[ Page 917 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Statement Status of PARI dispute. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 917

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Leasing of Prince George building. Mr. Bennett — 918

Intervention in CUPE strike. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 919

Renewal of ARDA agreement. Mr. Wallace — 919

Development of Langley land purchased by Land Commission. Mr. McClelland — 919

Stock exchange procedures. Mr. Gardom — 920

Misleading advertising of Homeowner Grants. Mr. Curtis — 920

Mohawk Oil refinery at Sumas Mountain. Mr. Phillips — 921

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

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 932

Point of order Administrative responsibility of Minister of Finance.

Routine proceedings

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

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 939

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing to the House today, seated on the floor of the House, Mr. John Reynolds, the federal MP for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce friends from Gold Bridge, Mr. and Mrs. Allen and Mr. and Mrs. Phelps and family.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Warehouse School pupils who are here under the direction of Mr. Ed McKieraghan. The Warehouse School, as you know, is an independent school operating here in Victoria.

Also while on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome Mr. Dugald Gillespie, a Victoria pioneer who is here with his wife, and bid them welcome to this House.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the group that is never with us but always with us, the press gallery, a notice has come down that another unofficial member of the gallery was born to Mike Graham of The Vancouver Sun. He and his wife have a son named Angus who was born on Friday evening and weighs eight pounds. We wish the son and wife the very best...and also the husband. (Laughter.)

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House this afternoon to the fact that a group of approximately 25 students are in the gallery under the guidance of Mr. Quentin Russell, from North Saanich Junior Secondary School. Would the House welcome them?

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery the mayor of Smithers, Mr. Gordon Williams, and an alderman, Mr. Bill Brinkman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome again government agents, continuing the programme of government agents visiting the House: Mr. Bill Draper from Cranbrook; Mr. Norman Blake from Kamloops; Mr. Tom McKinnon from Kaslo; Mr. Ron Campbell from Kitimat; Mr. Mitsuru Sakakibara from Lillooet; Pat Lean from Merritt; Bob Archibald from Nanaimo; Frank Hughes from New Westminster; and Mr. Leo McKinnon from Oliver.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the Members' gallery today are two visitors from Prince Rupert, that great oasis of friendliness on the north coast, Norm Barker and his son Norm Barker. I would ask the House to welcome these visitors to Victoria.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, last but not least, I want to introduce all of the members of the Berger commission on children and family law who are sitting in the gallery above the Speaker. The commission is led by the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger, with Judge Ross Colver, Ms. Rita MacDonald, Ms. Mish Vadaich and Dr. Sidney Segal.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I understand we also have in the gallery one of our Progressive Conservative MPs from the federal riding of Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Benno Friesen. I would ask the House to welcome him.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else? (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to resist it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to the House today. (Laughter.)

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd like to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: For some time now — over a week — we've had some trouble in our general hospitals over the Professional Association of Residents and Interns (PARI) withdrawing their services in what has been sort of dubbed as a dispute. We are viewing the situation very carefully. We've been monitoring patient care for the past week, and I've been getting continual reports as to whether or not patient care will suffer.

I announced at the outset that the only move I would make would be under the circumstances that patient care might be threatened. There are those who indicate that there is a possibility that that might occur. I have yet seen no evidence that it has.

However, due to the fact that I feel there is a very important ingredient, patient care, I have asked the B.C. Health Association, which, incidentally, previously was called the B.C. Hospital Association, to come to my office at 3 o'clock tomorrow

[ Page 918 ]

afternoon when I will be discussing the whole question. I've asked PARI to come to my office tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock so that we can be fully aware of what the issues are.

I'm not promising any magic solution to the problem, but we'll certainly do what we can to see that everything is done to make sure that patient care is not threatened.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): In brief response, the official opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister of Health. I think it's a very responsible move he has made. I would hope, too, that he will take other steps as well to keep a close watch on those hospitals which are affected to make sure that if patient care does begin to deteriorate immediate steps could be taken. On the whole, we welcome the statement by the Minister of Health.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): By leave, Mr. Speaker, on the same point: we welcome the government's interest in this. We wonder, however, why arbitration, the proposal of the Professional Association of Residents and Interns, has not yet been tried by the government. We hope that perhaps out of this meeting the argument that because they're not a union — therefore arbitration cannot be applied — will be looked at very carefully. It seems to me that compulsory arbitration in this instance might well be the course of action desired by the interns and residents, which would solve the problem.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party I would also say that I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister. I wish, perhaps, we could see the same initiative taken in certain other disputes. But I think we should say on our part that we do not condone the withdrawal of service in the first place by residents and interns, least of all by, in effect misrepresenting the issue by stating that they are booking off sick. I consider this a dishonor to the medical profession.

I think the Minister's intervention, and hopefully a successful intervention at the earliest date, will take place tomorrow.

Oral questions

LEASING OF PRINCE GEORGE BUILDING

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Public Works with respect to the Oxford Building in Prince George, which has leased 4,900 square feet of space to the provincial government at $6.50 a square foot. Could the Minister explain to the House why it was necessary to contract for these premises in August, 1974? As of this date they remain vacant and unused.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would care to table any documents that he has to substantiate his statement...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Hartley: ...I would be pleased to respond.

Mr. Bennett: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is unaware that his department has contracted space for the Department of Housing and parks at $6.50 a square foot, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what procedures are followed to determine the need in leasing office space in advance of the requirement or after the requirement develops.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this: any time I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to table documents.... He has yet to table his first document.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order! I think no private Member is required by our rules to table documents except with the leave of the House. Ministers may be required, where they refer to documents, to table them.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I added that simply because in the past...

Mr. Bennett: Will he just answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: ...Members over there have got up and made statements from documents that we find have been falsified. Now I would like to continue and respond to the second part of his question.

We take no steps to rent or lease any property until a very definite need is substantiated.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary because of the Minister's, answer. He said that they take no steps, after he got to the point, to rent space until after the need. Would the Minister tell us why in Prince George they have leased space several months in advance of the need at a cost of $32,000 a year? Would you advise how this could happen with that policy?

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Hon. Member if this is the same matter that was raised the other day?

[ Page 919 ]

Mr. Bennett: No, this is a new matter.

Mr. Speaker: I wasn't aware. I wanted to find out.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: This is a separate building, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, in many cases, even in new buildings, if we lease space we have to design them to suit the particular needs. I just cannot accept what has been said, but I would be pleased to take this as notice and give a full report at a future sitting.

Mr. Bennett: A further supplemental. When you're advising the House, could you advise if you do have a policy that will prevent this from happening throughout the province, because it seems an excessive cost to the taxpayers, Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think this is the proper time for statements on policy of the government, or questions on policy. This is question time. Would the Hon. Minister and the Hon. Member deal with this at the time?

INTERVENTION IN CUPE STRIKE

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Minister of Labour. In view of the failure of his initiative and that of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), which the Minister talked about last Thursday in response to a question from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), may I ask the Minister whether he's now prepared to appoint, on his own initiative, a special officer or industrial inquiry commission under Part VII of the Labour Code in an effort to find a settlement to the dispute which has closed a number of Victoria and Vancouver schools?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any failure that the Hon. Member refers to. What we do have is a refusal by the municipal and school board bargaining agencies in greater Victoria to accept an industrial inquiry commission investigation into their dispute. Now this is a disagreement between two parties, and I have no intention of imposing upon them a third-party apparatus which is unacceptable in the first instance. I doubt that that kind of imposition would carry with it any reasonable opportunity of settling a dispute.

Certainly if the industrial inquiry commission does not have the cooperation and the participation of both parties, then it is meaningless; so I have no intention of imposing it upon them.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Minister talked about he and the Minister of Education getting a formula for dissolving this dispute, but apparently the dispute is still on. I wonder whether the Minister is then considering legislative action to make sure that this is settled, because it appears to me that the law does provide for him to appoint, without the approval of one of the two parties, an industrial inquiry commission. Failing that, it seems only legislative action will bring an end to this strike.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, the law does provide for the imposition of an industrial inquiry commission. I have stated the reason why I do not pursue that policy. I question the benefit of a third-party intervention which is not supported by both the parties. In other words, if a third party investigation were boycotted by one or both parties, obviously the power of any recommendations flowing from that commission would be minimal.

Now we have, in fact, gained agreement from the school boards and the union in Vancouver to cooperate with an industrial inquiry commission. It is underway in that city. As far as the dispute in greater Victoria is concerned, no, I am not anticipating legislative action. I wonder if that is what the Member is recommending.

RENEWAL OF ARDA AGREEMENT

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), whether in fact they have met with the federal Minister concerned today to renew the ARDA agreement which expires on March 31.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did meet with the Hon. Mr. Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) this morning, but I have not had a report on that. I was not present.

DEVELOPMENT OF LANGLEY LAND
PURCHASED BY LAND COMMISSION

Mr. McClelland: To the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could tell us whether any plans have been made or any studies commenced for the development of the 2,000 acres of land which were bought in the municipality of Langley by the British Columbia

[ Page 920 ]

Land Commission.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): It is being done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: What is being done? Studies?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Studies are underway.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary? Would the Minister assure the House that full municipal taxes will be paid to the municipality of Langley following the purchase of that land by the provincial government?

Is the Hon. Minister not going to respond to that question? The municipality of Langley is quite anxious to know whether they're going to get taxes out of that land or not. They have full municipal taxes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: At what rate?

STOCK EXCHANGE PROCEDURES

Mr. Gardom: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. In a recent hallway interview the Attorney-General was quoted as referring to certain "Monte Carlo" procedures or operations being carried on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In view of the fact that Monte Carlo is regarded as the world's largest casino, and in fairness to and as a protection for the thousands of investors who daily utilize the Vancouver Stock Exchange, is the Attorney-General prepared to furnish to this House specifics of the unsavoury operations to which he's alluded?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we now have, under legislation of this government, two public governors on the board of the stock exchange. In addition to that there is a committee on the rules of the stock exchange, which is headed by one of the public governors. That's at the initiative of the exchange but is something we approve. In addition to that we're going to change the rules so that changes can't be made in those stock exchange rules without the approval of the superintendent of brokers, and that's in the bill before the House. Finally, the thing I'm concerned about is 'that it has become too easy for shares to be listed into that. I'm concerned about it, and it's that area to which I allude.

Mr. Gardom: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does the Hon. Attorney-General have any specific stocks or specific trades in mind when he makes this accusation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: It's not for the Attorney-General to push this stock or that stock.

No, I'm not making a charge against any particular issue.

Mr. Gardom: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Doesn't the Hon. Attorney-General consider it inappropriate to make or imply such criticisms without specific foundation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regard it as my duty, on the one hand to put the people of the province on guard in their investment opportunities, and on the second hand to do my public duty insofar as I can to instil more confidence in this very important financial institution of British Columbia.

Mr. Gardom: Are you aware of any specific improprieties involving specific stocks?

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Attorney-General answered the question, did he not?

Mr. Gardom: No, he has not!

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I'm not making a statement about any particular issue.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, with respect, you should not interrupt a person when he's trying to give an answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! When a statement has been given which is in answer, in effect, to the third supplemental, then I suggest to the Hon. Member that it is not in order to continue the same line of questioning. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MISLEADING ADVERTISING
ON HOMEOWNER GRANTS

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing. Newspaper advertisements which appeared within recent days (March 19, in the Colonist, is one) were headlined "March 31, 1975 — Deadline Extension for 1974 Homeowner Grants, " and then the body of the copy over the name of the Hon. Minister of Housing. Has the Minister received any complaints or inquiries with respect to ambiguity of this advertisement?

[ Page 921 ]

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Curtis: That's the most direct answer we've had from the Minister of Housing since he took his portfolio. Are correcting ads going to be run, through you, Mr. Speaker? I refer particularly to the body of the copy which says: "The school tax removal and resource grant is new this year." Surely that is a reference to 1974 and not 1975. What corrective measures is the Minister taking?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, these of course do apply to the 1974 tax year; it is in extension of the 1974 tax year. It is an option in the legislation which is given to the Minister but was never exercised before. Many people, through misinterpretation or other means, lost the opportunity to collect their homeowner grants. This government took the opportunity, which the government that created the legislation never did, and we have extended the deadline on the homeowner grants for the many people who might, through language difficulties or other impediments, have lost out. We have extended it and made it available and as flexible as possible, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Curtis: A supplementary, briefly, to the Minister. Would the Minister not agree that a very large percentage of property owners, homeowners — 95 or 97 per cent — are concerned about their 1975 homeowner grant, not their 1974 one? I again emphasize the ambiguity of an ad which contains the words "this year" when, in fact, it refers to 1974.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I would question the figure. There certainly has been concern, Mr. Member, about the ambiguity. It's something which I would not see happen again.

MOHAWK OIL REFINERY
AT SUMAS MOUNTAIN

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I would like to address my question to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General advise if the government has had any negotiations with Mohawk Oil Co. Ltd. regarding the construction of an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: We have received their representations through the B.C. Petroleum Corp., but we have been strictly neutral in terms of their applying to build a refinery for heavy fuel oil near Langley. We've made it very clear that we are not opposing their application in any way; it is now a matter between them and the regional district concerned. We think there is a market for the product that they want to bring on stream, and that is another reason why we have, of course, not opposed the application in any way.

Mr. Phillips: Could I ask the Attorney-General one small supplementary question? Will the government be going in partnership with Mohawk Oil Co. Ltd. to build this refinery at Sumas Mountain or is it an independent project by Mohawk Oil Co. Ltd.?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No partnerships — strictly private enterprise.

Mr. Phillips: Just one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it have any bearing on the B.C. Petroleum Corp. proposal to build an oil refinery in the Surrey area for which you have purchased some 1,800 acres of land?

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): No such proposal.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, it will neither help nor hinder the question of building our own refinery.

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. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): The Premier is very anxious to get his vote. I wish the Premier was as anxious to enlighten us on some of his proposed revenue for the coming year and some of his expenditures. Although we have been discussing his estimates for nearly a week now, we still are as much in the dark with regard to him giving us answers as we were when we started.

