[ Page 371 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 (Bill M202). Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 371

Oral questions.

Report on sexual abuse of children. Ms. Brown –– 371

Zeballos health care. Mr. Gablemann –– 371

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 372

Salaries of Crown corporation executives. Mr. Leggatt –– 372

B.C. Government news. Mr. Macdonald –– 373

Funding for Bates inquiry. Mr. Skelly –– 373

Impaired driving. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 373

Uranium and thorium mining permits. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 374

Ministerial Statement

1.5 litre soft-drink bottles.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 374

Mr. Levi –– 374

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Mr. Barrett –– 374

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 375

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 385

Mr. Howard –– 387

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 389

Hon. Mr. Bennett 392

Mr. Lea –– 395

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 396

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On behalf of the Premier, I would like to introduce to the House, and have you welcome, His Worship Mayor Hammill of Kelowna.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the gallery today is the president of our constituency of Dewdney, Mr. John Gilchrist. I would appreciate it very much if the House would make him welcome.

MR. KEMPF: It gives me great pleasure to introduce five people from my home town of Houston. They are His Worship Mayor Bas Studer, Alderman Norman Groot, Bill Wieden and Dave Hamblin. Accompanying them, Mr. Speaker, is the clerk for the district municipality of Houston, Mr. John Spanier. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: It is my pleasure to introduce Bill and Joan Johnson, who are happily visiting from Sonora, California, and spending some of that good American money right here, where it should be.

MR. HALL: Visiting us today, as the summer months are upon us and the schools are closing, are a number of students. Among them are two groups from Surrey. One is a group from the William F. Davidson Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Sihota. The second group is from the Bridgeview Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Ewan. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's always a very proud moment when members of this assembly can introduce their own family to other members for the first time. This afternoon, to my regret, the youngest member of the Hyndman clan, Bryn, who is age 1, has had some pressing engagements in Vancouver and can't be with us. But in the gallery are my wife Vicki, her mother, also Bryn's brother Jamie, age 9, and sisters Tory, age 7 and Nancy, age 5. I ask members to make them most welcome.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to welcome a group of students from the Lord Roberts Elementary School in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, West End, with their teachers Ms. Closter and Mr. Brear.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

On a motion by Mr. Smith, Bill M202, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, 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

REPORT ON SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. The United Way has just completed a report which they did for TRACY, a community cooperative group committed to the protection of children, on the sexual abuse of children in British Columbia. Has the minister received a copy of this report yet?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be meeting tomorrow with representatives of the organization and I'm looking forward to that meeting when that discussion will probably take place. I would be pleased to tell the member of the program which the Ministry of Human Resources has in place or coming on stream in that regard, but rather than take the time of the House I would be pleased to share that with her at a later date.

MS. BROWN: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has the minister received a copy of this report?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I haven't read a copy of the report; I believe the ministry may have received it through our deputy minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be possible for the minister to read a copy of this report before she meets with that group tomorrow, because I think that's very important. The report deals with the program which is already on stream and the fact that it is ineffective, and with the fact that the increase of prostitution among children in this province is growing. Would the minister read a copy of that report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The member is clearly abusing the forms of the House. I might warn her that it is the kind of behaviour which makes the Speaker reticent to call on members, if there is any doubt that abuse may take place.

ZEBALLOS HEALTH CARE

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that there are now no medical facilities in the village of Zeballos, would the minister confirm that his ministry, together with the Comox-Strathcona Regional District Hospital Board, is making arrangements to provide a medical clinic in that community?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the ministry is making some arrangements to attempt to deal with the situation in Zeballos, but we don't have a specific recommendation yet from the health officer in the area, who flew into Zeballos immediately the two doctors — who were reported in the Colonist last week — made certain complaints about the existing facility.

Dr. Benson, who is the health officer for the North Island area, made an investigation of the present situation. I'm expecting that he'I probably be making recommendations to the Ministry of Health today and that we will then be able to act on those recommendations.

[ Page 372 ]

Further to a question asked by the member before on an earlier occasion regarding the situation at Zeballos, someone seems to have their information incorrect or out of order in regard to the way this situation developed. There has never ever been a letter to me from anyone in the Zeballos area about the conditions in that area. There has never been a letter to me from that member. There has never been a letter since I took office from the previous member or from any member of council in Zeballos, or from any medical or health officials. There was one letter that came to my office, copied to me, written to the Regional District Hospital Board in Courtenay on May 24. In that letter they have very accurately outlined the state of the medical facilities in Zeballos, starting from 1974, when there were some recommendations made to council there and to the regional district from a Dr. Richards of Gold River, who in 1974 wrote to the then Minister of Health recommending that a clinic be set up. The village clerk at that time

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this still within the scope of the question?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, this is in answer to the question I took partly as notice last week from the same member on the same subject. This letter was referred to and it was subsequently reported in the press that this letter had come to me. I want to make sure they understand that it was never addressed to me, and I've never had any mail on this in the four years I've been in office.

The letter refers to Mr. Cocke, who recommended to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Hartley, that a facility be established in Zeballos. In September of 1975 Mr. Hartley, however, said that that was not possible, that the needs were not sufficient in Zeballos to warrant the construction of a public service building. Mrs. Kirk, the village clerk, then goes on to say: "Somewhat discouraged by this response, council tabled the problem until recently..." when there were some other things done. "Unfortunately a Dr. Vesey of Tahsis announced that he was going to make recommendations but never did make any recommendations to the Minister of Health." The moment this letter came to our attention and the moment there was some complaint through the press from the doctors in the area, Dr. Benson was immediately dispatched. He has made a report. I expect to have it today or tomorrow, and we'I take action on it immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I understand that this was partly in answer to a question taken on notice. It would be better advised, I would think, to make lengthy answers to questions taken on notice outside of question period, in order to guarantee as much time for questioning as possible.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the history lesson, but I would like to ask the minister why, following discussion of this matter in this House two and a half weeks ago during the budget debate, when I quoted at length from this letter, which arrived on June 4 he did not take any action at that point in encouraging Dr. Benson to go to Zeballos to investigate the situation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we took action almost immediately. I would really like to, but I don't hang on every word that that member says in this House, and I'm not able to pick up everything that he says in this House. I have a feeling that it is the responsibility of members to ensure that if there is a specific problem in their constituency they should make sure that the minister knows about it. That member, Mr. Speaker, has never approached me on this matter in a personal way; nor did the previous member, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who also had some responsibility over the years.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question, hon. member?

MS. SANFORD: It is a correction.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is a point of order I can entertain it, or if it is a question I can entertain it. But this is question period, and we cannot enter into debate. Perhaps while the member is rephrasing her question....

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. The member for Comox is not the member he is referring to.

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Forests yesterday with respect to the assignment of any timber material to the small business program. The minister misunderstood my question, I believe. I would like to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker, and ask whether or not the minister has removed any timber from any existing licence holders in the province of British Columbia, and assigned that timber to the small business program. I am aware that the regulations have not been promulgated as yet, but the mechanism resides in the Act, I believe.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the answer to the first part of that member's question is yes; to the second it is no.

MR. KING: Could the minister tell me the locations of timber that has been removed from existing licence holders?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The one that immediately comes to mind is the change in Can-Cel's tree farm licence No. 1. A part of the area removed has been designated as an area which will be available for sales under the small business program. However, sales have not yet been made or advertised.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, is that the only timber that has been removed from an existing licence?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'I have to take that part of the question as notice.

SALARIES OF CROWN
CORPORATION EXECUTIVES

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development. It concerns the recent resignation of Mr. Donald Duguid, president and chief executive officer of that BCBC. Can the minister advise the

[ Page 373 ]

House what salary level Mr. Duguid was at, and could he also advise the House what salary level that corporation will be offering for his successor?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I believe there's a question on the order paper with regard to salary levels in Crown corporations.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the minister is more aware of that than I am, and no doubt that information will be forthcoming.

The supplementary question is this. The minister's government has insisted from time to time that they couldn't release the salary of Mr. David Helliwell on the grounds that it's a public corporation in the private sector. I'm asking a question about a Crown corporation, where public moneys are being expended. Is the minister intending to change the law in British Columbia so that the salaries of Crown corporation executives are available to representatives of the public?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first part of the question is in order, but the question as to the minister's intentions is not in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to the last question, Mr. Speaker, is no. I will be most happy to provide the member the salary level of Mr. Duguid. I understand it was on the order paper, and I'Il look it up. At any rate, I'I make sure the details are right, and I will take the questions as notice.

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary relating to a question I asked him the week before last about public servants getting out the B.C. Government News in Vancouver. Can the minister tell me if glaring inefficiency in his department and the public service is why he's not providing that answer? Or is it a request from the Premier, whose estimates are now before the House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that on behalf of the individuals who serve this ministry, I would want to apologize for the member's inference that there is inefficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I do owe the member an answer to the question. I had it here one day, but, I'm sorry, I didn't see the member during question period. I've noticed him here the last two or three days, but I do not have the information. I undertake — through you, Mr. Speaker — to bring the information back to the member at the earliest opportunity,

FUNDING FOR BATES INQUIRY

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Has the minister made funds available to the Bates inquiry for public-interest groups making representations to that inquiry, and if so, when were the funds forwarded and in what amounts?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, funds are available to Dr. Bates. The amount, if my recollection is correct, is $225,000, and it is for the purpose that the member mentioned. I can't recall whether or not that money has gone, but I can certainly find out, and I'I undertake to bring that information back to the House.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. my understanding is that none of the public-interest groups have received any money at all. even though the inquiry has been in progress for some time now. I wonder if the minister could look into this matter and make sure that funds are made available as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it might be useful for the member to know the process that was undertaken. Dr. Bates was asked to assess the various interest groups — I suppose to say the "validity" of their position is not putting it properly — to determine those which really have got a proposition to put forward, those who could combine with others, and those who perhaps do not need funding. He filed the full report with me a matter of ten days ago, and the requests for money came at that time. We have undertaken to give him the money. So even if he has it, I doubt if he has had an opportunity to disburse it. He certainly will have it very soon and you can tell the groups that they will have their funds within a very short period of time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer two questions posed by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday, if leave can be granted.

Leave granted.

IMPAIRED DRIVING

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The first was as follows:

At the present time, the law is that ICBC is legally obligated only to cover minimum limits in the event of third-party victims as a result of impaired driving. The minimum limit at the present time, I understand, is $75,000. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if he intends to bring forward a change in that law so that people in the position of being quadriplegics or paraplegics have some assurance that there is protection under the law if they are victims of impaired driving?

As minister responsible for the ICBC to this House, I give you the following answer. Since March 1, 1979, the Insurance Corporation has been applying the limits of its insurance coverage limits rather than the minimum limit of $75,000 in cases where its insured has breached a condition of coverage. For example, if a person who has $500,000 coverage has injured someone while drinking and driving, the full $500,000 is available to the injured party, A regulation to this effect will be recommended to cabinet by the corporation.

The second question, which was again to the Attorney-General but is being answered by myself, was: "While the minister is taking that as notice, would he also have a look at the impact upon the impaired driver himself? Is the minister also considering some change in the rules of subrogation against the insured?"

The answer is that a person. In buying insurance, protects himself against financial loss due to his negligent act, not his criminal act. In other words, a person is

[ Page 374 ]

protected against those things that happen accidentally; but crimes are not accidents. People who drink and drive place in extreme jeopardy the lives of those around them, and should therefore suffer the consequences of their actions. The corporation feels that the motorists of British Columbia should not have to pay the total cost for someone who has injured an innocent citizen while committing a Criminal Code offence, if that person is in a position to pay part or all of those costs. The corporation is not considering any changes in the legislation or regulations as they apply to its right to recover from a person who has broken the Criminal Code money that it has paid to an innocent citizen. The corporation has had the right of recovery for other breaches of Autoplan since 1973. These include driving under suspension of licence, fleeing from police, drag-racing, et cetera. I hope I've given a full explanation to the hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: With leave, I would like to answer a question posed to me by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) on June 19, taken on notice.

Leave granted.

URANIUM AND THORIUM
MINING PERMITS

HON. MR. MAIR: The question was:

I have a new question on a specific permit. With respect to the uranium and thorium surface exploration permit No. MX19/79, issued on April 17 to Lacana Mining Corporation for the Upper Adams River area, an area that is very sensitive to fisheries values, was this ministry consulted?

My staff tell me they received a copy of notice to work on the mineral property, Form No. 10 11, on March 22 of this year, with respect to the above. The form, I am instructed, outlined simple radiometric prospecting under geophysical section and detailed soil sampling under geochemical section, with no equipment, and with minor hand trenching.

I am also advised that such a simple survey, in the opinion of the staff involved, would not impact fish and wildlife, and is of an extremely low priority. They also offer the opinion that in approximately 40 mineral referrals they receive per month, this is probably of the lowest priority.

They go on to say the mineral permit that the member quoted is a federal government permit, but that the mining company does have a provincial permit that covers the province. For the House's information, the normal procedure in matters of this sort is to refer such applications for comment to other resource ministries such as Lands, Forests, Agriculture, Water, Fish and Wildlife. With regard to the exploration in the Adams River area, adverse recommendations were not received from any of those agencies.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

1.5-LITRE SOFT-DRINK BOTTLES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the hazards associated with the 1.5-litre soft-drink bottles, the federal government, through their Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, under the Hazardous Products Act, is conducting an examination of the hazards which may or may not be implicit with these bottles.

We have been advised today that the Retail Council of Canada has advised retailers to suspend sales of such bottles. Three major chains, primarily in eastern Canada — Steinbergs, Dominion Stores and Loblaws — apparently have agreed.

We have been in contact with the major chain stores in British Columbia today — at least with some of their representatives — and we are advised that Safeway stores and Super-Valu stores will sell out their existing stock and will not replace their inventory of the 1 1/2 litre bottles until the issue of safety is resolved. I will later today be requesting that all retail outlets cease the sale of this size of bottle, and I will be asking the bottlers to cease bottling at this time for sale until the federal government, through their ministry, have had the opportunity of concluding their tests.

It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that our legislation in British Columbia appears to be inadequate to order to ban the sale of such bottles. Our legal staff is looking through the statutes to see if such authority exists, but their early opinion is that it does not. Therefore we rely to a large degree upon the federal Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and their legislation.

