1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

917 ]

CONTENTS

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

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Leasing of Prince George building. Mr. Bennett

— 918

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

Renewal of ARDA agreement. Mr. Wallace — 919

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

Stock exchange procedures. Mr. Gardom — 920

Misleading advertising of Homeowner Grants. Mr. Curtis — 920

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

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

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 932

Point of order Administrative responsibility of Minister of Finance.

Routine proceedings

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

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 939

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I take

pleasure in introducing to the House today, seated on the floor

of the House, Mr. John Reynolds, the federal MP for

Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr.

Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce friends from Gold

Bridge, Mr. and Mrs. Allen and Mr. and Mrs. Phelps and

family.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to welcome the Warehouse School pupils who are here under

the direction of Mr. Ed McKieraghan. The Warehouse School, as

you know, is an independent school operating here in

Victoria.

Also while on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome Mr.

Dugald Gillespie, a Victoria pioneer who is here with his wife,

and bid them welcome to this House.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the group

that is never with us but always with us, the press gallery, a

notice has come down that another unofficial member of the

gallery was born to Mike Graham of The Vancouver Sun . He

and his wife have a son named Angus who was born on Friday

evening and weighs eight pounds. We wish the son and wife the

very best...and also the husband. (Laughter.)

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House this

afternoon to the fact that a group of approximately 25 students

are in the gallery under the guidance of Mr. Quentin Russell,

from North Saanich Junior Secondary School. Would the House

welcome them?

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): I would like the House to

join me in welcoming to the gallery the mayor of Smithers, Mr.

Gordon Williams, and an alderman, Mr. Bill Brinkman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome again government

agents, continuing the programme of government agents visiting the House: Mr.

Bill Draper from Cranbrook; Mr. Norman Blake from Kamloops; Mr. Tom McKinnon

from Kaslo; Mr. Ron Campbell from Kitimat; Mr. Mitsuru Sakakibara from Lillooet;

Pat Lean from Merritt; Bob Archibald from Nanaimo; Frank Hughes from New Westminster;

and Mr. Leo McKinnon from Oliver.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker,

sitting in the Members' gallery today are two visitors from

Prince Rupert, that great oasis of friendliness on the north

coast, Norm Barker and his son Norm Barker. I would ask the

House to welcome these visitors to Victoria.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

last but not least, I want to introduce all of the members of

the Berger commission on children and family law who are

sitting in the gallery above the Speaker. The commission is led

by the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger, with Judge Ross Colver, Ms.

Rita MacDonald, Ms. Mish Vadaich and Dr. Sidney Segal.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I understand we also have

in the gallery one of our Progressive Conservative MPs from the

federal riding of Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Benno Friesen. I would

ask the House to welcome him.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else? (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a

golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to resist it.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome the Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey to the House today. (Laughter.)

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

with leave of the House I'd like to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: For some time now — over a week —

we've had some trouble in our general hospitals over the

Professional Association of Residents and Interns (PARI)

withdrawing their services in what has been sort of dubbed as a

dispute. We are viewing the situation very carefully. We've

been monitoring patient care for the past week, and I've been

getting continual reports as to whether or not patient care

will suffer.

I announced at the outset that the only move I would make

would be under the circumstances that patient care might be

threatened. There are those who indicate that there is a

possibility that that might occur. I have yet seen no evidence

that it has.

However, due to the fact that I feel there is a very

important ingredient, patient care, I have asked the B.C.

Health Association, which, incidentally, previously was called

the B.C. Hospital Association, to come to my office at 3

o'clock tomorrow

[ Page 918 ]

afternoon when I will be discussing the whole question. I've

asked PARI to come to my office tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock

so that we can be fully aware of what the issues are.

I'm not promising any magic solution to the problem, but

we'll certainly do what we can to see that everything is done

to make sure that patient care is not threatened.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): In brief response, the

official opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister of

Health. I think it's a very responsible move he has made. I

would hope, too, that he will take other steps as well to keep

a close watch on those hospitals which are affected to make

sure that if patient care does begin to deteriorate immediate

steps could be taken. On the whole, we welcome the statement by

the Minister of Health.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): By leave, Mr. Speaker,

on the same point: we welcome the government's interest in

this. We wonder, however, why arbitration, the proposal of the

Professional Association of Residents and Interns, has not yet

been tried by the government. We hope that perhaps out of this

meeting the argument that because they're not a union —

therefore arbitration cannot be applied — will be looked at

very carefully. It seems to me that compulsory arbitration in

this instance might well be the course of action desired by the

interns and residents, which would solve the problem.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Conservative Party I would also say that I welcome the

initiative taken by the Minister. I wish, perhaps, we could see

the same initiative taken in certain other disputes. But I

think we should say on our part that we do not condone the

withdrawal of service in the first place by residents and

interns, least of all by, in effect misrepresenting the issue

by stating that they are booking off sick. I consider this a

dishonor to the medical profession.

I think the Minister's intervention, and hopefully a

successful intervention at the earliest date, will take place

tomorrow.

Oral questions

LEASING OF PRINCE GEORGE BUILDING

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Public

Works with respect to the Oxford Building in Prince George, which has leased

4,900 square feet of space to the provincial government at $6.50 a square foot.

Could the Minister explain to the House why it was necessary to contract for

these premises in August, 1974? As of this date they remain vacant and unused.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the

Opposition would care to table any documents that he has to

substantiate his statement...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

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

respond.

Mr. Bennett: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If the

Minister is unaware that his department has contracted space

for the Department of Housing and parks at $6.50 a square foot,

I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what procedures

are followed to determine the need in leasing office space in

advance of the requirement or after the requirement

develops.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to

say this: any time I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to

table documents.... He has yet to table his first

document.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order! I think no private Member is

required by our rules to table documents except with the leave

of the House. Ministers may be required, where they refer to

documents, to table them.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I added that

simply because in the past...

Mr. Bennett: Will he just answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: ...Members over there have got up

and made statements from documents that we find have been

falsified. Now I would like to continue and respond to the

second part of his question.

We take no steps to rent or lease any property until a very

definite need is substantiated.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary because of the

Minister's, answer. He said that they take no steps, after he

got to the point, to rent space until after the need. Would the

Minister tell us why in Prince George they have leased space

several months in advance of the need at a cost of $32,000 a

year? Would you advise how this could happen with that

policy?

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

[ Page 919 ]

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

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

out.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: This is a separate building, Mr.

Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, in many cases, even in

new buildings, if we lease space we have to design them to suit

the particular needs. I just cannot accept what has been said,

but I would be pleased to take this as notice and give a full

report at a future sitting.

Mr. Bennett: A further supplemental. When you're

advising the House, could you advise if you do have a policy

that will prevent this from happening throughout the province,

because it seems an excessive cost to the taxpayers, Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to

respond to that.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think this is the proper time

for statements on policy of the government, or questions on

policy. This is question time. Would the Hon. Minister and the

Hon. Member deal with this at the time?

INTERVENTION IN CUPE STRIKE

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Minister of Labour. In view

of the failure of his initiative and that of the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), which the Minister talked about

last Thursday in response to a question from the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), may I ask the

Minister whether he's now prepared to appoint, on his own

initiative, a special officer or industrial inquiry commission

under

Part VII of the Labour Code in an effort to find a

settlement to the dispute which has closed a number of Victoria

and Vancouver schools?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I'm

not aware of any failure that the Hon. Member refers to. What

we do have is a refusal by the municipal and school board

bargaining agencies in greater Victoria to accept an industrial

inquiry commission investigation into their dispute. Now this

is a disagreement between two parties, and I have no intention

of imposing upon them a third-party apparatus which is

unacceptable in the first instance. I doubt that that kind of

imposition would carry with it any reasonable opportunity of

settling a dispute.

Certainly if the industrial inquiry commission does not have

the cooperation and the participation of both parties, then it

is meaningless; so I have no intention of imposing it upon

them.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last

week the Minister talked about he and the Minister of Education

getting a formula for dissolving this dispute, but apparently

the dispute is still on. I wonder whether the Minister is then

considering legislative action to make sure that this is

settled, because it appears to me that the law does provide for

him to appoint, without the approval of one of the two parties,

an industrial inquiry commission. Failing that, it seems only

legislative action will bring an end to this strike.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, the law does provide for the

imposition of an industrial inquiry commission. I have stated

the reason why I do not pursue that policy. I question the

benefit of a third-party intervention which is not supported by

both the parties. In other words, if a third party

investigation were boycotted by one or both parties, obviously

the power of any recommendations flowing from that commission

would be minimal.

Now we have, in fact, gained agreement from the school

boards and the union in Vancouver to cooperate with an

industrial inquiry commission. It is underway in that city. As

far as the dispute in greater Victoria is concerned, no, I am

not anticipating legislative action. I wonder if that is what

the Member is recommending.

RENEWAL OF ARDA AGREEMENT

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the

Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk), whether in fact they have met with the federal

Minister concerned today to renew the ARDA agreement which

expires on March 31.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, through you, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister did meet with the Hon. Mr. Gillespie

(Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) this morning, but I

have not had a report on that. I was not present.

DEVELOPMENT OF LANGLEY LAND

PURCHASED BY LAND COMMISSION

Mr. McClelland: To the Minister of Agriculture. I

wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could tell us whether any

plans have been made or any studies commenced for the

development of the 2,000 acres of land which were bought in the

municipality of Langley by the British Columbia

[ Page 920 ]

Land Commission.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): It is

being done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: What is being done? Studies?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Studies are underway.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a

supplementary? Would the Minister assure the House that full

municipal taxes will be paid to the municipality of Langley

following the purchase of that land by the provincial

government?

Is the Hon. Minister not going to respond to that question?

The municipality of Langley is quite anxious to know whether

they're going to get taxes out of that land or not. They have

full municipal taxes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: At what rate?

STOCK EXCHANGE PROCEDURES

Mr. Gardom: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. In

a recent hallway interview the Attorney-General was quoted as

referring to certain "Monte Carlo" procedures or operations

being carried on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In view of

the fact that Monte Carlo is regarded as the world's largest

casino, and in fairness to and as a protection for the

thousands of investors who daily utilize the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, is the Attorney-General prepared to furnish to this

House specifics of the unsavoury operations to which he's

alluded?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we now have, under

legislation of this government, two public governors on the

board of the stock exchange. In addition to that there is a

committee on the rules of the stock exchange, which is headed

by one of the public governors. That's at the initiative of the

exchange but is something we approve. In addition to that we're

going to change the rules so that changes can't be made in

those stock exchange rules without the approval of the

superintendent of brokers, and that's in the bill before the

House. Finally, the thing I'm concerned about is 'that it has

become too easy for shares to be listed into that. I'm

concerned about it, and it's that area to which I allude.

