the performances of the Premier as to how he's going to be reasonable with Ottawa when he's not reasonable with them.

Today he talks about some iffy revenue last year before he went down. Before he went down, he talked about $60 million for the municipalities — $60 million of iffy revenue, because it was going to be "if we win a lottery, if we win a sweepstake, if we get a windfall profit this year, you'll get part of it." But this says nothing about the continuing problem of financing next year or next year or next year. We know that the type of financial aid he offers as pie-in-the-sky is just that.

The very arguments, the very discussions he's used in the Legislature this morning about what the B.C. Energy Commission said in Ottawa.... What do they say? They recommend that export contracts be phased out. Even if they got this iffy money this year, with the — position of phasing out export contracts, what about next year and the year after and the year after?

The municipalities of this province want to deal with a government that recognizes their financial problems, recognizes them in more than a public relations way, and is willing to allocate to them a share of growth revenues that will continue, growth revenues such as a share of the income tax or a share of the sales tax or a share of those resource taxes that have an opportunity of continuing, so they may participate in the growth of the province and in the growth of revenue.

Right now the Provincial government just loves inflation. It certainly gives big dollars for the Minister of Finance to play with. It gives him big dollars to play big spender with the people's money. Yet the municipal governments, who have suffered the most during the worst period of inflation we've ever had since this government came to office, the worst inflation British Columbia has ever seen.... The property tax can no longer support increase after increase after increase. Property taxes are going up and the people of this province are questioning the type of negotiation that this Premier and Minister of Finance conducts with their local governments. All he seems interested in is talking about whether the federal government is reasonable, talking about some iffy money he may get if he wins a lottery, if the government gets so much money in export gas, giving a share of a revenue source which the B.C. Energy Commission says we're going to phase out, giving a share of an income source that the government and the B.C. Energy Commission say we're going to phase out.

Now that's not offering the municipalities anything. That is not guaranteeing a continuing financial relationship between governments. That's not the responsibility of a provincial government, a

[ Page 895 ]

Finance Minister, in meeting and discussing and solving what will be a continuing problem. Instead, we get the same grandstand approach, ad hoc seat-of-the-pants solutions that are developed out of the blue.

He wasn't here to deal with the gas problem when he was in Hawaii, in China, and when other governments were dealing with it. Suddenly, in January, he discovered that exploration wasn't going on in the north. It's hard to realize that we need the cold weather there when you're lying in the sun in Hawaii. It's hard to be responsive to the needs of the northern communities and the gas exploration that can only take place during the winter.

The municipalities have suddenly announced to him they are going to have to put up big tax increases this year. In a panic he tries to find some way to believe in the principle of revenue-sharing which he pooh-poohed in the Legislature last November when we offered this as a solution, rather than continuing to deal with the property tax as the only means of financial involvement and financial financing that the problems of the municipalities have. All of a sudden he's aware of the problems of the municipalities. tie's aware that he's got a problem of gas exploration in the north and he tries to put the two together. Does he present it in a reasonable brief? Does he present it in the nice, reasonable manner he talks about here? No, he goes on a hotline show, a British Columbia radio-wide network; and this is his reasonable negotiation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That bothers you, doesn't it?

Mr. Bennett: He goes across the province and announces his great new plan to try and take the political heat off. Well, that was a political move, and this Premier has said that he doesn't like being political. He doesn't like being political. You are being political to the detriment of the municipalities of this province. And don't believe that those same taxpayers who are faced with the problems of meeting the high cost of municipal taxation and having trouble receiving services.... They're the same taxpayers who you are taking the $3.2 billion from. Don't think that they don't realize that part of their local problem is your unappreciativeness of meeting a continuing solution to the solving of the financial problems of the municipalities. Not at all. Not at all.

Instead, we have had five days of comedy routines — and they were good. But you can get better in Las Vegas and it doesn't cost the people of the province $50,000 a year. It would just cost them the price of a plane ticket.

This province and this Premier will use the gas position to support his position one way. But the municipalities have been saying that this isn't a promise of a specific revenue. Here in the paper we find the B.C. Energy Commission says that it isn't even a continuing revenue if it happens that the gas export is phased out. Last fall he talked about $60 million. Well, the municipalities don't see anything in your budget about $60 million. They don't see that figure, Hon. Mr. Barrett: But they see a lot more than they ever got under the Socreds.

Mr. Bennett: They don't see that figure. Here we've had an economy that's doubled the provincial budget in a very short time — given you big dollars. That wasn't created by this government; that was created by an economy that was a boom in Canada, North America and the world. That economy is threatened now. But those big dollars you didn't invent, Mr. Minister of Health. You didn't invent those dollars. That wasn't to your credit. It's easy to collect. To spend wisely, to spend fairly, to make adequate and fair distribution of those dollars for all levels of government — that's the responsibility.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Yes, put the squeeze on them like your old man did.

Mr. Bennett: Right now there's a very good reason why the municipalities are upset, and it's come home this morning more clearly than ever that what was offered was an iffy share of an iffy revenue, a revenue source that's going to be phased out. That's why the municipalities are concerned in this province.

You know, in this session of the Legislature we've been sitting for many weeks now. The idea of the Legislature is to present legislation, yet as of today how many bills have come in for consideration by the legislators? Where is the legislative programme to indicate to the public what this session is all about.

We have a budget that gives no clear indication because it deals with iffy revenues. The municipalities aren't sure and now the public isn't even sure they've got a legislative programme because to date we've only got a couple of bills and a couple of borrowing bills before the Legislature to solve the further borrowings of this government. The public is concerned about the borrowing because it's concerned about the method of borrowing and why the government is borrowing. The public is concerned about the financial ability of this government to spend and collect their money wisely.

In the Legislature just the other day we questioned the government's intention of purchasing shares in Can-Cel. Do we get an answer from the Minister of Finance? Did he confirm that he bought the shares? No, he didn't confirm it to the Legislature. Did he tell us why or who is buying the shares — whether it was

[ Page 896 ]

the government or the B.C. Cellulose Corp.? No, he doesn't share the information with the people's elected representatives. Then he went off on some long-winded routine about whether there were charges or something improper that could be settled in the courts, and whether we were making that specific sort of charge.

We talked about whether the Lands and Forests Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams) had been indiscreet in creating the impression that the government was to be selling shares when, indeed, it was buying them. The very same day the Attorney-General brought in a very tough bill about insider trading. The Attorney-General is very concerned about insider trading.

The Attorney-General must further appreciate the responsibility of government not to mislead the people. The government has an additional responsibility not to mislead the people when they are the major shareholders in a corporation and can affect its profitability in the future, and through the weight of Ministerial statements can create an impression in the public that may affect the price of those shares. I know the Attorney-General realizes this, Mr. Chairman, and he realizes the discretionary nature that must surround such statements, particularly when a government is embarked on a course opposite to that which was alluded to.

Even if they were misquoted in the newspapers it's incumbent upon responsible Ministers in this position to clarify for the public exactly what the government situation is so that no false impression that may affect the price of the shares be created, so not even one person is misled by the announced government intentions that have been alluded to and are repeated in journal after journal after being reported in a responsible newspaper in the Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Name names.

Mr. Bennett: The Vancouver Province among others.

During this debate we've heard a lot about the financial plight of the municipalities and why they are concerned. Many different municipal governments have written and phoned to express their concern to our office and to myself. The very concerns they've expressed have been highlighted here today with the further announcement by the presentation of the Energy Commission that the very iffy tax share that's offered to them will be phased out in the future and that, indeed, they have nothing specific to go on. What they've been asking for is the type of reasonable responsible negotiation on their financial matters with this provincial government that the Premier talks about when he goes to Ottawa. But they haven't had such a negotiation; they haven't had such a discussion. They have no assurance that such discussion will take place. Instead they learn, as everyone else does, on a public relations-type radio broadcast across the province, that there may be some revenue, there may be $60 million. When you look for it in this budget, it is not there. That's why the people of the province are concerned.

The high property taxes and the increases are a direct result of this government, and the Minister of Finance is directly responsible. When the people get their tax bills this year, they'll know with whom the responsibility lies.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Chairman, I notice the Premier has had some difficulty with the tough positions that have been raised by the opposition. But they have been raised so many times that it is time we started looking at something new, something else that is important in this province.