Just to recap, we will be making a request today that the sale of this size of bottle be stopped until such time as the federal government completes its examination.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the minister has made the statement, particularly in view of some of the serious accidents that have taken place in respect to the use of these bottles.

I would suggest, perhaps, that the minister might be able to look at the provisions in the Health Act and see whether in fact there is something there that we might use. I would sincerely hope that we get adequate cooperation from the stores and that they will not continue to sell them. I was a little alarmed when Safeway said they'd sell the balance of the product. I think that that really is selling to people what has been demonstrated as being something of a time-bomb in terms of the kind of accidents.

I must say that the government has moved, but I would hope very much that they would look at other legislation that we do have on the books that would be able to prevent this.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 6: Premier's office, $245,047 — continued.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier some questions under his estimates which have yet to be answered, and I'd like to repeat those. I'd also like to bring to the Premier's attention a correction perhaps of an

[ Page 375 ]

impression he mistakenly is leaving around the province regarding population in British Columbia. He made the same statement again yesterday. Perhaps somebody is ill advising him, but just a moment's notice to the library will get the correct information.

The Premier has attempted to leave the impression that population left the province of British Columbia during the NDP administration. The population did leave at one time in the last five or six years, but he was out in terms of what year. To avoid the Premier spreading misinformation, I'd share with him on a moment's notice the information that could be made available from the library.

Statistics Canada publishes these population figures for the province of British Columbia, and I think it’s worthwhile to read them so that the Premier knows that when he makes these statements about what happened during the NDP administration, he will be absolutely correct. The Statistics Canada figures are as follows: October 1, 1972 — 2,261,000; January 1973 — 2,280,000; April — 2, 292,000; July — 2, 307,000; October — 2,326,000; January 1974 — 2,349,000; April — 2,364,000; July — 2,382,000; October — 2,400,000; January, 1975 — 2,418,000; April — 2,427,000; July — 2,437,000; October — 2,447,000; January 1, 1976 — 2,457,000; April — 2,462,000; July 1, 1976, came the first drop in about eight to ten years — under the Social Credit administration. It went from 2,461,000 down to 2,460,000. The only drop was during the Social Credit administration time. And then it continued to rise again. In 1976 there was a dramatic drop in the increase. The increase was only 4,000 in six months and slowed down again and did not pick up until later. The only drop, not in whole numbers but in ratio of increase, took place under the Social Credit administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to restate that more people were leaving than were coming. This is from Statistics Canada. This is interprovincial migration, not the total population increase, that is how many babies are born. It measures the number coming into British Columbia. You were Premier and you've been in the government for about 20 years in this Legislature, so you know this information is available. It shows in-migration to the province, and it shows out-migration. In 1971, 74,000 people came into the province and 49,000 left. We had a net gain of 25,000.

In 1972, 72,338 in-migrated to British Columbia while 47,411 left. That trend continued until after two years of the New Democratic Party. In-migration dropped, instead of the gains of 25,000, 24,000 and 30,000. In 1975 we had the first drop. Only 61,135 came into the province while 63,999 left — a tremendous reversal of in-migration to B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver East, looks a little pale because again he tried to deal with figures that aren't relevant. Here is the government of Canada accurately showing the people accurately who come to the province and who left. In 1977 this trend reversed — 66,000 in, 53,000 out, for a net gain of 13,000. In 1978, there were 68,000 in and 51,000 out, a net gain of 17,000. You see the trend now; you see the trend had dropped under the New Democratic Party. More people were leaving. Now you see more people coming back than are leaving.

This information is available; it is available to all of the members of this House. It is from Statistics Canada and it's called "Interprovincial Migration." That means, that after two years of NDP, instead of people coming in record numbers, we had people leaving for the first time. Let's put that on the record.

You know, it's like that Mexican gas contract. I have written to the United States asking for a copy of the $3.50 American-Mexican gas contract that the first member for Vancouver East talked about during the election campaign and I still haven't got an answer. They seem to have some difficulty finding it.

MR. BARRETT: The fact is that there has been a steady increase in population. No matter how the Premier tries to say that more come in and more out, the facts are that the population has increased. He's just admitted it now.

Now he gives the explanation. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that he has admitted now that there has been a net increase in the population. which is exactly what he neglected to say all alone. I want to thank the Premier for correcting that statement. There has been a net increase in population all along, a net increase and you admitted it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quit changing your story.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'Il send this over. You quit changing your story.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're wrong; you're always wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, with the Mexican gas price, the Mexicans are now negotiating. If you listened to exactly what I said during the campaign, I said negotiating.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh! No, you didn't.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier dodged a debate during the campaign to correct it and then tries to come in here and say something else. The Mexicans are negotiating for a price, as stated by President Carter.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The Mexicans are negotiating for a price of $3.20 per thousand cubic feet. The pipeline has not been completed, and I made that very clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a Mexican jumping bean over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to participate in this debate: however, if they all wish to participate at the same time, the Chair has no option but to call the members to order. Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: The Mexicans are negotiating for a price of $3.20. They will not complete the pipeline until they get a satisfactory completion of the negotiations. That is a fact and the Minister of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources knows that very well. The pipeline is not completed. They are negotiating with the President; that's exactly what I said during the campaign. I made it very clear.

[ Page 376 ]

I know that the members are uncomfortable. I know that the members are trying to justify the fact that in three and a half years the price of natural gas we sell in the U.S. market has gone from $1.96 U.S. to only $2.30 U.S. The international market price for natural gas is being negotiated by Mexico. They didn't complete the line and President Carter was involved in the negotiations because Mexico is asking for $3.20. I asked in the election campaign and I ask now: if negotiations for $3.20 are good enough for Mexico, why are we selling our gas for $2.30? I'm asking the Premier of this province why we are selling our gas at $2.30 when international market prices dictate a much higher price. I asked him that during the election campaign and he never answered.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Could we have a little order, Mr. Chairman? They're all very jumpy over there, a little twitchy, a little nervous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the ministers especially to restrain themselves. I know it's difficult. I might point out, hon. members, that the opposition has given the Premier the courtesy of silence during his estimates, so you perhaps might like to extend the same courtesy.

MR. BARRETT: Far be it from me to point out the difference of behaviour in this House. I thank you very much for doing it, Mr. Chairman.

Beyond those questions which the Premier still has not answered, I'm asking him if he's prepared to release the Schroeder report on external investment, that was commissioned by this government, and the B.C. Central Credit Union report commissioned under the financial institutions Act of this province. Those two reports have not been released publicly. Does the Premier intend to release them, and if so, when? Since this is estimates, I'I wait for the answer now.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't really think that it takes that much time. Yesterday I asked the Premier two simple questions, and he got up and filibustered for 40 minutes; then he got up and filibustered for 18 minutes.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you want another filibuster? Fair enough. I don't mind. He's responsible for his own behaviour.

I'm asking two simple questions: Will the Premier release the Schroeder report? Will the Premier release the B.C. Central Credit Union report on the financial institutions Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, I'd like to get back to the gas pricing. I know there are going to be a number of disillusioned people who heard the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) specifically state during the election campaign that if Mexico was getting $3.50 from the U.S., so should British Columbia.

A young man came up to me at one of my meetings and said: "I've just heard Mr. Barrett. I'm going to vote for him because he's going to get us as much money from the U.S. as the Mexicans are getting. He told us they were getting $3.50." I said: "Look, there isn't even a pipeline." He said: "That's not what he says. That's why I'm going to vote for him." I guess there are many more like him to whom perhaps you had difficulty conveying the message. There are thousands of people in this province who apparently attended meetings and listened to you. In fact, I remember an interview with Laurier Lapierre, during which I came to the conclusion that that's what you said — I heard it very clearly.

Since we're on a subject very close to his heart, perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) could get up in my estimates and deal with it. I have said that since 1974 — as all members in this House know — the National Energy Board sets the price of exports. It does so on the recommendation of the provinces. Our provincial government has made recommendations using the B.C. Energy Commission to both supply the data and make the case to the National Energy Board. We've had a number of increases.

I want to deal with another incorrect statement which, again the first member for Vancouver East has said on Laurier Lapierre and other times. He said that when he left office they were getting $1.96 per thousand cubic feet. When we came to government we were getting $1.60. We got two subsequent price increases to $1.80 and to $1.96. That took place over a year. With additional increases and with monetary change, we are getting substantially more. We'I get more because we have a submission to the National Energy Board now. This business of playing fast and loose with the figures confuses the electorate, and your credibility is not only shaken in here but out there. Wait until I go and tell the young fellow that you didn't say what he heard you say. He voted for you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that anybody who doesn't finish high school is not very bright. If that is the view of the New Democratic Party, I'I tell those young people out there the low opinion he has of them. He called that across the floor; he doesn't think much of them.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with this business of gas because the member talked as if there is some sort of jump. Now he says: "Oh, I didn't say $3.50; that's what they're negotiating for." Well, I could go down and say I want $10, come back and go around the province and say: "We're getting $10." It might not be obtainable. That's like going and making an offer on a used car or a new car, or a house, and offering 10 percent of what they're asking.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's that about someone having to buy a used car? Is there something wrong? That's all my son could afford. Do you think there is something wrong with him having to buy a used car? [Laughter.] The

[ Page 377 ]

member for Prince Rupert doesn't like people who don't complete high school....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, he doesn't like those who don't have the purchase price for a new car; he says there's something wrong with buying a used car. The member certainly is going to have to explain those statements later.

That's what negotiating is, but don't ever sell it as fact. Don't tell the people that the Mexicans are getting $3.50 through a pipeline that doesn't exist. We talked about the way gas prices were arrived at. We talked about the application before the NEB. We talked about the price increases, and we showed the years in which the increases have been achieved. All the information has been made public a number of times, Mr. Chairman. All that information is public — when the rates were achieved, on what date and what the rate was,

Now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), offered, during the election campaign which the first member for Vancouver East keeps bringing up, a large sum of money if he could produce that contract. He wouldn't even answer. The first member for Vancouver East wouldn't answer. How much did you offer — $2,000? It must be embarrassing for the first member for Vancouver East. You wouldn't respond because you didn't want the young fellow to find out. Once you got his vote it didn't matter. Perhaps in four years he'll forget.

Now in regard to reports to government, both the reports the first member for Vancouver East talks about I have not read. I can find out what they are. There is a lot of advice to government and we'll deal with the reports. They are there for the government to make decisions, and the minister can either choose to use the advice or reject it. It becomes part of the advice to government. It is quite logical that they do exist and that they are in the hands of the ministry, and the ministry could be dealing kith them. When you get to the appropriate ministry, whether it be the Provincial Secretary or Economic Development — whoever commissioned them — certainly you can deal with that minister. They certainly haven't been presented as full cabinet documents to our government.

You can ask about all the reports in the world, but there have been none delivered to the Premier's office, to my knowledge, that were commissioned by me that I haven't made public. If they were commissioned on my behalf, I've read them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the Schroeder report, perhaps the Premier is so busy his memory lapsed for a while. It was his government that made the announcement shortly after coming into office that this major report would be undertaken, and gave it great public significance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who did that?

MR. BARRETT: It was your government, and I think your Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

HON. MR. BENNETT: What did he tell you last year when you asked him?

MR. BARRETT: Well, you've had the report for some time. It is of major significance in terms of capital formation for this province, and you're saying that you haven't read it. Perhaps you've been too busy, but it is of major significance. That's what you told us it was. I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that perhaps someone jogged your memory about the Schroeder report and the amount of money spent on it.

As a matter of fact, as I recall, there was a debate in this House about the connection between Schroeder and Mr. Bonner being on its board. Nonetheless, I'm pretty much aware of the fact that it was an issue of great discussion at the time. You participated in the discussion and perhaps it just slipped your mind.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Probably.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. and you've given an undertaking that you're going to read the report or check it out. I would like an undertaking....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BARRETT: No! Before the question is even asked the Premier says no. Will you stay on as Premier? No? Thank you very much. If you're going to give "noes" before the question is asked, I've got a series of questions I can ask. Are you happy with the cabinet? No? That's good; we're getting somewhere. Is the cabinet happy with him? No? Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, Dave!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That minister is familiar with the Schroeder report. He's probably had it for over two years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's why we're doing so well.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not the impression that I get in terms of releasing the report. I think the importance was stressed by your government. Now why has it been kept secret? I don't know — maybe you've got a reason to keep the document secret. I'd like to know that too. I accept that, but I'd like to know the reason why it's being kept secret.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The report's stolen by now.

MR. BARRETT: Secondly Mr. Chairman, the report on the B.C. Central Credit Union was, according to my information, given to the Premier in February of 1976, within 90 days of your assuming office. I understand it went directly to your office. The B.C. Central Credit Union and the committee struck by the Finance department were to report on implementing the financial institutions Act that was passed in this House in the spring of 1975. It's my understanding that the report was delivered directly to the Premier's office, and has stayed there, secret, ever since.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your information is wrong.

[ Page 378 ]

MR. BARRETT: Okay, my information is incorrect. Would the Premier inform us where the report is, and whether or not he intends to have the government release the report? I'd like to know that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back on to the energy question, because the Premier finds it convenient not to tell the whole story. It's selective memory. I can understand that — selection of memory is perhaps better than momentary embarrassment. The fact is that the price of $1.60 was negotiated during our administration, with a price increase to $1.96. That was negotiated during our administration; it did not come into effect until after we were defeated. But it was negotiated by our administration. Is that not right, Mr. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ? A two-stage price hike was negotiated before we left office at a dominion provincial conference, which is a matter of public record. The fact is that the first step was $1.60 and the second step was $1.96, negotiated in two steps before we left office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Would you go back in the Hansard and read what you said? You said: "You did it." You didn't say anything about the NDP.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it was negotiated during our term in office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You tried to get off the hook for saying we were getting it.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm saying exactly what I said. The negotiated price was $1.96 at the top of the second level.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you said the price being paid. You're trying to wiggle off the hook.

MR. BARRETT: Just calm yourself, Mr. Premier. You're safe in here.

What I have pointed out is that after that second stage of $2.16, all it has increased through all of your efforts — as you correctly outline, the procedure is that representations by the provincial government must be made to the National Energy Board — was from $1.96 to the $2.30, a 34-cent increase in a matter of approximately 36 months, while the BTU comparable price for oil was rising much, much higher than that particular price rise for natural gas.

