[ Page 2457 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications estimates.

On vote 102.

Mr. Skelly –– 2457

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2459

Mr. Barrett –– 2460

Mr. Davidson –– 2464

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2464

Mr. Skelly –– 2464

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2465

Mr. Kahl –– 2466

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2466

Mr. Lea –– 2466

Mr. Mussallem –– 2468

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2468

Mr. Veitch –– 2468

Mr. Levi –– 2469

Mr. Davidson –– 2474

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2475

Mr. Kahl –– 2475

Mr. Lea –– 2475

Mr. Mussallem –– 2478

Mrs. Wallace –– 2479

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 102: minister's office, $134,140 -

continued.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I just have a few brief questions. I recall that before the House broke for the evening, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought up the question of the effect on business in Victoria of the B.C. Ferry rate increase. It was interesting that he pointed out a number of small businesses that appeared to be suffering. Their revenues and profit picture have suffered as a result of the increase in the ferry rates. He pointed out that business was down in those small businesses by as much as 10 or 20 or 30 per cent in some cases.

While he was pointing this out, the invisible member for Victoria was hollering across the floor that the Empress had gone up 10 per cent in their business profits. It just shows, Mr. Chairman

AN HON. MEMBER: Welfare cases. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: It could be the welfare cases in the Empress; possibly that's where they're housing it. But CPR is the biggest welfare case in this country.

It just goes to show you, Mr. Chairman, whom those people are concerned about over there.

The second member for Victoria was talking about the small businesses in the city which were suffering as a result of the ferry rate increase

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps we could get back to vote 102, which is the

MR. SKELLY: The minister is responsible for the ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's right. We were getting rather a long way from ferries when we got to the rooms in the Empress. Perhaps we could confine the conversation to the minister's office.

MR. SKELLY: I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that ferry rates had a tremendous impact on small businesses in Victoria. It's an interesting indication as to where parties in this Legislature stand that the second member for Victoria should stand up and carry the case of those small businesses in Victoria to the House and to the minister, and show how their performance has declined as a result of the ferry rate increase, while the people over on the other side -the invisible member for Victoria - talk about how the Empress Hotel profits have increased. I think it's an interesting reflection on the people whom that side of the House represents as opposed to whom we represent on this side, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He's getting a little twitchy over there now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, perhaps if we referred to vote 102 and the responsibilities of the minister, it would be more appropriate.

MR. SKELLY: Well, this is the responsibility of the minister - ferry rates and their impact on businesses throughout Vancouver Island. The Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was up in Parksville on Sunday, Mr. Chairman, and she addressed a crowd of 400. She was booed, because those people know

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Travel Industry.

Those people know who has had the effect on the travel industry on Vancouver Island. They know that ferry rate increases have caused the decline in that travel industry. When the Minister of Travel Industry said that ferry rates are not her responsibility - that in fact, it's this minister's responsibility - she was booed for attempting to shuffle off those questions, because she is as responsible as anyone in that cabinet over there for the increase in ferry rates in this province.

She could take a strong stand on behalf of the industry which she represents or which she should be promoting in this province. Instead, she says: "Oh, no, that's the Minister of Transport's responsibility." Everyone who read the papers knows how the people in Parksville responded to that type of double shuffle.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: As a matter of fact, the person who was quoted by the Victoria Times and who booed the Minister of Travel Industry is a Social Credit member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I don't believe it. It must have been an NDP member.

[ Page 2458 ]

MR. SKELLY: Well, you're a Liberal ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One at a time.

MR. SKELLY: ... and you have difficulty understanding this. But that's politics in paradise.

But I would like to talk about energy conservation ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That would be most appropriate.

MR. SKELLY: ... and I think that is the responsibility of this minister. Before the evening break, he pointed out a number of options which are facing the province in terms of increased energy demand. He talked about energy options such as coal - the Hat Creek coal project and the coal project on Vancouver Island that Weldwood is looking into - a number of natural gas options, and hydro-electric dams on the Columbia at Revelstoke and a few other places.

He also pointed out that nowhere in America have governments become involved in limiting energy use, which is not quite true. In a number of areas in the United States and a number of provinces in Canada, governments have attempted to limit energy use or redirect the habits of consumers.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes. In fact, there was an article in the Victoria Times on March 28,1977, headlined: "Forced Fuel Cuts in United States Energy Plans." The United States is becoming involved in limiting energy use, directing the way consumers use energy and the types of energy that they do use in order to conserve the energy supplies in that country. In fact, something like 28 states in the United States, Mr. Chairman.... I was wondering if you were still listening there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely, hon. member. Wouldn't miss a word of it!

MR. SKELLY: Something like 28 states in the United States have adopted alternate energy strategies -and energy conservation strategies. I'll just quote, as an example, the state of Massachusetts, which has developed a programme to retro-fit houses in that state. They feel that in this programme they can save a tremendous amount of money, benefit electricity consumers, create employment - which we sorely need in , this province, Mr. Chairman - and thereby avoid increased purchases of oil, the development of nuclear power supplies or nuclear power projects. I'd just like to quote a few things from the report by the Governor of Massachusetts on the use of solar energy for space heating and hot water. It says in this report:

"With widespread adoption of solar power, Massachusetts citizens could cut their collective fuel bills by $120 million annually by 1985. Furthermore, solar energy has vast potential for new job opportunities, especially in plumbing, construction, research and development areas. It's difficult to put a finger on the job potential of solar energy, but it's safe to say that by 1985 more jobs would be available from solar power, directly or indirectly, than from offshore oil and new nuclear construction combined."

And later on in the report it points out that something like 32,000 new jobs would be created in the state of Massachusetts as a result of an energy conservation and alternate energy programme proposed by the Governor's office in that state.

A lot of people think that solar technology is kind of far out, that it's not a worthwhile alternate to the present type of electrical power or the electrical technology that we have. But it has been pointed out again by another study in the United States, this one done by the General Accounting Office, that solar energy is a viable alternative in almost every area of the United States. The conclusions in this report are that: "On the basis of our review, in terms of dollars expended on a cost-effective basis, we believe that certain conservation measures have by far the greatest potential benefits and should have the top priority for stimulative government actions."

So action is being taken in the United States, both by the federal government and by the various state governments, to conserve energy and to seek worthwhile alternatives. Also, throughout Canada, there are provinces which are adopting similar policies - the province of Saskatchewan, for example. Although Saskatchewan produces something like 15 per cent of Canada's oil, they have adopted an energy accounting system whereby the various energy alternatives available to Saskatchewan have been accounted for or assessed, and the various demands on those energy sources have also been assessed. Strategies are being developed to reduce the energy demand in Saskatchewan so that they make the best use of the energy sources available to them.

It's interesting that the government in Saskatchewan has also developed an energy conservation strategy whereby they expect to save something like 10 to 15 per cent of the energy that the government uses in order to set an example for the people and in order to lessen the cost of government. I noticed on television tonight that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) talked about restraint on the part of government. He was referring to restraint in expenditures, and I think that's a worthwhile thing. But one of the ways that kind of restraint can be generated, without cutting back on social programmes, Mr. Chairman, is by making the

[ Page 2459 ]

government more energy efficient.

Manitoba has adopted some of the same policies. They've now set up a solar energy demonstration project at the legislative buildings in Winnipeg so that the legislature in Winnipeg will soon be heated or supplied with power by solar energy collectors. Also, the government of Manitoba has made grants to people studying biomass projects, and they are becoming involved in an energy conservation programme as well.

Even private industry in the province of British Columbia is looking at ways to maximize the benefits of the energy available to them. A lot of the pulp mills.... I believe B.C. Forest Products in this year's annual report has reported that they are converting over to hog fuel consumption in their boilers at Crofton and in other places throughout the province. I was in touch with a company in the United States at Brownsville, Oregon, called Woodex Industrial Fuels. It's developed a fuel made of organic fibre that's produced in pellet form. It's cleaner burning than coal, it's cheaper than natural gas and it's cheaper than a lot of the coal that's available in the province of British Columbia. It can be manufactured from almost any organic fibre, including bark, wood waste, hog fuel, sawdust - that type of thing.

Woodex Industries is considering expansion into other areas of the world. They're licensing their procedures and they've offered these licences to people in British Columbia. I'm wondering what the government of B.C. is considering along these lines. The Washington State Hospital at Tacoma has converted to the Woodex fuel and they find that they're saving something like $60,000 a year over conversion to natural gas and an additional $250,000 by not becoming involved in the pollution control apparatus that they'd be required to install if they continued burning the low quality fuel that they've been burning over the last several years.

So I'd like to ask the minister what specific projects he has on line - what he's specifically considering in terms of energy conservation programmes for the British Columbia government. Do we have an office of energy conservation? Or is there anybody in his department who is working on energy conservation techniques for the government of British Columbia, as they are in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba and in something like 28 states in the United States? Exactly what programmes does he have in mind?

The minister also stated that hearings would be held throughout British Columbia - public hearings that would seek input from the public of British Columbia on the whole question of energy. I'm wondering if the minister, since he announced that several weeks ago, has developed any kind of a plan for these energy hearings. What is the format of the hearings going to be? When are they going to start?

Who is going to be conducting the hearings? Can he give us any further information on how these hearings will be conducted or what the format of those hearings will be?

And while the hearings into energy alternatives and energy strategies for the province are being conducted, does the Minister plan to put off some of the major projects that are underway, such as the Revelstoke Dam project and Hat Creek, until he's sought and obtained public input through these hearings?

I'd like the minister to answer those two questions. What, specifically, does he have in mind? Does he have a specific programme in the government concerned with energy conservation? Can he elaborate further on the format of the public hearings that will be held on energy strategies for British Columbia?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Alberni asks about the energy outlook hearings. The B.C. Energy Commission for three years in a row now has, after considerable study, produced a document entitled "The Energy Outlook for British Columbia." This year, prior to producing that volume, it intends to hold informal hearings in a number of places in the province. The present schedule calls for those hearings to begin in late August. Early on, B.C. Hydro and a number of the other gas and electric utilities would be expected to make a submission outlining their plans - their rate structures, the reasons why they're implementing their new rate structures and this kind of thing. The commission itself will be tabling a number of forecasts and other data so that later interveners at these various locations will have basic material to read, discuss and criticize. Of course, local input will be welcomed, especially local views as to how the situation in each area might best be handled.

