1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1978
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 1039 ]
CONTENTS
Matter of privilege
Alleged contempt of the House by member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) Mr. Nicolson –– 1039
Routine proceedings
Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 205) Ms. Brown.
Introduction and first reading –– 1040
Oral questions
Temporary work permits for Japanese. Mr. Lea –– 1040
Printing of ICBC forms. Mr. Cocke –– 1040
Report on speech pathologists and audiologists. Mr. Gibson –– 1041
Leaseback of ferries. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1041
Chief Lake-Ness Lake-Nukko Lake inclusion in AIR. Mr. Skelly –– 1043
B.C. Hydro-Housing ministry joint committee. Mr. Levi –– 1043
Youth employment programme. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 1043
Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.
On vote 5.
Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1045
Mr. Gibson –– 1048
Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1050
Mr. Gibson –– 1053
Mr. Macdonald –– 1053
Mr. Lauk –– 1056
Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1062
Mr. Shelford –– 1066
Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1068
Mr. King –– 1070
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr. Ledingham, who has been a continuous observer of the proceedings in this House almost on a daily basis for several years. I believe he's trying to match the record of Mrs. Ruth Johnson, who has been here for several years herself.
I understand that Mr. Ledingham first came to the Legislature at the age of nine and that the Premier at that time was the Hon. Richard McBride.
MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today a delegation from north-central B.G. They are down presenting their concerns to the caucuses of all the parties. They represent the DARE group, Discrimination Against the Rights of Employees, and they're concerned primarily because they feel that employees should have the right to a secret ballot concerning the labour union representation.
I commend them for traveling to Victoria and for the cause they represent. Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you and the House Mr. Bob Anderson, Mr. George Janzen and Mr. John Fritsen of Burns Lake, and their solicitor, Mr. Bill Hibbard of Prince George? Would the House please bid them welcome?
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two former M[As who are visiting us today - one who is in the precincts and another who's in the gallery.
Interjection.
MR. BARRETT: Oh, both in the gallery? I only see one in the gallery.
AN HON. MEMBER: Carl's up there.
MR. BARRETT: Behind the post. Well, both are in the gallery, Mr. Speaker: the former member for North Vancouver-Seymour, Colin Gabelmann, and a former member for Delta, Carl Liden. I welcome them back to the gallery and hope to have the opportunity to welcome them back on the floor some day.
MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the precincts today Judge and Mrs. Saul Gothard, of Gretna, Louisiana. Judge Gothard is a leading authority on children's rights and child abuse. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today Mr. Neil MacKerrzie and his wife. Neil is the news director of Cariboo Radio, and his home town is Quesnel.
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would ask the House this afternoon to welcome the group from Burns Lake, Mr. George Janzen, Mr. Bob Anderson and Mr. John Fritsen, and I, too, commend them for what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the House also to welcome a group in the gallery this afternoon from Babine Elementary School, at Granisle. The young men are, Lawrence Massicotte, Gordon Gerl, Paul Foley, Phil Foley and their teacher, Mr. John Rathbun. 1 would ask the House to make them welcome.
HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's a good day for Langley today. We have a lot of students here from Langley. In the gallery at the present time are students from the Alternate Learning Environment project, with their teacher, Steve McCarthy.
Touring in the building at the present time are mu ic students from Fort Langley Junior Secondary School, with about 40 guests that they have with them, from the Middleton Regional High School band from Nova Scotia, and their chaperones.
Also coming into the gallery in a little while are students from the Mountain Secondary School in Langley, along with their teacher, Mr. B. Ivanay, and I hope the House would make them all welcome.
MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a matter of privilege, at the first opportunity at which I have been able to do so.
On April 12,1978, 1 sought clarification from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) concerning a statement made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention. That member's statement was presented as a message from the minister.
Following the question period, the member for Omineca rose and made the following statement from Hansard, page 377:
"MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) during the
[ Page 1040 ]
question period. The member told the House that I, in an address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Burns Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this House that the member is wrong. He has misquoted me. In order that the member get his facts straight I would be quite willing to make a copy of that address to those people available to him so that he can read the whole of that great speech."
The member in the first instance has denied making reference to a new Wildlife Act at the convention, and in the second instance has implied that the prepared speech which he supplied me with that day, which I will file, was the speech given in Burns Lake. I have since obtained a transcript -of the speech actually presented at the convention. It indicates that the member did indeed mention a new Wildlife Act. I will file this transcript.
Secondly, the speech supplied by the member was not a copy of the speech he delivered. The member's action interfered with my efforts to seek answers in the House. May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition, says on page 138: "The House may treat the making of a misstatement as a contempt." I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these documents in order to determine if there's a prima facie case of such a contempt. If you were to define a prima facie case I would be prepared to move a suitable motion.
I ask leave to file documents.
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would defer the decision pending proper consideration of the matter and will report to the House at my first opportunity. Previous to reporting to the House I would wish the hon. member to make known to the Speaker the nature of the motion that he intends to make, should the ruling be in his favour.
MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would, if the occasion rises, move that this House instruct the committee of selection appointed on March 30 last to name a Committee of Privileges to investigate the allegation that the member for Omineca was in contempt of the House on April 12,1978, and that the said committee shall, with all speed, inquire into the said matter and report its recommendations thereon to this assembly before the end of the session, the said Committee on Privileges being authorized to sit while the House is sitting.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will undertake to consider the matter and report at the first convenience.
Introduction of bills.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME
FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1978
On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 205, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Oral questions.
TEMPORARY WORK PERMITS FOR JAPANESE
MR. LEA: Has the Minister of Labour discussed with federal officials the conditions attached to some 450 temporary work permits which have been issued for Japanese citizens to work as so-called technicians in B.C. canneries during the herring and salmon roe fishery seasons this year?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with federal officials but I have asked for a report through the manpower division of the Ministry of Labour into this continuing practice by the federal department.
MR. LEA: May I ask the minister when he asked for that report and from whom?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the member will accept my apologies, from memory, it was some 10 or 12 days ago, of my deputy minister. I might say to the member that the practice of issuing temporary immigrant work visas is a matter which we view with some concern. It is a practice of the federal department that we have been unable to control as yet.
MR. LEA: I would ask the minister whether that report, once in his hands, could be made available to the Legislature.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
PRINTING OF ICBC FORMS
MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the Minister of Education why it is, in view of the wide unemployment in the province, that ICBC has been importing printing of
[ Page 1041 ]
their forms from the province of Ontario, from R.L. Crane Ltd. in Toronto. I wonder if the minister has any answer to that question.
HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've been aware of this, and I would be pleased to take the question as notice and bring an answer to the member.
REPORT ON SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS
AND AUDIOLOGISTS
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . On March 29 of this year the minister announced the establishment of an interagency committee to discuss the ministry's requirements for the qualifications of speech pathologists and audiologists in the division of speech and hearing services. The minister promised the committee's report would be submitted by April 29 of this year. Has that committee now reported, and if not, why not?
HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, the committee hasn't reported. As for why not, . it hasn't finished its work yet.
MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, when I raised this subject with the minister on April 3 in the House, he informed me that he had not, at that time, read the report on the training of audiologists done by Dr. Fred Greenberg. Dr. Greenberg was, commissioned by and reported to the Universities Council, a committee of that council, which included an official representative of the Ministry of Health, Dr. F.G. Tucker. In view of the alleged criticism in the Greenberg report of a senior Health ministry public servant, has the minister now obtained and read a copy of that report and has he determined why this report was not brought to his attention earlier?
HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I have a copy of the report.
MR. GIBSON: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has the minister taken any action to get the permission of the Universities Council to have'that report made available to the members of the interagency committee that is investigating the subject?
HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, it's not the Ministry of Health's report. It's up to the Universities Council to determine what is done with it. As I understand it, the interministerial committee does have access to the report and I'm sure that the report's recommendations will be a part of their consideration.
MR. MACDONALD: Even though it's the Universities Council, since the Greenberg report was prepared by a public agency - the Universities Council is a public agency, as is the Ministry of Health - why is that report not made public? Why should it be kept secret from the members of the Legislature and from the public? Is there any reason?
HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's not my report. Mr. Speaker, the member must realize the report is not the Ministry of Health's. It was not commissioned by the Ministry of Health, it wasn't delivered to the Ministry of Health, it had nothing to do with the Ministry of Health. So it's not my report to release. I have no objection if it's released and if it's printed on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.
MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, will the minister speak to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and see that the report prepared with public money is released to the public?
LEASEBACK OF FERRIES
HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to respond to a question asked of me last me by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) . It had to with the subject of the three ferries which were purchased and leased back, namely the Queen of Alberni, the Queen of Cowichan and the Queen of Coquitlam. By way of information, I would just like to supply this report:
In March of 1976 Mr. Charles Gallagher, general manager of the British Columbia Ferry Authority, was contacted by Mr. W. John Bennett - no relation to our Premier - who was the vice-president of McLeod, Young, Weir & Co. of Toronto, on a proposal to sell and lease back the three new ferries about to be delivered.
At this time other proposals were sought and received from Roy Marine, Ltd., Wood Gundy Ltd., and J. Henry Schroeder & Co. Ltd. In each of these cases, their proposals meant a higher cost to the ferry authority than the one which was adopted.
The sale lease-back deal with McLeod.Young, Weir and Company resulted in $48,442, 000 being received for the three vessels: Queen of Coquitlam, Queen of Cowichan and Queen of Alberni. Commission at the rate of 0.5 per cent was paid. I might say that that is a reasonable rate compared with other transactions of a similar type. I'm advised that, for
[ Page 1042 ]
instance, bond issues in Europe attract a commission of 2.5 per cent on very sizable financial issues. This commission was at the rate of 0.5 per cent, namely, $85,000 on the Queen of Cowichan and $73,000 on the Queen of Alberni deducted from the payments received from McLeod, Young and Weir Leasing Companies; $85,000 on the Queen of Coquitlam. paid to McLeod, Young, Weir and Company.
The reason for the different methods of payment is that the first two vessels were sold to the leasing companies and then resold, while the third vessel was sold directly with McLeod, Young, Weir and Company acting as agent.
The effective rate of interest, which is an important part of this transaction, on the leaseback is 7.09 per cent, excluding the acquisition of the ferries at the end of the lease, or 17.71 per cent if the ferries were re-acquired. In either case, you have a very attractive effective rate of rental.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON. MR. WOLFE: That is true, Mr. Speaker. I challenge anyone to disagree with that statement. The effective rate of 7.09 per cent [illegible] compares to the then existing bank interest rates of upwards of 10 per cent.
MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell us who actually owns the ferries at the moment?
HON. MR. WOLFE: From recollection I think one had actually been owned by the Grown and had been resold; the other two, perhaps, were purchased by the leasing companies directly before they were transferred. I'll have to check on that for you.
MR. LEVI: Could I perhaps assist the minister? It's my understanding that two of the ferries are now owned by McLeod, Young, Weir and Company; and one of them is owned by the syndicate Trustco, which is the Bank of Montreal and the Trust Company of Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: Is that a question, hon. member?
MR. LEVI: Yes.
HON. MR. WOLFE: I think it's clear that this transaction was beneficial to British Columbia. These companies that purchased the ferries were in effect able to give us a better rate because of depreciation laws which exist.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER. Hon. members, we must remember the purpose of question period is not to have prolonged debate, but rather to seek information.
MR. LEVI: Can the minister inform the House, Mr. Speaker, whether Mr. Austin Taylor was involved in any way in the negotiations in respect to the McLeod, Young and Weir proposals?
HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I've informed the House that a Mr. John Bennett, vice-president, approached the Ferry Authority and handled the transaction.
MR. LEVI: Would the minister undertake to find out and let the House know if, in fact, Mr. Taylor was or was not involved in the negotiations?
MR. BARRETT: I understand that the minister said that McLeod, Young and Weir is also an owner of two of the ferries at this point, and then sold them later to a leasing firm. Is that correct? I understand one ferry was sold directly, and two were held by McLeod, Young and Weir and then sold again. Is that correct?
HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Speaker, I believe either one or two of the ferries had first been purchased by the Grown and were resold back to accommodate this leaseback transaction. I think the third one had not, in fact, been purchased at the time the transaction was made, and was then purchased directly by one of these leasing companies from the Authority, who had constructed them.
MR. BARRETT: Is the minister saying to the House that the province of British Columbia bought two ferries from its wholly owned Crown corporation and then sold them, through McLeod, Young and Weir, to the leasing firm?
HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know.
MR. BARRETT: Well, could the minister inform the House who held the ferries in the interim - the two ferries that were not sold directly, either by the Grown or by the government.
HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.
Interjections.
HON. MR. WOLFE: That wasn't part of your
[ Page 1043 ]
original question. What are you talking about?
MR. BARRETT: Don't you know, for goodness' sake? It's $48 million and you don't know what's going on.
HON. MR. WOLFE: You just don't like the transaction. We'll save a lot of money.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, time is fleeting.
MR. LAUK: To the same minister on the same subject. I wonder briefly the answer to these questions: what is the term of the lease back for each of the ferries and the calculated payout over that period of time to the leasing company?
HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I've advised the House that the effective rate on the rental was 7.09. I'll get that further information. I believe the term was roughly 20 years, but I'll supply that further information. You want the term of the contract and...
MR. LAUK: ... and the calculated total payout.
CHIEF LAKE - NESS LAKE - NUKKO LAKE
INCLUSION IN AIR
MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. With respect to the announcement today by the MLA for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) that 40,000 acres in the Chief Lake-Ness Lake-Nukko Lake area near Prince George has been included by cabinet order in the AIR, this inclusion was recommended over two years ago by local government and the Land Commission but inclusion was delayed by political interference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SKELLY: Will the minister please advise the House how many subdivision applications have been received by his ministry in the area between the time that the recommendation was made in the first place and the time the order was passed? What acreage was involved? Who made the applications for subdivision during the two-year delay and what were their political affiliations?
HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , I'll get the information but I think he maybe better put that question on the order paper.
B.C. HYDRO-HOUSING MINISTRY JOINT COMMITTEE
MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Could the minister tell the House what the exact function is of the joint ministry and B.C. Hydro committee in respect to Pacific Stage Lines and the Vancouver Island Coach Lines?
HON. MR. CURTIS: This is a staff committee to examine the possible duplication or opportunity for integration of services offered by both companies.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question was posed to me in question period yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , and I wonder if I might have leave to respond now.
Leave granted.
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question, as you will recall, dealt with the policies of the Youth Employment Programme in 1978, operated by the Ministry of Labour with respect to Indian bands. I indicated that it was my view that Indian bands did qualify for the programme and I am pleased to report to you today that such is the case. No distinction is made between Indian bands or any other individual or organization in this province.
However, the Youth Employment Programme has a number of categories: one of them is nonprofit organizations, one is small businesses, one is farms. There are others as well but they apply to local government organizations. Any organization or any individual who wishes to qualify for a non--profit business or farm programme must bring themselves within the regulations applicable to those categories.
In the case of which the member has notice, the Indian band did not bring itself within any of those three categories and hence the application was rejected. This occurred with respect to a number of other Indian band applications. However, I can assure you that in the non-profit organization section, seven Indian bands or organizations have been approved for funding.