I notice that we all get Beale's Letter and we all read it, I hope. But just in case you missed, there was something very interesting in one of them here a month or so ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's not a supporter of ours.

Mr. Liden: Well, I'm not sure. You never can tell. Things are changing. He says that when he was in the lobby of the Grand Hotel in Stockholm....

Mr. Bennett: How about the town of Stewart?

Mr. Liden: He says:

"It seemed like a cold and uninviting winter afternoon in February, but it doesn't much matter because the man I'm seated with around a vast, circular marble table commands my absolute attention. He is a distinguished head of one of Sweden's big pulp and paper firms, and he is detailing for me, in simple layman's language, exactly what the fluctuating U.S. dollar means to Sweden's export sales. Then this top, rather austere industrialist, pauses a second and says, 'All the time, of course, we must constantly keep in mind what is best for Sweden.'"

"What is best for Sweden" — and that's a phrase he said he heard many times while he was travelling around Scandinavia.

But what kind of phrases and what does he say about the sort of thing that takes place here? He says:

"I don't think I've ever heard a top businessman in Vancouver, New York or Toronto say that we must consider what's in the best interests of Canada or of America. It's always a question of what's in the best interests of the company."

[ Page 897 ]

I think we have got to look at that. I think the Premier has got to look at the kind of things we might be doing in the future to have these industrialists take some interest in what is happening to the country, not just what's in the interests of the companies.

John F. Kennedy said something about that some years ago when he said: "Think not of what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country." I think that applies far more to the corporations and to the large industrialists than it does to some of the little people that are referred to often. I hope that the Premier is planning in the future some way of getting these corporations to become better citizens and work in the best interests of the people.

I also have another question that comes out of something that J.V. Clyne raised. One of my constituents has written a letter and asked about this whole business of a transferable ballot, the matter that J.V. Clyne raised here a month or so ago.

What my constituent says is that Clyne is trying to devise a system that will make winners out of losers in this transferable ballot thing. I think it is very important; I think you should all be aware of what he is saying. I think J.V. Clyne is on to something. His proposed vote-tallying system in the Sun on January 25 would result in the election of losers rather than winners, and this is truly revolutionary. I believe that the concept underlying this scheme has a wider application than perhaps he's even realized.

Take, for instance, the Stanley Cup. Last year I was shocked and dismayed when it was won by the Philadelphia Flyers. In the first place, their style of play is foreign to our way of life. They do not play the game at all as it was taught in Point Grey or in Cadboro Bay.

Secondly and more importantly, they did not receive the majority of the points in their division. The sum total of the teams that finished below them was much larger.

What I would really like to see is the Stanley Cup victory for the Vancouver Canucks. Last year this same person proposed a point-tallying system that would have met that objective. He suggested that teams be given five points for each victory over the team higher than themselves in the standings and only one point for a victory over teams lower than themselves. Last year that system, the Philadelphia menace would have been checked and the Canucks would have been elevated to their rightful position. That's the kind of thing that Clyne proposes to do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How to win a ball game.

Mr. Liden: This year though, those kinds of rules create a real quandary for the Canucks, because this year the Canucks are on top of the division. So this scheme actually would thwart rather than aid the desire to have the Canucks become the Stanley Cup winners.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): How about the Socreds?

Mr. Liden: Despite the Canucks' success, I am still worried that Philadelphia might again win the cup. We therefore propose a new system for this year. We would like to propose a new system for this year. We would like to propose that if five points were given to a team for each of the serious injuries that it inflicts on another team, and the number of penalty minutes were subtracted from the goals scored, then we might once again get the Canucks to the surface.

So he ends up by saying: "I feel, like Mr. Clyne, that there are times when rationality and democracy must give way to meet the more important ends." That is the kind of thing Clyne was trying to do. I wonder if the Premier has given much consideration to that new system of tallying up the votes so that you might make winners out of losers.

Mr. McGeer: Has he figured out a way the Liberals can get provincial election?

Mr. Liden: The Liberals tried. It seems to me they tried in 1952. They tried with that system and it didn't work.

There is Howard Johnston who is the MP for Okanagan-Kootenay. He is a Conservative but I believe he was a Socred at one time. He speaks of Clyne's proposal as a whiff of something dead.

For those people who will recall, the transferable ballot was proposed in 1952 when that shaky coalition of the Liberals and the Conservatives wanted to try and keep the CCF out of office. Somehow or other, they thought that they would all vote second choice for their friends, their own part of the coalition. Then after the election they might put the coalition back together. But the people changed that. They didn't go that route.

Now we have the whole thing proposed again. I think we should take note of what Mr. Johnston says in his last paragraph:

"A bemused electorate has watched both the Majority Movement and the Unity Party surface and sink. It's too late for the third unhappy hybrid to climb to the platform of electoral reform with any hope of paddling it to victory."

I hope when the Premier is considering all these proposals for electoral reform and that he bears in mind some of the things said by these people.

I've another letter that I received from one of my constituents. I notice that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is also on

[ Page 898 ]

this Member's mailing list. He deals with some of the things that really bother him. This person is 92 years old, lives in White Rock, and his name is Joe Early. He does a fair amount of writing. He says:

"Saturday's Sun acts like it is the government of B.C. and the NDP is outlawed. I used to write for the Sun. A few times they did my write-ups in the press, but they returned some and did not answer some others so I quit writing. It is no use. Now I see the reason. I was boosting Mr. Dave Barrett. The Vancouver Sun must be against him."

So his letters were returned.

"The Vancouver Sun had some excuses for not publishing, but the excuses were a joke. When the press of B.C. is determined to go against the citizens of B.C. who voted the NDP into office, the NDP has some checking up to do on the press of B.C.

"Right now it is important to the citizens of B.C. who are not millionaires, those who are not lawyers, who are plain citizens, to understand the meaning of justice. It is not to be made a mockery of by the Vancouver press, as they are doing in their publications. It is a ripoff that needs checking.

"The NDP must find means and ways in having the truth published — the reason for the NDP's progressive laws for the citizens of B.C. and Canada, progressive things the citizens should know.

"The facts are: the opposition is not interested in the welfare of the people of B.C., but for themselves. They act dumb in parliamentary debate, but on the outside in a huddle, the opposition knows all the answers. They don't know while they are in the House. While the NDP Members, in the interests of justice of all citizens' welfare, none will be isolated. It is good government striving for a standard of living for all people. Let no man pull asunder."

That is signed by Joe Early, a citizen who is 92 years old, a person who has been following a lot of things that are happening in British Columbia. I hope that the Premier also takes his views into consideration.

Mr. L.A. Williams: If I got it correctly, the Hon. Member for Delta was comparing the NDP politically with the Flyers in hockey. I think that was the analogy he used. I think it is very appropriate because I remember being told last year during the Stanley Cup play-offs that the Philadelphia Flyers were a team consisting of a centre man and 13 thugs. I think that it is pretty appropriate for the NDP. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: No hope for them.

Mr. L.A. Williams: We've enjoyed a game this morning, one of the Premier's performances. I am happy to take my place in the debate and provide, I hope, some answers to some of the concerns he has raised.

He talked about people flip-flopping and made a great amount this morning about how he was going to live up to contracts and so on. But I remember vaguely that someone connected with the Government of British Columbia made some comments that, as far as he was concerned, the people in Washington state and Oregon could sit in the dark and freeze. I don't know who it could have been who said a thing like that.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I think it was a Minister of the Crown.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Name names.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Hon. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Quoted in the press.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Quoted in the press when there were discussions about the availability of gas supplies to the United States. As far as he was concerned, the people in the northwest states could sit in the dark and freeze.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that to the press.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I can never understand how it is that the press that the Premier.... Maybe that's why he dislikes the press so much: because they're so inaccurate in quoting the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where is this article quoting me as saying that?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm getting it. It will be available to me as soon as they find it from the library. I'll be happy to send the Premier a copy.

[ Page 899 ]

The Premier made a lot, as well, out of statements made in this House by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and statements I made last night. But he fails to put these statements in the perspective of events which have occurred since they were made.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Twenty-four hours.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, I'm talking about the statements in October, 1973. The Premier does not seem to recognize or will not admit the reality of what has occurred since those debates in October, 1973.

What we had was an attempt on the part of the Government of the Province of British Columbia to pull an end run on the petroleum industry and on the national government through their incorporation of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. and its involvement in the acquisition and distribution of natural gas. The Premier thought he had it made.