So the hearing process, in other words, will start in late summer and may continue for four to six months, depending on how things work out. I would envisage this kind of thing happening, if not on an annual basis, perhaps on a bi-annual basis from now on. This, at least, will provide an opportunity for people around the province to present their own views, new ideas or ideas which they believe fit their own particular situation.

In respect to conservation, B.C. Hydro itself has done a number of things. For example, the solar energy house that it had built and that was auctioned off at the PNE was one example of a demonstration-type project. It is progressively reshaping its rate structure.

Of course, rising rates in themselves tend to cause people to conserve or to look around for alternative ways of supplying their own energy. The new

[ Page 2460 ]

insulation programme is similar to certain other programmes in other parts of the continent. In effect, it is a loan to homeowners which they can pay back, a loan they can use to better insulate their homes and pay back in their power bills. The B.C. Energy Commission, working closely with both the federal and the Ontario governments, intends to be sending out vans that will be metering energy use in a number of circumstances - stores, office buildings, industry as well as homes.

There are a number of other ideas which the Energy Commission has, and during the course of the summer they will be made public. Very substantial savings can be made, particularly in office buildings, if lighting is reduced in half, for example. In one of the major buildings in Vancouver simply by checking the loss of hot air they were able to cut the energy intake into that structure by 50 per cent these last few months. So there are many economies that are possible and the Energy Commission will be endeavouring to encourage that kind of thing.

MR. SKELLY: I have just two follow-up questions, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if the minister intends to set up an office of energy conservation similar to ones in other provinces which would look at the energy consumption of the government and impose changes on the government which would result in the best use of energy among government offices.

This is being done in other provinces, for example, in the design of schools and the design of government buildings, use of government vehicles and equipment. In Saskatchewan they are concerned about the tremendous waste of energy in agriculture as a result of agricultural practices. Department by department, the office of energy conservation there is checking energy strategies and energy consumption within those departments. If appears that the office of energy conservation has a tremendous amount of clout with those departments in that it can take a look at their practices and suggest changes or demand that they come up with proposed changes which would maximize their use of energy and make them far more energy efficient than they presently are. I think this would be a worthwhile suggestion for the British Columbia government. I am pleased to hear also that the hearings will be held for four to six months and that we will have an energy outlook that citizens can take a look at and can respond to in public hearings.

I am wondering if the minister would consider something that the Berger commission did and the Thompson commission into the Kitimat oil port and pipeline intend to do. That is to finance citizens' groups who will be appearing as intervenors or as contributors to those hearings. Will financing be available to those citizens groups? Research costs those voluntary organizations a tremendous amount of money and I think they would receive the news that government financing is available with some joy. So I wonder if the minister can answer that question for me. Will funding be made available to citizens' groups appearing before those hearings?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Energy Commission has completed several studies - one, in particular, on lighting. That has been received by the Ministry of Highways and Public Works and I understand that a number of the recommendations contained in that report are being implemented by Public Works in government buildings across the province. It has several other studies underway also which, hopefully, will be implemented by the Public Works department.

As to hearings and the financing to interveners, I hope that the Energy Commission, by going into the areas to the people, will avoid a lot of costs which otherwise would be encountered were they to have to come to Vancouver, for example, or Victoria. Some recommendations have been made along those lines. However, I am not in a position to make any commitment right now in that regard.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Earlier today the minister did not respond to some questions raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . If I missed his response, I am sorry. Did he respond to your questions about Mr. Bonner? I would hope that before your estimates are passed, Mr. Minister, you would say something about that.

Mr. Minister, you did refer to the pipeline treaty and you did say that both Canada and the United States had been signators to the treaty outlining mutual agreement about fiscal approaches to the pipeline. You mentioned that Canada had ratified the treaty. I’m not aware of that. Perhaps that is indeed the situation. Just lately?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: About a month ago, through order-in-council. So it has not really been debated in the House of Commons.

In actual fact there has been very little public debate around this issue which, in effect, binds the provinces, constitutionally, to a federal commitment that actually limits provincial authority? Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps if you will continue with the line of questioning the minister can respond in the normal fashion.

MR. BARRETT: The minister then further said

[ Page 2461 ]

that the treaty has not been ratified by the United States Congress or the House of Representatives.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you'll tell the Premier to just restrain himself from his exuberance after dinner, we'll get on with the debate.

The point that I'm making is that the minister has informed the House that two-thirds of the steps that are necessary have been taken; ( 1) the treaty has been initialled by Canada and the United States; (2) according to him, it has been ratified by the Canadian executive council; but (3) the United States Congress or the House of Representatives have not, indeed, ratified this treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong on this but I have not heard one peep of protest from any provincial government, including this one, about the treaty - not a comment, not a word about a treaty that impairs forever the responsibility and indeed the possibility of the province determining its own use of its own land that is guaranteed under the BNA.

There is no doubt that the federal government has the authority to sign international treaties, but has this government solicited a legal opinion as to the propriety of this particular treaty relating to the proposed Kitimat pipeline? If this treaty is ratified, how does that change the existing linkup of Westcoast Transmission with the United States, because at the very junction at the border the treaty does come into power, and also any possibility of extending natural gas pipelines into the province of Alberta?

Now the problem that I'm discussing and posing to the government very seriously is that if this treaty does go by without provincial comment, what effect does that have on our 13.5 per cent ownership of Westcoast Transmission? What effect does that have to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which is unique in its ability to negotiate directly with the carrier without intervention by Ottawa? As the minister knows, we negotiate through our Petroleum Corporation the price of return for the capital investment to Westcoast Transmission. The only area in which the federal government has been allowed to intervene is under the National Energy Act, as they should, in terms of control of the export of non-renewable energy resources.

Now I don't want to accuse this government unfairly, but I do not believe, Mr. Minister, that you have said a single word about this treaty to Ottawa. If I'm wrong, I would like you to stand up and table the correspondence you've had with Ottawa about this issue.

I'd like to know frankly whether or not the federal government went ahead with this treaty without consulting with the provincial government. Perhaps they did. Did the federal government ask for any consultation with the provincial government? Did the federal government ask for consultation? Did the provincial government express any opinion, solicited or otherwise, about this proposed treaty?

Now perhaps we can save ourselves some time if you'd care to answer those two questions before we carry the debate any further. I'd ask the minister again: (1) Did the federal government ask the provincial government for an opinion on the treaty? And (2) did the provincial government, solicited by the federal government or otherwise, express an official position to Ottawa about this treaty?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with a major issue in this province related to the proposed Kitimat pipeline and to the existing arrangements we have with Westcoast Transmission. It is not a small or minor issue; it is a treaty affecting our whole structure in terms of revenue-gathering out of our natural resources that are transported in pipelines.

I have asked the minister simply: (1) Did Ottawa ask for our opinion or the provincial government's opinion on the treaty? Yes or no? And (2) , did the provincial government - whether Ottawa asked them or not - express any opinion on this proposed treaty? I think those are fair questions, and I would like answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to continue or take your place.

MR. BARRETT: Well, can I ask the minister if he cares to answer those questions so that I know? He doesn't care to answer them? Is that the instruction from the Premier? Are you able to make up your own mind tonight?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's the third question. First of all, can you make up your own mind or do you need instruction from the Premier?

What can we assume from this silence? We can assume that the federal government signed a treaty of major importance, ratified the treaty without consultation with any of the provinces, including British Columbia, at a time when we are discussing our very relationship as provinces in terms of restructuring a constitution. That is bad for Ottawa to have done that. We also learn tonight by the silence that not a single word was said to Ottawa by this Social Credit government about this treaty. That appears to be a fact. This is a very grave and serious issue because it means that this government stood by

[ Page 2462 ]

and watched the federal government take unto itself the power to limit the role of provincial governments in taxation, in revenue producing, and in control of pipelines going through provincial jurisdiction.

I cannot believe that it is a deliberate policy of Social Credit to allow this to happen, but I think something worse has happened. I think by administrative neglect and by political incompetence, this whole matter has gone right by this existing government without them making a single move, a single question or a single letter to Ottawa about this issue.

When it comes to incompetence, nothing in the recent history of this province can measure that in terms of the potential loss of revenue to this province. You must understand, Mr. Chairman, that it was Social Credit policy that allowed natural gas to be sold to the United States at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet. It was Social Credit, when they were in opposition, who fought tooth and nail against the Petroleum Corporation. It is Social Credit who is now boasting about how much money they get out of that corporation, and while they are boasting about that the federal government has signed a treaty that limits the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia to determine what return it shall get out of its own resources by saying that a pipeline that is owned by American investors cannot be taxed, cannot be assessed, or cannot be interrupted by a provincial government. Westcoast Transmission is owned by United States owners, and they have pulled the wool right over the eyes of this provincial government by signing this treaty, taking Westcoast Transmission out of the control of this government - and every single other future pipeline in this province, whether it be natural gas or oil - and permitting the circumventing of the Petroleum Corporation of this province getting a fair share for the taxpayers of this province out of their own resource.

I asked the minister two simple questions. Did Ottawa ask for his opinion on this? No answer. It means that perhaps Ottawa didn't ask for his opinion. Secondly, did the provincial government express an opinion? No answer. It means they probably didn't express an opinion. Whether that is the case or not, and whether my accusation based on that silence is valid or not, the fact is that the federal government has gone right past this government like a steamroller over hot tar and left you flat.

What are the consequences? Today, in defence of the handicap of this government to announce its position on the Kitimat pipeline, the minister stood up and said that we couldn't do anything anyway because a treaty has been initialled and ratified by the federal government, but not by the U.S. Congress, that would prohibit us from taxing the Kitimat pipeline. That is a complete and utter sellout to the federal government to determine the policy of this province, to say how it should get a benefit from (a) a natural resource through Westcoast Transmission, or (b) one foreign power making an investment in this province and, prior to making that investment, taking the jurisdiction away from the people of this province through its government to have any say at all in the cost of the land, in the taxation policy on the route of that pipeline, and guaranteeing to a foreign power access to our land that no Canadian citizen, or British Columbian indeed, can have by law. That's true!