The assessment of applications is conducted by area review committees, which are composed of members of various communities throughout the province and officials of the ministry. In the case of the area review committees at Smithers, Kamloops and Williams Lake, those committees have representatives who are members of the Indian community.
[ Page 1044 ]
I think that perhaps the letter the member has was one which was inappropriate in communicating to the particular band what that band could do with regard to renewing applications. I do however know that a number of applications which camp forward were intercepted by field officers of the programme and that Indian bands were advised in advance of that letter being sent as to what should be done in order to bring their application within the regulations. Whether this particular band, to which the member for Prince Rupert referred, was so advised I can't tell at this moment. We are having an investigation made among all field officers in the programme to determine the extent to which specific advice was given to Indian bands.
I will have further to report on the matter if the member wishes to raise the question in a subsequent question period. I might also say that in outlining the number of identifiable Indian organizations today, this list is not necessarily exhaustive. These are the ones which we have been able to identify in the period of time since question period yesterday afternoon.
I also wish to make it clear that it is not the policy of the programme or of the ministry to identify organizations as to being Indian or non-Indian or otherwise. We attempt to treat all applicants based upon the application and the priorities established thereby.
MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wants the floor. What is the nature of ... ?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the practice of the House is that if leave is granted to give a reply to a question made in question period, supplementary questions are made in a subsequent question period. Do we want to change that?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to make a statement?
Leave not granted.
MR. LEA: The Minister of Mines says no, Mr. Speaker...
Interjections.
MR. LEA: ...and the Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not necessary to identify the noes.
MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I would appreciate some instruction from either the Chair or the House Leaders as to the accommodation for requests without notice or the suspension of the rules for leave to make a statement. If indeed the courtesy is to be extended, as has been the tradition in this House, to the government or to the opposition, some understanding must exist. I would ask the Speaker .....
HON. MR. MAIR: Nonsense. It just doesn't occupy your question period, that's all. It's his courtesy to you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A point of order is being stated.
MR. BARRETT: On the question being asked, before suspension of the rules and leave to make a statement, there is no knowledge to the House as to the content and the material. As a consequence, the tradition is that leave is granted by opposition to government with the understanding that the same leave would be granted as a courtesy in return. If indeed this is not to be the practice in the House, I would appreciate some instructions from either the House Leaders or the Whips.
MR. SPEAKER: I would understand, hon. members, that the necessity to ask leave indicates that we are providing an opportunity for any member to object to leave. As I understand the standing orders, if one voice objects, it simply means that leave is not granted. Therefore it cannot be assumed that because leave was granted on one particular instance that leave would necessarily be granted on a subsequent instance. If we want to change the rules, I'm willing to listen.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that nothing can be assumed in a request to suspend the rules. However, if the tradition is to be changed, then the request honourably made by the member after the question period, which was freely given, becomes a matter then of question by the House. For example, Mr. Speaker, we would then....
HON. MR. MAIR: Sure, we'll answer them in question period at great length - pages of them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order. Please proceed.
[ Page 1045 ]
MR. BARRETT: For example then, Mr. Speaker, the question of suspending rules and giving leave to make a statement might require a statement before the request made on the leave of suspension of rules as to what the nature of the statement is. If that is indeed the practice that we may may embark upon, we'll find ourselves wasting a great deal of time in irrelevant debate before we get to that courtesy point of asking for leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes. As I understand that the rule, or at least the practice of the House at the present time, if a ministerial statement is made then the right of reply - it's not a matter of leave - to leaders of opposing parties in the House is granted. However, when a statement is made by leave and is an answer to a question asked in question period, then further statements are not in order, as I understand it, without leave. I would undertake to do some research on the matter, and perhaps even come to the House with the recommendations under the parliamentary procedures and practices Act.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you are considering this question I wish also that you would take into consideration what could happen in this House, because we are a group of human beings with the same emotions as any other group of human beings. If for political reasons leave is not granted to a member of this House, I believe that that would lead to pettiness, and I believe that once pettiness has entered into it we would find that through pettiness, no leave would be granted for any statement from either side. I wish that you would take that into consideration while considering the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I trust that it is not the wish of the members for the Chair to try to determine what is the motivation for not granting leave.
HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same point of order, I have one observation. Mr. Speaker, it seems to have been developed as a rule of practice and procedure in the House that when lengthy answers are to be given, they are given outside of question period. But if any of the members of the House on the government side and on the opposition side prefer lengthy answers to be given during question period, I'm sure the ministers are prepared to accommodate.
MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the choice, of course, is always present with the minister responding to the question. The courtesy extended by the minister who did answer the question after question period was given by leave. And on understanding that request of leave, there is also the option of supplementary questions in question period. I think, Mr. Speaker, rather than cone to some rigid rule that would bind the House in the necessary traditional flexibility the matter best rests in your able hands for some suggestion of operation before hard lines are drawn that all of us will regret.
MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the best course of action will surface in the inquiry.
MR. LEA: On the same point of order, which I think may also help in your consideration, the minister did ask leave to make his statement or answer the question, which was granted. I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that I asked leave to make a statement not to politically embarrass anyone, but to help the minister in his investigation. I think because the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Premier presupposed my intervention, we got ourselves into a lot of trouble and we'll meet more trouble down the road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it's obvious, hon. member, that that is beyond the realm of the point of order.
MR. NICOLSON: Those two aren't themselves today, anyhow.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.
ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
(continued)
On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -continued.
HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, I'd like to introduce the Deputy Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Roy Illing, who will be sitting with me today.
I'd like to deal with a number of areas covered yesterday on which statements were made and questions asked.
Regarding the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, I remind you that it is not a Grown corporation. But it does have an obligation,
[ Page 1046 ]
in its prospectus and annual report, to report all manner of information and to answer questions at an annual meeting. While preparing for incorporation, I'm sure many things are developing under the direction of the directors, including their opportunity to hire staff who will help them with the preparation of the prospectus and then, of course, manage the company after it has gone public. Part of the success of taking a company public is both assets in real resources, in tangible assets -and future assets, such as a share subscription would produce - and also the human resources, those who are going to run the company in a management capacity and who may be continuing after the permanent board of directors is elected by the shareholders at the earliest allowable opportunity following the public subscription. This will, I hope, be enthusiastically received by the people of British Columbia, as an opportunity to harness their capital and to have a major public company in the private sector that will be our own British Columbia company. The company is restricted to first issue in British Columbia, and Canadian ownership. It will be our own company in size and substance, our private sector corporation and our measurement against the multinational corporations - and owned by British Columbians. I'm sure that the share issue will be actively and enthusiastically purchased. I know I'm looking forward to seeing the early issuance of the prospectus.
That is why I was a little concerned today in reading an interview with the new manager of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in which he talked of possible delay. I would hope that he has had time, since that interview, to talk to to the directors and to understand that the mandate that was given them was to prepare a prospectus with all haste - but haste, of course, that would allow for the meeting of all the Securities Commission's requirements. To give British Columbians that opportunity was their mandate when they were named as the interim board of directors. I'm hopeful - as I have been - that an early prospectus and an early offering will be made to the people of British Columbia.
MR. BARBER: Did he confirm that it might be another year before the prospectus was issued?
HON. MR. BENNETT: I have not talked to him. I just read it in the paper. That was not the, mandate given to the directors and that's why I'm mentioning it to the House at this time. Their mandate was to proceed with as much speed as is possible in carrying out such a gigantic undertaking and to provide this early opportunity to the people.
As I said yesterday, those directors have the opportunity to make available such information to all the public of B.C. They don't have to report to the House, as such information will be available very shortly in any prospectus - and through here, where I invite them to do so, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that information could only help the confidence in this new corporation which is going to count on the enthusiastic support of the people of the province. I believe it to be a great opportunity in this province not only for the people, but to have a private-sector corporation which is neither run by the hand of government nor has the hand of government compromised by both the policy and the opportunities which it has. It has a great opportunity. Any member standing in this House could relate the number of opportunities that lie in British Columbia for anyone with initiative and enterprise.
Interjections.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Any British Columbian can have the opportunity to purchase the shares in various denominations. That opportunity then can unfold in a number of ways. Those ways, of course, would be up to the directors of the company in the best interests of the shareholders.
But in meeting their objectives, they would help to meet the economic objectives of initiative and employment and jobs and economic creativity that this province needs, this province desires and which will pay not only many dividends directly to the people employed but also untold benefits to all of the people indirectly because a healthy corporation will be a tax-paying corporation. It will pay taxes in British Columbia to the British Columbia government. People working provide revenue to government. When government gets revenues, it can provide (a) more services and (b) a possibility of tax reductions on a broader level for more people. Certainly what we're looking for in British Columbia is to have a growing economy so that we can look to two things: continuing programmes we have now and improving them in the future, and also lowering the burden of taxation on people as the cost of government can be spread over a much broader base. When you have a series of Crown corporations who have yet to ever pay dividends into general revenue to help pay for the programmes for people, you've also eliminated them from the tax-paying base of the province so that they make no contribution to government in cash into consolidated general revenue to pay
[ Page 1047 ]
for medicare or to pay for the extended health care or to pay for universal Pharma care or many of the benefits we've been able, since we became government, to bring to government.
That money would not be there because they are not a tax-paying base. It's a false economy, then, to consider that government would be the logical owner. This is a logical opportunity for people. When people show initiative and are successful, they can do well for themselves and increase their own way of life. They also have an opportunity to make a contribution through the tax regimes of the country and the province, and that's really what pays for the services. Somehow, some of the public, some politicians like to think that all services from government are free and somehow the money comes from some mysterious source. That's not correct. It comes from the taxpayers, individual and corporate. It comes from the taxpayers, and that's where government gets its money.
[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]
A healthy economy, then, and a healthy, growing business economy will provide more dollars for government, giving us the opportunity to lower the impact of taxation on individuals. You know, the first er for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , laughs at that, yet he is part of a party that has indicated....
MR. LAUK: I'm laughing because you're not saying anything. You're full of hot air, Mr. Premier; you're not saying anything.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I can see the member is his usual gracious self. Have the school children left yet so they haven't been exposed to him?
Mr. Chairman, so in reality, the party that member belongs to seems to have tried to create the myth that somehow government services were free and that they could provide more services, with no taxation and that somehow the money would come from mythical areas. Of course, they recognize that with that philosophy and that attitude, that is why they ran into financial trouble when they were government. I'm only saying that with the difference in our philosophy, by encouraging the private sector in this way and a number of other ways, we'll provide that economic base that will, besides giving individuals an opportunity, send the flow of capital to government, and government then can carry on the services that British Columbia already provides. When you have our economy threatened, as it was, then those services themselves are threatened, let alone any possibility to expand them or provide new services, which all members on all sides of the House from time to time stand up and speak for most eloquently. It's easy to ask for many things that may be done. It's another to have that balance between financing government, providing fair taxation levels to people and working towards an equitable formula where more money can be left in the hands of individuals yet government can carry out those functions that government must provide in a general way.
The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is just such a vehicle, because it will create an opportunity for people to invest - and I don't have to remind members again of the tremendous buildup in savings accounts of individuals in the last few years in this province and the tremendous buildup in chartered banks of capital waiting to be invested or spent. That capital could be harnessed for their benefit and also be put into this corporation to help it create economic activity as well, giving them an investment and giving it an opportunity to help build the economy. As I say, all of this will eventually guarantee a better economy that will also help provide government financing in the future through the tax regimes of the day.
Now some question was made of mining, and I answered that yesterday. But the member who spoke immediately left the House and wasn't present. So I answered it while he was out, presumably giving an interview. The answer is, Mr. Chairman, that neither the mining industry or anybody will get a major ripoff, as he suggests, while this government is in power. The same opportunities in coal mining are here that have been through the last government and the government before.
I want to assure the member that his fears are unfounded. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has indicated that legislation will be forthcoming dealing with that industry. I know the member looks forward to the debate in the House and discussion with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources on the impact that will have.
But, Mr. Chairman, one of the opportunities we don't have is to deal with subjects that are anticipated in legislation or for which legislation may be forthcoming, so I am unable to provide those further answers that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has stated, both in this assembly and, I notice, to the news, that such an opportunity will be presenting itself, and his initiative as part of his policy to both encourage development and make sure the public interest is protec
[ Page 1048 ]
ted. So I must only say that it is a policy of the government to guarantee that the public interest will be protected. But again, as I have already stated, as part of our policy we are encouraging development in this province. We're encouraging the development of the economy because we are concerned about creating jobs for our people
This budget this session has been geared to job creation and to creating employment opportunities, because that's what the people want in this province. You can't cry about unemployment and then say you want no development. Sometime some members talk out of both sides of their mouths. They don't want development, yet they want jobs. They want more government taxation to provide money to government, yet they talk about nationalization. The nationalization that I can find in this province has never sent any money to general revenue to pay for these programmes. So believe me, the inconsistency of their positions hasn't been lost just on me or my party. The public sometimes wonders whether these people talk just to make a point for the moment, rather than having any consistent policy about how this province should be managed and led and the encouragement and opportunity that should be given to people.
The other question was to do with transit and, of course, I refer the member who mentioned it to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and the fact that that statement was made. But he also knows again that transit will be considered by this assembly during this session. When the estimates are finished we have a substantial legislative package to introduce and be passed before this first sitting will conclude. I know the members are eager to get on with that important legislation. Many of them are already anticipating it, and I look for the opportunity to participate in having that legislation discussed in the House, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GIBSON: In the matter of the Premier's answers to questions with respect to coal mining in this province, I think the Premier must have been suffering from a bit of a perceptual aberration yesterday afternoon. The fact of the matter is that the House and I had to wait for over two hours for answers to any questions after the conclusion of my remarks. I ask you why., Mr. Chairman, and I give you the answer: the Premier is acutely embarrassed about this particular issue. When he finally did answer, ' what was it? It was five or six lines in the Blues of Hansard, saying only that the questions I had raised were the kinds that would have to be dealt with in legislation. That is absolute nonsense.
The essence of the questions I raised was that there was a serious alienation of resources going on right now that must be stopped, that must be put in a deep freeze until there is an opportunity for public debate, and until there is an opportunity for exactly the kind of legislation of which the Premier speaks, so that everyone concerned will know the ground rules under which these resources are being given away.
As the Premier was discussing a few moments ago the mandate of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, I had to think what an irony it was that by the time they get to it there won't be any coal lands left for that particular British Columbia owned public company to take over. They will have to buy into them in some way from those who already hold them. They will have to buy into then in some way from. Imperial Oil or from Shell Oil or from Du Pont or from Denison or from all of those that already have their names on that precious priority list of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .
If some of these coal lands had been given to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in the same, way that some of the oil and gas lands were given, I can't think for a moment that they would have handled them with a scintilla of the ineptitude that has been shown by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources once he reversed the clear policy statement made by the Premier on June 2,1977.
Let me relate it once again, so that the Premier can understand. And I hope this time he will answer immediately afterwards, instead of keeping the House waiting for two hours and then giving no answer. Let me relate exactly what's going on here:
HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!