Mr. Premier, you can joke and giggle and titillate the ambitions of the backbench, who respond by pounding their desks, hoping to make it into the cabinet. But that still doesn't answer your responsibility in trying to achieve a world market price of our natural gas into the U.S. market. Turn behind you and ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources what Indonesia is getting for liquefied natural gas. The Mexicans are not going to sell it until they get the price they want. They're not fools. They're not about to give it away. I made that very clear during the election campaign.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You misled the people.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I love to hear those interjections from the Minister of Energy, who really has not stated up to this time what this government's policy is on the pricing of natural gas. What are you aiming for? What is your goal? What have you said publicly that you hope to achieve? Let the Premier know. Do you think $3.20 is a fair price? Nod your head.

At $3.50 is Indonesia's price a fair price for LNG with only 8 percent loss in conversion? Nod your head. I made the claim during the election campaign and I say it again now: this government has sold natural gas at prices far below the equivalent BTU price for energy anywhere else in the world. We should be dealing aggressively now that we've got a new administration. You've been down talking to Joe. Did you raise the price of natural gas with Joe?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Joe?

MR. BARRETT: Joe Clark, the Prime Minister of this country. Have you forgotten who he is already?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I call him the Prime Minister.

MR. BARRETT: You know, you're faster than most Canadian citizens. You're the anticipatory political response — Joe Who?

I want to know if you did discuss with the Prime Minister what you consider to be an equitable price for natural gas sales.

The Premier still hasn't answered my very brief comments about his remark about "national socialism." He talks about the young man he met during the campaign. I illustrated two people I ran across in the campaign. You haven't answered that either, Mr. Premier. It would be worthwhile — just a little gesture to show that perhaps you have a little touch of humility. It would overwhelm the opposition, and it would please the people of British Columbia to have the Premier admit that perhaps he did offend some people with that remark.

I would like to bring to the Premier's attention a position now espoused by Howard Baker, Republican senator from Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand that a Republican senator is not exactly your average democratic socialist. A Republican senator is not exactly your average flaming radical. A Republican congressman from Tennessee could hardly be described as liberal at the best of times. But let's listen to what he's saying about the energy crisis in the United States and the role of their great federal government.

I was aware of Howard Baker's statements some weeks ago, but I was reminded of them again by the Victoria Colonist of June 26, a newspaper that has moved up in my estimation recently by writing a certain editorial. I quote Glenn Somerville of the Canadian Press: "One of the more popular ideas around Washington these days is that government involvement is needed in the oil industry" — in the United States, that bastion of capitalism and free enterprise? — "possibly even nationalization of the industry to get some order back in the system." Shocking!

Where does this idea stem from and this discussion among senators take place? "As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat — New York) puts it, the American attitude toward the oil cartel run by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries should be: 'How can we break it up? How can we smash it?'" We're dealing with a cartel, and they recognize it now in the United States.

[ Page 379 ]

The feeling is growing as Americans realize there is no relief coming from steady price increases by the OPEC producers, none at all. As a matter of fact, the Premier is aware and deeply concerned, I'm sure, that OPEC ministers are now meeting in Geneva and talking about increasing oil prices. One of them stated it may go to $21 a U.S. barrel.

I quote again from this article, and I quote it slowly: "Even such Congressional conservatives as senate minority leader Howard Baker (Republican — Tennessee) warned recently the oil giant companies are 'risking nationalization' by profiting hugely from recent fuel price increases while failing to increase production."

Is this a national socialist, as the Premier would describe it? Is this a dangerous socialist in the American milieu, as the Premier would describe him? This is a conservative Republican senator clearly saying that the best interests of the United States in energy must come ahead of the private profit of the oil companies dominating the energy field. I want to tell you that when Senator Baker says that, he's not applying for membership in the New Democratic Party. I'm sure he would withdraw if the Premier called him a national socialist. But Senator Baker is speaking as a voice from the conservative point of view. He is representing major concerns in the United States which are paralleled here in Canada — that there must be some national oil role for the federal government.

He's talking about nationalization. I'm not suggesting nationalization. I've suggested national control and orderly marketing of non-renewable energy resources in this country. I'm not ashamed of that proposition. I said yesterday, I've said before, and I say again: I am a Canadian first. Anybody who doesn't understand that there is a role for an agency such as Petro-Canada doesn't understand the energy crisis.

I want to tell you this: I am absolutely delighted that after the gnashing of teeth the Liberal administration moved towards setting up the instrument of Petro-Canada. I wish they would go the next step and set up an instrument for orderly marketing, as we did with B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

I have sceptical views of the National Energy Board when it says that after President Carter reported the Mexicans were asking a price beyond what the United States could pay, all of a sudden Canada, through the National Energy Board, discovered two trillion cubic feet of surplus gas and was able to sell it at the new price of $2.30.

It is interesting from the time of the hon. Joe Green up to the present administration — although I don't blame Mr. Clark's administration — how the National Energy Board has adjusted its estimate of reserves based on price negotiations external from Canada. It found two trillion extra cubic feet within 14 days after Carter had been rebuffed by the Mexicans. I said that publicly, too. Perhaps you will explain that to that young man, who must be the first person in British Columbia who was allowed to ask you a question after a public meeting. I was shocked to hear that somebody got to ask him a question after a public meeting, but be that as it may....

MR. KING: He asked Dan Campbell first.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he asked permission first.

They go on in this article by Mr. Somerville to talk about possible remedies: "A possible remedy receiving attention is a suggestion from some leading members of the Washington Foreign Policy Committee for a government-owned synthetic oil industry to produce up to five million barrels a day within five to ten years." Do you hear that, Mr. Chairman? They want a government-owned synthetic oil industry to give the United States an alternate supply of oil so that it is not at the mercy of the international cartel of OPEC. Essentially the plan calls for an amount that represents about half the total now imported daily to meet American needs.

This proposal comes from Lloyd Cutler, a lawyer who has handled several top negotiating jobs for the administration — including the recently concluded Canada-U.S. fishing treaty — with some of his associates. You are familiar with Mr. Cutler, Mr. Member. You've pointed out the fact that British Columbia has a weak position in those recently concluded negotiations. Obviously Mr. Cutler is a pretty tough customer.

The article continues: "Essentially the plan called for the same type of effort that permitted the United States to develop a synthetic rubber industry during the Second World War when natural rubber supplies shrank. It involves a government-owned corporation offering market-guarantee contracts to private companies." Shall I read that again? It says: "It involves a government-owned corporation offering market-guarantee contracts to private companies." Where is that being done? Why, here in British Columbia, under the B.C. Petroleum Corporation with natural gas. It's not a tax-collecting agency but a market guarantee through a government corporation now being asked for in Washington, D.C., to deal with synthetic oil, the model of which already exists in British Columbia as the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

The Premier likes to give oversimplified answers to questions that he asks himself. It is safer for him to answer questions that he asks himself because he might be a little more sure of the answer.

The fact is that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was voted against by the Premier of this province. The fact is that it is a successful Crown corporation. And the fact is that there are some spokespersons in the United States who are probably not aware of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, but who are asking for exactly the same instrument in the United States to deal with their energy needs.

Is the Premier opposed to Petro-Canada and a nationally owned energy company playing a major role in providing oil and giving security of oil supply for Canada? Is he opposed to Petro-Canada?

HON. MR. BENNETT: One of the good things we have to refer to is Hansard. I'd like to quote from Hansard, March 26, 1979, page 32. The member for Vancouver East will be interested. Mr. Barrett is speaking:

During that period of time, the United States has been buying gas from Mexico, and while we've been selling it to the United States at $2.16. Mexico was selling it for $3.20 U.S.

That's exactly what he said. That's what misled all those people. He said they were "selling." That's not a slip, because a little later on he goes on to say:

... why it allows its natural gas to be sold into the United States market at today's price of $2.16 U.S., while Mexico gets $3.20.

He goes on to say:

If I was a Mexican. I'd come up and contract to buy gas from British Columbia for $2.16, ship it down to Mexico and sell it back to the United States at $3.20.

[ Page 380 ]

That's in the pipeline that hasn't been built. He says they've been selling it — not negotiating but selling it. That's what you said in the election campaign all around this province. It wasn't true. It says it in Hansard.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They haven't. There is no pipeline to Mexico, nor have they been selling it.

It has been stated by Mr. Schlesinger that Canada will not get less than Mexico; that means British Columbia. Further, I would point out that the price increases we get are the same as Alberta is getting. Through negotiation we've been able to move up in tandem with the NEB. These presentations — are now before the Energy Board. We do not negotiate gas prices at First Ministers' Conferences. While they talk oil and they talk internal gas, export gas is dealt with by the NEB. That is the way it has been since I've been Premier.

I want to make perfectly clear that when people say — and it says so in Hansard — that Mexico was selling gas to the United States for $3.20.... It's impossible, because there is no pipeline.

I'd like to deal with the matter of a national oil agency. The first member for Vancouver East says that his proposal was aimed just at getting at the multinational oil corporations and getting the profits they were making. What he was doing in his proposal to our government and his party's proposal to the government of Canada was giving away British Columbia's resources and the profit of the government and people of British Columbia. That's what he offered to do.

On November 10 last I stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil and natural gas rights granted it by the constitution. That is giving away whatever money we get from export gas. We're giving them all the rights under the constitution. We're losing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the rest.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All right, certainly I'll read the rest.

On November 10 last I stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution if the government of Canada resolved to assume control of all the country's petroleum reserves and ownership. What you're giving is the constitutional right to our resources and all the money that British Columbians get for them. That money would go somewhere else; you would give away our resources. What you're saying is that Ottawa could manage them better than British Columbians. I've got to tell you that under no circumstances will we ever turn over or make conditional offers on the offshore resources rights granted to British Columbia by the constitution, which have been unclear and which we're trying 'to maintain.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, they were going to give away those constitutional rights. They were put on the table; they were offered; they were in the poker game. The people of B.C. didn't have a chance to be asked about them. If they could have made a quick deal then they would have given them away, and it would have cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in direct revenue.

I want to know how much, by taking away this large part of British Columbia's tax base, you're going to put up taxes on individuals to pay the cost of hospitals and schools, because that's where the money would have to come from. If you give away the resources to another part of the country you no longer have control of the money that those resources give to government, nor do you have control of the way the development is carried out, or if it's carried out at all. We reject that, and it's not because we're poor Canadians.

The development of B.C. resources over the years in all its aspects has, as has that in other provinces that have resources to develop, done very well for the province and made a significant contribution to the country. I would point out that two areas that have done a good job of developing their resources, Alberta and British Columbia, make large contributions to Canada in equalization. Money isn't being hoarded; but we're getting the development. We're getting economic activity and we're proving up our gas reserves. That's what you want when you talk about some agency: you're talking about proving up the provincial and the Canadian oil and gas reserves — and that's been happening. Instead of declining they're increasing.

The Grizzly Valley pipeline opened up a whole new area. We're getting substantial finds. Oh, I remember someone over there in this House saying we wouldn't find any gas, that the gas wasn't there. Well, it was there. You're afraid to do anything. You'd drive exploration out. That's what you wanted because, when we came into office, there were very few rigs working in British Columbia as a result of the policies of your government. I don't take any comfort in that and the fact that there are over 80 rigs working now.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) may wish to enter this discussion, because he can bring a practical perspective to all the quotations about what's happening in the United States and what Senator Baker says. I think he could talk about British Columbia, because that's why he's here. He wants to talk about the Peace River, and they want him to talk for them.

[Mr. Davidson in the Chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said $3.50 — that's something that's in the record. I'm not asking for anybody to retract; the election is over, and saying that worked for you during the election.

I just want it clearly understood that we will not surrender our constitutional rights on any conditional offer at any poker game played in Ottawa, that the resources of the people of British Columbia will continue to remain owned by the people of British Columbia and that this government of British Columbia will guard them and provide the opportunity to develop them in an orderly and proper way for the benefit of our people. We will also prove up energy reserves to guarantee our future. That gas is our greatest insurance that British Columbia has energy as a provincial resource. It is a great guarantee to our people.

To give it away, whereby it could be designated anywhere, to give away all of the constitutional rights.... I wonder if the people of British Columbia fully understand the implications of that offer. Even though you try and

[ Page 381 ]

make it conditional, it is an offer to give away something of permanence, and an offer made without consulting the people. To give away resources, constitutional rights of major value and major importance in the field of energy, without even.... I don't remember — it may even have been done — whether the Legislature was asked before that offer was made, or whether we debated it. I'll have to check on that to see if that was debated as a position to be taken.

MR. BARRETT: What's your position on PetroCan?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that a lot of figures have been bandied about and a lot of statements have been made on natural gas. It sure as heck has been shown today that you can say before the election that the United States is paying Mexico $3.20, and then you can amend it now because the election's behind.

MR. BARRETT: What's your position on PetroCanada?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not embarrassed about that? If I were you, I would be.

MR. BARRETT: You called me a Nazi too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I never did that either.

MR. BARRETT: "National socialist"?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't twist what I say. You have a great habit, when you're in trouble because of a statement like this, of trying to run and hide from it. You have to misinterpret everything to try and find something to take offence at. I've seen that tactic, and it's not relevant to debate.

Now we've dealt a number of times in my estimates with energy, and I'm sure the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) wants to deal with it in his estimates. If we're going to deal with his estimates in my debate, he may wish to join in. I invite him to because he can go into some of the detail that he carries as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

But there are other very important aspects of government policies that are important.

MR. BARRETT: What about Petro-Canada?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And there are aspects of Petro-Canada, as I said, that belong in the private sector. Westcoast Transmission is one.

MR. BARRETT: What about PetroCan as a concept?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you want me to debate nationally, wait till I decide that I may wish to carry on national debate. Right now I'm talking about British Columbia, my friend.

MR. BARRETT: What's your position on PetroCanada, my friend?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I say that Petro-Canada has taken parts of what logically should be in the private sector of British Columbia, and you watched Alberta take over PWA while you were government. You saw what happened, and I understood then that you would watch another government take over Westcoast Transmission and use it for their benefit.

I say no government agency should control part of the economic instruments in another province, and I say, Mr. Chairman, government could deal with the private sector. It's not as if there was improper management, or as if management would be improved of these existing pipelines like Westcoast Transmission that were taken in the Pacific Petroleum’s purchase. It's being well managed in the private sector. They were proving up gas; they were carrying on exploration in this country, and they have found a large number of the producing gas wells of British Columbia.