The birthright of every Canadian; the birthright of every British Columbian, to have access to land and to roots on the basis of an agreement with the provincial government, negotiated fair and square on taxation policy, has been circumvented and an American company, through this treaty, can come in, build a pipeline, and be protected from any municipal tax.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's the treaty - read it. Read the treaty! This is the treaty the minister is referring to. He'll tell you that's true. That's the treaty. I know it comes as a shock to you, Mr. Member, as it should come as a shock to you. This treaty says: "Neither country will interfere with the flow of oil or gas destined to cross the border." That covers Westcoast Transmission. There is in existence a contract to provide up to 805 million cubic feet a day to the United States from our natural gas fields. This treaty now prohibits a decision by the provincial government to interrupt any gas flow to protect jobs here in British Columbia, at the expense of the commitment to the Pacific northwest.

To my knowledge, the Premier of this province and that minister have not said one single word of protest; nor has the federal government even consulted the provincial government on this treaty. That's a fact.

The second thing the treaty does is this: "Neither country will impose discriminatory taxes and tariffs on oil, gas or pipeline." That means, in terms of the constituencies of Skeena, Omineca and Prince George, that if that Kitimat pipeline is built under this treaty by federal agreement, those people don't have to pay anything in terms of municipal taxes, property taxes, school taxes - nothing. Even if you went to collect them, if this treaty is ratified, Ottawa has told you you don't have the power to do that any more. They've taken away your power to tax under the BNA Act. To my knowledge you haven't said a single word about this treaty.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's fine. The people took away our power, but at least they asked us to have

[ Page 2463 ]

people taxed on a fair basis. You have abandoned your responsibility more by benign neglect or, frankly, ignorance by allowing the federal government to go ahead with this treaty without you participating in any way.

So that means, very simply, we have a situation that where any pipeline that is built in this province, speaking specifically of the Kitimat pipeline as referred to by the minister himself - as he said in throwing up his hands today - we can't tax it anyway. Is that right, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Very funny, Mr. Premier, and the minister who can't even remember his own name. You can giggle and you can laugh, but the facts are that you have been an unwilling participant in a sellout of provincial responsibility. You have now lost control of Westcoast Transmission and control of gas through that pipeline, if the federal government so deems to interfere. It means that if the federal government says yes to the Kitimat pipeline, and you acquiesce to it, you do not have the authority to allow the municipalities that that pipeline passes through to even tax for school purposes or road purposes.

Am I wrong, Mr. Minister? I don't think so. I think that you should understand that you have abandoned any authority and any responsibility for the people of British Columbia to participate in this particular role. I quote now from the Canadian News Fact Sheet, the week of January 16 to January 31.

"Canada and the United States have formally initialled a draft bilateral pipeline treaty, the External Affairs department said January 29. The treaty guarantees the security of materials passing through the international pipelines and protects against discriminatory or unfair taxation."

What does that mean? Do you have a report on that? Don't you think that the municipalities should know as part of the information before they go on the trip on the boat?

" 'The text of the draft will now be referred to the two governments for review and approval before final signing of ratification, ' the department said.

"The United States officials were reported to consider the treaty a significant step towards mollifying critics of a proposed pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska and the Mackenzie delta to markets in both countries. Opponents of the plan have contended that it would leave U.S. natural gas users vulnerable to threats or economic pressures from Canada."

They've abandoned the bargaining power of the Canadian owner of the resource to have any economic impact on the price, or taxation, on the sale of our natural gas. Is that good business? I think it's stupid, and I think the provincial government should have an opinion on this. Do they agree with the treaty? Does the provincial government agree with the treaty that abandons their rights to tax a pipeline?

Then it goes on to say: "The National Energy Board is currently studying the feasibility of such a pipeline, as well as an alternative, all-Canadian line carrying only delta gas to consumers."

We have here a government that has, by neglect -I can't think it's by purpose - not entered into any discussion with the federal government about this treaty. It has not expressed an opinion on the treaty, and because the treaty now will be eventually ratified with the United States government, it will limit their role in not only existing pipelines, but any further pipeline that's financed by the United States.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: And you didn't even get a ferry subsidy tonight.

I'm asking the minister to answer these questions. Have you consulted the federal government about this at all?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to take your place or proceed with the line of questioning. You know the rules.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly do know the rules. Here we are. We find the minister sitting there silent, not willing to state in this House whether or not he participated in any way, expressed an opinion about this treaty, was asked about Ottawa, or has any opinion about it. It is a sellout treaty, a treaty that shows stupid neglect by this government if they have not participated in these discussions. It is a treaty that jeopardizes the very jurisdiction of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It is a treaty that stops any town, village or municipality from participating in tax sharing at the local level, and it means that this government rolled over quietly and let this thing happen in front of them. If I'm wrong, I ask the minister to quietly get up and give that information to the House. If that's too much to ask, surely to goodness the minister would be able to refute the accusations.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The Department of External Affairs made the announcement. The Minister of Energy, Mr. Gillespie, then said, after his meeting in Ottawa: "I'd hate to be a local politician about this announcement, but that's the way it goes." Those

[ Page 2464 ]

were the words. They rolled right over you, and you have no comment?

I'd like the minister to indicate whether or not he cares to answer. Well, Mr. Minister - through you, Mr. Chairman - you didn't say a word. This government didn't say a word. The treaty was negotiated without any reference to you. You made no effort to intercede. You stand out today and read the treaty as a defence for not taking any action, when in actual fact it is a sellout of provincial rights and provincial responsibilities. You have abandoned the right and responsibility of the people of this province to have a say in taxation policies related to natural gas and oil. You hide behind the mistake by saying the treaty has been ratified, and you did not participate in the discussion. I tell you plainly and simply it is a matter of bungling incompetence that you would allow this to go by. You're supposed to be a businesslike government. You're supposed to have good contacts with Ottawa, and they have given you the business and walked right by you and left you standing at the post, and all we get tonight is giggling from the front bench, and silence from the minister.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Two martinis and play it cool? Or he can't recall. Whatever is the motto tonight?

But you've sold out; you've allowed the federal government to sell us out. How does the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) explain that if the municipalities want to tax that pipeline they cannot tax that pipeline, Mr. Member - not for school purposes, not for general tax purposes. Ottawa went right past this government and sewed up the taxation question and access to the pipeline question without any reference to the government of British Columbia whatsoever. You got sandbagged, and it's too late to do anything about it. Or are you prepared to stand up and say you're going to fight for British Columbia on this treaty? Are you prepared to stand up and say that you'll fight this treaty that takes away provincial rights, or aren't you? It's a fair question, Mr. Minister. I'd like some answers.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): It's a pleasure to see that the Leader of the Opposition has changed his mind on the need to review the British North America Act and the constitution, and maybe now we'll agree that we shouldn't leave it over there for the next 100 years collecting dust as it has in the last. Maybe this is a perfect example of just what we need.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions regarding B.C. Ferries. As the minister is aware, I have many employees of the B.C. Ferry Corporation living within my particular riding. I would like to ask him if there is any possibility of reconsidering the decision not to grant lifetime passes to those employees who are retiring from the B.C. Ferry service.

I must say at this time, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that I take exception to the memo that Mr. Gallagher put out where he said that this is a hangover from the days when the employees of CNR, CPR, et cetera, were granted passes because they had low-paying jobs. I don't think that was the case at all. Some of those jobs at that time certainly were some of the best-paying jobs that could be found in the country. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there have been no lifetime passes granted since this government came to power, and the present policy is not to grant any lifetime passes from now on.

MR. SKELLY: We expected the minister, Mr. Chairman, to answer the questions of the Leader of the Opposition concerning representations made to the federal government on the Kitimat pipeline.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY:, He's listening, but we expected an answer from the minister as to whether he made any representations at all to the federal government concerning the rights of the provinces to tax that pipeline or get a fair return from the pipeline once it's constructed, if it's constructed.

It's been a disappointment. All through the whole issue of the Kitimat pipeline that government's performance has been a disappointment, not only on the part of the Minister of Environment, but also on the part of the Minister of Transport, who has the responsibility for this pipeline.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Barrett's been wrong for six years and you know it!

MR. SKELLY: You've been wrong every year you've been in this House.

Mr. Chairman, last weekend in Prince Rupert the chairman of the inquiry into the Kitimat oil port and pipeline, Mr. Andrew Thompson, said that he had the power to summons provincial civil servants and provincial documents for the purposes of the hearing. Is the minister going to make those documents available to the public so that they will be available to intervenors before the Thompson inquiry in advance of the hearings?

Since they're going to be summonsed anyway, there is nothing now to prevent the minister from making those documents public. I know he has the energy transportation committee working on the Kitimat pipeline issue. I know that most departments of government are represented, including the

[ Page 2465 ]

intergovernmental affairs office, the Energy Commission, and everybody, it appears, but fish and wildlife, who are vitally concerned, and should be vitally concerned, about the Kitimat oil pipeline and oil port.

They're not represented on that interdepartmental committee, but I'm wondering if the minister will make documents available to the public of this province in advance of them being summoned by the Thompson commission of inquiry.

Also, all throughout the Kitimat oil pipeline and oil port debate, the province has attempted to deny jurisdiction over the pipeline. The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) talks about problems of the British North America Act.

When Andrew Thompson again was questioned in Prince Rupert, he stated that the province does have jurisdiction over the land over which the pipeline is intended to pass, and it would not be amiss for the provincial government to hold hearings into the impact of that pipeline in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It's been a real disappointment to the people of this province over the lack of leadership that's been demonstrated by the present Minister of Energy and by the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , although it was expected in that case. But it's been a real disappointment to the people of British Columbia that the Minister of Energy hasn't seen fit to give any leadership whatsoever in the case of the Kitimat pipeline.

On the one hand he makes a statement saying he's going to intervene in favour and then he says he's against, and then he's not sure and the province hasn't made up its mind - in spite of the fact that hearings will begin on this issue within a month or so. The only concrete demonstration of leadership came from the member, for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , and perhaps this is typical of the Bennett government -or, I should say, the coalition government.