But the trouble is that the national government is pretty quick on its feet too. With their ability, they thwarted that end run in a manner which was telegraphed in May, 1974. After a general election in Canada, when the Liberal Party was returned as the Government of Canada, it became a reality.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why did Macdonald take a different position?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Because the Minister of Finance in Ottawa (Hon. Mr. Turner) happens to control the budgetary policies of that government, which would appear to be somewhat different than is the case in the Province of British Columbia.

The Premier won't recognize the change that has taken place since October, 1973 — a change in which he himself has been involved as a major contributor. When we talk about what the Government of British Columbia must do today in its negotiations with Ottawa, we're talking about a situation which was to a large extent manufactured by the Premier of British Columbia in his attempts to use his philosophical approach against the oil companies and the national government.

It has resulted in actions taken by the national government which have affected British Columbia's position in Confederation, a position in Confederation that the Premier now says is so terribly important to him, after he has given most of it away, after he has acknowledged the right of the national government to obtain taxes from the provincial governments through its Crown corporations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the taps?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, yeah!

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment. I told the Premier I would indicate to him what my position was.

The Premier is going to go down in a couple of weeks and again engage in discussions with the national government, apparently without recognizing what he has done to this province's position in Confederation and, indeed, to the position of all the other provinces in Confederation. We had a debate last spring, a year ago, about the natural resource situation, particularly petroleum and natural gas, and the position which was being taken by the Province of Alberta at that time. In that debate, the Premier agreed with me that it was wrong for provinces individually to go and make their deals with the national government. It was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Alberta did it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Yes, Alberta did it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Saskatchewan did it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right, and you said it was wrong. Now you're in a position, you see, as a result of steps that they have taken, where you have to go and make your own private deal. But because of the way in which you've done it, you find yourself changing Confederation without changing the constitution of this nation. Through dollars, through deals, through tax deals....

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Of course they're doing it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member for West Vancouver....

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's the whole point, and I'm glad the Premier has suddenly recognized the point that we ...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. L.A. Williams:...are trying to make from this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member proceeds I would ask.... The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor, and I would ask the Hon. Premier to wait until he is finished before he responds. Thank you.

[ Page 900 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Of course the national government is involved in it. They are responding to your actions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Of course.

Mr. L.A. Williams: So what we've got is play and interplay on tax matters, which is destroying Confederation. It's the first step.

The Premier says that we're pouring gasoline on the fires of separatism. Nonsense! Nonsense! The Premier's the only one who ever raises the matter of separatism in these debates. My position is quite clear. Under the British North America Act the Province of British Columbia has control of its natural resources and the revenues from those resources. That's a position which this' government must maintain consistently, and which this particular government has not.

Once we have realized our revenues from our resources, then we sit down and discuss with the national government the way in which there might be some equalization or sharing of wealth throughout this Confederation. What the Premier has done is to accept the proposition from the national government which gives them the control of those revenue resources. And the central government, as the Premier well knows, is controlled by the central provinces, and, again, those western provinces lack for consideration. That's the issue.

I'm not talking about the breakup of Confederation. We just want Confederation to be a government of equals between the provinces and the national government, each with their separate responsibilities but equal together so far as Canada is concerned. The Premier with his philosophy is, unwittingly I suspect, seeing the end of such a system.

Would I turn off the taps? I've done some investigation, and I assume the consultants available to the Premier have also advised him that, no matter what happens, the best advice the government can get from its Energy Commission is that before the end of the existing gas contracts British Columbia will be in a deficit situation, so far as natural gas is concerned, to meet our own requirements and to meet the requirements for export contracts. He's also been advised by his Energy Commission that it would be difficult to terminate the export of gas at the end of the existing contracts, in 1989. To cut it off dead would be difficult, if not impossible.

We have the Energy Commission announcing yesterday that the export of gas should diminish. I support that position by 1989, and if it is going to be difficult if not impossible at that time to terminate those contracts immediately, then it is appropriate now, regardless of any other arguments that may be going on, to begin to diminish the flow of gas outside of this province. That's a matter that should be under negotiation, as well as the subject of price. What is happening, if we don't sit down and talk to our customers....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the taps?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm dealing with the subject now.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: It's most amusing, Mr. Chairman. When the Premier has a question he wants answered, he's impatient beyond belief in getting it answered. But we've been here for five days in this House asking questions of the Premier, and we haven't got any answers from him.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense!

Mr. L.A. Williams: Now if I may continue, Mr. Chairman, without interruptions from the Premier....

Mr. Chairman, — I can understand why the Premier has difficulty convincing us that he can't get reason and logic to work in Ottawa, because we never hear him use it in this House. If he gets in a tough position, or any of his Members, they see fit to use personal attacks, because that's the kind of politics this Premier understands.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You never do that. Oh, no. You're so sweet.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Since it will be difficult, if not impossible, to terminate our export contracts in 1989, we should be embarking on discussions now with our American neighbours, who are our customers, and make them recognize that they must seek alternative forms of energy and that we, for their best interests and ours over the period longer than 1989, must begin to reduce the flow of gas south of the border.

As the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

[ Page 901 ]

(Mr. McGeer) has said, if we suddenly find a vast pool of gas available in British Columbia, then we can reconsider those negotiations. But on the best advice the Premier can get from his B.C. Energy Commission, we are not in that position today. We are living in a fool's paradise and we are leaving our customers to live in a fool's paradise to believe that the present situation can continue.

The present situation itself is not that good. We can't meet our full commitments under those contracts. Whenever there is a shortfall, for whatever reason — if a field has to be shut down for maintenance work or if there are problems with the weather, or anything of that kind — then the flow of gas south of the line diminishes. Because of that situation recent negotiations have gone on with the Province of Alberta for the supply of additional volumes of gas south of the line from that province. Those should be discussed with our customers if they are our great friends — as the Premier suggested a few moments ago — and not to take the kind of action which he has taken, which results in senators of the United States of American suggesting that they should send Henry Kissinger to talk to the Premier of British Columbia to see if we can't solve that problem. Surely we should approach this matter on the basis of reason and logic, which is so important to the Premier in the conduct of his responsibilities.

Now would I turn off the taps? Mr. Chairman, when the Premier has been down to Ottawa in recent times (and he's come back a loser) and when he goes down on this next trip in April (and we trust that he won't come back a loser) he has described to us the way in which negotiations are carried on. I said yesterday that he must take his full arsenal. I say, in case I didn't make myself clear yesterday, that if I were in that position and going to Ottawa, I would take the position with the national government that if they persisted in interfering with the natural resource revenues which are properly those of the Province of British Columbia under the BNA Act, I would take the alternative available to me of reducing the flow of natural gas to the Americans. That is one thing that disturbs Ottawa, and it has to disturb British Columbia as well. They recognize that our economic relationship with the United States of America is of vital importance to Canada, and I recognize it.

But when you have been left by the Premier in a position where you are negotiating from weakness, you have to use all weapons at your command. Now the Premier may disagree with that, but it is my belief that at this current stage in the history of Confederation this government has to stand up or it is going to become weaker and weaker in relation to the central government of this country. All provinces are going to be affected, not only British Columbia. What happens in April, so far as British Columbia is concerned, is going to affect the Province of Alberta and the Province of Saskatchewan with respect to all of their petroleum resources. What is of greater concern is that what happens in April with regard to our petroleum resources may one day come back to haunt us with respect to other natural resource revenue.

May I remind you that a former national leader of the NDP, the Hon, Tommy Douglas, asked a question of the Minister of Finance regarding the non-allowance of royalties as expenses for income tax purposes of companies — whether the national government would take the same position with regard to stumpage and royalties in the forest industry. The response he received from the national Minister of Finance was that it wouldn't occur unless stumpage and royalties assumed the guise of some other kind of tax.

So he didn't get an absolute no and he didn't get an absolute yes, but he got a warning. He got the same kind of answer as the Premier got, when he went back earlier this year, from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the national government (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) about the export tax. He got a "not necessarily" answer — not an absolute no and not an absolute yes, but "not necessarily."

This is the situation that faces this province and faces the Premier. He is not getting absolutes from the national government. They are always retaining their options. But when he comes back from Ottawa, we don't have any options. It is all gone when he comes back. The deal is made. We continue to operate from a weaker and weaker position. That is no way to run a province. That is no way to run Confederation.