What was deficient about them that made them the subject for a federal agency takeover? What has it been able to do with those assets since they took it over that wasn't being done for the benefit of the people? Certainly, where they operate in the province of British Columbia and deal with the government, we're still getting the money. But what's the strategy, and why an additional move to take an additional percentage of Westcoast Transmission, a pipeline that delivers British Columbia gas to British Columbia communities and also carries the export contract? Is the idea to make it part of a national agency to carry Alberta gas or Yukon gas? Will it cause a depression in our oil fields so that because they aren't being utilized there'll be no exploration and we'll take a sudden drop of revenue into government, Mr. Chairman? Could we allow that to happen? That's what could happen. That's not acceptable in British Columbia.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) might want to talk about that because those are a number of the concerns that we have that were raised by people working in the ministry, people advising government in the energy field of all the possible ramifications of such a thing happening that couldn't have happened before. We saw that when another government can move into your territory and take over a company, such as Alberta did with PWA.... That wasn't just a carrier in Alberta. That was an interprovincial carrier that provided routes, and those routes meant a certain way the economy develops. They meant jobs for British Columbia. The head office was here.

It was done before we became government. We fought it after the fact in every court, including a direct appeal to the federal cabinet. But it meant that the head office was taken from British Columbia. We couldn't stop it, either legally or through any of the agencies, or through a political appeal. It means that routes that we anticipated would be developed north, utilizing British Columbia and Prince George and our cities, will now possibly go through Edmonton.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I say that there is a possibility, Mr. Chairman, for this type of interference. You can use it as an economic instrument. You can do it at any time. I have the best of relations with the Lougheed government, but what about the governments to follow having that power, having that ability, and changing the focus? It may be subtle at first. but as those changes take place, what was a company that operated in an economic way, developing

[ Page 382 ]

the logical extension of routes, now instead of economic considerations has political considerations as well. That's why it's dangerous to let other governments in. It's not that we are in collision. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is nodding his head to that. He agrees with that.

The same possibility exists with what could happen with our petroleum industry in the northeast of British Columbia, and other priorities in British Columbia's economic strategy. If someone were to give away all the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution, that's what could happen. You might trust the people there now, the people who run PetroCan, or the government; people change, governments change. That's why all governments should be careful in assuming power and taking powers they wouldn't want to see in the hands of any other government. That's what we should be careful about.

We should be careful also about what could go beyond our own jurisdiction into other areas. I want to talk about the broad energy policy for British Columbia. I think we should get it clearly on the record, because I'm not against future hydroelectric development in this province. I'm not against it. We should clarify that, because there is some suggestion that there are those who have said during the election there would be no further or future hydroelectric development in British Columbia.

I say we won't. It's one of the more acceptable energy alternatives. There will always be questions raised, and we have the mechanisms and the hearings to deal on individual projects. Above all, it is a continuous, renewable energy source. It provides more than energy. It provides flood control, water storage and a host of opportunities in British Columbia, and it's not irreversible. It is one of the more acceptable uses.

MR. LEA: What would you do with Hydro?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I could say that by the year 2050, if they didn't need them, those which can be put up can be taken down, or modified, or adjusted, but you don't reverse the amount of coal. You take it out of the ground. You don't reverse in a number of other areas. Those are future considerations we would never face. But I say it is a consideration for someone. You have only to travel through the major countries — in particular the ancient countries — in Europe, to see that what were major monuments or construction works of one time are no longer used. Some are preserved, some are in ruin. Through them we recognize our brief time on this earth is not a matter of permanence and that things can be changed for the better. Things done can be irreversible, and called irreversible change. One of them is depletion of the non-renewable.

Anyone who rejects, out of hand, further hydroelectric development is being neither practical nor concerned enough about the future of this province to consider the logical energy needs and what we must do to fill them. We have to consider them.

Any government faced with making decisions on projects is going to have to make a decision, project by project, time by time, that will not please everyone. It's a matter of priorities and where your priorities for development are. And I state clearly: there will be hydroelectric development in this province, and further hydroelectric development. It's one of our more acceptable sources.

We have been looking into other areas, some of them not yet as efficient, as commercially attractive or as useful as we would like. One is coal, and that process has been negotiated and discussed with the British Coal Board. It's not yet available on a commercial basis.

One of the significant things which I think you should pay attention to is what has been done since we've been government. Hydro, is dealing with the Coal Board. They're paying money for development of that technology and, lo and behold, you know what we found? They continue to maintain ownership of that technology while we're paying the bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Since that time, and since we've been to the Coal Board, we have changed that. It is changed, now that the hydro technology we pay for belongs to British Columbia. It will be ours to utilize for sale around the world. That is one of the useful things about going over there, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea); that change has been effective since that trip. I'm glad you brought that up. It gave me the time, because it's easy to spend money. But there are more benefits than the immediate project; the purchase of technology and the development of it should be for those who pay for it for further development.

That's one of the things we're going to have to have in the future, and we've got to make sure we don't spend a lot of money developing someone else's technology. No matter how friendly we are with them, or what good friends we are with the government of that time, what we've got to say is that British Columbians are paying the bill. We're going to own that technology, and that's what is happening now with Hydro and the process that is being studied for them by the British Coal Board.

Again, that is some time away from practical construction for commercial adaptation. Experimental models do not mean yet they have the type of efficiency or process that British Columbia could use.

When we look at energy and we look at energy policy, there are a number of areas. One thing you can't have is profit such as the government gets from natural gas once you've given the very rights to that gas to another government. In British Columbia that's hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the Premier a simple question, and I got another 20-minute dissertation on things I didn't ask about. I simply asked the Premier what his position was on Petro-Canada in the marketplace as an instrument affecting oil policy in this country. He still didn't answer that question. He talked about Westcoast, and he talked about dams and everything else. Are you in favour of the federal government maintaining effective control of PetroCanada as an instrument for developing oil policy in this country? Would that take 20 minutes, or do you not want to answer? Just say you don't want to answer; that would be just as easy. But I think we should know because it is a matter of great public importance, and we don't know what the government of British Columbia's position is. Are you in favour of maintaining Petro-Canada as a public instrument in meeting Canada's continuing supply of oil?

[ Page 383 ]

Perhaps the Premier didn't hear it. Are you in favour of Petro-Canada remaining in public hands as an instrument for the federal government in developing secure supplies of oil for this country? I would like to have that answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've already told him that, given the time to see if there are useful parts in Petro-Canada, then I would be willing to make such a statement. What I have studied as Premier of British Columbia are those areas that should not be part of another government's ownership. Their ownership could affect us seriously. The job that I have been elected to do I've done; I raised our objections right from the beginning. Should I ever seek to enter the federal field or be given the job of dealing with PetroCan and assessing each part of its holdings and its usefulness, then I'll make such a statement. But to deal with it without any of the information from study would leave me vulnerable, such as some people who would say: "We're getting $3.20 for Mexican gas in the U.S." I wouldn't do that. But I've said that Westcoast Transmission should not be owned by Petro-Can.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the Premier some time to consider this. I hope at some time he states a position, since he will be going to national conferences where this very matter will be discussed and has been discussed. It is the role of the Premier, as you have assumed it in past conferences, to talk about national energy policy — otherwise, why go to Ottawa?

All of a sudden we have this overwhelming modesty. It's dropped on the Premier when he's asked an opinion about national energy policy. He has stated in the past — and is obliged to state now and will be obliged to state in the future — British Columbia's policy on national energy development. He has this overwhelming modesty when asked a specific question. The former Minister of Energy knows the importance of Petro-Canada; he wouldn't have any hesitation on what advice to give. But the Premier has overwhelming modesty on a simple question. One can only interpret it that the Premier is waiting to see which way the wind blows before he determines his policy.

Who owns the oil and gas in this country? Ninety percent of all oil and gas in this country is in private hands and a large majority of that is foreign-controlled. Now you tell me how you're protecting British Columbia's interest when 90 percent of all oil and gas in this country is owned by private companies, most of whom are foreign? Is that fighting for British Columbia? Is that fighting for Canada? The Premier only read half of my statement, didn't he?

It's about time Canada grew up; it's about time Canada stopped depending on the international oil companies to dominate our oil and gas fields. The oil in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia is important to all of Canada to keep this country together. We need a national instrument to ensure that oil supplies are maintained for every single region of this country, and I don't apologize for that statement. I do not believe that Exxon, Imperial or Shell have as their primary interest the very best interest of British Columbia, or Canada for that matter. The primary interest of those companies is to look after themselves. Shell isn't looking after Canada; Imperial Oil is not looking after Canada other than "Hockey Night in Canada"; and Exxon doesn't have a primary interest in meeting Canada's needs.

Petro-Canada was the only instrument available to stop offshore selling by Imperial Oil of oil destined for Canada. That's a matter of public record, Mr. Chairman. When the oil companies could make an extra buck by diverting oil that was intended for Canada, they proved they would divert it. They did divert it, and threatened shortages of our own oil supply, and threatened jobs in this country because of that.

If the Premier advocates that the international oil companies should dictate to this country and to this province what the oil policy should be, then he should stand up and say so. But I say this clearly: no Canadian business and no Canadian job should ever be put in jeopardy because of international control of energy in this country. Why should any Canadian worker, any Canadian family or any Canadian business be allowed to be manipulated without any government say in terms of supplying oil needs in industry and in farming?

I tell you this: 90 percent of all oil and gas in this country is owned by oil companies. It’s not in the name of the people of British Columbia, as the Premier likes to spin it out to be. It's not in the name of the people of Canada; it's owned by the oil companies. So let's get that straight. Now when the Premier says "giving it away," it's already been given away. Who's it been given to? It's been given to those international oil companies by blind, foolish governments in the past who have had no understanding at all of the need to get revenue back to the public from those oil supplies.

The Premier asks: "Who will make up this tax money?" Before the B.C. Petroleum Corporation came into being there was no equivalent amount of money coming from those fields. Mr. Chairman, we were selling, our gas for a pittance. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation filed a report to the public of British Columbia showing a return of $228 million. The Petroleum Corporation that you voted against returned $228 million to the people of this province. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with the people of this province or this country getting a fair return from their own energy supplies?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now the Premier says: "You're going to give it away." Mr. Premier, tell us who is going to make up the loss of revenue from the gift you gave to BCRIC in terms of gas and oil leases? If your argument is to hold water.... If we allow Canadian domination of oil and gas, you are giving away from the taxpayers of this province a share of the development of those oil and gas leases. You took it right out of the public purview and you put it into private hands, and you said: "You shareholders who can buy a share of BCRIC will have a reward from these assets no longer in the hands of the people of British Columbia." So you defeat your own argument. Was there one public, competitive bid for those oil and gas leases? No. Was any oil company allowed to bid on those leases? No. Was any gas company allowed to bid on those leases? No. They were given away by the Premier to BCRIC. It follows from your argument — through you, Mr. Chairman — that, in giving away oil and gas rights, somebody has to pay for the loss. Who's going to pay for the loss in British Columbia when BCRIC makes a profit or finds a development in that oil and gas?

Can you explain to me why there was no competitive bid for those gas and oil leases? You're the guy — through

[ Page 384 ]

you, Mr. Chairman — who made this great speech about how bad giveaway was, how some of the taxpayers are going to have to make up the money. The only giveaway that's taken place is under your administration to BCRIC. You can't have it both ways. You're a free-enterpriser. Why didn't you have proper competitive bidding on those oil leases and those gas leases?

You just went over a map and said: "This goes to BCRIC." Will industry feel secure in a pattern of government if BCRIC shares start to drop in value? Will you pick out some more oil and gas leases and throw those in too? Or will BCRIC have to compete like any other company, and bid on oil and gas rights? Has BCRIC been sent a bill for those oil and gas rights comparable to what might have been received if free competitive bidding and free enterprise had been allowed to take place? The burden of the argument you make about giving away shares has taken place only under BCRIC. The taxpayers of this province will have to pay for that giveaway to BCRIC. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Premier. You have no answer on Petro-Canada and no answer to the fact that 90 percent of all oil and gas in this country is privately owned by the international oil companies. It's too bad, isn't it? I believe the B.C. Petroleum Corporation demonstrated what a public marketing instrument can do. It's been darn good. Just take out of the history books the fact that it was started by the NDP, and you could really be proud of it. But the fact that it was started by the NDP embarrasses you a little bit, hurts a little bit. Okay, I won't refer to the fact that we started it; but I sure as heck don't want to see it endangered. The Premier has been asked other questions and he doesn't seem to want to answer them. The Premier talks about the depletion of non-renewable resources vis-à-vis hydroelectric generation. If you're so concerned about the depletion of non-renewable resources, what is the provincial government's energy policy on maintaining a constant supply of natural gas once our existing contracts with the United States run out? What is your target? What is your philosophy?

MR. LEA: Why is he giving away coal?

MR. BARRETT: Well, coal is another thing. Renewable annual leases in terms of giveaways were pointed out by the former Liberal leader. There was a giveaway to Shell Oil. I want the Premier to be apprised of this report filed by Mr. Horner on the Foreign Investment Review Act as it applies to new major resource projects. While the Premier was fighting CP Investments in British Columbia, his government was on record, in Horner's own document, as being opposed to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Not true? I'll read this document, signed by Mr. Horner, and I hope it's not true. I quote from this document, and it says clearly:

"Alternatives:

"To discontinue the practice of trying to negotiate during the FIRA Review, a reasonable degree of compliance with the policy objective of 50 to 60 percent of Canadian equity ownership of now major resource projects. Instead, the practice would be the same as for reviewable investments in all sectors for which no specific ownership policy has been declared.

"To maximize Canadian ownership and management, participation to the extent that it is reasonable, predictable and negotiable in each case. The principal advantage would be a removal of the major potential cause of federal-provincial conflict, especially with British Columbia."

Did Mr. Horner make this up? He refers to the fact that British Columbia objected to the Foreign Investment Review Agency; he refers to the fact that British Columbia was the one they wanted to accommodate by changing the rules. When the minister was asked publicly about that, he said their only objection was not about the foreign investment but about the slowness in making decisions. Not once, Mr. Chairman, did British Columbia object to one sell-out or takeover that was in front of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Name one of the takeovers that you objected to.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You state that as a fact?