He said he didn't have all the ideas on the pipeline, and he was seeking ideas. He offered the high school students in his riding a chance to provide their input. The one who had the best idea for the Kitimat pipeline or for the transport of oil down the coast would win a free trip to Victoria.

It seems that's the kind of leadership that we have in the provincial government. There appears to be no ability in cabinet, no ability in the back bench - so what do they do? They go out and seek input from high school students throughout the province. Perhaps they'll get better ideas than they get from their own back bench and from their own cabinet. I'm sure they will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. We are here to discuss vote 102, which is the administrative responsibilities of the office of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. You have been getting quite a long way off that.

MR. SKELLY: Well, we're also discussing the responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, that they're trying to shirk, and one of those is jurisdiction over the Kitimat pipeline.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 102 clearly is the responsibilities of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications' office. We realize the entire broad spectrum of debate that's allowed under that vote, but we were getting quite a long way off it.

MR. SKELLY: I'll ask some specific questions then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: Hopefully the minister will answer those questions.

Has the ministry, his Energy Commission or the interdepartmental committee on energy and transportation made any deficiency statements in response to the Kitimat Pipe Line Company's Termpol and the National Energy Board's studies? Have any of those deficiency statements been provided to the company or to the federal government? Have any other studies been made relative to the Kitimat pipeline submissions, the environmental impact studies, marine and terrestrial? Have studies been made? Will the minister make those studies public? In fact, I understand that the Thompson inquiry will summons his officials and documents in any case. So has he done the studies? Has he provided deficiency statements and will he make them public?

The second question was: will he be holding hearings on the provincial jurisdiction over the Kitimat pipeline? Dr. Andrew Thompson has stated that there is provincial jurisdiction and it would not be amiss for the provincial government to hold hearings.

Finally, does he intend to answer and will he answer the Leader of the Opposition's questions? Has he made any representations to the federal government concerning the treaty which was signed between Canada and the United States and which takes from the jurisdiction of the provincial government the right to tax that pipeline and the right to tax the material that's transported through it? I hope the minister will answer those specific questions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier today, we do have a study group working on the question of the Kitimat pipeline and the problems which it may involve. This study group is chaired by

[ Page 2466 ]

Bob Green in the Energy Commission. There are representations of several departments on the study group. They are competent people and they've been looking into this question very carefully. They have prepared deficiency statements - at least, I'm using the terminology of the hon. member - and requested that the pipeline company and others supply information which was not initially provided in their submissions to the National Energy Board and other authorities. They have not finalized any substantial studies as yet.

Dr. Thompson has indicated that he will be looking for submissions and information from any source whatsoever. The provincial government has yet to decide whether it will officially intervene or appear as an official intervenor in the Thompson hearings, or whether instead it will wait for Dr. Thompson to request the appearance of witnesses and documents. We do have a number of competent people, but his inquiry is in an area which is not normally covered by the province, namely offshore. It is an area involving navigation, experts in respect to marine transportation and also marine ecology. Basically, the expertise there rests with the federal Department of Fisheries and the Environment. So Dr. Thompson should really be looking to federal sources or to corporations operating offshore for that kind of expertise.

I can't comment on whether the province will initiate hearings of its own, but I might say something most members know already. Two major hearings have been scheduled - the one by Dr. Thompson and the other by the National Energy Board - and surely they will elicit virtually all of the relevant information required for the federal government to make a decision in that connection.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I'll just carry on a bit from parts of a speech from this afternoon, when we were talking about oil tankers on the west coast, their safety and some of the other things which I had spoken of. I attempted at that time to ask a question again. I had been discussing the possibility of communicating with some of the tanker people with regard to a helicopter pad that could be located on the ships. People from the west coast could avail themselves of the opportunity of meeting the tankers in the straits or very close to the coast and placing some competent people on board who might assist in the passage of the boat in the waters close to shore. They could also investigate the charts and communication systems on board that vessel. In specific, relating to helicopters landing on the tankers, perhaps I missed part of your answer. I wonder if you could go over that again for me, please.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Pilotage Authority uses helicopters a good deal and most modern tankers - certainly the ones of the type which are likely to come in on the U.S. side near these waters, or possibly into Kitimat at some later date - would be equipped with helicopter landing areas on their decks. So if such tankers were to be near our shores, it would be possible for the pilots off our coast to land on them and make the inspections required.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The Leader of the Opposition has asked two basic questions of the minister, under his jurisdiction as the Minister of Energy, about the transportation of energy through pipelines in the province of British Columbia. Now the minister was asked whether there had been consultation with the province by Ottawa before signing the agreement with the United States. He hasn't answered. He was then asked whether, even though the consultation hadn't been asked for by the federal government, whether the provincial government had made a position on this matter known to the federal government. Again, there was no answer. It would probably be a little too cute, Mr. Chairman, if indeed there had been consultation and the minister won't tell us about it, or if there had been representation made to Ottawa in this regard by the province. Again, it would be a little too cute for the minister just to sit there and not answer those two very simple questions.

So because of the silence, we have to assume -and, I think, rightly so - that the province was not consulted. Even though the province was not consulted, the province didn't make a position known to the federal government. I think we have to assume that. Maybe the minister will get up later and say: "Oh, I had the answer all the time. Here it is and you're all wrong." Well, that would be nice but it would just be a cute trick.

So let's examine what the reasons would be that the province didn't stand up on its hind legs and say: "Look, you're taking an inherited jurisdiction under the constitution away from us." Why wouldn't they? What possible reasons could there be? Well, we have a government in British Columbia that is trying to get a few bucks out of Ottawa for some of their, pet projects. One of them is northeastern coal. They are trying to get some of the money from the federal government for the infrastructure surrounding the development of northeastern coal, and, from what I hear, with very little success.

Let's consider that. What will the provincial government do in order to get some of that infrastructure money? We have to remember that the provincial government at this point, in terms of economic development and in trying to get the economy moving, is walking around in political hot water just up under their noses and their heads are tilted backwards. All it would take for those waves to

[ Page 2467 ]

splash up and that political hot water to start going up their nostrils, is a rock thrown into that water by Ottawa. That's all it would take - for Ottawa to say: "No, you're not going to get any money from the federal coffers because the cost of developing the northeastern coal is too expensive. It wouldn't be economical, so we are not going to give you any money to do that." That would be the rock into the political hot water that would splash waves up the Socreds' nostrils.

Or it could be ferry subsidies, Mr. Chairman. It could be ferry subsidies they're going to sell us out for. But whether it's ferry subsidies or infrastructure for the northeastern coal, I would suggest that a sellout like this would mean that it can only be for their own political purposes. They are desperate to try and show the people of this province that there's at least some economic activity that will be generated by this new government. But we have to remember Mr. Chairman, that they are desperate. They put all their economic eggs into the basket called northeastern coal, and it's not panning out.

But at this point, because they're so desperate to look good in terms of economic development, Ottawa could slap them around, insult them, treat them like they are a bunch of irresponsible children. In other words, the federal government, at this point, could push this provincial government any way it wants. It did, it has, and they're sitting there in silence because they know that they've been bullied around by Ottawa because Ottawa know§ that they do desperately need the nod on one or two things, even if it's $15 million in ferry subsidies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and not Economic Development.

MR. LEA: We're talking about ferry subsidies and the transportation of energy resources, which fully fall under this minister's jurisdiction. What we're also forgetting, while we're talking about these subjects in this debate, is that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) isn't held to his chair. The Minister of Mines could get up, as a minister of the Crown, and tell us what, in his opinion, is going on with Ottawa. But even more so, the Premier could take his place in this debate and tell us what he knows about the treaty, what his opinion of the treaty is and what action the government took, if any, in regard to this treaty that will, for years to come - forever - change the jurisdiction of the province over energy. That's what it will do.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy knows full well because he's also the Minister of Transport. He's been a federal minister. He knows full well that it would be wrong - totally immoral - to sell out our future for the sake of a bit of political plus. It would be wrong. But I guess once you've made the first step to selling out your principles by joining your enemies, I guess the second step is a bit easier, and the third even easier still.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw the remark about "selling out your principles, " as it is considered to be unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw any unparliamentary language?

MR. LEA: I withdraw any unparliamentary language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It seems rather odd....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're being cute now.

MR. LEA: Nobody's being cute, Mr. Minister of Mines. If that minister has the answer to the question that's been asked and won't give it, then he is committing an unforgivable act in this House. If he doesn't have the answer to this very important question, then it is an unpardonable act on behalf of a minister of the Crown not to have that information. You can only have it two ways: it is unforgivable or unpardonable. There is no other way.

As a matter of fact, I would think that upon this government receiving the knowledge that that treaty had been signed, there would have been a ministerial statement in this House to put the position of the provincial government. It would have been the proper thing to do. We can only assume, Mr. Chairman, by the minister's silence, that this government is quite prepared to change the course of history in terms of provincial jurisdiction over the transportation of energy in this province in order to try and pick up a few crumbs from Ottawa so they'll not look that bad in terms of industrial and mineral exploitation in the northeastern part of the province, and maybe to pick up some subsidy money for British Columbia Ferries.

It's a big price to pay, Mr. Chairman - too big a price to pay. The minister does stand condemned in his silence on behalf of that government. That minister knows it, and that is why he probably won't take his place in this chamber and talk about the treaty. All we're asking is that the minister get up and explain the history of this treaty as it affects British Columbia, and what British Columbia's position is on it. Is that too much to ask, Mr. Chairman? We think not. Not only this opposition but the people of this province will know that they have been sold down the river unless, before this minister gets his office vote, we learn exactly what it's all about.

[ Page 2468 ]

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I have come to speak on a matter of utmost importance. I'd like to ask the minister a very touching question. It applies to weigh scales. In our area of Ruskin there is a weigh scale that is idle, Mr. Chairman. No one mans the scales.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this definitely comes under vote 105 and I would suggest that your line of questioning should more directly be related to the responsibilities of the office of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. Chairman may be right, but then I will refer the hon. Chairman to the fact that there is a vote here referring to weigh scales, and I can touch on that if I so wish. Would you agree, Mr. Chairman? Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

This scale is unattended. It is a fact that a great many truck operators know that it is unattended and consequently use this route to their advantage. I'm not making great issue of that, but the issue I'll make is that the honest people who try to run their business in a proper manner are not afforded the opportunity of the use of the scale. A great many of our people on the north side of the river, particularly shingle manufacturers and lumber manufacturers who ship to the United States, find it extremely difficult to weigh their load before they leave. In this way we're putting these people to a great deal of expensive trouble.