MR. GIBSON:
[ Page 1049 ]
Let me go over those points again with some more elaboration. First of all there is a colossal alienation in progress. Mr. Chairman, what is happening now in the area of coal, the area about which the Premier on June 2,1977, stated as follows:
"I believe that the economy of this province will be significantly influenced by coal during the next decade and that coal could eventually outrank the lumber industry in employment, resource revenue and taxation."
What is going on in that area is by analogy similar to what we would have if we had in the last three months in this province entered into a licensing application process which would have seen one-third of the timber land in this province given way. Mr. Chairman, I say to you that the former Social Credit government gave away the timber lands of this province to the large companies, who got forest management units larger than they needed and have been proven since that time to have allocations far beyond what was allegedly being granted at that time. And I say that the current Social Credit government is in the process of doing the same- thing with the coal resources of this province.
HON. MR. CHABOT: "Cut and run" Gibson.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I say that's a pretty serious thing when within a space of three months a set of events is put in train that is going to lead to the alienation of the remaining good coal land in this province. There are 940 acres currently under lease, and a further 705 acres applied for since the minister's announcement of February 10. Now is this process irreversible once it's started, once the minister has issued those first exploration licences?
It has been said in this House that really there are no dangers here. The Premier asked yesterday haw exploration can be a danger, in response to this question. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that according to our legislation, once those exploration licences are granted the situation is on a conveyor belt that moves irreversibly towards the granting of production leases as long as the companies fulfill their obligations.
HON. MR. McGEER: What's the matter? Doesn't Edgar want to bid on them?
MR-. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, under section 19 of the Coal Act....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, but do you not feel this could possibly better be handled in the estimates of the Minister of Mines?
MR. GIBSON: No, I don't, Mr. Chairman, and I'll tell you why. I'm basing my remarks on the statement of the Premier at Nelson on June 2 of last year, in which he outlined a new coal policy. He said this: "The statement of coal policy for British Columbia is probably the most important resource policy announcement that this government has made since taking office, or will make during the next two or three years." That was an announcement made by the Premier. He went on to give details of that coal policy which have since been reversed by his government, and were reviewed by his government according to an answer to a question that I received yesterday from the Premier. The Premier's responsible for that.
May I carry on, because I'm trying to explain to him, just in case no one else has told him, the inevitability of the course that he has Embarked upon once those licences are granted, if they are not frozen at the present time.
Under section 19 of the Coal Act it says: "Once an exploration licence is granted, then subject to complying with reasonable terms and conditions, the minister shall!' - not may, but shall - "f rom time to time renew those licences for further terms of one year each." And then what happens when the company, having properly spent money to delineate coal areas, reaches the point where it wants to go into production? Section 26 of the Coal Act says that subject to proper environmental concerns and so on "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, shall issue a lease."
The minister made great moment in the House yesterday, saying: "Well, it's upon the recommendation of the minister." Surely the minister is not suggesting that good corporate citizens who go out under his policy and spend money to explore coal lands would not be granted such a lease. Is he talking about breaking faith? Obviously not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say to you it is very clear that it is a conveyor belt from the time that licence is issued. That is why I say to the Premier that he Tm, t put a freeze on this right now.
The public protection policies are not in place - the public protection policies that the Premier claimed to be spelling out in his policy announcement of June 2,1977. The policies for the public revenue are not in place; the policies for work requirements are not in place. The new policies that have been foreshadowed by the Premier, and the protec
[ Page 1050 ]
tion against potential deep freeze by the very large energy companies that have made the applications for these new 705 square miles largely - all but 112 square miles that are applied for by individuals.... The potential deep-freeze capability of those companies of holding those lands for year after year have not been protected against.
The Premier may recall why the government of Canada found it necessary to form the company known as Panarctic. It is a similar situation. Oil and gas leases in the Northwest Territories had been held for a long time, some by the major international majors, but predominantly by a group of adventurous-minded small Canadian oil and gas companies. The work requirements had gotten to be such that these leases were about to lapse. The international companies were just perched, poised, ready to take these over as they lapsed to put them into deep-freeze the way they had the rest of their northern holdings in deep-freeze, because international oil companies have lots of concerns around the world, and very properly -that's the business they're in. But it was a question of local ownership, and that's why the government of Canada formed Panarctic. Oils to ensure that the ownership of these particular oil and gas leases remain Canadian. That's why that particular consortium was put together.
That kind of public protection mechanism is not in place here, and that kind of anti-deepfreeze mechanism is not in place here. I say that until these policies are in place, the very absence of such legislation that the Premier foreshadows is all the more reason to put a freeze and a moratorium on the granting of any exploration permits until that time, and the minister should agree with that.
The minister and the Premier should not want to be in the position of misleading companies who would be issued exploration licences without knowing what the new ground rules were going to be. You have an obligation to spell out those ground rules before proceeding with the issuance of these licences.
Mr. Chairman, what is behind this? What is behind the mysterious policy reversal of the last minute of the Premier's policy announced in June 1977, confirmed in detail with the minister in October, 1977, and then, at the last moment, stood on its head on February 10,1978? What is behind that flip-flop? The public has a right to know, and the public has a right to know why it should be that only three months after that announcement by the minister we are very far down the road to allotting most of the remaining good coal land in British Columbia. I say it again: it is equivalent to allotting a third of the timber land in British Columbia. You just don't do that kind of thing aver a three-month period; you do it gradually and in such a way as to maintain the maximum revenue to the Crown and the maximum incentive for exploration by the companies.
Mr. Chairman, I say it again: the Premier has a duty on this, now that the reversal of his own coal policy has been brought to his attention, to stand up in this House and say, "Mr. Member, it's not a case of future legislation." There may be future legislation but we're concerned with what is happening right now. We're concerned with the fact that the alienation is proceeding right now independent of future legislation and can only be overturned by a betrayal of the government's existing commitments, which is wrong.
Therefore, what the Premier must do is to stand up in this House and say: (1) there will be a freeze. And I don't ask for a long freeze, but there will be a freeze until: (2) there has been a public debate on the proper way and means and the proper timing of allotting for exploration and development of these remaining good British Columbia coal lands. If the Premier will not do that, then the Premier is condoning an alienation of the rest of our coal in the spring of 1978 on a brand new policy that the public has never had a chance to debate that overturned the Premier's own policy of June, 1977.
Mr. Chairman, there are all kinds of economic arguments for disposing of coal rights under this method or that method. The point is: (1) there has been no public debate and (2) the extraordinary magnitude of the developments of the last three months that are poised now, some of them on the minister's desk, ready to get on this conveyor belt of which I spoke, confirms rights that can only be taken away by a betrayal of the government's previous policy later on. I say that's wrong to be put in that kind of a position. To talk of future legislation is not good enough. What must be done now is to say yes, there will be a freeze. Then once that future legislation comes in, we will have the new ground rules. And that it the way it should proceed, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the Premier will respond to that one right now.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are no permits being granted; none have been signed. We can proceed to much of the business that the member wants to talk about in this House in the Ministry of Mines and what he suggests will be happening in his own estimates. I have no intention of handling his
[ Page 1051 ]
estimates for him. I say that nothing has happened, but I'd say there probably is some haste for that member to make this speech rather than wait for the Minister of Mines and the legislation. He might have plans to leave this assembly early and seek election in another sphere, and he's got to get his campaign speech started in this assembly.
I must tell the - er that there have been no leases given. There will be ample opportunity to debate in this House, to discuss many aspects. He will certainly have the opportunity of dealing with the Minister of Mines; that is why this government grants portfolios. I must say that there is ample opportunity for members who are going to stay in this House and continue to serve B.C. to participate in that debate. That opportunity will be there during this session. The member, I hope, will be here to participate in it.
I remember well his eloquent statements on the mining industry when he was encouraging more exploration for minerals in this province. He said the companies had been driven out because they didn't have the right to explore.
AN HON. MEMBER: Now he is against it.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Now we want exploration; we want to identify that government traditionally treats minerals in a particular way. We encourage exploration. Government then can participate in the share and the rights that belong to the people through taxation methods, which has been traditional in mining. I can remember some of that members very fine speeches on this: how mining taxation could work to both encourage exploration and have it take place, and then have revenue flow to government through taxation, with such taxation levels to be adjusted from times. Taxation will always be there, and the government of the day can impose different levels of taxation that may suit different times or different markets. That's the right of each new assembly, each new government, each new Legislature.
What has been a traditional opportunity in this province is a right to go out and explore in the mining business. Claim-staking is just that. I can remember that member concerned about the claim-staking that did not take place in the province because of Bill 33, which he fought with heart and soul. He talked, as I mentioned last night, reminding the House about the decline in claim-staking that took place during the years of the last government because of Bill 33 and their attitude. Claim staking was just that. They go out and they get a right to explore. Then they're subject to the rules and conditions of extraction and taxation that the government imposes.
Really there has to be an awful lot of trust in the government, which has the ability to change the rules at any time. There must be a lot of trust. Such opportunity for rules and regulation taxation will be available to members who are going to be sitting in this House during this session to talk about these things. I don't really want to debate every minister's estimates, because those ministers carry responsibility for their portfolios and they are prepared to stand in this House and deal with their portfolios. They are prepared to stand and introduce and debate legislation.
I think the member is anticipating and putting his own view on future events without waiting. You won't have to wait very long for your early opportunity in this House. I know all members are waiting. I look forward to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources' estimates, and the suggestion. he made on legislation. I tell the member that the quicker we get there the better. Nothing has happened. The minister has even assured me that no applications have arrived on his desk. Is that right, Mr. Minister of Mines?
HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.
HON. MR. BENNETT: No applications have arrived and no applications and no licences have been given. So to the member, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no problem in that area.
[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]
If the member believes in all the great speeches on taxation and encouraging exploration that he gave during Bill 33, then I know he will certainly agree with anything we can do to encourage increased activity in exploration at this time, bearing in mind our further responsibility to deal with guidelines on how that development shall take place and under what taxation levels. We are always ready to meet the public interest because no policy or taxation level is in place for all time. As I say, succeeding parliaments, succeeding governments, succeeding sessions, succeeding sittings, all have the opportunity for the ers to make decisions reflecting the responsibilities that face them during the day.
To suggest that you could establish at any time, and guarantee for 100 years, that taxation levels would be the same or some certain policy would be the same, would be to deny the
[ Page 1052 ]
right of succeeding parliaments and the right of members to react to changing conditions.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, I know all people in this assembly and the people of British Columbia are anxious to see things happen. They want to see development. They want to see ore bodies proved up. It is encouraging to me to see the exploration that is taking place in our mining industry. I can hardly wait for the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources so that he can tell this House of the positive things that are happening in British Columbia. That member comes from an area of the province where he knows the mining industry. He's adjacent to some of the major coal deposits, and I'm sure he knows some of the major coal companies that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) knows -Kaiser Coal and others. They've made a contribution to this province, and I think they've been good for this province. I think they've provided employment. They are a responsible company, as are the others, and their relationship with government will be there as providers of jobs and providers of taxation under firm guidelines on how that's to be extracted and taxation measures which this House will debate - which this House must debate, because that's what this House has the opportunity to do. The minister has said the House should anticipate some legislation from him and, as I say, I wait for it. That's in response to the er for North Vancouver-Capilano.
No licences have been given. The minister says no applications are on his desk. If we could get to his estimates today, we could debate them today under his estimates. If we got through all the estimates we could get to this very important legislation which the member wants to debate. There is all the legislation that the members are anticipating on transit. The ers want to talk about transit and yet we can't get to the legislation. We want to get it debated. We've got proposed legislation, a forestry Act, much legislation that this House, I know, is eager to get on with. Among it, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources says, is legislation relating to the very subject the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was talking about.
In my temporary capacity as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, encouragement will be given to spend money on airports and air facilities in this province, as part of our economic thrust for development. Traditionally, air services have been under the control of the federal government and the Ministry of Transport. Unfortunately, their policies are often slow. They are often not quick enough to meet the needs of our remote communities and people who work in remote circumstances. These small communities need funding to aid their people to have a transportation link, one of many which they need to keep in contact with the rest of the province. I'm hoping, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , that soon we may have an opportunity to have people in Ottawa who will be able to speak out for such things. I know there are people who are concerned because, of course, many of these areas in which there are minerals to be explored and developed, and which will create jobs... We want to have the facilities for people to have access to those areas - access in and access out.
Since this programme -ms announced in that dynamic budget of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the response has been overwhelming from many small communities, who are glad that the present government of British Columbia is not going to wait any longer for Ottawa. This doesn't mean we are going to let them off the hook - they still have their responsibility - but as an adjunct to bring services to those people and to help them help themselves, we are entertaining a number of proposals from them this year and, hopefully, in years to come for small airport assistance and facilities.
Many of these proposals are being reviewed by the ministry at the present time, and of course will impact upon people wishing to go out and explore and pioneer and help to build the more remote parts of our province. This can be a large part of developing the economy that we all went to see in British Columbia, an economy which will provide the jobs. These moneys are well spent in providing these amenities and transportation opportunities for people, and will pay many dividends both in human and economic terms in bringing these people a little closer to the amenities that they cannot now enjoy, and giving them some access to the urban market while they go out and work in the more remote areas which will ultimately benefit the province of British Columbia. So I'm proud that for the first time in British Columbia the government has brought in a policy of aid to airports.
Members from many of these communities pound their desks, as well they might. They have waited many years. Not only in B.C. but in Alberta many people waited many years for many of the promises that were made to them. First of all, promises were made to them after the First World War when they were sent out there as returned men to homestead in the Peace River. They had to wait many years for the B.C. Railway to come in on our side of the
[ Page 1053 ]
border, to meet the promises to the federal. government of that day. We hope to further meet society's commitment to them to provide transportation opportunities that, again, the government of Canada has not seen fit to develop to end the isolation that many people in these communities feel. Air travel is becoming more important, particularly in a province like British Columbia that has long distances to travel from our large distribution centres. In many cases air travel is not only the most convenient form of travel, but the most necessary in order that people may have these transportation opportunities.
We have applications from communities in most sectors of the province, up the coast and in the north, who are concerned with applying for moneys under this fund. I'm hopeful we can meet most of the requests this year. In succeeding years we'll try to deal with further requests by further encouraging the upgrading of of small airstrips and new airstrips in British Columbia.
MR. GIBSON: I agree with the Premier that air travel is wonderful, and now I'd like to get back to coal for a moment.
Mr. Chairman, the last time the Premier said in defence of the actions of his government that I was merely putting my own view on events with respect to the development schedule of northeast coal. Subsequent events have illustrated that the hype of the Minister of Economic Development, who is going to have 2,000 or 3,000 jobs out of northeast coal by 1980, has proven to be just a shade optimistic. Some of the more sober economic facts that I suggested had to be taken into account by the government have turned out to be fairly important.