MR. BARRETT: That is my opinion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is that like the $3.20 gas? You said there were no objections.

MR. BARRETT: To my knowledge there is not one objection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To your knowledge Mexico is selling gas for $3.20, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier gets as animated when he starts talking about Petro-Canada again. What was the position of this government when you sold Panco Poultry to Cargill? What was your position on that? Were you in favour of that, Mr. Chairman, or did that happen beyond your nose? What about the bus line here in Victoria? Who sold that off to the Americans? Why, it was this government. These things took place under your administration with your approval, and you at the same time were protesting the role of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Is Mr. Horer's document incorrect? Is Mr. Horner stating in this document that there was no conflict with British Columbia over the Foreign Investment Review Agency? Was it just a matter of delays in decisions? That's not what's indicated in his document — not at all. The sell-out of British Columbia companies to foreign interests has gone on at an unparalleled rate under the Social Credit administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: Nonsense? Well, look at the record. You aided and abetted it. Who sold Panco to Cargill? You did. Who sold the bus lines to the Americans? You did.

MR. RITCHIE: Who wanted to buy Panco Poultry?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, my goodness gracious me! Listen to that, we bought it for about $5 million and the total assets were sold for $11 million in three years. Who would buy it, eh? That's really a loser. Two and a half times your

[ Page 385 ]

money in three years, but that's a loser. Well, you killed Swan Valley in a hurry. You sure did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, we'll deal with that. What are you saying about Swan Valley?

MR. BARRETT: You're asking who would want to buy Panco Poultry. You had a tough time getting rid of it to Cargill, didn't you? We'll cry crocodile tears for Cargill, because they got skinned, did they?

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that when these federal documents come to light, they deny that it is taking place, and when they're selling out British Columbia at a unprecedented rate, it's all a mistake — you make these decisions and you live by the decisions. In 1974 there were 3 foreign takeovers, 11 in 1975, 9 in 1976, 26 in 1977, and 39 in 1978 — 74 foreign takeovers! How many did you protest? To my knowledge, none. To my knowledge, not one protest was made against those 74 takeovers.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Prove me wrong. To my knowledge, there was not one single protest from the provincial government. We still don't know the Premier's position on Petro-Canada. As far as selling out British Columbia assets, he's the one who's led the way. We've had that explanation from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I would be pleased to hear, and to have tabled, any written submission that your government has made in opposition to any specific takeover. Would you do that? I'd like to have a copy tabled in this House of any specific submission you've made to the Foreign Investment Review Agency in protest to any one of those takeovers.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Come on there, Bill. You're the guy who's sitting there. You know all about what's happening.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I happen to tell the truth, and you don't.

MR. BARRETT: Sure. Like the seatbelts and the car, Bill — tell us all about it.

The Premier of the province finds it very, very convenient not to answer any of these questions. He gets up and talks in circles about other areas and doesn't answer other questions — for instance, little questions which have been on the order paper for a long time. Check the number of questions on the order paper which you haven't answered from your office. Could you do that?

I would like to know what the Premier's position is on foreign takeovers. Does he personally vet any of the takeovers presented before the Foreign Investment Review Agency? Has he given a report on every single one of those cases going before the Foreign Investment Review Agency? I'd like to know the answers. Do you personally vet all of those takeover applications before the Foreign Investment Review Agency?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly was aware of what was going on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You wrote down each one.

MR. BARRETT: I had the minister report to me....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll look. You didn't leave any records.

MR. BARRETT: Would you list with us the number of objections you or your minister have made to any one of these takeovers, and would you table those documents in this House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm very pleased that I have the opportunity to get up during the Premier's estimates to maybe clarify some of the somewhat misleading statements made by the Leader of the Opposition over the past months. I could even go back into the election campaign.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I could talk about uranium exploration too.

What he doesn't mention in this House is the fact that we must be competitive in the world marketplace when we talk about natural gas. He knows full well that back in the 1973-74 era we were getting something like 31 cents Canadian per 1,000 cubic feet. In 1973 we got 61 cents; in 1974 we got $1 — when I say "we," I'm referring to the administration at that time. In 1975 it was $1.40; in November 1975 it went to $1.60. You can see the escalation during that period.

The interesting part is that early in 1974 the federal government commenced to review energy pricing in Canada, not British Columbia — not the NDP administration, but the federal government. Why? Basically because the OPEC nations had decided to increase prices of their export oil, so the federal government figured that we had to look for a fair return for our source of energy.

The export pricing of natural gas has always been by the federal government: it’s always been within its jurisdiction. All price increases have been as a result of federal action. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the representation is made by British Columbia and by the other provinces to the NEB in regard to support or intervention on a proposed price increase for natural gas for export.

When we came into office, the prices, of course, kept going up in the world marketplace for energy. In 1976 it went to $1.80 Canadian; in January 1977 it went to $1.94; on September 21, 1977, it was $2.16. There were a number of increases between late 1975 and 1979 when we went to the polls. Since that time, there has been one increase to $2.30 U.S. for export gas to the United States.

My ministry has advised the NEB that they should have a constant review of that export gas price in order that we remain competitive, but that at the same time we get a fair return for our natural gas for export.

So it's nothing spectacular that the Leader of the Opposition did, other than to look at the marketplace. When he was in office, the market price indicated that they were getting something like $1 per 1,000 cubic feet. Because of increased costs of energy, of course, it goes higher. As a result, we must be aware of the increases on the world market and we must be able to respond by advising NEB what our position is and whether our support is there for increased prices. But you always must remain competitive.

[ Page 386 ]

Mr. Premier, I just wanted to mention something regarding the famous Mexican gas. I just want to read a newspaper article, Mr. Chairman, which says: "Social Credit Gutless Over Gas" — a statement by the Leader of the Opposition. Here is how he somewhat misleads the population during an election campaign and infers that this government has been doing something terribly wrong and that the people of the province are suffering.

In speaking to a partisan overflow crowd of about 1,200 people at a high school, a good crowd to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party, he states that the New Democratic Party, if elected on May 10, would not sell natural gas priced cheaper to the United States than that supplied from other countries. "'The selling of B.C. natural gas at a lower rate has cost $150 million in provincial revenues to British Columbians at the time when schools, hospitals, municipalities were feeling the pinch, the former Premier said in a rousing speech." Can you imagine a man standing up at a speech in front of 1,200 people and having the nerve to make statements that are basically not true, stating that we've lost $150 million in revenue, stating that our hospitals, our schools, our senior citizens are suffering because of it?

He continues: "Barrett said the price of $2.30 per 1,000 cubic feet charged by the province for natural gas is 90 cents less than the $3.20 currently charged by Mexico." Now just think for a minute. That's a statement to 1,200 people damning the provincial government, stating that people are suffering in this province, that revenues of $150 million are being lost and stating the Mexico is getting $3.20, when he knows full well that Mexico isn't getting $3.20. He knows that they made an approach to Schlesinger. He knows that Schlesinger said: "No way." He knows that and he knows that the natural gas pipeline is not into the United States as of this time.

"Barrett stated that the Social Credit government has sold out the province and it is time for the voters to say they are sick of it." That's the type of misleading statement about which every free-thinking British Columbian should stand up and ask that man how he has the audacity to make statements like that in an election campaign that he knows are not true. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that he said it all through my riding. I went around and I started at $100. I said at the places where I spoke, when I read that, that if he could prove me wrong, if he could prove that the Mexican people were getting $3.20 per 1,000 cubic feet, I would contribute $100 to his campaign fund. Every night I raised it $100. I got up to $2,000 to his campaign fund and I never heard a word. My little children asked me about it and said: "Dad, you can't afford $2,000." I said: "Son, don't worry about it, because he's never going to ask for it." But that's the type of statement that was being made.

Just to carry on in regard to that, Mr. Chairman, I further point out statements made in regard to energy policy by the Leader of the Opposition. People must wonder what the alternatives are because in another statement it is: "No More Dams, NDP Would Insist." No more dams in this province. If you can't have the sources of energy in this province, how can this province develop? How can we support industry, trade and commerce? How can we supply power to our hospitals and to our people?

These statements are made as outright blank statements. I could accept his rationale if he said: "We would look seriously before ever making a decision for another dam in the province of British Columbia. We would not do it unless we were positively assured that there was need for additional energy or we explored all the renewable sources of energy like solar, like wind, and like tidal power, and we looked at our natural gas reserves and looked at our coal reserves." But no, it's a blank statement: "No more dams in British Columbia." A statement like that, I think, tries to mislead the audience with statements that the local people would like to hear because it affects them personally if such a development goes ahead.

I just think it's wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to make statements such as he did during the last campaign. He made a statement in the campaign — again in my riding — that he was absolutely opposed to uranium mining: "I've been opposed to uranium mining for 20 years, ever since I came into this House." Absolutely definitely opposed.

MR. STUPICH: Whose estimates are we on now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about energy, Mr. Member, about which we've had to listen to the Leader of the Opposition wander all over the ballpark.

I would like to state, for the information of the House, that while the Leader of the Opposition was Premier of this province, and while he was going around the province making statements that in no way was there ever any thought of uranium mining in this province, it's strange that in 1974 a permit was issued to the Power Nuclear Corp., a Japanese firm, to carry out exploration west of Beaverdell, in my riding. Then he wanders around, and when the press informed him of this after we did a little bit of research, he said: "Well, that's just an excuse. I never saw it. It was something to do with the bureaucracy." Whatever the answer was, it was pretty vague.

Never yet has he admitted that, yes, it wasn't something that we'd started in this province; it was going on while he was Premier of this province. At least this government has taken steps to do a thorough study before we allow uranium mining to proceed, a thorough study to make an informed decision as to whether or not it goes ahead.

The other thing is in regard to the statement he made in this House: "Ninety percent of the oil and natural gas is owned by the private companies." He said that. That may well be the case, because I haven't done the research to find whether it's 89 percent, or 90 percent, or 91 percent, or whatever. But if he's making that statement, which would imply that they have free title to it at no cost, I wonder how we collected the $227 million out of BCPC. I wonder about the bonus bids we get, when they apply for the permits to explore and to develop, if it's all free. Where do we get those revenues? I don't think he can answer that.

MR. COCKE: Mostly from natural gas, Jim. Why don't you sit down?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, I've had to listen to your leader for half the afternoon. I'm speaking on the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order....

Interjection.

[ Page 387 ]

MR. COCKE: That minister is threatening over there that it had better be a point of order. It is a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The point of order is this: the minister is not speaking on the Premier's estimates. He's rambling all over the place, wasting the time of this House. When can we get on with the business of this House, which is the Premier's estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster raises a somewhat valid point. Both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition have engaged in very wide-ranging debates, as is traditional under the Premier's estimates.

The Chair will, of course, carry on the role of the Chair. In the meantime, however, the members themselves must use some discretion in what they wish to discuss.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to continue my point of order, would it be within the realm of reason if I were to debate, now, the Minister of Energy, or the Minister of Mines, or any of the backbencher's estimates? Because that's precisely what we're doing. I could get up now and criticize the member for North Peace River, but it's not his estimate time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. members, debate on the Premier's estimates has traditionally been wide-ranging. The points being covered now have already been discussed by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I apologize to the member for New Westminster if he felt I was straying beyond the bounds of the debate. However, you will recall that the Leader of the Opposition covered all these points. The Premier also made a comment, inviting me, as Minister of Energy, to assist the Leader of the Opposition in understanding just how effective this government was in the field of energy. That's what I'm attempting to do.

I wanted to say, in regard to BCPC, about which the Leader of the Opposition said: "That vehicle has achieved $227 million Well, I'm the minister responsible for that agency, as you well know. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that if it wasn't for that agency, we wouldn't have the $227 million revenue for the province of British Columbia. Well, you know that's not right. Mr. Member. You know very well it's a tax-collecting marketing agency which assesses levies. It buys the gas and gets the revenues.

MR. COCKE: How did they do it before? It assesses nothing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, you know full well you can do it that way, you can go through a royalty system; you can go through taxation: you can go through anything. You know that. You know you didn't invent the wheel, Mr. Member. You know it's a vehicle to be used, and you know it darned well.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You know who set it up? The people from Westcoast Transmission set it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we bring the Chair somewhere into the discussion? It would greatly assist Hansard.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Because the Premier invited me to participate in the debate, I wanted to comment that BCPC is not the be-all and end-all. It's a vehicle and it operates well, but I'm suggesting to you that it is not the be-all and end-all as a tax collection agency in the province of British Columbia, with respect to natural gas.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clear up some of the somewhat misleading statements that have been made regarding revenues from natural gas exports, BCPC and other issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised. I could go on to other assets that party purchased, such as Panco and Swan Valley Foods. but I won't do that. I'd like to save those for my Ministry of Agriculture and other things to do with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. HOWARD: Last week, Mr. Chairman, the Premier had the opportunity to, I understand, visit Ottawa and meet with the Prime Minister of Canada and then came back home. Yesterday, when the estimates for the Premier's office were called and he rose in the House, I, for one, anticipated that we would have the normal full, detailed report of what it was the Premier discussed with the Prime Minister, what responses he got from the Prime Minister and what expectations he can hold out to the people of B.C.

We do have, so we are told, a responsible government a government responsible to the Legislature. I had, as I said, thought the Premier would give us an account of what it was he discussed. He didn’t, and I, for one, consider it to be, if nothing else, lacking in propriety and lacking in respect for the Legislature for him to rise in the House in such an offhand way and make general, arm-waving comments with nothing specific, except the reference the Premier made to the interest in offshore resources. Beyond that there was not a whisper.

We have some very deep concerns on the north coast about such matters as coastal transportation, and I would have thought that the Premier, with his interest in coastal transportation matters and his concern for the north coast, would have at least had the sense to discuss that matter with Prime Minister Clark and to come back and explain to the Legislature why it is that on the north coast we are denied adequate and full transportation, and why it is that — and I take these figures to be correct because they were enunciated by a federal cabinet minister during the campaign — the federal government, when it pulled out of the coastal shipping field, made an agreement with the province and has paid, at least up until the spring of this year, some $17 million to the provincial government in lieu of subsidizing Northland Navigation. The Premier shakes his head, and I take him to mean that there was no $17 million payment. The former Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. who comes from Skeena, did make that statement and did use that figure, and I have no way of knowing whether it is accurate or otherwise, and neither do people on the north coast.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

[ Page 388 ]

What we do know is that we don't have a satisfactory coastal transportation system in effect, and we do know that there is an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government with respect to that matter. We don't really care whose responsibility it is in a constitutional way. We're not really interested in being pushed off with "it's a federal responsibility," or "no, it's now provincial because the feds have pulled out," or anything of that sort. What we are concerned about — and this is on the whole coastal area — is a coastal shipping facility.