Mr. Gardom: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does the

Hon. Attorney-General have any specific stocks or specific

trades in mind when he makes this accusation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: It's not for the Attorney-General

to push this stock or that stock.

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

issue.

Mr. Gardom: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General. Doesn't the Hon. Attorney-General consider it

inappropriate to make or imply such criticisms without specific

foundation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regard it as my

duty, on the one hand to put the people of the province on

guard in their investment opportunities, and on the second hand

to do my public duty insofar as I can to instil more

confidence in this very important financial institution of

British Columbia.

Mr. Gardom: Are you aware of any specific

improprieties involving specific stocks?

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

Islands.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Attorney-General answered the question,

did he not?

Mr. Gardom: No, he has not!

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

any particular issue.

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

Islands.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, with respect, you should not

interrupt a person when he's trying to give an answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! When a statement has been

given which is in answer, in effect, to the third supplemental,

then I suggest to the Hon. Member that it is not in order to

continue the same line of questioning. The Hon. Member for

Saanich and the Islands.

MISLEADING ADVERTISING

ON HOMEOWNER GRANTS

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing.

Newspaper advertisements which appeared within recent days

(March 19, in the Colonist , is one) were headlined "March 31,

1975 — Deadline Extension for 1974 Homeowner Grants, "

and then the body of the copy over the name of the Hon.

Minister of Housing. Has the Minister received any complaints

or inquiries with respect to ambiguity of this

advertisement?

[ Page 921 ]

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

Speaker.

Mr. Curtis: That's the most direct answer we've had

from the Minister of Housing since he took his portfolio. Are

correcting ads going to be run, through you, Mr. Speaker? I

refer particularly to the body of the copy which says: "The

school tax removal and resource grant is new this year." Surely

that is a reference to 1974 and not 1975. What corrective

measures is the Minister taking?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, these of course do

apply to the 1974 tax year; it is in extension of the 1974 tax

year. It is an option in the legislation which is given to the

Minister but was never exercised before. Many people, through

misinterpretation or other means, lost the opportunity to

collect their homeowner grants. This government took the

opportunity, which the government that created the legislation

never did, and we have extended the deadline on the homeowner

grants for the many people who might, through language

difficulties or other impediments, have lost out. We have

extended it and made it available and as flexible as possible,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Curtis: A supplementary, briefly, to the

Minister. Would the Minister not agree that a very large

percentage of property owners, homeowners — 95 or 97 per cent —

are concerned about their 1975 homeowner grant, not their 1974

one? I again emphasize the ambiguity of an ad which contains

the words "this year" when, in fact, it refers to 1974.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I would question the

figure. There certainly has been concern, Mr. Member, about the

ambiguity. It's something which I would not see happen

again.

MOHAWK OIL REFINERY

AT SUMAS MOUNTAIN

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I would like

to address my question to the Attorney-General. Will the

Attorney-General advise if the government has had any

negotiations with Mohawk Oil Co. Ltd. regarding the

construction of an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: We have received their representations through the

B.C. Petroleum Corp., but we have been strictly neutral in terms of their applying

to build a refinery for heavy fuel oil near Langley. We've made it very clear

that we are not opposing their application in any way; it is now a matter between

them and the regional district concerned. We think there is a market for the

product that they want to bring on stream, and that is another reason why we

have, of course, not opposed the application in any way.

Mr. Phillips: Could I ask the Attorney-General one

small supplementary question? Will the government be going in

partnership with Mohawk Oil Co. Ltd. to build this refinery at

Sumas Mountain or is it an independent project by Mohawk Oil

Co. Ltd.?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No partnerships — strictly private

enterprise.

Mr. Phillips: Just one further supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker. Will it have any bearing on the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. proposal to build an oil refinery in the Surrey

area for which you have purchased some 1,800 acres of land?

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

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, it will neither help nor

hinder the question of building our own refinery.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): The Premier is

very anxious to get his vote. I wish the Premier was as anxious

to enlighten us on some of his proposed revenue for the coming

year and some of his expenditures. Although we have been

discussing his estimates for nearly a week now, we still are as

much in the dark with regard to him giving us answers as we

were when we started.

Just a moment ago we were discussing Monte Carlo dealings in the stock exchange

— a broad, sweeping condemnation (smear, if you want to have it) of the people

who run the Vancouver Stock Exchange. This government certainly has no right

to leave an innuendo like that when we think about the dealings of the shares

in Can-Cel before the government moved in to buy their percentage. We've asked

questions in this Legislature about the dealings with regard to the shares of

Dunhill and we've asked about the flippant remarks of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) with regard to a recent purchase

by the government of Can-Cel. So if we are talking about Monte Carlo dealings

in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I think

[ Page

922 ]

the government is really referring to their Monte Carlo dealings in the stock

exchange and in the money markets of the world.

We have continually asked in this House where the Minister

of Finance went in the OPEC countries to borrow money. To this

day, we haven't had the answer. The people of this province

would like to know, because they are the ones who are going to

be responsible in the end for paying the interest on that Mafia

money — if it is Mafia money, and I don't know whether it is

Mafia money or not and I have no way of knowing. There seems to

be some vague, dark secret about where the Minister of Finance

is borrowing money.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: I think the taxpayers of this province

have a right to know where the Minister of Finance is borrowing

his money and what interest rate he is going to pay. They want

to know where the money comes from and they want to know not

only why he had to go outside British Columbia but why the

taxpayers of British Columbia did not have an opportunity for

first refusal on loaning this money to the government. They

want to know why you had to go outside the borders of Canada

and, if you did, why you couldn't stay within the borders of

North America.

The Premier may consider this a very light and frivolous

issue, but when you go outside of the City of Victoria and you

talk to the people where it counts — even in your riding, Mr.

Chairman — they want to know. It's one of the first questions

that the taxpayers of this province ask you when you leave g

the City of Victoria. They want to know why the Premier had to

go outside of the borders of North America to borrow money and,

if he did, why and where he borrowed that money.

Mr. Chairman, if there is no logical reason for this

information to be withheld from this Legislature and therefore

from the taxpayers of the province, we would like to know why.

We want to know, when we do get the answer, that the answer is

factual. I find that the people of British Columbia are sick

and tired of having half-truths and half-answers from this

government, I see by the paper that the Premier is up to his old tricks

again of misleading the people, even in some of his own

ridings. He is telling the people that welfare cases are fewer

now than they were in 1972, even in light of a 16 per cent

increase in the number of people receiving social welfare last

year. But did the Premier tell the whole story? No, Mr.

Chairman. He didn't tell the whole story. He didn't tell how

many thousand people from the age of 60 to 64 are now receiving

Mincome and have been taken off the social welfare rolls.

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

Mr. Phillips: No, the Premier is up to his old tricks

again of trying to mislead. He doesn't care really whether he

tells the whole truth or half the truth as long as he can try

and mislead the taxpayers of this province for his own

political advantage. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of

this province are getting sick and tired!

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

Member if he is imputing an improper motive to the Premier.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I am merely stating the

facts. I am just merely stating the facts as I see them. That

is that the Premier, on going out to tell somebody something,

twists it to suit his own political advantage. There are more

people receiving assistance from the Department of Human

Resources today than there were in 1972. Yet the people would

try and mislead you to believe that there are fewer people

today.

If he had wanted to be honest with the people of his

province, with those constituents to which he was speaking last

weekend, he would have said: there may be fewer people

receiving actual social assistance today from the social

welfare, but those people have been transferred to Mincome. If

he had not had the desire in his heart to mislead the people in

this province, he would have told them that.

Mr. Chairman, we wonder why some of the cabinet Ministers

are following suit in trying to mislead this Legislature. I

want to tell you they have got a good leader.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: They've got a good teacher, Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member to withdraw any imputation that Members of this House

are misleading other Members of this House.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Withdraw.

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

[ Page 923 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: It is a deterioration of respect for

this government caused by the Ministers of this government.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated

while I make my point?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the Hon. Member

that I think you are aware of the parliamentary rule that you

may not impute any improper motive to another Hon. Member of

the assembly. The Chair was simply directing you to withdraw

any imputation of that sort of thing against any other Hon.

Member. However, when you state your case, you should state it

in such a way that it doesn't impute an improper motive to a

Member, rather than the way you have done it. Will the Hon.

Member withdraw the imputation?

Mr. Phillips: I will withdraw any personal reflection

on any Member of this House, but I certainly won't withdraw,

Mr. Chairman, their policies and their politics. Their policies

and their politics are such that they are misleading the House.

I think that Hon. Members of the government, Hon. Ministers of

the government and, above all, the president of the cabinet and

the Minister of Finance should realize that his first and

foremost duty is to give straightforward, honest answers to

this Legislature. Otherwise, not only do we in this Legislature

lose respect for the Minister, but the taxpayers of this

province lose respect. They lose respect for our democratic way

of life, because democracies are built on credibility.

Democratic governments must be credible and they must be

responsible and honest.

The deterioration of our way of life in this province is

hanging in the balance because of the policies of that

government led by the Premier and Minister of Finance and

followed by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). The

Minister of Finance and the president of the cabinet is setting

a very bad example.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of this province are very concerned.

They are very aware of what is happening, and that is why they have lost respect

for the government led by the Premier. That is why they realize that no longer

can they put any credibility in statements made by the Minister of Finance or

the Ministers of the Crown. When we are asking the Minister of Finance questions

with regard to his estimates it's all very well and good for him to get up and

act the clown, make light of sincere questions, try and turn the screw around.

But I'll tell you, the taxpayers of this province are not buying it; neither

are they buying the Premier's effort to give away to Ottawa the complete natural

resources of this province.

The Premier has stated in this Legislature that if Ottawa

would nationalize the petroleum industry he would hand over to

Ottawa the provincial rights over the petroleum resources of

this province. That Premier has no mandate to make such a

statement. He has no mandate. He would have to change the

British North America Act to do such a thing. But what does he

do, Mr. Chairman? He allows Ottawa to gloss over the British

North America Act and tax the natural resources of this

province, and it is him creating the Crown corporation of

British Columbia that gave Ottawa the right to do it. It was he

who brought it up. Yet he continually talks about getting more

from the natural resources of the province than were ever

received before.