Just a moment ago we were discussing Monte Carlo dealings in the stock exchange — a broad, sweeping condemnation (smear, if you want to have it) of the people who run the Vancouver Stock Exchange. This government certainly has no right to leave an innuendo like that when we think about the dealings of the shares in Can-Cel before the government moved in to buy their percentage. We've asked questions in this Legislature about the dealings with regard to the shares of Dunhill and we've asked about the flippant remarks of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) with regard to a recent purchase by the government of Can-Cel. So if we are talking about Monte Carlo dealings in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I think

[ Page 922 ]

the government is really referring to their Monte Carlo dealings in the stock exchange and in the money markets of the world.

We have continually asked in this House where the Minister of Finance went in the OPEC countries to borrow money. To this day, we haven't had the answer. The people of this province would like to know, because they are the ones who are going to be responsible in the end for paying the interest on that Mafia money — if it is Mafia money, and I don't know whether it is Mafia money or not and I have no way of knowing. There seems to be some vague, dark secret about where the Minister of Finance is borrowing money.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: I think the taxpayers of this province have a right to know where the Minister of Finance is borrowing his money and what interest rate he is going to pay. They want to know where the money comes from and they want to know not only why he had to go outside British Columbia but why the taxpayers of British Columbia did not have an opportunity for first refusal on loaning this money to the government. They want to know why you had to go outside the borders of Canada and, if you did, why you couldn't stay within the borders of North America.

The Premier may consider this a very light and frivolous issue, but when you go outside of the City of Victoria and you talk to the people where it counts — even in your riding, Mr. Chairman — they want to know. It's one of the first questions that the taxpayers of this province ask you when you leave g the City of Victoria. They want to know why the Premier had to go outside of the borders of North America to borrow money and, if he did, why and where he borrowed that money.

Mr. Chairman, if there is no logical reason for this information to be withheld from this Legislature and therefore from the taxpayers of the province, we would like to know why. We want to know, when we do get the answer, that the answer is factual. I find that the people of British Columbia are sick and tired of having half-truths and half-answers from this government, I see by the paper that the Premier is up to his old tricks again of misleading the people, even in some of his own ridings. He is telling the people that welfare cases are fewer now than they were in 1972, even in light of a 16 per cent increase in the number of people receiving social welfare last year. But did the Premier tell the whole story? No, Mr. Chairman. He didn't tell the whole story. He didn't tell how many thousand people from the age of 60 to 64 are now receiving Mincome and have been taken off the social welfare rolls.

An Hon. Member: It's too late now.

Mr. Phillips: No, the Premier is up to his old tricks again of trying to mislead. He doesn't care really whether he tells the whole truth or half the truth as long as he can try and mislead the taxpayers of this province for his own political advantage. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of this province are getting sick and tired!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he is imputing an improper motive to the Premier.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I am merely stating the facts. I am just merely stating the facts as I see them. That is that the Premier, on going out to tell somebody something, twists it to suit his own political advantage. There are more people receiving assistance from the Department of Human Resources today than there were in 1972. Yet the people would try and mislead you to believe that there are fewer people today.

If he had wanted to be honest with the people of his province, with those constituents to which he was speaking last weekend, he would have said: there may be fewer people receiving actual social assistance today from the social welfare, but those people have been transferred to Mincome. If he had not had the desire in his heart to mislead the people in this province, he would have told them that.

Mr. Chairman, we wonder why some of the cabinet Ministers are following suit in trying to mislead this Legislature. I want to tell you they have got a good leader.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: They've got a good teacher, Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that Members of this House are misleading other Members of this House.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Withdraw.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw this imputation.

Mr. Phillips: I find it very difficult to withdraw, because I have to look at the actual facts...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: ...of what has happened.

[ Page 923 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: It is a deterioration of respect for this government caused by the Ministers of this government.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated while I make my point?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the Hon. Member that I think you are aware of the parliamentary rule that you may not impute any improper motive to another Hon. Member of the assembly. The Chair was simply directing you to withdraw any imputation of that sort of thing against any other Hon. Member. However, when you state your case, you should state it in such a way that it doesn't impute an improper motive to a Member, rather than the way you have done it. Will the Hon. Member withdraw the imputation?

Mr. Phillips: I will withdraw any personal reflection on any Member of this House, but I certainly won't withdraw, Mr. Chairman, their policies and their politics. Their policies and their politics are such that they are misleading the House. I think that Hon. Members of the government, Hon. Ministers of the government and, above all, the president of the cabinet and the Minister of Finance should realize that his first and foremost duty is to give straightforward, honest answers to this Legislature. Otherwise, not only do we in this Legislature lose respect for the Minister, but the taxpayers of this province lose respect. They lose respect for our democratic way of life, because democracies are built on credibility. Democratic governments must be credible and they must be responsible and honest.

The deterioration of our way of life in this province is hanging in the balance because of the policies of that government led by the Premier and Minister of Finance and followed by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). The Minister of Finance and the president of the cabinet is setting a very bad example.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of this province are very concerned. They are very aware of what is happening, and that is why they have lost respect for the government led by the Premier. That is why they realize that no longer can they put any credibility in statements made by the Minister of Finance or the Ministers of the Crown. When we are asking the Minister of Finance questions with regard to his estimates it's all very well and good for him to get up and act the clown, make light of sincere questions, try and turn the screw around. But I'll tell you, the taxpayers of this province are not buying it; neither are they buying the Premier's effort to give away to Ottawa the complete natural resources of this province.

The Premier has stated in this Legislature that if Ottawa would nationalize the petroleum industry he would hand over to Ottawa the provincial rights over the petroleum resources of this province. That Premier has no mandate to make such a statement. He has no mandate. He would have to change the British North America Act to do such a thing. But what does he do, Mr. Chairman? He allows Ottawa to gloss over the British North America Act and tax the natural resources of this province, and it is him creating the Crown corporation of British Columbia that gave Ottawa the right to do it. It was he who brought it up. Yet he continually talks about getting more from the natural resources of the province than were ever received before.

I want to tell you, I was looking through the paper the other day and an article caught my eye: "Oil Exploration Slows in Australia" ...the same as it has slowed in the Province of British Columbia. Do you realize that our petroleum reserves dropped last year by some 15 per cent? — the first time since oil was discovered in 1951 and gas was discovered in 1953 that our petroleum reserves declined in any single year. They declined in a period of time in the history of man when there is a shortage of petroleum products. They declined here for the same reason they declined in Australia. I'd just like to quote from this article for a moment:

"A recent survey of all oil companies by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association placed the major blame for the rapid decline in exploration and drilling operations in the last decade on the country's adverse political climate." The same type of political climate we have here under the leadership of the Premier and Minister of Finance: adverse political climate.

Two years ago when the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself were telling the Premier that there was a decline in the number of drilling rigs in the northeastern part of the province, he got up and tried to inform this House that the number was greater than it had been the year before.

Our Premier doesn't want to look at and doesn't want to be aware of the cold, hard facts of economic life. He wants to lead this province based on his pet theories which he is taking out of the Waffle

[ Page 924 ]

Manifesto he signed some years ago. I would think it was time the Premier realized that the Waffle Manifesto and the guidelines set out in the Waffle Manifesto, which he signed, are not working in the Province of British Columbia. You can't follow the Waffle Manifesto and hit the petroleum companies in the backside, run the mining companies out of the province and expect to have increased employment.

I've heard the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Minister of Finance and other Ministers of the Crown say that there are no spin-off benefits from the development of our natural resources, and that the only results we get from our natural resources are the direct taxation. I've heard them say it. I've heard the Minister of Mines say it — the direct taxation. They don't seem to realize that providing jobs, economic development, inflow of capital, et cetera, has any bearing on our economic climate whatsoever. They can't seem to realize that if people are employed they pay income taxes, they buy houses, pay other taxes, pay the 5 per cent tax, create employment for others. None of these fringe benefits of development are recognized by that Minister of Finance who seems to have his head in the sand. Not willing to recognize; just running on the Waffle Manifesto.

Mr. Chairman, for the first year in many decades our greatest natural resource, our greatest industry, that of the forest industry, will not be producing a positive tax return to the Province of British Columbia. You can't blame the entire situation on the lumber market in the United States. A lot of the problems in the lumber industry are the direct result of the negative and backward thinking of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and of the Minister of Finance. You'd think when we start shifting the tax base from natural resource industries to taxes on people, that the Minister of Finance would recognize what is happening. But he just carries on in his old method of not recognizing the economic factors.

We've been unable to have the Minister of Finance tell us how much he expects the deficit of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to be this year. There is no provision in the budget to subsidize the insurance corporation, and it could be that the insurance corporation isn't going to need shoring up this year. But we have a right to know. Before the Minister of Finance finishes his estimates, could he tell us and be perfectly candid with the taxpayers of this province who are paying an additional 8 cents a gallon on every gallon of gasoline they buy? We'd like some candid answers from that Minister of Finance. I wish the Minister of Finance would go out and talk to the people in this province and realize that they're not going to be misled by this phony budget he has placed before us — not until we get the answers.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the department of forestry owes to the lumber people of this province some $85 million for charges for building roads. Therefore, his anticipated revenue from the forest industry is way out again. So what other attitude are we going to take, Mr. Chairman, when we do listen to answers from his Ministers and when the Minister of Finance will stand in this Legislature and crack jokes, make fun, but give no answers?

We want to know, once again, where the money comes from. What country did he borrow it from? We want to know how much of that anticipated revenue from petroleum and natural gas royalties, leases and fees — that $230 million — is dividends from the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia. These are some of the questions, Mr. Chairman, that we have been asking and asking and asking. We want to know. We want to know if the Premier wants to get up and show off his ability as a showman and as a clown and as a court jester, et cetera, but it's time he started becoming responsible to this Legislature and started giving us some straightforward, honest, complete answers.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): I subscribe to the criticisms raised by the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. It is becoming curiouser and curiouser and curiouser as to why the Premier is refusing to give answers to the very valid and fair questions that have been raised during his estimates. Those answers are in the public interest and it's contrary to the public interest when he doesn't reply.

In dealing with the Arab loan, there is, I think, conventional wisdom in the statement: "neither a borrower or a lender be." Sometimes one has to be one of each. But surely, Mr. Chairman, lenders often have very substantial powers to exercise muscle beyond the ordinary and beyond the accepted. That's the reason why the general public of British Columbia are entitled to know just what sort of a lender B.C. Hydro is dealing with. Is it clean money? Is it legitimately acquired money? Was this a fair deal to B.C.? Are the rates and are the terms competitive? Were they the best ones that were available? We don't have those answers.

Were there any concessions granted to B.C. or to anyone else? Is there anything outside of this deal from the straight dollars and cents? Did the Premier have to clear the borrowing through the federal government? Did he consult with the federal government or with any other provincial government?

Is this borrowing antithetical to the interests of Canadian firms, Canadian taxpayers, Canadian businesses and Canadian people who may be under this Arab list of a company boycott? Or was it just an offer that B.C. couldn't afford to refuse? Were there any heavies involved? These questions come to mind, mind.

[ Page 925 ]

It's not a matter of national security; it's not a matter of public morals, the need for secrecy and stealth. Yet we're facing secrecy and stealth. Is that fair? Is that correct? Is that fair or is that correct?

The Premier has still not answered questions as to how much money has been transfused by him from the consolidated revenue fund into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. He has not told anybody. It is public money.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): He knows today, too.

Mr. Gardom: He has the power to make that borrowing. Chief fiscal officer of the province, and he's not performing his duty to the public. He is not performing his duty to the public, and he is giving something far less than desirable accountability of dollars and cents to the people of B.C.

He has refused to give any kind of a cogent reason or explanation as to why we don't have an auditor-general in the province, save and except to attempt to confuse the suggestion with the duties and responsibilities of a comptroller-general, which are entirely different and entirely limited. He has not given thought or any suggestion or answers to this House to a question being raised in hundreds and thousands of households in this province today: whether or not people are illegally being requested to pay taxes for governmental services that are not being provided.

The Premier doesn't have the answer at his fingertips — and I would suggest that the Minister of Finance would have the answers at his fingertips — but perhaps if he does not, he should be instructing and suggesting to the Attorney-General whether or not this should be a court case launched by the government, under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, just to determine whether or not the process that is being carried on, contrary to the interests of the taxpayer, is legal or is illegal.

We now have limited power — "we" being the general public — to sue the Province of British Columbia. I think this would, indeed, be an exercise most befitting to the dignity of both offices, that of the Attorney-General and that of the Premier, and certainly in the public interest to attempt to find an answer to that very vexing question, if the answer is not at their fingertips. I would suggest that the answer is, indeed, at their fingertips.

The lady Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) raised an exceptionally valid point, and even she didn't get an answer from the Premier. She was talking about the relaxing of the 5 per cent tax for certain kinds of commodities. I discussed it myself last week and suggested that no longer would the 5 per cent tax apply to non-prescriptive drugs.

It's pretty ludicrous when you find that such things as chocolate bars, gums and cat food, I suppose, come within the definition of not requiring the 5 per cent tax, but non-prescriptive drugs, which are for the health, benefit and welfare of our people, do. It's silly. It's silly and it's a question that was raised, and very, very validly raised, but still not any answers.

I asked the Hon. Premier again last week, and this is something we have heard in this House ever since I've been here.... There were some very, very admirable and, I would say, historic speeches by the former leader of the NDP, now Mr. Justice Berger, dealing with the providing of fair and equal — underlining of the word "equal" — services for the Indian people who live on Indian reserves in our province. They do not receive the same services as the people who live outside of the Indian reserves. It's discriminatory; it is unfair.

They don't have any tax shelters. Don't anyone start raising your hands and howling "tax shelter" or the constitutional sidestep that it is an Ottawa problem. Their tax shelter exists on paper — true. But dollars-and-cents-wise it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Their only tax shelter is that they don't have to pay income tax for any income that they may earn on an Indian reserve, and they don't have to pay land tax for their residences on Indian reserves.

In the first case, there are extremely few Indian people who earn their income in British Columbia on the reserve. They earn it off the reserves as doctors or warehousemen, bus drivers, carpenters — whatever it may be. They don't earn that money on the reserve.

Insofar as the homes being taxable is concerned, under the existing tax laws we have none of those homes would be attracting any tax at all. So their only shelter is a paper shelter. Provide equal services for them.