There is an undeniable responsibility — in my mind on the part of the Premier to have at least raised that question with Prime Minister Clark. We don't know from the report the Premier gave to the House yesterday whether he did or not. We don't know what his view is about the potential of an oil port in Kitimat, a subject that's currently in a valid application forum before the National Energy Board. We know that the province has a concern and an interest in that matter....

MR. KEMPF: Are you in favour of that?

MR. HOWARD: Well, my friend is asking me questions now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Omineca is obviously treating me as if I were a cabinet minister.

What we would like to know on the north coast and in Kitimat is what the position of the provincial government is with respect to the proposal of the consortium of Kaiser and Ashland Oil with regard to an oilport. It is a subject that concerns the federal, government as well. I think he displayed a lack of concern, if nothing else, when he did mention this yesterday. Whether he discussed it with Prime Minister Clark we don't know, but he should have given some indication to the House that it was a subject matter about which he had some interest.

We're interested also in the question of fisheries; that's a matter that was raised yesterday as an aside when the Premier was talking. He made some general reference to it. It's a subject matter, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Premier should have dealt with. It was a pretty skimpy report the Premier made about his discussions at the federal level with regard to these important matters. The only one that he had any interest in, or exhibited any interest in, was the general question of offshore resources.

I must express my dismay at the reference the Premier made during the election campaign. He called members of the NDP national socialists.

MR. BRUMMET: No. You're making it up; it was never intended like that.

MR. HOWARD: My friend opposite may not appreciate that it's a matter of some concern or dismay. It was to me. I know it touches a sore point with members opposite, Mr. Chairman, because they are embarrassed for their Premier. That's why they're sensitive about this. If he was a man, if he had a little bit of intestinal fortitude in him — I notice he's left the chamber now — he would have had the decency as a human being to have stood up in this House yesterday when so invited by the Leader of the Opposition, not to apologize to those of us who are here, but to apologize to the hundreds and hundreds of citizens in this province whom he offended by that remark. That's what he should have done.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: My friend opposite seems to think that the Premier should not have apologized — that's his opinion.

MR. BRUMMET: Not for what you make up.

MR. HOWARD: It's my opinion that he should have apologized, because he did offend the sensitivities of hundreds of people in this province. He hasn't yet indicated to them.... All that happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier made a mistake, made an error, didn't appreciate what he was saying, and then was either too churlish or childish to admit it.

But the opportunity was afforded to him yesterday. He didn't take advantage of it as an honourable gentleman would. Because he didn't, we got another insight into why the level of debate in this chamber degenerates as it does. The Premier is one person who should lead the way in debate. He should set the tone in debate. He should be the type of person who elevates the level of conversation in this Legislature, not one who drags it down and degrades it.

I want to make a comment with respect to something the Premier was involved with in Smithers during the campaign. It has to do with a facility for elderly citizens called Bulkley Lodge, an intermediate-care facility. Bulkley Lodge operates under a society, and it has prepared its budget earlier in the year. They submitted it under the Hospital Programs Act. At that time 47 residents were there, and they prepared the budget at a $40 per day rate. When Bulkley Lodge filled its full 50-resident capacity, they examined the rate again and it came out to $38.32. It's still full and there is a waiting list.

The department came back to the Bulkley Lodge directors and said they couldn't have $40 or $38.32. They could have $30.10. The board of directors and the administrator felt that amount was insufficient, and that if they had to accept the $30.10 per diem rate, they would either have to operate at a deficit of some $11,000 or $12,000 a month, or lay off five positions. They raised the matter during the course of the election. I was involved in it to an extent; I sent a telegram to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The Minister of Agriculture at that time, Mr. Shelford, was also involved in the discussions with the Bulkley Lodge people.

The Premier was in Smithers on May 3, and met with a group of people in a shopping centre. He was there for about an hour or two. The chairman of the board of directors of the Bulkley Lodge facility and the administrator met with the Premier and told him what was necessary for them. They relayed to me that the Premier said to them that he would have to talk to Mr. Shelford first, and that he would have that discussion with Mr. Shelford that afternoon on the plane when he went to Terrace. The following morning, May 4, Mr. Shelford phoned Mr. Goodacre, who

[ Page 389 ]

was the chairman of the board, and said: "It's all fixed; you've got nothing to worry about. The Premier has authenticated it; he's approved it; you'll get your $38.32.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what he said?

MR. HOWARD: That's what he said to Mr. Goodacre.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Shelford phoned on the morning of Friday, May 4. He told Mr. Goodacre that the Premier had approved the $38.32 per diem rate, and they could go ahead and bill the Hospital Programs at the $38.32 rate, which they proceeded to do. In fact, they submitted the bill for the previous month, April — billings are done on a monthly basis — at $38.32.

On May 17 they received a letter from somebody by the name of Kelly, who I understand is in charge of the long-term care program, or one aspect of it. The letter from this Kelly person — Mrs. Kelly, I believe — reached Smithers on May 28 and said that they could not accept the $38.32, and they were only going to pay at the rate of $30.10. It was at that point that the officials of Bulkley Lodge got in touch with me and asked me if I would try to deal with the matter — as a matter of fact it was just last week that I was talking with them about this — and ask what went wrong.

What happened? Why don't the people who are in the long-term care program, in the public service part of the Ministry of Health, know the commitment that was made by the Premier? Why don't they know about the commitment that the Minister of Agriculture made as a result of his discussions with the Premier? When the Minister of Agriculture said that the Premier promised faithfully that they would get their money, was that a breakdown in communication? I see the Premier looking askance at me and doubting what I'm saying. The facts of the matter are there. The Bulkley Lodge people were promised during the election campaign by a minister of the Crown, on behalf of the Premier, as a result of discussions with the Premier, that they would be able to bill at $38.32 a day; they are now told by the civil service that they can't, that they're only going to pay $30.10 a day and that's it.

As I said, if that's the case I would take it to be a breakdown in communications someplace, and I would appreciate it very much if the Premier would tell me just what the situation is so that I can get in touch with the people up there and say: "Look, it's a mistake. The Premier has straightened it all out — it's just that the word didn't get through to the people in the staff." To do otherwise at this stage means either that.... Bulkley Lodge, having to pay attention to the needs of the older people who are living in that facility — their medical needs, their emotional needs — are not going to lay people off and thus impair the level of attention provided to those older folks, pioneers in this land, and they are going to operate at a running deficit of $11,000 or $12,000 per month. How long they can continue to do that nobody knows. I would certainly appreciate having an answer from the Premier about that one.

In another commentary the Premier told us yesterday that he is desirous to resolve Canada's balance of payments situation, in which we are running at a deficit position. I applaud him for that attitude, but would point out that one of the reasons we are in a deficit position, in terms of our balance of payments, insofar as British Columbia is concerned, is that for many, many years we have been shipping out of the province raw, or near raw, materials and importing back again the finished product, and that contributes to a deficit position on balance of payments. We have been shipping out copper concentrates by the ton to Japan to smelt and we import back again the copper tubing and plate and wire and whatever it is that they produce and smelt and refine over there. We lose on that position, Mr. Chairman, because we know full well that in a mining operation all we employ are workers underground in the mine or open pit, and we employ workers in a concentrator, in a mill, and then we dump the concentrates on a boat and we ship them over to some other country and they employ the workers in the smelter and in the refining processes and in the manufacturing processes. They add that work value attached to it to the price of the product, and we buy it back again. We ship out raw logs to other countries — shipping out jobs....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many?

MR. HOWARD: How many? Six. How stupid can you get?

We ship raw logs out of this land, and we have in the past. That's shipping out jobs. We ship out raw fish in the round, and that ships out jobs. When we ship out raw materials and bring back the finished product — the manufactured product — we are on the losing side of the balance figures.

So while I say I applaud the Premier's resolve to deal with the question of balance of payments, I say to him, Mr. Chairman, that the way to deal with that resolve is to promote secondary and manufacturing industries in this province so that we get the jobs, we get the employment and we sell the finished products on world markets. That's what you need to do. If you are not prepared to go ahead and do that, then all this talk about resolving Canada's balance of payments and the desirability to do it insofar as the provincial government is able to is just a lot of froth and foam, and ten years from now will still be talking about the same sort of thing. that’s the way to resolve balance of payments. I wish the Premier would have dealt with that question when he spoke the other day. I wish he'd expanded upon it, outlined how he intends to approach it, and not just said that he has a concern about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition, as soon as I got up to my feet to talk about some of the statements that he made during the Premier's estimates, saw fit to leave the House. But I can understand it, Mr. Chairman, because what we've witnessed here in this Legislature again this afternoon is the leader standing up and making statements which have no basis in fact whatsoever. When his errors are pointed out to him, he says: "Oh, in my opinion...." He's done this for years in this province. He did it during the election campaign and he's noted for that. The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition has no conscience. He doesn't have any responsibility for what he says and takes no responsibility for what he says. It's been proven time and time again. He'll say anything to anybody if he thinks he can get away with it with no basis in fact. He's been caught

[ Page 390 ]

time and time again and he just sort of smiles and says, "Ho-hum, well, I thought it was that way," or something like that.

We had two examples of it here this afternoon. Before I start talking about what the Leader of the Opposition says, I want to say that we've just had an exercise in the socialist view of economics. It's very simple: ab. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you shut up a minute while I'm speaking?

MR. BARBER: If you were saying anything, I would.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, my friend — why don't you keep your mouth quiet and we'll all think what we do of you. You don't have to open it and remove all doubt, okay?

What we've had is a very simplistic view of a very complicated situation. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that this complicated situation existed while the socialists were government and they did absolutely nothing except drive investment and jobs out of the province. Now that they're in opposition again they've got all the answers, but they did absolutely nothing when they were government.

The Leader of the Opposition stood in this Legislature and said that the present British Columbia government opposed the Foreign Investment Review Act. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute falsehood! In our endeavour to create jobs and to hold existing jobs in British Columbia, we became frustrated with the length of time that the bureaucracy in Ottawa was taking to process proposals for investment money that wanted to come into the province of British Columbia.

We did not sit idly by; we went to Ottawa and said: "There is no reason that it takes six months to process an application for somebody who wants to invest money in British Columbia and create jobs." Six and eight months it was taking, so we went to Ottawa and said: "Look, cut down your decision-making time. There is no earthly reason why it should take this amount of time to process a simple application."

What we did do was cut down the small ones to two weeks and the major ones from six months or eight months to two months. Now when somebody wants to invest money, they want a decision. Markets change; attitudes of directors change. That's the opposition that we gave to the Foreign Investment Review Act people in Ottawa. We did not say we were against the Foreign Investment Review Act.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I do want to point something out to you. We are talking of a three-year total of 74 acquisition cases and 57 new businesses — a very small total compared to an average of well over 10,000 new businesses being established in British Columbia under the Social Credit government in the last three and a half years.

We're talking about just slightly over 100 new businesses when there were 12,355 new British Columbia businesses established in 1976, 13,209 new companies registered in 1977, and 15,215 in 1978.

MR. MACDONALD: Those were paper companies.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Paper companies? I want to tell you, my friend, people do not come here and establish paper companies if they don't intend on doing business. The results show in job creation and investment. I've got those figures as well, but you don't want to pay any attention to the figures. All you want to do is follow your leader, stand up here and make statements that have no basis in fact whatsoever. When told that he was making a mistake, he said: " Oh, that was my opinion. That was my opinion." He stood in this Legislature this afternoon and said British Columbia did not oppose one single FIRA application.

So he gets up and he makes these statements. He has no basis on which to make the statement. He doesn't make any memorandum. He hasn't done any research. He throws up these balloons and expects us to do his research for him. As soon as we catch him in his falsehood, his false statements, he says: "In my opinion....” Then he continues with that old socialist twist of turning things around and says: "File the documents in the House." You'd think that we were the opposition. We have to do your homework for you. You stand up and make the statements, and we have to ask you to prove them. That's exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is doing. He's made all kinds of statements like that.

I don't know how anybody could pay any attention to the Leader of the Opposition, because he's been caught time and time again, not only in this Legislature but out there where the people are, making statements which have no basis in fact and which he can't prove. When caught, he smiles and says: "Well, that was my opinion." That man didn't last in government, because the people didn't have any faith in him, and that's why he's back in opposition where he belongs. The people have lost faith in him. Anybody who is supposed to add some soundness to the political life of British Columbia.... If they listen to what he says, no wonder they don't have a good opinion of politicians in British Columbia. No wonder the people out there in the real world don't have a good opinion of politicians.

MR. LEA: Who says they don't?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't and you know it. I don't have to tell you. You know the opinion the general population has of politicians. It's because of your leader making statements which have no basis in fact; that's why. It's no wonder that politics in British Columbia has reached the low ebb it has.

MR. LEA: Under your government.

MR. CHAIRMAN; Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's not under our government. It's because of your leader standing and making statements which have no basis in fact, standing in this Legislature and going out there in the real world and making statements which he cannot back up.

MR. BARBER: Where are the secret police?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If we hadn't been opposition and stopped your secret police, you'd have gone ahead with it.

[ Page 391 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You laugh now. It's just like you standing in this Legislature and talking about the great British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. We know why you set up the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. You wanted to take over the petroleum industry in British Columbia. You built up a bureaucracy — which cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds of thousands of dollars — which we had to unwind when we became government. All that the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation has ever done is collect revenue from the sale of natural gas; that's all it's done. You go out and try to mislead the people that it's a great, big corporation and that it's made hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Tell them the truth, my friend. Tell them that you set it up to take over the petroleum industry, that in supposedly one of the worst energy crises — supposed energy crisis — this world has ever known you drove the petroleum industry out of British Columbia. Mr. Member for Vancouver East, you left a string of ghost towns behind you that would be the envy of the motion picture industry.