I would like to suggest to the minister that it would cost very little to man this weigh scale. The equipment is there; the station is there. That installation must be worth at least $200,000 and it's not doing a thing. I would suggest to the minister that it certainly should be manned as quickly as possible. It's grossly unfair that the truckers moving on the north side of the river do not have the facility that was properly put there for their use.

I would like to know what policy the ministry has in connection with weigh scales. While I'm asking, what policy have we in connection with American trucks that travel the entire length of British Columbia on the way to Alaska without fuelling in this province? At one time I know we would charge them a certain rate on fuel oil. Does this still continue?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member for Dewdney asks what the government's policy is in relation to weigh scales. I'd say basically it's to protect the highways, to ensure that trucks aren't overloaded so that they break up the highways unduly. That's the main reason.

The weigh scale in question has a value, I am told, of the order of $20,000. It is a one-man scale; in other words, it's operated by one man who has recently retired.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I've got a little help here.

We are short of staff. At least our budget for salaries is not such that we can hire someone right away, but we're looking at the situation and we have the hon. member's submissions very much in mind.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Chairman, we're all very well aware of the wonderful ferry service that was built up in this province by the previous Social Credit government. It was a pride of all the world - not only of British Columbia and Canada but of all of the world. One of the things that we used to enjoy....

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Listen, there seems to be a lot of noise coming over there from the cheap benches.

One of the things that we used to enjoy on those ferries ...

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): The food!

MR. VEITCH: Yes, the food! The very lovely restaurants we used to have. We used to sail for two hours, and I believe that the restaurant was like the sizzle on the steak. It was a very nice thing to have. I know people in Vancouver who used to travel back and forth just to enjoy the ride on the ferry, and enjoy eating and dining in the restaurants,

I realize that the cost under the previous administration escalated the per-meal cost to about $35 a meal through mismanagement. Now that we have taken those restaurants - I think quite rightly so for economic reasons - off the ferries, if there is any thought of tendering this out to private enterprise and allowing someone to go back in and operate these restaurants again, I think it would help our tourist industry within British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Political payoff!

MR. VEITCH: The other question I'd like to ask, Mr. Minister, has to do with pilot cars and these extra-wide trailers that we have on the highways now. I'm given to understand that the pilot cars require a certain type of sign. The specifications of this sign make it so that the sign can be only purchased from one corporation, which is in the United States of America. This has been a very severe strain on some of the small pilot-car operators who make their living from shepherding these trailers up and down the highway. I'm wondering if we couldn't allow the

[ Page 2469 ]

regulations to be changed to have these signs made in Canada so that more pilot cars would comply with the regulations.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): You've assumed the proportions of a Dr. Cyclops. You have eyes in the back of your head.

MR. KAHL: Are you finished, Norm? Best speech you ever made.

MR. LEVI: No, I'm just starting.

I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that considering the well-rehearsed questions of the member for Dewdney, weigh scales was perhaps the most crucial issue that was raised in the House today. The minister was able to answer him kind of off the top of his head.

It was almost as if they got together before 8:30 and he said: "Look, Jack, I'm going to ask you this. What are you going to say?"

Jack said, "I'm going to say this, " and away they went.

And then we had that outstanding member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) get up and talk about $35 meals on the ferries. Mark you, such crass impudence in front of the director of the ferries who is sitting there - I mean, that's ridiculous!

But I want to go back to the issue of Mr. Bonner, because the minister has sat riveted in his chair and he hasn't said anything about Mr. Bonner. I want to deal, first of all, with a somewhat different issue in terms of Mr. Bonner's credibility as chairman of B.C. Hydro.

MR. SKELLY: You can't talk about his boss.

MR. LEVI: The great confusion that we on this side have in respect to Mr. Bonner is whether Mr. Bonner reports to the cabinet or the cabinet reports to Mr. Bonner. Knowing Mr. Bonner, I would be sure that the cabinet reports to Mr. Bonner.

I can recall sitting in this House in 1969 when Mr. Bonner's credibility was very much in question, and that related to the whole issue of Commonwealth Trust. Some $15 million was lost to several thousand people in this province, most of them senior citizens....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 102, please.

MR. LEVI: We are dealing, Mr. Chairman, with the credibility of the chairman of B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro is the direct responsibility of the minister. We're dealing with the minister's salary, and under that we can discuss all of the things that the minister is responsible for, including Mr. Bonner. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I realize that you're fairly new in the job (laughter) , but if you just hang on you'll learn the ropes and you'll be okay.

If we're going to deal with B.C. Hydro, we obviously have to deal with the individual who is directly responsible for running that operation. And what is remarkable to me is that none of the 35 freedom fighters on the other side has bothered to get up and say anything in defence of Mr. Bonner. There are some pretty hard charges being made, not just by this side of the House in terms of the New Democratic Party but by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) .

The leader of the Liberal Party can speak from what he knows because it was his father as a former member of this House who first raised the charges in this House in respect of what was going on in the forest industry. "Money talks." It all related to the then Attorney-General who today is the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

I've heard the present Attorney-General myself stand up on this side of the House - it makes a heck of a lot of difference to your memory when you're on this side compared with that side - and I've heard him talk about the 707 days. I've heard the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , when he was on this side of the House, talking....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has selective amnesia. You never once talked about 707 days. During the Commonwealth Trust debate in this House, you got up and you said: "Is this going to be another 707 days?"

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't recall.

MR. LEVI: You can't recall. We didn't have a Hansard, but look it up in the Sun. You said it. It's the only thing I remember, because nobody could get more indignant in those days than the present Attorney-General. He would draw himself up to his full seven-feet-six (laughter) , and he would say: "By God, Mr. Chairman, this isn't justice; this is Social Credit government." And Phil Gaglardi would do a little dance over in the corner and fall asleep.

AN HON. MEMBER: My, how times change.

MR. LEVI: But I remember! The times have changed. You're over there; you're in power; you would prefer that this issue went away. You don't want to deal with the issue.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: My God, we can't even get the Attorney-General to tell us about the court system,

[ Page 2470 ]

never mind the 707 days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Garde Bonner, Garde Bonner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: You're running a disorderly House. Get them to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm going to call the House to order. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor. If the other members would kindly extend to him the courtesy that he extends to you by being quiet while he's speaking, I would appreciate it.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, nobody, not one of them, not the Attorney-General, not the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , not the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) , who is a great kite-flyer.... He's a kite-flyer but he hasn't flown any kites on Mr. Bonner.

I just want to read into the record, following on from what my friend from North Vancouver said about Mr. Bonner in relation to his lack of ability to apply himself in the job that he was responsible for then when he was the Attorney-General, in the job that he had when he was in MacMillan Bloedel.... And he left after there was a colossal loss of money back into private practice. When this government got into power, they hired him again. That poor, impoverished chap - a $60,000 pension, and they hired him for $50,000. He fits in, between all of the work that he does with Inco and the cable services people and Schroeder's people and the Trilateral Commission, the power needs of this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What did Allan Williams used to say?

MR. LEVI: He made many frenetic speeches about him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Did he attack Robert Bonner when he was a Liberal?

MR. LEVI: Let me just remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, that when we're dealing with Mr. Bonner, we're not dealing with some unknown individual of this province. We are dealing with somebody who for almost three years in this province was in the eye of a hurricane in terms of that whole Sommers business. He decided to do nothing about it.

I would like to read from what the Sun editorial -you know, that great free-press paper - said about

Mr. Bonner on November 3,1958. It's headed: "Resign, Mr. Bonner." It's an editorial. This is history, but we'd better learn from history because this man is in charge of B.C. Hydro and the power development in this province, and this man is bound that he's going to take us down to the development of atomic energy in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Read what Allan Williams used to say.

MR. LEVI: Let's just see what the editorial said:

" Robert Bonner's resignation as Attorney-General of British Columbia is almost three years overdue."

From 1955-1958 - that's more than 707 days.

"The public has long since lost confidence in him. Respect for the government's administration of justice in this province cannot be restored while Mr. Bonner remains as chief law officer of the Crown."

That's a dent in his credibility.

"He was responsible for scandalously delaying the process of justice in the bribery conspiracy case involving one of his cabinet associates. The matter came to his personal knowledge on December 7,1955, when lawyer David Sturdy offered him a body of evidence."

MR. LEA: It was their Pearl Harbour.

MR. BARRETT: Do you remember what the Liberals used to say about that?

MR. LEVI: The trial did not open until May 1,1958.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you asked me a moment ago to call the House to order because of the banter. I have been listening very patiently and the majority of the banter has come from your own benches, so perhaps if you could ask the members around you to be quiet then the rest of the House will listen to what you have to say.

MR. LEVI: Listen, if you guys don't keep quiet.... (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you're dividing the House.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Exactly. Mr. Chairman, you must understand this is a House; this is not a House divided into parties. Only we, as individual members of the House, can allude to the fact that there are parties. But you're a new guy in the chair and we're quite

[ Page 2471 ]

prepared to allow you those kinds of errors.

MR. BARRETT: So attack those guys!

MR. LEVI: But let's deal specifically just with the time period because I think that's important in terms of the way the present chairman of B.C. Hydro did his job when he was the chief law officer in this province. The first information brought to him was on December 7,1955, and the trial in respect to what followed from the information didn't take place until May 1,1958 - three years.

MR. SKELLY: Now they would have dropped the case.

MR. LEVI: That's almost three years before anything happened. That's the man who is in charge of Hydro. That's the man nobody over there is prepared to talk about.

We have the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) get up and talk about the business of the tankers, and we have the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) who talks about weigh scales. Do they have weigh scales in Dewdney?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Ah, Mr. Chairman, we have now woken up the member for Esquimalt. You'd better understand the kind of party that you joined, because this is the party for which we have taken the trouble to put out bumper stickers which say: "B.C.'s No. 1 industry: inquiries." That's the industry in this province that you have created - inquiries.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your comments do not relate to vote 102, which is what is being discussed. Perhaps we could go back to it.