The Premier has indicated that he is going to tell the Liberals in Ottawa when he goes down there what has been said by the provincial Members. Mr. Chairman, I would just like the Hon. Premier to know that he is wasting his time. He is wasting his time. I happen to know that the Members of the Liberal Party in Ottawa are already getting copies of Hansard from British Columbia to find out what it is we are saying here.

I make this final point: if they don't like it, they know what they can do. It happens that I belong to a party which is broad enough in its scope to accept some difference in viewpoint. I thought that the Hon. Premier belonged to the same kind of a party. I thought that he took positions much different from those taken by the former leader of his national party on some very important issues.

Mr. McGeer: And he didn't resign from the party?

Mr. L.A. Williams: He didn't resign from the party at all.

[ Page 902 ]

Mr. McGeer: Gracious!

Mr. L.A. Williams: He and David Lewis had some startling differences of opinion. He and the officers of the NDP in British Columbia have had some startling differences of opinion. But he still belongs to the party. I am not sure whether the president and the executive officers who disagreed with the Premier are still president and executive officers. I think there may have been some shift of position, but at least he is still in the same party.

I am sure that the Premier would take exactly the same position on this that I do. If his party ever said to him, "We can't stand you and we want you to go," I'll bet you that the Premier would not change his position, his principles, and bow down to his party. He would say: "Fine, if you want me to step aside, I will do so."

I make exactly the same position. I happen to feel strongly about what I say. If my party wants to say to me, "We can't have you because you disagree with the national policy," all they've go to do is get on the phone.

Hon. Mr. King: There's a phone call in your office, Allan.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, the bells are ringing. I understand that I disagree with the Premier and he with me on these matters. I trust that everyone in this House dealing with this subject — the position of British Columbia in Confederation and its rights to its own affairs — will deal with it as British Columbians and the Premier will support it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: First of all, Mr. Member, there are just a couple of inconsistencies in your position, although I welcome your final analysis that British Columbia should not be dealt with badly by Ottawa.

On the question of speaking out on exports: shortly after we had the first increase after we established the petroleum corporation, in February of 1974, I went to Seattle and spoke on this issue. Since that time I have met with Mr. MacMillian of the Northwest Gas Co., also with the people at the petroleum corporation who run that board for us, and informed them of the government's policy. It was public information.

In February of 1974, I spoke in Seattle and said two things. The first was that there would be no new contracts on the export of natural gas as long as we were the government of British Columbia. That was No. 1. That was on the record over a year ago, so you can't come in here and say that we haven't said this clearly. I recall saying it and being attacked by some Members. I'll have to go back and find out which ones they were who attacked me for saying it. The other thing I said was that I knew they regretted that the price had gone up, but the price must go up again. I told them in Seattle. It is a matter of record since February of 1974. That has been my position.

It is unfortunate for your own research, perhaps, to come into this House and suggest that I had not made that position clear to our American customers. As I recall your words, you said that I had not given an indication to the Americans that there would be no more contracts. Indeed I have — over a year ago.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you did. You'll have to get the Blues, and it indicates certainly that you said I had to have that position clear. I hadn't made it clear; we haven't got answers. You go back over your own words. Read them again.

Now I appreciate the embarrassment that your remarks brought you last night. But I find it a tortuous explanation. Last night you weren't sure whether or not you'd say, yes, you would go that last step and turn off the tap. But you did say this afternoon that an unnamed cabinet Minister — and you alluded that it was me — said "let the Americans freeze in the dark." That's what you said just a few minutes ago. I didn't say that, and I don't see a clipping or anything else that you're alluding to. If you're referring to some other cabinet Minister, let me know.

After having made that allegation against me, what did you go on to say? And being regretful that perhaps that allegation was true from your point of view, then you went on to say that you would turn off the gas, which means, in effect, let them freeze. If you can't get your way in Ottawa, you said, if you couldn't get your way in Ottawa — let's follow your logic — that yes, regretfully, you would turn off the gas. Ergo, who's going to freeze?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The very thing that you came in and suggested a cabinet Minister here had said, you said with emphasis today. You said that if you couldn't get your way in Ottawa you would turn off the tap, which means that the end result of that policy, Mr. Member — is it not true? — would mean, "let the Americans freeze." Is that not correct? Oh. When you say it, it doesn't come out that way. When someone else says turn off the gas, it comes out that way. Now that is funny logic. You are prepared to say in this House that if you don't get your way in Ottawa, you'll turn off the gas. You turn off the gas overnight and they're going to freeze.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I didn't say that.

[ Page 903 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, when do you turn it off? At the end of the contract? Oh, I heard them very clearly. Oh, you're going to phase it out now — is that it?

An Hon. Member: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How much you going to phase?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, what a fudgy Liberal position. What a hollow threat. "I'm going to turn it off — but not really. I'm just going to slow it down — but not really."

Mr. Gibson: Ask Ottawa for the exact details.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, if you're going to carry a loaded gun, use it. But don't play games with this House or anyone else. Your logic was shallow because you're not prepared to say absolutely that if you don't get your way, you'll turn the gas off. You sit here and you leave the impression that that's what you'd do. When you're nailed with it, you say: "Well, not right away. A little bit at a time." Who are you trying to kid? Yes or no? Is that an absolute? Of course it isn't; it's just a game. You would come back and turn it down a little bit.

Now I'm telling you very clearly....

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Politics, politics, politics, politics, politics.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Politics, politics. Oh, he's not involved in politics. Oh, no.

Mr. Gardom: It's the same speech you gave an hour ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, Mr. Member, he's been caught on a statement he made yesterday. He's tried to skate off it, and the more he tries to skate off it, the more he gets caught in it. Well, don't try and defend him.

Mr. Gardom: It's the same speech you made an hour ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't try and defend him.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: All the names and everything else. We're talking about a position, and the position was that, when he finally came down to it, he'd turn the gas off. To say when, he said gradually — not right away. Freeze to death slowly.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now what about the question of the federal government) You have never said once why the federal government would take this position against British Columbia. Why? What is Ottawa's logic against Canadians getting the best price for their natural gas? What is their reason?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't know either, Mr. Member. Can you explain to me why a Canadian federal government would say that we are forced to sell our gas to the United States for a lot less than what it's worth? Why?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're puzzled by that too? Okay. All British Columbians, regardless of party, are puzzled by that question. I have not heard a rational explanation for anyone for Ottawa's position as to why they insist British Columbia must sell its gas cheaper to the Americans that what it's worth. Now what is the reason for that' Without getting- a stated reason, we are left to speculate. When you're left to speculate, you come up with all kinds of horrible ideas.

One of the horrible ideas touched upon briefly by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was — and stated clearly by the Member last night — that they weren't really after Lougheed. Those were your words. They weren't really after Lougheed they were after the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. And you agree with that.

Then you must come to the next step. Why are they after the petroleum corporation? The next step is because it's publicly owned.

So what you come to, Mr. Member, through a very simple method of elimination, is the argument that if you deal with the private companies, the federal government will favour you, but if you go your own route — through the Crown corporations — they will either scare you, as suggested by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, or go after you, as suggested by you last night. You said they weren't after Lougheed. He said they were trying to scare us with the question of tax on the corporation. You said they were after the petroleum corporation. Is the petroleum corporation anti Canadian? Is the petroleum corporation taking money out of this country? No, but the multinational corporations are taking money out of this country. The multinational corporations have tax benefits. But that's not who the Liberal Member said that the Liberal government

[ Page 904 ]

was after — he said the federal Liberals were after the publicly owned Crown corporations.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, that's his conclusion; those are his words. He is accusing them — the federal government — of being more concerned about ensuring profit for private companies than giving a fair return to the Canadian people. I'll add the proof to that. What were the words of Mr. John Turner after the budget came down? After the deal we had arranged with Mr. Macdonald was already in effect, Mr. Turner said to the press and to my Minister that there is a way to solve this problem. What were his words? "Pay the companies more money." That's what he said.

Mr. Chairman, it all falls into place. "Pay the companies more money for their gas" that's what he said, Mr. Member — "and the problem will disappear." Here we have the incredible sequence of events being confirmed now by the words of the members of the Liberal Party, not us NDPers. You're the ones who tell us, through your own words, that they tried to scare us. You're the ones who told us through your own words last night that they weren't after Lougheed, they were after our petroleum corporation, which leads one to believe that the multinationals are okay — it 's the publicly owned corporation they're against. Then tie that in with John Turner's own statement: "Pay the companies more money." Isn't that an incredible story? The federal government tells a provincial government that the fight will be over between Ottawa and British Columbia on this issue not if you give money to the municipalities, not if you lower taxes for British Columbia, not if we take more money into general revenue, but — pay the oil companies more money and the fight will be over.