I want to tell you, I was looking through the paper the

other day and an

article caught my eye: "Oil Exploration Slows

in Australia" ...the same as it has slowed in the Province

of British Columbia. Do you realize that our petroleum reserves

dropped last year by some 15 per cent? — the first time since

oil was discovered in 1951 and gas was discovered in 1953 that

our petroleum reserves declined in any single year. They

declined in a period of time in the history of man when there

is a shortage of petroleum products. They declined here for the

same reason they declined in Australia. I'd just like to quote

from this

article for a moment:

"A recent survey of all oil companies by the Australian

Petroleum Exploration Association placed the major blame for

the rapid decline in exploration and drilling operations in the

last decade on the country's adverse political climate." The

same type of political climate we have here under the

leadership of the Premier and Minister of Finance: adverse

political climate.

Two years ago when the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) and myself were telling the Premier that there was a

decline in the number of drilling rigs in the northeastern part

of the province, he got up and tried to inform this House that

the number was greater than it had been the year before.

Our Premier doesn't want to look at and doesn't want to be

aware of the cold, hard facts of economic life. He wants to

lead this province based on his pet theories which he is taking

out of the Waffle

[ Page 924 ]

Manifesto he signed some years ago. I would think it was

time the Premier realized that the Waffle Manifesto and the

guidelines set out in the Waffle Manifesto, which he signed,

are not working in the Province of British Columbia. You can't

follow the Waffle Manifesto and hit the petroleum companies in

the backside, run the mining companies out of the province and

expect to have increased employment.

I've heard the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Minister of Finance and other Ministers

of the Crown say that there are no spin-off benefits from the

development of our natural resources, and that the only results

we get from our natural resources are the direct taxation. I've

heard them say it. I've heard the Minister of Mines say it —

the direct taxation. They don't seem to realize that providing

jobs, economic development, inflow of capital, et cetera, has

any bearing on our economic climate whatsoever. They can't seem

to realize that if people are employed they pay income taxes,

they buy houses, pay other taxes, pay the 5 per cent tax,

create employment for others. None of these fringe benefits of

development are recognized by that Minister of Finance who

seems to have his head in the sand. Not willing to recognize;

just running on the Waffle Manifesto.

Mr. Chairman, for the first year in many decades our

greatest natural resource, our greatest industry, that of the

forest industry, will not be producing a positive tax return to

the Province of British Columbia. You can't blame the entire

situation on the lumber market in the United States. A lot of

the problems in the lumber industry are the direct result of

the negative and backward thinking of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and of the

Minister of Finance. You'd think when we start shifting the tax

base from natural resource industries to taxes on people, that

the Minister of Finance would recognize what is happening. But

he just carries on in his old method of not recognizing the

economic factors.

We've been unable to have the Minister of Finance tell us

how much he expects the deficit of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia to be this year. There is no provision in the

budget to subsidize the insurance corporation, and it could be

that the insurance corporation isn't going to need shoring up

this year. But we have a right to know. Before the Minister of

Finance finishes his estimates, could he tell us and be

perfectly candid with the taxpayers of this province who are

paying an additional 8 cents a gallon on every gallon of

gasoline they buy? We'd like some candid answers from that

Minister of Finance. I wish the Minister of Finance would go

out and talk to the people in this province and realize that

they're not going to be misled by this phony budget he has

placed before us — not until we get the answers.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the department of forestry owes

to the lumber people of this province some $85 million for

charges for building roads. Therefore, his anticipated revenue

from the forest industry is way out again. So what other

attitude are we going to take, Mr. Chairman, when we do listen

to answers from his Ministers and when the Minister of Finance

will stand in this Legislature and crack jokes, make fun, but

give no answers?

We want to know, once again, where the money comes from.

What country did he borrow it from? We want to know how much of

that anticipated revenue from petroleum and natural gas

royalties, leases and fees — that $230 million — is dividends

from the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia. These are some of

the questions, Mr. Chairman, that we have been asking and

asking and asking. We want to know. We want to know if the

Premier wants to get up and show off his ability as a showman

and as a clown and as a court jester, et cetera, but it's time

he started becoming responsible to this Legislature and started

giving us some straightforward, honest, complete answers.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): I subscribe

to the criticisms raised by the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. It

is becoming curiouser and curiouser and curiouser as to why the

Premier is refusing to give answers to the very valid and fair

questions that have been raised during his estimates. Those

answers are in the public interest and it's contrary to the

public interest when he doesn't reply.

In dealing with the Arab loan, there is, I think,

conventional wisdom in the statement: "neither a borrower or a

lender be." Sometimes one has to be one of each. But surely,

Mr. Chairman, lenders often have very substantial powers to

exercise muscle beyond the ordinary and beyond the accepted.

That's the reason why the general public of British Columbia

are entitled to know just what sort of a lender B.C. Hydro is

dealing with. Is it clean money? Is it legitimately acquired

money? Was this a fair deal to B.C.? Are the rates and are the

terms competitive? Were they the best ones that were available?

We don't have those answers.

Were there any concessions granted to B.C. or to anyone

else? Is there anything outside of this deal from the straight

dollars and cents? Did the Premier have to clear the borrowing

through the federal government? Did he consult with the federal

government or with any other provincial government?

Is this borrowing antithetical to the interests of Canadian firms, Canadian

taxpayers, Canadian businesses and Canadian people who may be under this Arab

list of a company boycott? Or was it just an offer that B.C. couldn't afford

to refuse? Were there any heavies involved? These questions come to mind, mind.

[ Page

925 ]

It's not a matter of national security; it's not a matter of

public morals, the need for secrecy and stealth. Yet we're

facing secrecy and stealth. Is that fair? Is that correct? Is

that fair or is that correct?

The Premier has still not answered questions as to how much

money has been transfused by him from the consolidated revenue

fund into the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. He has not

told anybody. It is public money.

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

today, too.

Mr. Gardom: He has the power to make that borrowing.

Chief fiscal officer of the province, and he's not performing

his duty to the public. He is not performing his duty to the

public, and he is giving something far less than desirable

accountability of dollars and cents to the people of B.C.

He has refused to give any kind of a cogent reason or

explanation as to why we don't have an auditor-general in the

province, save and except to attempt to confuse the suggestion

with the duties and responsibilities of a comptroller-general,

which are entirely different and entirely limited. He has not

given thought or any suggestion or answers to this House to a

question being raised in hundreds and thousands of households

in this province today: whether or not people are illegally

being requested to pay taxes for governmental services that are

not being provided.

The Premier doesn't have the answer at his fingertips — and

I would suggest that the Minister of Finance would have the

answers at his fingertips — but perhaps if he does not, he

should be instructing and suggesting to the Attorney-General

whether or not this should be a court case launched by the

government, under the Constitutional Questions Determination

Act, just to determine whether or not the process that is being

carried on, contrary to the interests of the taxpayer, is legal

or is illegal.

We now have limited power — "we" being the general public —

to sue the Province of British Columbia. I think this would,

indeed, be an exercise most befitting to the dignity of both

offices, that of the Attorney-General and that of the Premier,

and certainly in the public interest to attempt to find an

answer to that very vexing question, if the answer is not at

their fingertips. I would suggest that the answer is, indeed,

at their fingertips.

The lady Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) raised an

exceptionally valid point, and even she didn't get an answer

from the Premier. She was talking about the relaxing of the 5

per cent tax for certain kinds of commodities. I discussed it

myself last week and suggested that no longer would the 5 per

cent tax apply to non-prescriptive drugs.

It's pretty ludicrous when you find that such things as chocolate bars, gums

and cat food, I suppose, come within the definition of not requiring the 5 per

cent tax, but non-prescriptive drugs, which are for the health, benefit and

welfare of our people, do. It's silly. It's silly and it's a question that was

raised, and very, very validly raised, but still not any answers.

I asked the Hon. Premier again last week, and this is

something we have heard in this House ever since I've been here.... There were some very, very admirable and, I would say,

historic speeches by the former leader of the NDP, now Mr.

Justice Berger, dealing with the providing of fair and equal — underlining of the word "equal" — services for the Indian

people who live on Indian reserves in our province. They do not

receive the same services as the people who live outside of the

Indian reserves. It's discriminatory; it is unfair.

They don't have any tax shelters. Don't anyone start raising

your hands and howling "tax shelter" or the constitutional

sidestep that it is an Ottawa problem. Their tax shelter exists

on paper — true. But dollars-and-cents-wise it doesn't amount

to a hill of beans. Their only tax shelter is that they don't

have to pay income tax for any income that they may earn on an

Indian reserve, and they don't have to pay land tax for their

residences on Indian reserves.

In the first case, there are extremely few Indian people who

earn their income in British Columbia on the reserve. They earn

it off the reserves as doctors or warehousemen, bus drivers,

carpenters — whatever it may be. They don't earn that money on

the reserve.

Insofar as the homes being taxable is concerned, under the

existing tax laws we have none of those homes would be

attracting any tax at all. So their only shelter is a paper

shelter. Provide equal services for them.

This government has done one thing and only one thing, in my

view, that's an improvement over the former administration for

our Indian community, and that is to extend to reserve Indians

the benefits of the home acquisition grant. That is a slight

assistance to housing; that was a good thing.

We all know it was proposed first in this corner of the

room, and we're delighted to see that the government accepted

the proposal and moved into it and did it with a degree of

dispatch. I can remember the discussions we had, and that was

with the Hon. Premier. He said: "You mean the Indian people

can't get that home acquisition grant?" We said: "Yes, that's

right." He said: "That's not fair," and he did something

about it. I commend you for doing that, certainly.

But why stop there? Why just go ahead and just put a little

pea into the pot? Why not go ahead and say it is a matter of

policy and direction that the reserve Indians in this province

shall be entitled to

[ Page 926 ]

similar services as people who live outside of reserves, housing, in road building, in providing electricity and all

other services that are ancillary to any kind of community?

It is not only a practical suggestion, it's not only a just

suggestion; it is an extremely moral suggestion and, I say, an

ethical necessity. And it is continuing to be avoided by this

administration.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, last week

we were discussing a number of subjects relating to energy, and

it was the subject of gas that occupied most of our attention.

But, equally, the subject of electricity and the amount of

money received by the Province of British Columbia for sales to

the south are, I think, just as valid for discussion.