Well, I say the same thing on this scheduled alienation of 705 square miles of coal. It is not good enough, Mr. Premier, to say that none have yet reached the ministers desk. I want assurance - I think this committee should have the assurance - that when they do reach the desk, as they're getting there, no licences will be given until there has been a full public debate. I ask nothing else, and I hope that the government will facilitate that public debate within the next three months. We need not be talking about any great delay here. But I tell you, the wholesale alienation of most of the remaining good coal land in British Columbia must await a public debate on the means of its disposition now that the government has done a last-minute flip-flop from the Premier's policy on it.
HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll have it right here.
If you're still here, you'll be able to debate it.
MR. GIBSON: It has not been held yet, and if the minister is going to say it will be held during his estimates, it won't be unless, by that time, he's tabled his legislation too. We must know the full plans of the government on this and we must know the pros and cons. We must know why the government reversed the Premier's policy statement. There must have been something fairly important that caused them to say that the Premier on June 2,1977, was wrong and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on February 10,1978, was right.
That's all I ask for, Mr. Chairman. I don't ask for any snap decision by the Premier on what the policy should be. I just ask for an assurance to this committee today that no licences will be issued under the discretion of the minister or his government until there has been a full-1 public debate. That's all I ask.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that's fairly easy. I think this sitting the member will have the opportunity. And I can guarantee to him that in this sitting, in meeting the timetable I think we can meet in getting out of this House, on the first sitting after conclusion of estimates and provision of time that we've considered available for legislation-I can give that assurance, yes.
MR. GIBSON: Full public debate.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Assurance that no leases will be signed before the minister's estimates and the legislation will be dealt with in this sitting.
MR. GIBSON: Full public debate.
MR. MACDONALD: I don't think that undertaking is sufficient to protect the people of this province. It's more than the passage of time until the minister's estimates that we're talking about. The Premier now really is starting to talk about legislation. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano made a very valuable addition to the protection of the public in this province, if I may say so, by raising the reversal of policy of the government and by pointing out that formal applications are before the minister. It's ridiculous for the minister to say they're not there under section 15; it's an application to the minister. It may be your secretary, it may be one of your officials, but it's to you, Mr. Minister, and it's right before you.
[ Page 1054 ]
HON. MR. BENNETT: If you want to deal with him, deal with him.
MR. MACDONALD: Well, no. I'm going to deal with the Premier giving this province away. You certainly have in oil and gas, and I do not want to see it happen in coal.
The undertaking the Premier should give -and maybe this will end the debate - is that if the Premier is saying there will be changes in the rules and there'll be legislation coming down, then he should say that no coal licences will be granted under section 15 or section 16 until that legislation is before the House. Mr. Chairman, will the Premier give that undertaking that until the new legislation there will be no licences granted?
HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to keep this with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano who raised the subject and again answer him so that other members can listen again both to his questions and my answers. I believe in this sitting we have ample time. None of the applications will be granted licences before both the minister's estimates and his proposed legislation is dealt with in this Legislature. I think the reasonable time frame that we see for this sitting will allow for that to happen. I think it's a reasonable request. I think in reasonable time limits taken in here we can achieve that; such will be possible.
I know that we all want to move with great dispatch to both his estimates and that legislation, and we don't want to hold up the economic plans of the province all summer. But I'm sure that in reasonable limits, I can give that assurance.
MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad to see the way the Premier is replying to the leader of the Liberal Party, as if the rest of the people in B.C. - including the official opposition - aren't interested in this subject. You know, I congratulate my friend, but you're replying to all the people of the province of B.C., Mr. Premier. I want it spelled out....
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's pretty hard to do that through you.
MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's a great remark from that other minister.
I understand now the Premier has made a commitment - and I want him to listen because I'm an elected member here too - and I want to be sure that it's correctly stated. He has agreed that the applications that are now made to the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, under section 15 with a notice under section 16 of the Coal Act, will not be granted until the legislation, which has been referred to by both the minister and the Premier, is brought into this House - not just brought in, but under the rules. Is that the commitment?
Interjection.
MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, no shifting of position.
MR. MACDONALD: Well, maybe the Premier can assure us that until that legislation is in place, these applications will not be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you it's not proper to reflect on legislation or the necessity for legislation in Committee of Supply.
MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about a time frame now, about the length of time these applications will be held up. And the Premier has spoken about new legislation. He has spoken about a change of the rules. You know, in fairness to industry, for one thing, those rules should be known. There are other people who may wish to apply, Mr. Premier, under the new legislation - if we see it and I hope we do see it. What we're asking today is that that commitment be spelled out very specifically, that these applications not be granted until the new legislation is in place - has been considered by this House and either passed or rejected. Is that what I understand?
MR. GIBSON: Not necessarily granted then.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I would never be prepared to say what the first member for Vancouver East understands. I am prepared, in response to the leader of the Liberal Party again - for the third time - to answer his question and say yes, within reasonable time limits. And there are a number of pieces of legislation that will impact in a number of areas, and which are going to be very important to this province. I would hope to see early introduction and early passage of the legislation. We know that there's going to be a major forestry bill. We know there's going to be other legislation that people are interested in. Some of it was mentioned in the throne speech, others will be introduced in this session. The Minister of Mines has said that he is going to be dealing with legislation and I have said.... What's that squeaking noise I hear? Oh, it's the Leader of the Opposition coming.
[ Page 1055 ]
Anyhow, I have said to the leader of the Liberal Party for North Vancouver-Capilano for the third time that within the time it takes in this House to debate both the estimates and the legislative programme of approximately 50 bills which, I believe, the government has announced will be forthcoming, we can give him an assurance that both the minister's estimates and the legislation he has planned will be introduced and dealt with by this House.
But you can't ask me to anticipate the length of time some members may wish this House to continue. So I could not say that, should members choose to sit for 10 or 12 or 15 months, all of the people's business would await any moves they may make to delay. But within reasonable time limits, I give my assurance to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that that opportunity will be there -both estimates and the bill.
MR. MACDONALD: I just want to be clear what the Premier is saying, because I think there's a little bit of slithering there and I want to be sure. I don't mind you answering my question to some other member. I don't mind arrogance - and there's a little touch of that there - or pettiness. But as long as I'm a member here, I'm entitled to ask a question and to be clear as to what undertaking we're getting from the Premier at this time.
Specifically, is it true that these applications will not be granted until there is new legislation?
HON. MR. BENNETT: The first member for Vancouver East wants clarification of the answers I have given to the speech by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano yesterday, and his further questions today. Yes, the assurances I gave were that there would be no leases signed within the time limits for getting estimates through and the legislation passed. I'm making that commitment. But I have to ask hon. members of this House, because I can't anticipate how long this House will sit. The only qualification I put is that if the House chose to sit forever and ever, I wouldn't hold up the business of the people of the province and the government's right to make things happen in this province.
But I have given the assurance, and the hon. member for Vancouver East would not want me to also presume the right to direct the House and how much time it should take. But I do say within reasonable limits there, and I anticipate it could be done in the short legislative programme we have planned. I have made that commitment to the member from North Vancouver-Capilano that no leases will be signed until the legislation has been dealt with by this House that the minister has announced that he has forthcoming. Of course, the minister's estimates will be dispensed with by that time because the House will be concluding the estimates before we get on to debate some bills. So certainly I've given that assurance. For the third time I follow up on that assurance to members of this House.
MR. MACDONALD: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia have won a temporary victory in what the Premier has said. As I understand it, the government can arrange the priorities of this Legislature and it can bring in a new Coal Act, or amendments to the Coal Act, without delay and have them debated and passed through the different readings that are required. I don't know what that new Coal Act will be; I don't know whether that will protect the people of this province from what's happened in other areas that I'm not going to refer to right now. I certainly intend to before the end of these estimates.
I'm reasonably satisfied that we now have a commitment that these applications, which are really on the minister's desk even though he doesn't acknowledge that under the Act, will not be granted. The freeze that has been asked for by the leader of the Liberal Party has been granted. That's my understanding, and I hope there's no mistake in that respect.
HON. MR. BENNETT: There is no intention of doing anything before the House has these considerations. I'm glad to give the assurance because the House has anticipated that all these things could be debated and discussed in this assembly. Members have needed the assurance, so I give the assurance as part of that ministry's policies.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the commitment that licences won't be issued until the House has had a chance to have a full public debate of these questions, both in the estimates and legislation, but there's one problem. The Premier said that's only the case if the House doesn't take too long in going about its business, and I don't think that's a proper condition to put on it. I think that the guarantee should be absolute, that licences will not be issued until there is full public debate.
I would like the Premier to also confirm a reasonable corollary of the statement he made * If it is suggested that licences will not be issued until such debate has taken place, it suggests as well that all of the licences will not necessarily be granted then. In other
[ Page 1056 ]
words, there may be some change in policy. It's most important that that be confirmed to this House, because one of the great concerns is the full-scale alienation at this time of that whole 705 square miles, when subsequent debate might well convince the government that it would be better to go slow.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, any, all or none of the applications may not end up as licences. That's all they are - applications. And that's all they will be. It would be presumptuous for me to tell the people I would suspend government business at all, depending on a time limit that I can't control.
MR. GIBSON: The House is here to control the government.
HON. MR. BENNETT: So I've made my commitment. The commitment was not necessary because this government had planned on speedy passage of introduction of bills, although we can't guarantee how long they will take to pass, and an opportunity during this first sitting for the House to conduct the business of the people. You know, I'm. not trying to tell the House how quickly they must do their business; they can take as much time as the opportunities allow. I'm only saying that at some point there is an amount of the public's business that we must get done, as we see in the best interests of the public.
MR. LAUK: But what if the House has not considered the legislation?
HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I'm sure it will. I would not like to anticipate. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is calling across the floor. I'm not anticipating the House; love just made my statement to the member, and the statement needs no further qualification.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with the Premier is that he has no conception about parliamentary tradition, if he thinks that he can threaten the opposition. He's saying: "I'm going to sell out the coal resources of this province, and you won't have an opportunity to debate it if you delay legislation or estimates in this House." That's exactly what he's saying.
This is the kind of jackboot, back-of-the-hand treatment he has given to opposition parties since he took office. He has no conception of the parliamentary process. He thinks he is the president of a republic, that's what he thinks. And you can see the image now of Billy dressed up in the epaulettes and the medals.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: There is the man of I can't recall, the man who held his cabinet post even though his credibility was impugned by contradictory sworn evidence in a royal commission. He has the nerve to sit in the executive council while this other poor chap is going down the tube.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please relate this to vote 5, hon. member?
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, why didn't the First Minister scapegoat the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? His credibility and his involvement were under suspicion.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mudslinger!
MR. LAUK: Why didn't you seek the relief of going to the Premier and saying: "Please charge me, so I can clear my name. Just give me a break. Charge me with a criminal office so I can have the opportunity to clear my name."?
The Premier has stood up in his estimates in this committee and has laid down the gauntlet. He says: "I am dictator in this province. I can ignore parliament; I can ignore the Legislative Assembly." He is saying: "Delay the legislation and the estimates and you won't have an opportunity to argue about these coal licences that are going to the major multinational oil companies of the world."
Now let me tell this committee why there is a moratorium on coal licences. That poor country bumpkin from Columbia River would never understand the major implications of his disastrous move in February of this year. The poor chap just hasn't got a clue - about what he did in February. He doesn't know what he's done to the resources of this province.
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Oh, listen to the chirping. Hasn't the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) fed you your worms yet? You're all chirping in the back of the nest - chirp, chirp, chirp. Where is the Provincial Secretary?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.
MR. LAUK: Let's pass out some smile buttons and keep them quiet, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first er for Vancouver
[ Page 1057 ]
Centre (Mr. Lauk) has the floor. Perhaps the other members would extend the courtesy of standing order 17 to the member so we can proceed.
MR. LAUK: I'm glad you pointed out that very, very worthwhile order, standing as it may be.
Mr. Chairman, let's look at what happened in 1972 when there was a moratorium on coal licences.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I think I'll work during the Gong Show.
MR. LAUK: I'm sure the Premier thinks this is very funny but he should listen to what has happened, and the people should listen to what's happened. In 1972 the New Democratic
Party administration was made aware of a plan by the major oil companies of the world Shell Oil, British Petroleum, Gulf, Exxon - to buy as many uranium properties and coal properties as they could and to tie up the energy resources of the world to force the prices of their own commodities, oil and gas, upwards.
They've done this before; it's no conspiracy theory. For them it is good business; for us it's disaster. They've got train loads and executive jet loads of very smart board members of these major oil companies traveling around the world, looking for banana republic governments like the one on the other side of this House. Arid they swoop down like the peregrine falcon and they see that hayseed over there and they say: "We can sell him a bill of goods and he'll give us everything we to want.
What's the evidence? A moratorium on coal licences has occurred. They turned their energies elsewhere. They started buying up the shares of major coal development companies. They are involved in the Monkman Pass in the Peace River area. Exxon, British Petroleum, Gulf and Imperial Oil now have major interests in one of the richest metallurgical coal deposits and thermal coal deposits in the world. And so what happens?
In June, 1977, the Premier goes to Nelson, he makes a statement on a -good coal policy, bidding on coal properties, recommended by his very expert civil service in the ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, none of whom have really met the minister yet. (Laughter.) He makes the announcement, he drops the coal policy, and he goes home. Well, everybody is relatively happy, the coal moratorium is in place, a new policy is going to take place. In February of....
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: I didn't fire Hart Horn. He resigned out of a sense of guilt because he said he was going to vote for you. He's a fine man.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you fire him?
MR. LAUK: I didn't fire Hart Horn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can relate this to vote 5, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: Well, that was raised by the minister. Could you ask him to relate it to the debate?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, rather than other ministers in this House.
MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. as I say, in June, 1977, in Nelson, the policy was announced. It's been covered; it's been canvassed. It was a good policy; it's a bidding policy. What happened was that a great deal of pressure was put on the government. The input from industry prior to the release of the new policy for bidding for coal properties was obvious, and no one here on either side of the House denies that the industry had negative feelings about going into -a bidding system, so there's no one who can contend that the government was not aware that the industry was against the new coal policy.
So the decision in June, 1977, to announce the new coal policy was made with the full knowledge that the industry wasn't happy, and they considered that in the public good they would go to the bidding system. What happened then, between June, 1977, and February, 1978, that made the government of British Columbia, in secret, do a complete reversal of its policy and go back to the pre-'72 days of opening up all of these coal licences that anyone can apply for and obtain, and almost as of right - because there's very little discretion here - keep and make valuable and sell and resell and inflate the value of the coal licences until production time, forcing inflation in the resource area? And who are the net losers? We are - the people of British Columbia; we're the net losers.
What happened in that period of time, Mr. Chairman, to cause this government to reverse itself ? Let me suggest to you what happened. Imperial Oil has filed a report in the United States that shows that - they donated money to the Social Credit Party.
[ Page 1058 ]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS. BROWN: Repeat that. I didn't hear it.
MR. LAUK: Is there anything new about that? Imperial Oil has admitted that it's given money to the Social Credit Party, it's given money to the Liberal Party, it's given money to the Tory Party. It didn't give money to the New Democratic Party, because we put a moratorium on coal licences for the benefit of the people of the province.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You put a moratorium on the province. (Laughter.)