An Hon. Member: A complete distortion.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A distortion, Mr. Member? Did he not say that? I know what he said — I talked with him. My own Minister heard it from his own mouth. What has happened is that we've had a clear-cut example of where the federal government priorities are in terms of their economic policy, You've divorced yourself from this. I welcome that today — I'm glad to hear it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I understand clearly your words of last night, and you don't like having them tied together. You said last night that the federal government was not after Lougheed, they were after British Columbia — that's what you said.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: All right. You said that you'd cut off the tap. When I tried to nail that down, you said "gradually." Then I asked you if you say that the federal government is against the petroleum corporation, and you come to the question: why? Why would the federal government be against the petroleum corporation but not against the oil companies in Alberta? The argument they came up with, after Mr. Turner was confronted with "pay them more money," was "because we want more revenue," the federal government said.

Okay. So we said: "All right, you want more money — we're not going to give it to the oil companies. You tax and we'll rebate the tax." Now you say that's where we made the mistake. You are wrong.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We took the Alberta position one better.

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, yes it is. What do you think the oil companies in Alberta are faced with?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you appear to think that....

Mr. McGeer: That's where you sold out.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, don't be stupid! Absolutely stupid! If we had given the oil companies more money, we would have sold out. If that's your position, you live with it. But I will not ever force money down the throats of oil companies to make them richer — that was a federal government policy. Federal policy was to give the oil companies more money, and they only pay tax on about 6 per cent in any event.

Mr. McGeer: You sold out our rights.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sold out your rights. Oh! You are so aggressive when you interrupt. You are so aggressive, but you still haven't said that you'd turn off the tap. You get close to it but then you back off and say "gradually."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Oh! You are all a little jumpy there — all a little jumpy.

[ Page 905 ]

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The next thing, Mr. Member: if your argument is so correct about British Columbia, and the rights to controlling our own resources, why do we have to go to the National Energy Board to get our price approved in the first place?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Export.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, did you hear that? Export. Who controls that?

An Hon. Member: The national government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "The national government" — he said that very softly, didn't he?

An Hon. Member: Part of the terms of Confederation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, part of the terms of Confederation. Oh, oh, oh, it hurts! They were leaving the impression that somehow we had the absolute authority to handle these resources any way we wanted, that we had no restrictions on us, or anything else. Then I said that if that's the case, why do we have to go to the NEB? And we hear a quiet voice saying: "That's national."

Oh, we really don't have the authority which for two days they've been claiming we've had, To confirm it they go even further by saying quietly: "Oh, that's the terms of Confederation. That's an international deal." Oh, you know what? — that slipped their minds.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, it didn't.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It really wasn't the matter they were considering when they said we had all the authority we needed, and within the terms of Confederation I sold out. But when I said: "Why do I have to go to the NEB?" they said: "That's export."

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, don't try and avoid the fact, Mr. Member, that for two days you've based your whole argument on a fallacy that we have absolute control of our resources, as you read the BNA Act. Then you break it down with two whispers right here in from of all of us: (1) the NEB controls exports; (2) that is within Confederation.

Now you'd think that two high-class lawyers, a university professor and a MBA from Harvard would have got to that question sooner. But I had to, as a little social worker, ask them a question: how come the NEB has to approve our price? Because it's export. Why? Because that's under federal jurisdiction under the terms of Confederation. Oh, oh, they've been caught!

They were doing okay up to that point — running right down the middle, passing the ball beautifully, getting right in for a lay-up. Then they forgot there was a lid on the hoop. (Laughter.) The NEB and Confederation. Great stuff until they really saw that they were hoisted on their own argument.

Now there are a number of options, Mr. Member. There are a number of options — the 5 per cent law and a number of other things. But I want to tell you this: I have taken the position all along...I haven't had to go back and change because, as the Member says, well, maybe circumstances change — we changed our argument in 18 months. I'll grant you that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, Ottawa changed the rules.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, Ottawa changed, They certainly did. Between September of 1974 and December of 1974 they changed the rules. We have it in writing — Mr. Macdonald's (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) own words: "In the case of the increase in price, all of the increase will wholly accrue to the Province of British Columbia." That's what Mr. Macdonald said. Now, either he doesn't talk to Mr. Turner (Minister of Finance), or they were making policies separate from each other. We went on what Mr. Macdonald told us in September, only to find that Mr. Turner changed the rules in December. If that's what you are describing as a change in rules, I agree with you. But that doesn't affect your seatmate's statement of October, 1973, saying that we were being greedy. Now he comes in here demanding more than even that amount of "greed."

Now, I don't mind if you want to dissociate from the federal Liberals. On this issue it is the wisest thing to do politically, and you need some wise political decisions, considering your situation in this province. I commend you for making a wise political decision, but don't mask it in some new wisdom. It is purely a reflection of the awareness about this issue out there in the public of British Columbia.

The basic issue that the people of this province understand, without all this argument, is: why does the federal government make the Province of British Columbia sell its gas for a lot less than it is worth in the United States? Now the man on the street understands that, An Hon. Member: They don't make us.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They don't make us? Okay. Then what am I going back for? I'll just put the price up to $2 tomorrow. Will they let me? They

[ Page 906 ]

don't make me, eh? (Laughter.) Well, you see, if they don't make me, why am I going back to Ottawa? Alex, phone them up, tell them the price is two bucks tomorrow, and save all the money on the trip to Ottawa, and hire him as a lawyer to justify it. Let's see how far we get. Put it down there, Alex...

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...phone up that it's two bucks tomorrow, and if there's a court case tell them to sue the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Go right up to two bucks. Thank you, Alex.

Oh, and if you lose the case, will you make up the difference? (Laughter.) You've had a bad day. Yes. You had a bad night; you made a mistake, and you tried to come back in on the mistake and you got hoisted on an immediate quiz-kid answer in the back row by saying: "Why does the NEB control the price?" He said: "Export." And the quiz-kid shot you down. The federal government controls export.

The next one, the university professor, went one step further. After two days of arguing on Confederation, I said: "What about the NEB?" He said: "Well, that's in Confederation." Oh, that one hurt! He should have taken the plane an hour ago.

So there you are. There you are, in rough shape. Now the people of British Columbia understand that we are forced by the federal government to sell our gas for less than what it's worth. They understand that now — there's no question of it. That's why I am convinced that when I go to Ottawa there will be an increase in the price of natural gas. When you can fog an argument all up and confuse people, you can get away with it. But when it's simply understood, as it is now after the Idaho court case, that the federal government is requiring us to sell out our gas at lower than what it's worth, people are going to ask Prime Minister Trudeau and the cabinet: "Why are you doing that to British Columbia to the detriment of all of Canada?"

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Time is right, partner. It's been rough on your little group. These follows flopped three days in a row. You tried to recover and it's a big crash on Friday morning.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fifteen times? Well, it doesn't seem to sink in.

Now the contract that exists is to supply up to 809 million cubic feet a day. There was a dispute over the wording of that contract, and our lawyers with the petroleum corporation have taken the position that it is a supply up to figure, not a mandatory figure. We're sticking by that decision.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right; that's the position we're taking. At the present time there are shortfalls on a per diem basis of 100-150 million cubic feet. We are told by the private industry producers that these are technical problems. We have told the private industrial producers to do their very best to overcome those problems. As a gesture to the United States, we have ordered B.C. Hydro not to burn natural gas in the Burrard thermal plant.

Mr. Gibson: We shouldn't be anyway.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, it shouldn't be. But we didn't make that decision; those guys did. Okay, it's better to burn oil. If costs more to burn oil but it's better to burn oil. Sure it is, and it helps the Americans a bit. But, look, I know you want to be fair. Don't blame us for the Burrard thermal plant. We have to run it; we have to run it. Okay.

Now, I will not buy the position of hollow threats. If I say something as a way of a threat or as a consequence if certain action isn't taken, I don't say it idly.