If I can run over them very briefly, the policies are fairly

straightforward. The oil policy with respect to the United

States is to charge the OPEC prices plus a certain allowance

for transportation via pipeline — generally this is a mythical

pipeline; it is a hypothetical price — and a maximum is charged

to our American neighbours. Fair enough. We have to import at

world prices. The price is negotiated monthly, and it's

certainly not a subject of great joy to the Americans if we do

charge in that way.

Given that background of National Energy Board desire to

maximize returns for oil, it is curious that they are being

charged so sharply and taxed so heavily y people in this

Legislature for their failure to do he same thing on gas. There

are other factors involved in gas, of course. Gas involves

long-term contracts; oil is essentially a spot price. There is

the possibility of retaliation if our American purchasers of

lumber insist upon marketing each board individually, as they

have threatened to do on previous occasions. We could find that

our major export of lumber would be in a very serious state. So

here is the possibility of retaliation.

Nevertheless, the general policy seems to be to get the

maximum price obtainable, given the problems that do exist with

respect to gas in terms of long-term contracts and the

possibility of retaliation.

But the third energy source of British Columbia and of

western Canada has not really been discussed at any length, and

that is electricity. I asked the premier and, indeed, I asked

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) as well in the House about the use of

article 15 of

the treaty to try and get revision, to try and get a

re-examination of the price for electricity in the light of

information which we have today that was not available 10 years

ago, and also, of course, the definite changes that have taken

place with respect to American construction proposals of 10

years ago and their actual programme of construction.

I think it curious that in actual fact we have not made any

effort, from what I discovered from the Premier and the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, to go for an

increase in the price of electricity. Surely if we are to

charge the Americans the full market price for oil, if we are

to do our best to get as close to the maximum equivalent

thermal value for gas, we should be doing precisely the same

thing with respect to electricity. This is where the Columbia

River treaty and the protocols that surround it are of

considerable interest.

I wonder whether the Premier this afternoon would indicate

to us what steps he has taken with respect to

article 15. I

realize he has stated already that he went to see the Prime

Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau), who said no to a complete

renegotiation of the treaty. But, as the Premier is fully

aware, we don't have to renegotiate the treaty to take into

account the price and the return for electricity which we

received in that lump sum. It is not necessary to have the

whole treaty rewritten or revised or reopened to get an

examination under

article 15. Indeed, it would seem unwise or

virtually impossible to go for a total revision of the treaty

until such time as we had at least explored

article 15 and the

opportunity that it provides for getting re-examination.

The Premier stated the other day, when I first raised this,

that he did not have the

article in his mind. He did not have

it memorized and I quite agree that's the case — undoubtedly he

did not have it memorized. But when he asked Members of this

party to use their influence with the government in Ottawa, we

then indicated our willingness to do so — indeed, our

enthusiasm for doing so — provided we were brought up to date

with all new information available so that we would be making a

positive and best possible brief instead of a brief which

might, indeed, have certain areas where we would have to

speculate, not being privy to some of the secrets of the B.C.

Petroleum Corp., B.C. Hydro or the government. So I wonder

whether the Premier at this date would like to indicate to us

whether he has checked into the

article in question,

article

15, whether he has, indeed, requested the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources to use this avenue to get a

renegotiation of price and return to British Columbia for

electricity and what the results of that request to that

Minister were.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the character of this

debate has changed a little bit this week.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): One week of

pounding and one week of no answers.

Mr. Gibson: That's right. As the Hon. Member for

Columbia River says, it was one week of pounding

[ Page 927 ]

the table, telling us how great he was. One week and no

answers — is that what it's going to be this week?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: There have been some very good points

made this afternoon by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and by the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

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

just filibustering.

Mr. Gibson: It's not the same stuff, Mr. Premier. You

haven't answered the questions yet. Look at the first-rate

question about what the real deficit of ICBC is. It's going to

unbalance your budget, and you know it perfectly well. You

haven't answered that question. You can produce a nine-month

report for Hydro but not a nine-month report for ICBC. That is

phony and you know it.

Let me give you a brand new question, Mr. Premier. You

haven't answered the other ones, but I'll give you a now one

not to answer. What about the Bank of British Columbia rights?

Why did the actions of your government allow 10 per cent of

that company to end up with a Toronto trust company, which we

just heard over the last weekend?

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

rights.

Mr. Gibson: "Because we didn't exercise our rights,

" says the Premier. That's exactly why. Why didn't you

exercise your rights? Will you stand up and tell this House?

Will you tell us whether the rights were sold? Or did you just

let them lapse?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They were sold.

Mr. Gibson: "They were sold," says the

Premier. And if they were sold, how much were they sold

for?

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

just a minute.

Mr. Gibson: There was a little bit of a trading range

in those rights and we'd like to know what they were sold for

but, more importantly, why did you let those shares get out of

British Columbia?

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

Mr. Gibson: Because it was a British Columbia

financial institution. God knows, Mr. Premier, we have little

enough of it out here. We have that phony Canada Development Corp. head office down at the foot of

Granville Street and we have the Bank of British Columbia and

we have one or two trust companies, and that's all we've got

here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When we buy the shares you attack

us for buying them, When we don't pick up options you attack us

for not picking up the options. You fellows have changed your

position so much in six months it's unbelievable.

Mr. Gibson: Something's happened to that Premier, Mr.

Chairman. I never attacked him for buying Bank of British

Columbia shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There has been something wrong with

me — I've been trying to listen to you for the last while and I

regret it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gibson: We don't have the funny, jovial fellow

with us this week we did last week. I regret not having him

with us any more — it was a fun week last week. There were some

good speeches which the Premier gave. He didn't answer our

questions but they weren't bad as speeches.

It's not good enough to just say: "It's government policy

not to hold Bank of British Columbia shares and not to exercise

the rights." Why is it not government policy? Why isn't it the

policy of this government to retain control of a British

Columbia financial institution within this province? That's a

simple question and it's a new question and I want to know the

answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't really understand. Are you

announcing policy that the government should be in the

marketplace? Is that your answer? Well, it's brand new from the

opposition. I've never heard that before. But if you're saying

that you support the government being in the marketplace for a

new financial institution, you will have the opportunity this

session to vote in favour of that when new legislation is

brought in.

Mr. Gibson: That's not good enough!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No matter what you answer he says

it's not good enough.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Last

week we spent a great deal of time trying to get answers from

the Premier and we have some very good routines, as the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has indicated, but there

were some questions left unanswered among the rhetoric. There

were some very real questions dealing with his

[ Page 928 ]

responsibility as the Premier and as the Minister of Finance

and as the chief financial officer of this province — questions

relating to how he will manage the money.

We have a budget of $3.2 billion, Mr. Chairman, and that's a

lot of money. The Premier has said that he's brought honesty in

budgeting and he's actually budgeting to come out with a

$500,000 surplus this year — budgeting right next to the line.

He tells us that they have come up with this new way of realistically

appraising revenues. But we've got to be concerned, because the

public isn't satisfied that this Premier, this Minister of

Finance, can realistically control the expenditures to stay, within the framework of

that budget. He may have changed his method of presenting it in

the nice copy with the pretty pictures, but how about a

government that in its first budget in 1973-74 overextended by $377 million? We

have a right to ask the Minister of Finance what new procedures

he is going to follow so that he can monitor the day-to-day,

week-to-week, month-to-month expending of the various departments that

over spend their budgets.

It's something that just doesn't happen at the end of the

year. The Premier and Minister of Finance should be able to

spot these over expenditures daily because surely, if he's

responsible, he has worked out a cash-flow statement not only

for all of government but also for each department.

The first year, $377 million

overspent; the second fiscal year, $342 million overspent. So

the Legislature and this committee have a right to ask what the Premier and

Minister of Finance is going to do differently. What is he

going to do differently to guarantee that the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) won't over spend by $103 million this year?

How is the Finance Minister going to monitor the cash flow to

guarantee that the Minister of Human Resources doesn't get out

of control again?

How is he going to make a guarantee to the people of British

Columbia, with his record of – monitoring expenses and

controlling expenses and being responsible for seeing that the

Ministers stay within the framework of the revenue that's

allocated to them to spend? How is this Premier and Minister of

Finance going to change the accounting methods of the

Department of Finance?

Surely the people of British Columbia aren't prepared to let

this Minister of Finance continue with the record he has for

prudence. Surely the people of British Columbia aren't going to

let this Minister of Finance continue when he hasn't been able

to show restraint.

An Hon. Member: Or responsibility.

Mr. Bennett: Or responsibility. Now that he's brought realism, can he

take a realistic attitude and some administrative control to guarantee it will

happen?

Will the Minister of Finance and Premier advise if his year

he is going to get daily reports of cash flow from every department? Will he be able to monitor he

spending of Human Resources on a daily basis?

Will the Premier and Minister of Finance tell us, if the

Department of Human Resources starts to overextend on their

cash flow budget, what programmes he will have them curtail in the way of benefits

to bring their spending within the limits of he budget? Or if,

because of inflation, or if there's a shortfall of revenue, is

he prepared to go into a deficit budget?

Will the Minister of Finance and Premier advise the House

whether he will curtail any of the programmes of any of the

departments — whether it's Health or Human Resources or

Agriculture — if any of the programmes are contained within the

framework of the budget of these departments? Will the Minister

of Finance have the Ministers curtail these 6 programmes at any

point they are overextending their cash flow and their

projected budget for the year? Will the Minister of Finance be

able to identify to this Legislature what programmes — and in

what priorities — the government is prepared to have remain,

with this new, tight, realistic budget they talk about?

It's hard to believe that a government that has overextended

itself by $377 million one year, $342 million the next year,

can come within the limits of a budget that has no margin for

error, and has only a $500,000 projected surplus. We know the

government is great at collecting; we know it sucks in money

like a vacuum cleaner. But nobody has ever been able to prove

to us, under the record of this Minister of Finance, that he

knows how to stop it going out the other end. The only filter

bag he's got to hold on to the money is the big, growing

bureaucracy of the civil service, and that doesn't create

benefits to people.

Here we have a Department of Finance talking about $3.2

billion and only a $500,000 or $600,000 surplus. Yet they

haven't advised the House that they're able to control the over

expenditures that have taken place in the past or how they are

going to monitor the cash flow or where they are going to stop

programmes should the departments start to over spend, or what

programmes they will cut out if they have been over optimistic

in estimating their revenue.

Certainly we've seen some danger signs in the Canadian

economy in the real growth of this country since this budget

was presented. And the shortfall is even more in British

Columbia.

We've seen more distressing unemployment figures, Mr. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), since this budget

was brought

[ Page 929 ]

down.