This government has done one thing and only one thing, in my view, that's an improvement over the former administration for our Indian community, and that is to extend to reserve Indians the benefits of the home acquisition grant. That is a slight assistance to housing; that was a good thing.

We all know it was proposed first in this corner of the room, and we're delighted to see that the government accepted the proposal and moved into it and did it with a degree of dispatch. I can remember the discussions we had, and that was with the Hon. Premier. He said: "You mean the Indian people can't get that home acquisition grant?" We said: "Yes, that's right." He said: "That's not fair," and he did something about it. I commend you for doing that, certainly.

But why stop there? Why just go ahead and just put a little pea into the pot? Why not go ahead and say it is a matter of policy and direction that the reserve Indians in this province shall be entitled to

[ Page 926 ]

similar services as people who live outside of reserves, housing, in road building, in providing electricity and all other services that are ancillary to any kind of community?

It is not only a practical suggestion, it's not only a just suggestion; it is an extremely moral suggestion and, I say, an ethical necessity. And it is continuing to be avoided by this administration.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, last week we were discussing a number of subjects relating to energy, and it was the subject of gas that occupied most of our attention. But, equally, the subject of electricity and the amount of money received by the Province of British Columbia for sales to the south are, I think, just as valid for discussion.

If I can run over them very briefly, the policies are fairly straightforward. The oil policy with respect to the United States is to charge the OPEC prices plus a certain allowance for transportation via pipeline — generally this is a mythical pipeline; it is a hypothetical price — and a maximum is charged to our American neighbours. Fair enough. We have to import at world prices. The price is negotiated monthly, and it's certainly not a subject of great joy to the Americans if we do charge in that way.

Given that background of National Energy Board desire to maximize returns for oil, it is curious that they are being charged so sharply and taxed so heavily y people in this Legislature for their failure to do he same thing on gas. There are other factors involved in gas, of course. Gas involves long-term contracts; oil is essentially a spot price. There is the possibility of retaliation if our American purchasers of lumber insist upon marketing each board individually, as they have threatened to do on previous occasions. We could find that our major export of lumber would be in a very serious state. So here is the possibility of retaliation.

Nevertheless, the general policy seems to be to get the maximum price obtainable, given the problems that do exist with respect to gas in terms of long-term contracts and the possibility of retaliation.

But the third energy source of British Columbia and of western Canada has not really been discussed at any length, and that is electricity. I asked the premier and, indeed, I asked the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) as well in the House about the use of article 15 of the treaty to try and get revision, to try and get a re-examination of the price for electricity in the light of information which we have today that was not available 10 years ago, and also, of course, the definite changes that have taken place with respect to American construction proposals of 10 years ago and their actual programme of construction.

I think it curious that in actual fact we have not made any effort, from what I discovered from the Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, to go for an increase in the price of electricity. Surely if we are to charge the Americans the full market price for oil, if we are to do our best to get as close to the maximum equivalent thermal value for gas, we should be doing precisely the same thing with respect to electricity. This is where the Columbia River treaty and the protocols that surround it are of considerable interest.

I wonder whether the Premier this afternoon would indicate to us what steps he has taken with respect to article 15. I realize he has stated already that he went to see the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau), who said no to a complete renegotiation of the treaty. But, as the Premier is fully aware, we don't have to renegotiate the treaty to take into account the price and the return for electricity which we received in that lump sum. It is not necessary to have the whole treaty rewritten or revised or reopened to get an examination under article 15. Indeed, it would seem unwise or virtually impossible to go for a total revision of the treaty until such time as we had at least explored article 15 and the opportunity that it provides for getting re-examination.

The Premier stated the other day, when I first raised this, that he did not have the article in his mind. He did not have it memorized and I quite agree that's the case — undoubtedly he did not have it memorized. But when he asked Members of this party to use their influence with the government in Ottawa, we then indicated our willingness to do so — indeed, our enthusiasm for doing so — provided we were brought up to date with all new information available so that we would be making a positive and best possible brief instead of a brief which might, indeed, have certain areas where we would have to speculate, not being privy to some of the secrets of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., B.C. Hydro or the government. So I wonder whether the Premier at this date would like to indicate to us whether he has checked into the article in question, article 15, whether he has, indeed, requested the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to use this avenue to get a renegotiation of price and return to British Columbia for electricity and what the results of that request to that Minister were.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the character of this debate has changed a little bit this week.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): One week of pounding and one week of no answers.

Mr. Gibson: That's right. As the Hon. Member for Columbia River says, it was one week of pounding

[ Page 927 ]

the table, telling us how great he was. One week and no answers — is that what it's going to be this week?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: There have been some very good points made this afternoon by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's all the same stuff. You're just filibustering.

Mr. Gibson: It's not the same stuff, Mr. Premier. You haven't answered the questions yet. Look at the first-rate question about what the real deficit of ICBC is. It's going to unbalance your budget, and you know it perfectly well. You haven't answered that question. You can produce a nine-month report for Hydro but not a nine-month report for ICBC. That is phony and you know it.

Let me give you a brand new question, Mr. Premier. You haven't answered the other ones, but I'll give you a now one not to answer. What about the Bank of British Columbia rights? Why did the actions of your government allow 10 per cent of that company to end up with a Toronto trust company, which we just heard over the last weekend?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because we didn't exercise our rights.

Mr. Gibson: "Because we didn't exercise our rights, " says the Premier. That's exactly why. Why didn't you exercise your rights? Will you stand up and tell this House? Will you tell us whether the rights were sold? Or did you just let them lapse?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They were sold.

Mr. Gibson: "They were sold," says the Premier. And if they were sold, how much were they sold for?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We'll get the answer for you in just a minute.

Mr. Gibson: There was a little bit of a trading range in those rights and we'd like to know what they were sold for but, more importantly, why did you let those shares get out of British Columbia?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why shouldn't we?

Mr. Gibson: Because it was a British Columbia financial institution. God knows, Mr. Premier, we have little enough of it out here. We have that phony Canada Development Corp. head office down at the foot of Granville Street and we have the Bank of British Columbia and we have one or two trust companies, and that's all we've got here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When we buy the shares you attack us for buying them, When we don't pick up options you attack us for not picking up the options. You fellows have changed your position so much in six months it's unbelievable.

Mr. Gibson: Something's happened to that Premier, Mr. Chairman. I never attacked him for buying Bank of British Columbia shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There has been something wrong with me — I've been trying to listen to you for the last while and I regret it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gibson: We don't have the funny, jovial fellow with us this week we did last week. I regret not having him with us any more — it was a fun week last week. There were some good speeches which the Premier gave. He didn't answer our questions but they weren't bad as speeches.

It's not good enough to just say: "It's government policy not to hold Bank of British Columbia shares and not to exercise the rights." Why is it not government policy? Why isn't it the policy of this government to retain control of a British Columbia financial institution within this province? That's a simple question and it's a new question and I want to know the answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't really understand. Are you announcing policy that the government should be in the marketplace? Is that your answer? Well, it's brand new from the opposition. I've never heard that before. But if you're saying that you support the government being in the marketplace for a new financial institution, you will have the opportunity this session to vote in favour of that when new legislation is brought in.

Mr. Gibson: That's not good enough!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No matter what you answer he says it's not good enough.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Last week we spent a great deal of time trying to get answers from the Premier and we have some very good routines, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has indicated, but there were some questions left unanswered among the rhetoric. There were some very real questions dealing with his

[ Page 928 ]

responsibility as the Premier and as the Minister of Finance and as the chief financial officer of this province — questions relating to how he will manage the money.

We have a budget of $3.2 billion, Mr. Chairman, and that's a lot of money. The Premier has said that he's brought honesty in budgeting and he's actually budgeting to come out with a $500,000 surplus this year — budgeting right next to the line. He tells us that they have come up with this new way of realistically appraising revenues. But we've got to be concerned, because the public isn't satisfied that this Premier, this Minister of Finance, can realistically control the expenditures to stay, within the framework of that budget. He may have changed his method of presenting it in the nice copy with the pretty pictures, but how about a government that in its first budget in 1973-74 overextended by $377 million? We have a right to ask the Minister of Finance what new procedures he is going to follow so that he can monitor the day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month expending of the various departments that over spend their budgets.

It's something that just doesn't happen at the end of the year. The Premier and Minister of Finance should be able to spot these over expenditures daily because surely, if he's responsible, he has worked out a cash-flow statement not only for all of government but also for each department.

The first year, $377 million overspent; the second fiscal year, $342 million overspent. So the Legislature and this committee have a right to ask what the Premier and Minister of Finance is going to do differently. What is he going to do differently to guarantee that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) won't over spend by $103 million this year? How is the Finance Minister going to monitor the cash flow to guarantee that the Minister of Human Resources doesn't get out of control again?

How is he going to make a guarantee to the people of British Columbia, with his record of – monitoring expenses and controlling expenses and being responsible for seeing that the Ministers stay within the framework of the revenue that's allocated to them to spend? How is this Premier and Minister of Finance going to change the accounting methods of the Department of Finance?

Surely the people of British Columbia aren't prepared to let this Minister of Finance continue with the record he has for prudence. Surely the people of British Columbia aren't going to let this Minister of Finance continue when he hasn't been able to show restraint.

An Hon. Member: Or responsibility.

Mr. Bennett: Or responsibility. Now that he's brought realism, can he take a realistic attitude and some administrative control to guarantee it will happen?

Will the Minister of Finance and Premier advise if his year he is going to get daily reports of cash flow from every department? Will he be able to monitor he spending of Human Resources on a daily basis?

Will the Premier and Minister of Finance tell us, if the Department of Human Resources starts to overextend on their cash flow budget, what programmes he will have them curtail in the way of benefits to bring their spending within the limits of he budget? Or if, because of inflation, or if there's a shortfall of revenue, is he prepared to go into a deficit budget?

Will the Minister of Finance and Premier advise the House whether he will curtail any of the programmes of any of the departments — whether it's Health or Human Resources or Agriculture — if any of the programmes are contained within the framework of the budget of these departments? Will the Minister of Finance have the Ministers curtail these 6 programmes at any point they are overextending their cash flow and their projected budget for the year? Will the Minister of Finance be able to identify to this Legislature what programmes — and in what priorities — the government is prepared to have remain, with this new, tight, realistic budget they talk about?

It's hard to believe that a government that has overextended itself by $377 million one year, $342 million the next year, can come within the limits of a budget that has no margin for error, and has only a $500,000 projected surplus. We know the government is great at collecting; we know it sucks in money like a vacuum cleaner. But nobody has ever been able to prove to us, under the record of this Minister of Finance, that he knows how to stop it going out the other end. The only filter bag he's got to hold on to the money is the big, growing bureaucracy of the civil service, and that doesn't create benefits to people.

Here we have a Department of Finance talking about $3.2 billion and only a $500,000 or $600,000 surplus. Yet they haven't advised the House that they're able to control the over expenditures that have taken place in the past or how they are going to monitor the cash flow or where they are going to stop programmes should the departments start to over spend, or what programmes they will cut out if they have been over optimistic in estimating their revenue.

Certainly we've seen some danger signs in the Canadian economy in the real growth of this country since this budget was presented. And the shortfall is even more in British Columbia.

We've seen more distressing unemployment figures, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), since this budget was brought

[ Page 929 ]

down.

Mr. Chairman, we have not had any advice from the Premier and Minister of Finance on how he is going to make adjustments to bring the Department of Finance into control of the situation. He talks about a new, realistic budget but he doesn't present to us, in questioning, any new, realistic procedures for controlling the expenditures of this province, to guarantee that we get full value, to guarantee, for those Ministers who don't seem to be able to control the expenditure in their own departments...

Mr. Phillips: Like the A-G's. Spend it like water.

Mr. Bennett: ...how he is going to control them. The people of British Columbia want to know because it is their money. They have sent their money here in trust to be managed wisely and with prudence. They want restraint in this inflationary period. Yet they have received no answer all during the debate that took place on the estimates all last week.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Again, we are worried about the expenditures; we are worried about the procedures; we are worried about the cash flow. We have to question very seriously the estimates of the revenue and the promises for the spending of that revenue that aren't even shown in the budget.

One promise that was made in January was that the municipal governments were going to get $60 million. I remember it because I was listening to my radio in the interior. It was all across the interior by radio network that the municipalities were going to participate in $60 million worth of additional revenue from the sale- of natural gas. That is what was going to happen. Yet I don't see it in the budget either as a collection or an expenditure to the municipalities — nothing about $60 million.

Mr. Phillips: It's all hot air.

Mr. Bennett: Nothing about the $60 million. When the Premier advises what departments and what programmes will be cut back if they can't control the spending of such a department as Human Resources this year, are the municipalities in advance the first department to be cut back? Their revenue and expenditures aren't even being shown.

If he is prepared to deal fairly with the municipalities...

Mr. Phillips: It is a hot air budget.

Mr. Bennett: ...why not amend the budget?

You could say: "We are going to give you $20 million, $40 million or even the $60 million we promised back in January. We will put it in the budget. We won't compel you to participate in our lottery and our fight with Ottawa. We recognize that we have a responsibility to the municipalities. We will guarantee you revenue on a proper financial sharing basis as part of the growth of the economy."

All of us realize that the provincial government's revenues in this period of inflation, which this government has helped to feed and foster and lead, have doubled and even more than doubled in just a little over two years. Yet municipal revenue hasn't come even close to showing that growth rate.

They talk about a $2 increase in the per capita grant. Does that reflect the growth of provincial revenues and the need of the municipal governments in participating? Not at all. It is all right to compare $2 this year with $2 that may have been given in earlier years, but remember that our revenue has doubled. The purchasing power has dropped. In real dollars our municipalities are receiving less than they ever received in British Columbia from the government.

I might say that it may not have been enough in the past, but in this period of tremendous growth and tremendous inflation and less purchasing power, municipal financing must be tied to specific sources of revenue. A third of a lottery ticket isn't showing responsibility in dealing with their financial problems.

When we talk about that lottery ticket, we have to remember that that is all involved in the resource revenue war that seems to be going on with the Government of Canada. A lot of us are aware that the federal government in their budget made some attempt to move in to the provincial resource taxation field. It has even been suggested by the Minister of Finance here on the floor that they weren't after Alberta. Ottawa was after B.C. and why not? Who started the revenue war with the Government of Canada? Was it not the Government of B.C. that first found the magic formula of taking over private companies? What was the main argument? They are going to take their share of the federal income tax; they are going to take a big share of the federal income tax...