Mr. Gibson: The egg board knows that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I want to tell you this: our position is not to turn the gas off to the United States. Our position is to meet up to that 809 million figure with the best effort, as we have said to Mr. MacMillian.

But if the producers can't get more money, as claimed by Social Credit, and they discover that they are having more technical problems and can't produce the gas, then the policy that we've already delineated will continue. British Columbia will not suffer any shortfall. That position has been constant and clear. No one, to my attention yet, has brought proof that the technical problems claimed by the oil companies don't exist. I am not cynical and will not fall to the belief, up to this point, that the oil companies are deliberately not producing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. Mobil had a difficulty that they were able to clear up by wireless. That was an interesting scientific experience.

[ Page 907 ]

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, they weren't able to produce one week, Mr. Member, so we sent them a telegram and said: "If you are not able to produce, we're going to have to take some other action." The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) had something in mind — I don't know what. Yes, he did.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, no, he's been thinking about it a long time. And lo and behold, Mobil sent a wire back saying that the problem was solved. A technical problem solved by wireless. Now we weren't threatening. That is still our position. I do not believe at this stage that Ottawa will force us to continue giving away our gas at a lower rate.

I will say this, Mr. Chairman: all the its remain. What if we don't get a price increase? What if we don't get the terms we want? I don't want to ponder those things. But if we don't get a price increase then we will have to take some other action, Mr. Member, and that's all I'm going to say right now.

An Hon. Member: That sounds like an empty threat.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's not an empty threat. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Mr. Gardom: I think we've had more gas per cubic inch in the chamber today than you can put together in the whole of the province.

I'm going to change the topic slightly here, The Premier's posture in his estimates ever since they began is one of not answering questions but of just a whole bunch of political vitriol. I've asked him three questions over the past few days and he has not seen fit to answer any of them.

He's now disappeared from the room. I asked him, Mr. Chairman, how much money he was planning to transfuse from the consolidated revenue fund into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. That, of course, is his responsibility under the statutes, and that is a matter that he covered during his budget address. He very clearly indicated to the people of B.C. that the insurance corporation was in financial difficulty and was requiring a transfusion of money from the consolidated revenue fund. He has completely refused to answer that question to this point, and one must really and truly ask why.

Secondly, I've asked the Hon. Minister of Finance what his genuine reasons are as to why we do not have an auditor-general in the province, someone who could freely and independently watchdog the expenditures of governmental departments and of cabinet Ministers and attempt to give to the public true and proper accountability as to whether they are receiving value for their dollars. The existing mechanisms do not furnish that to the general public.

It is true that we end LIP with balanced accounts in one form or another, but the public do not receive from the governmental mechanisms that are existent in the statutes today free and unfettered advice as to whether or not there has been value. The Premier always tries to do the best he can to fob that into the existing Department of Finance and say that the comptroller-general of the province has that duty and that responsibility; and that's an absolutely incorrect, false and fallacious argument.

An auditor-general should have complete, free access at all times to all files and documents and records relating to the accounts of every provincial department and Crown agency and Crown corporation, or any other instrumentality of the province, and he would have a firm and binding commitment to report annually to the Legislative Assembly the results of his examinations.

That public watchdog would be able to inform the public and be able to make an inquiry on his own initiative as to whether or not, say in the case of Mr. Bremer's payoff, the public received value. Was it a valid payoff? The same thing with the payoff of Mr. Adams. Was the reason of Mr. Bortnick that he had a philosophical difference with Mr. Adams a sufficient and valid reason to pay a man some $50,000 for not turning a finger? I gather that he is being paid until the end of March or April of this year, from the time he left ICBC without doing anything. That's the type of thing we need in the province.

Also it could well be the function of an auditor-general to determine whether or not the government is collecting school taxes under false pretences. I'd like to have the Premier's comments on that point because, as I've said before, children by law have to go to school; school taxes by law have to be paid. And by law, Mr. Chairman, schools are supposed to be open. That is a concept that has been accepted by the general public. By law, teachers do not have the privilege to strike. There is binding arbitration, and that is a condition of service insofar as they are concerned. That is the very concept on which the general public are paying school taxes: on the distinct and unequivocal understanding that schools are going to be open and operating. But they're not open and they're not operating.

The children of this province in many areas are not receiving the education their parents are paying for by law, and are supposed to receive by law, yet people are being led to believe that, paying taxes on that basis, they are supposed to receive the value. They are not receiving that value, and I would suggest that that is indeed paying taxes under false pretences.

Those are three questions the Premier has not dealt with in his estimates. He's also not dealt with

[ Page 908 ]

the question as to whether he'd be prepared to give a commitment to this House that none of the estimates of his cabinet Ministers would come on for hearing prior to their delivering and filing in the House the annual reports and statements under the portfolios which they represent. It's impossible to thoroughly or in any manner examine the conduct and the performance of the Ministers and examine the conduct and the performance of the expenditure of public funds without those figures and without that information being truly available.

I unfortunately have to conclude that we're continuing to follow the same discriminatory practice that has been followed in this province since it came into Confederation with our Indian people on Indian reserves. They're continuing to be discriminated against insofar as services they receive. About the only thing the government has done in the field of housing since it came into power was to extend the home acquisition grant, which is a good thing and which we proposed over here long before the government ever came into power. I congratulate them for that. I think it was a good step. But I cannot think of one single, solitary reason, Mr. Chairman, why Indian people living on Indian reserves should not be entitled to every one of the housing programmes that are available to all British Columbians and that are not available to them today. That is tantamount to nothing more than an absolute disgrace.

An item on which I have received some correspondence from some concerned individuals deals with the 5 per cent tax, specifically with the fact that it continues apparently to be on non-prescriptive drugs. People, I think, have raised the very valid point that, surely to goodness, if candy bars and chewing gum can be exempted, why cannot non-prescriptive drugs? It is not a big point. It doesn't involve too many dollars. It just involves a little bit of common sense and logic. I would like to have the remarks of the Hon. Premier on that point too.

So here are another five questions: three of them unfortunately have had to be repeated because we've not received responses from the Premier before. We are now into his third or fourth day of estimates. I think it is high time he gave us some answers.

An Hon. Member: Fifth day.

Mr. Gardom: Fifth day, yes.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I want to talk about the aid to municipalities again for a moment. I had a thought about how the Premier could save the province some money, however. It came up when he was talking about the B.C. Government News so glowingly last night. I thought that instead of hiring all those propagandists from the major newspapers around, you could just Xerox copies of The Democrat and send them out every month. You could save us a lot of money and get the same propaganda job done.

The Premier offered the municipalities $60 million when he first went down to Ottawa: and got on that radio hotline — $60 million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't need Davey Brown.

Mr. McClelland: Today he is talking about $20 million. Where was the difference? Why first $60 million, then $40 million, then $30 million, and now we are talking about $20 million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Can I correct you now?

Mr. McClelland: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about nothing. Maybe it is nothing. The municipalities have been given no aid in this budget this year, no aid whatsoever.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, taxes in municipalities and cities and villages around the province this year could be up on an average of 10 or 20 per cent. In some areas they are faced, in their provisional budgets at least, with increases of 35 per cent on the local tax bill. That is more than the local taxpayers can handle, and they are getting no help. Either they are going to have to increase those taxes, which will be reflected in the individual homeowner bills, or programmes are going to have to be drastically cut back, or, more likely, both of those things will happen.

I can see that many essential services in the municipalities and cities and towns around British Columbia are going to suffer pretty badly because of the treatment at the hands of this government, and no additional help. Compounding the fact that there wasn't any additional help for the municipalities, 1975 assessments have been frozen at 1974 levels. We must remember, too, that the 1974 assessment roll is based on 1972 values.

The municipal assessment roll is staying static at a time of rapidly rising expenditures. The municipalities are going to be faced this year with probably the biggest wage bill increase they have had in many, many years. That alone makes it shameful that the government has decided not to give them any help. Even if the government had allowed for a cost-of-inflation allowance in the per capita grants, it would have helped. But instead of that there is not one dollar's increase in the per capita grants this year.

Interjection.

[ Page 909 ]

Mr. McClelland: Well, the government is against the municipalities, that is for sure.

The only municipalities which maybe will be out of the glue this year are those which have a lengthy civic employees' strike, because they will be saving money. They may be able to go ahead with their provisional budget. Those areas which don't have a long strike and have to pay the extra wages and the extra bills all during the summer are going to be in tough shape. We are basing municipal revenues on strikes. If you have a good strike, you are going to be in good shape. If you don't have a strike, you are going to be in trouble. What kind of logic is that?