MR. LAUK: The people of this province would have a better chance, Mr. Chairman, if that minister would put a moratorium on his mouth. You're the greatest producer of hot air in the history of British Columbia politics. You have not produced one job in the whole province since you've been Minister of Economic Development.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you to address the Chair, and I would assume those last remarks were not addressed to the Chair.
MR. LAUK: No, Mr. Chairman, they were directed not at you, but through you to the minister. He is the minister of economic disaster.
HON. MR. MAIR: Country bumpkin or city guttersnipe?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. Just before you continue, we've had quite a lot of unparliamentary language cross the floor...
MR. LAUK: I'm shocked at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ... and words which are not in good temper. Perhaps if we allow the tone of debate to be more relevant and deal specifically with vote 5, which is the ministerial responsibility of....
MR. LAUK: Well, now it's my fault I'm being called names, is that it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I did specify both sides. Please continue, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: I really do apologize to the Chair for having people call me names.
HON. MR. MAIR: Country bumpkin is not a name; city guttersnipe is.
MR. LAUK: Oh, no. "Guttersnipe" is a bad word; a bumpkin is only a country boy, trying to do your best, like the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .
HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't like the country. You're against the country, you're against the farmers.
MR. LAUK: I think the country is fine. Like the Premier, I really appreciate the way he goes to the country for his holidays - Palm Springs.
HON. MR. MAIR: Where do you go, Gary - to visit your constituents for a change?
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to give you an example of what went on after 1972. In 1972 a Coal Task Force was appointed. Many experts and good people in the industry contributed to the Coal Task Force. It received wide support; it received wide contributions from industry, the academics, the public, and so on, in the way of information.
Now the companies of the day wanted to eliminate mineral royalties, for example. That's one example. As a contrast, when I was made Minister of Mines, some of the coal companies like Kaiser Coal and so on suggested to me: "Well, look, why do not we have a contractual basis because everybody knows each mineral property is different from the next. It's difficult to apply an overall taxation policy to the whole mining industry because the grades of ore are different, accessibility is different, transportation costs are different, labour costs are different. The mineral prices may be different. Let's make a contract on each property." There's nothing barring the government from doing that kind of thing, but the amusing thing about this, or the thing that should cause some thought for hon. members, is that this was offered by the industry. This government is obviously giving the industry more than they're asking for. I couldn't believe it when I saw the reversal of policy by the hon. minister, obviously condoned and supported or even suggested by the First Minister of the province.
Mr. Chairman, there is a design of the major multinational oil companies to control energy resources throughout the entire world. It is only in that way that they can tie up and dictate the price. We know from the National Energy Board and from the federal Ministry of Energy and Resources that they don't know what their own resources in this country are. They have to ask the multinational oil companies. That's the degree of power that these compa
[ Page 1059 ]
nies have. And do you think the little member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is going to be able to stand up against the multinational oil companies? No.
HON. MR. CHABOT: They support bidding. What do you say to that?
MR. LAUK: Oh, I see, and you showed them -you gave it for nothing. Very, very clever. He showed them he wasn't going to be dictated to by the oil companies. He said: "You're not going to dictate to me. You're not going to pay me for these. You take them for nothing. I'll show you."
Mr. Chairman, it's important that the people of this province understand why the NDP government acted the way it did and why we on this side are so concerned at the reversal of policy. After the lies that were told to them in 1975, they know better now. Even the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) can fool some of the people only some of the time.
AN HON. MEMBER. He's running away.
MR. LAUK: He's out checking his Grizzly Valley stocks.
Mr. Chairman, you've got to look at the situation as it existed in 1972, and why a government that really acted for the people and not for ' major corporations put a moratorium on coal licences. It was to prevent the control in this little corner of the world by these multinational companies. That's all we were trying to do. We were trying to say: "Look, somewhere in this world in energy resources, there has to be competition." We're for competition; you're for monopoly control of the resources. This phony nonsense about going up and down this country as Social Credit coalition right-wingers and arguing for free enterprise is an absolute fraud. It is trying to pull the wool aver the eyes of the people of this province and of this country. You're not for free enterprise. You don't even know the meaning of the word. You're for total monopolistic control by major corporations.
What did the Minister of Economic Development do two months after he was chairman of the board of the Development Corporation? He passed a minute saying: "We're going to de-emphasize the small businessmen. We're going to get into big deals." And he lit up a cigar and put his feet up on the desk.
These people aren't for small business. They're not for competition and they're not for the ordinary people of this province who own these resources. Now what's happened? We know that the First Minister of this province is fully aware of the campaign contributions of the major speculators in the coal resource of this province. We know that. We know that he has received maximum amounts of money from those companies.
HON. MR. CHABOT: Make it up as you go along.
MR. LAUK: Are you going to challenge me to produce the evidence, Mr. Minister? Why don't you stand up, eh? Go ahead, stand up. Maybe the First Minister can stand up himself and challenge me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. LAUK: Would the First Minister of this province reveal to the committee the campaign donations made by any of the following to the Social Credit Party prior to 1975 or since: Shell (Canada) Resources Ltd; Du Pont of Canada; British Petroleum Exploration; Kaiser Resources; Imperial Oil; Denison; Fording Coal; Braneda Resources; Pacific Petroleum ; Pan Ocean. I didn't see the First Minister make any notes of how much money was donated by these companies to the Social Credit Party organization. Does the minister want me to go out and get the receipts? May I have the key to your office? (Laughter.)
HON. MR. BENNETT: I invite the member to my office right now, and he can go through all my files and follow up on that foolish statement he just made.
MR. LAUK: May I have police protection?
HON. MR. BENNETT: I invite him to go down there right now.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier sent me the wrong key. He sent me the key to Austin Taylor's office instead.
MR. BARRETT: That's the key to the executive washroom.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I invite you to go down right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time on their feet only, please. If one member seeks to interrupt another member while speaking, he must do so only on a point of order and mu t state the point of order.
[ Page 1060 ]
The first member for Vancouver Centre.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. LAUK: I'm sorry to interrupt the Premier while he's interrupting.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that without further explanation this government has serious answers to give to the serious questions that are being posed by the opposition parties in the Legislature. We should know the campaign donations. We do know of some of them, as I say, but we should know about all of them, and we should know whether or not the reversal in coal policy was a payment in full or in part for favours received by the Social Credit Party by the major companies involved in the coal exploration and coal speculation. Right now there is no other explanation for their actions - none.
It could be, Mr. Chairman, a panic move as well, because of the coal resources and development proposed by this government as being their Crown jewel going down the tube because of inaction by Senator Phoghorn from South Peace River. South Peace only gets access to [illegible] information from Alberta, which explains why he's the only one up there that gets re-elected by such majorities. They don't read his speeches, it's very clear.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Well, you speak to my brother. You seem to have better access to him than I do.
HON. MR. BENNETT: You're right.
MR. LAUK: By the way, he figures the latest object of your affections.... If it's a gif t, it's too much; if it's a bribe, it's not enough. He asked me to pass that along. I'm referring to the Japanese-Canadian report of March, 1978. On page 5 -of that report.... By the way, every time I mention this I'm surprised that the press seem to look very puzzled at me. Maybe they should call the business page editor, because it's very significant information. It was only touched upon briefly by George Froehlich, the business editor of the Vancouver Sun. The business page of the Vancouver Sun, by the way, appears between the personal ads and the Eaton's catalogue ads, and sometimes is read and sometimes isn't. But it contains a lot of valuable information.
Now in the Japanese-Canadian newsletter, March, 1978, is this interesting statement:
"An eight-year pact involving $20 billion-plus in bilateral trade was concluded in mid-February between Japan and China. The agreement arrived at by the Japan-China committee on long-term trade and its Chinese counterpart was described as a private agreement, but it is known to enjoy the backing of both governments. The agreement provides for Japan to import massive amounts of oil, steam and coking coal."
Has anybody heard that? I wonder if the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Hoohah will recall....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.
MR. LAUK: I was addressing the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Transport and Hoohah can recall a symposium in the Bayshore Inn some months ago when he said the northeast coal project was full steam ahead.
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: You're drinking your own bath water over there.
The target figures have been set out for the first five years. This will amuse all of us, to our detriment economically. While the Minister of Economic Development and the Premier sit on their fat stats, China and Japan are negotiating major trade agreements that will cut out the development of northeast coal for many, many years. The agreement provides:
"Target figures have been set out for the first five years. Quotas for the final three years will be negotiated, starting in 1980. The eight-year estimate for Japanese imports is about 47 million tons of crude oil, 5.2 million to 6 million 'tons of coking coal, and 3.5 million to 4 million tons of steaming coal."
What does that do to the northeast coal project? Who are we going to sell it to - Luxembourg?
Many, many months ago this side of the House warned the Premier of this province of these dangers. We said: "You're making a big mistake." What did he do? He sent Sancho Panza over to Japan. He spent a lot of the taxpayers' money. He managed to lose the steel mill and coking coal contracts. The Japanese businessmen couldn't get over here fast enough. They had double hernias trying to renegotiate the coal contracts they already had. That's the success of the Minister of Economic Development. Don't send a Senator Phoghorn on a politician's job, Mr. Chairman -through you, to the Premier of the province.
[ Page 1061 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: He's like a pagoda on horseback.
MR. LAUK: The agreed escalation for the first five years is 7 million, 7.6 million, 8 million, 9.5 million and 15 million tons of oil in successive years. Coking coal purchases will rise from between 150,000 and 300,000 tons this year to 2 million tons by 1982. It's almost exactly the projected figures for the northeast coal development. The Japanese, Mr. Chairman, have looked elsewhere.
In a panic reaction, the Premier of this province has opened up coal licences because he solves two problems: he owes the multinational corporations, and he wants desperately to create some kind of flurry of activity, even though it's on paper, with respect to coal licences in the province.
You saw how proudly this little First Minister stood in his place. This diminutive member for South Okanagan stood in his place and said: "Look, the mineral-staking activity was down under the NDP administration, and it has just climbed under the Social Credit administration."
I used to act for mining companies defending against claim-jumpers - who probably donated to the Social Credit Party - and all the rest of that hodge-podge of claim-staking and land speculation that goes on in the mining industry. That proves absolutely nothing except that the bandits are back to work on Howe Street. That's all it proves. You know it, I know it, and ordinary people in this province know it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Jurgen.
MR. LAUK: Jurgen Lau knows it, too. He knows about claim-jumping and speculation and so on.
Mr. Chairman, would you ask the minister to hold that up? What is that? It's a little piece of metal that looks very much the size of the minister's brain. That's probably because he is sitting too close to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who has a propensity to experiment on species of the lesser kingdom.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.
MR. LAUK: I received a very kind invitation to the opening of the Afton Mine and the project by....
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Yes, I will. Will you resign if I can show you the invitation and the exchange of correspondence?
AN HON. MEMBER: He makes it up as he goes along.
MR. LAUK: One of the reasons that Norman Keevil Jr. invited me to the Teck Corporation thing is: "You helped get this thing started. You might as well be there for the ribbon cutting."
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Do you know why he is so upset, Mr. Chairman - the minister of consumerism and corporeal affairs? The reason this minister is so upset is because his campaign committee printed a falsehood - a deliberate lie in a publication going out from the Kamloops Social Credit newspaper - which indicated that the NDP government stood in the way of the Afton project.
HON. MR. MAIR: That's true.
MR. LAUK: It's absolutely false.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: I certainly will. I say that it's a lie.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: You will, eh?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. members, if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would like to take their places, then someone else could be involved. I'm sure there are other members who wish to enter this debate.
MR. LAUK: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the important point is this: the Afton project went ahead after the negotiation between Teck Corporation and the NDP administration. It's very clear that that's what happened. As a result, it went ahead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time under standing orders has expired, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: No, I withdraw the motion.
[ Page 1062 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion would not be correct in any event because it's the Chairman.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's always delightful to have the comedy team from the opposition get up and run their routine. You'd think the province was going to an election , rather than the federal government. I've never heard such a blatant, political speech, full of rhetoric and hot air and misconceptions and things that weren't right.
I want to tell the House, though, for those that haven't been exposed to this recycled speech of his leader - the attack on the multinational corporations and all the rest of it - that I have no knowledge of who donates to our party, and I don't want to know. I deny his allegation that campaign funds have anything to do with the actions of this government. That's nonsense. The member was talking nonsense when he said it. He said it in his frivolous, joking style. But for someone who may take him seriously somewhere, I just want to get on the record that what he said ums nonsense, as was most of his speech.
I find it difficult to deal with my estimates because we have the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Chabot) estimates, the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) estimates and we're having all sorts of discussion across the floor.
HON. MR. CHABOT: I guess my estimates are just about over. (Laughter) .
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the member for Vancouver Centre was incorrect in making those allegations about campaign funds. Now it may be that in their party....
MR. LAUK: Will you resign if I can prove it?
HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you be silent? It may be that in the New Democratic Party that contributions are made known to the members that are running and those who get elected know where every cent comes from. But I must tell the member that in our party, to avoid any conflict of interest, members are not given, nor do we seek out, that information because it would impair our ability to govern. There are many people who donate to political parties because they want good government. There are many people who donate to political parties because they want to get rid of bad government, and certainly both of those were the case leading up to the last election.
We have an opportunity now in this province for members who are concerned about elections and electrical reform to make submissions to the commission that's going around the province on all aspects of campaigns, campaign funding, limits, parties, constituencies, voting methods. Everybody has a chance to have their say, and I'll be very interested to see the submission of the member for Vancouver Centre and all of the information that he will put before that commission as evidence to back up his opinions. I'm sorry for the unfortunate statement he made in here. Then he wouldn't accept my offer to go down to my office. I invited him to go down to my office.
MR. LAUK: We know about Larry Eckhardt.
[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm not hearing that the member of the bar, a lawyer, is attacking a respected judge in this province. That's unfortunate. But, however, his standards are well known - that member for Vancouver Centre. His conduct and his standards are well known. It's unfortunate.
I'd like to get back to the policies of the government and what we're doing to encourage economic development in this province. A large part of our budget and our programmes this year, Mr. Chairman, relate to encouraging small business. Now small business and individual enterprise can be encouraged in a number of ways, not just by tax relief. And we did offer tax relief to small business against that oppressive taxation legislation, the capital tax, brought in by the former NDP government, aimed at small business and hurting them. We gave them an exemption of half a million dollars that relieved this heavy burden on small business in this province that was imposed by the former government. The member for Vancouver Centre, as a former Minister of Economic Development, voted in favour of that tax and supported that tax because he didn't believe in small business. He didn't believe in large business. He believed in just government business. The government was going to own everything. .
I know that before the next election, he, along with his leader and his party, will clearly identify.... The people of the province got a surprise, after they were elected in 1972, at the number of firms they took over and bought out, from chicken plants to forest industries, potato plants and on and on.
They want to know clearly, and I expect that party, because they will have an election programme, to publish the list of those companies and corporations they're going to take
[ Page 1063 ]
over. That's fair to ask. That's their policy as socialists, both in philosophy and as practised when they were government. The only thing is they tried to let the people suspect that they weren't going to take anything over because they were afraid that wasn't what the public wanted. But I know in front of the next election we're going to have that long list of companies they're going to take over.