MR. LEVI: I'm just trying to keep the flow of the debate going, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The other thing is that I really must pay a tribute to the Chairman. I think he's doing an excellent job considering he's 'having such a rough time.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Everybody keep quiet and let the member speak. Then I'll sit down and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will get up and reply.

MR. BARRETT: You won't say a word because you're covering for Bonner now that you're a Socred.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps we could let the levity die down and get back to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard on vote 102.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Have you ever noticed, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes it sounds like a sheep market in here? Everybody's "worra, worra, worra."

Getting back to the issue, the minister has very carefully stayed riveted in his seat. After all, the whole issue in relation to Mr. Bonner is not new to him. He was an employee of the B.C. Electric before it was taken over. He remained with them for some time before he was elected to the House of Commons. He's familiar with the kind of operation it is, but again I asked earlier....

I had hoped that he would tell us, because after all, we've heard from the Premier. The Premier is very upset about B.C. Hydro and the unusual power it has. He's also concerned that it's having a tremendous impact on the investment market. After all, what other utility in this country is able to go down to New York and get large sums of money very easily? They're obviously getting it because the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner, has friends down there. He has an enormous number of friends down there. There are interconnections between Mr. Bonner, the Trilateral Commission and the Chase Manhattan Bank, of which David Rockefeller is the chairman. Ironically enough, one can make a further connection.

Ironically enough, one can make a further connection. I can see that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is having a terrible amount of trouble in absorbing all this. But what are the interconnections internationally? There are lots of interconnections. The interconnections are with the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Trilateral Commission.

The other day we had a new appointee to the Chase Manhattan Bank - another colleague for the chairman of the B.C. Hydro board. Mr. Kissinger has now joined the Chase Manhattan Bank. We know about Mr. Kissinger, and we know about the kind of efforts that he has made in respect to the kind of multinational corporations.... Now he's down there helping Mr. Bonner, our chairman of B.C. Hydro. There it is. We have Mr. Bonner.

This afternoon, we had the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) very carefully document the kind of situation which existed in this province in 1955,1956,1957 and 1958, and which ultimately led to a member of the Social Credit

[ Page 2472 ]

cabinet going to prison for taking bribes.

You know, it's interesting that in 1958, another cabinet minister of that government, in defence of Mr. Bonner's actions.... Mr. Gaglardi was interviewed by Mr. Webster, who was a hotliner. He was asked why it was that there was such a great delay. Mr. Gaglardi insisted that the government had never shielded anybody. For 707 days, nothing happened. Everybody dodged behind everybody else!

Mr. Gaglardi said, "The government has never shielded anybody."

Webster said: "For 22 months?"

And Gaglardi said: "The government has never shielded anybody." That's the minister. Of course, you know what that minister used to say: "If I tell a lie it's only because I think I'm telling the truth." Here he is answering Mr. Webster.

Then Webster said: "Until November, 1957?"

And Gaglardi said: "The case was dealt with in civil courts immediately the allegations were made."

Webster said: "Do you agree with Premier Bennett that your government has been strengthened by the conviction of Sommers?"

Gaglardi said: "That was Mr. Bennett's statement."

And Webster said: "So therefore, if all 30 of you went to jail, you would be even stronger."

And Gaglardi said: "That's something that you're saying. That's certainly not something that I'm saying."

And Webster said: "You don't agree with the Premier on the fact that your government has been strengthened by their handling in the conviction of Mr. Sommers?"

And Gaglardi said: "Mr. Bennett meant this - that his government is one of the only governments that's ever had guts enough to bring to trial a case when it was shown there was certain evidence available, and that's the crux of the issue."

Here he is talking in, 1958, and he said that the only reason that that case was finally brought to trial was because there was enough evidence. Yet in 1956, Inspector Butler placed that evidence before the Attorney-General.

"Why was the prosecution not ordered on receipt of the RCMP report mi the fall of 1956?" That was a question that was put to Mr. Bonner, who made a public statement. And he said:

"The report did not disclose the basis upon which a recommendation to prosecute those accused could be made, and no recommendation to prosecute came to me as a result. Specifically, police investigations disclosed no witnesses to corroborate Eversfield's version of the evidence. In fact, no corroboration on this procedure was obtained until November, 1957."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A reading of the Butler reports shows that's absolutely incorrect.

MR. LEVI: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano detailed this afternoon that the Butler report showed that this was not the case -that it was simply the chief law enforcement officer of this province, the Attorney-General, now the chairman of B.C. Hydro, who decided that it was not in the best interests of the government of the day to bring this case to court!

There's been a long, long debate over the years about this particular incident in this government -the highly suspicious actions on the part of the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: There we are. And there are only one or two who recall this. There are two members who sit on the other side. One of them had the courage to vote against the then Attorney-General's salary.

MR. LEA: Have you ever read the Butler report?

MR. C. SHELFORD (Skeena): Yes.

MR. LEA: When?

MR. LEVI: But when the case finally came to trial and when Mr. Justice J.L. Wilson was talking about the Sommers case in addressing the jury, he said: "Financial transactions in the Sommers' bribery conspiracy case were curious, unusual and devious." At one point he commented: "There is the rather conspicuous lack of the use of cheques in dealings involving Forestry minister Robert Sommers."

But we had almost forgotten about the case. They'd almost forgotten about it in the province. It was something that everybody wanted to forget. Then, lo and behold, at a strawberry party in Kelowna, the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, decided to muse - that's what he was doing - on his 20 years as the Premier.

He was asked what the difficult or sad times were, and he was asked about the Sommers case, and he said: "Well, the Sommers case wasn't criminal; it was foolishness." It was a six-month trial, the longest and most expensive trial in the history of this province, and the former Premier says that it wasn't criminal -it was foolishness.

Do you know what? It's unusual for a former judge who has been involved in a case to say anything, but Mr. Justice Wilson did say something. He wrote a letter to The Vancouver Sun....

Interjection.

[ Page 2473 ]

MR. LEVI: Oh, look at the Minister of Mines! He's so twitchy. You know, the typical stance of the Social Credit government, when they don't want to hear the truth, is to do exactly what the former Premier used to do in the House - face the wall. That's what they do - they face the wall. Mind you, the Minister of Mines is only halfway there yet, but he's hoping that he'll pick somebody up.

MR. G. KERSTER (Coquitlam): On a point of order, under standing order 43, 1 think, if the Chair was listening, that the debate has been canvassed to death. It is most tedious, most repetitious and totally irrelevant to the minister's estimates, vote 102, which is what I thought we were here to discuss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The debate has been somewhat repetitious and tedious. I would just caution the member we are on vote 102, which is the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications.

MR. LEVI: Tedious and repetitious. I wasn't aware that the member was even in the House. Speak up. In fact, get up in the debate and defend the government. It's not tedious. What we are doing is adducing facts from what has taken place. After all, what we are trying to get at with the minister is for him to explain to us what kind of confidence it is that he has in this chairman of B.C. Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your debate, in your opinion, may not have been tedious but it certainly has been repetitious in the opinion of the Chair. I would appreciate it if you would proceed.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, I would be much obliged if you could cite to me something that was repetitive. Most of it has been new, as far as I can hear. Could you cite to me something that was?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am not sure if you were in the House this afternoon, if you will refer to the Blues, you will find we've had a repeat.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think you will find that member didn't speak about that this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member - your own remarks this afternoon.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, yes, but he's talking right now about things that I didn't mention at all. It's very interesting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard kindly continue with vote 102?

MR. LEVI: I certainly will not be repetitious and tedious. The member for Coquitlam thinks it is repetitious and tedious, but obviously he hasn't read the Blues. I took the trouble to read the Blues and to stay away from the issues raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) because the member did not get a reply to the questions that he asked this afternoon. So what I am doing is canvassing it in another way and that's not being repetitious and tedious.

Let me just deal, Mr. Chairman, with one other item. We are dealing with the minister's estimates, and we are dealing with the credibility of the chairman of the B.C. Hydro. The Premier has indicated that it's out of control, and it's being chaired by the former Attorney-General of this province. It goes to the credibility of that individual. If the Premier says that it's out of control, then it is out of control. He hasn't done anything about it. All he said was that it's out of control.

So what happened? What happened, as a result of the long trial and the statements by the judges, was that we had verdicts delivered in respect to Mr. Sommers and Mr. Gray and he found Pacific Coast Services.... But then we deal with the other cases where there was no finding, and a new trial was ordered. A new trial was ordered in a number of these cases. Then there were questions asked in the province at that time about when these cases were going to come to trial because the judge, Mr. Wilson, had indicated that these cases needed to come to trial. But they didn't come to trial. After they appeared in relation to Mr. Sommers and his friend they were dropped. They were withdrawn.

Then again there was a great debate in the province. What was happening to justice? The credibility of the Attorney-General was again in doubt. That Attorney-General today, Mr. Chairman, is the chairman of the B.C. Hydro. I've connected it up.

We are entitled to make the kind of criticisms that we make in respect to this individual. The other day we had the House Leader of the opposition describe in some detail the amount of effort that this individual is putting in in respect to other interests that he has as the director of other companies. Again, we must ask: does this individual really have enough time to deal with the most crucial issue that exists in this province today in terms of the energy needs of the province when he's all over the place? He's in New York; he's in Montreal; he spends almost three weeks in Japan dealing with the Trilateral Commission. We're entitled to ask those kinds of things. We're entitled to ask those kinds of things because it directly affects almost every individual in this province.

[ Page 2474 ]

We are entitled to ask these kinds of things when in less than two years we've had three rate increases in B.C. Hydro. We have a right to know who is running the operation over there. Is it being run in the best interest of this province?

But the minister sits there. He doesn't say anything. As I said earlier when I opened my remarks: what is the situation in respect to this individual? Does he report to the government or does the government report to him? We know from these experiences in this House, from the kind of powerful role he has with the previous Social Credit government, that it's not inconceivable that in fact that government could be reporting to him.