Mr. D.A. Anderson: B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Bennett: ...and not in the normal field of natural monopoly where the people may expect to own and control, but in the field of competition, in the forest industry and in those other areas that are naturally served by the private sector competitively. The government has moved in and said: "The big saving to the people of B.C. Is that we are going to steal the taxation revenues from Ottawa." Did they and this Minister of Finance think that Ottawa

[ Page 930 ]

wouldn't retaliate? No wonder they are after B.C. We started the war; the Premier started the war by firing his popgun. Now he is upset because the cannons are firing back.

He started a war between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia that he can't finish. He tries to finish it with publicity and performance. Really, we can't stand that type of confrontation in Canada; what we want is consultation. And rather than trade revenues for the ideal of socialism — revenues that the Minister of Finance and Premier hasn't the right to trade.... He hasn't got the right to trade what we acquired and have as a right under the BNA Act just because he's a socialist and if the federal government will adopt socialist principles. Those resources and the revenues belong to British Columbia. Our party will fight to protect those rights, and fight for the rights of the people of British Columbia with any government in Ottawa.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): What an about face!

Mr. Bennett: You know, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) let the cat out of the bag about how they were going to deal with saving revenue for the Province of British Columbia. That was his excuse for taking over Dunhill. We all remember his statements then. After he told us he was going to buy the expertise of this tremendous management team, he said that was the one thing that was going to solve the housing problem for the people of British Columbia. We all remember that, surely. But his clincher was this, and I go to Hansard of April 2:

It is our intention that this shall become a Crown corporation. As a Crown corporation its status would be such that it would not have to pay federal income tax.

He goes on further:

They are a Crown corporation and their tax situation is an advantage.

An advantage to whom?

But there was the fight with Ottawa: a few little revenues to rob Ottawa of their share of the federal income tax. And it escalated into a full confrontation, with Ottawa getting its pound of flesh, retaliating against all provinces, and, of course, the fight started here in British Columbia.

One thing we haven't ever discussed in this debate is that when there's a loss in federal income tax revenue from the corporation tax, there is a loss in the provincial share of the corporation tax revenue. As this government is committed to public ownership of those areas normally served by private enterprise, what are they doing, when they take over a company like Dunhill, to pay into consolidated general revenues in lieu of the taxes lost to pay for services to people? What efforts have they made to put in funds so that we don't have an ever-declining tax base while they reach out and meet their commitments to ownership of firms, decline the tax base and put more and more pressure on the people of this province?

We see that pressure developing in this budget as a greater share of the budget than ever before is paid by the people of this province. Taxes from people. The sales tax, the personal income tax — more taxes from people. Property tax, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) says, is escalating as a provincial revenue source and escalating to people in the municipalities because they're not being financially fairly dealt with by this province's provincial government.

We have this declining tax base, and we have the federal government retaliating by moving into provincial tax areas. We now have the confrontation — the type of confrontation that won't help build and solidify Confederation because I think, and all people feel, that nothing can break up Canada but the type of escalation of tax wars and tax revenue wars that seems to be developing now in Canada. We have the dubious distinction, here in British Columbia, of having started the war. We started the war.

The Premier offers, now that he gets desperate, to trade our revenues from petroleum resources if the federal government will buy his philosophy of socialism. That's what he has offered to trade. The Premier doesn't have the right to trade away the provincial rights of this province or any other province. Our party will fight for British Columbia in any election in the future.

Now we also have the problem of unanswered questions as to the ethical standards of procedures of the government or the government Ministers when they're dealing with the fragility of the stock market, particularly now that the government participates in the ownership of those stocks. I raised on the floor of this House the other day a very serious question about the conduct of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in making statements that may have affected the cost price of the Can-Cel shares. We haven't had an answer.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): That thing has been up five times already.

Mr. Bennett: First of all, the Attorney-General hasn't been here most of the week, so I know you've done your homework by reading Hansard. But I'd like to say that this was summed up very well in an editorial in the Victoria Times on the weekend.

It's an editorial that should bring to mind the fragility and the responsibility of the government and the Ministers, as to the power they have assumed by implication now that they have become government

[ Page 931 ]

and Ministers of the Crown in British Columbia. I'd like to quote from part of it.

"Although it remains to be proved whether there is anything unlawful, or even mildly unethical, in the events surrounding the provincial government's purchase earlier this year of 272,000 Canadian Cellulose shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the government can be criticized on one ground. It doesn't seem to realize at all the tremendous power it has in influencing the stock market and the investments of thousands of large and small investors."

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That Member wanted me to knock a couple of stocks this afternoon.

Mr. Bennett: The Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman has just come in with a bill in this House to affect insider trading and to affect the stock exchange. I'm not confident that many in this government — and certainly not the Premier — would appreciate the power they have, but I would certainly expect the chief law enforcement officer of this province to understand the responsibility of this government when it is buying companies or dealing in the stock market and wherever the government or the Ministers have made or quoted intentions in the newspaper that may effect either a rise in the price or a fall in the price. It is incumbent upon those Ministers, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that the Attorney-General, if he had been here last week, would have advised the Premier to make a statement on this.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: He was here all last week. I heard the same speeches last week.

Mr. Bennett: We had the very curious case of this government....

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Go look after your Macdonald's Hunsperger.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Macdonald's doesn't serve them.

Mr. Bennett: No. We don't know which Macdonald's is serving them.

What I started to say, Mr. Chairman, is that this isn't the first case of this government's or Ministerial statements affecting the price of stocks or affecting the fragility of the market. In this case the remark was made by the Lands and Forests Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams), and when he made the remark that the government may be interested in selling some of the shares of Can-Cel, the prices dropped. I'll quote from the Victoria Times editorial, because it said:

"When he made the remark, Can-Cel shares were selling at $4.50. After the Labour Day weekend the price slipped to $4.30 and by mid-September was a dollar lower still. When Dow Jones reported in early December that Can-Cel may be about to sell shares, the price was still under $4 and it took until mid-January this year, when presumably the B.C. government moved in to buy, for the price to get back to its pre-Williams level of six months before. Then the price took off, hit $6.50...."

It goes on to say — and this is the point we're trying to make to the Premier and the Finance Minister and the Attorney-General:

"An earlier example of the same dynamics was provided by Premier Dave Barrett soon after he took office. He announced firmly that nationalization of the B.C. Telephone Co. was a priority item and that two natural gas pipeline companies were also prime takeover targets. With a business community jittery enough about a socialist government in power, that's all it took to touch off a stock market selling binge. Now, two years later, the Premier says B.C. Tel. won't be nationalized, now or in the...future.

"Back in 1972 he denied any responsibility for the market plunge and said he was only reiterating party policy. But public pronouncements by the leader of a government — and one of his most powerful cabinet lieutenants — do have serious repercussions.

"That goes double for a government like the present provincial administration, with its large shareholdings in Can-Cel, B.C. Tel., Westcoast Transmission Co. and the Bank of B.C. Ministers should be scrupulously careful in this regard, above the slightest suspicion. They haven't been in the past."

Now what we've been asking the Premier to do, Mr. Chairman, as Premier and as Minister of Finance, is to set some ethical standards to bind his Ministers and to commit his Ministers to recognizing the problems they can create for the small investor with such Ministerial statements.

Ministers such as the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) certainly have great weight with the public, and great believability with those who don't know them in affecting the price of such stocks as Can-Cel. The Minister of Lands and Forests, since the government owns over 80 per cent now, can affect the profitability. When he says "we're selling," the people say it's a good time to sell.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: He has more

[ Page 932 ]

credibility than you know.

Mr. Bennett: That may not be much. (Laughter.)

But here we have the government led by a Premier who doesn't seem to realize that in leading the government in B.C. he has a responsibility to direct those of his cabinet Ministers who may not be appreciative of this fact, particularly when he himself was the first offender, particularly since we have the unusual trading patterns surrounding shares in companies when the government took them over, and certainly now that the government still has the ability that it took through the Revenue Act. We have this latest case where, indeed, the statements of the Minister have affected the stock market. This Legislature and this government should be responsible for the ethical conduct of the Ministers and the Premier in leading and having the public not led astray in their purchase of stocks now that this government is actively involved in the financial market.

We have this Premier failing to give ethical direction to his Ministers or any set of guidelines to this Legislature about how such purchases and statements will be handled in the future and what steps will be taken to amend such statements when they are inadvertently given wide publicity after being made by such Ministers as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

We have no apology from the Minister of Lands and no explanation from the Premier. In fact, the Premier wouldn't even acknowledge that those shares had actually been purchased. We had to read in the financial pages of the newspaper the following day that an announcement was made that the government had in fact purchased the shares in Can-Cel.

What was the new excuse as to why they even bought them? They say it's for an employee share-purchase programme.

An Hon. Member: Yup.

Mr. Bennett: I would believe that. I would believe that.

Mr. Chairman: I bring to the Member's attention that you're on the green light.

Mr. Bennett: I would believe that, Mr. Chairman, if it hadn't been for the fact that in any other business when there is an employee stock-option purchase, usually the business involved issues shares from the treasury. Certainly there are a lot of authorized shares in Can-Cel that can be used to offer the employees share participation. If the government is worried about its 75 per cent holding or better, the government has the opportunity to equally distribute to itself an offering that allows it the same amount of share-purchase rights.

If Can-Cel was going to deal with its employees on a share-purchase programme, why wouldn't they be acquiring the shares or offering the shares? Why are they being purchased by the Government of British Columbia, purchased without any announcement, purchased against the early advice of the Minister of Lands? Were they, in fact, acquiring those shares so they could get up to the 90 per cent limit and apply for the rest of the shares so that the government could get 100 per cent ownership and so that once more the government wouldn't be forced to pay federal income tax? We know that the tax benefits have accrued to the government and that it hasn't paid any federal tax since Can-Cel was taken over. Here is this government that worries about Imperial Oil using write-offs and losses for not paying federal income tax using the same procedures of write-offs that gave it tax losses so that it didn't have to pay federal income tax. Now that those tax benefits are running out, was it making an overt move to take control without advising the minority shareholders? Is this responsible action for a government?

We have this government that doesn't seem to realize that they are acting for all the people of British Columbia. They have a responsibility that all the affairs of government be over and above board. They have a responsibility that indiscreet statements by Ministers or indiscretions by Members....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Member's attention — you've used up your time.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we're on the Premier's estimates...

Mr. Phillips: It would be nice if he were here.

Mr. Gibson: ...and in view of the fact the Premier hasn't been here for — what? What would you guess — 15 minutes, 20 minutes, something like that? Certainly not with any reference to you, Sir, but in view of the Premier's absence, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 16

[ Page 933 ]

NAYS — 31

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I suppose we should apologize for bringing the Premier into the chamber, but I didn't have time to get the apology out before he left again. (Laughter.)

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): He knew you were going to speak.

Mr. McGeer: It's a heavy afternoon for the Premier, obviously. I don't know what kind of interview he is conducting out in the corridor. But one of the reasons why we had to detain the Premier I would take it, for a record length of time during the estimates is because the only answers we have got have been in the corridor. He has made speeches in the House but he has not answered questions. The theatrics were impressive, no question about that, but the facts were few.

We don't know what pearls of public wisdom are being generated on our behalf out in the corridor, but we do know that the Premier is neither interested in listening to questions nor interested in answering them.

An Hon. Member: That is right.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is prepared to make a speech at the drop of an NDP card, always prepared to make a speech, but very seldom is he prepared to comment on the legitimate issues that are raised in this House in the interests of the public welfare. I suppose the Premier is a worried man this afternoon, judging from the latest poll information which was brought into the House showing Social Credit, of all things, leading the polls. I tell you, if you can achieve that kind of Political feat when you are in office, you are running backwards at a remarkable rate of speed.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Look what happened in Esquimalt.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, there was a big vote there for a prominent NDP member: 19 votes.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: It's a good job that the twin brother for the Minister of Education wasn't running.

Mr. McClelland: He'll be running in November.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson) is relaxing over in the corner. The last time I raised this subject, I asked if perhaps he wouldn't listen so that we could get some answers from him via the Premier. I don't want to rake over the ashes of last week's debate, unless the government insists.

Hon. Mr. Lea: We'd like to hear it again.

Mr. McGeer: If it is the wish of the House, Mr. Chairman...

Hon. Mr. Lea: You're getting better.

Mr. McGeer: ...but I don't know how much support there would be on this side of the House. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: You can go on back there and get a division.

Hon. Mr. Lea: You're getting it down, Pat.

Mr. McGeer: To summarize for the Minister of Highways, we were really debating the principle of the value of our natural resources, our right to tax them when considered over all of the future of British Columbia. It is a priceless asset that the Premier has given away. Nothing that he can do, short of taking what remains of his case to court, will do justice to the rights of British Columbia.

I want to dwell today on another subject much closer to the Premier's heart: the current value of our natural gas. The specific question which I want to ask the Deputy Minister of Finance, through the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, is: in the figure of $230 million quoted in our estimate books, what is the selling value of our natural gas upon which that $230 million figure is given? Last year you will note that on that particular line in the estimate books the

[ Page 934 ]

figure quoted was $78 million. There is an increase there of over $150 million. As I gather from talking to officials of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and the Department of Finance, the $230 million includes $80 million for the sale of leases and $150 million income from our natural gas.

Our capacity to produce natural gas, as I understand it, is only 400 million cubic feet per year. The $150 million gross that the Premier must derive in order to reach his spending estimates would be based on some kind of a price that would guarantee him $150 million after he pays the 30 per cent of the net profit he gets to Ottawa.

He has promised to share with the cities and municipalities everything he gets for export over $1 per mcf. The amount he is exporting at the present time is about 260 million mcf per year, which is 60 per cent of our gross production. The remaining 40 per cent, or 160 million mcf, is for domestic consumption. The cost per mcf, according to the B.C. Petroleum Corp., is 48 cents — made up of 25 cents for transmission and 23 cents which goes to the producers. Everything above that is profit, 70 per cent of which the province keeps and 30 per cent of which goes to Ottawa.