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Socialist logic is what it is.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Social Credit.

Mr. McClelland: You've forgotten who the government is, my friend.

I would like to give you a brief example of what is going to happen in just one municipality because of this government's treatment and because of the freezing of the assessment roll: the Municipality of Surrey.

An Hon. Member: That's the one with the government Member, isn't it?

Mr. McClelland: Yes, it has a government Member at the moment representing it.

If the assessment legislation in effect for 1974 would have been applicable for 1975, a mill in Surrey would have raised $336,000. The value of the mill in 1974 is only $287,000, which is a 17 per cent shortfall there. The actual estimated value of a mill for 1975, this year, is $305,000. That is still a 10 per cent shortfall from what it should have been. The $336,000 figure reflects a rapid escalation in industrial, commercial and vacant land values between 1972 and 1973, and a 5 per cent overall increase to residential and farm properties as provided for under the Assessment Equalization Act.

Even if the same basis used in 1974 was not applied to the 1975 roll, an arbitrary percentage could have been chosen to keep the assessment in line with inflation. You could have picked 10 per cent and said: "Okay, we'll give you a 10 per cent increase in the assessment roll," so that we could at least keep up and not fall further behind. If you had chosen that 10 per cent, coincidentally, the mill in Surrey in 1975 would have been worth $336,000.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it shouldn't be necessary to use the mill rate to compensate for the lack of value increases in the assessment roll, which in Surrey's case is 4.2 mills this year. The mill rate should be used only to cope with the provision of added services and not to compensate for price inflation.

There has been an argument, Mr. Chairman, for a substantially increased per capita grant in 1975 for municipalities. Yet we got not one dollar. In Surrey, with a population base of 98,601 for the purposes of calculating the grant, here's what would have been needed in the form of increases just to make good the deficits in municipal revenues – not to get ahead and not to provide increased municipal services but just to make up the deficits.

We take the value of the mill in 1975 estimated at $305,000. The value of the mill, if it was based on 10 per cent growth — pretty modest growth — is $336,000. So the lower value of one mill, because you've frozen the assessments, is $31,000 lower than it should have been. At the 1974 mill rate level of 41.5, the deficit amounts to $1,286,500. In terms of a per capita grant, if you divide that $1,286,500 by the 98,601 population figure, you get a $13 per capita grant deficit in this year's budget for Surrey municipality.

Then if you add for inflation of 1-2 per cent as well, taking 12 per cent of the 1974 level, you get another $4 per capita deficit. So the total increased grant required by a municipality like Surrey just to keep up and not to pay for the increased wages that are going to come about, not to pay for the additional costs of services which are necessary, not to pay for the costs of services of housing that are being imposed by the provincial government, not to do any of that — just to make up the deficit — was an extra $17 per capita. What did they get? Zilch! Not one extra dollar for Surrey.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier had really meant what he said about sharing revenues with the municipalities — $20 million today, $60 million a few weeks ago, nothing tomorrow, whatever it might happen to be — if the Premier had been serious about making up these kinds of deficits which are applicable all over the province, not just in Surrey.... Surrey is a typical municipality and it's in the typical kind of jam that every municipality and city and town and village in the province is. If the Premier had been serious, he would have said to the municipalities: "Okay. I think Ottawa is going to give us so much for the natural gas, and it might amount to $20 million." He could be even more generous and say $30 million. "What we're going to do for you now, fellows, is develop a formula which you can apply to this year's budget and say: 'Here's the increase in per capita grant based on the extra $30 million that we're going to get from Ottawa.'

The municipalities could budget for that this year. They would have their money, whether it was $16 or $20 per capita or what. They'd be able to pay for their increased services, they'd be able to keep up

[ Page 910 ]

with their increased wage costs, and they'd be able to keep up with inflation for this year. Instead of that, the Premier has said: "Fellows, we're going to promise you some kind of a pie-in-the-sky amount of money — $20 million, $30 million, nothing, one-third of a lottery ticket."

The municipalities cannot budget for it this year, and this year is when they need it. Even if the Premier gets his increase and follows through on his pledge to share with the municipalities, they won't get a nickel this year. They're going to fall so far behind that they'll never catch up.

Why doesn't the Premier stand up right now and say: "I've had a change of heart. I'm going to develop a formula right not where we can give these municipalities a per capita grant based on the $30 million I'm going to get from Ottawa "? That's real money to the municipalities. Then, when the $30 million gets into his hot little pocket, he can take the money he has already given them out of that S30 million and share what's left. If it's $60 million, all the better; he can share what's left of that as well. But why don't you stand up and give a commitment today that the municipalities are going to get some extra revenue? That's what they need and that's what they deserve.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be fair to leave the impression in this House that the official opposition has left in regard to municipal financing. So I'm going to share with the House and with the press and with the people of British Columbia what is really happening out there.

I'm questioning the Minister of Finance as to why he was so generous with the communities in my constituency. Take the average village, like one in my riding called Masset. If they had received the $2 increase in the per capita grant, which was the usual kind of increase that came from the Social Credit Party when they were in power — and sometimes they didn't give that, sometimes there was no increase — if we look at that, we'd say, $36 per capita for Masset. They would have received from that $36,000 because the population is 1,000. But because this government was fair and the Minister of Finance was fair and said that they were going to make up for some of the inequities of the past and take into consideration that the consensus hadn't really been accurate, we are going to have some catch-up money.

If we take a look at Masset, we see that they are going to get, because of this forward approach of this government, $12 per capita above the per capita grant, bringing the income from the provincial government, under the per capita grant, to $46,000 for this year. If we had raised the per capita $2, they would have received $36,000. Because we are taking the forward approach, that community is going to receive $10,000 more this year then they would have received if we had raised it $2.

Mr. McGeer: Do you know that?

Hon. Mr. Lea: Yes! Why not? It is a cold, hard fact: that is what they are going to receive — $10,000 more by using this formula in Masset, $12 per capita above the now-existent per capita grant. I don't think it is fair to leave the impression in this House that municipalities throughout this province are going to receive less.

If you want to go to the largest community in my riding, Prince Rupert, you will find that with their catch-up they are going to receive approximately $2 more per capita grant under that formula — $29,000.

Mr. McClelland: When?

Hon. Mr. Lea: They are going to receive it this year. Now. So what are you talking about over there? Do some research. Look at your own com in unities. Find out the benefits, because they are getting them in mine.

Mr. McGeer: I am going to come back once more, hopefully for the last time, to the one single, fundamental point which the Premier has been evading all week while he filibusters his estimates — that is with regard to British Columbia's jurisdiction over its natural resources, all of them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do we set the price across the border?

Mr. McGeer: The Premier of British Columbia, when he went down to Ottawa on that last trip, took off his coat, folded his arms and said: "Let's make a deal." He yielded to the federal government the keys to our safety deposit box in which the future treasure of British Columbia is locked, namely our natural resources. The Premier can stand up and talk as many times as he likes about his desire to push up the price of natural gas and increase or decrease the number of cubic feet he sends across the border. Those are details. They are footnotes to the fundamental principle as to whether or not we own our natural resources and are entitled, as section 109 says, to the income from them.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

May I recommend to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and to the Premier of British Columbia that they read the British North America Act and understand what the constitutional rights of British Columbia are. When we have people going down negotiating on our behalf who do not understand these things, they make mistakes for

[ Page 911 ]

which future generations have to pay. That is what the Premier of British Columbia has done, but he will be defended in doing that by the man from Prince Rupert.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Does that Minister know a BNA Act exists?

Mr. Gibson: He thinks it's funny.

Mr. McGeer: The last time he was on his feet, the Premier made all this comment about the nasty old National Energy Board. They may be nasty, Mr. Chairman, but they are constitutional. If the Premier understood the BNA Act, he would know that under section 91 that the federal government does have the power to regulate trade and commerce. This is under section 91(2) of the BNA Act: powers of the parliament, regulation of trade and commerce. That says what we may export.

We in the Liberal benches haven't quarreled with the appropriateness of the federal government saying what resources should be exported and what should stay at home. That is their right. But, Mr. Chairman, our right, according to section 109, is with respect to: "All sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties shall belong to the several provinces." In other words, the royalties from these natural resources are exclusively British Columbia's.