Mr. Chairman, we have not had any advice from the Premier

and Minister of Finance on how he is going to make adjustments

to bring the Department of Finance into control of the

situation. He talks about a new, realistic budget but he

doesn't present to us, in questioning, any new, realistic

procedures for controlling the expenditures of this province,

to guarantee that we get full value, to guarantee, for those

Ministers who don't seem to be able to control the expenditure

in their own departments...

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

water.

Mr. Bennett: ...how he is going to control them. The

people of British Columbia want to know because it is their

money. They have sent their money here in trust to be managed

wisely and with prudence. They want restraint in this

inflationary period. Yet they have received no answer all

during the debate that took place on the estimates all last

week.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Again, we are worried about the

expenditures; we are worried about the procedures; we are

worried about the cash flow. We have to question very seriously

the estimates of the revenue and the promises for the spending

of that revenue that aren't even shown in the budget.

One promise that was made in January was that the municipal

governments were going to get $60 million. I remember it

because I was listening to my radio in the interior. It was all

across the interior by radio network that the municipalities

were going to participate in $60 million worth of additional

revenue from the sale- of natural gas. That is what was going

to happen. Yet I don't see it in the budget either as a

collection or an expenditure to the municipalities — nothing

about $60 million.

Mr. Phillips: It's all hot air.

Mr. Bennett: Nothing about the $60 million. When the

Premier advises what departments and what programmes will be

cut back if they can't control the spending of such a

department as Human Resources this year, are the municipalities

in advance the first department to be cut back? Their revenue

and expenditures aren't even being shown.

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

Mr. Phillips: It is a hot air budget.

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

You could say: "We are going to give you $20 million, $40

million or even the $60 million we promised back in January. We

will put it in the budget. We won't compel you to participate

in our lottery and our fight with Ottawa. We recognize that we

have a responsibility to the municipalities. We will guarantee

you revenue on a proper financial sharing basis as part of the

growth of the economy."

All of us realize that the provincial government's revenues

in this period of inflation, which this government has helped

to feed and foster and lead, have doubled and even more than

doubled in just a little over two years. Yet municipal revenue

hasn't come even close to showing that growth rate.

They talk about a $2 increase in the per capita grant. Does

that reflect the growth of provincial revenues and the need of

the municipal governments in participating? Not at all. It is

all right to compare $2 this year with $2 that may have been

given in earlier years, but remember that our revenue has

doubled. The purchasing power has dropped. In real dollars our

municipalities are receiving less than they ever received in

British Columbia from the government.

I might say that it may not have been enough in the past,

but in this period of tremendous growth and tremendous

inflation and less purchasing power, municipal financing must

be tied to specific sources of revenue. A third of a lottery

ticket isn't showing responsibility in dealing with their

financial problems.

When we talk about that lottery ticket, we have to remember

that that is all involved in the resource revenue war that

are aware that the federal government in their budget made some

attempt to move in to the provincial resource taxation field.

It has even been suggested by the Minister of Finance here on

the floor that they weren't after Alberta. Ottawa was after

B.C. and why not? Who started the revenue war with the

first found the magic formula of taking over private companies?

What was the main argument? They are going to take their share

of the federal income tax; they are going to take a big share

of the federal income tax...

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

Mr. Bennett: ...and not in the normal field of

natural monopoly where the people may expect to own and

control, but in the field of competition, in the forest

industry and in those other areas that are naturally served by

the private sector competitively. The government has moved in

and said: "The big saving to the people of B.C. Is that we are

going to steal the taxation revenues from Ottawa." Did they and

this Minister of Finance think that Ottawa

[ Page 930 ]

wouldn't retaliate? No wonder they are after B.C. We started

the war; the Premier started the war by firing his popgun. Now

he is upset because the cannons are firing back.

Government of British Columbia that he can't finish. He tries

to finish it with publicity and performance. Really, we can't

stand that type of confrontation in Canada; what we want is

consultation. And rather than trade revenues for the ideal of

socialism — revenues that the Minister of Finance and Premier

hasn't the right to trade.... He hasn't got the right to trade

what we acquired and have as a right under the BNA Act just

because he's a socialist and if the federal government will

adopt socialist principles. Those resources and the revenues

belong to British Columbia. Our party will fight to protect

those rights, and fight for the rights of the people of British

Columbia with any government in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Bennett: You know, the Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) let the cat out of the bag about how they were

going to deal with saving revenue for the Province of British

Columbia. That was his excuse for taking over Dunhill. We all

remember his statements then. After he told us he was going to

buy the expertise of this tremendous management team, he said

that was the one thing that was going to solve the housing

problem for the people of British Columbia. We all remember

that, surely. But his clincher was this, and I go to

Hansard of April 2:

It is our intention that this shall become a Crown

corporation. As a Crown corporation its status would be such

that it would not have to pay federal income tax.

He goes on

further:

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

An advantage to whom?

But there was the fight with Ottawa: a few little revenues

to rob Ottawa of their share of the federal income tax. And it

escalated into a full confrontation, with Ottawa getting its

pound of flesh, retaliating against all provinces, and, of

course, the fight started here in British Columbia.

One thing we haven't ever discussed in this debate is that when there's a loss

in federal income tax revenue from the corporation tax, there is a loss in the

provincial share of the corporation tax revenue. As this government is committed

to public ownership of those areas normally served by private enterprise, what

are they doing, when they take over a company like Dunhill, to pay into consolidated

general revenues in lieu of the taxes lost to pay for services to people? What

efforts have they made to put in funds so that we don't have an ever-declining

tax base while they reach out and meet their commitments to ownership of firms,

decline the tax base and put more and more pressure on the people of this province?

We see that pressure developing in this budget as a greater

share of the budget than ever before is paid by the people of

this province. Taxes from people. The sales tax, the personal

income tax — more taxes from people. Property tax, as the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) says, is escalating

as a provincial revenue source and escalating to people in the

municipalities because they're not being financially fairly

dealt with by this province's provincial government.

We have this declining tax base, and we have the federal

government retaliating by moving into provincial tax areas. We

now have the confrontation — the type of confrontation that

won't help build and solidify Confederation because I think,

and all people feel, that nothing can break up Canada but the

type of escalation of tax wars and tax revenue wars that seems

to be developing now in Canada. We have the dubious

distinction, here in British Columbia, of having started the

war. We started the war.

The Premier offers, now that he gets desperate, to trade our

revenues from petroleum resources if the federal government

will buy his philosophy of socialism. That's what he has

offered to trade. The Premier doesn't have the right to trade

away the provincial rights of this province or any other

province. Our party will fight for British Columbia in any

election in the future.

Now we also have the problem of unanswered questions as to

the ethical standards of procedures of the government or the

government Ministers when they're dealing with the fragility of

the stock market, particularly now that the government

participates in the ownership of those stocks. I raised on the

floor of this House the other day a very serious question about

the conduct of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in making statements that may

have affected the cost price of the Can-Cel shares. We haven't

had an answer.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): That thing

has been up five times already.

Mr. Bennett: First of all, the Attorney-General

hasn't been here most of the week, so I know you've done your

homework by reading Hansard . But I'd like to say that this was

summed up very well in an editorial in the Victoria Times on

the weekend.

It's an editorial that should bring to mind the fragility

and the responsibility of the government and the Ministers, as

to the power they have assumed by implication now that they

have become government

[ Page

931 ]

and Ministers of the Crown in British Columbia. I'd like to

quote from part of it.

"Although it remains to be proved whether there is anything

unlawful, or even mildly unethical, in the events surrounding

the provincial government's purchase earlier this year of

272,000 Canadian Cellulose shares on the Toronto Stock

Exchange, the government can be criticized on one ground. It

doesn't seem to realize at all the tremendous power it has in

influencing the stock market and the investments of thousands

of large and small investors."

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That Member wanted me to knock a

couple of stocks this afternoon.

Mr. Bennett: The Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman has

just come in with a bill in this House to affect insider

trading and to affect the stock exchange. I'm not confident

that many in this government — and certainly not the Premier —

would appreciate the power they have, but I would certainly

expect the chief law enforcement officer of this province to

understand the responsibility of this government when it is

buying companies or dealing in the stock market and wherever

the government or the Ministers have made or quoted intentions

in the newspaper that may effect either a rise in the price or

a fall in the price. It is incumbent upon those Ministers, Mr.

Chairman. I am sure that the Attorney-General, if he had been

here last week, would have advised the Premier to make a

statement on this.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: He was here all last week. I

heard the same speeches last week.

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

government....

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Go look after your Macdonald's

Hunsperger.

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

them.

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

serving them.

What I started to say, Mr. Chairman, is that this isn't the first case of this

government's or Ministerial statements affecting the price of stocks or affecting

the fragility of the market. In this case the remark was made by the Lands and

Forests Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams), and when he made the remark that the

government may be interested in selling some of the shares of Can-Cel, the prices

dropped. I'll quote from the Victoria Times editorial, because it said:

"When he made the remark, Can-Cel shares were selling at

$4.50. After the Labour Day weekend the price slipped to $4.30

and by mid-September was a dollar lower still. When Dow Jones

reported in early December that Can-Cel may be about to sell

shares, the price was still under $4 and it took until

mid-January this year, when presumably the B.C. government

moved in to buy, for the price to get back to its pre-Williams

level of six months before. Then the price took off, hit $6.50...."

It goes on to say — and this is the point we're trying to

make to the Premier and the Finance Minister and the

Attorney-General:

"An earlier example of the same dynamics was provided by

Premier Dave Barrett soon after he took office. He announced

firmly that nationalization of the B.C. Telephone Co. was a

priority item and that two natural gas pipeline companies were

also prime takeover targets. With a business community jittery

enough about a socialist government in power, that's all it

took to touch off a stock market selling binge. Now, two years

later, the Premier says B.C. Tel. won't be nationalized, now or

in the...future.

"Back in 1972 he denied any responsibility for the market

plunge and said he was only reiterating party policy. But

public pronouncements by the leader of a government — and one

of his most powerful cabinet lieutenants — do have serious

repercussions.

"That goes double for a government like the present

provincial administration, with its large shareholdings in

Can-Cel, B.C. Tel., Westcoast Transmission Co. and the Bank of

B.C. Ministers should be scrupulously careful in this regard,

above the slightest suspicion. They haven't been in the

past."

Now what we've been asking the Premier to do, Mr. Chairman,

as Premier and as Minister of Finance, is to set some ethical

standards to bind his Ministers and to commit his Ministers to

recognizing the problems they can create for the small investor

with such Ministerial statements.