If the export price and the domestic price remain the same, if you work out the net to the provincial government, it's $126 million from export and $11 million from domestic sales. That's a total of $136 million, of which the government keeps $70 million; and the Premier makes $95 million. That's far short of the $150 million he calculates. He does make the $150 million if the export price is $1.35 starting on April 1 - that's next Tuesday — which we know he can't do, even if the federal government gives him what he said he didn't say, which was the $1.35, in the corridor.

If he gets that price and earns that $150 million, by the formula in the budget he's promised about $15 million to the cities and municipalities. So even at $1.35, starting next Tuesday, eight days from now, there's no way he can meet the revenue estimates that appear in the budget. There must be something more involved. Either the Premier in budgeting for his minimum expenditures expects to get more than $1.35 from Ottawa, starting next Tuesday, or he expects to make the difference up by increasing the price of domestic gas.

Those figures of $230 million in our revenue estimate books were put there based on hard estimates made by the Department of Finance. They must have included projections for increase in the cost of our natural gas. That's obvious — to go from $78 million to $230 million. If the spending programmes of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) are to be maintained, as well as the spending programmes of all of the other departments of government, then these revenue figures must be obtained.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Last week the Premier made a wonderful speech saying how he'd never ever turn the taps off on the Americans. Never would he do a think as irresponsible as that, and the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had been irresponsible in the statements he made in this House suggesting that we might turn the taps off in British Columbia.

Mind you, he was referring to the natural gas taps. When they wanted to turn the taps on in British Columbia to relieve a water shortage in Point Roberts, the Premier wasn't a bit interested in turning the taps on then. There was a crisis. He wouldn't turn the water taps on, but he'd never ever turn those natural gas taps off, because that would be irresponsible.

I'll tell you why those taps will never be turned off, Mr. Chairman. Read that revenue figure of $230 million. Tell me how we can turn the taps off, no matter how much we might need the natural gas in the future, and still meet those projections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We've got a contract.

Mr. McGeer: Well, you're not living up to the contract now.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Up to 80,000 mcf?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Table the contract in the House. Tell us how far short we are now of the maximum. What is it, 809,000 mcf a day?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The only thing missing from your argument is logic.

Mr. McGeer: All that is missing is some facts from the Premier. The first one is: what are the projected prices that allow you to reach $230 million revenue from this particular source this coming fiscal year? What's the export price and what's the domestic price that will allow you to get that necessary money? You know it's necessary because you put the spending estimates up to $3.2 billion. You've got to get it.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier a related question which deals with an issue raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). That concerns the value of our electrical energy now that the Premier has established a different value for our natural gas. The different value for natural gas was based on different energy value for oil. If oil is worth

[ Page 935 ]

more, natural gas is worth more. If natural gas is worth more, electricity is worth more, because they are all alternative forms of energy. Natural gas fires our Burrard thermal plant; oil fires our Burrard thermal plant; the thermal plant produces electricity, a form of energy. So this re-evaluation that the Premier has arrived at very conveniently with regard to natural gas, of course, applies to electricity.

We asked the Premier earlier in the week a rather simple question, just to get started, as to who our representative was on the permanent engineering board under the Columbia River treaty, because of course that permanent engineering board would be the board that would receive instructions from the government as to the kind of data that should be accumulated to appear in the annual reports. I'm not sure the Premier knew there were annual reports. They're nice, red, bound volumes.

The Premier didn't know who our representative was. If you don't even know who your representative is, you are a long way, Mr. Chairman, from giving him instructions as to what data he should be accumulating regarding the value of this alternative form of energy.

The Americans are paying nothing for peaking power. But as the value of our natural gas increases (it has trebled in the last two years), so does the equivalent value of the electricity we are not obtaining as our share of downstream benefits under the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Premier, one of the urgencies that you have for taking up this matter of renegotiating the Columbia River treaty is of your own making, because as you increase the value of our exported natural gas, so you increase the value of the electrical benefits that we are not getting, so it increases the urgency of your obtaining the necessary data under the permanent engineering board, of which you have a say as to who the member from this provincial government is to be.

So, Mr. Premier, we'd like to hear, in addition to the firm price you are calculating our natural gas is worth in this coming year, what you intend to do about the equivalent matter of electrical energy.

Mr. Bennett: While the Premier was out before, I was asking some serious questions that he hasn't already answered. We have asked the questions and we have a right to know, the public has a right to know, about what procedures he is going to take to change the control aspects of spending of his government to guarantee that the overruns will not take place that took place in the first two years. Now that he's changed, he says, the budgetary procedures to more factual budgeting, perhaps he will tell us how he will control the expenditures so we don't get expenditure overruns of $300 million and $400 million in a single year. What I was asking when the green light ground me to a halt...

Mr. Phillips: Closure, closure!

Mr. Bennett: ...was about the government's and the Premier's lack of response as to the government's purchase of the shares in Canadian Cellulose. The other day, when we asked about the shares of Can-Cel, the Premier and Minister of Finance went off in one of his famous speeches but didn't advise the House, in fact, if the government had bought any shares, if they were continuing to buy, and for what purpose they were buying them.

He wouldn't comment or correct the statement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who had said that the government, indeed, may sell some of its shares in Can-Cel. He didn't comment on changing the procedures of Ministerial statements that may affect the price of stocks as that stock was affected. He didn't advise the House as to the government's plans in the future for announcements to bring all of the public into the confidence of how public money is being spent when shares are being purchased, because actually it is the public's money. He didn't advise us if, in fact, the intent for purchasing those shares was to take the government into a 90 per cent equity position on Can-Cel so, indeed, they might apply to take over all the shares and convert Can-Cel into a Crown corporation. We had to wait for the newspapers some time later to get a statement from the Lands, Forests and Water Resources Minister that, yes, they had bought some shares but it was because the government was going to bring about an employee share participation.

I find it unusual, as I was saying, that the government, which is merely a shareholder — although it's 79 per cent, now over 80 per cent — of Can-Cel, said that it wasn't taking direction, wasn't leading the board of directors.... They've taken great pains to say that the board of directors is being appointed from New York and other places to guarantee that this company would operate independently. It seems surprising to us that the government then would be purchasing shares dealing with an employee stock-purchase plan.

I would like to elaborate because the statements from both the government and from Canadian Cellulose leave us a little bit in a quandary if, indeed, this was the government's intention, or whether they were caught buying shares to give them the 90 per cent interest and used an old discussion, that they had discussed with the management of Can-Cel, to cover up the reason for their stock purchases. Today an official of the company is quoted as saying — and this is a spokesman for Columbia Cellulose — that the company last fall had preliminary talks to determine whether the government would be willing to sell more

[ Page 936 ]

of its shareholdings in the company for possible use in an employee stock-purchase plan or stock-option plan. I reiterate, the spokesman for Columbia Cellulose said that....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. A point of order by the Hon. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I think that you have already ruled that I cannot possibly deal with other Ministers' departments; otherwise, we'll spend the whole time on me. Now, Mr. Chairman, the question is: he's talking about policy of Can-Cel, which comes under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The point of order, I think, is well taken, inasmuch as the Premier has indicated that this does not fall within his area of administrative responsibility. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to wait until the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is on his feet.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, all the Premier has to do is advise me if the government bought the shares or if Can-Cel bought the shares. If the government bought the shares, then, as the financial agent and with the power he has taken under the Revenue Act, he's the one who authorizes the purchase of the shares. Now if the Premier bought the shares, then it comes under his estimates — it comes under the power he dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ohhh!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If we followed that logic, every loan I sign for the Department of Agriculture I sign as Minister of Finance. Every capital expenditure that's done for every department comes under Finance. Every hospital.... Now if you follow that logic through, that means I have to debate every single Minister, and it was rules before I was Premier in this House that that's not the way estimates are handled, and now you want to go back to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order made by the Hon. Premier, the Chair must rule that anything that falls within the administrative responsibility of another Minister must be brought up at that time. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) then to bring up a new subject.

Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman, because the....

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Bennett: The purchase of shares under the Revenue Act is the responsibility of the Premier and Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: The point of order I continue to wish to make is that this is a new departure by this government in giving themselves the opportunity to purchase shares on the market with public funds. It's the responsibility of the Minister of Finance; it's not something that is the responsibility of other governments. If the announcement and the request the other day was....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Bennett: I'm continuing to ask you....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Bennett: I'm on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition then get to his point on the point of order?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition continue, then, on the point of order?

Mr. Bennett: The purchase of shares, whether they be for the Bank of British Columbia, whether they be for Can-Cel or whether they be for any other public company, is the responsibility of the Premier, I would like you, Mr. Chairman, if you follow the direction of the Premier, to tell me under whose estimates we would bring up the purchase of Bank of B.C. shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Department of Finance acts as fiscal agent for every single government department. There is no difference when you start discussing the other departments. That's what the other Ministers are here for.

Now they have set a record for a filibuster in this House on any Minister's vote ever; and you are right out of order, in my opinion. You're dealing with policy.

[ Page 937 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: These shares were bought by the Queen in the right of the province under the Revenue Act, and it is this statute under which the shares were bought. The Revenue Act is under the administration and the responsibility of the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the hon. leader continues, on the same point of order, the Chair has made a ruling and continues to make the same ruling that a matter such as this, even though it falls in some sense within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.... So the same argument could be applied to all fiscal matters applying to every department of government.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chair would rule that this matter should be properly brought up under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, just a further point of order. I would agree with you if the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had bought those shares by the Crown corporation, B.C. Cellulose, which is under his jurisdiction. But if they've been bought in the name of the Crown, then they are under the jurisdiction of the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I've signed bonds for the purchases of schools and for hospitals. If they're going to debate that under my estimates, you can debate every single department. The same rules that applied before should apply now. If you want to discuss the pension plans, if you want to discuss everything else, you do it all under my estimates.

Mr. Gardom: The Revenue Act is worth looking at to assist you in your deliberations, Mr. Chairman. It says under section 4:

"There shall be a department of the civil service of British Columbia to be called the Department of Finance, over which the Minister of Finance, for the time being appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor by commission under the Great Seal, shall preside."

So he's presiding under the Great Seal.

Then we move into section 9 and it says this: "The Minister of Finance...." It doesn't refer to any other Minister of the Crown; it refers to the Minister of Finance. F-I-N-A-N-C-E.

"The Minister of Finance may in his discretion invest any moneys of the consolidated revenue fund in the capital stock of any corporation."

And that is the point the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make, and he is completely in order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member be seated until I consult my legal counsel? Everyone is entitled to talk to their lawyers.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has made a ruling, and the Chair stands by this ruling, that this matter should be properly discussed under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams.)

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Is there an Hon. Member who has challenged the ruling?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, we've always discussed the Revenue Act and the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance under the Revenue Act under the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We never did.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is saying that we never did, but I'm one Member who discussed at length with the former Premier, under the Minister of Finance's estimates, his policies for financing schools under the school financing authority, a Crown corporation; the financing of hospitals under the hospitals financing authority, a Crown corporation — including the B.C. Rail and the B.C. Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just let me finish here. The Premier brought in a bill granting himself the right to play the stock market. Not the Minister of Lands and Forests, not the cabinet, not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the Minister of Finance — he's the stock player. If we're going to discuss...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: ...playing the stock market, we do it under his estimates and no one else's.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In regard to the point made by the Hon. Member, I just want to clarify the point of order, then I would say that this is a ruling of the Chair, and the only recourse for the

[ Page 938 ]

Member is to challenge the ruling.

In regard to the support for the ruling: the first point is that the Premier has indicated that the most appropriate place to consider this matter would be under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Therefore, immediate....

An Hon. Member: He doesn't make the rules in this House.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. So the method has been provided — a proper and appropriate place to consider this matter.

The second point is that, clearly, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources does have responsibility in that area that is circumscribed by the ownership of stock by Can-Cel. It's within his administrative action. Therefore I've made the ruling, and if any Member wishes to challenge it, they may. But we will not debate the ruling further.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I just have one further point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the Hon. Leader...?

Mr. Bennett: If you were following my argument, it all dealt with who was the purchaser of the shares.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The chair....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Interjections.

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

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman, after consultation, has made a ruling, and I would therefore rule that there should be no more debate on this ruling. If any Members wish to challenge the ruling, they may do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is it an additional point of order on some other matter?

Mr. Gardom: Yes, it's an additional point of order on this matter. Look! There's one word here, and the word is "discretion." The Minister can say in his discretion — it doesn't talk about the discretion of....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has made a ruling. Anyone wishing to challenge the Chair may do so; otherwise would you move to another subject?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: No. If it's about this ruling, then the questioning is over.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member on a point of.... Now this is a point of order, but information dealing with some other matter, I presume.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. May we ask the Premier about his purchases of B.C. Telephone stock, or would that come under some other Minister? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chairman: The Chair does not deal with hypothetical situations. If the Hon. Member or some other Hon. Member deals with the matter in debate, then the Chair will deal with it appropriately.

Some Hon. Members: Mockery!

Mr. Bennett: On the same point of information, because I asked you earlier: under what department will we discuss the purchase of bank shares?

An Hon. Member: He's got you there!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The proper

[ Page 939 ]

procedure for...

Mr. Bennett: It affects this ruling.

Mr. Chairman: ...guidance of the Hon. Members is that they talk about something that if, in their judgment, it's in order, then they talk about it; then the Chair will rule it out of order. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Bennett: Your, decision on these other stock transactions would indicate what ruling you should make in this case and, I would say, under what department we should discuss the purchase of bank shares.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It's not a proper question to address to the Chair.

Some Hon. Members: It is!

Mr. Bennett: It has great relevance to the point before the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just for the edification of the Hon. Members, if you wish to know whether something is in order, you just start talking about it and then the Chair will rule you out of order if it is out of order.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: The Premier's hiding under the desk cover, hanging his head in shame! In shame!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if no other course is open to me, I challenge your ruling.

Some Hon. Members: Absolute closure!

Mr. Phillips: Big-talk dictatorship!

An Hon. Member: Nothing but closure!

An Hon. Member: Dictatorship!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply, while considering vote 2, there was discussion initiated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) concerning the purchase of Can-Cel shares. The Chair ruled that this was out of order in consideration of vote 2, and my ruling was challenged.