You would think that we had sold out the entire province of British Columbia to foreign investment. There were 74 acquisitions. Nobody says that if foreign companies had not come in and saved these jobs in British Columbia the jobs might have been left. You're talking about foreign exchange, my friend. You never stopped to realize that if these companies had not had some injection of foreign capital — which, by the way, brings with it a market — hundreds and hundreds of jobs would have been lost to British Columbia. You stand up and shout about jobs. I'll tell you the story about jobs. I can hardly wait for my estimates to come up. I’ll tell you the story about unemployment.

The amazing thing is that here is the Leader of the Opposition saying in this Legislature that, oh, we shouldn't have any foreign investment. What did he do when he was Premier? He travelled around the world trying to get foreign investment to come here, to get the British to build an oil refinery here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, is there some difference between socialist money and free-enterprise money? Does the money have to come from a socialist country?

HON. MR. CURTIS: What about Volvo?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about the Toyota plant? He wanted foreign investment here, and because he didn't get it, now he's jealous. Indeed, people do have confidence in British Columbia. People are again investing in British Columbia, and there are jobs in British Columbia for our young people.

He doesn't talk about the new companies that have been established here in the last three years — 24 in 1976, 11 in 1977, and 22 in 1978. He doesn't talk about the new investment and relate that to the number of extra-provincial companies coming in to establish manufacturing plants, service industries, hotels — everything to make the economy of the province go. So we're comparing 57 new businesses established by foreign capital.... I want you to pay attention, Mr. Chairman, to the figures. We’ re talking about 24 companies in 1976 versus 657 new extra-provincial companies established by investment from within Canada coming to British Columbia.

In 1977 we're talking about 11 versus 745 new extra-provincial companies formed with Canadian money coming from other provinces into the great province of British Columbia, to provide jobs and get our economy going and restore confidence and provide taxes to pay for the social services the people of this province enjoy. In 1978 we're looking at 22 versus 1,075 extra-provincial companies established in the province. So what are we talking about? We're talking about peanuts. Yet the Leader of the Opposition stands up in this Legislature and tries to give the impression to the people in the province that we were selling British Columbia down the drain. The other thing he doesn't talk about is the fact that, of these acquisitions, a number of them were simply transfers from one parent company to another: but they show up under acquisition. I've got the details; I'll tell you about it.

But he stands in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, and says we didn't oppose any. I’ll tell you, we opposed them. You better believe we opposed some of the companies who were coming in here. We opposed them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I'll name them. I'll also file the documents in due course. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I didn't expect to be debating my estimates under the Premier's estimates. I'll name the names, and I'll get the documents.

MR. MACDONALD: Go ahead. Do it now. Don't wait for spring, do it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Nobody seems to realize this is not the Premier's.... Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that all FIRA applications go through the Ministry of Economic Development and not through the Premier's office. Yet it was the Leader of the Opposition — because he can't find anything else to talk about in the Premier's estimates about how our Premier is leading this province — who has to bring up the Minister of Energy and Petroleum Resources and has to bring up my estimates. He goes all around to all the other ministers because he has nothing concrete to oppose our leader on. So he skirts all around to all the other ministries and tries to bring up something to oppose our Premier on during his estimates.

But nobody seems to consider the negotiations that have gone on, and how we have preserved existing jobs in British Columbia; how we have modified the applications to make it better for British Columbia. No one says anything about that. No, just the glib old phrase that we're trying to sell British Columbia down the drain. The problem over there is that the economy of British Columbia is growing. and strong; and they're jealous. They don't want British Columbia to grow and be strong because the people of this province realize they were the ones who killed the strong and growing economy. They don't want us to be able to stand in this Legislature and say that under Social Credit

[ Page 392 ]

policies the economy of this province is strong and growing. We've been able to do it. We've been able to cope with all this additional work while we have spent untold hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours trying to unwind the mess they left in practically every department of government.

I don't care whether you talk about the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Mines, or the Ministry of Lands — you name it — we've had to spend thousands and thousands of hours trying to unwind the mess you left, and at the same time build confidence and cope with the people who want to come into British Columbia and invest their money so that there will be jobs, and more jobs, for future generations. That's what we have done.

MR. BARBER: Now tell us why you sold Gray Line to the Americans.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, my friend, if I were you I wouldn't talk too much about the economy. I don't think you've ever had to go out and earn a day's wages in your life. So if I were you I'd just sit there and be quiet. The day that you have to go and answer to your banker — the day that you are responsible in this province for a few jobs, jobs out there in the private sector, not living off the public trough — then you stand up in this Legislature, and you start talking about economics. I'll tell you, you've got so many armchair specialists over there that I'm sick and tired of it. I'm sick and tired of listening to you armchair specialists!

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not wild. I'll tell you, you're enough to make anybody wild.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

Hon. minister, listening to the debate, and assuming that all debate is directed to the Chair, the Chair's ears were burned when you mentioned banking. So I thought perhaps if someone misinterpreted that you were making those remarks to the Chair, then, reading Hansard, it would be more appropriate if I could just channel your direction through the Chair. Please continue.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear anything about spanking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No — banking. It's with a "b." Reviewing Hansard tomorrow you may find it rather amusing. But please make sure that you address your remarks through the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, back to the facts.... [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to continue, let's get back to the facts regarding FIRA: in 1976 there were 25 acquisitions and the provincial government opposed three. Now can the Leader of the Opposition stand up now and tell us that we didn't oppose any? Can he continue to stand in this Legislature and make glib statements with no basis of fact whatsoever? Call him back in so I can ask him where he got his facts. Are you going to allow him as leader of your party to stand up and continue to make statements without any basis of fact? Well, I'll tell you we're not going to sit idly by and let him off with it.

In 1977 there were 18 acquisitions and 2 opposed; in 1978 there were 3 acquisitions and 1 opposed. Out of the 37, 16 were incidental, which means there was really no sell-out; it was just a change from parent No. 1 to parent No. 2. Now those are the facts, Mr. Chairman. But I see that the Leader of the Opposition cannot sit in the House and listen to the facts. He will come back in here and continue to make statements which are completely misleading and then run out of the House and hide from the facts.

I say again, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the Leader of the Opposition is going around to every minister in this government is because he can't talk, sit down and debate solid policies with our Premier and our leader.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked a number of questions and dealt with a number of areas, and one of them was to do with the Bulkley Lodge. While I do not recall a specific instance, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has assured me that he has set up a meeting with the administrator and the chairman of the board of Bulkley Lodge to deal with their problems. He assures me that it's not an easy discussion because it has to do with different levels of funding for care. The Health minister will probably be able to bring a report back to the Legislature.

The member asked about transportation and ferries on the coast. I know that member is aware of two things. One is the unequal treatment that the coastal systems get in this country in the level of support by the federal government. I'm sure that when he was a federal member he fought that.

He also recognizes that British Columbia had never before achieved a commitment from the government of Canada in principle that they owed support to British Columbia's coastal ferry system — that is, B.C. Ferries. The withdrawal of the federal government support from some private systems was not because they had come to an agreement with British Columbia; it had been withdrawn and was closed for some months. British Columbia, though, had a long-standing case before the government that our B.C. ferries should receive equal treatment from the government of Canada to that received by those ferry systems operating on the eastern coast. We wanted, for the first time, to get what had eluded other governments: an agreement in principle that would set an agreement and guarantee that the same principles would apply on the west coast that applied in the east. That was the first thing to get. The amounts of dollars, of course, from the first contract will be up to succeeding governments — our government is one, having succeeded ourselves — to make sure of getting those benefits and that they are equal.

So the two aren't related, but what is related is getting a first-ever commitment to the B.C. ferry system, which British Columbia has carried on its own for a number of years. Our provincial government provides out of general tax revenue a subsidy approaching $50 million per annum with a cost-price increase. Now what we have is a mileage agreement for certain existing ferry routes in the B.C. ferry system.

[ Page 393 ]

The B.C. Ferry Corporation directors along the coast, knowing they have a formula from the provincial government, utilize that money to try as a province to fill the needs of coastal transportation. It may not be quick enough and it may not meet everyone's expectation of what would be ideal in transportation, but certainly it's an improvement.

Recent announcements by the board of directors mean that additional service will be provided along the coast, particularly on the middle and north coast. We have the announcement of the expanded ferry service that goes up to Prince Rupert in remodeling the Queen of Surrey; we have the announcement of putting the Prince George on the Charlottes. So we have a doubling of capacity in Prince Rupert, and a doubling of capacity with the bringing on line of the Queen of Surrey. That is better, faster service. It's a nice vessel, and I hope to be able to take that trip someday and have the opportunity of visiting the crew and talking with them and inspecting the vessel. I've never had the opportunity of taking the total trip, and I look forward to it. Those things are happening.

What the member must realize is that that first commitment in principle ever involves existing routes of the B.C. Ferries system. That's where the mileage subsidy was being paid. Now we have the principle established that the west coast gets equal treatment with the east, which was not the case before. I believe every government fought to get that recognition; we were fortunate to be the one to achieve it. I think there's an automatic cost price increase in this, so the subsidy on those mileage routes, starting out at $8 million, is probably up to still less than $10 million per annum. The east coast is getting somewhere around $120 million, and it's probably much higher than that, for subsidization of its routes.

Mr. Member, having sought equal treatment as a B.C. member in Ottawa, along with people from all parties, you more than anyone would recognize that getting the agreement in principle was a major victory for British Columbia. Now that the principle has been established we can deal with amounts. We've got the agreement in principle; for any agreement that's a major start, and we've achieved that.

As I say, in the British Columbia formula in the subsidy we provide, which includes that amount — but substantially, of course, the bulk of the money comes from British Columbia — the directors of the Ferry Corporation have a mandate. We have a director from Prince Rupert, one from the middle coast, one from the north coast, and one from the northern end of Vancouver Island.

MR. LEA: They've been overruled.

HON. MR. BENNETT: These directors have, in my view, provided sound judgment. They certainly have not been overruled, as the member for Prince Rupert says, by the provincial cabinet.

MR. LEA: Yes, they have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They certainly have not. I've had good discussions, any time they ever appeared before cabinet, and I know the members well. We've had good discussions. They made a decision just recently to deal with routes. Certainly they just recently made a decision. They have, I believe, an improving position in British Columbia.

I believe that the ferries have gone through some difficult years. I believe the morale, the service and all aspects of the system will continue to improve.

But believe me, Mr. Member, the federal government, if there's going to be equity in all parts of Canada, particularly in coastal transportation, certainly can take the next step beyond the agreement in principle that we were able to achieve and now bring some equity in the amount of dollars. Our province bears a burden that no other collection of provinces bears in the cost of coastal transportation. British Columbia as a single province is bearing a cost that collectively other provinces on the east coast are not, so it's important to recognize that.

I was distressed during the federal campaign to hear some people who were members from that area trying to say that somehow the British Columbia Airport Assistance Fund that we set up was part of that agreement. That wasn't true. British Columbia moved into upgrading small airports because we recognized that for people in remote communities quite often access is a matter not only of distance but of time, and people would fly. I can remember our government bringing in, in its first term, another innovative step that had never been done by any other government in British Columbia, and that was to move into an area where the federal government had the responsibility — that is, providing airport facilities. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said he didn't care whose responsibility it was, but to get it done. That's what we did. We moved in and said: "We're going to supplement. We don't want the federal government withdrawing what little aid for those communities there is, but we're going to supplement, and we're going to develop airport facilities in this province."

Now for some of the urban MLAs, perhaps, it is boring, and they yawn because they don't have that transportation problem that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) finds so boring for us to be discussing. But for those in more remote communities that don't have the easy access that he has, it is important. The member for Skeena knows that those airports are important. The people of Alert Bay for whom we put airport facilities in, helped them with their airport, they know it is important. They certainly know it up in the northern end of Vancouver Island. They certainly even know it in major communities such as Nanaimo, in which we put in lighting and navigational lanes. They know it over in Powell River, They know it, of course, in the constituency of Omineca, in which a number of communities have received this airport assistance.

What it does is provide airstrips that can not only serve the provincial air ambulance service, but also serve the private craft that bring people in and out. They also lay the basis for providing third-level regularly scheduled airline service. These are the things where government can play a leadership role, and the private sector follows.

We heard announcements recently of third-level service being extended and them bringing additional air equipment into British Columbia — Dash-7s, large capacity: STOL aircraft, short takeoff and landing — that is very useful. All of these things are starting to take place because there is an opportunity now with facilities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster is making some comment, obviously not related to

[ Page 394 ]

government business, but it seems to make him very happy, whatever it is. I think he was worried about the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer). It's funny that you should bring up the name, because the minister is one who has been one of the prime movers of developing air transportation. It has long been an interest of the Minister of Education, recognizing the need of these people.

You know, for some members in this House it was a major step to take the bus from Point Grey to run in Burnaby, but for many people it is a major step to be able to get access from Burns Lake, Houston, Fort Nelson or from other northern communities. It's more than a highway; it's air transport.

Again, we've put more money into airport facilities, and we have a budget that is larger than the federal government's budget for Canada — or was larger. This year it would be very similar to what they are providing. But the budget last year will give you some indication of the type of spending that is taking place, what we have been able to do for many — navigational aids and safety equipment, lighting. It's very important. For the member for Skeena, who opened this area of questioning, I am sure it would be important.

He tried to relate, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, these questions of my recent visit to the new Prime Minister — Prime Minister Clark — and some of his cabinet and B.C. cabinet ministers. Obviously it was impossible, in the short time that was available — although we did have about four hours with the Prime Minister and some other time with ministers.... All issues were taken in written form and left. Part of the discussions were how to speed up discussions. We covered the areas you mentioned, the concerns you mentioned, ongoing negotiations, areas that were important, and how we could have the type of ministerial contact, minister to minister, that will make things work.

I think you would agree with me that British Columbia is being first off the mark to make sure that our provincial issues don't have to wait until they bubble up through the bureaucracy, which you know so well in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman — through you to the member for Skeena. We wanted to bring them to the political attention not only of the Prime Minister, but of the various ministers. That has been done, and that means transportation; that means all of the resources. It means issues to do with every aspect of the social service agreements we have or would have with the government of Canada. All of these areas were discussed or placed in written form, not only with the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Clark, but with the various ministers. No area was left neglected. The difficulty was not to overwhelm the ministers of the new government with the number of things that we had on the table.