Ministers such as the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon.

R.A. Williams) certainly have great weight with the public, and

great believability with those who don't know them in affecting

the price of such stocks as Can-Cel. The Minister of Lands and

Forests, since the government owns over 80 per cent now, can

affect the profitability. When he says "we're selling,"

the people say it's a good time to sell.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: He has more

[ Page 932 ]

credibility than you know.

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

But here we have the government led by a Premier who doesn't

seem to realize that in leading the government in B.C. he has a

responsibility to direct those of his cabinet Ministers who may

not be appreciative of this fact, particularly when he himself

was the first offender, particularly since we have the unusual

trading patterns surrounding shares in companies when the

government took them over, and certainly now that the

government still has the ability that it took through the

Revenue Act. We have this latest case where, indeed, the

statements of the Minister have affected the stock market. This

Legislature and this government should be responsible for the

ethical conduct of the Ministers and the Premier in leading and

having the public not led astray in their purchase of stocks

now that this government is actively involved in the financial

market.

We have this Premier failing to give ethical direction to

his Ministers or any set of guidelines to this Legislature

about how such purchases and statements will be handled in the

future and what steps will be taken to amend such statements

when they are inadvertently given wide publicity after being

made by such Ministers as the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

We have no apology from the Minister of Lands and no

explanation from the Premier. In fact, the Premier wouldn't

even acknowledge that those shares had actually been purchased.

We had to read in the financial pages of the newspaper the

following day that an announcement was made that the government

had in fact purchased the shares in Can-Cel.

What was the new excuse as to why they even bought them?

They say it's for an employee share-purchase programme.

An Hon. Member: Yup.

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

that.

Mr. Chairman: I bring to the Member's attention that

you're on the green light.

Mr. Bennett: I would believe that, Mr. Chairman, if it hadn't been for

the fact that in any other business when there is an employee stock-option purchase,

usually the business involved issues shares from the treasury. Certainly there

are a lot of authorized shares in Can-Cel that can be used to offer the employees

share participation. If the government is worried about its 75 per cent holding

or better, the government has the opportunity to equally

distribute to itself an offering that allows it the same amount

of share-purchase rights.

If Can-Cel was going to deal with its employees on a

share-purchase programme, why wouldn't they be acquiring the

shares or offering the shares? Why are they being purchased by

the Government of British Columbia, purchased without any

announcement, purchased against the early advice of the

Minister of Lands? Were they, in fact, acquiring those shares

so they could get up to the 90 per cent limit and apply for the

rest of the shares so that the government could get 100 per

cent ownership and so that once more the government wouldn't be

forced to pay federal income tax? We know that the tax benefits

have accrued to the government and that it hasn't paid any

federal tax since Can-Cel was taken over. Here is this

government that worries about Imperial Oil using write-offs and

losses for not paying federal income tax using the same

procedures of write-offs that gave it tax losses so that it

didn't have to pay federal income tax. Now that those tax

benefits are running out, was it making an overt move to take

control without advising the minority shareholders? Is this

responsible action for a government?

We have this government that doesn't seem to realize that

they are acting for all the people of British Columbia. They

have a responsibility that all the affairs of government be

over and above board. They have a responsibility that

indiscreet statements by Ministers or indiscretions by Members....

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

your time.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that

we're on the Premier's estimates...

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

Mr. Gibson: ...and in view of the fact the Premier

hasn't been here for — what? What would you guess — 15 minutes,

20 minutes, something like that? Certainly not with any

reference to you, Sir, but in view of the Premier's absence, I

move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 16

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

[ Page 933 ]

NAYS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, could you report to him that a vote took place in

committee and ask leave to have it recorded?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

I suppose we should apologize for bringing the Premier into the

chamber, but I didn't have time to get the apology out before

he left again. (Laughter.)

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): He knew you

were going to speak.

Mr. McGeer: It's a heavy afternoon for the Premier,

obviously. I don't know what kind of interview he is conducting

out in the corridor. But one of the reasons why we had to

detain the Premier I would take it, for a record length of

time during the estimates is because the only answers we have

got have been in the corridor. He has made speeches in the

House but he has not answered questions. The theatrics were

impressive, no question about that, but the facts were few.

We don't know what pearls of public wisdom are being

generated on our behalf out in the corridor, but we do know

that the Premier is neither interested in listening to

questions nor interested in answering them.

An Hon. Member: That is right.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is prepared to make a speech at the drop of

an NDP card, always prepared to make a speech, but very seldom is he prepared

to comment on the legitimate issues that are raised in this House in the interests

of the public welfare. I suppose the Premier is a worried man this afternoon,

judging from the latest poll information which was brought into the House showing

Social Credit, of all things, leading the polls. I tell you, if you can achieve

that kind of Political feat when you are in office, you are

running backwards at a remarkable rate of speed.

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

Esquimalt.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, there was a big vote there for a

prominent NDP member: 19 votes.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: It's a good job that the twin brother for

the Minister of Education wasn't running.

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

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister of

Finance (Mr. Bryson) is relaxing over in the corner. The last

time I raised this subject, I asked if perhaps he wouldn't

listen so that we could get some answers from him via the

Premier. I don't want to rake over the ashes of last week's

debate, unless the government insists.

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

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

Chairman...

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

Mr. McGeer: ...but I don't know how much support

there would be on this side of the House. (Laughter.)

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

division.

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

Mr. McGeer: To summarize for the Minister of

Highways, we were really debating the principle of the value of

our natural resources, our right to tax them when considered

over all of the future of British Columbia. It is a priceless

asset that the Premier has given away. Nothing that he can do,

short of taking what remains of his case to court, will do

justice to the rights of British Columbia.

I want to dwell today on another subject much closer to the

Premier's heart: the current value of our natural gas. The

specific question which I want to ask the Deputy Minister of

Finance, through the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, is: in

the figure of $230 million quoted in our estimate books, what

is the selling value of our natural gas upon which that $230

million figure is given? Last year you will note that on that

particular line in the estimate books the

[ Page 934 ]

figure quoted was $78 million. There is an increase there of

over $150 million. As I gather from talking to officials of the

B.C. Petroleum Corp. and the Department of Finance, the $230

million includes $80 million for the sale of leases and $150

million income from our natural gas.

Our capacity to produce natural gas, as I understand it, is

only 400 million cubic feet per year. The $150 million gross

that the Premier must derive in order to reach his spending

estimates would be based on some kind of a price that would

guarantee him $150 million after he pays the 30 per cent of the

net profit he gets to Ottawa.

He has promised to share with the cities and municipalities

everything he gets for export over $1 per mcf. The amount he is

exporting at the present time is about 260 million mcf per

year, which is 60 per cent of our gross production. The

remaining 40 per cent, or 160 million mcf, is for domestic

consumption. The cost per mcf, according to the B.C. Petroleum

Corp., is 48 cents — made up of 25 cents for transmission and

23 cents which goes to the producers. Everything above that is

profit, 70 per cent of which the province keeps and 30 per cent

of which goes to Ottawa.

If the export price and the domestic price remain the same,

if you work out the net to the provincial government, it's $126

million from export and $11 million from domestic sales. That's

a total of $136 million, of which the government keeps $70

million; and the Premier makes $95 million. That's far short of

the $150 million he calculates. He does make the $150 million

if the export price is $1.35 starting on April 1 - that's next

Tuesday — which we know he can't do, even if the federal

government gives him what he said he didn't say, which was the

$1.35, in the corridor.

If he gets that price and earns that $150 million, by the

formula in the budget he's promised about $15 million to the

cities and municipalities. So even at $1.35, starting next

Tuesday, eight days from now, there's no way he can meet the

revenue estimates that appear in the budget. There must be

something more involved. Either the Premier in budgeting for

his minimum expenditures expects to get more than $1.35 from

Ottawa, starting next Tuesday, or he expects to make the

difference up by increasing the price of domestic gas.

Those figures of $230 million in our revenue estimate books

were put there based on hard estimates made by the Department

of Finance. They must have included projections for increase in

the cost of our natural gas. That's obvious — to go from $78

million to $230 million. If the spending programmes of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) are to be

maintained, as well as the spending programmes of all of the

other departments of government, then these revenue figures

must be obtained.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Last week the Premier made a wonderful speech saying how

he'd never ever turn the taps off on the Americans. Never would

he do a think as irresponsible as that, and the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had been irresponsible

in the statements he made in this House suggesting that we

might turn the taps off in British Columbia.

Mind you, he was referring to the natural gas taps. When

they wanted to turn the taps on in British Columbia to relieve

a water shortage in Point Roberts, the Premier wasn't a bit

interested in turning the taps on then. There was a crisis. He

wouldn't turn the water taps on, but he'd never ever turn those

natural gas taps off, because that would be irresponsible.

I'll tell you why those taps will never be turned off, Mr.

Chairman. Read that revenue figure of $230 million. Tell me how

we can turn the taps off, no matter how much we might need the

natural gas in the future, and still meet those

projections.

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

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

contract now.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Up to 80,000 mcf?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Table the contract in the House. Tell us

how far short we are now of the maximum. What is it, 809,000

mcf a day?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The only thing missing from your

argument is logic.

Mr. McGeer: All that is missing is some facts from

the Premier. The first one is: what are the projected prices

that allow you to reach $230 million revenue from this

particular source this coming fiscal year? What's the export

price and what's the domestic price that will allow you to get

that necessary money? You know it's necessary because you put

the spending estimates up to $3.2 billion. You've got to get

it.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier a related

question which deals with an issue raised by the Liberal leader

(Mr. D.A. Anderson). That concerns the value of our electrical

energy now that the Premier has established a different value

for our natural gas. The different value for natural gas was

based on different energy value for oil. If oil is worth

[ Page 935 ]

more, natural gas is worth more. If natural gas is worth

more, electricity is worth more, because they are all

alternative forms of energy. Natural gas fires our Burrard

thermal plant; oil fires our Burrard thermal plant; the thermal

plant produces electricity, a form of energy. So this

re-evaluation that the Premier has arrived at very conveniently

with regard to natural gas, of course, applies to

electricity.

We asked the Premier earlier in the week a rather simple

question, just to get started, as to who our representative was

on the permanent engineering board under the Columbia River

treaty, because of course that permanent engineering board

would be the board that would receive instructions from the

government as to the kind of data that should be accumulated to

appear in the annual reports. I'm not sure the Premier knew

there were annual reports. They're nice, red, bound

volumes.