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is going to interrupt the vote, will he kindly leave?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do you want the ruling challenged or not?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 15

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

Mr. Chairman: Just before we begin, I would again remind the Hon. Members that in committee debate must be strictly relevant to the matter under consideration, namely vote 2. Furthermore, we must not get into matters pertaining to legislation.

Mr. Bennett: In regard to the Premier's duties as Minister of Finance and how he sets the rules and standards for his cabinet Ministers and the rules and standards he sets as the Finance Minister and fiscal agent for the purchase of shares on the market and in buying new companies, last spring this party was very concerned about a set of rules being established that the public would understand, that this Legislature would understand and that would bind the Premier

[ Page 940 ]

and Minister of Finance in the way he purchased shares or companies on the market. Because the powers taken under the Revenue Act are new, because we now have a government that will deal with more and more ownership in what was normally considered the private sector, and because the weight of government would affect the price of such shares, or the fact that in government, with the number of people who have to know, there is the distinct possibility of leaks or for the use of information that may not be available to the general public, we asked last year that a set of rules and conditions be laid down and explained to this Legislature that would guide this government in its purchase of future companies such as Dunhill or its adventure into the stock market to purchase partial equity in companies such as Can-Cel.

We wanted rules that would govern the government in a more realistic way than the way they made their purchases and the surrounding events of unusual trading patterns that happened at that time. We were concerned because, as I suggested and as the Victoria Times has continued to state in its editorial on Saturday, this government and its Ministers and the Premier have perhaps not been as aware as they should of the fragility of the market and the discretion they must show and the discretionary nature their remarks must take in order not to affect and create violent swings in the change of prices and shares. This is an unusual situation, because this government is adventuring into areas of equity ownership that were not adventured into before by other governments. We suggested and the Victoria Times, indeed, has followed up with an editorial saying it has been a very real problem. They, too, speaking for thousands of British Columbians out there, ask the government and the Minister of Finance and the Premier to, in fact, set a rule of standards for his cabinet, advise his Ministers to be prudent in their language so that the possibility of Ministerial statements, and particularly those of the Ministers who have extreme power and are considered strong in the cabinet, including the Premier and Minister of Finance himself, that indeed they must guard against a recurrence of the events that have taken place under certain circumstances this last two and a half years.

They went on to point out, as I mentioned earlier, that an example was the reaction of the market to the Premier's statement when he first took government and announced he was taking over the B.C. Tel. They went on to point out that we had a similar occurrence with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), alluding to the fact that he may — he may — sell some of the Canadian Cellulose shares in order to pay for projects elsewhere in government. In fact, they point out that the stock market did react to these things.

It is the responsibility of government to correct an impression, and it was the responsibility of that Minister and the Premier to have a set of rules and conditions. If the Minister doesn't realize what has happened, the Premier must make a statement so that everyone, all of the public, must have the same information about the government's intentions. The government is there as trustee for the people and they must be prepared to make sure that people have all of the information and the correct information. We asked for these guidelines last year. We ask again this year, particularly in view of the unusual circumstances surrounding this series of transactions that have happened.

It is these sorts of Ministerial statements and statements about what accounting procedures this government will introduce to guarantee to this Legislature and to the people that the overruns that have taken place in government will not happen in this year, 1975. The Premier and Minister of Finance, in announcing his budget, specifically stated that we were embarked on a new form of budgeting, but he didn't elaborate further to tell us that we were embarking on a new programme of internal control that would guarantee to this Legislature and to the people of the province that the overruns and over expenditures of the last two years would not continue, and that the over expenditures and overruns of over $300 million in each of the last two fiscal years under the control of this Minister of Finance would not reoccur in this year of what the Premier and the Minister of Finance called "realistic budgeting."

I believe we are entitled to know, since he is embarked on a new way of presenting budgeting, a new finance formula, the methods of accountability with which this Minister of Finance will control the spending of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and whether the Premier and Minister of Finance has the procedures and the cash flow statements of each Ministerial department so that he will be able to control on a day-to-day basis or a week-to-week basis the expenditures of those departments as they get out of control, as they did last year and as they did the year before.

He hasn't told us yet, and the people are entitled to know, because we have a budget and a budgetary practice of the Premier and Minister of Finance that is new. There is no margin for error, no margin for over expenditure. With the record of over expenditure of the Minister, this Legislature and the people would like to know that there are new procedures that would guarantee to us that somebody somewhere is controlling the expenditures of the Minister of Human Resources, who last year admits to an over expenditure of $103 million — in a budget that

[ Page 941 ]

has a projected surplus of just $500,000. The public should know what action the government is going to take if this Minister is allowed to run rampant again. We should be advised if the Premier has the means of monitoring this department and this Minister's spending. If, on a daily, cash-flow basis, he sees an over expenditure beyond budget, will he be able to move in and take corrective action in advance of waiting six months — as he did last year — into the fiscal year before it was blurted out that they were going to be $100 million over expended? Surely a Minister of Finance with the proper control on a daily basis would be able to ascertain at any given time that this department was embarked on a wild spending programme beyond its estimates and would be able to have initiated corrective action. We want to know that just such a procedure and machinery is set up to control the expenditures of these departments.

If not, we want to know, if the Premier and Minister of Finance has the authority and the ability to take control over these departments, if in fact he is prepared to restrict the spending on certain programmes. Then he must be prepared to tell the Legislature what priorities and what programmes will be the first to be cut back, perhaps even eliminated in effect, to bring about a balanced budget.

If not, I think he should be prepared to advise this Legislature, should those Ministers spend out of control, as they have for the past two years, and he can't balance the budget, that he would be prepared to go for a deficit budget. That would be a new departure in this province.

The public should know, indeed, what action he is going to take. It's a type of guarantee we must have in dealing with sums like $3.2 billion. We've asked for further comment from the Premier and Minister of Finance during these estimates, dealing very specifically with his duties as the Premier and Minister of Finance, as to how he's going to give direction over statements to various cabinet Ministers. What guidelines is he going to put before his cabinet Ministers because of in discretionary statements or in discretionary acts?

This province and the people want to know, because apparently we have a series of events in which there are no guidelines for the Ministers, and no direction coming from the Premier — whether it's receiving campaign contributions or whether it's dealing with indiscreet statements affecting the stock market. There seem to be no guidelines for standards of conduct, recognizing the responsibility that cabinet Ministers have. I think, as we have asked last week and this week, it's incumbent upon the Premier to provide the answers.

Mr. Gibson: I've just a very short opening question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if he could tell us, within a few million dollars, how much we have in the bank? Well, just within $5 million or $10 million would do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, it's very disappointing this afternoon — the Premier's tongue-tied. We couldn't stop him making speeches last week and now we can hardly get him to.

Mr. Bennett: His writer hasn't given him any new material.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to transgress on your ruling, but I would like, perhaps, some advice if you could give it. I'm looking at the statement of inventory given last year in answer to a question to the Minister of Finance, which I placed on the order paper, and answered by him, in which the civil service superannuation fund, as of February 1974, held Bank of British Columbia common shares, B.C. Telephone common shares, Canadian Pacific common shares, Imperial Oil common shares, International Nickel common shares and United Accumulative Fund common shares. That was the extent to which we were playing in this operation the Attorney-General describes as a Monte Carlo operation as of a year ago. I'd like to ask the Premier, just in a general way, how we're doing at the croupier's table? Are we winning or losing? I know that the Leader of the Opposition is going to have some difficulty getting information out of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding the little side play of Can-Col.

Mr. Bennett: He was very open last year. Remember how he told us all about the contract?

Mr. McGeer: Yes. The Minister was very loquacious in opposition. He clammed up a bit when he got to the door there; he got lockjaw just running out into the corridor. But since he's been in the cabinet benches, that's the only place he talks. We'd certainly appreciate getting any answers we could.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished asking questions. I'm not going to be long. Now be patient; there's lots of time. There really is; there are over 110 hours left.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: So you're keeping count of the filibuster, eh?

Mr. McGeer: No, but you are.

[ Page 942 ]

Injections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, this is not big money we're talking about — just a few millions here or there. But I'd like to ask a question or two about a few billion, because according to the prospectus released to the First Boston Corporation, B.C. Hydro will be asking the Minister of Finance to borrow something over $2 billion.

The requirement expressed by the B.C. Hydro in this prospectus — the first we've had since 1967.... It's very nice really to come up-to-date on information about our largest Crown corporation.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: The second one. Yes, there were two this year but, you know, there was that period of nearly eight years.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's the one who's talking about guidelines. We never even had a prospectus.

Mr. McGeer: Well, you know the old stock market saw: you buy on rumour and sell on news. (Laughter.) Maybe they ought to tell those sharks back east that that's the way it's done.

I'm going to have more to say about the stock exchange when the Attorney-General estimates come up, but for the moment I'd like to ask the Premier about this $3,177 million that will be required from this date until March, 1979 — four years from now. Over $2 billion of it will need to be borrowed, as far as we can tell by the kind of budgets that are brought down, by outside borrowing.

The Premier went to great pains to tell us that the Arab world is now the capital of the capital market and we go cap in hand to them if we are unable to do our financing internally, as we were able to do for many, many years. Why are the Arabs in a capital surplus position? — because they pushed up the price of oil. It brought them more revenue than they could spend. Mind you, we pushed up the price of our natural gas, but we spent it all. As a matter of fact, the overrun in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi's) department exactly equaled the extra $ 100 million we had to borrow for our capital requirements.

The amount of money that we're going to borrow in the next four years will be greater than the amount of money that we currently owe with regard to the B.C. Hydro. In other words, the person who lends that money, in effect, will own more of the B.C. Hydro, in terms, of debt obligations, than all the people who have contributed up to this time. It looks to me as though the prudence of the Arab nations in marshalling capital resources and investing in our capital programmes, will place them in a much more enviable position in the future than the people of British Columbia themselves, because our increased ability to generate capital from our natural resources is being spent. We haven't even used the increase in funds, so far, to help the cities and municipalities of the province. It was a bonanza, the increased value of the energy resources, but we're spending it, not marshalling it for our own capital needs in the future at all.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I do. Mr. Member, I'll give you a little lesson in sexing whales and then we'll go on to the capital needs of British Columbia after that — if we can get past the sexing whales part.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would draw his attention to Bill 25 on the order paper, which allows for expansion of the amount of capital borrowing by B.C. Hydro.

Mr. McGeer: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I want to try and grasp here is the Premier's overall financial philosophy for the province. I think that's appropriate to discuss during his estimates.

Most of the things we have dealt with so far have been really fairly miniscule in comparison with this huge chunk of $2.2 billion that must be borrowed in the next four years. Where's that money going to come from, and why is it that we've not used the increase in value of our own energy resources to provide us with the capital for our expansion in the same way that the Arabs did? Have the Arabs been more prudent than we've been? And why is it that the very value of the energy we're generating in an electrical sense is being completely ignored today?

What I'm saying is that we need that revenue, particularly the revenue we didn't get from the Columbia River, to offset the capital needs of our own B.C. Hydro corporation. The amounts of money that are involved are enormous compared with the speculation in United Accumulative Fund and Canadian Pacific, and even the little flyer that ended in failure in the B.C. Telephone. The Premier should tell us....

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: He certainly has, and he hasn't got the message.

Could the Premier, Mr. Chairman, just deal with this question of the capital financing of the B.C.

[ Page 943 ]

Hydro and gaining increased value from our electrical resources?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The answers to questions asked by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) are all in the budget speech. I sent an autographed copy to his colleague, and if he'd like an autographed copy as well.... Page 46, the assets are all there in detail. On page 47 the liabilities are there in detail. Table B....

Mr. Gibson: Why can't you tell us today?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll find out for you. I don't have it at this moment. I haven't had a chance to spend much time in my office in the last week, Mr. Member, and I apologize for that. Investments related to direct debt liability. I think if you go through that, Mr. Member, you'll find the answers up to date.

I think you do have a responsibility to state exactly why you want to repeat arguments and go over the same ground again because, after all, if you want to be known as the irresponsible opposition, that's okay too. But you have not, as of this moment, told the House or the public exactly what you're looking for that's new.

We have discussed the Hydro expenditures last week, and if you check with Hansard, you'll find that we discussed Site 1, you'll find that we discussed the Pend-d'Oreille and we also finished what's left on the Columbia. We've gone through all of that. We did the Arabs over a number of times last week as well.

Mr. Phillips: Still no answers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the answers are the same as you got last week in terms of the commitments we have to the Columbia. As a matter of fact, you came up with the figures yourself, Mr. Member. I find it a little bit incredible that on Monday you asked me for figures that you came to this House with, I think, last Tuesday or Wednesday. Now perhaps it is an oversight, but a fellow like you has a bit of a memory, bad as it may be. If I have to go back and read last week's Hansard to you, let alone Hansard 18 months ago, them obviously you're playing a bit of a game or else you don't know what you're saying in this House, Mr. Member.

Mr. McGeer: ...getting personal.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not a question of getting personal, Mr. Member. He asked me about Site 1; he asked me about the Columbia and the Pend-d'Oreille; he asked me what the money was needed for. You yourself gave me these figures.

Mr. McGeer: I asked you where it was coming from.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You gave me these figures last week — the same figures you are asking for now. There'll be a number of sources of borrowing as we go along — conventional markets, Canada and offshore, as John Turner has suggested. We discussed again last week the very same questions we discussed last week.

If you are going to filibuster, do something with new material. It's embarrassing, on your part, to have to go back over the same questions that you answered last week. I don't mind sitting here. You seem to know how many hours you've used up. Obviously you are keeping count for some reason. It wasn't me who raised the number; it was you. As soon as you said a number it came right at the flick of the fingertip — it's this much now, as if you hadn't been discussing it before. Far be it from me to make an evaluation on the fact that you knew. I wouldn't make anything other than a casual observation. Who's keeping count? (Laughter.) He brings a computer into the House to keep account of the hours that he's got going. If it's a filibuster, say so. I don't mind. Except for limited bladder control, I can stand the time here. I don't mind at all.

The rest of the questions asked by the Member.... There are public accounts. If the public accounts are not suitable to you, Mr. Member, it's a system which has been functioning for I don't know how many years, even under Liberals in this province.