If we make a deal to permit Ottawa income from those mineral resources, in this case natural gas, it's 30 per cent on the profits we make exporting today. But it might be 60 or 70 per cent on whatever we keep at home tomorrow. We have given them, without a fight, the right to derive income from those natural resources and the right to tax the royalties.

We should never have entered into a B.C. Petroleum Corp. We should have charged the royalties which we were entitled to charge. We should have said under section 109 that they are ours. If there was an argument about it, we should have gone to court.

Mr. Chairman, we don't want the Premier going to Ottawa, having given away the keys to our future, the rights to the income from our resources, coming back to British Columbia, going to the electorate perhaps, saying, "I must have a mandate to get a higher price." He would be going to the public asking for a mandate to set out the future of British Columbia.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development): All you got from Ottawa was David Anderson.

Mr. McGeer: I'll tell you this: if that kind of an argument is tried on the people of this province, the Premier will lose, as he should.

Hon. King: You've got a reject leader from Ottawa.

Mr. McGeer: That Premier has sold out British Columbia. For a full week here, while he dances around in rhetoric, he has evaded facing that single fundamental constitutional issue, which is that the income from those royalties belongs to the people of British Columbia — all of the income.

Hon. Mr. King: You voted against it.

Mr. McGeer: What the price of the natural gas is, what the number of cubic feet exported per day is, is picayune by comparison with the principle of what is British Columbia's. If the Premier doesn't have time to read the BNA Act, perhaps some of his high-priced financial assistants have time to read the BNA Act and advise him on the plane as he goes down to Ottawa. We have a constitutional case, Mr. Chairman, and we are avoiding it.

Give it away. What do our resources in the future mean? Nothing. All that matters is whether there is public ownership. Give it all away to Ottawa; it doesn't matter. Sacrificing the future of British Columbia on the altar of socialist dogma — that's what he's prepared to do.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Author! Author!

Mr. McGeer: What? Did somebody say that before? (Laughter.) It's a good phrase.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, it rolls off the tongue very well.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) put the logical position very well. We're not obliged to export our natural gas. We are obliged to live up to our contracts, and, of course, we must do that. We must make every effort to renegotiate whatever contracts we have that yield to us an unfair value for the resources we sell. I said that about the Columbia and I'll certainly say it about our natural gas contracts. I don't think there is any quarrel about that. In the long run we would be losers if we repudiated contracts outright.

That would be foolish. I would say so; the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound would say so; the Premier would probably say so. I think the only man who has publicly said no to that has been the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) when he said, I think it was with respect to the PNE, that contracts meant nothing. I think they mean a lot. I think we've got to observe them.

But we are not obliged to do more than live up to the letter of the contracts. We are not obliged to

[ Page 912 ]

export our natural gas beyond the contracts that we are firmly committed to at this time. I said before that we were foolish to be exporting in large amounts a future valuable asset for the sake of a formula for the cities and municipalities. It's foolish for us to blow our natural gas because we have no other way of passing income along to the cities and municipalities, presumably because our welfare system has got to be too much of a burden for the Province of British Columbia. That's got to be the biggest increase in our budget.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly. There are lots of tax revenues. We don't need to take our most valuable, depleting resource and use that. So there isn't a long-term obligation to export our gas. This is what the Member for West Vancouver-House Sound has said. It's what I say. It's what the official opposition says and it should be what the Premier says. I'll tell you why. His own energy board says that. Here he is attacking the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound today for what he said about turning the tap off and on the front page of The Daily Colonist this morning the National Energy Board is saying the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The National Energy Board?

Mr. McGeer: The provincial energy board — your board.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're all mixed up.

Mr. McGeer: Read the front page of The Daily Colonist. It isn't about you, but it still makes a point.

So there's nothing inconsistent about the position taken by our party, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, or, indeed, the Energy Commission of British Columbia. The inconsistency is in the debate of the Premier of British Columbia who is trying to evade the crucial fact that he has sold British Columbia out, not just on the subject of natural gas but also on the subject of all of our resources.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2 pass?

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I don't think vote 2 should pass, Mr. Chairman. There are only about 114 hours left in this debate.

Hon. Mr. Lea: It's hard to give up when you're losing.

Mr. Gibson: I was going to talk about other things at this point, but because of what the Premier said this morning I have to say a little bit more about natural gas, which he is responsible for.

Mr. Wallace: There's a lot of natural gas in this chamber.

Mr. Gibson: The Premier stood up this morning in response to some good advice.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the Premier made a vicious attack on the Liberals — he accused us of having a strategy (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Maybe we should pay more attention to them.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

Mr. Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's just so difficult. The Premier's speech this morning in response to the good advice he was getting....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Premier that it's forbidden to speak from any seat except your own.

Mr. Gibson: Even in your own seat you are supposed to have the floor.

Mr. Chairman: Will the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano continue, please?

Mr. Gibson: The Premier's speech this morning was like one of those western movies. Have you ever seen the sets for one of those western movies? You see the street and there's the front of the building. The Premier's speech was all front, no backup. No backup there at all. Not backroom — that's something else the Premier is good at, but there was no backup.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, no, no. The Premier's the backroom expert, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. The Premier was taking credit for all the good things of this world, for the great natural gas profits being made by British Columbians, as if he'd done it, and he was blaming the terrible companies and the terrible federal government.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Why did Trudeau fire you?

[ Page 913 ]

Mr. Gibson: He wasn't giving any credit to the people who were really making it possible for this government to have natural gas profits — those are the people he borrowed all the money from.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: It's the Arabs who raised the oil price.

We're very fortunate that in British Columbia we have the advantage of that, but let's not say it's socialism that brought that kind of revenue to British Columbia. It's the good Lord who has brought that kind of revenue to British Columbia, not you, Mr. Premier.

Then the Premier has the nerve to lecture this party on our discussing with you what you should take in your arsenal when you go to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I didn't lecture you. Why would I waste my time?

Mr. Gibson: You took in anything for your arsenal when you went to meet with the Egg Marketing Board, didn't you? Absolutely anything: threats; secrecy; denials of what you said there; muscle against people much less powerful than you; not going in accordance with the law about how marketing boards are regulated in this province. Changing contracts, Mr. Chairman, is what he was doing in that case; and he's talking about the sanctity of contract now. He was changing contracts. And he wasn't even doing it for British Columbia, Mr. Chairman; he was doing it for his political friends. So let's not hear any more lectures from that Premier about the kind of weapons you use in a bargaining arsenal.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: You come over and run there in North Vancouver–Capilano against me, Mr. Premier, and let's have a contest.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: That's a threat, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

Mr. Gibson: What the Premier did, Mr. Chairman, as we've been trying to get through his head all this week, and as the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) just finished saying, was to give away our bargaining position on natural resources in this province and in Confederation. It's just that simple.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If I said I agree with you, would you sit down?

Mr. Gibson: You'd have to go into some detail.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down. You want an answer? Sit down and I'll give you an answer.

Mr. Gibson: Later.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, he's just stalling for time.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: I'm not stalling for time. I'm just trying to put this on the record to get it through the Premier's head, because it's not through yet. You know, the Premier this morning complained about the federal Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Just before we proceed, I would just read out to the House standing order 36 for everyone's edification: "Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker." (Laughter.) Obviously, what is meant by this standing order is that only one person may speak at a time and must be recognized by the Chair, and everyone else is to be quiet.

Hon. Mr. King: How do you recognize that?

Mr. Gibson: The federal Minister of Finance....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Are you going to let the vote through today?

Mr. Gibson: I have a good deal left to talk about, Mr. Chairman. It depends on the kind of answers we get.

HON. Mr. Barrett: I'll give you all the answers in 15 minutes, is that enough time?

Mr. Gibson: I haven't asked all my questions yet.

Mr. Barrett: I want to know whether or not we're going to come back this afternoon or leave early, or what.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier is going to give the Hansard people a nervous breakdown. (Laughter.) Could we have one person speaking at a time, please?

[ Page 914 ]

Mr. Gibson: The Hon. Premier is going to give himself a bad reputation, too, with remarks like that. The Hon. Premier suggests that he's had enough of these estimates, Mr. Chairman. He's going to go back to the old stuff now. He's going to keep us sitting here until those estimates pass. Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Premier? Clarify that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, sit down.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:45 p.m.