The Premier didn't know who our representative was. If you

don't even know who your representative is, you are a long way,

Mr. Chairman, from giving him instructions as to what data he

should be accumulating regarding the value of this alternative

form of energy.

The Americans are paying nothing for peaking power. But as

the value of our natural gas increases (it has trebled in the

last two years), so does the equivalent value of the

electricity we are not obtaining as our share of downstream

benefits under the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Premier, one of the urgencies that you have for taking

up this matter of renegotiating the Columbia River treaty is of

your own making, because as you increase the value of our

exported natural gas, so you increase the value of the

electrical benefits that we are not getting, so it increases

the urgency of your obtaining the necessary data under the

permanent engineering board, of which you have a say as to who

the member from this provincial government is to be.

So, Mr. Premier, we'd like to hear, in addition to the firm

price you are calculating our natural gas is worth in this

coming year, what you intend to do about the equivalent matter

of electrical energy.

Mr. Bennett: While the Premier was out before, I was asking some serious

questions that he hasn't already answered. We have asked the questions and we

have a right to know, the public has a right to know, about what procedures

he is going to take to change the control aspects of spending of his government

to guarantee that the overruns will not take place that took place in the first

two years. Now that he's changed, he says, the budgetary procedures to more

factual budgeting, perhaps he will tell us how he will control the expenditures

so we don't get expenditure overruns of $300 million and $400 million in a single

year. What I was asking when the green light ground me to a halt...

Mr. Phillips: Closure, closure!

Mr. Bennett: ...was about the government's and the

Premier's lack of response as to the government's purchase of

the shares in Canadian Cellulose. The other day, when we asked

about the shares of Can-Cel, the Premier and Minister of

Finance went off in one of his famous speeches but didn't

advise the House, in fact, if the government had bought any

shares, if they were continuing to buy, and for what purpose

they were buying them.

He wouldn't comment or correct the statement of the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who

had said that the government, indeed, may sell some of its

shares in Can-Cel. He didn't comment on changing the procedures

of Ministerial statements that may affect the price of stocks

as that stock was affected. He didn't advise the House as to

the government's plans in the future for announcements to bring

all of the public into the confidence of how public money is

being spent when shares are being purchased, because actually

it is the public's money. He didn't advise us if, in fact, the

intent for purchasing those shares was to take the government

into a 90 per cent equity position on Can-Cel so, indeed, they

might apply to take over all the shares and convert Can-Cel

into a Crown corporation. We had to wait for the newspapers

some time later to get a statement from the Lands, Forests and

Water Resources Minister that, yes, they had bought some shares

but it was because the government was going to bring about an

employee share participation.

I find it unusual, as I was saying, that the government,

which is merely a shareholder — although it's 79 per cent, now

over 80 per cent — of Can-Cel, said that it wasn't taking

direction, wasn't leading the board of directors.... They've

taken great pains to say that the board of directors is being

appointed from New York and other places to guarantee that this

company would operate independently. It seems surprising to us

that the government then would be purchasing shares dealing

with an employee stock-purchase plan.

I would like to elaborate because the statements from both

the government and from Canadian Cellulose leave us a little

bit in a quandary if, indeed, this was the government's

intention, or whether they were caught buying shares to give

them the 90 per cent interest and used an old discussion, that

they had discussed with the management of Can-Cel, to cover up

the reason for their stock purchases. Today an official of the

company is quoted as saying — and this is a spokesman for

Columbia Cellulose — that the company last fall had preliminary

talks to determine whether the government would be willing to

sell more

[ Page 936 ]

of its shareholdings in the company for possible use in an

employee stock-purchase plan or stock-option plan. I reiterate,

the spokesman for Columbia Cellulose said that....

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

Hon. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I think that you have already ruled

that I cannot possibly deal with other Ministers' departments;

otherwise, we'll spend the whole time on me. Now, Mr. Chairman,

the question is: he's talking about policy of Can-Cel, which

comes under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The point of order, I

think, is well taken, inasmuch as the Premier has indicated

that this does not fall within his area of administrative

responsibility. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) to wait until the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources is on his feet.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, all the Premier has to do

is advise me if the government bought the shares or if Can-Cel

bought the shares. If the government bought the shares, then,

as the financial agent and with the power he has taken under

the Revenue Act, he's the one who authorizes the purchase of

the shares. Now if the Premier bought the shares, then it comes

under his estimates — it comes under the power he dealt

with.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ohhh!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If we followed that logic, every

loan I sign for the Department of Agriculture I sign as

Minister of Finance. Every capital expenditure that's done for

every department comes under Finance. Every hospital.... Now

if you follow that logic through, that means I have to debate

every single Minister, and it was rules before I was Premier in

this House that that's not the way estimates are handled, and

now you want to go back to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order made by the Hon.

Premier, the Chair must rule that anything that falls within the administrative

responsibility of another Minister must be brought up at that time. I would

ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) then to bring up a new subject.

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

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

point of order.

Mr. Bennett: The purchase of shares under the Revenue

Act is the responsibility of the Premier and Minister of

Finance.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: The point of order I continue to wish to

make is that this is a new departure by this government in

giving themselves the opportunity to purchase shares on the

market with public funds. It's the responsibility of the

Minister of Finance; it's not something that is the

responsibility of other governments. If the announcement and

the request the other day was....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

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

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

then get to his point on the point of order?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

continue, then, on the point of order?

Mr. Bennett: The purchase of shares, whether they be

for the Bank of British Columbia, whether they be for Can-Cel

or whether they be for any other public company, is the

responsibility of the Premier, I would like you, Mr. Chairman,

if you follow the direction of the Premier, to tell me under

whose estimates we would bring up the purchase of Bank of B.C.

shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Department of Finance acts as

fiscal agent for every single government department. There is

no difference when you start discussing the other departments.

That's what the other Ministers are here for.

Now they have set a record for a filibuster in this House on

any Minister's vote ever; and you are right out of order, in my

opinion. You're dealing with policy.

[ Page 937 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: These shares were bought by the Queen in

the right of the province under the Revenue Act, and it is this

statute under which the shares were bought. The Revenue Act is

under the administration and the responsibility of the

Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the hon. leader

continues, on the same point of order, the Chair has made a

ruling and continues to make the same ruling that a matter such

as this, even though it falls in some sense within the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.... So the same

argument could be applied to all fiscal matters applying to

every department of government.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chair would rule

that this matter should be properly brought up under the

estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, just a further point of

order. I would agree with you if the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources had bought those shares by the Crown

corporation, B.C. Cellulose, which is under his jurisdiction.

But if they've been bought in the name of the Crown, then they

are under the jurisdiction of the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I've signed bonds for the purchases

of schools and for hospitals. If they're going to debate that

under my estimates, you can debate every single department. The

same rules that applied before should apply now. If you want to

discuss the pension plans, if you want to discuss everything

else, you do it all under my estimates.

Mr. Gardom: The Revenue Act is worth looking at to

assist you in your deliberations, Mr. Chairman. It says under

section 4:

"There shall be a department of the civil service of British

Columbia to be called the Department of Finance, over which the

Minister of Finance, for the time being appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor by commission under the Great Seal, shall

preside."

So he's presiding under the Great Seal.

Then we move into

section 9 and it says this: "The Minister

of Finance...." It doesn't refer to any other Minister of

the Crown; it refers to the Minister of Finance.

F-I-N-A-N-C-E.

"The Minister of Finance may in his discretion invest any

moneys of the consolidated revenue fund in the capital stock of any corporation."

And that is the point the Leader of the Opposition is trying

to make, and he is completely in order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member be

seated until I consult my legal counsel? Everyone is entitled

to talk to their lawyers.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has made a ruling, and the

Chair stands by this ruling, that this matter should be

properly discussed under the estimates of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams.)

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Is there an Hon. Member who has

challenged the ruling?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, we've always discussed the

Revenue Act and the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance

under the Revenue Act under the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We never did.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is saying that we never did,

but I'm one Member who discussed at length with the former

Premier, under the Minister of Finance's estimates, his

policies for financing schools under the school financing

authority, a Crown corporation; the financing of hospitals

under the hospitals financing authority, a Crown corporation — including the B.C. Rail and the B.C. Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just let me finish here. The Premier

brought in a bill granting himself the right to play the stock

market. Not the Minister of Lands and Forests, not the

cabinet, not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the

Minister of Finance — he's the stock player. If we're going to

discuss...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: ...playing the stock market, we do it

under his estimates and no one else's.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In regard to the point

made by the Hon. Member, I just want to clarify the point of

order, then I would say that this is a ruling of the Chair, and

the only recourse for the

[ Page 938 ]

Member is to challenge the ruling.

In regard to the support for the ruling: the first point is

that the Premier has indicated that the most appropriate place

to consider this matter would be under the estimates of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Therefore,

immediate....

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

House.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. So the method has been

provided — a proper and appropriate place to consider this

matter.

The second point is that, clearly, the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources does have responsibility in that

area that is circumscribed by the ownership of stock by

Can-Cel. It's within his administrative action. Therefore I've

made the ruling, and if any Member wishes to challenge it, they

may. But we will not debate the ruling further.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I just have one further

point of order.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Bennett: If you were following my argument, it

all dealt with who was the purchaser of the shares.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Interjections.

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

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman, after consultation, has

made a ruling, and I would therefore rule that there should be

no more debate on this ruling. If any Members wish to challenge

the ruling, they may do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey, is it an additional point of order on

some other matter?

Mr. Gardom: Yes, it's an additional point of order on

this matter. Look! There's one word here, and the word is

"discretion." The Minister can say in his discretion — it

doesn't talk about the discretion of....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has made a ruling. Anyone

wishing to challenge the Chair may do so; otherwise would you

move to another subject?

Interjection.

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

questioning is over.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member on a

point of.... Now this is a point of order, but information

dealing with some other matter, I presume.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. May we ask the

Premier about his purchases of B.C. Telephone stock, or would

that come under some other Minister? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chairman: The Chair does not deal with

hypothetical situations. If the Hon. Member or some other Hon.

Member deals with the matter in debate, then the Chair will

deal with it appropriately.

Some Hon. Members: Mockery!

Mr. Bennett: On the same point of information,

because I asked you earlier: under what department will we

discuss the purchase of bank shares?

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The proper

[ Page 939 ]

procedure for...

Mr. Bennett: It affects this ruling.