You don't make mention of how much the federal government is behind in giving accounts. Why, I never even heard you once mention the federal government's overrun this year. Was it $3 billion or $4 billion, Mr. Member? Was it $6 billion?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, $6 billion by the federal Liberals. Well, why be a piker?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, two weeks after the main estimates, the supplements were brought in immediately. I don't mind. You used to be in the Prime Minister's office. Is that why you left — you didn't keep the books straight or you didn't know what the figures were, or did you tell the Prime Minister that you were upset over the fact that his Minister of Finance was so far behind? I find that a little bit puzzling, Mr. Member. You're a nice fellow, but your argument doesn't go with your work, with what you're doing. So there we go again.

Interjection.

[ Page 944 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now look, Mr. Member, your interruptions are always welcome. I said before that your questions are nonsense, but I have always granted that even at nonsense you've operated at the the maximum of your ability. There's not much I can t offer beyond that.

Mr. Phillips: ...personal attack.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not a question of personal attack; it's a question of observation. What more can I ask?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, when I get up and I get interrupted, they get upset because I answer the interruptions. Now what can you do for that group? Very little.

Now, Mr. Member, if you want your autographed copy like your colleague got, just tell me how you want it marked — "with best wishes," "good health" or "successful bonne chance in the leadership race." Is that what you'd like? (Laughter.)

Mr. Gibson: The cash balance. That's what I really want to know.

lnterjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm speaking to the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). When I recognized the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), I said "followed by the Member for Langley." That was to be sure I wouldn't forget him. So I would ask the Hon. Member to yield.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There's the leader. The only thing that stopped you was your name and your money.

Mr. McClelland: I understand the Premier has now given up all hope of running in Esquimalt, and the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) is out celebrating because he's got the nomination back now after Saturday's municipal election.

Hon. J. Radford (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): How come your leader leaves when you're speaking?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt. He said he answered some of the questions on that side of the House, but he certainly hasn't answered any of the questions that I asked earlier in this House. I can only assume that the reason he hasn't answered them yet is that he's been out investigating and finding out what he answers to those questions were, but I think we've given him enough time now. I think it's time that we asked those questions again. There are several of them in a number of major areas.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wonder if the Premier during his investigations has discovered how a cheque, which was never endorsed, or had no deposit markings on the back, could be cashed at any kind of a financial institution in British Columbia. I wonder if the Premier would advise us whether or not he has now fired his press secretary for keeping secret news about a serious indiscretion by a Member of his government. If he hasn't fired that press secretary, why not?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier has found out yet whether any coercion was made in an effort to keep the story about an indiscretion by his Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) off the air on the media in Vancouver. Mr. Chairman, is the Premier now prepared to admit that he advised his Minister of Human Resources not to make his indiscretion public in the hope that it would not be made public by the media?

Mr. Chairman, if there is a major issue in this province right now — besides, of course, the loss of economic confidence in British Columbia and the incompetence of that government — it is the destruction of any ethical standards on behalf of the Members of this government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would remind the Hon. Member for Langley that if he wishes to make a charge against any Hon. Member of impropriety or misconduct it must be done by a substantive motion.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I just want to repeat again that I don't want the Hon. Member to stray into the whole matter of making charges without using the proper procedure.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that I can't charge the government with incompetence, that I can't charge the government with a lack of ethics, that I can't charge the government with destroying the confidence of the people of British Columbia, that I can't charge the government with destroying the economic fabric of this province? That's nonsense, and you know it. I can make those charges in this House and I intend to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon.

[ Page 945 ]

Member may do all of those things, but he may not make a specific charge against a Member without a substantive motion.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, "code of ethics," to this government, is an empty, hollow phrase. I must refer again briefly, just to back that up, to the so-called chicken-and-egg war, and remind this House that in Hansard time and time again the Premier of this province said that he never ever suggested any quotas for the egg producers of the province. He said he never ordered anybody to solve anything. Yet, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Justice Hinkson says it was a result of the intervention of the Premier....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Again I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that a specific charge of inappropriate conduct or misconduct against a specific Member, including a cabinet Minister must be done by a substantive motion.

Mr. McClelland: What charge? A justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, has said in his judgment that it was as a result of the intervention of the Premier that the board entered into the agreement of November 1. The Premier said they were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything. "I told no one to draft an agreement; I did not suggest certain quotas." Yet, Mr. Speaker, if we go to the transcript of the trial....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! It's clear that the Hon. Member is making an implication by bringing two things side by side. I would ask the Hon. Member, if he's seeking to make a charge, that he do it directly through a substantive motion, rather than indirectly.

Mr. Gibson: What implications did he make?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read from the transcript of that trial which says in examination of a Mr. Morgan, who was the executive director of the Egg Marketing Board, or manager, where he said:

"The board was advised by the Premier that the suit with Mr. Kovachich was to be settled out of court and that he was to be given certain amounts of permit or quotas to satisfy the claims by him. Mr. Premier again said that they were not asked or ordered or suggested to do anything."

Mr. Chairman, either the Premier was not telling the truth in this House, or the people involved in the court case were lying under oath. Which was it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! First of all, again I would point out to the Hon. Member that if you are seeking to make a charge against an Hon. Member, it must be done by a substantive motion. Also the matter which you have just raised has been dealt with by a vote of the House on a point of order, and I would draw your attention to standing order 40(3): "No Member shall reflect upon any vote of the House passed during the current session, except for the purpose of moving that such a vote be rescinded."

The point is that the Member is doing again that which has already been ruled out of order and dealt with. I would ask the Hon. Member to desist from pursuing this line of debate.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say that the Premier is accusing certain people of committing perjury in this province. He should back that up with some kind of a formal charge. Mr. Chairman, you can bang me down and gavel me down here, but those indiscretions will not go away in this province. I will leave that whole area and bow to your direction.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The Premier is on record as having said: "If the government's credibility is threatened by the behaviour of any cabinet Minister, then the government is impaired."

It would seem that under the circumstances....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, the point is this: your rulings are consistent with preventing us from discussing something which the Premier himself believes fairly critical to his government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. You are dealing with a ruling that has already been made and dealt with previously. I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley to continue, please.

Mr. McClelland: I just wanted to make the point that the Premier's actions alone have proved beyond a doubt that the government has lost its ethics. It isn't any wonder....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member has just made a direct allegation against the executive Members of the government. I would ask him to withdraw the imputation.

An Hon. Member: That's the guy who reads forged letters in this House.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Hon. Member for

[ Page 946 ]

Langley, I must follow the rules of the House and ask you to withdraw any imputation against any Hon. Member or group of Hon. Members.

Mr. McClelland: I will withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

An Hon. Member: That's the trouble, you never tell the whole story!

Mr. McClelland: It isn't much wonder that we are in the trouble we are in this province, because the Ministers of this government are taking their direction directly from the Premier. That is where they are going wrong.

Mr. Chairman, did the Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) ever apologize to this House for bringing misinformation before this House?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with vote 2, the Premier's vote. We are not dealing with the Minister of Housing's estimates.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the Premier of this province, and we are talking about the Premier's vote at this time. I am saying to you that the Ministers are taking their direction from the Premier, and that is the reason we are in trouble today. That is the reason the Ministers are committing so many indiscretions in this House. The housing Minister, the transport and communications Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) have never apologized to this House for bringing misinformation before it on at least two occasions.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When you are dealing with any matter under the jurisdiction of any other Minister, it must be brought up at that time, not under the Premier's vote. Will the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the province sets the standard, or is supposed to set the standard, for his Ministers. If the Premier refuses to set those standards, it isn't much wonder that the Ministers are caught up in that same lack of interest in dealing with the people's business honestly and correctly.

At a time when leaders of government should be inspiring confidence, at a time when the people want to be reassured that they can trust politicians, and particularly that they can trust their leaders, the Premier has destroyed the confidence in his office and in government, has weakened the authority of his office. Every British Columbian is ashamed of the Premier's total disregard for a standard of ethics in the pursuit of government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Clearly, the Hon. Member for Langley is out of order in making an imputation against a Member of this House. If the Hon. Member has respect for parliament, I would ask him to withdraw any such imputations on the floor of this House. Will the Hon. Member withdraw the imputations?

Mr. McClelland: You have to have those standards, I guess, before you can lose them. But I will withdraw the statement. I just feel that good government can't continue under the kind of actions we are getting from the Premier and from his Ministers in the cabinet.

Mr. G.H. Anderson: Here's another filibuster.

Mr. Gibson: Another filibuster. "How will I qualify it...."

Mr. Chairman: Order! Will the Hon. Member speak to vote 2?

Mr. Gibson: ...says the curious Member for Kamloops.

I checked into how far into these estimates we are.

An Hon. Member: How far are we?

Mr. Gibson: We are about 24 hours into these estimates, out of a total of 135 hours, so we are down to 111 hours. The Premier wonders why the opposition would be checking those kinds of figures. We are checking those kinds of figures because there is a gag rule in this House now, Mr. Chairman. We aren't going to have a reasonable chance to discuss these estimates, so we just want to be able to assess the time we have left, and I would like to say that we got some answers out of that Premier.

What is the revenue from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. in these estimates? That is question No. 1. It hasn't been answered day after day.

When the Premier goes to Ottawa and bargains on natural gas, what price is low enough to call an election and what price is high enough not to? That is what he is angling for.

Question three: what are the nine-month ICBC operating results that the Premier knows perfectly well are going to throw that so-called surplus budget of his into a deficit?

Question four: what is the name of the secret oil country money leader?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would draw his attention to standing order 43, which says:

[ Page 947 ]

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech."

I merely draw this to your attention for your guidance, but a number of the subjects which you have raised have all been canvassed repeatedly. The Hon. Member may not insist upon an answer. He must be satisfied with the response made by the Minister.

Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, in an atmosphere of Christian charity, I'm going to ignore that comment. These are all things that this House and the people of British Columbia have a right to know, and you know it perfectly well.

A little while ago this afternoon we were talking about....

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm a very trusting person, so I'll try it just once again.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: One: check the budget.

Two: matter of government policy.

Three: report will be tabled.

Four: no reply.

Let's go over the questions. One: what is the revenue you're going to get from natural gas? It's in the budget. Read it. I've sent you an autographed copy without request.

Mr. Gibson: Exactly how much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't like the figures.

Mr. Gibson: Exactly how much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhhhh! You've got a fellow up front who used to be leader. He writes a budget every year — you ask him how he arrived at his figures, and I told you what my figures are. If you're confused about his figures, he's borrowed your computer. I can't help your confusion. I can understand it, but I can't help it.

Two: when am I going to call an election?

Mr. Gibson: I didn't say that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you did. "What would the price of natural gas be to cause you to call an election?" Do you think that I would do anything like that — call an election on the price of natural gas? Only the Liberal Party functions that way. Do you mean to say that you would play politics with an issue as important as natural gas, when you know and I know that gas is underpriced?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You mean you'll let us call the election?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Listen. If you called the election, you'd go right down the tube.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The tragedy with you, Mr. Leader of the Liberal Party, is that you'll never make it to the bench, and the Senate's full. You haven't got much choice. You might go to Lester Pearson College as a post-graduate student, but I don't know what else is left for you in the Liberal bag — I'm not sure.

The answer is on a report that I haven't got myself yet. You know better than that. You know better than that — you've read the rules. You know, I can't debate a report I haven't got, let alone the fact it's not even in my department.

Four: I have no reply to No. 4. I challenge you to tell me what questions you asked in that order. Ask them again. See if you get the order right. I bet you don't even remember.

Mr. Gibson: The first question, Mr. Chairman, which wasn't answered, is: what is the revenue of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. In the estimates? It wasn't answered.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Correct. Next?

Mr. Gibson: Correct! It wasn't answered! (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Next question.

Mr. Gibson: It wasn't answered.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's in the budget. It's right there in the budget.

Next question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, it's not in the budget. What's in the budget is the total of the BCPC revenues plus natural gas fees and leases. That's very different.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay. To a good student, with my best wishes.

Mr. Gibson: Second question. Mr. Premier,

[ Page 948 ]

don't send that over till you write down all the answers — you haven't got them yet.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's right there in the book.

Mr. Gibson: The second question is about natural gas prices, and you didn't answer that. It was the third one.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What was it you asked about the natural gas prices? Would I call an election, right?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would one of the Members please be seated? (Laughter.)

Mr. Gibson: But the third one was the shocking one, Mr. Chairman. You know, I hadn't intended to make a debate out of these questions, but since the Premier stirred it up a bit....

The third one was the shocking one where he said he didn't know — he didn't know — the nine-month ICBC operating loss.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I didn't say that. The report hasn't been tabled.

Mr. Gibson: But surely the report has reached you, Mr. Premier. Surely the report has reached you, and you might be good enough to share it with this House that you're telling has a $600,000 surplus.

He says, Mr. Chairman, it's a surplus in his budget and he's got a multi-million loss that's not in his budget anywhere. I say that's poor financial administration.

The name of the secret Arab money lender: the Premier stonewalled that one again. I don't quite understand the actions of the government on this.

The other day in the House I described the connection between the PLO and Arab countries — virtually all Arab countries. The Premier is with a party that is concerned about the nations we do business with. Take, for example, South African wine, which is perhaps something that the citizens of British Columbia can express their opinions on at the liquor store in buying or not buying that wine. But they have no such chance when we take money from an Arab country. So there have to be suspicions raised when there is a refusal to give the name of that country.

What country is it, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman? Is it one of the military dictatorships with no vestiges of democracy in it, not even limited estimates? Is it one of those countries that is governed by a small elite — a few families that spend their resource revenues flying planeloads of people over to Las Vegas to gamble? Is it one of those countries?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is Lalonde on that plane?

Mr. Gibson: Is it one of those countries that has some of the most effective secret police organizations in the world?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We deal with the Americans and they've got the CIA.

Mr. Gibson: Is it one of those countries that has something to do with this 150 Canadian companies blacklist?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Am I responsible for the CIA's failures?

Mr. Gibson: You're responsible for the countries you do business with, Mr. Premier.

There is an interesting comment in here, along with this 150 company blacklist, published in the Financial Post of March 15.

An Hon. Member: What?

Mr. Gibson: Listen to this: "At a recent review of boycott operations, Eurocan Investment Co. of Canada was one of 10 firms removed from the blacklist. Its Arab pulp and paper markets were jeopardized by the boycott."