MR. LAUK: Just one.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. There was more than one company they took over last time -dozens.
MR. LAUK: But next time only one.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we know them by their actions and we know them by their philosophy. They can't pretend to be anything different in the next election. We want to see the list of companies they're going to take over, large and small, because they took over some small companies and they took over some large companies.
Interjections.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, publish the list. We want to know who's going to be the next target of your party. I look forward to it. In fact the public will welcome that list. Now we know that they probably won't publish the full list. They probably won't 'even publish half the list. But just give us an indication of maybe three or four dozen companies, just a .small part of the list that you intend to take over if you are returned to government. We would like to have that as part of the election campaign.
The, member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is smiling and nodding his head. As the former Minister of Economic Development, he's quite willing to publish that list, because he knows it's in his files in his basement. I know that as Minister of Economic Development in the last government he had a secret plan of which companies they were going to take over. I know he still has it. We saw the large number of companies that they got at in their first term, companies that we're trying to restore to the private sector.
MR. LAUK: Under standing order 43, Mr. Chairman, repetitious and tedious debate should be brought to the attention of any member of the House. I don't know why the Premier is filibustering his estimates but he repeated the same thing five times. I counted them here and I wonder if the Chairman could bring that tedious and repetitious standing order to the First Minister's attention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is a tremendous amount of repetitious debate in this committee from time to time. Your point is well taken.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, the member is embarrassed. I can't understand why he would be embarrassed about talking about the list of companies he wants to take over. Does it mean that he doesn't want to let the public in on the list he had in his files when he was minister and which is now in his basement with the files that were taken from the government offices when his government was defeated? I'm surprised, because the list should be well known. It's part of their economic plan for takeover. We should know. The citizens out there who have small businesses have a right to know what areas they can go into right now, what areas you're going to take over as you started to do last time.
We know lumber is one you took over because you made acquisitions and took aver companies in the forest industry. We know agriculture processing is another of your targets. You were into chickens.
HON. MR. CHABOT: Turkeys.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Everything they got was a turkey! We know they were into turkeys. And poor old Bricklin, if only he had come here first, he would have got far more than he got out of poor old New Brunswick. He wouldn't have had any problem. He would still be siphoning off the money. I remember when Swan Valley was only going to be a small investment, then they kept putting in more and more and more.
Anyhow, I know that party will, in front of the next election, identify that list. Now this question of elections can- up because I wanted to assure the ers; that they didn't have to trot out their old election speeches, which we have heard in this chamber, because there's going to be no provincial election this year. We were elected with a mandate to do something for British Columbia, to develop the economy and create jobs, to create opportunity and better, more efficiently run government programmes that provide aid to those in need, to end waste and mismanagement and a number of other things. We've done them.
In our budget this year, in the general economic thrust of this government - the general intent - we cover a very vast array of
[ Page 1064 ]
economic policies, tax reforms and measures that will encourage small business and reduce the cost of goods to consumers to fight against inflation. We do it within a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman. We've done that because as I've gone and spoken in the high schools in this province - not a set speech but an opportunity for the students to question me, both publicly and afterwards - I find the great concern they have for those governments and those politicians who intend, through their spending practices, to leave them a drawerful of bills for when they take over the economy. They're worried about that.
They don't want the type of government that will try and buy the votes of their mothers and fathers and then leave it for them to pay the bills when they grow up and take their place in society. The young people are looking at those politicians and those parties that have been doing that. And they want to know, is there another way? I say, yes, we can live with balanced budgets, we can meet the services of the people of this province and we can reduce the cost of taxation for our people at the same time. And they look at the two balanced budgets we've had, and now the third proposed one, and they're impressed, because they look at the last government and they look elsewhere and they see governments trying to buy the votes of their mothers and fathers -promise them anything, borrow, borrow, and leave them with the bills to pay. The young people of this province don't want that, and they recognize those politicians and political parties for what they are: financial opportunists.
Not only have we got a balanced budget, we have harnessed the surplus from my first year in a series of make-work projects. One of them not only makes work, but encourages the continued expansion of our basic resource, forests - major silvicultural reforestation to catch up with the lack of good forest management and to provide that these forests will be there. It will not only meet our needs today but be there on a continuing basis to meet the needs of those very same young people who have been penalized by other governments who leave them their bills, and penalized by other governments who haven't offered these programmes of good silviculture, forest management and reforestation which is such an emphasis in this budget. Not only do we have money in the Ministry of Forests budget but we have, of course, money in this special fund -the recaptured surplus of the good management of our first year - to provide jobs today and, more important, to build for the future of our young people.
That's just one of the thrusts of the major economic programmes, which all other provinces look at with envy, as they see British Columbia attacking unemployment, attacking our problems with the economy on many fronts. They see us with an aggressive programme for tourist expansion, recognizing that, in contrast to the former Minister of Highways -who now sits as the member for Prince Rupert for the NDP and who then said, as a minister of the last government, that he didn't want tourists in B.C. - we have said: "You're welcome in British Columbia." Other Canadians are welcome, people from other countries are welcome, to come and help us build our economy and share with us our wonderful province. And they have the opportunity to leave their money and encourage the small-business people in small motels and small gas stations, people in small gift stores, people in small restaurants - people who have put together their small businesses which cater not only to our own people but to tourists. And you know that many of the people who work in small business connected with the hospitality industry do not have special skills - it's an industry that can pick up the employment in many difficult areas. They can carry on that work - it provides employment in one of the major areas of concern for government. And over and above that we have our training programmes.
Mr. Chairman, the power programmes and policies that we're talking about in my estimates today - the policies of this year, the policies that we intend to carry out, the economic thrust that has been mentioned both in the throne speech and the budget presented by Finance Minister Wolfe - put great emphasis on creating job opportunity for our people, building the economy and encouraging the ordinary people to provide that restaurant, to provide those facilities. As I say, tourism is one of the major industries with which this province can - without losing it - attract capital and build our economy and create jobs for our people. They come with their money, they take nothing away - except good memories of a friendly people and a beautiful province, one which we're willing to share but one in which they leave their money when they share it. That money goes to create jobs and build the economy, and it reflects in tax revenues eventually. That means we can continue to build hospitals and schools and provide universal Pharmacare, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) brought in, so that all groups in our society - the young, the old, the middle-aged - all are protected from excessive pharmaceutical costs. They have a ceiling put on their costs and as such they
[ Page 1065 ]
no longer - through no fault of their own -pay those high pharmaceutical costs. It's a programme that deals fairly for everyone. And you know, some of the money that comes in from the tourist dollars flows to government and helps pay for that programme. If the former government had stayed in, we wouldn't have that, we wouldn't have been able to do this. But now that the tourists are coming back, we're able to do that.
I know the Minister of Human Resources is just bursting to get up on his estimates and tell you about it.
AN HON. MEMBER: He's busting to do more than that, my friend.
HON. MR. BENNETT: To get to be Premier. First of all, you never take out an NDP membership any more. I just saw your federal polls. They were awful. They're awful.
MR. LAUK: My what?
HON. MR. BENNETT: The polls on your federal chances. What was the latest Gallup poll - 12 per cent or something? Ten per cent?
MR. LAUK: What have you got against polls?
HON. MR. BENNETT: What was the latest Gallup poll? You know, I think if they heard more of you, the more you speak, the more you affect your chances in the rest of the country.
AN HON. MEMBER: We should allow television in here.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I've got to tell you, as a provincial party I'm happy to stay in this House and not have to participate in the federal election. That's what I think.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, what I'm concerned about, as all Canadians are, is that we have a federal election as quickly as possible and end the indecision that hangs over this country right now so that we can get on with building this country and building the economy and ending the indecisiveness that takes place at the federal level. The people want an opportunity to have such an electoral choice. I think they should end that indecision and have an election. Yes, I think we should have a federal election.
MR. LAUK: I think we should have a provincial election.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, we're going to have one - one of these days.
MR. LAUK: How about right now?
HON. MR. BENNETT: No.
MR. LAUK: Ah, come on.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I want you to see next year's budget. You think this year's is good. The member for Vancouver Centre says this year's budget is an election budget, it's so good. Boy, you think this was an election budget? Wait until next year. We might even go into our mandate in 1980, and you should see the budget we're going to have in 1980. That'll be even better.
Why, by then, the message will be out to the tourists: "Come to British Columbia because Graham Lea is no longer the Minister of Highways telling you to go home." Many people will be employed. The tourist business is increasing. I'll tell you, the tourist operators and the hospitality industry I talk to, that talk to me, tell me that business was never better.
I know the member for Vancouver Centre was in there. It must have been him because they said there was a gentleman in that restaurant that didn't leave a tip the other day. I know he's been there too.
Mr. Chairman, I'd love to go on and talk about the policies that this government has during this session, that we have in legislation, that we have in this budget, that we want to pass in our estimates so that we can get on with the job of building the economy of British Columbia. We're just bursting with energy, ready to get out there, and we want to pass this budget and get things rolling in British Columbia. We want to introduce our legislation that will make things happen.
Mr. Chairman, I'm confident the people of British Columbia, in the letters they've written to me since we introduced the throne speech and the budget, are pleased that things are happening and that the government is encouraging them once again to end the red tape and the bureaucracy, the number of boards and commissions that were created by that last government, and the tangled web of red tape that prevented them from doing anything.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just so pleased that we've undertaken that programme of wiping out the red tape of government. Here we've had letters from people in other provinces saying: "Why can't you get our government to do the same
[ Page 1066 ]
thing?" I haven't had any letters from Saskatchewan because it takes longer to get the mail out of there. It's probably red tape in the post office, I don't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) .
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished my questioning of the Premier. It's usually customary....
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena. I'd be very happy to come back to you, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: But that's not the usual procedure in estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The usual procedure is, and I just have Sir Erskine May, 19th edition, at the top of page 4[6: "It is the duty of the Chairman or the Speaker to recognize members as they rise to speak." It is the responsibility of the Speaker, and it is the practice of this committee and this House to recognize the first one on his feet - and that is the hon. member for Skeena. I recognize that member. Please take your seat, hon. member.
MR. SHELFORD: Thank you....
MR. LAUK: On a point of order. The point of order is this: standing orders notwithstanding, when there is practice - first of all, you were referring to Sir Erskine May - established in the committee of supply, that practice should be followed by every Chairman. Now the Chairman, the actual Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) , all afternoon has recognized that member of the opposition who is carrying on the cross-questioning of ministers so as to avoid the very thing that's about to happen -backbenchers standing up to defend the Premier because he's not answering questions and he's too tired to get into debate. He just spent 30 minutes of filibustering and has said absolutely nothing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: He hides from questions; he doesn't respond to them. He's a runaway Premier. He's the worst scaredy-cat British politics has ever seen.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are abusing the point of order. I recognize the hon.
member for Skeena, followed by the first member for Vancouver Centre.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.)
MR. SHELFORD: I really didn't have any idea for getting up to protect the government. I think they can do that very well themselves.
MR. LAUK: On a point of order. On several occasions this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) referred to me as a "guttersnipe." I would ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw the statement, and kindly not use it again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Minister of Economic Development to withdraw the term "guttersnipe."
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the member for Vancouver Centre, I'd be most happy to withdraw it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.
MR. SHELFORD: I've listened with a great deal of interest to both sides of the House this afternoon, and I must say there are a couple of points that I think should be discussed which haven't been. The first thing is that I noticed some members were talking about the Premier being a dictator. I can only say I wish the government had more economic power rather than less . which some of the m ers seem to be indicating they would like to see.
I agree completely with the government's policy on helping small businesses. After all, they're the ones that made this country what it is today, and they are the people who provide the real competition in our society. I don't think we can do enough to assist these people, and I'll be making some comments on haw to do it later on.
I would also point out that there are also many pitfalls in our idea of trying to help small business, and I'd like to outline them this afternoon. I'll admit that most of my remarks possibly should be more directed to the national government; however, it does also apply to this government.
Many years ago in this House, back in the early 1950s - and I guess I've been here too long when I speak of that - I spoke about the need for the government to build up a very large fund so that government agencies like Hydro, B.C. Rail, municipal financing, hospitals, schools, et cetera, could borrow internally without sending money outside of the country and paying dearly as we do today with
[ Page 1067 ]
the devaluation of the Canadian dollar and paying off interest in foreign currency. The former Social Credit government certainly thought this is the direction government should move, but were never exactly in the position to carry it out as far as they would like. The attempt by the former Social Credit government to get 25 per cent of the shares in the Bank of British Columbia was actually part of this strategy. I think it was a good strategy, and unfortunately the idea was scuttled by the Senate, as many of the other members who sat here at that time remember. I think it's a great shame, because governments - no matter which government was sitting on this side of the House - would have far more independence if they had the control of a large block of money for financing projects they want to go ahead with.
I must say that when I came into politics in 1952, 1 guess all of us coming in at that time were, you might say, a bunch of crusaders full of hope that major changes should be made at both the provincial and federal levels to change the direction of the Canadian economy at that time.
Now many of us pointed out that unless this was done, governments would lose a great deal of control in directing the destinies of our people. Unfortunately, this did not happen as we would like to have seen, and 26 years later I see a province and a nation controlled and at the mercy of outside financiers, with governments having less and less control to guide our policies that are necessary in the future. The only province that is getting more independent all the time, and I think they should be congratulated for it.... I trust now that this government has got the province back on the rails financially, we'll be able to follow their example. I would point to the province of Alberta with its $3 billion heritage fund which is going up all the time and is expected to be up to $10 billion by the mid-'80s. If this policy continues, then Alberta will be in control of the destiny of their province in less than 20 years, and will not have to rely on outside finance. I wish this province and Canada in general were in this happy position.
It's not comforting to know that between 1968 and 1970 foreign investment in Canada -and we need foreign investment, but I'm just pointing out what happens - was $3.6 billion during those three years. Yet over $8 billion was sent out mainly by the national government in interest alone, and we have seen in the newspaper clippings where Canada paid over $8 billion to $9.4 billion in interest last year alone. This payment was the second highest national expenditure. If this was going back into a national fund, we would be well off today.
We all talk about the need for foreign investment and yet quite often we hide our eyes on what's going out of the country. In the period before this, from 1960 to 1967, $4.1 billion came into Canada in investments and $5.9 billion went out through the federal government alone, which is an awful lot to be leaving this country. In this $5.9 billion, we are not counting $3 billion a year in straight federal interest, and an equal amount in the provinces and their agencies such as hydro, schools, hospitals, et cetera.
Now this was a total of $10 billion leaving Canada during this period and only $4.1 billion coming in. In each year since then, it's been increasing rapidly, according to a book, Continental Corporate Power, by Wallace Clement. According to this book, we are not giving Canada away economically as claimed by the opposition so many times, because the government in 1868 actually gave Canada away economically, so it's impossible to do it again. That's why I think it's so important that we start movements for very large blocks of money similar to Alberta, so that we don't have to tie ourselves so much to borrowing from outside our country.