Mr. Chairman: ...guidance of the Hon. Members is

that they talk about something that if, in their judgment, it's

in order, then they talk about it; then the Chair will rule it

out of order. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Bennett: Your, decision on these other stock

transactions would indicate what ruling you should make in this

case and, I would say, under what department we should discuss

the purchase of bank shares.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It's not a proper

question to address to the Chair.

Some Hon. Members: It is!

Mr. Bennett: It has great relevance to the point

before the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just for the edification

of the Hon. Members, if you wish to know whether something is

in order, you just start talking about it and then the Chair

will rule you out of order if it is out of order.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: The Premier's hiding under the desk

cover, hanging his head in shame! In shame!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if no other course is open

to me, I challenge your ruling.

Some Hon. Members: Absolute closure!

Mr. Phillips: Big-talk dictatorship!

An Hon. Member: Nothing but closure!

An Hon. Member: Dictatorship!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply,

while considering vote 2, there was discussion initiated by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) concerning the purchase

of Can-Cel shares. The Chair ruled that this was out of order

in consideration of vote 2, and my ruling was challenged.

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether the ruling of

the Chair shall be sustained.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is

going to interrupt the vote, will he kindly leave?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do you want the ruling

challenged or not?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Levi

Rolston

Macdonald

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Barrett

Cocke

Steves

Dailly

King

Kelly

Strachan

Lea

Webster

Nimsick

Radford

Lewis

Stupich

Lauk

Liden

Calder

Nicolson

Cummings

Brown

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Sanford

Skelly

Gorst

D'Arcy

NAYS — 15

Smith

McGeer

Richter

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

McClelland

Phillips

Williams, L.A.

Curtis

Chabot

Gardom

Morrison

Fraser

Gibson

Schroeder

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

Mr. Chairman: Just before we begin, I would again

remind the Hon. Members that in committee debate must be

strictly relevant to the matter under consideration, namely

vote 2. Furthermore, we must not get into matters pertaining to

legislation.

Mr. Bennett: In regard to the Premier's duties as

Minister of Finance and how he sets the rules and standards for

his cabinet Ministers and the rules and standards he sets as

the Finance Minister and fiscal agent for the purchase of

shares on the market and in buying new companies, last spring

this party was very concerned about a set of rules being

established that the public would understand, that this

Legislature would understand and that would bind the

Premier

[ Page 940 ]

and Minister of Finance in the way he purchased shares or

companies on the market. Because the powers taken under the

Revenue Act are new, because we now have a government that will

deal with more and more ownership in what was normally

considered the private sector, and because the weight of

government would affect the price of such shares, or the fact

that in government, with the number of people who have to know,

there is the distinct possibility of leaks or for the use of

information that may not be available to the general public, we

asked last year that a set of rules and conditions be laid down

and explained to this Legislature that would guide this

government in its purchase of future companies such as Dunhill

or its adventure into the stock market to purchase partial

equity in companies such as Can-Cel.

We wanted rules that would govern the government in a more

realistic way than the way they made their purchases and the

surrounding events of unusual trading patterns that happened at

that time. We were concerned because, as I suggested and as the

Victoria Times has continued to state in its editorial

on Saturday, this government and its Ministers and the Premier

have perhaps not been as aware as they should of the fragility

of the market and the discretion they must show and the

discretionary nature their remarks must take in order not to

affect and create violent swings in the change of prices and

shares. This is an unusual situation, because this government

is adventuring into areas of equity ownership that were not

adventured into before by other governments. We suggested and

the Victoria Times , indeed, has followed up with an

editorial saying it has been a very real problem. They, too,

speaking for thousands of British Columbians out there, ask the

government and the Minister of Finance and the Premier to, in

fact, set a rule of standards for his cabinet, advise his

Ministers to be prudent in their language so that the

possibility of Ministerial statements, and particularly those

of the Ministers who have extreme power and are considered

strong in the cabinet, including the Premier and Minister of

Finance himself, that indeed they must guard against a

recurrence of the events that have taken place under certain

circumstances this last two and a half years.

They went on to point out, as I mentioned earlier, that an

example was the reaction of the market to the Premier's

statement when he first took government and announced he was

taking over the B.C. Tel. They went on to point out that we had

a similar occurrence with the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), alluding to the fact that

he may — he may — sell some of the Canadian Cellulose shares in

order to pay for projects elsewhere in government. In fact,

they point out that the stock market did react to these

things.

It is the responsibility of government to correct an

impression, and it was the responsibility of that Minister and

the Premier to have a set of rules and conditions. If the

Minister doesn't realize what has happened, the Premier must

make a statement so that everyone, all of the public, must have

the same information about the government's intentions. The

government is there as trustee for the people and they must be

prepared to make sure that people have all of the information

and the correct information. We asked for these guidelines last

year. We ask again this year, particularly in view of the

unusual circumstances surrounding this series of transactions

that have happened.

It is these sorts of Ministerial statements and statements

about what accounting procedures this government will introduce

to guarantee to this Legislature and to the people that the

overruns that have taken place in government will not happen in

this year, 1975. The Premier and Minister of Finance, in

announcing his budget, specifically stated that we were

embarked on a new form of budgeting, but he didn't elaborate

further to tell us that we were embarking on a new programme of

internal control that would guarantee to this Legislature and

to the people of the province that the overruns and over

expenditures of the last two years would not continue, and that

the over expenditures and overruns of over $300 million in each

of the last two fiscal years under the control of this Minister

of Finance would not reoccur in this year of what the Premier

and the Minister of Finance called "realistic budgeting."

I believe we are entitled to know, since he is embarked on a

new way of presenting budgeting, a new finance formula, the

methods of accountability with which this Minister of Finance

will control the spending of the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) and the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and whether the Premier and

Minister of Finance has the procedures and the cash flow

statements of each Ministerial department so that he will be

able to control on a day-to-day basis or a week-to-week basis

the expenditures of those departments as they get out of

control, as they did last year and as they did the year

before.

He hasn't told us yet, and the people are entitled to know,

because we have a budget and a budgetary practice of the

Premier and Minister of Finance that is new. There is no margin

for error, no margin for over expenditure. With the record of

over expenditure of the Minister, this Legislature and the

people would like to know that there are new procedures that

would guarantee to us that somebody somewhere is controlling

the expenditures of the Minister of Human Resources, who last

year admits to an over expenditure of $103 million — in a

budget that

[ Page

941 ]

has a projected surplus of just $500,000. The public should

know what action the government is going to take if this

Minister is allowed to run rampant again. We should be advised

if the Premier has the means of monitoring this department and

this Minister's spending. If, on a daily, cash-flow basis, he

sees an over expenditure beyond budget, will he be able to move

in and take corrective action in advance of waiting six months — as he did last year — into the fiscal year before it was

blurted out that they were going to be $100 million over

expended? Surely a Minister of Finance with the proper control

on a daily basis would be able to ascertain at any given time

that this department was embarked on a wild spending programme

beyond its estimates and would be able to have initiated

corrective action. We want to know that just such a procedure

and machinery is set up to control the expenditures of these

departments.

If not, we want to know, if the Premier and Minister of

Finance has the authority and the ability to take control over

these departments, if in fact he is prepared to restrict the

spending on certain programmes. Then he must be prepared to

tell the Legislature what priorities and what programmes will

be the first to be cut back, perhaps even eliminated in effect,

to bring about a balanced budget.

If not, I think he should be prepared to advise this

Legislature, should those Ministers spend out of control, as

they have for the past two years, and he can't balance the

budget, that he would be prepared to go for a deficit budget.

That would be a new departure in this province.

The public should know, indeed, what action he is going to

take. It's a type of guarantee we must have in dealing with

sums like $3.2 billion. We've asked for further comment from

the Premier and Minister of Finance during these estimates,

dealing very specifically with his duties as the Premier and

Minister of Finance, as to how he's going to give direction

over statements to various cabinet Ministers. What guidelines

is he going to put before his cabinet Ministers because of in

discretionary statements or in discretionary acts?

This province and the people want to know, because

apparently we have a series of events in which there are no

guidelines for the Ministers, and no direction coming from the

Premier — whether it's receiving campaign contributions or

whether it's dealing with indiscreet statements affecting the

stock market. There seem to be no guidelines for standards of

conduct, recognizing the responsibility that cabinet Ministers

have. I think, as we have asked last week and this week, it's

incumbent upon the Premier to provide the answers.

Mr. Gibson: I've just a very short opening question for the Minister

of Finance. I wonder if he could tell us, within a few million dollars, how

much we have in the bank? Well, just within $5 million or $10 million would

do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, it's very disappointing

this afternoon — the Premier's tongue-tied. We couldn't stop

him making speeches last week and now we can hardly get him

to.

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

material.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to transgress

on your ruling, but I would like, perhaps, some advice if you

could give it. I'm looking at the statement of inventory given

last year in answer to a question to the Minister of Finance,

which I placed on the order paper, and answered by him, in

which the civil service superannuation fund, as of February

1974, held Bank of British Columbia common shares, B.C.

Telephone common shares, Canadian Pacific common shares,

Imperial Oil common shares, International Nickel common shares

and United Accumulative Fund common shares. That was the extent

to which we were playing in this operation the Attorney-General

describes as a Monte Carlo operation as of a year ago. I'd like

to ask the Premier, just in a general way, how we're doing at

the croupier's table? Are we winning or losing? I know that the

Leader of the Opposition is going to have some difficulty

getting information out of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding the little side

play of Can-Col.

Mr. Bennett: He was very open last year. Remember how

he told us all about the contract?

Mr. McGeer: Yes. The Minister was very loquacious in

opposition. He clammed up a bit when he got to the door there;

he got lockjaw just running out into the corridor. But since

he's been in the cabinet benches, that's the only place he

talks. We'd certainly appreciate getting any answers we

could.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished asking

questions. I'm not going to be long. Now be patient; there's

lots of time. There really is; there are over 110 hours

left.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: So you're keeping count of the

filibuster, eh?

Mr. McGeer: No, but you are.

[ Page 942 ]

Injections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Would the Hon. Member

proceed?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, this is not big money we're

talking about — just a few millions here or there. But I'd like

to ask a question or two about a few billion, because according

to the prospectus released to the First Boston Corporation,

B.C. Hydro will be asking the Minister of Finance to borrow

something over $2 billion.

The requirement expressed by the B.C. Hydro in this

prospectus — the first we've had since 1967.... It's very nice

really to come up-to-date on information about our largest

Crown corporation.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: The second one. Yes, there were two this

year but, you know, there was that period of nearly eight

years.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's the one who's talking a