After all, one of their most basic needs in terms of that B.C. Hydro is to secure enough investment capital to continue with the plans that they have for the generation of hydro-electric power - $650 million this year, over $700 million next year. And what has been indicated by the minister? Even more than that in 1979. So there has to be the kind of connection in order that this kind of money can be secured.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that there is, in terms of that chairman of the B.C. Hydro board, an international connection in terms of the Wall Street operation and the multinational corporations on which boards he sits, which is particularly unhealthy for this province.

We first heard about the role of the Trilateral Commission, which has often been referred to as a government-in-waiting. It has international proportions and influences which go way beyond what takes place in this province in terms of government decisions. Many of the decisions that are made in respect to the welfare of this province are not made in this province. They are not made in the cabinet room; they are made in New York. And one of the people who is privy to that kind of decision-making is the chairman of the B.C. Hydro board.

He has international connections. He is connected with people who have been involved in all sorts of unsavoury efforts, in my opinion, in terms of the destabilizing of governments in other parts of the world. That kind of documentation is available as a result of hearings in the United States Senate. That kind of documentation relates to what took place in Chile, who was involved and who the people were that were involved. Constantly we hear the name of Kissinger and constantly the name of Rockefeller -and I'm talking about David Rockefeller. And here he is involved in the Trilateral Commission in which this chairman of the board of B.C. Hydro is also involved.

So we're entitled to draw some conclusions as to what kind of international role this individual has. And it is an international role, Mr. Chairman. We're entitled to look at it with some suspicion, because it does have from the point of view of the present government some pecuniary advantages. After all, if the government needs large sums of money, it has to go to Wall Street, and who better to know down on Wall Street than David Rockefeller, who in terms of a power broker is probably the most powerful power broker in all of the world because of his incredible monetary....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you, the three-minute light is on.

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We have to hear from some of the people across the way, Mr. Chairman, and we haven't heard anything. We heard the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) talk about weigh scales. We heard the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) talk about the tankers, after it had been adequately and somewhat expertly canvassed by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . But we haven't heard anything. The minister sits in his chair. The members sit over there. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) chews on his gums and we don't hear anything.

MR. KAHL: Sit down, sit down.

MR. LEVI: We are not getting a challenge, Mr. Chairman, thrown across the floor. The member for Esquimalt says, "sit down, sit down, " which means that he's going to get up and he's going to defend the chairman of B.C. Hydro. Well, I hope he does do that. He has to defend him because nobody over there wants to defend him.

I can recall the time in this House when two or three or four of the people on that side used to excoriate him the same way that I've been doing it today. But they sit over there very quietly. Excoriate was the word, Mr. Chairman.

So I would invite the members from the other side to get up and defend the role and the function of the chairman of the B.C. Hydro board for which this minister is responsible.

MR. DAVIDSON: If I could again get back to the point I raised a short time ago, regarding the lifetime passes for those members retiring from the B.C. ferry service, a subject that is very important to those people.... I feel that anyone who has served since the incorporation of our service in 1960 -approximately 17 years - could very well be afforded the same privilege of retirement passes as is afforded to members who are retiring from other transportation services.

I would like to know if the minister, while he did state that they were not going to be considered at this time, would give any thought whatsoever to reviewing that decision with his board of directors and possibly

[ Page 2475 ]

instructing them to come up with some sort of a plan that would at least offer that opportunity to those who have served 17 years with our ferry service. I think this is a very important matter for the members of the ferry service who have put in this kind of time. They've served the people of this province well. They certainly deserve that kind of consideration.

As an individual who uses the ferries as often as anyone in this House, I'm very proud of the service that's offered to the people of British Columbia. I'm very proud of the manner in which the employees dispatch their duties and the manner in which they treat all the people on board the ferry service. I think this would be one way for the province to notice this in a public way or to reward these people who have served this kind of time with the ferries. I would like to ask the minister at this time if he would review this decision with a view to making some kind of recommendation that this matter be looked into, particularly as it would involve at this time only individuals who have had 17 years of service. I don't think that's an unreasonable request and certainly would go a long way to build morale within the service.

[ Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the directors of the new B.C. Ferry Corporation have discussed the matter of passes. The consensus seems to be developing among them that the number of passes which are out should certainly be substantially reduced. I'll take the hon. member's suggestion to the board of directors. There's no question of directing them to do anything.

MR. LEA: Oh!

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would guess they would turn the idea down, but I'll ask them to review the matter.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Chairman, I will accept the challenge from the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) to talk about the chairman of B.C. Hydro, but I want to talk about a former chairman of B.C. Hydro - I believe his name was Mr. Cass-Beggs. I'd like to ask: where did this so-called expert come from? I understand he worked for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Was he fired there before he came here? What were the conditions under which he served this province for some two and a half to three years? How much time did he spend here?

We've heard a lot of chatting on the other side about how much time Mr. Bonner spends in his office and other things that he might do. I'd like some answers about the chairman of Hydro under the previous administration. You might talk about his pension.

Perhaps you could give me some information about the pension of Mr. Cass-Beggs. I've heard it said that the province had to put approximately $1 million in a trust fund to take care of the pension for this particular individual who served the province for some two and a half years. I think the people of the province of British Columbia would be interested in finding out a bit of information about that. Perhaps you could provide us with some information.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it has been a great night. We've had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) asking the minister to tell us about an international agreement that has been signed between the United States and Canada. There has been no answer. We've had the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) talk about the chairman of B.C. Hydro and whether or not that person should be the chairman of B.C. Hydro, or in any other area of public trust, after his record as the chief law enforcement officer in this province.

We had the member for Delta ask about lifetime ferry passes for the B.C. Ferry Corporation workers. The member for Delta says it's important; everything is important in its place.

We had the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) ask about the weigh scales. What you want to do, Mr. Chairman, is notice that the minister got up and answered the questions on the weigh scales and on the lifetime passes for Ferry Corporation employees, but he failed to get up and answer very important questions. As a matter of fact, the only questions he's answered tonight were asked by backbenchers of the Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Munchkin questions.

MR. LEA: The Munchkins' questions. Is that the only safe question, Mr. Chairman, that the minister feels he can answer tonight?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Oh, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ! Talking about intelligence....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LEA: We have to think back a few years when he had a little trouble with the whales.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had a little trouble with the highways!

MR. LEA: I had no problem with the highways, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you are having a problem

[ Page 2476 ]

with vote 102.

MR. LEA: I'm having no problems with vote 102, Mr. Chairman - no problem at all. What we have here is a government that is willing to sell this province down the drain for their own political future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: That's what we have. We have a government that's willing to run off in a sycophantic manner down to Ottawa and try to get a few dollars for ferry subsidies, and a great many dollars for the development of the infrastructure around the northeastern coal. They go down there and they slurp around, Mr. Chairman. They go skating on canals, and they get up close to and rub up against those feds to try and get a few bucks to save their own skin. And guess what? They don't get anything!

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) goes down there, and he gave the federal government 30 days to come up with $500 million, and they said: "Who is the masked man?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on vote 102, and that's the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.

MR. LEA: Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman. That's right, and we're talking about subsidies for B.C. Ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Thank you.

MR. LEA: We're talking about the movement of energy resources throughout this province. That's what we're talking about.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): What about the buffoon?!

MR. LEA: The buffoon can't recall! (Laughter.) And he proved that in front of the whole province.

Mr. Chairman, we're talking about a very important matter. We're talking about an agreement, a treaty that's been signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States which lifts traditional, lawful jurisdiction from the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we, as the official opposition on behalf of the people of this province, have to ask why. Why didn't this province, through its government - the Social Credit Party government -raise one little question to the federal government? If they had taken a position that they were proud of, I'm sure the minister wouldn't mind standing in his place and telling us about it. We can only assume that because they didn't take any position at all they're ashamed. They're ashamed of that lack of position, and not letting Ottawa know that this province won't be pushed around for a few bucks so that this government can try to make themselves look good by getting a few ferry dollars - subsidy dollars - from the federal government, or that we won't be pushed around on northeastern coal development, in terms of the infrastructure.

You know what's going to happen, Mr. Chairman? This government is going to go down there and grovel for their political lives and end up with nothing anyway, because they haven't been around long enough to know what negotiations with Ottawa really mean.

Ottawa, before an election, whether it's on ferry subsidies or any other matter, honestly makes you believe that you're going to get a buck or two, but the day after the federal election, all those promises, all those negotiations, drift into the mist. It's like trying to grab hold of a handful of mist to get an agreement with Ottawa the day after the federal election. It just isn't there. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows what I'm talking about. You don't get anything out of them, because they negotiate between elections, and after the election you start negotiating again, and that's what's going to happen to this government. But the one difference may be that this government, over ferry subsidies, believe that they've got an ace in the hole in their negotiations.

They believe that the federal government would like to put a few dollars in British Columbia because there may be a national election coming up, so this government is willing to let the federal government do anything it wants as long as they can get a few bucks to try and make it look at least like it appears that they're interested about ferry subsidies and dollars to run those ferries and to get even more dollars for northeastern coal development. But, Mr. Chairman, a treaty has been signed by the federal government that takes away traditional jurisdictional rights of this province.

This government, by its silence, stands condemned. They have not even raised their voice to Ottawa and said: "We protest." Not even a little bit have they said: "We protest." They want those bucks so bad to try and make themselves look good in this province that they'll do almost anything. They're proving it tonight, Mr. Chairman, because they have allowed Ottawa, without even protesting, to sign away traditional jurisdictional rights that have belonged to this province, in terms of taxation of our natural resources. That's what they've done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter that you're referring to has been canvassed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition on several occasions during this debate.

[ Page 2477 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think there must come a time in this House, in this legislature, when there have to be answers. It's not enough to say: "Mr. Member, it has been canvassed before." What we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the signing away of the heritage of British Columbia, which has traditionally been this province's under the British North America Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, what the Chair is speaking of is standing order 43, which is the rule against repetition. That's all I can caution you.