Contrary to popular belief, as I point out, Canada has been a net exporter of capital through interest and dividends and that's the reason we control so little at home. Through this policy, little real control is left in the hands of government. The B.C. government is certainly the next best off in Canada to Alberta, with sound management of its affairs, because it has very little direct debt, but still under the thumb of international finance, unfortunately. This is the reason why I've had no success in trying to help the independent service station operators and independent people across this province. I might say also, try to help the people of the north who are paying right at the moment $1.16 for gas in many areas, such as I found in Prince George the other day when I stopped there.
Now this is the reason governments of all stripes, not just any one government, have taken no action on this issue. It's simply because governments aren't big enough to take on industry, similar to the oil industry. They have to carry out existing basic policy or get cut off needed loan and development, because all of these large industries in Canada, such as the mining industry, forest industry, food, steel, et cetera, are all linked together. All they need to do if they don't like a govern
[ Page 1068 ]
ment is to slow down development and expansion, which will defeat any government don't care who it happens to be.
We talk about helping the small, independent businessman, and I'm pleased to see the government making a courageous start. I agree 100 per cent. But let's be clear on just how much this does mean. For instance, they point out in this book that 200 major companies in North America carry out 88 per cent of the total sales of goods and services to the people of North America. The other thousands of companies, because there are thousands of then around the country that carry on competition, have to compete for only 12 per cent of the business that's left. This is one of the greatest causes, I feel, of inflation, because the large seldom compete against the large. We do need more independent people to carry out this competition, because we do need both large and small for a proper economy. The large normally follow price leadership of some sort and are not really that competitive. If we ever decide we want to really help the small independents, we must bring about real change. I mean it will have to be some major change such as the divorcement of the majors from their retail arm, making them charge the one price to ensure real competition at the retail level, because a lot of the retailers have to pay more than what's charged to company outlets. Now this is not in the gas and oil field alone; it's in many other fields too.
I must say, if I thought for one minute that these changes would be made fairly quickly, I likely wouldn't be leaving politics. But I am concerned that unless we have a very large fund to call on, we'll never be in a position to carry out the recommendations that I make.
We should take a look and see what happens to governments that do take on such industries-For instance, T.D. Pattullo was one of the brave souls quite a number of years ago who decided he would go it alone. But we can also point to dozens of other countries where they've tried the same thing and gone down to defeat. Investment was cut off, new borrowings for development were curtailed, and the economy immediately slowed down and governments are blamed, even though they're trying to do the right thing. That's one of the unfortunate positions we find ourselves in in Canada today. We're not the only country with this problem of debt and losing control of our destiny.
I would point out that South American countries.... We talk about foreign aid and suchlike, but it doesn't always work the same way as we expect it to. South American countries, for instance, pay 40 per cent of their total foreign exchange earnings to interest payments and have little hope for change unless they can get further control, which leaves government with no independence and little more than an extension of corporate power. All governments must move towards economic independence, as has the province of Alberta. And I hope British Columbia will quickly take its lead. If not, they will go down the road as mere servants to the financial institutions.
As our friend Rothschild once pointed out: "Give me the power of finance and I care not who you elect." I would say this is more true today than it was then. The control of money, a block of money, must be in the hands of the people through government, or government will not - and can't be expected to - resolve unemployment and inflation, no matter who happens to be elected. I would strongly recommend that once the government is in a position to do so, it should immediately set up a fund something like Alberta, where a percentage of the national revenue from natural resources goes into this fund and makes it possible for B.C. citizens to safely invest their money.
I would say with the present dollar situation in Canada, which is not likely to change very quickly, that governments could afford to pay at least a half per cent more interest to their own people, rather than sending money out of the country in borrowing for their agencies such as Hydro and other agencies. Thank goodness this province is not like most other provinces where they also have to borrow for capital expenditures. I think the government should be congratulated on the steps they have taken up to this point, and I hope they'll go even further in the, years ahead.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I was pleased to listen to the remarks from the member for Skeena, because he touched on a number of areas mentioned in the Legislature last year in my estimates. I will take this opportunity to mention them again today, and that has to do with the hopes that this government can create a heritage fund from the revenue.
The member touched on another point of how we could do this, and that is that we must at the same time ensure that we have sufficient revenues to continue central services to our people. We must maintain that we have a tax regime which that private sector that the member talks about can live with, and that is a taxation policy that is not too heavy upon them.
We will have to continue with the balanced budgets that our government has had in its first two completed years, and now plans in
[ Page 1069 ]
our third year. We will next have to pay off the $261 million of debts that were left by the former government, which the Minister of Finance (Hon.Mr. Wolfe) has now consolidated. We have a plan of debt repayment over a 10 year period of both interest and capital, because even with that amount, the member realizes the interest charges could deny the services we could have today. In fact part of that interest could be going to a heritage fund today if we didn't have to pay it.
But I would see that in the very near future, because of the steps we've taken.... It was necessary to harness the surplus from the first year this year, as the m er well knows, for those very essential job-creation programmes in a number of areas. But in future we can, I think, strike a balance, and I spoke last year of the intention of this government to set up such a fund as a heritage fund to provide services to the people - a high level of services at a high level of efficiency so that they get maximum value of their tax dollar.
Whether those services are in education or health or in income areas, we will maintain those services. At the same time we will try to continue our commitment to have a less onerous tax system, and work towards a more acceptable level of taxation that will leave more discretionary income in the hands of our people in small business. As the member for Skeena knows, if we left that money in their hands they might not have to borrow. We've had governments that want all the taxpayers' money so they can carry out their grandiose schemes and their takeovers, you know. Then they have to take the money from the people and the people want to spend some money of their own. They have to go and borrow what should be their right to have as discretionary income.
So you know one of the things we do, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , to help prevent them from falling into the hands of the moneylenders is leave them more of their money so the government doesn't become a major reason they go to the moneylenders by taxing all their money away. That's one of the things that happen, particularly in this country. Mr. Chairman, what you have to have then is governments that, when they initiate spending programmes, have to have the understanding that the cost-impact studies of those programmes and the projections will not force their government or future governments (a) into tax increases or (b) into deficit financing, the two things that you and I have both spoken against.
But irresponsible government can quite quickly destroy the delicate balance of an economy. They can force deficits on governments, they can force higher levels of taxation by uncontrolled spending programmes, by losing money, by whatever means that they lose it, by no control over the treasury, by trying to buy everybody's vote indiscriminately. Mr. Chairman, they can do that.
So this is what I say: now that we are getting things in balance between taxation levels with no deficits, a plan to pay off the deficit of the former government, we will start to allocate, at the same time, money for that heritage fund and will set it 4 . You are right, Mr. Member for Skeena, through you, Mr. Chairman. This government doesn't want to tax their people into going into debt, we don't want to start government expenditures and the sort of big government that needs those taxing powers and money from the people to carry out their lavish spending plans. We don't want that again. We've just bad a small taste of it. We don't want that again.
[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]
We want to give them financial independence from taxation, from deficits of government, so they won't have to go and borrow money, and a heritage fund from the revenues of the province, at a fixed percentage of some of our taxation areas. Every year we'll put a little away. This province has guaranteed that we won't fall in the hands of the moneylenders. It's all right for free-wheeling, free spending, free-promising politicians and governments to pay lip service to this, but the people understand the performance. They like to see the policies undertaken. And by the time we go to the people in a couple of years, and we've had our four or five budgets, we'll be carrying out all these things. We'll pay off their debt, we'll have our heritage fund, we'll have balanced budgets, and we'll have a building economy.
Mr. Chairman, before I sit down I wanted to mention one area where we did move to help, perhaps not as far as the member for Skeena would have liked. In policy for gasoline marketing we did move some way. We put a lid on the number of company-owned stations that could be in the province.
MR. LEA: We froze the price.
HON. MR. BENNETT: It was not done by the last government. I've got to tell you that I know the member for Skeena has been fighting in this Legislature for a lot of years. He's now in his third government. He said to me: "You're the first government to even make a
[ Page 1070 ]
step forward." That's what he said. At this time the government has restricted the large companies to only selling one-third of their total annual sales of gasoline through company-owned and operated service stations. We're out to protect the small operator, Mr. Chairman, because he was a threatened species, one of the threatened small businessmen that we found, and we set out to protect them through government policies, through government economic reform, and through government direction. Here's where we made some moves in an area in which the member for Skeena has long been a crusader.
MR. BARNES: Why have you got him in the back bench?
HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll tell you, he made a lot of progress in the things he's speaking for from anywhere he sits in this Legislature.
MR. LEA: The Liberals wouldn't accept him -that's why he's in the back bench.
HON. MR. BENNETT: The present members for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) are very peculiar people to talk about what qualities it takes to get into the cabinet. They were there, and nobody ever knew why. I don't know what your lever was, but it must have been something.
Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Energy Commission is monitoring the oil companies, observant of these policy objectives and lease guidelines which were announced as government policy in October, 1977. That's what's taking place in that industry today, Mr. Chairman. Each month the oil companies and dealers report to the Energy Commission complaints in relation to lease guidelines. We allow a way there in which they can function, in which they have a chance to survive. We did it. It's another one of those things about which that group opposite said: "Oh, we were going to do something." They were going to do something about everything. They just never got around to doing anything about anything except putting this province in a deep freeze.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) did bring up the commitment and the policy that we announced last year as being a genuine aim of this government party to set up such a heritage fund. I feel, as the member feels and as does this government, that for far too long we haven't had that fund on a continuing basis to set up and protect us and be our reserve. We'd have to put some extra protection on it, Mr. Chairman, to the member, because we wouldn't want another free-spending government to come in and spend all the reserves that were built up again in one wild flurry of spending to try and buy an election. No, we wouldn't want that, so this time if we set up that fund we'd have to put in some very, very special guarantees that it couldn't be interrupted in case we stumbled during some election.
I'm certainly glad that the member for Skeena brought up those areas in which government policy has already been indicated last year during estimates, and where government action has already started. I'm pleased to respond to his suggestions and questions.
MR. LEA: Socred back bench, Liberal cabinet.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting all day to get the floor. I guess the Premier instructed the previous Chairman that in order to avoid any continuity in this House, he should recognize minority parties first. But so be it, Mr. Chairman, the Premier can run....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that is in contempt of the Chair and I must ask you to withdraw that remark.
HON. MR. BENNETT: It's shameful.
MR. KING: What is in contempt of the Chair, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks made about the Chair. I'd ask you to withdraw then.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to withdraw remarks when the official opposition in this House is not recognized, and a minority of one member in the Liberal Party is recognized first in the day's proceedings. I do not withdraw. That is a matter of record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must insist that you withdraw or I'll have to name you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if that is your arbitrary, arrogant conduct and attitude toward the chairmanship of this House, go ahead. That was not contempt of the House; it was a fact.
Interjections.
MR. KING: Well, indeed - "I'll have to name you." That's arrogance. Mr. Chairman, my remarks did not constitute contempt of the
[ Page 1071 ]
Chair. They simply recounted the facts that took place in this House.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, your remarks that indicated that the Chair was involved in siding with the government must be withdrawn.
MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, he didn't say that at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. That is what I've asked the member to withdraw. Please withdraw.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, when the day's proceedings started, I was the first one on my feet. The Chair recognized the Premier, after which I rose again immediately and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) was recognized. I suggest that that is completely out of custom with the proceedings of this House. I suggest that that is the first time in my service in this House that I have ever seen the official opposition fail to be recognized. I am not prepared to accept that, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
MR. KING: Whether or not, Mr. Chairman.... Mr. Chairman, are you listening to me? I'm on a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN, Hon. member, I cannot hear your point of order when I'm being interrupted by other members.
MR. KING: Certainly you can.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please proceed?
MR. KING: Thank you.
I am suggesting that whether or not the chairman was influenced by the government, his conduct in recognizing the minority party first was completely improper. That is my suggestion. -
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the time to have brought that matter to the floor of the House was at the time that it took place. I would ask you to read page 415 of Sir Erskine May's 19th edition, under "precedents in speaking" when it says "Commons": "In the Commons when two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call on the member who, on rising in his place, is first observed by him." It further goes on to say: "It is the Speaker's duty to watch the members as they rise, and the decision should be left with him." I would ask that you withdraw any remarks to suggest that the Chairman at the time sided with the government.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, perhaps he was not directed by the government. I nevertheless....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, "perhaps" is not an acceptable word. I must ask you to withdraw the remarks.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you were not in the chair at the time. It was a previous chairman. I think the remarks that I have made are borne out by the record. I see no necessity to withdraw those remarks.
HON. MR. MAIR: I thought you were a bigger man than that.
MR. KING: Any time you'd like to find out, I'm prepared to take you on in debate in this House. But get on your feet when you want to debate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any imputation that the chairman was directed by the government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. KING: I do, however, hold and allege that his action was highly unusual, broke tradition of this House and was wrong - absolutely wrong.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You are quite correct in that tradition dictates that after a government member has spoken, a member of the official opposition traditionally speaks. However, I was not the Chairman at the time. The time to have brought the matter to the attention of the Chair on a point of order was at the time that the matter took place, and that is a tradition of the House as well. Now that we have that clearly understood, perhaps we can proceed.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced that the Premier of this province is not used to taking any heat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member
[ Page 1072 ]
for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) has some comments on the Chair, would she care to rise and make those comments? The Chair cannot tolerate cross-comments made by other members against the Chair while I have recognized you on the floor. If you have a comment to make to make about the Chair, would you please rise and do it? You had a comment to make to the Chair when I was there.
MS. BROWN: I have no comment to make.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.
The member for Revelstoke-Slocan.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will be as even-handed and as austere and as vigilant in enforcing the rules with respect to cross-comment that emanates from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , particularly. I can advise you that the opposition will be watching very closely to make sure that that is the case.
Interjection.
MR. KING: Yes, you are enough to turn anyone red with embarrassment, my friend. You certainly are.
Mr. Chairman, now to get into the discussion of the Premier's administration of this province and his lack of stewardship of the affairs of this province, I was amused by his earlier comments about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. He came out with some classic comments. He said anyone with initiative and enterprise can buy into this wonderful new resource corporation in British Columbia.
He didn't bother to say that the taxpayers of British Columbia already own the resources involved in that corporation. He didn't bother to say that profits from those corporations have provided the funds for social benefits to senior citizens and handicapped children. All he talks about is initiative and enterprise. What he neglected to say also was that in addition to those qualities, Mr. Chairman, one needs a pocketful of money.
The Premier has never had a problem with that because he was blessed with a rich father. But I want to advise him that the majority of working people, the majority of single parents, the 109,000 people who are unemployed in this province today cannot afford to invest in the new B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. They haven't got that kind of money. Mr. Chairman, it's adding insult to injury to suggest that people invest in resources which they already own. What a sham it was.
The Premier then said that the budget was geared toward creating employment. Mr. Chairman, I read a document into the record last night. It wasn't a complete listing but I want to remind the House of what the Premier has created. I've amended and adjusted this list because more situations keep coming to my attention all the time. But here is the list of plant closures and job losses in British Columbia under the tenure of the present government that belies the facts that the Premier put forward any suggestion that this is a budget contemplating full employment.