We tried to priorize them and give them some sense of priority, so some of them had a sense of urgency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's one that was of urgent discussion and should have priority of discussion. It's a matter of being able to have the new ministers have these in front of them so that they can have the briefing and collect the information so that they can have the discussions.

We all know, and some members over there knew, what it was like to be a new government. We know the difficult period they are going through. That's why it was important that we had first crack to make sure that British Columbia not only wasn't neglected, but we are probably going to get priority now in being first dealt with. That was the reason for pressing to have not only existing agreements reviewed but new negotiations and existing negotiations concluded.

Some of them have to do, as I said, with such things as construction projects in which federal government participation is required. All of us talk about trying to create employment. We know that construction is one of the areas in which we have a particular problem: I think it's in all our interests that a public facility shouldn't wait if one government — where a number of governments are involved — can do everything to expedite it. That has to do with trade and convention centres and stadiums, whether they are in Vancouver or Victoria. We know that these public facilities serve more than a single use and serve a large number of people. They have become a fact of life in major population areas. There's a demand for them.

We also know that in each of these areas they provide a large amount of economic activity beyond entertainment. Stadium facilities are used for conventions and other things. The trade centre is important. The convention site is important in an economic way as well. What could be important is an early start, not only in saving construction costs from inflation because of later starting dates, but also in getting the planners and others working. That was another matter of urgency in all areas where there could be capital construction projects. These were placed on an urgent basis with the new government. It's important to the people who would like to be working.

That's why it's important that these things take place. That's why it's important that the B.C. Ferry Corporation placed those large ferry contracts some time ago to get employment for those who would work in the shipyards both in Vancouver and Victoria. This helped them. It's helped those areas where government is doing capital construction, whether it's fixed or whether it's in transportation. Those were some of the things that we dealt with with the new government and Prime Minister Clark before he left for Tokyo, Mr. Member.

You also mentioned the pipeline. The government of British Columbia will be reviewing that, but the trouble is that some of the pipeline proposals have been on-again, off-again. I would say, first of all, that whether there's a national or a continental energy policy would be up to the government of Canada. There are a number of proposals before them. It would be very costly to study them all before they become firm proposals. The one that has stayed on the table the longest that would affect British Columbia is, I guess, the Alcan one. The one you referred to has been an on-again, off-again proposal, drawn and withdrawn. But I think the first thing the government of British Columbia should do is to see which one the government of Canada favours, if they are going to try and ask us to be a part of any of the projects.

We would be prepared to consult and do these studies. Some preliminary studies to do with all of them have been done, but not to the point where many of the statements made could be checked out or many of the considerations to do with the environment could be dealt with. But the government of British Columbia is keeping a watch. We

[ Page 395 ]

now have the new government in Ottawa, and it would be interesting to see what their position is on this and what energy policy they have in this area. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) might properly deal with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who wants to deal with fisheries, but I've told him that it was put on as an urgent item. The details might more properly be dealt with in the minister's estimates. But we're not neglecting the situation. That deals with the bulk of the questions that were asked by the member.

MR. LEA: I'm generally disappointed in the Premier's remarks so far in this debate. It's sort of a prattling on about things which is disjointed and doesn't seem to fit together. It seems to me that during the Premier's estimates the leader of government, the political leader of a province, has some obligation to talk about a number of areas, but about two specifically, I would think.

One would be the philosophy of his government, not the ideology. And one would be to talk about the kind of economics that he and his government and his party stand for. I think it's an obligation of a leader of government to share with the people of the province and the members of this House what really makes him tick. What is his philosophy? Let's get a glimpse, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier. I think people have a right to have a personal glimpse of the person who would lead us into the social and economic future.

Obviously the Social Credit Party and the Premier wanted to begin the topic of philosophy during the last election. The word they used most often was "individual." That was the word that was used most by the Premier and by the political advertisements of the Social Credit Party. Obviously the Premier and the government wanted to talk with the people about philosophy. They wanted people to think about the individual and the role of the individual in society. They wanted people to think about society generally. How can you think about an individual without thinking about the makeup of society?

When the Premier was talking this afternoon I said across the floor that the Premier did not complete high school. The answer that came back was indicative of the Premier's insecurity in dealing with questions of personal philosophy, what this society is all about, how this society could be structured, and what sort of philosophy, generally, political parties hold in terms of the structure of the society in which we live.

In his six years in this House the Premier has never discussed philosophy because I think the Premier is afraid to talk about the very thing that he has embarked upon — politics. What's it all about, what's society all about, what's the role of individuals within the kind of society that we want to live in? When was the last time anybody ever heard the Premier talk about those kind of things? When has anyone ever had a glimpse of what makes the Premier tick? He's the head honcho in this province; he's the leader of the government and the political leader of this province. Where does he stand?

He opened the debate during the last campaign talking about the individual and the rights of the individual. That's fine, but now I think it's time we heard from the Premier how society is structured, how he would like to see it structured. What are the rights of individuals within a society? What obligation does an individual have to the rest of society? I strongly suspect, by watching the Premier in action, that he and I disagree philosophically on what it's all about to be an individual in society.

The Premier, I suspect, believes an individual his the right to be as greedy and overriding as he can possibly be within that society. During the last election, "individual" was a word that he hoped would stir up in society one of those base things in our nature called greed. He hoped that people would confuse greed with being an individual in society. Therefore, he made an appeal to the greed that exists in every one of us and which in a civilized society we try to keep behind us, not in the forefront. It was an appeal to greed. He's never discussed that. He feels nervous when talking about these sorts of things. The Premier has some sort of feeling that there are better people and lesser people — not smarter and not brighter; not successful and not unsuccessful; but people who are better, and people who are lesser. And the Premier. because he has not had a formal education, feels he is lesser.

MR. SEGARTY: What's your reason?

MR. LEA: I'd like to hear your reason. The Premier made the statement during the campaign that his party is for the individual. I now feel he has a right and an obligation to stand up in this House and talk about that philosophy door he opened and about the right of the individual in this society; not just the right to make money as an individual, but what the rights of an individual are in any democratic society. I challenge the Premier to stand up in this House and talk about philosophy, about the beginnings of democracy as we know it, about how that system has evolved to where we are today, where he sees it has gone wrong, and were he sees it has gone right, and to put it on the line, and tell us what he means by the word "individual" which we see in his campaign literature. For once, let the Premier stand up and let everybody in this House and everybody in this province have a personal glimpse of the beliefs of the leader of government in this province. It's something that's been lacking for the six years that member has been in this House.

He's a man who time after time after time deals with nothing more substantial than only the economic side of life. And does he deal with that in a meaningful way? For instance, when was the last time you heard the Premier talking about some of the problems we're having now, and are going to have in the future. and what modern technology is doing to our society?

The Premier says he talked about fishing in Ottawa not too long ago. Did he talk about what's happening in the fishing industry, where modern technology is able to do the work of many people, that as that technology advances in our society, fewer and fewer can turn out almost everything we need within our society? What do you do with the people who are left behind?

More and more, we’re seeing the trade union movement floundering in trying to deal with the problem we're having in our society, where modern technology is putting people out of work. How are we going to deal with that? Why doesn't the Premier, as the leader of government and the leader of this province, put his mind to it and tell us what his views are? Or is he inadequate? Has he not thought about it? If he has thought about it, is he afraid to take a chance and put his ideas forward?

[ Page 396 ]

When have we heard this leader of this government talk about some of the things that we are facing in this society, both socially and economically, in a philosophic way and in an economic way, more than whether we are going to shut a plant down or open a plant up? We haven't heard it, and in my opinion those are the reasons that he came back to this House with fewer members than he went away with — because he has not dealt as a leader of a government should in any way with the questions that we face in society. That, Mr. Chairman, is the reason that he shies away from public debates. Those are the reasons that he shies away from having question periods after he speaks when on tour. Those are the reasons that when he's out on tour he chooses select audiences that he knows are friendly and won't raise the questions of philosophy, that won't raise the questions that we're all facing in this society. Whether we're Social Credit, NDP, Liberal or Conservative, we're in it all together and we are facing problems that we've never faced before that we don't have the answers to, and we have a Premier who's afraid to even discuss those kinds of issues because, in my opinion, he has been led down the garden path by his experiences to believe that there are betters and there are lessers and that we are not all equal in this society.

When is the Premier going to start discussing some of those issues? Never? Never, because I think on this side of the House we could stand the Premier standing up and talking about those issues, with us disagreeing or agreeing, because they are beyond partisan politics, and that's why the Premier can't discuss them. He deals only in the narrow. He doesn't stand up and say: "I have a vision for British Columbia, and here it is. What do you think of it?" He's afraid, and it's because of his being afraid that we find that more and more people point to him and say he's a runaway Premier. They don't know that he's not afraid of the issue that he's facing; they don't know that he's afraid because he's insecure.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's time the Premier took his place as a leader of government, as leader of British Columbia, and started talking about those issues that affect us all. He has more obligation than any member of this House to do that.

Mr. Chairman, he has that obligation, and he still has time as the leader of a new government to stand up and to start talking about those issues. But will he? He won't do it as long as he runs away. He won't do it as long as he's afraid to discuss those kinds of issues in a public way with the Leader of the Opposition. He won't do it as long as he doesn't allow questions from the public. He won't do it as long as he's leader of government and goes around this province only talking to select groups that won't challenge him. He won't do it as long as he still continues to try and get out of a television debate where these things can be discussed. He won't do it as long as he feels insecure in himself, Mr. Chairman. This province needs a strong leader and it needs a leader who will stand up and start talking about the issues that we all face as a society and not just those nitty-gritty political things that this Premier likes to discuss.

When are we going to hear from the Premier? When are we going to hear about what he thinks? When are we going to be able to share some of the views of the Premier? It's difficult to play political tennis with this person, because every time you throw an idea, it's like playing tennis with a sponge. There is nothing coming back — only rhetoric, only bombast, only nervousness, only insecurity. Never will he talk about those things that are going to be affecting us now and in the future. He won't do it.

Mr. Chairman, what we need is a leader of that government who has a good feeling of security. If that leader can't do it, then the Social Credit Party deserves another leader. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will stand up in this House or in public and share with the people of this province his philosophy, for better or for worse, take it or leave it. He will do it.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) will do the same. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will do the same. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will do the same. All of those people are willing to put themselves on the line, but the leader of that party is not willing to put himself on the line and hides behind those ministers, not willing to take his place as the leader of that group and the leader of this province — not to follow, but to lead us into the 1980s.

He's not willing to put himself on the line and talk about it because of that basic insecurity, that cloth-cap-in-hand attitude that we've watched for six years in this House. He's afraid that he inherited the party, inherited the job, and now he's afraid to put himself on the line. Mr. Chairman, we need a leader and we need a Premier who is going to put himself on the line. We haven't had it with this Premier, and I want to hear it during his estimates in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've had no new questions, but we've had the usual high quality from the member for Prince Rupert. It really stimulates debate, and the people of Prince Rupert must be proud of him today. He is representing their interests by making a strong personal attack on me. While I admire those who have been able to achieve without completing high school, I have to correct the member for Prince Rupert. It's like your leader saying that Mexico is getting $3.20 for its gas. Unfortunately I was hampered by completing high school, and it took me some time to develop the practical education that has aided me so much. I hate to, once again, catch another New Democratic Party member in what is not only not the truth, but something which he will say again and again, knowing it not to be true. But that has never bothered that member. You see, Mr. Chairman, there is a constituency of people he appeals to, and he'll always appeal to them. I suppose they're the ones that like the type of thing you dish out.

The member mentions BCRIC, and he talks about people having principles. His party couldn't find a position on the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation until they consulted the opinion polls. The polls told them the people liked it, and then you know how they changed position. I've got those quotes from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. MacDonald) has got some dillies. I also saw the way they backed out by saying: "Oh, too much would get spent on the distribution." Many times they will tell us their philosophy cannot be sold for any price, and yet in front of an election they tried to change it. I remember that...

MR. LEA: What's an individual in our society, Bill?

[ Page 397 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...in front of an election they tried to change it. I remember that. I also remember the same group on independent schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I remember them on independent schools in this House. I remember that group.

AN HON. MEMBER: What can you remember? They weren't here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can remember them — afraid to take a position on allowing the aid to the parents and students who participate in the independent school movement. Afraid, because there was apparently a split in the party. Afraid to take a stand and allow members to speak their mind; so they left the House. We spoke to empty chairs. But the saddest thing of all was that eventually they got their courage up. Some of their members, like the member for Burnaby who was the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly), got up and spoke against independent schools; she did it. But do you know what I was surprised to find out? In the search for votes in this last election they had certain of their members going to the independent schools, saying: "We wouldn't change it. We didn't mean it. We're against it; but we're for it until the election's over." The same old thing. Not only is it difficult that they run from a position, and are afraid to face the House, but in the last election they really pulled out all stops.

MR. BARNES: Remove rent control until after the election?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I talked to a number of people. They had the member for Vancouver Centre. Unfortunately he hasn't been in the House very much this sitting. He was designated, I guess, to carry out the task of trying to say: "You didn't mean what you voted on in independent schools."

Do you think you've proved it to those people that your word can be trusted? Do you think you could to those who have very strong beliefs, many of them? That's just as consistent as having a party whose leader wouldn't tell the truth in the election, who tells the people that Mexico's getting $3.20 for gas. He's looking awfully glum today.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has seen more opportunity every day after watching in the last few days. Things look more promising, don't they? The only thing you're going to have to worry about is (a) you're still going to have some of them around if you take it over and (b) you're going to have to live with the statements they made that weren't true when you try to increase their vote. We will have to remind the people. Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, that you were a part of them, and you sanctioned it.

Your silence now says you agree with every statement that your leader has said and that if he is wrong you'll be wrong with him. You can't just sit there, when he is gone and you've replaced him, and say things have changed because we now have the nice. comfortable new leader of the New Democratic Party and the guy who didn't tell the truth is gone. You can't say that, because now that those things have been pointed out, Mr. Chairman — those inaccuracies have been pointed out. I'm sure you're going to want to be one of the first to divorce yourself so that you can be the person who is the new leader who can say you're taking them towards a new trend, a new standard for your party, a new standard for this group. Many people had high hopes for you, and you haven't got it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.