MR. LEA: I know exactly what you're saying, Mr. Chairman. But I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you'll agree with me that the people of this province have the right to know what position their provincial government is going to take or has taken over the signing of a treaty that gives away traditional jurisdictional rights to the people of this province when they haven't even had the decency to let the people of this province know that it was even going on. Here we are today, during the Minister of Energy's office vote, asking for a simple answer of what in the world this government is doing about that treaty. Have they a position on that treaty?

Then, Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) raised another important issue, and I think a very important one. As he said, the chairman of B.C. Hydro belongs to the Trilateral Commission. I think I heard him say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are continuing in repetition of another member's speech.

MR. LEA: You have no idea what I'm going to say, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue and we'll listen.

MR. LEA: I believe the member for Vancouver-Burrard mentioned that Mr. Kissinger has now been appointed to the Trilateral....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not debating the vote of Mr. Kissinger. We're debating the vote of the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications.

MR. LEA: No, the vote of Mr. Kissinger has been fully discussed at Watergate, and the Watergate in British Columbia has not.

What we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that a man with the track record of Mr. Bonner, in fooling the people of this province when he was the chief law enforcement officer, has no place being in a position of public trust in this province today, or any time now or in the future. At no time should a man who has broken the trust, of his office once be given trust in a public office again.

Last year, the Butler report, which puts a lie to the words that Robert Bonner spoke when he was Attorney-General, went before the public of this province. That man is the chairman of B.C. Hydro, a job of public trust in this province, and we have a government that won't lift a finger to see that justice is done. It's not only the Minister of Energy; it's those people who are in that Liberal Party who spoke out against Mr. Bonner, even when the Butler report wasn't before us. They stood and condemned Mr. Bonner for his actions, and on the day with the Butler report in front of us, they sit silent in their cabinet benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you persist in irrelevance, I must ask you to take your seat.

MR. LEA: In your opinion it may be irrelevance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, it is irrelevant.

MR. LEA: Well, in my opinion it is not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is tedious ...

MR. LEA: That a man who has broken the public trust in one of the highest offices in British Columbia now has another high office....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, irrelevance is akin to repetition. You are repeating things which have been said over and over again during this debate. I'm sure you are completely cognizant of that. I would like you to proceed with some new material.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I am completely aware of what I am doing. I am also completely aware that that minister has not gotten to his feet in this House and told us about British Columbia's position in regard to that treaty that was signed with the United States and the government of Canada, nor what his opinion is of having a man like Robert Bonner under his jurisdiction.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take issue at this time with the hon. member for Victoria in his remarks with respect to the damage and adverse effects on tourism in this area of Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: The second member for Victoria.

[ Page 2478 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, the second member for Victoria - correct. My points will start with the letter written to the Hon. Grace McCarthy by the general manager of the Harrison Hot Springs Hotel, and I would like to read the letter.

"Hon. Grace McCarthy,
Provincial Secretary,
Minister of Recreation and Tourism, Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter received from one of the major U.S. tour operators. In view of the tremendous effort your department is putting forward to attract tourism in B.C., I thought that this may be of interest to you.

(Signed)
Mr. C. Ritter
General Manager, Harrison Hot Springs Hotel."

There's a carbon copy to me.

Now the story starts with a letter from Mr. Goldstein of New York. Mr. Goldstein writes to a large tour operator....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Just a minute, you will have some shocking news here - very shocking news. (Laughter.) The name of the operator is Talk Tours. But I will have to give you this step by step.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Keep us in suspense, George.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you will step-by-step into vote 102. (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is definitely what I'll do. This step by step is the question of the tourism. In relation to the charge made by the hon. second member for Victoria, that tourism was adversely affected in Victoria, I am pointing out that the problem is affecting tourism all over British Columbia and that has nothing to do with B.C. Ferries. I want to make this point clear. A lady by the name of Mrs. Philip Goldstein from Brooklyn, New York, writes as follows:

" I was looking forward with great anticipation of going on a Pacific northwest trip through Canada and the United States until I saw the tour rates - an increase of $92 per person" - et cetera, et cetera.

"I looked forward very much to seeing your beautiful country, your great country, but $2,638 for two people is far too much."

Now that's the letter from Mrs. Goldstein. Now I will give you another letter. This gets more shocking as it goes on. (Laughter.) It's very much more shocking.

Talk Tours reply. Now listen to this. They say, in part -I won't read the whole letter, it's two pages.

MR. LEVI: Read the letter.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll spare you that, but I'll read you two paragraphs.

"Mrs. Phillip Goldstein,
10 Farragut Road,
Brooklyn, New York, 11234.

"Dear Mrs. Goldstein:

You are absolutely right. An increase of $92 per person on our Pacific northwest tour is outrageous. It amounts to 10.6 per cent increase over last year. Also, last year's price of $849 was a 6.2 per cent increase over 1975.

Your letter seems to intone . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

". . . that these are arbitrary prices imposed by us, the difference of which might be resulting in an increased profit to Talk Tours, when in fact our dollar return on these tours has been the same year by year."

That seems to be very simple, but the important letter comes next. Hear this: "Talk Tours thought they should write to the Banff Springs Hotel, to Harrison Hot Springs Hotel" - and others all listed here - "and announce the problem." which is our problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia. They write in the letter and they say:

"Gentlemen:

"The attached correspondence" -which I've just read to you -

"might be of some interest to you. I would not pass this on if it were not that only yesterday we did a comparison of tour bookings between 1976 and 1977. It's early in the season and therefore the results of comparison do not necessarily reflect a trend. For some of our tours, especially eastern motor tours, we have so few bookings at this time that we don't even bother to make a comparison.

, "However, the tours we look at are Hawaiian tours which book the year round and our Canadian Rockies tour which normally books very early and for which we have a substantial number of bookings at this time. The results of all this are somewhat staggering."

This is the point now. I've taken a long time to get here, but it's very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've been waiting a long time.

MR. MUSSALLEM: "Our Hawaiian tour is 21.3

[ Page 2479 ]

per cent ahead of last year."

MR. LEA: No!

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's right.

"Our Florida tours are 16.7 per cent ahead." Hear that? That's where our business is going.

Hear this: "Our New Orleans tour is 16.8 per cent ahead."

MR. BARBER: Now about a Victoria tour?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Hold on. We're getting to it.

"Our Pacific northwest tour is down 45 per cent."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the ferry rates.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Nothing to do with the ferry rates. We're talking about the mainland here - the Pacific northwest tour. "Ibis is on a 1976 base of 546 Pacific northwest bookings. Seeing this, we immediately compared our Canadian Rockies tour and another that operates in the Pacific northwest, and found the bookings there were down also, about the same ratio of 44.5 per cent."

They go on to point out that it is inflation in Canada, but especially in the west, that is blocking tourism in this country. We have said this over and over again. It is not the ferry rates; it is the high rates we are charging here for many reasons that I'm not going to enumerate. Our prices have got so high that tourism has been the first to feel the shock of being priced out of the market. Let's not hear any more about the ferry rates causing this tourism disaster.

I must compliment the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on the tremendous effort she is putting forth to bring tourism here. I think in spite of this, and in spite of the problems, I am confident this will be a good year for Victoria, a good year for our part of British Columbia, and for British Columbia as a whole, because the minister has been very active. You'll notice she has been traveling a great deal. (Laughter.) It is because of this.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The strange part is that when you say a sound, serious thing, we get laughter. But the minister has been traveling and doing a great job. Tourism will come even in spite of our high prices, but not as much as it should be. This province has got to bring itself down to a competitive basis or not only tourism but the entire province will suffer.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, let's just go back to the Trilateral

Commission. I'm not going to recanvass material that has already been canvassed. I think that when a chairman of a Crown corporation also holds an executive position in an organization as far-reaching as the Trilateral Commission....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you opened your remarks by saying that you were not going to canvass material that h~s been canvassed.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have canvassed the Trilateral Commission.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but not this facet of it. There is a great deal more to the Trilateral Commission, Mr. Chairman, than you realize. What I am going to talk about is new material relative to the Trilateral Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe, hon. member, that the Trilateral Commission is relevant to this vote.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The president....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Mr. Bonner's involvement.

MRS. WALLACE: That is what I am speaking about, if you will allow me to continue, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking about the involvement of the chairman of a Crown corporation in an organization not only as a member but as a member of the executive of that organization. He's one of 11 Canadians, Mr. Chairman, who is involved in this organization. In order to evaluate whether or not this man is well qualified to serve as chairman of our Hydro and Power Authority here in British Columbia, I think we should look at some of the things that he has undertaken relative to the Trilateral Commission.

In order to understand that, we must recognize the fact that the Trilateral Commission has in the United States of America fairly effectively controlled the press by taking into its membership members of the American press. One member who was not included broke a story in the United States which was in fact denied by other members of the U.S. press.

Strangely enough, none of these stories hit any of the Canadian papers. There was a complete blackout in Canada until one reporter on the CBC, Ben Metcalfe, decided to break the story. Mr. Bonner's reaction when that story was broken was very interesting, When the story broke, he came back to the CBC, Mr. Chairman, and he raced down to CBC

[ Page 2480 ]

and he went on the air saying very derogatory things about that reporter who had broken the story, accusing him of all sorts of things - smoking strange cigarettes and similar things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, my goodness!

MRS. WALLACE: Then he persuaded the publisher of the Vancouver Province to pursue that same line. The Province came out with a story that they'd never heard of the TLC. The managing editor of The Province was involved with meetings at the Pacific Rim - the brains trust, with David Rockefeller - in September, 1975. At that point, even though he has been involved in those meetings, the Province still indicated, Mr. Chairman, that they knew nothing about those meetings.

That kind of influence, exerted by a man in that kind of a powerful position, and now the chairman of

B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, is a very unfortunate thing for this province, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Stupich, from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, presented the committee's first report, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

Page Number?

APPENDIX

By leave, Mr. Stupich presented Report No. I of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

REPORT No. 1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Room,
March 31,1977

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

Your Committee summoned Allan R. Turner, Chairman of the Public Documents Committee, established under the Public Documents Disposal Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, Chapter 314, and, having heard the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Documents Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction of various public documents as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts Committee for 1977 in so far as the following ministries of Government are concerned: Ministry of the Attorney-General; Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Health; and Ministry of the Provincial Secretary.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

D. D. STUPICH, Chairman