February 1,1976, Maritime Museum closed down in Vancouver - two jobs lost. February 2,1976, Western-National Drug Services closed down - 75 jobs lost. February 3. 1976, B.C. Hydro laid off 300. March 4,1976, Granduc Mines Ltd. closed - 80 jobs lost. April 5,1976, Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Ltd., Silvichemical Division, closed - 30 jobs lost. April 6,1976, Sigurdson Millwork Co. Ltd. Vancouver, closed - loss of 35 jobs.
Yes, but it's amended and there's some more included. Don't you like hearing it? I don't blame you.
On April 8 to June, 1976, Westmills Carpets Ltd. in Kelowna closed - 55 jobs down the drain. June 9,1976, B.C. Ferries laid off 420 people. On June 10, Victoria Plywood Ltd. closed down and laid off 175 workers. July 11,1976, Can-Cel sulphite mill laid off 325 workers. October 12,1976, Phoenix Mines - 25 workers laid off. October 13,1976, Northland Shipping Co. Ltd. - 150 workers laid off.
January 14,1977, BGR Dease Lake extension closed down - 300 jobs lost. February 15,1977, Ocean Foundries Ltd. Surrey - 18 jobs lost. March 16, Shasta Beverages Ltd., Vancouver, closed their doors, eight jobs lost. March 17,1977, B.C. Hydro gas division laid off 29. April 18,1977, Ocean Falls pulp mill laid off 40 workers. June 19, Delta Food Processors Ltd. closed down two fish plants and one rice mill - 600 jobs down the drain. July 20,1977, B.C. Rail plant was closed down, presided over by the Premier - 260 jobs down the drain. October 21,1977, Human Resources ministry laid off 27 people. November 22, MacBlo laid off 90 of their executive personnel.
January 23,1978, B.C. Ministry of Highways and Public Works laid off 500 people. On January 24 the Greater Victoria School District laid off 39. March 25,1978, Macmillan-Bloedel Vancouver Plywood - 215 workers laid off. April 26,1978, Weldwood plywood plant -150 workers laid off. April 27,1978, Spetifore Frozen Foods - 125 jobs lost. April 28,1978, Zenith Steel Fabricators Ltd. - 135 down
[ Page 1073 ]
the drain. May, 1978, the current month, McDonald's Bakery is closing in Victoria - 62 jobs down the drain.
MR. KAHL: December 11 - 22 NDP MLAs down the drain.
MR. KING: On June 30,1978, Granduc copper mine is slated to close - 320 jobs. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) thinks that's humorous - 320 jobs with the closure of Granduc Mines Ltd. The back bench sits there and smirks. That's the extent of the integrity and their devotion to this institution, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
MR. KING: June 31, Bonar & Bemis Ltd. bag plant - 50 jobs down the tube. July, 1978, Canron Ltd., Western Bridge Division - 155 jobs. In early 1979, Craigmont Mines is slated to close -loss of another 350 jobs. A total of 5,155 jobs. These are all current and there is one early next year; all the rest are current. The one I neglected to mention was that on December 31,1976....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There seem to be several members at one time wanting to speak on this subject. However, I only recognize the member who is standing. When the previous speaker was finished, he was the only member on his feet. So perhaps if the members could refer to standing orders to find out how one gets the floor to make a speech in this House, it would assist the Chair. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor. Please proceed.
MR. KING: One of the ones I neglected to include, Mr. Chairman, that I'm sure the government would be interested in, since they bragged so much about their assistance to the mining industry, is Texada Mines. It closed on December 31,1976, with the loss of 172 jobs.
Mr. Chairman, in total there is a loss of about 5,450 jobs, all presided aver by this government. These are only some of the permanent closures that have occurred mainly or to some degree as a result of this administration's policy. They're the ones so far. No one knows who is next. But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that with the policy that this government is pursuing, the one that the Premier brags about, we can only assume there will be the loss of many hundreds of more jobs in British Columbia.
It's no wonder that Statistics Canada reports show that for the 12 months up to June of 1977, there was a net migration loss in B.C. of 1,466 persons. In the previous year there was a net loss of 4,419 persons who left this province because there was no opportunity for employment, because there was no confidence in the economy of this province, because this government had basically failed to do anything to stimulate growth and development in this province.
Now for the Premier to stand up and talk about all of the great plans he has when this, in fact, is the record - this data is available to him, it's available to the public - takes a lot of gall, Mr. Chairman, a particular kind of brass. But I guess millionaires don't suffer in times like this.
I did say yesterday, Mr. Chairman ... and I didn't complete my job of enumerating what the government had done in a positive way. They did positive things for their friends and their relatives in many cases. I had started to enumerate the list of jobs that had been created by this government for their supporters and their lackeys. I'm going to complete that list because it's a tale of horror in terms of abuse of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, remember when the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) used to get up when they were in opposition and talk about NDP patronage? Remember when he used to do that? Well, the chickens come home to roost sometimes, and I know that the government benches feel a little bit embarrassed. But I think that they can contain themselves and listen to their own sorry record with respect to political patronage in this province. It's been outlined what they've done to the private sector and the public sector -the unemployment they've wrought on the people of this province, the plant closures, the business failures. But matched equally with the business failures were the gains of the Socred lackeys that went to the public trough when this government was elected.
In the Premier's own office, we had Tony Tozer - salary, $36,432; Danny Campbell, former minister - $36,432.
MR. BARRETT: More than a backbencher.
MR. KING: Dave Brown started out at $150 a day, created a new position and then won that position himself - salary, $36,432. John Arnett, in the Premier's office - $28,800 a year. What about that man Norman Sharp? He started out as the Premier's chauffeur at $19,000 a year and he ended up as the Premier's chauffeur for $13,000 a year. He was the only one that got a cut in salary. I guess they looked at the commodity that he was
[ Page 1074 ]
handling and decided he wasn't worth all that much.
An administration officer gets $22,160 a year in the Premier's office. Last year he topped that off, Mr. Chairman; he brought in Dave Roach, assistant to press secretary John Arnett - $20,652 a year. Then Ron Grieg was brought in at $17,500 per year as assistant to Dave Brown. I don't 'know when the assistants to the assistants start coming in, but undoubtedly they'll be at somewhere around an MLA's salary level, I presume.
MR. BARRETT: Three ranks lower and we'll get to Kahl.
MR. KING: How many is that?
MR. LEA: Plus $1,400 for makeup for the Premier.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How much did you guys over spend in your budget?
MR. BARRETT: Not as much as you!
Interjections.
MR. BARRETT: Tell him to shut up, Bill. He's in enough trouble.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to notify the House that we in no way had budgetary overruns in any department of our government to the tune of the $215 million overrun by this outfit. No way! We could manage the people's finances in this province. We could manage them and we could deliver services. We did not close everything down. You're the wrecking crew over there.
Interjections.
MR. KING: Did you not get the Premier's word? He put the muzzle on you. Now settle down. It only takes him two weeks to train his dogs. Do you remember? Pay heed to that.
We have a budget for political patronage appointments in the Premier's office of about $150,000. It will be up to a quarter of a million dollars no doubt very soon. The total annual bill for political patronage appointees is almost a quarter of a million dollars now in the Premier's office, as a matter of fact. Almost a quarter of a million dollars. He can't afford grants for Rape Relief or any of those mundane things. He can't afford grants for the Home and School Association. He hasn't got $15,000 for them. But a quarter of a million dollars for the Premier's office? No problem at all. It's a matter of where the priorities are, Mr. Premier. You don't have to care for people; millionaires never did. It doesn't bother you a bit.
Let's go on, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I get sidetracked. Dianne Hartwick - she had a spotty career. She started out with the Provincial Secretary and then became a watchdog over the Minister of Human Resources. I think the Provincial Secretary was worried that the Minister of Human Resources was making gains for the leadership of the party. She was installed in there to keep the Premier informed of what kind of advances Billy boy was making. I think that was her purpose. Anyway, she's gone now but she commanded a pretty good salary while she was there and I guess the job she did was fair from a political point of view - $19,500 a year.
I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has some other people as well. Let's deal with the Provincial Secretary next. She has John Plul, Socred campaign manager, appointed as provincial convention co-ordinator - a euphemistic term for hack -at $27,000 a year.
On December 22,1977, Plul's title was changed by order-in-council to director of attractions and special events. His salary changed from $26,640 to $32,160. How's that? The day after Plul's new order-in-council was passed it was announced that Duncan Holmes, sales manager of the Vancouver convention and visitors' bureau, was joining McCarthy's department. We're still not sure what good old Duncan is making, but we don't imagine he's getting $200.
What about Dick Lillico, appointed as director of immigration services at B.C. House in London, England? Dick Lillico - $22,236 per year to keep watch on Lawrie Wallace? Shame on you.
MR. LEA: Did not you know Bob Strachan came back? He forgot to bring Lillico back.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Bob didn't come back willingly.
MR. KING: Then came the Canadian track star - Harry Jerome. He's a pretty fast runner, but he didn't want to run against my colleague here. Even considering it, he came on the payroll for a while, and he did fairly well. He got a job for six months to do a survey. What about Gary Lenco? Gary Lenco came in. Former Socred Party worker - $19,500 a year. So the Provincial Secretary has a porkbarrel bill for the taxpayers of over $100,000 per year through political appointments.
[ Page 1075 ]
The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) - I haven't got a sucker for the minister to chew on today, but let me talk about some of his people here. He brought in an executive assistant, D.W. Back. Back or Black, I'm not sure which it is. I guess that's it. It should be Hack, not Back -$19,500 a year.
The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , appointed a deputy minister, Richard Vogel -$45,900 a year. I think most people in this House know the Vogel name fairly well. There used to be somebody who sat in the Legislature by that name. This guy wants to make everything legal that the police do, in a retroactive fashion.
Then there was Executive Assistant Doug Strongitharm, $19,500 a year. Listen, I don't want to do this. I'm embarrassed about this. I really am. I don't want to do it. But my friend, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , persuaded me. Your colleague there, he suggested I should clear the record on this.
Interjection.
MR. KING: Doug Strongitharm started out as an executive assistant at $19,500. He ended up as special projects assistant with a salary range of $14,700 to $27,060 per year. As was John Plul....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. KING: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair): Ken Snook, Snooky baby, he came in - a former hotel manager - as executive assistant at $19,500 a year. Mr. Snook resigned and was replaced by Richard Mills. In 1977 the minister took on a second executive assistant, Tony Stark. What do you think of the stark reality of all this?
HON. MR. MAIR: A totally non-political appointment.
MR. KING: He's called a policy co-ordinator, with a salary of programme manager 2, salary range $24,420 to $30,000 a year. That's a pretty good range.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, it is [7:48 now and we have 12 minutes to go of today's sitting. The benches are beginning to fill up, which is tradition about this time of evening.
AN HON. MEMBER: And the galleries are empty.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps for the next 12 minutes, just for the sake of the Chairman and for the sake of the members who wish to listen to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, we could extend him the courtesy of silence. Please continue.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's traditional for all the m ers to come back. I think they find my speech exciting. I disagree with you on that.
Mr. Chairman, then the minister hired one Tex Enemark. He was appointed a deputy minister at $43,000 a year, and Perry Anglin, consumer affairs administrator. I'm not sure what his salary is.
AN HON. MEMBER: What are their politics, Bill? That's what you're trying to say.
MR. KING: I think they were former Liberals, like you.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.
Interjections.
MR. KING: What about Economic Development, Mr. Chairman?
Interjections.
HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please state your point of order.
HON. MR. MAIR: I can only assume that it has been suggested that the two people mentioned, Mr. Enemark and Mr. Anglin, were political hacks. I want to say that Mr. Anglin...
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chairman must hear the point before he can rule.
HON. MR. MAIR: If the question is whether or not the two people mentioned, Mr. Enemark and Mr. Anglin, are faithful, loyal public servants, not politically appointed - if that's the statement, Mr. Chairman - I demand the right to correct it.
Mr. Anglin had never been to British Columbia until he was appointed by me. Mr. Enemark is a devoted public servant.
[ Page 1076 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The normal time for correcting statements which are made is after the member who is speaking has finished. You rose on a point of order which is not a point of order, and I'm sure the minister is aware of that fact. If you wish to correct a statement, the time to do it is immediately after the member for Revelstoke-Slocan takes his place.
HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, may I, on a point of clarification, ask whether or not there is any suggestion that the two people, Enewrk and Anglin, are political appointments? If so, let him be clear about it. Otherwise stop slandering the public service. Stop slandering good, devoted public servants.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we do not have a point of clarification in our standing orders.
The member for Revelstoke-Slocan.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister's point is well taken, and I hope that after my dissertation is over, each and every cabinet minister will get up and tell us which of the few are not political hacks. I'd like to hear then explain that. I'd be very happy.
Interjections.
MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the next one I've got on the list is the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . He didn't keep them very long either. He kept them longer than the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , longer than 90 minutes. He had Arthur Cameron as an executive assistant at $19,500, and Arthur Weeks as special adviser at $29,000 a year. Neither one of then lasted too long because they were asked to resign. I don't know whether they got an out-of-court settlement like Mr. Ozard on 90 minutes alive or not. Now he's got Candide Temple at $19,500 a year. She's a former member of the press gallery. I think most of the people have heard of her.
Now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , has got Jim Bennett at $19,500 a year. He was appointed in 1975. Then there's Joan France, executive assistant - $19,500 a year. She resigned. He appointed his son-in-law, Michael McKelvey, at $19,500. He's gone too, but Tozer is still with us. Then be appointed Peter Hopkins at $19,500. 1 don't know whether the Premier still has that person or not. Then Lou Madley, a long-time Socred party worker from the W.A.C. Bennett days, was rehired in 1976, officer grade 4, salary range, $21,000-$25,000.
In the Ministry of the Environment, Keith Frew was brought down and he was asked what his experience was for this kind of work and he said, "None, but who has?" It's quite new." He receives $19,500 for that experience.
The Minister of Finance hired a Social Credit party worker, Richard Ewings, $19,500 a year. Minister of Forests brought in Bill Fothergill; then he contracted out some work to Bill's son Ian. Both of them went. Now he has Landa Smith at $21,500 and Joyce MacLaren at $19,500. With the Minister of Health, Caroline Grand, a former Socred party worker, $19,500. 1 feel like an auctioneer. I can't keep up with this.
Patrick Rogers, $19,500 a year. Minister of Highways brought in Don Larson, and I don't know whether he's a shoestring relative or not. We fought over that last year but he does pretty well. He was at $19,500 a year at first. He's liaison co-ordinator now, and his salary is up $10,000 to $29,000 a year. Then he appointed a second executive assistant, F.H. Sproule, at $19,500. The Minister of Human Resources hasn't got any on paper. He did have Dianne Hartwick for a while. She performed her function. The Minister of Labour hired Robert Exell, former public relations man from Ontario, $19,500.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Under standing orders your time has expired.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier today a matter of privilege was raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . I appreciate that there is some sense of urgency on it. Could the Speaker indicate when a ruling might be forthcoming?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, as soon as possible, Mr. Member. The Speaker has been working diligently all afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.