Now, Mr. Premier, I presume that's British Columbia's Eurocan. Was that involved in the negotiations for this money? Were there terms and conditions on this money in some way? I know it's not, strictly speaking, an Arab country, but it's an oil country — does it come from Iran? Iran has just gone through a great social-democratic revolution of some kind. I apologize for putting those words "social-democratic" together because I don't mean them in the way that I know the Premier generally uses them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Wasn't it the Shah of Iran who came as a guest to this country a few months ago?

Mr. Gibson: Here's the Tehran Journal of March 5. It's just full of advertising praising the government for the great new resurgence party of Iran. Goodness — ad after ad in the Tehran Journal. What a wonderful thing; it's now a one-party state. Was that the country? Is this what B.C. Government News is going to come to?

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Table it! Table the papers. Table it!

[ Page 949 ]

Mr. Gibson: So the Premier shouldn't be surprised for one little minute if the people of British Columbia say: "We want to know who it is we are doing business with. We want to know who it is we owe about $100 per man, woman and child in this province."

What can be the possible advantages of a loan like this that would justify the secrecy under which it is taken out? So, Mr. Chairman, the Premier shouldn't be surprised if we continue to ask questions of that kind.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is that five and six?

Mr. Gibson: No, there is a multitude of questions, Mr. Premier. I just numbered the first four, but you can go ahead and....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: May I refer you, Mr. Member, to a newspaper that is not known for its outstanding support of the New Democratic Party? I hesitate to quote it as an authentic source, but on occasion it expresses opinions that seem to be commensurate with the business community. I refer you to The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, March 22, 1975, page 32 of the three-star edition — Mr. George Froelich, business editor and noted observer of business in this province.

I humbly submit for your evidence a quote from this man who is not an NDPer — far be it from me if you are upset — after which maybe you will haul him to the bar of the House for criticism of you. You know you have that access.

"All this nonsense by the opposition parties that the borrowing of Arab money by B.C. Hydro is immoral boggles the mind. It is nothing but cheap politics...."

A Vancouver Sun columnist saying that is unusual, certainly on this particular page anyway, and the MLAs know it. Who do these people think the Arabs got their money from in the first place? From the western countries, of course. Canada included. The Shah of Iran was a guest of your party's...with the cloak and the hat — you know that guy — between skiing trips. The money comes from the western countries, Canada included. Is the money immoral simply because it has fallen in Arab hands? Of course not.

Now last December....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That was The Vancouver Sun.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I quoted The Vancouver Sun to show you how unbiased I am. I even take them as a source on occasion.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Wash your mouth out with soap.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I certainly will, as soon as I get the chance.

Now from the Vancouver Province, shortly after the first loan, by Mr. Bob Shaw.... You know, you build up straw men and then you go about beating them down.

"By borrowing $ 100 million, with the provincial government guaranteed bond issued to a country in the Middle East, B.C. Hydro has entered a new money market with new field rules. Actually, the terms are a little different" — oh! — "from those followed in borrowing in Canada or the U.S., but there are minor variations."

Now the impression was left by the Member that there was something secret, something unknown. The only thing that's unknown is the country.

Now that's all. All the information on this borrowing is known publicly. The interest rate to be paid is considered on the market, taking into consideration the time it was fixed in October. Now the only one who would dispute that is the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). He knows what interest rates were six months and a year ago but he still has not told this House what the interest rates are going to be six months from now. Now if he's wrong, then of course he can put it up to hindsight. What was it? The Victoria Times had a cartoon with him and a crystal ball. He should have loaned his crystal ball to the Municipal Finance Authority that took a real bath in foreign currency. I don't know who their advisers were.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Charity? You ask for charity when you pummel us, and then, when you goofed a real dandy, you ask for charity. Mr. Member, you've run from three parties already. You've run before they could kick you out.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now they're going to catch up with you on that one.

The interest rate to be paid, considered on the market in October....

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhh. You'll be all right, young fellow. You'll be all right, I'm sure. You just

[ Page 950 ]

watch the guy behind you and you'll be all right.

It can be compared with $100 million borrowing in New York with the rate fixed September 26, and a $75 million Canadian issue now being marketed by Canadian investment dealers. The new Middle East borrowing is repayable in Canadian funds, not equity. Canadian funds. So Hydro has no risk from foreign exchange fluctuations. Public knowledge last December. It has certain call provisions and an early repayment option, which are customary in the Canadian and American markets.

I gave you all those details before and, not only have I given you these details, I'm reading from an article by a reporter who asked for the information, and it was given to him. It's all public and has been public since last December. But you haven't done a lick of homework; you haven't done a bit of research. You haven't picked up the phone, to my knowledge, and asked the Finance department for the information. You have made no attempt to inquire; you have nothing on record. Then you come in and make out as if it's a great mystery, when all of it appeared in the paper. I'll continue.

I don't recall you sending me a letter asking for this information. Did you write, Mr. Member?

Mr. Chabot: You don't answer them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I've answered every.... You asked me in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "The Finance Minister knows who he's doing business with, but by agreeing to a lender's request, he kept the door open for future deals." One of your Members made the allusion that it was Mafia money today. That's the allusion made by the Member for Point Grey. That is incredible, absolutely incredible. It was not that, and you know very well that you're trying to make out as if there's something mysterious.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's got nothing to do with the old Cypress Bowl deal that we had to handle there.

The bond issue bears interest at the rate of 9.75 to be paid annually on the anniversary date. The bond is dated December 3, 1974, and matures December 3, 1982.

The interest on Canadian bonds is normally paid twice a year. The annual payment of the new issue is thus advantageous to B.C. Hydro. It is the equivalent of a 9.52 per cent paid semi-annually. It gives the borrower the use of his own money for an extra half-year. I thank the department for making this arrangement.

Hydro call options are as follows. On any interest payment date or on or after the sixth anniversary, it can pay off principal in denominations of $5 million or multiples thereof at an exemption price of $103 per $ 100 face value; on the seventh anniversary at $101.5; thereafter at $ 100 or par.

There is an additional special option. Hydro can, on the fifth anniversary date, call the whole amount at $103; on the sixth anniversary at $102.25; on the seventh anniversary at $101.5; thereafter and prior to the eighth anniversary maturity date at $100.75. At maturity the whole issue or balance is repayable at par.

Hydro may establish a sinking fund to provide for repayment or redemptions, but it is not required by the terms of the loan. For comparison, the U.S. loan of $100 million negotiated earlier bears interest at 10.25. It was underwritten by an American syndicate.

There it is. It was public knowledge in all this detail last December. The author of the article is one Bob Shaw, a known financial writer from the Vancouver Province.

Mr. Chabot: Where did the money come from?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now there you go, getting in the House, Mr. Member, on the first question. I give you a comment on what business people are saying what you're doing. You allege to be a pro-business group over there — free enterprise - and here's what the business editor thinks about what you're doing. I share his comments, and he's not an NDPer.

For the information on the loan, it was public knowledge last December. You've made no effort. Not one of you ever wrote and asked for anything about it.

If you feel that strongly about it, I will take the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), and official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and tell them the name of the country, which has been typed and filed with the Attorney-General as part of the agreement. That'll put your mind at rest — you come to my office and I will tell you in confidence the name. That was part of the deal, and that's the only thing that hasn't been made public.

If you're not satisfied, in confidence, with the name of the country, if you find that name to give you any reason to go ahead with innuendoes or attacks, then you are free to state publicly what that name is. That is the challenge to you. You take it on. If you are going to be responsible, if you feel, after I've told you in confidence the name of the country, that it is an irresponsible country, or any of the charges that you have made in terms of secret money or Mafia or anything else are true, then you are free

[ Page 951 ]

to publicly announce the name. But don't come in here leaving the illusion that there are secrets behind the money. There are none other than the name of the country.

You come to my office. You can have the name. If you are not satisfied as responsible politicians, go public. I make that offer to the official Leader of the Opposition. If you are going to be responsible, that is part of the deal. If you are going to be responsible, you come and take advantage of it. Otherwise, you are, as I quote Mr. Froehlich of The Vancouver Sun, "playing cheap politics" without any sense of responsibility. Playing cheap politics.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Froehlich or anyone else is entitled to his own views on this, but the difficulty we have had is that it has been so difficult to get responses to questions by the Premier. You will notice, for example, on the question of the blacklist, on which the Premier did reply to me, and I thank him for it, about a week after it was first raised and the third time that I raised it....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Fair enough. He gave me information. I accepted it at face value. I've not said anything more on it since.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The guy behind you did, though.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I would be happy to accept the Premier's suggestion that we come to his office and get the name of this country.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Come on.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: But the fact is that if the Premier is not forthcoming with information on something as straightforward, indeed, as the blacklist, which was personally my major concern on this, I wonder whether he can simply hide behind journalists who are talking about something other than the issue, which was his refusal to answer any questions. When you come to the question of the blacklist, as I mentioned, it took me three times asking it over a full week to get any response.

I am quite willing to accept the Premier's offer to do this, but I do believe that he himself should start looking at his own reaction to our questions rather than simply quoting journalists. He has accused the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) of not writing to him, of not phoning him or the Finance department.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: He has accused him, and I think the quote is correct, of "not doing a lick of homework."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You weren't in the House to hear what he said.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In fact, the reason the public of British Columbia puts representatives here to ask questions on their behalf is to elicit information of this nature. If it were possible to have everything handled by letter, were it possible to have everybody handle things by phone calls to the Finance department, then of course there would be no purpose in discussing our estimates in this way; it would all be done by mail or it could all be done by phone. But the fact is that we have a responsibility to get public information and get it in this way.

There is no reason in the world that the Premier should adopt the attitude he has, which has been a refusal to answer questions. Sure it served his purpose a long time while he filibustered his own estimates to have things going, but when it comes down to actual questions, we do want responses.

On the subject of electricity, again a B.C. Hydro subject, I asked him whether or not there had been any attempt under article 15 of the Columbia River treaty, the article which states that a permanent engineering board shall "report to Canada and the United States of America whenever there is substantial deviation from the hydro-electric and flood control operating plans and, if appropriate, include in the report recommendations for remedial action and compensatory adjustments."

This now is my third time asking for information from the Premier. I have asked also for information from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in question period. To date we have had no information as to whether or not the government has attempted to use article 15 of the treaty to get an adjustment in the agreement attached to the protocol of the treaty.

I am not talking now about renegotiating the treaty itself. There are three things here. It is the agreement that I would like to have re-examined by way of article 15. I would like to know whether this avenue has been attempted. It may be that the avenue is not applicable or appropriate. It may be that your lawyers tell you it is not useful. Nevertheless, the question is fairly straightforward: have you gone to the permanent engineering board and have you attempted to have the return to British Columbia for electricity increased?

It seems very curious that we spend so long discussing the question of one energy source (namely, gas) when we have another energy source (namely,

[ Page 952 ]

electricity) which is being sold to American purchasers, electricity which is indeed British Columbian in the sense that we will be entitled to it at the end of the 30 years and would have been entitled to it had not the previous government made what we all agree to be a bad deal. The question is whether or not, under article 15 of the treaty, the government has attempted to have the agreement altered in any way.

We know, Mr. Chairman, that at the time, more than 10 years ago now, the Canadian studies of the Columbia River were essentially cut off at the U.S.-Canada border. We accepted United States figures for downstream benefits and for the border flows from the Columbia. Within that general area, we simply accepted their statements as to what would happen. This, of course, affected our cost evaluation. It affected our value evaluation of the Canadian storage facilities.

The U.S. studies represented the Canadian plants and the Canadian facilities, but only in a very approximate way. They ignored, for example, some important tailwater effects and channel restrictions, to name only two things. The Canadians were limited in that debate by their inability to indeed assess downstream benefits to the Americans without, of course, having to go to them for the information on which to base their assessment. So always having had to go to the United States, we then had to turn around and try and make separate evaluations as to value.

I think that I mentioned before to the Premier — in fact, I know I've mentioned before to him — that the Americans did not install the generating capacity they told us about some 12-odd years ago. They installed substantially more, 50 per cent more. They did not construct the storage facilities on the United States side of the line which would have an effect upon the overall value of the Canadian storage and, of course, the system as a whole. They did not do these things. There has been deviation from what was expected by the Canadians some 12 years ago, and it appears to me that if the Americans deviated from what they told us 12 years ago, there may well be some opportunity under article 15 (2) (b), that there has been deviation from the hydro-electric and flood-control operating plans. If that is the case, there is the possibility, under this article, to ask for compensatory adjustments. Now I want to know before we....

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, a deviation on Mica 2; as is mentioned by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). There have been a number of alterations. It may be that article 15 gives us this opportunity, but before we go and take up the cause which the Premier has given us, namely speaking with the federal government Ministers involved, we want to know what has been done by this government. We want to know whether an attempt has been made under article 15 to have some variation, or whether or not the government has ignored article 15, ignored the fact that the agreement is not part of the treaty itself, and therefore their calls for renegotiating the treaty could be considered somewhat separately from a re-examination of the agreement.

Now there's a question; it's the third time I've asked it. I wonder whether we could now have a reply.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I am suggesting to you that there is no way that I could possibly respond, in detail, to every facet of what you're asking. I am not daily responsible or daily involved in that aspect. That is why we have Ministers of the Crown who sit on these Crown agencies and, in all fairness, these questions are best directed at Ministers. I cannot spend my time in my estimates going back to every single Minister pulling in answers to bring back to satisfy you. If you're really interested in that, then follow the parliamentary tradition and deal with my votes, and the technical aspects of Hydro under that Minister.

Frankly, you know, I know that I'm not going to be able to satisfy you because you people have made a conscious decision to do everything possible to waste time under my vote. But I have never seen any Minister being asked this kind of detail about another Minister's department. You, with all of your superior skills from our senior House, know that better than anyone else. I'm a little bit taken aback, since you've given the kind of calm, rational and very high level of leadership to this House that none of us colonials could possibly develop, since we haven't had the opportunity. You recognize that those questions should be directed to the Minister. However, I will ask the Minister about article 15, and then try to get an answer for you. Perhaps you could ask him in question period, as well.

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 5:51 p.m.